1988-03-08

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions, Nos. 332-3739 to 332-3743 inclusive, and 332-3817 to 332-3819 inclusive.
1 might indicate to the House that three of those were certified on November 2 but not presented to the House until February 3. The Government has responded to them as quickly as possible, but it would be helpful if Members would present petitions soon after certification.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That statement is uncalled for, unnecessary and absolutely cheap. We table petitions whenever we have a chance. Sometimes they are post dated, if you like, but sometimes we also have difficulty organizing our time.
Members have committees to attend and other things to do. There is no rule that states the petition must be presented the day or day after its certification by the Clerk at the Table.
The Hon. Member knows that we can get difficult as well. If the Member wants to get very difficult, if he wants to play that kind of a game, we will start playing that game, too. I am giving him fair notice right now.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the Hon. Member has raised this issue. I know that we in the New Democratic Party have received literally thousands of petitions on the trade deal. The importance is that this issue is still before the House and the trade deal will not take effect until next year. Petitions that oppose the trade deal with the United States have been coming in month after month. Until the deal is actually in place, and while there is a shred of hope that the Government will see the wisdom of backing off from this sellout to the United States, we feel an obligation on behalf of our
constituents who have submitted these petitions to raise them, even on a daily basis.
[DOT] (mo)
For the Hon. Member to suggest that there has been any impropriety is wrong and, quite frankly, it is not the way to encourage co-operation in the House of Commons.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, under our reform rules the Government has an obligation, for the first time in parliamentary history, to respond to petitions. The Government has had urging from the other side of the House on many occasions to be more prompt in its responses, and I have been working on the Order Paper questions to see that we have quicker responses.
I am anxious to get responses to petitions before the House as quickly as possible because people sign petitions expecting that Parliament, particularly the Government, will listen to their petitions. It puts the Government in a very difficult position when people petition the Government of Canada and believe we should respond, but we do not have the chance to respond until the petition is tabled.
I would point out to Hon. Members that there are two methods to present petitions, first, to rise in the House and present the petition. I can understand that occasionally there are difficulties with committee travel and, therefore, some reason for delay. There is another method of simply presenting petitions to the table, which staff can do on behalf of Members. That is a faster way to bring the petitions to the attention of the Government.
I just indicate to the House that I will do my best to see that petitions are responded to quickly, adequately and thoroughly. However, I need the co-operation of the whole House in presenting them as quickly as possible.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House and Canadians should be reminded about how the process works. First, Members of Parliament receive petitions in their constituency offices, by mail or by a variety of ways. There is a new certification process but there is nothing that says that that certification process must be gone through within a certain number of days after a Member of Parliament receives a petition.
Further, Mr. Speaker, you will know that once the petition is certified, if all Members rose in the House every day we received a certified petition, this whole House would be bogged down doing nothing else but presenting petitions. Indeed, it is

March 8, 1988
Interparliamentary Delegation Report
sometimes appropriate to accumulate a number of petitions in the spirit of the co-operation that Members of Parliament are trying to display in not stalling this House unduly for ridiculous reasons, such as the reasons presented to us by the Parliamentary Secretary.
If I was to present every petition, one by one, as I received them, and if all of us did that, we would never get to Orders of the Day and the Government would then accuse us of delaying the House. That is totally ridiculous. The Parliamentary Secretary should not have even brought the topic up this morning. Now that he has, I am sure he regrets it, and he should apologize.


Mr. Belsher:: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate the point the Parliamentary Secretary was making. That is that in the dating it is necessary to advise people, and he was merely pointing out that there are lapses in the timing. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) says that he has never accumulated things and is always very expeditious. I have sat in this House and observed him on occasions taking quite a length of time in presenting petitions.


Don Boudria: When? Name one day.


Ross Belsher: I can look back on the record and I am sure we could find it.


Don Boudria: 1 think you should. Good luck!


Ross Belsher: There is no justification for Hon. Members of either opposition Party to impugn the integrity of the Parliamentary Secretary when he is stating the facts. Therefore, I would hope that this issue would die now.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has raised a matter which perhaps more properly ought to have been raised on a point of order, not as a part of his tabling of documents. I say this because I am very conscious of the fact that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) does pay attention to these rules and would, I think, agree with me, and I hope other Hon. Members would accept that.
The issue is literally that the Government has said, please, those Members presenting petitions, try to get them in as soon after they have been sworn and certified as is possible. There is some merit in the position taken by the Government because people, having signed a petition, now that the rules require that the Government respond to it within so many days, would understandably wonder why there had been a long delay. However, I am certainly not at the moment going to make any kind of ruling on this, except to caution the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that I think, strictly speaking, those comments at the time they are presented are more properly matters that should be brought up on a particular point of order. I think it would not be appropriate to continue making those remarks.
The Government, of course, has another option, and that is, when sending its responses to those who have made out a petition, it can factually set out when it received the petition and when it replied.
The other side of the coin is that I think it is probably appropriate, and I think the public watching this would think it is probably appropriate-of course, the public realizes there are many hundreds of petitions and Members are not always able to put those petitions in immediately-that there may be very good reason why, in order to have perhaps a more effective impact, Members, using their own good judgment would support the very aim of the petitioners by holding some petitions and bringing them forward collectively. These are all matters of common sense and reason.
I think fundamental to it all is that all Hon. Members ought to try to co-operate as closely as possible with the rules so that the public is confident that the petitions they bring to the House of Commons are answered as quickly as possible. Unless there is further difficulty, I do not think there is any need for further comment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions that I intended to table this morning. I just wonder if the Government in this good spirit, since it was suggested by the Speaker, perhaps would like to write to every one of those people who signed this petition and give them its answer. If that is what the Government is talking about, then I would agree it would need time to get the names and addresses of the 25 people per petition. If the Parliamentary Secretary is talking about that, that is a different point. However, up until now these petitions have been tabled, a response has been prepared by the Government-


Mr. Speaker:: I have a very high regard for the procedural comments made by the Hon. Member to assist the Chair. However, I think, under the circumstances, all Members could reflect on the comments of each other and on the comments of the Chair and I hope we will not have any more difficulty with the matter.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Hon. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association attending the seminar on Parliamentary Practice in St. Lucia on February 13 to February 21, 1988.
[Editors note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]
March 8, 1988



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, in both official languages. The report is in connection with Bill C-109, the Borrowing Authority Act, which is reported without amendment.


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES-EIGHTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures on the Canada Elections Act, in both official languages.
This has been accomplished with respect to the ruling of January 28, 1988 of the Speaker on a point of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops Shuswap (Mr. Riis), in which you did state that it was in order for this Standing Committee to study and report on matters relating to the process and procedure followed by the Chief Electoral Officer and his officials.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House four of the most significant conclusions arrived at by the committee. Recommendation No. 26 states:
The officials of Elections Canada stated that they had no direct evidence that Mr. Masse counselled Lavalin Inc. to breach the Act. They stated that the evidence they would have used to support a charge was circumstantial and that, in their opinion, a charge based on that evidence would not likely have succeeded.
Recommendation No. 27 states:
The opinion of the Commissioner of Canada Elections continues to be that charges should not be laid against Mr. Masse.
Recommendation No. 30 states in part:
Your Committee recommends that the Act be amended as quickly as possible in those sections dealing with expenses so that it precisely defines those election expenses which should be the subject of spending controls and rebates.
Recommendation No. 34 states in part:
Your Committee recommends that the Statutory Report of the Chief Electoral Officer which follows a general election contain a more detailed section relating to specific problems with the Act encountered during the election. Your Committee will report with its view on the problems thus identified at the earliest possible date.
As Chairman I would like to thank all members of the committee who participated in this matter, as well as the staff members.
Petitions


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 it is my pleasure to present a petition which was collected back in October and November but which is as valid today as it was then. I know that these constituents who signed the petition would want me to keep raising the matter to try to bring the Government to its senses.
They make the point that the Conservative Government lacked a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade agreement because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was on record as opposing a trade deal with the United States. All major Cabinet Ministers were also on record as opposing the deal. They betrayed their word and did exactly the opposite. These people are very concerned about this apparent betrayal.
They point out that this deal certainly threatens the very fabric of our political and economic life in Canada because it gives away complete control to the Americans in terms of controlling and owning our economy. It gives Americans total access to our energy supplies and, essentially, sells out the whole energy sector to the United States. Obviously, these people are very concerned. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary does not want us to remind the Government about the concerns of these petitioners but I feel an obligation to do so.
To summarize, these petitioners simply suggest that Parliament dissolve now, immediately, to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to go to the polls and to let the people of Canada tell the Government what they think of it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Parliamentary Secretary's edict I am tabling at the earliest possible time eight petitions which comply with the provisions of Standing Order 106.
The petitioners state that whereas the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada and received nothing in return; whereas Canadian industries are still not protected by this so-called agreement from U.S. trade laws; whereas the United States obtained everything that it wanted in all key sectors, especially agriculture, energy, auto trade, financial services and investment; whereas thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened and the Conservative Government has not provided for any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers, the undersigned, the petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement. Shame!


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition pursuant to the Parliamentary Secretary's edict. It is from many Canadians who are stating essentially the same thing.

March 8, 1988
Petitions
They state that Canada has given away far more than it has gained. It has given away jurisdiction over energy so that energy developments in the future will be much more difficult to undertake.
Also, they state that there will be areas in the country that will be impacted negatively by this without any support at all for training for workers who are dislocated.
The undersigned petitioners call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing this trade deal.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petition is certified correct as to form and content. It was certified on January 25, 1988.
The people who have signed this petition are from all parts of Canada. They explain that they are against what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is doing. They believe he has broken his promise in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations. They believe that Canadian sovereignty will be compromised by this act.
I am sure the people who have signed this petition want it presented in the House of Commons and to have it explained as fully as possible. Since the Parliamentary Secretary believes it is important to have their words brought forward to the House of Commons as soon as possible and in as much detail as possible, I think I should read on a bit in terms of some of the information that has been given.
The petitioners believe that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
They believe that the proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure access to the U.S. market that was the key objective in these negotiations but that it also threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
They believe that the Government did not have a mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade agreement with the United States.
They believe that the trade agreement negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control effectively foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest of Canadians, or to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Therefore, the people who have signed this petition who want it presented to Parliament humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the free trade arrangement during a national general election.
I believe from the date here that most of the people signed the petition on January 14, 1988, and that they do represent a
good cross-section of the people of Canada even though they only live in one or two communities.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and responsibility to table a petition signed by residents of Hamilton, Sarnia, Dundas, Thamesville, Ottawa, Orleans, Onaping Falls, Nepean, Sudbury, South Gillies, Chatham, Dresden, Tilbury, Blenheim, which are all in Ontario, as well as Winnipeg, Manitoba and Regina, Saskatchewan.
The petitioners in signing this petition clearly point out that the Government had no mandate to enter into the sell-out euphemistically known as the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.
Furthermore, they state that that sell-out, that deal, in fact gave up Canada's sovereignty, that Canada's sovereignty has been compromised by this deal.
The petitioners have also said in signing these petitions that this sell-out would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society that is distinct from that of the United States.
As a result of this sell-out the people are calling upon Parliament to dissolve and let the people of Canada decide, let them have the opportunity to accept or reject this proposed sell-out deal between the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and Ronald Reagan of the United States.


Don Boudria: Pursuant to the Parliamentary Secretary's edict, I am proceeding with due dispatch to present a petition today signed by 25 Canadians who are protesting the Canada-U.S. so-called free trade deal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). These petitioners are from the Brantford area of the fine Province of Ontario.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition duly certified. It is interesting to note that it was certified on January 26, 1988. The petitioners signed the petition on December 9, 1987. Obviously it takes some time for these things to work their way through the system.
The petitioners point out that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. In the course of bilateral trade negotiations, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised.
The petitioners point out that the trade agreement negotiated by the Prime Minister threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty. It removes the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best
March 8, 1988

interests of Canadians, or to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve- if we can only find the solvent-and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.
1 might say, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the split infinitive, I agree whole-heartedly with the petition.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of presenting two petitions. These petitions are freshly minted, recently signed, and newly certified.
The petitioners call upon the Government to redress the inequitable situation which has been allowed to arise in the application of the northern residents tax allowance. This petition is signed by a majority of the adult residents of Nestor Falls, Ontario.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also of commendable recency. It calls upon the Government to withdraw the provisions of Bill C-33 which would inequitably and unfairly deprive public servants of the indexation that they have for many years been paying for by way of their pension contributions.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, question No. 263 will be answered today.


Ms. Dewar: Are there any negotiations in progress to establish the Program for Older Worker Adjustment (POWA) and, if so (a) what stage have they reached (b) by what date is this program expected to be in place?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: In the 1986 Budget, the federal Government announced its intention to undertake negotiations with the provinces to develop the proposed Program for Older Worker Adjustment (POWA) and allocated $125 million to this new initiative.
Since the Budget announcement of POWA, the federal Government has been involved in continuous and constructive
Order Paper Questions
negotiations with all the provinces on the development of the proposed program.
The federal Government is continuing to have fruitful discussions with provincial Governments on how best to proceed with a program to help older workers affected by major lay-offs. Accordingly, the Government will be making an announcement with regard to the program for older workers' adjustment in the near future.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by-
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, No. 209, dated October 15, 1987, which asks the Government for statistics, facts and figures on the National Arts Centre catering department. I think this is a question the Government could have answered within the forty-five days required by our Standing Orders. I may remind the House that Standing Order 64(3)(b) reads as follows:
A Member may request that the Ministry respond to a specific question
within forty-five days by so indicating when filing his or her question.
That is what I did on October 15 last year. This morning, the Parliamentary Secretary looked so pleased in the knowledge that he was being efficient and was answering questions as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, could he at least observe the Standing Orders of the House, before snapping his suspenders, and answer questions within the prescribed forty-five days and give me a good reason why the information I asked for in question No. 209 has not been given by the Government? Are they afraid of the answer? Are they afraid of answering serious questions put to them by the Opposition? There are four more questions that date back to September, October and November, which the Parliamentary Secretary has yet to answer, although an answer within forty-five days was required. Can't he at least do the easiest, the basic part of his job which is to observe the Standing Orders and answer questions within forty-five days? He can give us a lecture on parliamentary procedure some other time!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the answer is ready. We had considerable difficulty with this question. The problem was the question itself, because we had to get in touch with every single Government department for one question.

The difficulty is that we had information from a number of departments of Government very early on following the question. Because of the form of the question, where every department of Government had to be contacted, it has taken some time. There are different record-keeping systems in different departments. It has been more difficult for some

March 8, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
departments than others. If Members have questions that could be dealt with in relation to one department, then I think they would find that our record is better. The more departments involved the more difficulty.
Probably this week the answer will be tabled in the House. I will have to ask for it to be an order for return because it is such a thick answer. It has taken a great deal of time and effort to come up with a response across every government department. Members might wish to do a series of questions, if they are anxious for the information. If Members narrow it down to single departments, they will receive quicker answers. But on something that is so broad and general it does take a great deal of time and effort.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: that Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, was given first reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday, June 30, 1987, that event represented a benchmark in dealing with a subject that had commanded considerable attention over the years. More particularly, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when introducing this Government's major initiative on public sector ethics in September, 1985, undertook to introduce legislation to monitor lobbying as one element of that package.
In order to ensure that the subject of lobbying was given a thorough airing, the previous Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tabled a discussion paper entitled "Lobbying and the Registration of Paid Lobbyists" in December, 1985. This paper was referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper).
In due course, that committee made its report available to the House in January, 1987, unanimously endorsing the implementation of a registration system for paid lobbyists.
During debate in the House of Commons in February all Parties again supported the concept of a registration system. I
had the privilege of participating and commenting on the committee's excellent work.
The standing committee recorded many of the complexities related to the issue in its report and recommendations. The proposed legislation fully endorses the concepts outlined by the parliamentary committee. I should like to stress that it minimizes the administrative burden on lobbyists and government and provides for fair and reasonable distinctions in treating different types of lobbyists. These distinctions are based on the need to clarify whom lobbyists represent.
"Lobbying" is defined as communicating with a public office holder in an attempt to influence making or amending federal legislation and regulations; developing or changing federal policies or programs; decisions on awarding grants, contributions; and federal appointments to public office. Also included is any attempt by third party paid lobbyists to influence public office holders regarding the awarding of contracts.
The definition of "lobbying" does not include appearances before boards, tribunals, commissions or committees, nor does it include communications with public office holders regarding day-to-day government business or information on government policies and programs.
[ Translation]
The proposed registration system is based on four principles: transparency, clarity, access and simplicity.
Preference is given to a two-tier system in order to keep administrative procedures for the majority of individuals who deal with public office holders to a minimum.

At the same time it permits public scrutiny of those who approach the federal Government and on whose behalf they do so. Where it is clear who a lobbyist represents, for instance, in an employer-employee relationship, the reporting requirements will be simpler.
A professional lobbyist will report under Tier I. A Tier I lobbyist is anyone who under contract to third parties approaches public office holders, even for the purpose of arranging meetings for clients. Tier I lobbyists will be required to provide their name, firm's name and firm's address, the names and addresses of clients, including details of parent and subsidiary companies where applicable, and, for each client, the particular issues to which the lobbying activities relate. This information will be kept in a registry by the Assistant Deputy Registrar General of Canada. Registration must be done within 10 days of the commencement of any lobbying activity. When clients and/or issues change, an update of the information will be required.
Other lobbyists will be included under Tier II. A Tier II lobbyist includes employees and officers of trade organizations, labour federations, professional associations, boards of trade,
March 8, 1988

chambers of commerce, businesses, unions, and voluntary, charitable and interest groups which lobby for their employers as a significant part of their duties. Tier II lobbyists will also be required to register with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General.
However, the demands on them are less onerous. Since it is clear to the public office holder just who such lobbyists represent, they must register only their names and the names of the organizations employing them. The information must be updated and certified annually.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the term lobbyist does not apply to private citizens who communicate with a public office holder on their own behalf, nor does it apply to volunteers who do not receive any remuneration or personal benefit from the agency they represent when lobbying public office holders.

This two tier registration system is based on the well established distinction between the often, perhaps, or possible hidden interests of the clients of third party paid lobbyists, Tier I, and the transparent and well understood interests of corporations, industry associations, public interest groups, and other such organizations whose staff lobby on their behalf, Tier II.
Even among paid employees there are distinctions worthy of recognition. Certain individuals may, on rare occasions, represent the views of their business or association but are not primarily engaged by the employer for the purpose of lobbying. By contrast, many groups and corporations retain fulltime individuals on staff who are responsible for liaison with and communicating ideas and concerns to government. While the latter should be required to register as lobbyists, the former can hardly be considered paid lobbyists.
I should conclude by saying a few words about administration. The administrative responsibility for the registry will rest with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, reporting annually to the Registrar General.
The Assistant Deputy Registrar General will be able to provide advisory interpretations where it may be unclear if a particular activity could be construed as lobbying subject to registration. All information contained in the registry will be available for public scrutiny. There will be no charge to lobbyists to register, and there will be only a nominal cost to cover photocopying and such, for people seeking information from the system.
Once the legislation is passed, it is expected that there will be a transition period before proclamation. This should allow sufficient time for public education and awareness programs, as well as preparation and gazetting of the necessary regulations and form.
Lobbyists Registration Act
Since this is the first time such legislation will have been implemented in Canada, the Registrar General will table a report to Parliament annually so that a review of the system's effectiveness can be undertaken. Provision has been made for a parliamentary review in three years. It is expected that this period will be required to uncover fully any administrative difficulties or questions of scope.
Since Bill C-82 was tabled I have been pleased to note that the proposed system of lobbyist registration received generally favourable comment from those people who will be expected to register. In fact, so enthusiastic were some groups, they attempted to register forthwith. I think that sort of reaction augurs well for a registry of lobbyists under the Lobbyists Registration Act.
Some of those commenting on Bill C-82 have offered pertinent questions and constructive criticism which have led to the identification of certain areas of the Bill that could be clarified. I am grateful for this input and, as a result, I will be making a number of recommendations in committee with a view to improving the Bill at that stage.
The amendments I have in mind are technical changes. The substantive policy of the Lobbyists Registration Act remain intact.
I sincerely hope that Parliament will give swift but considered passage to this legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to participate on behalf of my Party in the debate on Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists.
The idea of registering lobbyists is not a novel one. It is not a new one and, of course, it is not something invented by the present Government. Indeed, the United States of America has had lobbying legislation since 1946. In the United States, Table III of the Legislative Reorganization Act, 1946 is entitled "The Registration of Lobbying Act", which of course has essentially been the legislation governing the registration of lobbyists in the U.S.A. Several states of the union also have Bills governing the registration of lobbyists. For example, the State of California has quite stringent rules. As a matter of fact, they were so stringent that we in the parliamentary committee felt that they were too onerous and too costly to operate, notwithstanding the fact that they afforded a considerable amount of transparency.
In Canada the first Bill to register lobbyists was proposed in the House in 1969 by then Member of Parliament, Mr. Barry Mather. On February 26, 1969, Mr. Mather tabled the Bill. He was a member of the New Democratic Party at that time, or was it still the CCF? I am not sure; it was before my day.


John R. Rodriguez: The NDP.


James Douglas Manly: He goes back to both.

March 8, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act


Don Boudria: He goes back to both, so I am told. In any case, he tabled that Bill in February, 1969. In October, 1969, at a different session of Parliament, Mr. Mather proposed a second Bill. A third, fourth, fifth, and sixth Bill were proposed by the same Member of Parliament.
In 1974, Ken Robinson, a very distinguished Member of Parliament, proposed a Bill to register lobbyists. Later in 1974, Mr. John Reynolds, a Member of Parliament from British Columbia, proposed a similar Bill in the House.
In 1976, the late, great Hon. Walter Baker from the riding of Nepean-Carleton proposed his Bill in the House of Commons. Mr. Baker, as we all know, proposed a number of such Bills and initiated considerable debate in the House on the issue of the registration of lobbyists.
A number of others were proposed in this House in 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980. Finally in 1985 two Bills were proposed, one by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and one by the former Member for St. John's East, the Hon. James McGrath. Those Bills were basically all the same. In one form or other they would require that paid lobbyists be registered in Canada.
Apart from those legislative initiatives from opposition Members, I think it is important to bring to the attention of the House why we got into this business of talking about registering paid lobbyists. It is not because one Member of the Opposition introduced a private Members' Bill or anything like that.
After the election of 1984, some Canadians decided that they would get into the business of lobbying the Government, which is not abnormal in itself. Lobbying is a profession and it has existed for some time. However, these new people in Ottawa, because there was a new Government, decided to approach the issue of lobbying in a rather different way than had been the case in the past. They decided that they would be higher profile and that they would somehow bend the rules a trifle or bend the practice at least, if not the rules-because, of course there were no rules-in order to get their message across and attract publicity and to be what they considered effective lobbyists, I have a series of newspaper clippings. I just want to read to you, Mr. Speaker, the headlines of some of them:
'Political consultants' clad in Liberal red get left out in the cold.
Lobbyists say Moores won't play by rules.
That article was from The Gazette for July 20, 1985. On July 22, 1985 we find:
Ex-premier still controversial and private-sector incarnation.
This particular article is about one Frank Moores. Another article is headed:
Moores says consulting business is fun.
It sounds like a lot of fun, Mr. Speaker. Here is another headline:
Regulate lobbyists Moores urges.
Now we have this particular lobbyist saying that he would be in favour of a Bill registering lobbyists in Canada.
I want to read a portion of an article by Linda Diebel of The Gazette which reads:
Frank Moores, the former Conservative premier of Newfoundland, called yesterday for government regulation of the political lobbying business.
But he denied any conflict of interest in his own Ottawa lobbying.
"This work is my means of earning a livelihood ... it is my profession and one of which I am proud,"
Moores said in a four page statement in response to a report in Saturday's Gazette.
The Gazette said two lobbying firms owned by Moores-recently appointed a director of Air Canada-act as consultants for two of the national airline's competitors.
Officials at Montreal-based Nordair Inc. and Wardair Ltd. of Edmonton confirmed that they have consulting agreements with Moores's companies, Government Consultants International Inc. (GCI) and Alta Nova Associates Inc.
Right from the beginning, this particular lobbyist was attracting considerable attention here in Ottawa because of his unusual ways in which he went about doing his business, to say the least.
On July 23, 1985, The Gazette had an editorial which was entitled:
Questions about Mr. Moores.
It reads in part:
If Prime Minister Mulroney is to regain credibility as a foe of patronage sleaze as he portrayed himself only a year ago in his first election debate, he will have to deal swiftly and convincingly with the matter of Frank Moores.
This editorial very clearly questioned the activity of that particular lobbyist.
I have another article by Canadian Press printed in The Ottawa Citizen for July 23, 1985 entitled:
Moores denies Air Canada conflict.
On August 24, 1985, again The Gazette had an editorial entitled:
Who pays the pipers?
It reads:
Brian Mulroney's latest promise to raise standards of political morality in Ottawa are essentially those he made in his successful election campaign, but has not kept in his first year as prime minister.
Nevertheless, they are good promises and the additional pledge of a law to govern the registration and conduct of foreign and Canadian lobbyists in the Canadian capital gives reason to hope the prime minister is Finally ready to translate his words into action.
Notice the date on that article, Mr. Speaker, it is August 24, 1985 and the Prime Minister was ready at that particular point to have a law governing lobbying activities. The article
March 8, 1988

continues about the activities of a certain lobbyist by the name of Frank Moores.
I have another article dated March 8, 1986 which is entitled:
Tory wary of contender tied to lobbyist Moores.
This is a Canadian Press article which reads:
A candidate for president of the Conservative party's youth wing is a lobbyist in Ottawa associated with former Newfoundland premier Frank Moores and could have conflicting interests if elected, a senior member of the Tory youth branch says.
Tory activist Alan Riddell said that Eric Dorion, 25, is seeking to represent the young Conservatives whose views could clash with the interests of his clients.
The election for president will be held at a Party convention that begins Thursday in Montreal.
The article goes on to describe again the activities of this particular lobbying firm.
I could go on for several more minutes reading excerpts from various newspaper articles, columns and editorials concerning the issue of paid lobbyists and the controversy around some individuals involved in that profession. However, I want to move on to a promise which the Prime Minister made in this House.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) rose in the House of Commons to make a short statement to the effect that Parliament would have a new code of public sector ethics.
One of the components of the code tabled here in the House on September 9, 1985, was the following and I want to quote Section 5 of the new document on public sector ethics tabled in the House on September 9, 1985, which reads as follows:
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.
Listen carefully, Mr. Speaker!
We will require, among other things, paid lobbyists to register and identify their clients. This will enable persons who are approached by 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.
Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed that on September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister said: "On an urgent basis". It was an urgent and important document, and according to the Prime Minister, the Government had to take immediate action.
I would now like to go on with the Prime Minister's statement, and I quote:
This initiative should not be misinterpreted to mean that this Government is aware of particular improprieties in the conduct of lobbyists or that it considers lobbying to be an inappropriate activity. On the contrary, the practice of lobbying plays an important role in ensuring that governments, in
Lobbyists Registration Act
taking the decisions which affect the lives of all of us, are able to take properly
into account the multitude of diverse interests involved. This Government is
simply saying that something so important should not be shrouded in mystery.
That was the statement the Prime Minister made on September 9, 1985.
What has happened since then? First of all, we have already established that the Government considered the registration of lobbyists to be an urgent matter. Several months later, on December 19, 1985, when Members were still waiting for the Bill on the registration of lobbyists promised by the Prime Minister, on that day, instead of a Bill, a discussion paper entitled: "Lobbying and registration of paid lobbyists" was tabled in the House.
So no Bill on December 19. Instead of a Bill, we were given a discussion paper that was several pages long, plus copies of Bills that had already been tabled in the House, other copies of legislation tabled in the United States, and a paper, in which the author wondered whether Canada really needed a Bill on lobbyists, which identified a number of alternatives, which were either to do nothing at all, ask lobbyists to register themselves, or have the Government legislate their registration. So still no Bill on December 1985.
And then, Mr. Speaker, the discussion paper was shelved for nearly five months. On April 1986, following various scandals and precarious situations to which the Conservative Government had been exposed, the Government decided to order the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure to study the registration of lobbyists.
The committee was charged in April of 1986 with studying the possibility of registering lobbyists, using as background the discussion paper proposed by the Government some months prior.
The committee, under the able chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) and having as its members the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish), myself and a few other members who changed around every now and then, started a series of hearings on this issue.
We then went to Washington and to Sacramento, California, to see what kind of legislation they had there. Indeed, we discovered that registering lobbyists was not impossible or pie in the sky, it was a logical thing to do for a Parliament that wanted to have some transparency when knowing who was doing what to whom and at what cost.
Many of the government members who were with us on the trip to Washington and Sacramento were not initially of the opinion that the registration of lobbyists was desirable or even feasible, but after going to Washington some government

March 8, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
members noticed that that great bastion of free enterprise, the United States of America, indeed had a system for registering lobbyists and that this system did not require thousands or even hundreds of civil servants to administer it. The United States Congress deals with some 8,000 lobbyists and the total staff assigned to registering lobbyists and access to that register is composed of some eight people. It is not beyond the reach of this House of Commons to install a system to register lobbyists in Canada.
How many lobbyists are there in Canada? It is difficult to say, because at this time they are not registered. All things being equal, given that there are some 8,000 registered lobbyists in the United States and given that Canada's population is one-tenth of that of the United States, I think it would be fair to say that there are probably 1,000 or so lobbyists in Canada.
The committee did its work, but unfortunately could not complete its agenda before the summer recess of 1986. Hon. Members will recall that in early September of 1986, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wanted to wipe the slate clean and start afresh so he prorogued Parliament and started off with a new Session. The result of that, of course, was that all our committee work theoretically vanished into thin air because the House had been prorogued. However, the Government did reactivate the committee by a motion of the House on November 19, 1986, and the committee got back to work to finish what it had started.
I must say that at the stage the committee was at in November of 1986, there were still a number of differing views held by members of the committee, but everyone compromised a little and we were able to present a report to the House of Commons on January 27, 1987, not simply a majority report or a report proposed by government members but, indeed, a unanimous report recommending the registering of lobbyists in Canada. I have a copy of that report here and I would like to share very briefly some of its contents with Hon. Members.
First, our committee recommended that we adopt a system of registering paid lobbyists in Canada. We recommended further that lobbying be defined and that such definition should be stated as attempting to influence directly or indirectly governmental decisions, whether they be legislative or administrative.
We recommended that the act of lobbying Government be defined to include attempts to influence the making or amending of legislation or regulations, attempting to influence the making or changing of federal policies or programs, attempting to influence federal decisions on the awarding of grants, contracts, contributions or any other similar benefits and attempting to influence federal appointments to boards, commissions and any other public office.
We further recommended that in order to escape the problems which have plagued the United States federal lobbying Act, approaches to influence the executive Members of Parliament including both Members of the House of
Commons and of the Senate and their staffs and the bureaucracy be considered to be activities within the definition of lobbying. The United States legislation is quite old. It was to have been amended at one particular point in the early 1980s, but I believe the Bill died at the conference stage. Unfortunately, that legislation is deficient because in the United States one is not a lobbyist unless one approaches a Member of Congress. The difficulty with that is that Members of Congress are probably very busy, as are Members of Parliament, and sometimes a lobbyist will meet with an executive assistant, a chief of staff or the number two person in the Congressman's office. That, of course, under American law as I understand it, is not considered to be lobbying.
We do not want that kind of deficiency in our legislation. The committee felt that if we are to register lobbyists, the registration should be done in such a way as to include everyone who lobbies the Government for a fee.
Our committee felt we should register only paid lobbyists. If you asked everyone else who lobbies to register, a case could be made that you were impinging upon the democratic rights of Canadians who wish to communicate with their Member of Parliament or Senator. After all, every Canadian lobbies in one way or other when they contact their Member of Parliament to express their view on an issue and to ask that Member to vote one way or other on any given Bill.
Our committee did not want to stop people communicating with their Members of Parliament or Senator from their provinces. Therefore, we felt restricting it to paid lobbyists was a fair compromise. We knew there would probably be some individual who would want to register but could not if they are not paid. However, it was a good a saw-off point at which to determine who was and who was not a lobbyist.
We have been talking briefly about the report presented to Parliament by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure of January 20, 1987. Time again flew by and it was only on June 30, 1987 that the Government presented Bill C-82 in this House. On September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister said in this House that he would ask his Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) to present the Bill forthwith. One can hardly describe June 30, 1987, as being forthwith. You would think that a Bill which enjoys the support of all Parties would have been proceeded with immediately at second reading stage. Not so. It took eight and a half months before the debate started. This is now March 8, 1988, and we are discussing a Bill promised on an urgent basis on September 9, 1985.
We have talked about the history of the Bill. Perhaps we should briefly discuss what it contains. Again, I want all Members of Parliament to understand that in my opinion this Bill does merit our support.
First, it would register lobbyists in such a way that we will have two tiers of lobbying activity. The Tier I lobbyist that the
March 8, 1988

Minister referred to will be a lobbyist on contract to a client; in other words, a consultant type of person such as Mr. Moores. 1 use his name because I have discussed him earlier, but there are of course many others who do the same kind of work.
This would also include a member of any profession when engaged in lobbying for pay. In other words, if a lawyer decides he wants to do some lobbying, he would have to register. If an engineer says, "I am not really a lobbyist, I am an engineer who does lobbying", that is not good enough. If he is an engineer, lawyer or doctor who does lobbying, he is a lobbyist as far as the Minister's Bill is concerned and I agree with that.
The registry for those people will have information in some detail. However, some detail will be missing. In my opinion, if we required that fees paid to lobbyists be registered as well as their expenses, the Bill would be better. However, perhaps three years from now, when we have a review of the legislation and we see that registering a lobbyist is not that onerous, we could then add that second component. I wish we would do it right now, but in keeping with the unanimous support of this legislation I am prepared to go along with a scheme that will not require registration of fees initially. Reluctantly, I might add, but nevertheless I will go along.
There will also be Tier II lobbyists. They are people who are sometimes the vice-president of communications working for a large corporate entity. In other words, in-house lobbyists. Unions have such people, as do trade organizations, business organizations, voluntary groups and others. They are in-house people who do nothing else but liaise with Government. Perhaps I should reword that and say they work at liaising with Government for a considerable portion of their time. The registry in that case will have very limited information and will not have the same requirements as those for Tier I lobbyists.
The Bill asks that the Assistant Deputy Registrar General be charged with administration of this Act. That is consistent with our committee's recommendation. However, since then we have seen a new initiative proposed by the Prime Minister with respect to conflict of interest. He is suggesting that an officer of this House be appointed as the ethics commissioner or something like that. In my view, the registration of lobbyists should be given to that commissioner, an officer of Parliament, as opposed to a civil servant.
The reason our committee did not recommend that is twofold. First, we did not have the ethics commissioner at the time. Second, we did not want to create a new position in order to register lobbyists. If we are now going to create that new position anyway, then in my opinion we should give the ethics commissioner other things to do besides registering conflict of interest regulations. We should ask that that officer be appointed by Parliament to look after the registration of lobbyists as well.
As I said previously, the Bill has a few weaknesses. It will not deal with fees. In other words, we will not know whether a consultant is, well, shall I say, buying a parliamentarian or a
Lobbyists Registration Act
civil servant an expensive dinner at some real fancy place. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with that, but the public has a right to know who is doing what for whom and how much is being spent doing it.
The Bill also does not prohibit contingency fees. In my opinion that is a major weakness. Right now a lobbyist could go to an individual and say, "Mr. fisherman, if you want to get your fishing licence I will charge you $1,000 for my fee. However, if I am successful, you owe me another $10,000". A lobbyist could do that right now because there are no rules, but even under this Bill contingency fees could be charged. I do not think that is appropriate. In most provincial jurisdictions in Canada contingency fees by lawyers are not permitted. I do not think they should be permitted by lobbyists either.
The Bill does not require that there be a record of official contacts, so that we do not know who was being lobbied. For instance, when a budgetary document of the Government reveals that certain tax concessions have been given to a certain group, no one can go back to the registry to determine who was lobbied in order to effect that particular change. That is a weakness in the Bill.
Another weakness is that the Bill contains no provision to stop someone from registering after having been fined or jailed for making a false statement. Parliament would have no recourse to stop someone who has deliberately flaunted the law proposed by Parliament from registering in the future. The Bill should contain a provision which states that anyone who has committed a certain contravention of the legislation may not register for a certain period of time. It would be similar to disbarring someone who has proven he or she cannot live by the rules.
Some lobbyists stated publicly after the Bill was presented that they do not intend to register. In my opinion, simply allowing such people to register once they decide to do so does not provide enough incentive for people to observe the rules.
The Bill does not include the registration of mass mailings and publicity campaigns. While our committee considered this question and believed such registration would be advisable, it is rather difficult to identify how one would go about doing that. Needless to say, we feel there is a shortcoming in the Bill in this area but we are not sure how to address it.
There are no provisions in the Bill to create an agency to police the legislation in question. It seems little can be done to ensure compliance with the registration of lobbyists legislation. Presumably a person could be fined on summary conviction, but there is no means of policing in the legislation.
These deficiencies are not enough to prevent me from supporting this Bill. I do not want to unduly delay its passage at second reading, but a number of important points had to be made. I am sure that a Bill such as this, which so directly affects the parliamentary privileges of Members, will require

March 8, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
further debate. However, I ask my colleagues on all sides of the House to support this Bill and allow it to go to a parliamentary committee.
I have stated previously that the Bill should be dealt with by a standing committee of the House as opposed to a legislative committee. The Government now agrees with that opinion as well, but the difficulty is that the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure which dealt with this Bill in the past has changed its membership considerably. Since the Members who have expertise in the Bill are no longer members of that committee, I would ask that the Government consider striking a legislative committee.
Perhaps I am speaking out of turn on this particular topic, but I hope the Government asks the Hon. Member for Peace River to be chairman of that committee because he did a very good job as chairman of the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.
The Member for Peace River is very knowledgeable in the area of registration of lobbyists. He is also very adept at obtaining a consensus when probably no one else could. I did not believe he could get us on the same side of the issue but somehow managed to do so. I give him credit for that and hope the Government will consider my suggestion.
I hope to have the opportunity to participate on that committee, as well as the Member for Nickel Belt, because I believe that we put forward good suggestions to the House. The fact that the Government adopted a large number of the unanimous recommendations that we proposed in our report is proof that we had some valuable recommendations.
I am pleased that the Minister is finally proceeding with the Bill even though it is much too late. This was a promise the Prime Minister made in the summer of 1985 and reiterated on the floor of the House on September 9, 1985. Nevertheless, it is better late than never and I will be glad when the law is finally in place.
I will be anxiously waiting to see whether or not lobbyists will adhere to these new rules, as I hope and trust the majority of them will. Parliament will be a better place when there is legislation governing lobbyists and we know what kind of lobbying activity is taking place.
Lobbying is an honourable profession. However, transparency is required and should be achieved in some measure with this Bill. Hopefully, three years after its passage transparency will be augmented. In the meantime, let us support this legislation.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we have certainly waited a long time for Bill C-82, which is better known in consulting circles as the Frank Moores bill. In fact, our Party, those on this side of the House, have no problem with the principle of Bill C-82, which is that lobbyists-those who are engaged for pay in persuading, influencing, making representations to elected politicians, the bureaucracy and
their staffs-be registered. We support the principle of the Bill.
In fact, others have promoted that principle, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on August 12, 1984 when campaigning in Kingston, Ontario. He spoke on the question of open Government, saying, "If the Canadian people see fit to give us their trust, we will always give them ours. That means an end to the obsession with secrecy". In another part of the same speech, the man who is now Prime Minister said, "The present Government believes you have only limited rights to know. Conservatives believe you have every right to know". That was pre-September 4, 1984.
The Prime Minister came to power and we do not know what happened to the whole business of the right to know. Somehow it went into recession. It receded into the darkest parts of the Prime Minister's mind. It was completely forgotten, only to be dredged up like some Loch Ness monster from the bottom of the lake, by one Gerry Doucet, Gary Ouellet and Frank Moores, who established themselves as GCI, Government Consultants International. All of this came to light and focused the Prime Minister's mind on what he had said about openness in those pre-September 4 days in Kingston.
It is not a question that Government Ministers do not understand what is involved. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) said that lobbying threatens Parties and that the danger inherent in lobbying is that it gives disproportionate weight to the opinions of the rich and powerful. "How do you explain that in the United States barely half the electorate exercises its right to vote?", the Minister asked.
The Prime Minister before he was elected recognized that the Government should be open and transparent, that it must not only be open and transparent, it must be seen to be open and transparent. But all of this knowledge receded to the back of his mind.
On September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister sent an open letter to Members of Parliament and Senators. He began by saying that 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 democracy 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.
No one in this House would have refuted or argued with that. He outlined five steps in achieving that goal. Number 5 is entitled "Lobbying Legislation", about which the Prime Minister in his letter to his colleagues said the fifth component of this comprehensive approach to public sector ethics is the undertaking of the 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
March 8, 1988

reliable and accurate source of information on the activities of lobbyists. He said that 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.
No one would quarrel with that. That was on September 9, 1985. We all know that a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. We had "Frankie baby", the Tory Member of Parliament, the former Premier of Newfoundland, joining GCI and for $2,000 got Mr. U. Snarby his appointment with the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans so he could get a fishing licence.
We had the spectacle of Mr. Frank Moores sitting on the Board of Directors of Air Canada, appointed by the Prime Minister, and he is lobbying for other airline companies, Wardair and Nordair. He is also representing foreign airline companies, foreign manufacturers of airlines, with Air Canada for Air Canada's purchase of their equipment. That is what was happening.
We now have the spectacle of Mr. Bill Neville who has now formed his own consultant "lobbyist" business. These are the euphemisms we have to learn around here. Any time we see a card which says "GCI Consultants or Susan Murray Consultants", bells start to ring-read "lobbyist" for "consultants". We all know that Billy the kid Neville was close to the Prime Minister and we hear of the role he is playing with respect to Bill C-51 with the tobacco companies.
We know that the Tories have no lock on to this business of an easy movement from Government benches to the lobbyists' benches. The Tories have no monopoly on that. We all know the Liberals did it for years. There were the Sky Shop scandals, with lobbying in the other place for the Sky Shop monopolies at airports. Recently the former Member for Nickel Belt moved very cosily across to the Pharmaceutical Association, representing the multinational pharmaceutical companies for $100,000 a year. She is representing their interests, lobbying with former colleagues and with Ministers. Of course, she took that contract away from GCI, because the pharmaceutical companies had previously hired GCI to do the lobbying on Bill C-22.
We have the spectacle of the former Minister of Defence, the former Member for Nipissing, who is now a lobbyist for the French firm which is trying to sell nuclear submarines to the Tory Government. We have seen the spectacle of Francis Fox, the former Member of the Liberal Cabinet, becoming part of the Frank Moores gang. This is what goes on.
The people of Canada have a right to know who is doing what to whom, when, and for how much. They have a right to know that. If it is happening to them, they ought to at least know who is doing it. It ought to be open and above board.
Lobbyists Registration Act
Certainly a democratic system has more legitimacy when it is open and transparent to the public and when it gives equal access to Canadians. That is really what motivates the desire to register lobbyists.
We have other pieces of legislation which provide the public with information. For example, we have the access to information legislation which is a desire to provide Canadians with information about Government. There is also the Election Expenses Act, under which legislation we may be provided with information respecting who contributes how much to each of the political Parties. The legislation before us is the completion of that system of open and transparent Government.
Abraham Ribicoff, a former Senator of the United States, said the following with respect to registering lobbyists and the role and function which they play. I do not think anyone in the House could say it better than he said it. I want to put his words on the record because they are as true now as they were then. He said:
To protect the democratic process itself and assure public confidence in it, the lobbyist must work in the open. His work must not be cloaked in secrecy. Secrecy inevitably spreads public suspicion. Secrecy helps disguise the voice of a single special interest as the voice of the general public. The stream of letters or mailgrams we all receive may be a spontaneous reflection of the public view, or it may only represent a secretly generated campaign by just one special interest. Congress and the public have a right to know which it is.
I would say that Parliament and Canadians also have a right to know which it is.
We have no difficulties with the principles behind this Bill, none whatsoever. We support the principles behind Bill C-82. We know that scandals and lobbying are not unknown in Canadian history. We are all well aware of that. In this respect we can go back to the Pacific scandal. We can go right back to John A. Macdonald. We can go back through all of the First World War and all the scandals that had to do with the rich and the powerful getting their way. We know that oftentimes the Income Tax Act is drafted in the way in which it is because of lobbying activities by the rich and the powerful.
However, in 1988 we can no longer treat this reality by turning a blind eye to it, as we did in previous years. The time has come to register lobbyists. It is time for lobbyists to come out of the lake. It is time for them to surface. They need air and they must surface. This Bill will go some way to achieving that end.
What does this Bill provide? It provides for the registering of lobbyists basically in two tiers or two levels. This was not the recommendation of the standing committee. The standing committee recommended that all paid lobbyists be registered. We did not simplify lobbyists into two tiers. The Bill before us does that. Lobbyists in the first tier will be those who, like the Frank Moores operation, represent clients directly.

March 8, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
What will lobbyists in the first tier have to divulge? They will have to divulge their name and address, the name and address of the company for which they are doing work, and the particular issue on which they are lobbying. They will not be required to divulge how much they are spending on the lobbying operation. That is the first shortcoming of the Bill.
I say to the Minister that that is an important piece of information that Canadians must know. It indicates the seriousness of this issue to the people involved. If considerable amounts of money are being spent by lobbyists with respect to Bill C-22, then it is a signal to the public of Canada that it is an important issue. The bells should go off in our heads. That is important.
Until Bill C-22 was tabled we did not know all the shenanigans that were going on behind the scenes. Nobody was talking. Even Frank Moores was close-mouthed on this one. They were all close-mouthed in spite of the fact that Gary Ouellet is a first-class magician. He has written 14 books. Did you know that, Mr. Speaker? He has written 14 books on magic. That guy is a lobbyist. This lobbyist has a coat with 14 pockets. It is not multi-coloured but it does have 14 pockets. One can imagine the tricks that one can play with such a coat, especially when one is visiting Parliament Hill. It ought to be required of all lobbyists that they be some sort of amateur magicians. This guy is an expert on the matter. I will come to him later because he is quite interesting.
Do you think that I am joking about the aggressiveness and the extent to which these lobbyists will go, Mr. Speaker? Last May the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) was invited down to Nova Scotia to receive an honorary doctorate degree. This example illustrates the resourcefulness of a good lobbyist. What did Gary Ouellet do? The minute he recognized that the Minister was going down he phoned up a couple who lived down there and asked them if he could use their big house. This couple did not know the Deputy Prime Minister. This guy Ouellet laid on the lobster. He laid on the champagne. He had painters' caps with the words "Doctor Maz" printed on them. He brought in special buddies of the Deputy Prime Minister. The guy who owns the house served the champagne. They ate the lobster. Word has it that the Tories in the local ridings were very upset because they were not invited to the party. The lobbying firm which threw the party is the same firm that represents transport companies and other companies which do business with the Government.


Harvie Andre: There is evil everywhere!


John R. Rodriguez: We all know about the lobbying that went on around Bill C-22. I want to tell the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) that it was a neat little trick he turned when he got all the lobbyists to pressure the Government and to use their influence with it.
If we look at the lobbyists who are floating around such as Bill Neville, Gerry Doucet, and Gary Ouellet, one will see that they are all involved with consulting firms known as lobbyists.
They all have their inner connections to Cabinet. They have brothers working in the Prime Minister's office. They themselves may have worked there. Some of them helped the Prime Minister become Prime Minister.
What do you expect Canadians to think, Mr. Speaker, when they see a wheel within a wheel? There is a dark empire, and not registering lobbyists and getting full disclosure encourages and reinforces in the minds of many Canadians, and I tell the Minister this, that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Every time a contract is let the question would be there at the back of the mind. The only way that can be dealt with, Mr. Minister, is by full disclosure. The system has to be transparent.


Harvie Andre: Every contract is fully disclosed, as the Hon. Member knows.


John R. Rodriguez: We want to know who are the lobbyists approaching civil servants and governments. That is the important part of this legislation. It is extremely important that we should have the information of how much is spent on the lobbying activity for that particular issue that they are lobbying on.
The other thing that we do not like about this Bill is that it sets up a Tier II. That Tier II is for those who are in the employ of a company. For example, INCO has one of its vicepresidents designated as the government relations officer. In other words, he is a consultant. He is a lobbyist on staff. He comes up to the Hill or goes to the bureaucrats to make representations. All he has to declare is his name, address, the name of his company, and its address. He does not have to identify the specific issue.
The same thing applies to associations. The Pharmaceutical Association, for which the former Member for Nickel Belt is now the lobbyist, does not have to declare the particular issue on which it is lobbying. Again, they do not have to disclose the specific issue and the amount of money being spent on that particular issue on which they are lobbying.
The other problem that I have with the Bill, and I speak directly to the Minister, is that it does not register indirect lobbying. In our offices, many of us receive considerable numbers of letters. Most of those letters are worded exactly the same. Who has organized that lobby? Who is spending a considerable amount of bucks in that particular effort? The public wants to know, and we want to know who is behind it. The United States recognized the danger to its open and democratic system, and so it has required registering of indirect lobbying such as I have described.
The other problem with the Bill, which is the one that Frankie baby and the boys at GCI are all on to, and one of the big differences, apart from Gerry Doucet, between GCI and the other consultants, is contingency fees. In other words they have introduced into the waters a white shark. For a fishing
March 8, 1988

licence, 2,000 bucks; access to this Minister, 3,000 bucks; I do this for you, then you pay me. There is a contingency fee now rather than a contract fee. Now the sharks have to be more aggressive. The danger here is that anything goes. To get the fee one has to deliver the contingent. If access to the Minister is not delivered, one does not get paid. Hence one does all sorts of things, like kiss the Minister's toes, his ankles, his knees, and I will stop right there, Mr. Speaker. That is when out comes the lobster, the wine, the champagne, and the painter hats with "Dr. Maz". It leads to and breeds that type of response. They become more aggressive because there is no prohibition against contingency fees in the Bill, none. I see that as a detriment to the Bill, and I would want to correct it.
The other thing that is not in the Bill, and which the standing committee recommended, was that the ADRG-the Assistant Deputy Registrar General-ought to be given some powers to verify information. With respect to verification, this Bill is a toothless rabbit. It has no ability to verify. It has no ability to check out information which has been put on the registry. It has no ability to investigate whether the information that is on the registry is in fact accurate.
It seems to me that this failing in the Bill is detrimental to the Bill. Someone can blow the whistle all he or she wants. Can you see it now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Gander- Twillingate (Mr. Baker) can blow the whistle, go to the ARDG and say, "I know so and so is not registered and he is lobbying". The ARDG says, "So". I know that the Member would insist that something be done, as any Member would, but the ARDG says, "I have no power to do that. I can't do that". So who, in effect, brings action against the offenders of the Act? Who will do that? Who does that? That is a glaring shortcoming in the Bill. I have some difficulties with that, and I think it should be there.
I do not believe that there should be two tiers in the Bill. As the standing committee recommended, I think that there should be one tier. Everyone who for a fee tries to influence, or makes representation to, should register as a lobbyist. In fact, if I may be so bold as to define lobbyists as stated in my Private Member's Bill which was introduced in the House on February 19, 1987, it is:
"lobbyist" means any person who, for payment, attempts to influence,
directly or indirectly,
(a)	the introduction, passage, defeat or amendment of any legislation before either House of Parliament, or
(b)	a decision to be taken on any matter coming within the administrative jurisdiction of a Minister of the Crown, whether or not that matter has come or is likely to come before either House of Parliament for legislative action;
It seems to me that that is the definition of a lobbyist. One cannot dilute that definition by setting up Tier I and Tier II. In fact, it is very important that in respect of any lobbyist who comes to the Hill and approaches a Member of Parliament, or a member of the bureaucracy, or a staff member, the public has a right to know what is the issue that that person is after.
For example, in the case of INCO, people in the Sudbury basin were interested to know exactly why the vice-president responsible for government relations was approaching their Member of Parliament. What was the issue that the vicepresident was trying to lobby the Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) about? Was it to get a break in the levels of S02 emissions coming out of the stack? Was it from Falconbridge to get a permit to continue shipping out raw nickel to Norway for refining?
I see it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have 10 minutes remaining in his speech after Question Period.
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.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) declared that a free trade deal with the United States would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. When Canadians refused to buy that line, the Prime Minister stated that a free trade deal would protect existing jobs from increasing trade protectionism in the United States.
This is simply not true. Ask the thousands of workers in the British Columbia fishing industry whose jobs are at risk because of the desperate efforts of the federal Government to get a trade deal with the Americans.
Last November the Americans won a decision before the GATT panel against B.C. regulations which prohibit the export of unprocessed fish. Since then the federal Government has done nothing to protect the thousands of jobs that would be lost if the ruling is approved by the full GATT Council. This would have a devastating impact on coastal communities which depend on the fishery.
Last Friday plant workers held work stoppages to protest the federal Government's bungling. This week a delegation of workers is here in Ottawa to express their concerns firsthand.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I urge the Conservative Cabinet to get its act together and protect those jobs. Anything less is absolutely unacceptable.

March 8, 1988



CELEBRATION '88 DEMONSTRATION OF THE OLYMPIC SPIRIT

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the federal Government's Celebration '88 program, all Canadians had a chance to participate in the festivities which were part of the Calgary Olympics.
By virtue of the very hard work of hundreds of volunteers on Celebration '88 award selection committees all across Victoria-Haliburton, 15 communities submitted nominations for awards. It was my distinct pleasure to present medals and certificates at 18 different ceremonies to the most deserving citizens who demonstrated the Olympic spirit in their daily lives.
Even at the Olympic Games in Calgary, I did not see any function at which the pride in our nationhood shone through more brightly than on the faces of thousands of my constituents who came out to support the Olympics through Celebration '88.
On behalf of my constituents and many others who participated in Celebration '88 events, I commend the Government on a job well done.
In the same spirit of pride and accomplishment, I ask all my colleagues, on behalf of Canadians across the country, to welcome appreciatively a number of our finest Olympic athletes when they are introduced to the House in a very few minutes. Let's show them how we feel.



INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, today is a wonderful day of celebration for women around the world. For many decades women have made March 8 their day, that is, International Women's Day, a time to pay respect to the struggles of the past and to seek strength for the work ahead. It is particularly inspiring to remember our foremothers who made today's celebrations possible.
[ Translation]
More especially I have in mind our native sisters who have shown great courage throughout history. Then there are the first immigrant women from Europe and those who are arriving today, quite prepared to begin a new life in Canada,

Women have made very positive contributions to world history. We have struggled for justice, equality, and peace. Today I like to think of Dr. Lise Meitner who, along with a male colleague, was the first to split the atom. A pacifist, she was horrified by the military implications of her discovery and refused to work on the atomic bomb. Not only was she a
pioneer in her own non-traditional field, but she wanted to do things differently.
This is what women are asking for today-equality in a just and peaceful world.




Mrs. Anne Blouin (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating International Women's Day. Since 1910, March 8 has been a day of renewed involvement for Canadian women. In their homes and communities women are making an unmeasurable contribution to our society.
Mr. Speaker, women account for one half of the talents of the Canadian people. Thanks to the perseverance and determination of women, a number of questions are brought forward and gain political currency. Mr. Speaker, we have the full support of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
The Meech Lake Accord and the free trade initiative again attest to the Government's will to make it easier for women to play an active and leading role in the economic and social life of our country.
Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate our past. Tomorrow we will continue to prepare our future.



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this year's Estimates reveal that over-all government spending goes up over 8 per cent, but Environment Canada's budget goes up only 3.5 per cent, less than the rate of inflation. By contrast, the budget of Energy, Mines and Resources is up 30 per cent, Agriculture is up 24 per cent, Fisheries and Oceans is up 23 per cent, Finance is up 13.5 per cent, Indian and Northern Affairs is up 11.5 per cent, Communications is up 11 per cent, National Defence is up 8.3 per cent, and Transport is up 7.3 per cent.
Considering that in poll after poll Canadians say that environmental protection is the most important issue, the 3.5 per cent budget increase of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is pitiful.
Since 1984, Environment Canada's budget has lost $70 million to inflation. Compared to 1984, this year's budget of
March 8, 1988

Environment Canada is weaker by 17 per cent. The contrast between the Minister's rhetoric and his actions is appalling.



GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I met with four representatives of the Pacific fishing industry, John Malm, Janet Duplisse, Arnold Nagy and Judy Thompson.
These people are here in Ottawa as part of a delegation from British Columbia to express their concern with the impact of the GATT ruling on their industry. I share their concern, and so should all Members of this House. The commercial fishing and processing industries are the lifeblood of the economy of many of B.C.'s coastal communities.
To the many British Columbians who are dependent on the fishing industry, and their friends and families, I would like to say that our Government, particularly the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are doing everything possible, and I repeat everything possible, to bring about a positive solution to their problem. We will continue to work for you and with you as a fishing industry. Your jobs and your communities are priorities with this Government and we will continue the fight on your behalf.

[ Translation]



INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, Montreal's black community can tell us that racism is not dead in Canada.

The National Congress of Black Women has stated that much must be done by Governments in Canada before the ideal of complete racial equality is achieved. The Congress delivered its message here in the precincts of a Parliament that represents all of the people of Canada equally. Its members were heard with respect, with interest, and with a willingness to pursue change.
What a difference has been dramatized on this International Women's Day between a civilized democracy, such as ours,
and South Africa where white, black, and brown women found that being together merely to talk freedom, equality, and participation is a virtual crime against the state, to be exercised only through subtle strategies lest they place themselves at risk.
They are of the international sisterhood. We share their oppression, and their struggle is ours.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, there are two sides to every issue, and Canada's socialist Party often agrees with both.
Last month a brown envelope under my door gave two responses prepared by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on Bill C-33 for his NDP caucus colleagues.
First, for those who write who are opposed, say the following:
Dear friend, please be assured that I oppose this Bill. I cannot support legislation which will deindex superannuation of federal public servants.
Blah, blah, blah.
Second, for those who write and support this Bill, say the following:
Dear friend, thank you for your letter and your concern for inclusion of benefits in C-33. I and my Party are fully in support of these pension improvements which include survivor benefits, death benefits and equality provisions. We have urged the Government to bring these needed improvements forward as soon as possible.
Blah, blah, blah.
There will be no callouses on the NDP Members from sitting on the fence, just grease for sliding from one side of the issue to the other.



INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Today being International Women's Day, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that this year more than ever before, this day should provide us with an opportunity to reflect upon several basic issues which are currently debated in our country.
Whether in the area of abortion, daycare, equal opportunities on the labour market or equal pay for equal work, the Canadian society has more than ever to make choices.
After years of efforts trying to make Canadians aware of the great principles of basic equality between the sexes, we can observe undeniable progress.

March 8, 1988
We must now be twice as careful and make sure that the critical decisions which we will make collectively within the next year will adequately reflect the new realities.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, there is another step in the long journey for social justice in Canada.
I would like to inform Members of this House that the Parliamentary Committee on Disabled Persons is going to organize a parliamentary forum that will take place here on May 30 on Parliament Hill. This forum will coincide with the first ever National Awareness Week for the Disabled in Canada.
To you personally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, in light of your strong personal interest and record of accomplishment in this area, what a pleasure it is for me as Chairman of the Committee to be co-hosting that event with you. There will be representation from all provinces and the territorial councils as well as this House.
The forum will be designed to increase awareness of the social and economic issues which affect disabled Canadians, particularly in terms of employment. It will be another example of institutional leadership to show that these matters of concern to all Canadians can be brought forward.
To conclude, I would like to express my personal hope that by the end of 1988 there will exist in provincial Legislatures and Councils committees similar to that which we have here in the House of Commons.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few months, many of us in the House have had occasion to be severely critical of Israel for human rights violations in the occupied territories and for the brutal and often lethal way that Israeli troops have dealt with the Palestinian anger coming at them in the form of stones. Having said that, it now needs to be said that the execution of passengers on a hijacked bus is also morally reprehensible and
certainly is not a milestone on the path to a peace conference, let alone peace.
Whether it was the PLO or a faction of the PLO, whether it was sanctioned by Arafat or designed to undermine him, whether it was designed to disable the peace process or mistakenly thought to be something that would help it along, this hijacking was wrong. I hope I speak for all Members of Parliament when I call on those responsible for this action to think again. A return to terrorism is not the answer.



MEECH LAKE ACCORD


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, now that all Quebeckers are finally rallying around a more open and understanding Canada through the Meech Lake Accord, some wet blankets are still trying to undermine this historical agreement. Where do they come from? From the Liberal Party's lack of leadership? From the Socialist leader's lack of clarity and honesty? Is it a pure coincidence that all the wet blankets happen to be Liberals or Socialists?
Liberal Members from Quebec, you must send convincing and guiding messages to your Liberal colleagues from Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Ontario!
Liberal Members, do not destroy Canada!



INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, today is International Women's Day, but we have to deplore the unfortunate treatment which the Conservative Government has afforded needy senior citizens. It is a well known fact that according to statistics 50 per cent of senior citizens living alone are under the poverty line and that 82 per cent of them are women. Unfortunately, the Conservative Government has done nothing to help these people.
In addition, everyone knows that needy people aged between 60 and 64 still suffer because of the way in which the Conservative Government discriminates against 80 per cent of elderly women by denying them the spouse's allowance simply because they are single, separated or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, I know that there will be an election soon. Women will remember the Conservative Government and they will make sure that it will not be back after the next election.
March 8, 1988



SPECIAL OLYMPIC GAMES IN EDMUNSTON

Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, the magnificent Calgary games are now over. I now wish to welcome everyone to the Special Olympics Games in the Madawaska-Victoria riding! Mrs. Mulroney will be inaugurating these games today in Edmundston.
I can predict, Mr. Speaker, that the Special Olympics will be a great success. These athletes, showing their extraordinary courage, tenacity and uncommon will, will prove to everyone that life is good and that nothing can stop someone who wants to reach new heights. We can only rejoice with them and applaud their performance.
On behalf of all Canadians, 1 congragulate all the organizers and wish good luck to all participants!



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, through today's recognition of International Women's Day it is hoped that all Canadians will celebrate the contributions of women. However, it should also inspire us to be aware of the unique problems which still prevent their fullest participation in and rewards from our Canadian system. Moreover, the difficulties encountered by immigrant visible minority women are vastly multiplied and their failure to obtain adequate language training is at the centre of their nightmares.
If Governments talk about improving the employment, educational and literacy skills of women, then it is absolutely crucial for the federal Government to reform its language training criteria so that immigrant women are not penalized because they happen to be women. We cannot afford to permit them to be ghettoized in their homes and to live isolated from the mainstream of our national life. Like their husbands working outside the home, or their children who attend primary or secondary schools, these women must also have the opportunity to become proficient in either English or French, the first important step toward being a contributing and integrated member of Canadian society. It is therefore urgent that the Government move to make this reality a right rather than a privilege.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CANADIAN OLYMPIC ATHLETES

Mr. Speaker:: This will be somewhat unusual, but I am pleased to draw to Members' attention the presence in our gallery of a number of Canada's finest Olympic athletes. A number of our medal winning athletes are already back on the World Cup circuit and therefore cannot be with us.

Representing the women's short-track speed skating team, the winners of five Olympic pins in demonstration sports: Sylvie Daigle, Nathalie Lambert, Maryse Perreault, Susan Auch, Eden Donatelli.
Representing the men's short-track speed skating team, also winners of five Olympic pins in demonstration sports: Mario Vincent, Louis Grenier, Mark Lackie, Yves Nadeau.

The winners of the Gold Medal in women's curling are represented by Linda Moore, Lindsay Sparkes, Debbie Jones, Penny Ryan and Patti Vande.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The men's curling team, winners of a Bronze Medal in Calgary, are represented by Ed Lukowich, John Ferguson, Neil Houston, Brent Syme and Wayne Hart.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: May I also draw Members' attention to some of the other athletes, coaches and officials from Canada's sports community who made the Calgary Olympics the best ever Winter Games in history.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Also with us today are the winners of the Bronze Medal in pairs figure skating, Tracy Wilson and Robert McCall.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The current world champion and winner of the Silver Medal for men's figure skating, Brian Orser.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: And the winner of the Silver Medal in women's figure skating, Elizabeth Manley.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: In the event that any Hon. Members want to rise and indicate that we have broken all the rules this afternoon, I just want to say that I think there is general accord for what has taken place in the Chamber, and it will be

March 8, 1988
Oral Questions
a while before we again have the Olympics in our country. However, we are working on it!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we are proud of them all.
My question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. She knows that the industries facing the greatest threat under the proposed Canada-U.S. trade agreement will be the manufacturing and service industries. The Minister also knows that women make up 63 per cent of the labour force in manufacturing industries, indeed 78 per cent in the clothing industry alone, and 80 per cent of the labour force in the service industries.
Will the Minister tell us what action the Government intends to take to ensure that the jobs of these women are not jeopardized by the trade deal, and what new assistance the Government will propose in order to provide adjustment and assistance for the women whose jobs are being thrown at risk?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, since the premise of the question is totally wrong let me say what the free trade agreement will do for women. First, women are involved in industries such as the service industry. For the first time in the history of trade agreements there is an ability to have a bilateral agreement on services. It is one of the greatest opportunities for the Canadian service industry we have ever seen.
Women are full participants in that. They will benefit from that, as will other people in that industry. People in the manufacturing industry will benefit from that.
I do not agree with the Hon. Member's suggestion that Canadian women and Canadian industries are not competitive enough.


MONEY FOR JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS
John Napier Turner: can only say that the Minister cannot be serious. She is not for real.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, she must talk to her colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration who stated that, as a result of
the signing of this agreement with the United States, the jobs of 500,000 people could be lost or put in jeopardy. And the Minister knows perfectly well that most of those jobs are held by women.
Considering those frightening statistics, could the Minister explain to the House why the Government drastically reduced the funding of on-the-job training programs since 1985, and why it did not bring forward new programs to help women who will lose their jobs because of that trade agreement with the United States?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me reflect for a few minutes on what the Government has done for women, compared to the Government with which the Hon. Member was intimately associated. First, over a 55-month period under the Liberals 467,000 jobs were created for women, while
611,000	jobs have been created for women since September, 1984. That average is double that of the previous Government.
Furthermore, 47 per cent of the jobs created for women under the Liberals were full-time, while 77 per cent of the jobs created for women under this Government were full-time.
The number of adult women living below the poverty line under the previous Government increased by 227,000. The number of adult women living below the poverty line has fallen by 178,000 since 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: More!


Barbara Jean McDougall: In 1984 women accounted for 15 per cent of those serving on government boards and agencies.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Today it is 30 per cent-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I think the House should recognize that the Minister in no way is dealing with the hundreds of thousands of women who are vulnerable under this trade agreement with the the United States. The selective recitation of those statistics will give no comfort at all to the thousands and hundreds of thousands of women who are concerned and reflecting about their own jobs in the future of this country.


PROTECTION OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS
John Napier Turner: Given that Canadian companies, if this agreement, God forbid, goes through, will have to face competition with some American jurisdictions which have no minimum wage, no child care programs, no employment equity programs, and given that this
March 8, 1988

deal commits Canada to a five to seven year negotiating process toward the definition of subsidy and, more important, to harmonizing our social programs with those of the United States, how can the Minister guarantee that the social programs for which Canadian women have fought for generations will not be sacrificed and generate-hold on!


Some Hon. Members:: Hold on! Hold on!


Mr. Guilbault (Saint Jacques):: The question does not matter.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The question is irrelevant.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know what the answer will be, but the Hon. Minister seems to have something to say. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: The Minister should wait for her cue or wait for the gun.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: What guarantee is she going to give to the hundreds of thousands of Canadian women whose social programs will be jeopardized by the harmonization program in this agreement with the United States?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, not only are our social programs not in any way threatened or violated by this agreement, what it means is there will be greater prosperity for Canadian women. There are 120,000 new jobs predicted in a conservative way by the Department of Finance, many of which will go to women.
Those social programs of which we are all so proud have to be paid for out of the prosperity of our country. With free trade, with additional prosperity, we will be able to do more and better things in this country for the people who need them, the people who were neglected by the former Government which did not know how to create prosperity.


DAY CARE
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Prime Minister stated in 1984 that daycare was key to equality for women. Four years later, Canadian women and children are still waiting for a fair solution to the problem of daycare centres.
Oral Questions
In December last, the Government proposed a federal-provincial cost-sharing program for child care. The government has remained silent since December 3,1987.
Can the Minister report on negotiations with the provinces? When will they be completed? And when will Canadian women see the number of spaces in daycare centres increased? When will the Government act quickly in that respect?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the Hon. Member on that question. She is right when she says that this Government came in with a child care program of $5.4 billion for a seven year boost period, which is bigger than anything that had ever happened before in child care in Canada, and bigger than anything that had ever been done by former Governments.
We said we would have negotiations with the provinces and I can report to the Hon. Member that these negotiations are going well. As she knows, as do possibly some of her own colleagues, the money is available as of April 1, 1988, for the completion of those negotiations. I look forward to making announcements very shortly. I hope the Hon. Member will be there to applaud inasmuch as the scope and breadth of the program are larger than anything her Government did before.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to tell the Minister that is very good propaganda, but it in no way reflects that the situation. You have failed to respond to the problem of lack of spaces.


DEMAND THAT QUALITY OF SERVICES BE GUARANTEED
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I would also like the Minister to inform the House how he can guarantee quality daycare services, since his Government does not set any national standards for quality and negotiations with the provinces are getting nowhere fast.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member was on the parliamentary committee she will know that in terms of spaces there are approximately 110,000 that are so-called non-profit spaces. There are approximately 225,000 spaces in total. Additionally, the seven-year boost will give an increase of 200,000 spaces on the non-profit side, which is an increase of over 200 per cent.
The Hon. Member talks about the numbers of spaces that they created as compared to the number of spaces that will be created under the new program. There is no relationship between what they did and what we are doing.
In the negotiations with respect to the number of spaces that the provinces want to take up, what is interesting is that we are

March 8, 1988
Oral Questions
going to meet the number of spaces. In respect to the standards, the Hon. Member knows that we are going to have standards. The provinces with which we are negotiating want exactly those.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ABORTION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am sure he will agree that the women of British Columbia have the same right to equality in the law as do women of other provinces. In that context I want to ask him this.
Considering that the Supreme Court of British Columbia yesterday declared that a provincial government regulation that prohibited medicare funding for abortions was ultra vires, and considering that the same regulation contravenes the Canada Health Act, in the interests of equality for the women of British Columbia has the Minister informed the Government of British Columbia that this regulation is in clear violation of the Canada Health Act?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the judgment came down yesterday. I want to be very careful in respect to the words of the judgment which I do not think were in relation to the Canada Health Act, although I think that that is an entirely valid debate, as I think the Hon. Member will agree.
As I understand it, the judgment noted that the Government could have been acting within its authority if it had enacted a regulation that declared abortions not to be an insured health service. In other words, we are talking about a provincial service in respect to the regulation.
I think the Hon. Member can see that, obviously, we are waiting to see what the reaction of the Government of B.C. will be. I think the court's position is very clear in terms of the process and the action that it should take.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER DECLARE PROVINCIAL REGULATION TO BE IN VIOLATION OF CANADA HEALTH ACT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister knows that if the Government of British Columbia had chosen the other option to which he alluded then it would have been clearly in violation of the Charter of Rights. I see that the Minister is nodding his head in agreement with that. Both options, the one that has been chosen and
the hypothetical one to which the Minister has just alluded, would have meant that the Government of B.C. would have been in violation of the Charter of Rights or the Canada Health Act.
I want to ask the Minister this. Since there are other provinces involved in this problem, to understate it a wee bit, and since the country is looking for some national leadership, will the Minister now make it clear that it is his view as the Minister responsible for the Canada Health Act that this type of regulation, whether it is in British Columbia or in any other province, which denies equality to Canadian women, is in violation of the Canada Health Act?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the Hon. Member, the ruling came down yesterday. As I have said, we do not know how the Government of B.C. will react to it or whether it will appeal it. As I have said to the Hon. Member before, I will hold that judgment or that opinion until my cabinet colleagues and I have consulted with respect to it.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PROVIDE LEADERSHIP
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has already indicated that the decision by the Supreme Court of British Columbia is not directly relevant to my question, but in any event, my question is relevant to the Canada Health Act because there are other provinces that now have the same regulations, more or less, as the Government of British Columbia. Does the Minister intend to show some leadership at the national level on this issue and tell the provinces that such action is not acceptable, especially in terms of equality for Canadian women?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to add in terms of how the Government will react to the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The answer stands for anyone who has looked at court decisions. A period of time will have to elapse in terms of any other action being taken by the federal Government.
People on both sides of this issue generally recognize both its complexity and its difficulty not only for Governments but for Canadian society in general. When the Government of Canada has made a decision I believe that it will be made in respect to those various issues and considerations by all parties concerned. Only then will I give the answers of the Government of Canada, as I have been asked to do, but I will not give a decision or an opinion on the Canada Health Act on the floor of the House of Commons.
March 8, 1988


HOUSING
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: In the
absence of the Minister responsible for housing, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last year, 27 per cent of the homeless in this country were women and 11 per cent were children under 15. Women living in inadequate and unsanitary accommodation are not included in these figures.
Two governments, the Government of Great Britain and the Australian Government, have passed federal legislation to protect the homeless. Canadians want to know where the Conservative Government's leadership is on this matter.
Could the Minister inform the House why the Government has failed to do anything for the homeless since the International Conference on Shelter for the Homeless in September 1987? And if it does intend to do something, what will it be?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question on behalf of my colleague who is responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I would also draw to the Hon. Member's attention that discussions were held previously between both municipal and provincial administrations and there is a responsibility on all levels of government. We have in the past, as the Hon. Member is aware, entered into agreements with the provinces. With respect to most social housing the provinces provide 25 per cent of the dollars needed and the Government of Canada provides 75 per cent of the dollars needed. We have entered into agreements that allow for efficiencies of administration between these two levels of government.
As always, we will be interested in the views of municipalities in supplying housing which may benefit those to whom the Hon. Member refers as homeless.


ELIGIBILITY FOR PROGRAMS-POSITION OF WOMEN WITHOUT HOME ADDRESSES
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, needless to say I am very disappointed in the answer. The problem will not just go away.
Since the problem is worse for women and their children, and since the Minister knows that in order to qualify for any government program one must have an address, and homeless Canadians do not have an address, will the Minister tell us if he has approached the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister responsible for the status of women in order to find solutions to this problem?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member
Oral Questions
refers to is not something that is new. It is not something that she has just discovered. These problems have existed for many years.
In addressing social housing, in particular the co-op housing initiatives taken by the Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada, to assure that there is a market efficient co-op housing program we have provided in that a component for social housing, which is administered by local co-ops, by local people.
In regard to the initiative discussed by the Hon. Member, we have as Ministers of the Crown discussed it amongst ourselves. But we are also asking the provinces and the municipalities to join with us in solving what we recognize to be a problem, as I am sure these jurisdictions do.


CANADA HEALTH ACT
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I find myself a little dismayed because it is my understanding the Minister stated that he did not want to give an opinion on the Canada Health Act.
As the Minister responsible, is he telling this House that he is not willing to stand up for the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act which mean equal access?


Mr. Speaker:: There is a difference between expressing his views as to whether or not the Canada Health Act is in place, but to ask for a legal opinion is, of course, out of order.


Marion Dewar: I didn't ask for a legal opinion.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have stated before, and I will repeat to the Hon. Member that I will not speculate on a legal opinion. In terms of any opinion with respect to whether a province is in contravention of the Canada Health Act, I said if that has been determined in any way, only at that time would I make a statement.


ADMINISTRATION OF ACT
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Health Act guarantees access to health services in this country to Canadian citizens.
I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare is he reneging on his responsibility to administer the Canada Health Act to Canadian women.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not reneging. The Hon. Member

March 8, 1988
Oral Questions
should know that, in respect to the Canada Health Act, the interpretation that she is placing on it was an interpretation which many groups brought forward to it, but was not accepted in terms of the powers that could be exercised by the federal Government over delivery of health care in the provinces. That has been a fundamental difference of view right through the whole debate on the Canada Health Act.
In respect to the specific issue of abortion and those services, I have given an answer very clearly as to what I will do.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for regional industrial development, I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know that the future of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, owned and operated by the Government of Canada, has been put into serious question by the activities of senior members of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, as well as the senior officials of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why the Government of Canada, through ACOA, is in the process of providing funding to a private company with no proven mining track record, $75 million of taxpayers' money, to build a mine in Pictou County, the home of the Minister of National Revenue, which will be in direct conflict with the Cape Breton Development Corporation, throwing 275 men out of work in Cape Breton, and reducing the revenues of that Crown corporation by some $20 million?
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, why is the Government of Canada part and parcel of this scheme?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the premise of the Hon. Member's question, may I simply point out that this Government has been very supportive of Devco in many ways; it has been very supportive of Atlantic development through ACOA and through other regional industrial expansion programs.
I am surprised that the Hon. Member would take exception to any new initiatives that would be taken in the Atlantic region that would provide jobs and greater industrial and economic opportunities.


DOCUMENT PREPARED BY CROWN CORPORATION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have to say, with great regret, that I have in my hands a confidential document-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: -prepared by the Government's own Crown corporation, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which was submitted to the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia in December, 1987. This document of some 12 pages spells out very clearly that it will result in 275 jobs lost at the Lingan Colliery in Cape Breton.
I wish to ask the Minister, in view of these facts, and in view of this document which I will table at three o'clock, why are the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government of Canada playing worker against worker, community against community, and company against company? Why this action on behalf of the Government of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member still thinks that he is in government, because that was precisely the policy of the Liberal Party when it was in government. This Government does not do business that way.
1 do not know what document the Hon. Member has, but if he wants to give me a copy I will look at it. I am sure that my interpretation and his would probably be different.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, and it arises out of the changing bank policies under the guise of handling or service charges. Those charges are sometimes imposed without notice and sometimes without service, such as a charge of $1 per month on an inactive account under $100, or $2.50 a day for an overdrawn account, over and above an interest charge, and the list goes on.
May I ask the Chairman if the committee is prepared to conduct a survey or a review of those escalating charges for services that were once offered to get the ordinary person to use the banks in the first place?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for St. Catharines for the question, and advise the House that the finance committee engaged its research staff in December of last year to do a comprehensive study on bank service charges, and indeed services charges of trust companies and credit unions, to determine the nature and type of those charges, whether constituents were receiving fair service for fair money, and whether the banks in particular had been complying with Section 201 of the Bank Act.
March 8, 1988

We hope to be able to have a paper on that matter available to the Elouse well before Easter. It may be that the committee will then commence public hearings on the matter.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and has to do with a project to recuperate and recycle household garbage, an ecological project to create jobs at the same time.
Can the Minister now respond favourably to the Recuperation Bois-Francs project launched a year ago and sponsored by neighbouring towns, labour unions and local churches? What is the response to this excellent project on which his department has been sitting for a year?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not specify exactly where this program is supposed to fit in. Perhaps it comes under the Innovation Program.
The Hon. Member probably knows as well that a national committee reporting on the Innovation Program is expected to recommend acceptance by the Minister, but admittedly the various phases may take up quite some time. But still some of the criteria are particularly strict. If the program is recommended to us we will give the matter every consideration.


REQUEST THAT PROJECT PROCEED
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is the following. This project has gone the rounds from the Prime Minister, to Environment, to other different Departments. Everyone agrees that it is a good idea, and technical evaluations are excellent.
I am now asking the Minister will he take it up with his colleagues, stop sending it around, and find some way of seeing that it is done? It is an excellent program, but it does not fit the criteria. Every Ministry that has dealt with it has said that it is a good idea, but it is not quite the right place. Will the Minister find a place for it and see that it happens?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, when we propose a project in the Department of Employment and Immigration, I have to remind the Hon. Member that first it is to create jobs. I am not the Minister of the Environment, I am the Minister of Employment. That is the reason we have to take a look at the project, see if it creates jobs, and fits into the criteria of the
Oral Questions
Department. I said that I would take a look but, once again, I am the Minister of Employment.


ABORTION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to return to the Minister of Health and the subject of yesterday's British Columbia Supreme Court decision on payment for abortions. I would like to ask the Minister, given that the Government of British Columbia has indicated that it is going to try to get around this decision and find a lawful way to deny payment for abortions to some women, whether the Government is prepared to show some leadership, and whether the federal Government agrees with the position that women across Canada should be equally entitled to medical services.
Surely the federal Government, with British Columbia reconsidering its position, should take a position on equal treatment for all women in Canada.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have said to other Members in the House today that I will not speculate on the judgment or on the actions which the B.C. Government might take. Those have not been brought to my attention or to the attention of the Government.
In respect of equal access for women, the answer to that is yes. That has always been the case and the underlying principle of the Canada Health Act.
What we are dealing with here is what the province will do in terms of the question of what is referred to in the Canada Health Act as medically necessary, and that is from where the divergence of views in B.C. comes.


EQUAL ACCESS TO MEDICAL SERVICES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister has indicated, as he has, that it is the federal position-and I think it is important for the British Columbia Government to hear this-that women in Canada should have equal access across the country to medical services, my next question to the Minister is this. What will the federal Government do about it?
Is it prepared to act under the Canada Health Act? Is it prepared, besides consulting provinces, to notify them that it is the position of the Government of Canada, and indeed of Parliament, that equal access should be available to all women?
Why is he waffling on this important subject?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government expects that British

March 8, 1988
Oral Questions
Columbia will respect the ruling of the court. That is our position, and we expect that.
Till there has been other action, on which I cannot speculate, I do not think it is appropriate for me or the Hon. Member to go down those trails of speculation.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding consistency and honesty.
Yesterday the Minister revealed that he is unaware that the GATT ruling against the B.C. fishing industry is contrary to the Law of the Sea, is contrary to the Canada-U.S. Salmon Treaty, and is a fishing issue, not a trade issue.
Since the Government understood the sovereign right to protect processing and conservation and protected the fishing industries in Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland from U.S. interference, why is the Government planning to support a proposal tomorrow in Washington which will gut the B.C. industry and place the entire Atlantic fishing industry at risk?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member speaks of consistency and honesty. I practise those virtues. If he follows a practice different from that, that is his to decide.
I made clear yesterday that there have been extensive negotiations and discussions with the industry and with the provinces, and that Canada went to the other nations involved in the GATT panel and made our case. We did not succeed in that case, so we are now meeting again, tomorrow, to see if there are other ways in which we could proceed to resolve this very serious question.
Of course the other matter that arises is that the New Democratic Party on GATT issues speaks out of both sides of its mouth. It supports GATT in principle, it claims, yet in practice it wants us to get out of the GATT.


REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF WORKERS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister and is on the point of consistency.
We have a $750 million industry in British Columbia, principally employing women in high-paying, unionized jobs. They are not ghettoized as they are in many areas of the Canadian economy. There are 7,500 jobs at risk.
When the Americans find GATT rulings that they do not like on Canadian oil, on Spanish soybeans, and on trade
embargoes with Nicaragua, they do not implement them. The Minister of Fisheries says that he opposes the GATT ruling, but he has been muzzled by Cabinet.
I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is going to stand up and show consistency. You protected the five Atlantic provinces. You forgot about British Columbia. What is going on? Why not protect the workers of B.C.?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on the question of consistency, when the United States rejected the decision of the International Court on Nicaragua, this Government opposed that decision by the United States and upheld an international regime.
The New Democratic Party said that we should do that. Now the New Democratic Party is quoting as a precedent to Canada the very action by the United States which it condemned in the House.
The New Democratic Party is talking out of both sides of its mouth, and it should stop doing that in the interest of consistency and in the interest of honesty.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. During the last election campaign, the Conservative Government made a commitment to allow homemakers to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. We all know there are now an estimated three million homemakers who are not entitled to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan or Quebec Pension Plan, and the Minister knows perfectly well that if nothing is done on an urgent basis, these people are doomed to be either dependent on their spouse or to live in poverty.
Could the Minister inform the House why his Government has failed to keep this promise after nearly four years in power?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Hon. Member asked that question. The Government has brought in changes to the Canada Pension Plan which brought it parallel to some changes that had already taken place in the Quebec Pension Plan and which have helped women, especially under the Canada Pension Plan. For example, there is the matter of credit splitting and the matter of earlier vesting.


SOCIAL SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
March 8, 1988
[Stage Direction]
On the question of a homemaker's pension, when we ran for office in 1984 the Government said very clearly that we favoured a homemaker's pension. The general vehicle at which we were looking was the Canada Pension Plan.
It is for that reason that coming out of Bill C-116 there were two studies further commissioned with the federal and provincial Governments. One was on survivors' benefits and the other was on homemakers. I have not yet had that report.
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, 3 million women at home do not benefit from the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is urgent because these people need an answer, not a study. Could the Minister inform the Elouse what kind of strategy he has in mind for solving this problem before an election is called?

What is your strategy to help these women?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member is endorsing the platform of the Conservative Party, something which he opposed during the election. I take it that now he has had a conversion on that issue, and I am glad that he has come to our side.
In respect of what actions we will take, I am sure he will wait with anticipation and bated breath to see what steps we will take and that he can endorse those, as well, in the next election campaign.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the status of women. The National Council on Welfare has shown that the Government's tax reform is giving $1 in every $5 of tax savings to the 2 per cent of Canadian families with incomes over $100,000, while the average full-time employed Canadian woman earns approximately $18,000. Could the Minister explain why the Government has chosen to give the wealthy tax cuts of around $1,700 per annum apiece, when the average Canadian working woman will get a tax cut of only $100 per annum, according to the National Council's figures?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I reject the figures. They are not consistent with the figures in the document entitled "A Summary for Taxpayers", which sets out a range of income groups, a range of income earners, and types of family situations.
Oral Questions
If the Hon. Member wishes to review the numbers in this booklet, I believe he will find that they are accurate. They have been reviewed by tax accountants and have been commented on in the media as being accurate.
There may be some specific situation that is being used to make a general point of view. As a statement of the general effects of tax reform this document stands on its own. Eighty-five per cent of Canadians will be better off with tax reform. One of the ways that we would be paying for those tax reductions is by reducing some of the tax preferences that are primarily available to those in upper income brackets.


BENEFITS FOR FAMILIES HEADED BY WOMEN
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Minister who is answering for the Minister responsible for the status of women wants other figures, he will be aware that the average wealthy family earning over $100,000 gets a cut of about $4,300 per annum whereas single parent women earning the average for full-time women get a cut of maybe $100 or $200 a year. The Minister seems to think that is okay.
Can the Minister explain to the women of Canada who head most single parent families why the Government has cut almost $400 in benefits going to the average family with children since 1984, and why it seems to have targeted reductions in child tax benefits when that is particularly damaging for single parent families headed by women?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is forgetting the fact that we have increased the child tax credit two or three times since September, 1984. We have advanced the payment of the child tax credit so that people do not have to make use of tax discounters. We also introduced the refundable sales tax credit which is directed at the very people the Hon. Member is talking about, so that in many ways we have recognized the problem that is in existence when we inherited the Government. Now we are addressing these things and will address them further in tax reform.
As I indicated, the figures set out in the government document on tax reform are accurate. They are directed at the general impact, not a very specific impact, which I think the Member is trying to draw out.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Single parents.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker. That is not the point I was making. The point 1 am making is that the figures I have quoted here in this document are general, according to various categories of earners, not very specific figures which may apply to a very limited number of people.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Single parent families headed by women. Shame on you, Mr. Minister.

March 8, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Manly EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


ISRAEL-EXPULSION OF PALESTINIANS FROM OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the Minister accept or condone the policy of Israel of expelling Palestinians from the occupied territories, or does the Minister reject and condemn these actions by Israel which appear to violate international conventions?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is our judgment that those actions by Israel do, in fact, violate the fourth Geneva Convention which applies to the West Bank. I have expressed that view, and I have instructed our officials at the United Nations to support the Security Council resolution which opposes that action by Israel.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I would direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In late January, Ron Lawless, the chief executive officer of Canadian National, in announcing the sale of CN hotels to Canadian Pacific stated that Canadian Pacific had agreed to "maintain all existing labour contracts and pension benefits and to absorb all existing employees".
We have since learned that most of the 63 national sales and head office jobs in Montreal will be lost. They will not be protected as had been said by the President of CN. How can the Minister justify the sale to CP which will result in the loss of many jobs in Montreal that were supposed to be protected, according to the President of Canadian National?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am simply unable to answer the question because the information that has come up is not information that I have seen and differs quite substantially from the information that is available. Therefore, if my friend would be kind enough to give us that information, we will dig into it and provide him with an appropriate answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that, given the hour, this will be the end of Question Period. Perhaps the Hon. Member could pursue this matter and perhaps the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary might be able to give some kind of an answer tomorrow.
I have a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


PRIVILEGE
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberger) raised an issue relating to announcements made by the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans regarding Chinook salmon, including a major announcement of new enhancement on the Cowichan River which is in my constituency. When my office phoned the Vancouver Department of Fisheries and Oceans to ask for information on this, my assistant was told that DFO communications had been instructed to send five Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament the information at nine o'clock in the morning on Monday, Eastern Standard Time, which was prior to the Minister's press conference at which he announced these proposals.
There was a second list of other MPs who were to receive the information at 1 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. We did not receive this information, vital to my constituency, until 4 p.m. yesterday afternoon.
I submit that this constitutes blatant discrimination against opposition MPs. It is the use of Department of Fisheries offices for partisan political purposes. I submit that it constitutes a question of privilege, and if you find that there is a prima facie case of privilege I am prepared to move the requisite motion.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Member brings to the attention of the House some interesting information from his perspective. It is the first time that we have heard of it on this side of the House.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) is not here. I think the House would be best served if we took a little time to give us a chance to look into the situation and report back to the House at a later point.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands (Mr. Manly) has raised a matter which comes down to this, that some Members have received some information from a department earlier and under different circumstances than other Members. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, I think, has made a very useful suggestion. I would ask that he take it up with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and, as soon as possible, perhaps indicate to the Chair when the Chair might hear him. Would that be acceptable to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands?


James Douglas Manly: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
March 8, 1988


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, 1 notice that today's Hansard shows no record of my abstention from yesterday's NATO support motion. As a matter of fact, there is no indication of my presence in the Chamber during the vote. Could you let the record show that I was present in the Chamber and abstained from voting on the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) for his representation and the Chair will ensure that the record is properly adjusted.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre, that Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at 1 o'clock p.m. the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) had the floor.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the lunch hour interrupted me, and if my memory trusts me well, we have no problem with the principle of Bill C-82. We support the principle, but there are issues in the Bill, things that we would like to see tightened up. In brief, we mention the provision of a two tier system. There is no need for a two tier system of registry of lobbyists. We ought to have one tier of registry of lobbyists.
Second, the Bill does not provide for a prohibition of contingency lobbying. We believe that this is a shortcoming in the Bill. The fact is that attaching a fee by a lobbyist for the accomplishment of the lobbying objectives is, in our view, contrary to the kinds of presentations which lobbyists make to bureaucrats and to Members of Parliament.
Third, we believe that the Bill ought to have prohibited the indirect lobbying by mass mailings which, in our discovery in the jurisdiction of the United States, are covered by U.S. lobbying legislation. In fact, that could be one method used to circumvent the intent of this Bill.
There is no doubt in my mind, and recent surveys reflect this, that Canadians have lost confidence in the ability of their political leaders when it comes to honesty, ethics and a whole host of other issues that are very important to the democratic process. I think that is what the Prime Minister sensed when, in 1985, in a letter to Members of Parliament, he recognized
Lobbyists Registration Act
that lobbyists had to be registered. Subsequently, events have shown that there are questionable activities by lobbyists at this time, activities that can only serve to reinforce in the minds of Canadians the notion that politicians deal with ethical matters and matters of state in questionable ways.
I said earlier today that registering lobbyists is the completion of a process of open Government. We have the freedom of information legislation and the election expenses legislation. These pieces of legislation were all implemented to create a greater transparency in Government, to provide Canadians with more information about the manner in which they are governed. If contributions are made to Parties or to individuals, they are on the record. The public has access to that information. That can only serve to buttress democracy in a system such as ours. This piece of legislation which provides for the registering of lobbyists is indeed extremely important to the process.
It is unfortunate that the Bill is lacking in what I would call teeth. There is no provision in the Bill for the Assistant Deputy Registrar General to verify the information which lobbyists will put in the registry. There is no way of initiating any investigation-


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but with the unanimous consent of the House, I would ask to table the document that I referred to during Question Period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The only way that could be done, of course, is with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I was asked during Question Period if I would table a document to which I had made reference in my question. I would now like to table the document to which I referred.




[Stage Direction]
MEASURETO enact
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of
[Stage Direction]
March 8, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
lobbyists, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Elon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has the floor.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, one of the shortcomings of the Bill is that it gives the Assistant Deputy Registrar General no power to verify the information which lobbyists will put on the registry. The ADRG has no power to conduct investigations. The Bill does not even say who can initiate an action.
If a Member of Parliament or a civil servant brings to the attention of the ADRG a lobbyist who is not acting within the parameters of the Bill, who initiates the action? Who verifies it, who collects the information, who starts the process? Nothing in the Bill ascribes that particular function to the ADRG.
We think the Bill must be improved. While we agree with the Bill in principle, we believe that in committee we will use every opportunity to amend the Bill in order to strengthen it. We hope that the Government will see that our amendments are useful and helpful and will provide the kind of transparency and openness which I believe Canadians demand and would welcome.
I must point out that the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, on which I served, studied the question of a lobbying registry and visited the closest jurisdiction which has a registry of lobbyists. Within the group, there were those who really did not feel the need for such registration. When we went to the United States to look into this matter. There were those who were convinced that there was no need for a registry of lobbyists and that in fact we ought to leave the lobbyists to regulate themselves.
When we met with lobbyists in the United States, one of the questions we put to them was what would be the main thrust of their proposals if they were in our spot and had to draft registry rules for lobbyists. They all said, almost with one voice, that they would make it tough. This blew the minds of the Conservative members of the committee who were not wedded to that idea. They were absolutely shocked that lobbyists would demand that lobbying legislation be tough.
When the lobbyists explained the reasons for saying that, we found that their argument was quite reasonable. They said they wanted to ensure that a code be established for them within the legal framework because that is how they convince clients that they operate under a very strict legal code and under the laws of the country. That is the best guarantee that the client will be getting professional services.
The lobbyists to whom we spoke were proud to run off computer lists of their clients and their charges to show to the committee. It was interesting to note that well-known multinationals and other corporations were on that list as well as the issues they were lobbying for and the amounts of money
charged. That is what we will be promoting in our amendments when we get to committee. We will be looking for that kind of openness in the legislation.
It seems to me that people who want to do business with the Government ought to be doing so, but Canadians ought to be able to know who they are and what they are charging. That is a system that is accountable as well as transparent.
The other question with which we dealt as a committee was foreign lobbyists from foreign Governments. In our report we recognized that foreign Governments have embassies here in Ottawa and they have government-to-government relations. They consult with Departments, and we have excluded them from our recommendations on lobbying. I notice that they are not included in the Bill.
In conclusion, I want to say that Bill C-82 is a small step, but it is a step in the right direction. We have to move this Bill forward as quickly as possible into committee. I support the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell	(Mr. Boudria) who made a wise suggestion. While we originally recommended that the Bill should be sent to the committee that studied the lobbying question, he said it should go to a legislative committee, hopefully made up of members of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, for study. I hope the Government will follow that suggestion.
We hope the Minister has listened attentively to the points we have raised and recognizes that we are not trying to destroy the Bill. We want to make it better, more effective, and make Government more open and accountable. Therefore we hope the suggestions we have made will find their way into the Bill as amendments.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words on this Bill. I think some of the suggestions made by the Hon. Member who just spoke should be taken into account by the Minister when this Bill gets to committee stage. Some of the points raised are very important. Perhaps I can just review those points.
Keep in mind that since 1984 we have seen a great proliferation of lobbying firms throughout the country. They are engaged in various activities for the benefit of certain clients; not that there is anything wrong with that. Yet some of those clients who received favourable attention from the Government might have gotten it anyway without hiring the lobbying firm. In fact, I would say in a great many cases it is a tremendous waste of money to hire one of these lobbying outfits when the client could perhaps see hers or his own local Member of Parliament or make representations directly to the Government.
The Bill defines professional lobbyists as:
Every individual who, for payment, on behalf of any person or organization-undertakes to arrange a meeting with a public office holder or to communicate with a public office holder in an attempt to influence
March 8, 1988

(a)	the development of a legislative proposal by the Government of
Canada-
That means someone who was hired to arrange for the presentation of a Bill before the Elouse of Commons. It then goes on to say someone who attempts to influence:
(b)	the introduction, passage, defeat or amendment of any Bill-
In other words, any individual, organization or group interested in amending a Bill.
Then it says:
(c)	the making of any regulation, order or other instrument-
Which, as you know, are made by the Government of Canada. Then it talks about the development of any policy by the Government. That is a general enough clause in the Bill which would probably cover anything having to do with public policy.
Then it talks about the appointment of individuals to any body or office. I suppose, for example, if someone wanted to be appointed to the Senate or some board and hired a lobbying firm to do that, they would be covered by that part. Then it refers to the awarding of any grant, contribution or similar benefit, or a contract by the Government.
What must that person or group do? They must register with the registrar not later than 10 days after entering into the undertaking. If they do not, what happens? Under the offences part it says:
Every individual who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of
this Act is guilty of an offence-
What will happen to them if they are brought before a court? There is a fine of not more than $25,000 or a trip to prison for a term not to exceed six months. Then it says in Clause 13(b):
-on proceedings by way of indictment, to a fine not exceeding one hundred
thousand dollars and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years-
In other words, the value of someone's time outside of a prison is seen by this Act to be about $50,000 a year. If you can pay $50,000 you do not have to go to jail for a year. If you cannot pay it, then off you go. It is very interesting to look at some of these Acts and see how much time adds up to $1,000 in the view of our legal system. It means if you have lots of money, you do not have to serve any of these jail terms.
I suppose the Bill sounds pretty conclusive. It is fairly thorough. There is a problem, though, as some speakers have pointed out. You do not really have to register if you call yourself a public relations firm, I suppose. You do not have to say how much money you are getting for your lobbying activities. There are several lobbying firms here in Ottawa and in provincial capitals, and under this Act they are not going to have to say how much money they receive, whether it is $1,000 or $100,000 or $1 million. They should have to. What was the value of their input to the Government of Canada?
I would like to suggest to the Minister another area which is perhaps not covered at all under this legislation but which
Lobbyists Registration Act
should be. Perhaps he can address this in committee or at third reading. The problem is this. If you examine all of the sales by agencies of the federal Government this year and last you will see something interesting, for example, the sale of the hotels owned by Canadian National just recently. What was the procedure used? The bids on those hotels had to be received by someone from someone. In other words, there were people in Canada interested in bidding on the Chateau Laurier and the Hotel Newfoundland and every other CN hotel right across Canada. Someone had to receive those bids. The Cabinet approved the sale, as was brought out in Question Period today.
Who determined which was the best bid or who would get those hotels for that particular amount of money? It said in the bidding process that not necessarily the highest bid would be accepted. It got into the hands of the Cabinet because the people involved who wanted to buy those hotels had hired lobbying firms. Canadian National hired a consulting firm in New York to arrange the bids, to seek out the prospective bidders and then prepare a document for the board of Canadian National, who looked at the recommendation of the consulting firm from New York and either accepted or rejected it. It then sent its recommendation to the federal Cabinet for approval or rejection.
The lobbying firms that were hired by those bidders did not lobby a government official, a cabinet Minister or any of the people named in this Bill.
Some of the lobbying firms that were mentioned in the House today by the two Members who spoke previously are being hired today to lobby on behalf of certain interests to buy two telephone companies in Canada. Northwest Tel, which covers all the Northwest Territories, is up for sale by the Government of Canada. That telephone company is very profitable. It made between $8 million and $10 million in net profits last year and pumped millions of dollars in capital expenditures. One could likely get a profit of $20 million from Northwest Tel.
Another telephone company in the eastern part of Canada, Terra Nova Telecommunications, is also owned by the federal Government. It made a profit of approximately $5 million and pumped $11 million into its capital expansion. Some of the consulting firms named in the House today have been hired by interests who want to purchase those profitable telephone companies. Telephone companies are licensed to make money because their profits are guaranteed.
The consumers must pay and the telephone companies will make the profits. We even have public bodies that are appointed to ensure these companies make a reasonable profit, one that is not too much or too little.
In this situation a consulting firm is hired in Ottawa to lobby on behalf of another telephone company that wishes to purchase Terra Nova Telecommunications and a telephone

March 8, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
company on the West Coast that wishes to purchase Northwest Telephone. These consulting firms are being paid enormous amounts of money through their offices in Ottawa, Vancouver, Toronto and St. John's, Newfoundland, to work on these proposals on behalf of big business interests in Canada.
These lobbying firms are of quite some prominence in Canada. Indeed, I noticed that one of the lobbying firms is headed by a former prominent Conservative Member of Parliament from Newfoundland. He was hired by a telephone company in Newfoundland to prepare a bid for the purchase of Terra Nova Telecommunications.
One must question whether these consulting firms, which are being paid substantial amounts of money, are covered under this Bill. I am willing to bet that the successful bidder on the stock exchange for Terra Nova Telecommunications will be Newfoundland Telephone. I believe it will be successful because not only can it offer a large amount of money, it certainly has a foot in the door. I suggest that even the other bidders who will be putting forward their bids for the purchase of that extremely profitable telephone company realize that fact.
The same thing is happening with Northwest Telephone in northern Canada. Consulting firms are being hired at varying costs. Certainly, the lobbying firms are making a bundle of money.
My objection is that I do not believe these procedures are covered under this legislation. In other words, the lobbying firm hired by Newfoundland Telephone in Newfoundland should have to register under this legislation and indicate that it is hired for the express purpose of trying to get a successful bid for the purchase of Terra Nova Telecommunications. There should then be a requirement on the part of the lobbying firms hired by telephone companies in western Canada for the purchase of Northwest Telephone.
The current arrangement is that an accounting firm has been designated by Canadian National to handle the sale of Northwest Telephone. In the case of Terra Nova Telecommunications, the bids are submitted to the consulting firm of Canada Capital Corporation, which I understand is a very competent company in downtown Toronto. It does all the research, prepares the bids, and accepts them on behalf of Canadian National. The bids then go to the board of Canadian National who make their judgment and send that to the federal Cabinet for its decision.
I would like the Minister to address this complicated procedure when he addresses the Bill either in committee stage or at third reading.
If the lobbying firms are to assume control over what happens, when, where and how in all of these decisions in Canada, we should certainly know the identity of these lobbying firms and how much they are being paid. They should not be allowed to hide behind a consulting firm from New York State, as in the case of Canadian National hotels where
the bid can go back to the board of CN and then to Cabinet for final approval. Who is trying to fool whom?
We now have the case of the telephone companies and the lobbying firms. I know personally the lobbyists who have been hired. They know the system intimately. They know what to do, and when, to make sure their clients meet with success.
I do hope the Minister will take that into account because that is one of the big loopholes. The other, as I mentioned, is the salary. For goodness' sake, we should know how much these fellows are raking in when they are successful in purchasing a telephone company for $180 million, or $200 million in the case of Northwest Telephone. How much are the consulting firms being paid? Is it 5 per cent? Is it 10 per cent? We are into big money here and we should know how much they are being paid. We all know who they are, but I would love to know how much these fellows are being paid for performing the job.
I have one word of caution, however, for these companies. I think in a lot of cases it is a waste of money. I think probably if the right bid was submitted, if it was the highest bid, they should not have to worry. There should be some procedure whereby they can appeal, certainly to the federal Cabinet, if they are not treated fairly. Perhaps they are wasting their money by going to these lobbying firms.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have made a prediction that a particular company will be successful in its bid to purchase Terra Nova Telecommunications very shortly. I have made the prediction and it is on the official record. Watch for it, Mr. Speaker, because that is what is going to happen.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I am looking at this lobbyist legislation and I would like to make some comments and ask a question. In the interpretation, "public office holder" is defined as a member of the Senate or the House of Commons and an individual who is appointed by the Governor in Council, an officer, director or employee of any federal board, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I wonder if the mandarins were forgotten. I mean the upper echelon bureaucrats, the deputy ministers, the assistant deputy ministers and the program officers. The lobbyist tries to influence in order to get a contract and, naturally, at one point he is going to see the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister or the person who develops the program. I wonder if they should not be included in this Bill. Could the Hon. Member give me an opinion on whether he believes that the mandarins, who really run this country, the permanent Government of Canada, should be included in the Bill? I do not see why a member of the RCMP should be included. He does not give any favours. But why are the mandarins not in the definition of "public office holder"?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, looking at the section to which the Hon. Member is referring I would have to say right off the bat
March 8, 1988

that I agree that certainly they should be included. However, under the interpretation section, Clause 2(1), it states that "public office holder" means any officer or employee of Her Majesty in right of Canada and includes a member of the Senate or the House of Commons, an individual appointed to any office or body with the approval of the Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet, or a Minister of the Crown, an officer, or director of any federal board or commission, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Perhaps the Hon. Member could inform me as to whether he believes that that clause excludes certain public servants. The normal way of drafting that definition, 1 believe, would be the way it is done. In other words, it says "public office holder' means any officer or employee of Her Majesty in right of Canada, and it includes a specific list under the general definition. As a former Law Clerk of a legislature, I would say that this would cover all the public servants to which the hon. gentleman referred, but perhaps he has additional information or an interpretation from the drafter of the legislation that is to the contrary.


Alex Kindy: I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member. Naturally, as he indicates, these persons are defined under "public office holder". I wonder whether it would be better to have another section saying that this includes as well all civil servants in the employ of a Minister, so it would be more specific and precise and not left to the interpretation of a judge or the bureaucrats.


George Baker: Perhaps, for clarity, you will notice, Mr. Speaker, in certain definitions when it makes a broad statement as to interpretation and definition, the hon. gentleman is partially correct, because sometimes it gives the general meaning, and in this particular case it means any officer or employee of Her Majesty in right of Canada, which means everyone that the federal Government pays. Then, as the hon. gentleman points out, there could be a period there and it could say: "This definition includes", and it could list whatever should be listed, but then it could be repeated in the first section what is said in the preamble. It could be reiterated in that way.
I would suggest that the Hon. Member make that point to the Minister as a matter of clarity. We have some of the finest drafters of legislation in the world employed by the federal Government in the Department of Justice. We have the same quality of drafters in the provincial administration. They are some of the finest in the world. A great many of them have come over from Scotland and Great Britain and they are very fine drafters of legislation. The problem is not with the drafters of the legislation. The problem is with the Government because it gives them things which cannot really be drafted properly by anyone.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I just have a couple of brief points. First, on the question of the definition of "public office holder", it is quite clear in my mind that this covers everyone
Lobbyists Registration Act
who is an employee of the federal Government. The reason the committee in its report recommended that everyone be covered lies in the fact that in the United States of America the law states that lobbying activity only occurs when a lobbyist meets an elected person. That, of course, is not good enough. We wanted to include everyone. In my opinion, the Minister has done that. If it can be further clarified, that is all right with me, as long as it covers everyone.
I want to direct a question on a slightly different topic to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). I want to congratulate him, by the way, for his excellent speech. I am sure you would want me to do that, Mr. Speaker. I am of the opinion that the Bill should include a provision to disallow such a thing as contingency fees. I think it is an acceptable practice in the legal profession, at least in some provinces, that one cannot charge a contingency fee. In other words one cannot say, "Mr. So-and-so, I will get you an appointment with the Minister to get you a fishing licence, and that will cost you $2,000. However, if you are successful in your application you owe me another $8,000". In the unlikely event that a lobbyist would want to do something like that, I think it should be disallowed, not that any lobbyist would ever want to do anything like that.
I want to ask my colleague whether or not he agrees that that type of a contingency fee would or should be unacceptable since it is not accepted in the legal profession, at least in most provinces. As a matter of fact, it would be disallowed in most of the states of the United States.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, of course the point is that we will never know if there is a contingency fee or if there is a sliding fee, a flat fee, an advance fee, an after-thought fee, or any other kind of fee. We will never know because under the legislation nothing has to be declared. The Hon. Member's point is very well taken.
What has happened in a great many of these cases today in which lobbying firms represent companies to try to get something out of the Government is that some of these firms have formed other lobbying firms and the same people might be lobbying both sides of the same issue. In that case there is an almost assured contingency fee no matter who gets it. What has happened is that they have become quite prominent in Canada. All of the big bidders, such as the telephone companies which are now bidding for these two particular telephone companies which are up for sale in Canada, Northwest Tel and Terra Nova Telecommunications, are putting up big bids. Bids of some $150 million and $200,000 are coming in today. Those great telephone companies have guaranteed profits. I believe they have all hired the same firms, which are all interconnected in the bidding.
If we were to boil it down we should at least know who these companies are. There should be a referee somewhere. One of them has to have the successful bid. But it should be advertised

March 8, 1988
Adjournment Debate
as to how much profit is being made out of it as well as how much money they are charging. Some of these lobbyists are becoming multimillionaires.



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 Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)-External Affairs- Dispatch of Parliamentary mission to Haiti- Conditions/Query whether arrangements made to hold truly democratic elections in Haiti; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Criminal Code-Gun control-Amendment of provisions; The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry)-National Revenue-Northern tax allowances- Request that regulations be amended/ Application of amendments.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, to put it mildly the Bill we are discussing today is long overdue. It was on September 9, 1985, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in an open letter to all Members of Parliament and Senators stated:
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 democracy must have the trust and confidence of the public they serve. In order to reinforce that trust, the government must be able to provide constant management and, above all, to be guided by the highest standards of conduct.
He then went on to outline a number of measures he proposed to bring forward to achieve the aims which he outlined in the paragraph from which I have just quoted, including a new conflict of interest post-employment code for public office holders; instructions to Ministers imposing specific and strict limitations on the hiring of family members; and letters to the Leaders of the Opposition on the subject of ethical standards for MPs and Senators. Later on in the same letter he referred to the conflict of interest code and said:
Among my first actions upon assuming office was to give the Deputy Prime Minister a mandate to: review existing conflict of interest and postemployment guidelines-
The fifth item on this list was with respect to lobbying legislation. He stated:
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.
If two and a half years from the time that that letter was written is an early date, then I would hate to think of what a late date would be.
This Bill is not just one to register lobbyists but a response to the very serious problems concerning the activities of many people in public life and their subsequent or related activities. Perhaps the most singular thing about this thirty-third Parliament is that the beginning of 1984 marked the first opportunity for a major change in patronage appointments since 1963.
Those of us who watched the debate held between the leaders of the three political Parties just before the election of 1984 saw the present Prime Minister say to the former Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), that he had an option. When he agreed to appoint to the Senate and to other positions Liberals recommended by former Prime Minister Trudeau the Prime Minister said at the time that the Leader of the Official Opposition had an option. He said that he did not have to make those appointments.
The present Prime Minister had an option. He could have brought this legislation and other legislation forward a long time ago. But he did not.
There are two pictures of this Prime Minister. The first version is of him as the Leader of the Opposition going around to Conservative Party meetings entertaining those gatherings by listing the patronage appointments made by the Liberal Governments and saying that the Government he headed would appoint Senators, judges, and we would probably have to wait about a hundred years until anybody but a Conservative received an appointment. Then there was the version that I spoke about a few minutes ago when he said to the present Leader of the Official Opposition that he had an option, he could have done things differently.
This Prime Minister has continued and probably accelerated the rate at which he and his Government have made patronage appointments. He and his Government have handed out patronage appointments and contracts to people without very much concern about whether they are the best, the cheapest or anything else.
I would now like to say something about the comments made by my friend from Newfoundland who spoke before I did. Those of us who are here who were here during the Liberal years remember how Liberal Governments awarded contracts for the building of huge office buildings to various
March 8, 1988

people, including Mr. Teron and Mr. Campeau, without calling for bids. They did extremely well. The Government is now rewarding its friends and some of its former friends with the type of ability given to the new public relations organizations, the new lobby organizations which have grown so quickly under this Conservative Government.
Some of those operators have to be given credit because they have been wise enough not to restrict the membership and the benefits of lobbying organizations only to Conservatives. We see the establishment of the organization headed by a former Conservative Member of Parliament from Newfoundland, later the Premier of Newfoundland, who established Government Consultants International. This organization includes not only Mr. Moores, but Gerry Doucet, former Liberal cabinet Minister, Francis Fox, and others. They have grown. One has to ask, what do they do that permits them to be so successful? How is it that they are able to get the type of clients that they have in such a short period of time?
I wish to put on the record some of their clients. Mercedes-Benz; Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd., which was awarded a $3.5 billion contract to build the six navy frigates; Iron Ore Co. of Canada, which was headed by the present Prime Minister before he entered Parliament; American Express Canada; Nabisco Brands Canada. The President of this company in the United States, Ross Johnson, is a Manitoba native who is a very close friend of the Prime Minister. Until recently American Express Canada was represented by a different company, Public Affairs International, and one has to ask why.
Another client is the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada. Those of us who were involved, as I was, in opposing the introduction and passage of Bill C-22, which will cost the people of Canada hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few years, know the major efforts done by the lobbyists to line up support for the Government's legislation and to oppose the views expressed by organizations representing consumers, seniors, labour, and some of the farm organizations. We know the lobbying that went on. We know that this company was paid at least $100,000 for its work for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada.
Gulf and Western, the U.S. based entertainment conglomerate, hired GCI to push for its takeover of the publisher Prentice-Hall Canada. Huang and Danczkay hired this company when it went after and won the contract for a new terminal at the Pearson International Airport. Microtel, the B.C. Telephone subsidiary, along with a subsidiary of CNR called CAN AC, is part of a joint venture that won a $255 million contract to provide a new electronic defence system against air attacks. This group hired Mr. Moores as their lobbyist. Bombardier Inc., Messerschmidt-Bolkow-Blohm, and Honeywell Ltd. are only a few illustrations of what this company has been able to do.
Lobbyists Registration Act
One has to ask, what does this company do for its clients? How much does this company cost the Canadian people in excess costs for projects which the Canadian Government funds as a result of its work? It has now opened offices in Montreal and in Toronto. It is associated with firms in Calgary, Paris, and Washington. Canadians need to be concerned about this. It is not the only lobbying firm.
There is Bill Neville who was a consultant and worked for the former Prime Minister, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and for the present Government. He was and still is the President of William Neville and Associates. Recently, he accepted a lucrative appointment as President of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council. We know what his mandate is. He has to try to save the embattled tobacco industry from the advertising ban that the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has been pushing. He is supposed to try to persuade the present Finance Minister to stop penalizing smokers in every Budget and to design a longterm strategy for the industry at a time of declining tobacco consumption and increasing public hostility.
Why did he get that appointment? Obviously he got the appointment because the tobacco industry knew the very close relationship between Mr. Neville and members of the Government. Therefore, we have the situation of former Members of Parliament and people close to the Prime Minister who are doing this.
As I have indicated, they are not all Conservatives. There is the former Minister of National Defence in the Liberal Government, Mr. Jean-Jacques Blais, who is now acting on behalf of the nuclear sub makers in France. As I indicated, Francis Fox is now a member of GCI.
We have to be very concerned about the activities of former senior public servants who start acting as lobbyists. I refer to that well known spokesperson and negotiator for this Government on free trade, Mr. Reisman, and his partner James Grandy who are doing extremely well acting as lobbyists for some of the biggest companies in this country. The former Deputy Minister of National Defence, Ramsey Withers, was the Deputy Minister of Transport since 1983. When he leaves the Government he will become GCI's chief operating officer.
These are some of the concerns that we have. We have to wonder why it has taken the Government so long to take action, and how serious it is, given what we have seen happen in recent times.
This legislation goes only a very short distance to meet the problems which we have experienced in recent years, both under the present Conservative Government and in previous years when the Liberal Government was in office. We have had a parliamentary committee look at those questions. It made a very comprehensive study of lobbying, and it proposed a model for lobby registration. The report made in 1987 was unanimous. The committee studied the issue carefully for almost a year, visited lobbying registries in Washington and in Sacramento, California. The committee recommended a lobby

March 8, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
registry which would force all paid lobbyists to register and disclose important aspects of their activity, and it would impose severe sanctions on those who did not comply, yet would minimize the bureaucratic paper burden on legitimate interest groups.
We must ask ourselves whether Canadians can trust the Government to provide leadership in the areas of public sector ethics and open government. The track record of the Government suggests that Canadians really have no reason to expect that kind of leadership from the Government.
Does the Bill address the problems I have noted and meet the criteria set by the committee? We do not believe that it does. We believe that it is a start, but it is severely lacking in several respects.
In committee we intend to deal with some of its shortcomings. The first shortcoming concerns the information which Tier I and Tier II lobbyists are supposed to register. If government is to be truly transparent, lobbyists should report not only the subject of their lobbying but their contacts. One possible way to do it was suggested by Paul Cross in his November policy options article. He suggested that lobbyists should be required to report each time the amount of the lobbying campaign, disclosing the objectives of the campaign and the categories of officials to be approached.
We believe that the definition of lobbying should be broadened to include those who initiate and those who are paid to organize mass mailings or advertising campaigns to disseminate material designed to influence government through public opinion.
I am sure I am not alone in a recent experience I had on two questions which Parliament is in the process of discussing. I have received letters, as have other Members, opposing the legislation with regard to prohibiting tobacco advertising. Thousands of letters have come to parliamentarians. Obviously they were not all self-starters. Obviously they were orchestrated, planned, and developed by the tobacco industry and its lobbyists. It was a similar situation for the proposed taxation on life insurance; we received hundreds of letters. We know that these letters were not spontaneous. They were designed, promoted, and pushed by the insurance industry and its lobbyists. These are the kinds of things with which this Bill and similar ones need to deal.
Another problem is the two tier system. We accept that Tier I lobbyists, government relations consultants such as PAI and GCI, disclose their clients and the purpose of their meeting with the Government. However, why should Tier II special interest groups with paid lobbyists on staff be exempt from disclosing such information?
I want to close by simply saying that members of the New Democratic Party intend to give this question critical and careful study when the Bill is sent to committee.


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Member whether he has an alternative package on the registration of lobbyists and how his package would differ from that put forward by the Government.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the Hon. Member that I do not have the package because I am not the member of the New Democratic Party who worked on it.
However, I can assure the Hon. Member that in committee our Member or Members will have some very specific proposals to improve this legislation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Hon. Member has any views on the fact that contingency fees have not been specifically mentioned as being prohibited in this particular piece of legislation. What is his view on the collection of contingency fees for lobbying firms?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if by contingency fees the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) means that firms get a retainer, again I cannot claim detailed knowledge of all aspects of the proposed legislation. However, if it means that a lobbyist or a lobbying firm would receive a retainer from a company, I do not suppose that it is any worse than many other areas in which there are contingency fees.
We would want to look at it in more detail when the committee meets for clause by clause study of the Bill.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I wonder if the Hon. Member could tell us whether he believes that once lobbyists register it would be important for them to provide a client list.


David Orlikow: Yes, I think it is pretty obvious that the public needs to know for whom the lobbyists are acting, for which company, companies, or individuals the lobbyists are working, what they are required to do in that arrangement, and what kind of payment they are receiving. These are obvious needs. Without that kind of information, there is not much purpose in passing the legislation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the client list, could the Hon. Member tell us whether he feels that fees paid to lobbyists should be recorded and whether they should be updated quarterly or annually?


David Orlikow: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, I think that they should be recorded. How often they should be recorded is a detail to which I have not given much consideration.
It is one of the questions which I think should be worked out during clause by clause discussion of the Bill in committee.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) would like to comment on the question of the cooling off period for people who have been active at a senior bureaucratic level, or even as in the case of the former Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, at the ministerial level, and have gone to a lobbying firm or lobbying
March 8, 1988

organization to deal on the basis of lobbyists, for profit of course, with the Department for which they previously worked or even supervised.
Does he think that the cooling off period should be graduated the same in all cases? Elow wide would he cast the net in terms of framing legislation to provide for cooling off periods?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague has raised a very important and interesting question. Thousands of Canadians who were opposed to the passage of Bill C-22-and as 1 indicated a few moments ago, it will cost Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars in the next few years through increased prescription drug prices-were, to say the least, flabbergasted when they saw the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the Liberal Government, the former Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, Mrs. Erola, take on the job as head of the Pharmaceutical Association of Canada at a salary of $ 100,000 per year.
I would hope that the committee would look at American legislation which prohibits people who hold important policy influencing positions in the federal Government of the United States from becoming lobbyists for-and I am speaking from memory-a period of at least a year.
In the last couple of months, as a result of court cases at least two senior officials in the Reagan administration, Michael Deaver and Lyn Nofziger, have been found guilty of violating their laws and have either been sentenced or are awaiting sentence. That is a section of their law to which I think the committee should give very careful consideration.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a short question. Did the Hon. Member feel it was wrong for Tommy Douglas to take the position as adviser to Husky Oil or wrong for Ian Deans to take the position offered by the Government as Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as a director of Husky Oil I am sure Mr. Douglas was in no position to influence government policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: As far as Mr. Deans is concerned, I would hope that Members would give some thought to the position which he has taken as head of the Public Service Staff Relations Board which is not political. It is a position that is important because the chairman of that body obviously needs to have the confidence of both the employer, which is the federal Government, and the employees who are members of the various unions which represent federal public servants. Since I believe the Government obviously believed that he could fill that position, I do not see that there is any conflict of interest at all in the appointment or in the proposal that he be appointed or in his acceptance of the appointment.
Lobbyists Registration Act


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get away from some of the diversionary irrelevancies introduced by our Liberal colleagues.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edmund Parry: I would like the Hon. Member's opinion on substantive matters relating to former successful lobbying, particularly of Liberal Governments, which of course have been notoriously vulnerable to lobbying of any sort, particularly when it was associated with money.
Thinking particularly and quoting from an article by Linda Diebel of The Gazette Ottawa bureau, I think this is from 1985 or 1986, it reads in part:
Hyundai Auto Canada Inc.'s President Park Sung Hak, won the elimination
of planned tariff restrictions on South Korean cars from the 1984 Liberal
budget, according to Roy MacLaren, former Minister of State for Finance.
When the Hon. Member is confronted with this sort of effective lobbying of a weak and vacillating Government, could he suggest anything that could be incorporated in the Bill that might control this sort of lobbying from outside the country, which is, as we have seen, something that can be amazingly effective and perhaps even more effective than lobbying from inside the country?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us should be concerned about the way in which federal Governments have encouraged the offshore automobile companies from Japan and South Korea to open plants in Canada. It is obvious that in a few years from now we will have a tremendous surplus capacity. Some plants will close. The plants that will close are not the offshore companies which are only establishing assembly plants but plants from the big three auto makers which have integrated their operations and produced cars and most of the parts but do not just assemble them. We should look at the kind of lobbying which was done on behalf of offshore companies.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the boldfaced hypocrisy of the NDP is unfortunately just too much for even me to stomach.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Do you believe your ears, Mr. Speaker? First, we have the fed question by the Hon. Member for Kenora- Rainy River (Mr. Parry). He suggests that the former Minister from Sudbury, Judy Erola, got a job with a Canadian drug company, working for a multinational concern, but it was after the specified period during which she was restricted by her employment as a cabinet Minister. The Member does not mind taking a cheap shot at her, somebody who needed a job. Believe me, after the next election the Hon. Members in the NDP may find themselves in the same situation so they should not be so critical of people needing work. However, when the selfsame Party is confronted with the fact that the ultimate socialist takes a $96,000 a year job to work for the Prime

March 8, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for the Public Service Staff Relations Board, somehow that is all right. It is all right that the selfsame Member, only two weeks prior to his hasty exit to collect and cash in on his Loto 6/49, said that he was leaving politics forever because he could not stand the face of the Prime Minister. But when the Prime Minister offered him a job, he grabbed it quicker than you can say "I am not a socialist anymore".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Frankly, I was not intending to respond to that kind of partisan jibe but I could not let that particular cheap shot go unchallenged.
I think we have to return to the question at hand.


An Hon. Member:: Who got us away from it?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The person who got us away from it was the person who raised the questions concerning the former Member for Sudbury.
We are here today to talk about the infamous Bill C-82. It is an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists. We have to hearken back for a moment and remember on what infamous day was this particular piece of legislation first spoken about in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, on September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister published an open letter to all Members and all Senators.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in September, 1985 the Prime Minister came into the House with his new ethics package. He introduced an open letter to all Members and Senators in which he outlined his attack and how he was going to clean up the ethics in government. We had a very hefty document. It was actually englobed in a blue ribbon. In a very proud way the Prime Minister stood up in the House and said "Mr. Speaker, these are the toughest conflict of interest guidelines in the western world. Coupled with those guidelines,
I am going to be moving on a law to seek the registration of lobbyists. That was in 1985 before the situation with the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), and before the litany of scandals which have plagued this Government and after the Prime Minister said that he had already introduced the toughest guidelines in the western world.
What can we draw from that, Mr. Speaker? You can have the toughest criminal code in the world, but it does not stop people from robbing banks. If people want to rob banks or if they want to be dishonest either in government or in the application of their government contacts, they will do so and it will be so. There is no way that any law, however well meaning, can actually legislate the ethical standards of people who are in political life and people who seek to serve the political process in the form of lobbying.
Let us not be bound by the mistaken impression that a Bill, whether it be Bill C-82 or the new conflict of interest guidelines or the old conflict of interest guidelines, which were supposedly the toughest in the western world, can solve the problem. The guidelines are the laws that will lay out the law of the land, but if people want to get around that law they will find ways of doing so. It is our job by way of this particular legislation to make it as difficult as possible for anybody who intends to subvert or to break the intent of the registration of lobbyists. I am not optimistic that the mere introduction of an Act, which we have not yet seen come to fruition-I am glad the Government has finally brought it forward-will solve the problem of lobbyists. In 1985 the Prime Minister said he was going to bring a Bill forward in this regard at the earliest possible opportunity, that speed was of the essence. Here we are in 1988 and we are only now debating the second reading of the said subject.
Let us look at examples where we do have fairly strict regulations governing the registration of lobbyists, namely, in the United States. In the United States, those who represent foreign Governments or lobbying interests are required to register as either a foreign or a paid domestic lobbyist. The current system in the United States consists of political action committees funded in very large measure by either large corporations or large unions which want to promote specific philosophies or policies. No one would want to see the type of political indebtedness that we see in the United States come to Canada. Unfortunately, the new development in lobbying is that Canadian politicians are becoming more and more subject to the artful measures taken by paid lobbyists to get their companies through to a Minister. That is an attempt to subvert the democratic process. It is not an attempt just to provide information but in fact it is an attempt to get a contract through a bureaucrat or a Minister.
An article most recently published in The Globe and Mail's Report on Business by Stevie Cameron entitled "Like Magic" outlines the new direction Canadian lobbying firms are taking. It is a new direction which does not bode well for the democratic and political process in Canada. The author takes some time to examine in the article the work of Government Consultants International and writes:
What is plain to anyone, however, is that GCI has come a long way very fast. Set up by former Newfoundland premier Frank Moores and former Nova Scotia cabinet minister Gerald Doucet shortly after the Mulroney Conservatives won a landslide victory in 1984, GCI has grown into the country's second-largest lobbying firm with billings in 1986 of $4.5 million.
That in and of itself is not news. What is news is the fact that this newcomer to the lobbying game has brought with it practices that have changed the nature of lobbying in Canada. The article continues:
Nevertheless, GCI is better known for flouting the traditional rules than for bringing in any of its own.
The article states that previous lobbying firms provided their clients with research, with intelligence and with a sort of users'
March 8, 1988

guide so they could then go to Government and try to get action through the democratic process. The article goes on:
But where the older companies drew the line at actually pushing the buttons with direct lobbying, GCI has taken off the white gloves and waded right in.
"We pride ourselves on results," says Ouellet. "The other firms just push a lot of paper at clients, tell them to go away and read it and make their own decisions and appointments." Not GCI.
Unfortunately, in the past few years, we have seen a number of examples of this. Fishermen who wanted to put forward their perspective on an issue with a particular Minister tried and tried through the normal democratic process to get through, but it was not until a phone call came from Mr. Moores that finally action came forward. That says to me that lobbying firms in Canada are going in a new direction.
Instead of telling their clients that since they live in a democracy, they have the same right as every other Canadian to have access to their politicians and Ministers, and instead of advising their clients on how best to get through to their Ministers by contacting local Members of Parliament in their constituencies, by coming to Ottawa and by meeting with bureaucrats, lobbyists are being paid to make the contacts. They use their clubby former political contacts with Ministers to open doors that are not open to the average citizen of Canada.
Frankly, the legislation that is being proposed will do nothing to subvert that very dangerous trend in lobbying. Unfortunately, lobbying in Canada is moving in the direction of the establishment of the political action committees which have been established in the United States. Any of us who have studied the American system will know that once a politician is hostage to a political action committee, he or she no longer has the right to speak out on issues about which he or she feels very strongly because he or she will have to check first with the PAC. Political Parties or individual politicians cannot take independent stands because someone in the background is footing the bills. Unfortunately, we are seeing that kind of thing with lobbying in Canada.
This particular Bill does not deal with the issue of contingency fees. It does not deal with who makes the contacts and who is being contacted. It is fine to tell GCI to register. Of course GCI will register like every other lobby firm will, and the Tier I firms will register in one way and Tier II firms will register in another way. Unless we have access to more information about the very special relationship that is established between a Minister and an employee of GCI, for example, there is no way that the public can have confidence that GCI is not simply selling its political connections to secure contracts and financial and monetary benefits for its clients.
One of the ways to solve that problem would be full disclosure. We might broaden this legislation to provide not only that companies register but that they provide quarterly statements which include their client base, fees paid, and a chronology of when a Minister or the Government is contacted for the purpose of lobbying. Without knowing that the
Lobbyists Registration Act
fishermen's union cannot get through to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) but a phone call from Frank Moores will rectify that, there is no way we can stop that kind of abuse. We must call for fuller disclosure.
We certainly support the move to regulate lobbyists. It is a move that has been made necessary as a result of a series of questions that have been raised about the activities of the Government and the way it does business. De facto we need to have the registration of lobbyists. However, the registration of lobbyists in and of itself will not solve the problem, which is that we are travelling down a very slippery slope. The ultimate result of that will be a country that is controlled not by Parliament, not by members of all three political Parties who reach a consensus or at least have an honest and open vote in the House of Commons on the issues, but by people behind the scenes who can pay to have access to Ministers in a way that no ordinary Canadian could ever expect.
We have to be realistic about this. We know that both formally and informally, constituents, businesses, unions and voluntary organizations all seek to improve their own communications with Government. Far be it from us to say that there is no role to be played by lobbying firms. There is a role. It is to educate the customer, the consumer and the constituent as to how he or she may best get his or her particular viewpoint expressed in Parliament.
The lobbyist's role is to say, for example, to the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario or the Canadian Nurses' Association that if it wants to effect change, if it wants to see its profession represented nationally in a way that it is not currently represented, these are the steps that should be followed. It only makes common sense to make these tools available to voluntary organizations as well as paid businesses. However, there is a quantum leap between that kind of initiative and the kind which provides that if a company wants to get a contract, it has to go to Frank Moores because Frank Moores can deliver the Government's dollars. That is not lobbying, that is trading on a political connection which is not available to the public.
The skeleton of a Fobbyists Registration Act is here but it has not been fleshed out. John and Jane Q. public cannot go to the registrar and see: "GCI. Contact: Minister of Fisheries; paid $3,000. Contact: Minister of Agriculture; paid $10,000 re: contract related to tile drainage in southwestern Ontario."
Those are the full disclosures which must be available if we are to have a lobbying Bill worth the paper it is printed on. If it is merely a system which says GCI is a paid lobbying firm, well, we know that already. We do not have to have a registrar, we just have to pick up the Report on Business or The Financial Post, or even The Ottawa Citizen, I believe. Last week The Toronto Star had a very extensive article about connections in Government.


An Hon. Member:: Who pays for it?

March 8, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act


Sheila Maureen Copps: Pardon me? I think the question is: Who pays for it? The answer is, if we do not have it, we pay for it. Without it, the Frank Moores of this country are permitted to go to the Minister and say: "Hey, you did not grant that licence. We have a little problem. We will straighten it out and get the licence." In the long run the people will pay far more dearly if we have a system subject to the pressures of private influence trading than if we have full disclosure through beefed-up legislation on the registration of lobbyists.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we have a good Criminal Code in Canada, but this does not prevent bank robbers from taking what they want from the banks. The same is true about any legislation which deals with conflicts of interests, the integrity of politicians and the integrity of companies competing for Government contracts.
We only have the bare bones, without any skin or flesh when we ask companies to register. This is all very well, but what will be the point if we cannot get more information, for instance, how much was paid for a specific contract or which contacts were made in such or such a department or with such or such a minister or public servant?
We know that, in the case of many of the decisions which are made, public servants are quite influential when its comes to the promotion of such or such a project. If we introduce a Bill which simply says that lobbyists will be registered without revealing the related information, we shall only have a shell.
What we are asking and what was proposed by my colleague, the able and hardworking Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), who is not here now, but I saw his colleague who ... I thought that they were both here.
He did a good job himself, and I believe that the Government should include in this Bill the Hon. Member's suggestions about providing more information in relation with the registration of lobbyists because, while we do want to have a Bill, we want it to reflect the fact that, if we do not provide more information, we shall only have the shell of a legislation which would not prevent companies wishing to take advantage of the federal Government and politicians from doing so. We do not want to follow the same path as the United States, because their system does not work that well. American politicians are manipulated by political action committees. We do not want the same to happen in Canada. This is why we ask for amendments which will improve this Bill and develop a new procedure for lobbying in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: Questions or comments.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I could very easily ignore the allegation by the Hon. Member that I was less than fair. I am sure Mr. Deans, now Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, would give the same kind of consideration to the remarks made about him by the Hon. Member. I rise
because what the Hon. Member did was not a disservice to me or to Mr. Deans. If she thinks about it she will know it was a disservice to the whole process of collective bargaining that we have established.
Surely the Hon. Member knows she was talking nonsense when she said Mr. Deans works for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I think those are her words.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He was appointed by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Nunziata:: Sold his soul.


David Orlikow: Mr. Deans does not work for the Prime Minister. He is the chairman of a quasi-judicial board established by an Act of Parliament with all the independence-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Appointed by the Prime Minister. And Ray Hnatyshyn!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: No, no, I had nothing to do with it.


David Orlikow: As I was saying, he has all the independence that any chairman of such boards has. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that the Prime Minister or any other member of the Government is trying, has tried or will try to tell the Chairman of the PSSRB what kind of decisions he should make? Of course they have not.
Let us keep in mind that the Parliament of Canada gave to the public servants employed by the Government of Canada the right to bargain collectively. To administer that process, the PSSRB was set up. It is the function of that board, and the Chairman is one of its members, to interpret difficulties and make decisions on questions which arise when there are differences of opinion as to what the Act provides for between the employer, in this case the Treasury Board, and the employees' organizations, whether it be the PSAC or the Professional Institute.
Obviously it is important that the Chairman have the confidence of both the employer and the employees. It is obvious that both parties have confidence in Mr. Deans. Members interested in collective bargaining and the welfare of the people who work for the federal Government will know that the board, with Mr. Deans as chairman, made a number of very important rulings. Those rulings have not been challenged by either the employee or the employer. I say that the attack made on Mr. Deans by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) was entirely unwarranted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: Order, please. I would like to caution Hon. Members that Mr. Deans is not the subject of the debate. He is not here to defend himself either. Therefore, I ask Hon. Members to stick to the substance of the Bill before us.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to see the NDP rewrite history. I guess the reason I was provoked is that while this is a political forum and we are all engaged in political
March 8, 1988

battle, the one thing about the NDP that drives me crazy is that, boy, they can dish it out but they sure cannot take it.


David Orlikow: I can take anything you can dish out.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I did not raise the name of a former Member. It was the NDP who started berating the former Hon. Member for Nickel Belt because she needed a job and went to work for a private company. Frankly, when you leave public life, the job offers are not always flying in fast and furious. I know members of provincial legislatures who have ended up as school janitors.
The NDP raised in this House the issue of the former Minister and I am saying to them: Please do not be so holier than thou and judge the former Hon. Member for Nickel Belt when your own colleague turned around and took an appointment from the Prime Minister not two weeks after he said he was leaving politics because he could not stand the Prime Minister.
We are not talking about the substance of the job. The issue of Members taking jobs was raised by the New Democratic Party. Frankly, if you are prepared to dish it out, you should also be prepared to take it and stop being so sanctimoniously holier than thou.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) for her excellent speech and the excellent way in which she responded, particularly to the NDP.
This Bill does not contain any provision which could preclude contingency fees. For example, a lobbyist could charge someone seeking a fishing licence, for example, a fee of $2,000 and also apply a contingency fee, which means the lobbyist could charge an extra $8,000 or $10,000 for successfully gaining that licence. As far as I am concerned, the possibility of charging a contingency fee is wrong.


John V. Nunziata: It is not allowed in the legal profession.


Don Boudria: My distinguished colleague, the Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), says that it is not allowed in the legal profession in Ontario, nor should it be.
Does the Hon. Member agree that lobbyists should not be allowed to charge contingency fees, and the type of procedure to which I just referred should be disallowed?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member makes a good point. The law should discourage the notion that one should receive a bigger reward for securing a contract. The intention of a prohibition on such a contingency fee is that the services of a lobbying firm should be costed on the basis of what they include, not on the basis of how much money a contract secures from the Government.
Lobbyists Registration Act
By permitting contingency fees, it sets the stage for companies to ask for 10 per cent of what a company may get, or kicking in on the basis of how much they succeed in getting from the Government in the way of a contract. I think that is a bad precedent and certainly one which the legal profession in Canada has successfully discouraged. It has led to a situation in Canada where our legal bills in that regard tend to be somewhat less than those in the United States.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in putting my question to the distinguished Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), I want to get back to the NDP.
I have been patiently listening to members of the New Democratic Party speak through both sides of their mouths. As all Members know, in this hallowed Chamber, members of the New Democratic Party have mastered the art of speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
Did not the people of Hamilton Mountain put their trust in Mr. Deans to represent them for a term of office? In 1984, the people of Hamilton Mountain voted for Ian Deans as their federal representative in Ottawa. A couple of years later the member breached that trust with them, causing a costly byelection in Hamilton Mountain.
As well, several weeks before, when resigning his seat, he indicated that he was leaving politics because of his disillusionment with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Conservative Government.
Will the Member explain why he left after serving six years in this place? As she knows, a Member becomes eligible for a pension after serving for six years. In her view, did that have anything to do with his decision to leave this honourable place?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think I agree with the Member who spoke previously and said that we are really not here to talk about individual Members. As one who worked closely with the former member for Hamilton Mountain, I think he was a good member. I believe he served his constituents well.
I disagreed with my colleagues in the NDP this afternoon when they attacked a former Liberal who was defeated in an election and was without a job. Some three years later she took a job with a company. They were criticizing her for taking such a job, yet remained silent about the fact that their former member took a very lucrative job at $96,000 a year, topped off by several pensions. That is why I attack him. I do not intend to attack him on his record as a Member because I believe he was a good Member for the area.
With respect to his decision to leave, there are many times in life that we have to make difficult decisions. Presumably the voters will be the judge of that in the next election.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has expired. Does the House wish to call it five o'clock or does it wish to continue questions and comments for two minutes, on the understanding that the Member for Kenora-

March 8, 1988
Alternatives to Refrigerants
Rainy River (Mr. Parry) will have the floor the next time the matter is debated?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to listen to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). I would like her to comment on some events that have occurred in the wonderful Province of Manitoba under the New Democratic Government and which deal with the very area we are discussing today.
Before the former Minister of National Health and Welfare resigned, he was appointed as an executive director of the Manitoba Health Association to lobby his own Government. How does she envision that the new Bill on conflict of interest would guide this individual?
Let me give another example. The New Democratic Party of Manitoba uses a polling firm, with untendered contracts, which is made up of former NDP MLA's. Talk about a conflict of interest. Will the Hon. Member comment on that situation under an NDP regime? Would she also comment on the access to information, which is not even allowed in Manitoba?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I could say that it proves that the NDP are no better than the Tories, but I do not want to be provocative.
This Bill does not deal with the issue of former cabinet Ministers. I believe the current federal legislation prohibits Ministers from being involved in areas that relate to their Department for two years. The conflict of interest code prevents federal Ministers from being involved with their Departments for two years. Therefore, if this person were a Minister subject to federal conflict of interest guidelines, that person could not be appointed to an organization that would be dealing directly with the Government. One assumes they need a code in Manitoba.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE ENVIRONMENT ADVISABILITY OF INTENSIFYING RESEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVES TO REFRIGERANTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, January 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Caccia that, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of intensifying research for alternatives to refrigerants, such as
freon, which contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that erode the earth's ozone layer.
Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate on the motion of the Liberal Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I would like to state at the outset, and emphasize, as has been done in previous debates on this very motion, the importance the Government places on the issue of ozone depletion. I want Hon. Members to know that this has been exemplified in the role Canada has played in the development of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. Canada was the first nation to ratify this in June of 1986 and continues to play a role in the implementation of the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, which Canada signed with 23 other nations and the European Economic Community in September of last year. Canada, hopefully, will be among the first nations to ratify, under authority of the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act currently before a legislative committee.
What is really important is that the Government and this House did not really require the Hon. Member to bring forward such a resolution because of the actions initiated by the Government, actions which are light years ahead of the previous administration in recognizing and dealing with a problem of grave importance to all countries. We recognize that the ozone layer is a shared responsibility. Governments, industries, environmental groups and consumer groups all have important roles to play in addressing this serious problem and in our endeavour to correct it.
For example, consumers can play an important role by expressing their preference for products which do not destroy the ozone layer. I believe everyone in the House will recognize that if these products are identified in such a way it will be a beginning. This was clearly demonstrated through consumer groups' involvement in the Government's announcement to ban CFCs and certain aerosol products back in the mid 1970s.
Industry also has accepted its role in the development of environmentally safe products and technologies. At a conference on substitutes and alternatives to CFCs and halons in Washington in January of this year, which Environment Canada co-sponsored with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Conservation Foundation, over 700 representatives of industry, environmental groups and Governments from over 20 countries expressed a consensus viewpoint that action is needed now.
Industry described new programs and initiatives to reduce emissions and to find environmentally acceptable substitutes for CFCs and halons. For example, the major producers of these chemicals announced a joint toxicity program costing some $8 million to facilitate information transfer and thereby speed up the process of bringing environmentally acceptable substitutes to the market. I think this also demonstrates that through the actions of this Government and through the actions of private industry, the assimilation of knowledge by
March 8, 1988

everyone interested in doing something about this problem has increased significantly.
What about Government itself? The Hon. Member stated in his motion that Government should consider the advisability of intensifying research for alternatives to CFCs and refrigerants. Certainly, research is fundamental to getting environmentally safe substitutes to market. But given the potential profits, is this not an activity that would be best left to the private sector? For its part, the international community has created a glowing market opportunity for envirnomentally acceptable substitute chemicals and products by setting consumption reduction targets in the Montreal protocol, and industry has responded by beefing up its research into alternatives.
What is significant about those activities is that the private sector has taken up the challenge. It has in fact very quickly moved because it can see this as being profitable to itself. As consumers have a better understanding of some of the harmful uses of certain chemicals, they would preferably want to purchase something that would not harm the environment.
I would submit that Government can be much more effective in dealing with ozone layer depletion by putting in place a control strategy which will decrease industrial and consumer demand and hence decrease consumption of ozone depleting chemicals. The Government in fact has begun to put together the elements of such a strategy. I would like to describe this briefly in general terms to give an idea of the general direction we are presently considering. Before I do that, let me emphasize once again that Canada is fully committed to ratifying the Montreal protocol and to meeting the reductions set out therein. The Government has had a lot of meaningful discussions in this particular area and it is abundantly clear that we are about to move on this in a very forthright manner.
In order to develop the necessary regulatory controls to accomplish this, we will need the legislative authorities contained in the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act which is currently before a parliamentary committee. I had the privilege of sitting on that committee and listening to the Hon. Member who proposed the motion argue and debate the good and bad points of changing the Bill or making it stronger. I think his interjection is welcomed. It is fair and it is useful, although it is a little out of time now to be debating such a motion. However, the Hon. Member has taken a keen interest in the subject. And I am sure he will continue to do so in that interest.
In order to carry out this analysis, we must gather information from industry concerning the amounts of CFCs and halons produced, consumed and traded. We must also consider the impact on industry and the numbers of jobs that may be affected by any regulatory decision we may take. Members of the oppositions Parties from time to time criticize the Government because an industry may have lay-offs. Let us be honest enough to say that actions taken by this Government and other Governments and businesses in this field around the world may
Alternatives to Refrigerants
affect someone's job. I think the Government has realized that and has in fact set forth areas of assistance. In return for a greater environmental control of our globe, we are prepared to accept the fact that some jobs may be jeopardized and, if so, I am sure this Government will take the appropriate action to compensate those affected or retrain them.
These activities are well under way and we intend to have a control options report available later this summer or early this fall. This report will be the starting point for our multistakeholder consultative process. We will be seeking the views of all concerned parties on the pros and cons of these options.
This is a tremendous step forward for the Government on the environment. I think it is appropriate from time to time for the opposition critics to ask the Government what it is doing. I think, though, in this short 10 minutes, I have been able to demonstrate that we have done a tremendous amount. We are not shirking our responsibility. We are taking the environment, the ozone layer, as a very serious matter. We will continue to do so.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 begin by saying that I do not know what the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) said when he first spoke to this Bill. However, I think that the Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) should see Private Members' Business for what it is. It is not intended to be either an attack on the Government, or an opportunity to get up to be overly defensive about the Government's record or, for that matter, to proclaim the Government's record as one tremendous step after another in the defence of the environment. If you like, Mr. Speaker, the tone of the Hon. Member's remarks was inappropriate to what this hour is about.
He mentioned the Montreal protocol. Certainly we were all glad of the Montreal protocol. Although, according to the judgment of those who are concerned about the ozone layer, it fell short of what we would have liked to see. However, at the time, and still, one has to remark that it was a significant achievement, not just with respect to the ozone layer but with respect to the fact of having an international protocol at all. There are many other matters with respect to which we would love to have an international protocol, whether it be on acid rain or a variety of other environmental problems. We do not have them. So in so far as the Montreal protocol, given its limits, sets a precedent, we hope that it will be precedentsetting and that we will see other global protocols with respect to global environmental problems.
The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake derided the notion that the Government should be involved in the intensification of research with respect to finding substitutes for freon and other substances that release the chlorofluorocarbons that eventually erode the ozone layer. I do not think that it is an inappropriate suggestion on the part of the Hon. Member for Davenport at all. I think that what the Hon. Member for

March 8, 1988
Alternatives to Refrigerants
Selkirk-Interlake does not realize is the urgency with which this problem should be viewed.
We have an eroding ozone layer. We have that eroding ozone layer on the basis of what ozone-eroding substances have already made their way up into the atmosphere. That does not count all the CFCs, or chlorofluorocarbons, that are already on the earth's surface at this point in the form of discarded styrofoam cups, discarded or still in use refrigerators, foam cushions, waste solvents, or whatever, and which have yet to make their way up to the point where they pose a threat to the ozone layer. Even if we were to stop the production of these substances today, we would still have a much more serious problem than we have today with ozone layer erosion because, whether we like it or not, all these substances which have not yet made their way to the ozone layer will in fact make their way to the ozone layer eventually.
I think it becomes a matter of not just a technological but a moral urgency. These are the type of questions that test whether or not we have any sense of what I would call intergenerational morality, whether or not for short term, practical or, as in the case of the Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake, ideological goals we will put off, retard or not promote as much as we should urgent activity with respect to finding a solution to this problem.
Every time we use one of these substances in whatever way that we use them, we are in fact, to the extent that it could be avoided, putting our own personal material convenience ahead of the welfare of people who will come after us, particularly those who may be more vulnerable than most to diseases such as skin cancer. The primary worry is about increased levels of skin cancer. This is what one thinks about when one thinks about the erosion of the ozone layer and the health problems associated with it.
I just wanted to get those points across, especially with respect to the sense of urgency, because it does not appear urgent and, yet it is. It is extremely hard to get people excited about the fact that over the Antarctic there is a hole developing in the ozone layer. But the fact is that the ozone layer problem is not just with respect to the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic but it also has to do with the thinning of the ozone everywhere. It is countries such as Canada and people such as Canadians in the northern hemisphere who are most vulnerable to the effects of a thinned ozone layer. It is precisely for that reason that Canada should not only be showing the leadership that it has been but should be showing even more leadership. That will mean making some tough decisions with respect to what I would call environmental substance abuse.
I have mentioned in the House before that we continue to contribute to the problem here ourselves by virtue of the fact that we churn out every day I do not know how many styrofoam cups in this place, in committees and in the House. Everyone is guilty of it. At some of the churches that I have
been at one would think that the styrofoam cup is a sacramental object. One cannot escape it. Yet the styrofoam cups which are needlessly being produced and used are not disappearing. They are going somewhere. Somewhere there could be a mountain of styrofoam cups, if we could get them all together. That would be offensive enough in terms of producing useless garbage. But the fact of the matter is that when this useless garbage finally breaks down it releases these CFCs which eventually accumulate at the level of the ozone layer and have the effect of destroying the ozone.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I say it as one who, when I need a cup of coffee around here, uses one of those styrofoam cups myself, so I do not say this self-righteously, that it is a perfect example of how we cannot rely on individual decisions if we want to be environmentally responsible. We have to change the structures. We have to change the products. We have to change the things which are available to people and the choices which are available to them, even if that means restricting choices that are available.
I think we should start right here in the House of Commons with respect to some of these issues. Styrofoam cups is a good place to start. I am sorry for having to bring this in but it is a pet peeve of mine and has been for some 10 years now. It just goes to show how difficult it is to make just one little change in the habits of people.
Because I see you indicating my time is soon to come to an end, Mr. Speaker, at least with respect to my speech, I wish to make a final comment with respect to the question of the environment and jobs. The Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake referred to this, and I am glad he did. One of the things that has always puzzled me is that in our society it is okay-I do not mean to say that I think it is okay, but it is generally accepted as being okay-that people should lose their jobs because the quarterly profit margin of some corporation is down and it needs to improve its cash flow, its credit rating, or whatever the case may be, so it has to lay off a lot of people. Or someone has bought another plant, bought out a competitor, and the most rational and efficient thing to do is to shut the plant down because it is too old.
I refer to all these excuses that are given all the time by the corporate world, and by Government for that matter, for shutting down plants and laying off people and getting rid of jobs, because by contrast if one suggests for a moment that jobs should be lost, that substantial adjustments should be made in the economy or in any particular sector in order to save the planet, then one is told to forget it. It can be done for the quarterly profit margin of CNR or INCO. To meet the fiscal objectives of the Government all types of people can lose their jobs. But, by God, do not threaten jobs to save the planet Earth, or to ensure sure that there is not an epidemic of skin cancer in the future, or various other things. That would not be a good reason. That would be a lousy reason, according to the conventional wisdom.
March 8, 1988

I say that it is about time that we stopped putting as much priority as we do on the short-term economic goals and put more priority on long-term environmental goals. If that means that we come into conflict with employment, we have to take that conflict seriously and put the environment first and be prepared to provide the necessary adjustment programs for workers who are affected by those environmental decisions, but we have to start making those environmental decisions or future generations will come to revile us for not taking them into account.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I too take pleasure in rising in this debate in support of the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of intensifying research for alternatives to refrigerants, such as
freon, which contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that erode the earth's ozone
layer.
Chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs, as we all know by now, are used as a coolant in refrigerators, freezers, and air-conditioning units. They are also used in foam, including rigid insulation foam, flexible foam for cushions, and foam for packaging foods. The use of CFCs in aerosols, such as hair spray, was banned in 1980, but CFCs are used extensively in various consumer goods.
The threat posed by CFCs is that they erode the ozone layer in the stratosphere some 20 to 40 kilometres above the earth. Once released into the atmosphere they can last some 60 to 300 years.
As many as Canadians now know, the ozone layer acts as earth's sun screen. It blocks some of the sun's ultraviolet radiation from reaching the surface of the earth and from reaching the bodies of human beings and other animals. If ultraviolet radiation were to be increased, the health of the human species and other species would be seriously affected, as well as the environment in which we live.
As many Members who have spoken in this debate have mentioned, in September, 1987, the UNEP, the United Nations Environment Program sponsored a protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layers. This was signed in Montreal by some 24 nations and the European Economic Community. If ratified and implemented, it would reduce the global consumption of CFCs to 50 per cent of the 1986 level by 1998.
Is this reduction the limit? Certainly this reduction is important, but let us try to put it in perspective. It will partially solve the problem, but how effective will it be in solving the problem which is the depletion of the ozone layer?
Environment Canada has taken as its position that, because of the long life of CFCs in the stratosphere, some 60 to 300 years, a reduction of 85 per cent is required. The 50 per cent reduction that was agreed to in Montreal in September, 1987
Alternatives to Refrigerants
is not sufficient. A reduction of 85 per cent would be required to stabilize the levels of ozone in the atmosphere, that is, to ensure that there would be no increase above the levels that are currently present. This view is endorsed by many environmental groups and organizations that advocate the complete elimination as soon as possible.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport, in his remarks in the House emphasized that there is a role for Government, for industry, and for consumers in fighting this question and in trying to seek a reduction and an elimination of the release of CFCs into the atmosphere. Consumers can reduce consumption of products which contain CFCs. There has been considerable public concern for this issue.
Recently, Provigo, a leading grocery chain in Quebec, announced that it would be eliminating the use of packaging which contains CFCs or which release CFCs into the atmosphere. That is an indication that industry will respond to consumer demand and that it is prepared to play a role in this question. The Government could help the consumer make an informed choice by introducing labelling requirements to identify products that contain CFCs.
In addition to that, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport, asked the Government to go beyond the protocol that was signed last September. He asked the Government to ratify the protocol immediately, but also to develop a strategy to reduce the consumption of CFCs to zero, and to launch a global initiative with like-minded Governments to eliminate completely ozone depleting CFCs.
With respect to the particular motion before us, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Member urged or asked that the Government consider the advisability of intensifying research for alternatives to refrigerants that contain CFCs. This motion was selected by a committee of this House for debate over a five-hour period.
I found it quite remarkable that the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) who spoke earlier this afternoon questioned why the Member for Davenport even brought forward this motion. He stated that the Government was doing all it can and there is really no need to debate this issue. In reply to the Member for Selkirk-Interlake, I would remind him that this motion was selected by a committee of our peers in this House for debate, because they considered it important enough to merit the attention of all Members of this House. They considered it important enough to be debated during Private Members' hour for a five-hour period, at which point there will be a vote on this motion.
In his comments in the House the Hon. Member for Davenport urged that the Government intensify research for non-CFC solutions in a number of areas. Without repeating his suggestions, I urge other Members who participate in the debate to read those suggestions and to try to engage in some kind of constructive debate on his various proposals.

March 8, 1988
Alternatives to Refrigerants
It would seem that this is an ideal opportunity for Hon. Members to make themselves aware of the kind of research which is being conducted in this field. Perhaps they could request the Library of Parliament or the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to provide us with some kind of status report so that we can see what is happening in industry and in government labs and what kind of money is being spent in Canada on researching this issue. Then we could try to compare what we are doing in Canada with what is being done in other countries. I think we all know that a major challenge which we face in Canada is the need to increase our capacity for research.
In conclusion let me indicate that we lack an industrial research base. Very little research and development is conducted in Canada. If there were one area in which Canadians could make a contribution, certainly it would be in ensuring that our industry develops a capacity for producing manufacturing equipment and products which respect our northern environment. Certainly there is an increasing demand in the world for environmentally sound products and manufacturing processes.
The motion of the Hon. Member for Davenport provides opportunity for Members of Parliament to inquire about the state of industrial and governmental research on this subject. Hopefully it will add impetus, as the Hon. Member suggested, to a search for solutions to a problem of great concern to the earth and its inhabitants, human and otherwise.


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: As someone pointed out earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is urging the Government to consider the advisability of intensifying research for alternatives to substances which harm the ozone layer. Substitute products and technologies play an important role in any effort designed to reduce our dependency on chemicals which adversely affect the ozone layer. The solution to the international problem created by such chemicals depends on these products and technologies.
Mr. Speaker, the Government is fully aware of these facts. After all, if there were no substitute products which are harmless to the environment our society would have to make a decision: to protect the ozone layer, or to go on using a number of products which are absolutely essential to the health and well-being of mankind. Were we forced to make this kind of decision, Mr. Speaker, our efforts to implement programs to protect the ozone layer against the harmful effects of chemical products would be severely curtailed. Indeed it would be tantamount to an unfortunate backward step after the progress recorded in Montreal last September.
Adoption of the Montreal protocol concerning substances which are harmful to the ozone layer is an unmistakable reminder to industry that time has come to find substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons and halons. Fully aware of the trade benefits which will flow from the development of substitute
products which are harmless to the environment, the industrial sector will live up to the challenge. Extensive research and development projects are already under way concerning major uses for such products as plastic foams, cooling fluids, substances used in portable air conditioning units and fire extinguishers, sterilizers and cleaning solvents. The public sector has been involved in many aspects of these projects. Mr. Speaker, I would simply give a few examples to the House.
First of all, as mentioned earlier, the Federal Government, together with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Conservation Foundation of the United States, sponsored in Washington, from January 13 to 15, a technical conference on alternative substances. On this occasion, producers and users of these substances, as well as scientists and representatives of regulatory agencies, shared the most recent technical developments on these substances and their marketing.
Also, we continue to promote the use, whenever possible, of alternative substances and technologies which are not detrimental to the environment, in order to reduce the demand for the CFCs and halons, hence their consumption. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government intends also to show leadership in making sure not to indirectly create obstacles to the marketing of alternative products and technologies. We intend therefore to reduce as much as possible in our codes and standards the requirements for CFCs and specific halons.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that the development and marketing of alternative subtances and technologies are only one element in our fight to protect the ozone layer from harmful effects. The Government is determined to assume the responsibilities described in the Montreal Protocol towards future generations and the international community. In this connection, in Canada we have initiated a series of activities. I should like to describe briefly some of these activities.
First of all, we have started to determine the various ways to reduce CFCs and halons consumption. Later on, we shall examine each of the options from the view point of cost and benefits to our society. Meanwhile, we shall consult the interested parties, the so-called interests. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the result of cost-benefit analysis will vary greatly depending on whether there are alternatives to the substances which harm the earth's ozone layer.
Also, we have initiated a major study in the industry in order to determine the levels of production, use and sale of the CFCs, halons and substances containing them. By repeating this study each year, we will be able to monitor market development, the effectiveness of regulatory legislation, as well as determine the effects of alternative substances and technologies available on the market.
Finally, we should not overlook the fact that science should greatly contribute to the solution of the thinning of the ozone layer problem. Mr. Speaker, by allowing the implementation of stringent regulatory measures at the international level, should it become necessary on the basis of scientific data to
March 8, 1988

prevent further depletion of the ozone layer the Montreal Protocol provides that solution.
As to the ozone layer itself, control and research activities, which of necessity are international in scope, are coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Environment Program, and the International Commission on Ozone, which comes under the International Council of Scientific Unions. In Canada, there are ozone layer control stations in Toronto, Edmonton, Churchill, Goose Bay and Resolute Bay. Measurements are taken every week from these stations, except the one in Toronto. We are thus making a substantial contribution to the world network for monitoring the ozone layer, which consists of 94 stations, 21 of whom are measuring regularly. The network's activities are coordinated by the WMO. Canada also operates the World Ozone Data Centre for the WMO, and we are responsible for archiving and publishing ozone data from all parts of the world.
Although measuring is now done by satellite, data collected by land-based stations provide a set of basic historical data that are essential in determining how the ozone layer evolves. For more than forty years measurements were taken with a Dobson spectrophotometer, but laboratories at Environment Canada have now developed a new instrument, the Brewer spectrophotometer, which can measure ozone and sulphur dioxide concentrations automatically and also more accurately than was the case before. The Brewer instruments are manufactured by Sci-Tec in Saskatoon, which has sold orders in Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Greece.
On the space shuttle's 41-G Mission, Marc Garneau, the first Canadian astronaut, took along equipment to measure the ozone layer with the help of a solar photometer. The data collected by Mr. Garneau are now being analyzed to establish profiles of ozone, water vapour and aerosol concentrations and to compare these with measurements taken by instruments on board satellites, instruments that cannot be calibrated directly.
Canadian scientists regularly participate in NASA experiments concerning the stratosphere. Many of these experiments involve measuring trace-constituents from large stratospheric balloons that go up to altitudes of 30 to 35 kilometres and from rockets that go up as far as 50 kilometres.
In short, Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be proud of their scientists who are making an important contribution to world research on the ozone layer.
Mr. Speaker, I hope I have been able to shed some light on the very substantial efforts being deployed in the public and private sectors to develop substitutes for CFCs and halons and to make these available as soon as possible. In concluding, I would like to mention that Environment Canada will continue to work very closely with the research and development sector, and that if certain aspects require additional support, the Government will do everything in its power to provide that support.
Alternatives to Refrigerants


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join in the debate today. I want to emphasize the importance this Government places on the acute problem of ozone depletion now before us, and the longer term, more chronic problem of man-induced climate change.
I find it interesting to hear today that the Canadian Government has outlined several activities it has embarked upon and some of the support it has had. It is important that we recognize the issues and recognize that the private sector has been involved. Self-interest and concern about the environment are prompting chemical companies to develop compounds as commercial alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons. An article in The Financial Post outlined that in the private sector there is a great deal of involvement by chemical companies which realize the days of widespread use of CFCs are numbered. There are two choices. Either lose a relatively small but lucrative market, or come up with a safer chemical. Clearly companies are coming up with safer chemicals. This approach will help us all. If the market-driven forces can come up with new approaches and give safety to Canadians, then we will all be in a much better shape.
We have to ask ourselves a series of questions in order to form an opinion on this motion. For example, what needs to be done globally to design and implement comprehensive remedial measures to address this issue? What role should Canada continue or start to play internationally that is consistent with our resource capabilities and expertise? What should Canada do domestically to meet the requirements of the Montreal protocol? What can we do domestically in a regulatory sense to go beyond the protocol in order to serve as a role model? How do we facilitate the orderly transition away from these ozone depleting substances so as to avoid any unnecessary unemployment or other social upheavals? How can we work constructively with industry and environmental groups to achieve the previous point? What role can the Canadian Government play domestically and internationally to facilitate the required technology transfer? What research is currently ongoing in what areas? Is it enough? Can it be better co-ordinated or focused? What role can or should the Canadian Government play in the global research effort, taking into account our contributions to the previous points?
In the introduction to my speech I said that the Canadian Government has taken this into account and has provided an environment in our country where private sector companies, as mentioned in The Financial Post report of February 12, 1988, would come forward. I believe that 12 companies now, Canadian companies in the main, have come forward and spoken about sales in the CFC area of $50 million. These sales would provide jobs for Canadians and the forefront of the research and development would help future generations of Canadians. In fact, we feel that over $10 million would be put into research alone in one group for this effort. There is no

March 8, 1988
Alternatives to Refrigerants
other sharing of information because the companies are still competing, trying to be the first with the appropriate alternatives and with commercializing them.
This is a very important issue to which the private sector is responding and which we think will be in the best interests of Canadians. The Government has not shirked its responsibility. In fact, Environment Canada officials have just returned from an informal meeting in Paris where strategic discussions took place on the various ways and means of encouraging the earliest possible entry into force date for both the Vienna Convention and the Montreal protocol. To date, 16 countries have ratified the Vienna Convention and three more are expected to ratify it very shortly. The Vienna Convention must enter into force before the Montreal protocol can be brought into being.
There is another reason that the entry into force of this convention is important, notably, the convention's subsidiary requirement to adopt programs for research, systematic observations, scientific and technological co-operation, exchange of information and technological transfer. The entry into force of the convention should create an enhanced focus on a global scale on the research activities into these substitutes.
The Montreal protocol requires 11 ratifications. We expect that these criteria will be met sometime this year, 1988. However, our concern is that we must have all of the world's major producers and consumers ratified to feel secure in the knowledge that the problem has been truly harnessed and a meaningful solution is clearly in the process of implementation.
Let us focus on what role Canada should play in the ongoing research efforts to find environmentally acceptable alternatives for the ozone-depleting substances. Since the early 1970s when concern was first raised about CFCs, the producers of CFCs have been searching for environmentally acceptable alternatives. I have spoken about the growth of research and development in the private sector in this industry by Canadian firms. They have been eager, worked ahead and are truly finding substitutes and alternatives. They have produced some new chemicals that have appeared to be more environmentally acceptable. At this stage they are working on their commercial viability.
This spark of industrial research interest seemed to go through stages where it was on a downturn between 1980 and 1985. With the Vienna Convention and the Montreal protocol this has encouraged research to such an extent that it is now carrying on at an unprecedented rate. We recognize that the same expensive toxicity testing will be required globally. Many of the world's CFC producers have joined in a co-operative research program worth about $8 million. The work will focus predominantly on HCFC 123 and HCFC 134A. These are promising candidates to replace CFCs in refrigeration and other major applications. These chemicals contain a hydrogen atom, are therefore less stable and consequently have little or
no ozone layer-depleting potential. The industry expects that this testing program will take about five years, but we are hopeful that it can be completed sooner.
The depth of the research and development of new products and materials shows that the Government is interested in cooperating not just with the Canadian industry but globally with all the companies of the world. We are focusing on this problem and we think that research and development will bode well for the future of Canadians. All the citizens of the world can rest a little easier tonight knowing that this Government, the people of Canada and the top young researchers of Canada are eagerly working within the private sector as well as through government initiatives to ensure that we can work together to defeat this problem which affects our future.
It is good to see Canada in a leadership role in this scientific research and development. We are playing our part and paying our dues. Because we are one of the most scientifically educated nations in the world, our young people have the ideas, the foresight and, above all, the drive and desire to participate in the solving of the world's problems. The ozone problem is clearly one of the major scientific problems that must be addressed. I am very proud that young Canadians have come forward to show the Canadian flag to the world. We indeed will be part of the solution. These new substitutes will enhance our viability and we are just delighted to be involved with that.


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be involved in this debate today. I would like to thank my colleagues who have spoken before me for the number of points they have made on this private Member's motion.
The motion is certainly one that, at first blush, all Hon. Members would find generally supportable. Upon further examination, however, I fear that the motion only covers one very small part of what is a major issue facing not only the environmental community but indeed all Canadians.
The motion calls for the Government to consider the advisability of intensifying research for alternatives to refrigerants such as freon which contain chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, that erode the earth's ozone layer. Indeed, we have heard a number of Hon. Members speak, not only today but in past debates on this motion, and I think they have touched on many good points.
Obviously, whenever one jumps in or out of an air-conditioned vehicle or building, one does not stop to try to understand the way refrigerant coolants work. Certainly few people give serious enough consideration to the impact on the ozone layer and indeed the environment generally of the generically-named chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs.
In closing off this hour of debate tonight, I would like to paraphrase briefly a number of points my colleagues have
March 8, 1988

made. We heard of many of the major events that led up to the Vienna Convention for the protection of the ozone layer and the Montreal protocol. My colleague from London just now spoke eloquently of the role Canada has played in the development of these conventions and protocols and how we are working on international institutional mechanisms that will be in place on a global scale, as well as dealt with the domestic treatment of CFCs.
It has also been pointed out tonight that the need for scientific research is imperative. This need is probably exceeded only by the need for not only Canada but many of the countries of the world to recognize that shortsightedness and narrow self-interest will imperil all of us. The matter should be dealt with appropriately.
We recall the highlights of the conference co-sponsored by Environment Canada held in Washington in January. This conference was important because it identified concretely that there is a tremendous level of activity in the private sector to share research information and to initiate joint programs. As well, there is a sharing of information on current technologies designed to reduce CFCs and halons. Some of these initiatives include substitute chemicals, recycling, recovery and destruction.
The conference showed that producers, researchers, regulators, environmental groups and even the media are discussing the status of the development of product substitutes and alternative processes. Things are moving forward. A platform was also provided at the Washington conference for industry to report on its progress to date, a key element which goes to the heart of the motion that is before us today.
In debate, Hon. Members have talked about the unprecedented level of research that has been done. Research is moving forward on several fronts. We are clearly faced with an environmental problem caused by our ever-growing dependence on so-called halons and CFCs which are currently used in what many consider to be essential uses.
We have identified in a general way the Government's intention to address the obligations in the protocol arising from the Vienna Conference. Our Government has spoken very directly about continuing research efforts to find suitable alternative chemicals. We have pointed out that there are many hurdles remaining. We have discussed the products and the services, the technologies we now need to ensure that there is an orderly transition to more environmentally suitable products.
The Government has attempted to provide Hon. Members in this debate with a sense of our action plan and our timetable for meeting the mandated global reduction requirements for CFCs and halons. We have indicated that we are now doing several things. We are preparing for ratification of the Montreal protocol. We are preparing a comprehensive control options report. As well, we are collecting data to determine the cost benefits and the potential dislocations associated with each of the options to which I have referred. We have stated
Adjournment Debate
on numerous occasions that we need the Canadian environmental protection Act, not just to ratify the Montreal protocol but also to implement many of the control actions that will be taken.
In respect of the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the message of this Government is clear. There are many things that Government, industry, consumers and indeed all Canadians can and should be doing to remedy the ozone-depletion problem. Every participant in this issue should play a role to some extent.
Industry has an important responsibility, and I have mentioned thus far many of the actions internationally and domestically that the Government has taken. I want to end off this evening by touching briefly on the role of industry.
Because of the market-driven nature of this issue, we have seen the industry has what could only be called a foot race. This foot race involves the development and the technological advancement of alternatives to CFCs. In The Globe and Mail of February, just over a month ago, there was an article entitled "CFC replacement produced". It was a short piece which talked about the work of the Dupont chemical company in developing research in CFC alternatives at its New Jersey plant as well as in Canada.
While it is important that Government continue the work we are undertaking, I think this motion does not go far enough in saying what industry and indeed all Canadians can do.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On an issue as tremendously important as this one, one which affects virtually every human being on this planet, it is interesting to note that not only is the mover of the motion not in the House but there is one opposition Member present for this debate.


John Kenneth Gormley: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: First, I do not believe that it is a point of order. If it is the same point of order, I do not know what argument can be made, but I do not think it is a point of order. Members know of course that Members from all Parties have many duties to attend to. For one thing, we have a number of committees sitting at this time. In any case, it is 6 p.m.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
March 8, 1988
Adjournment Debate
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-DISPATCH OF PARLIAMENTARY MISSION TO HAITI-CONDITIONS/QUERY WHETHER ARRANGEMENTS MADE TO HOLD TRULY DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS IN HAITI
['The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.']
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, on February 2 last, I asked the Government whether it was judicious to send a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians to Haiti.
I received then rather vague answers that, I must say, resemble the position of the Canadian Government towards a country that unfortunately has been through very tragic events.
However, I would like now, a month later, to report on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada on the work of the Group of parliamentarians responsible for examining Canada's relations with Haiti. I wish first to thank the officials of the Department of External Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency for the very useful information they provided us at the briefing meetings we had in Ottawa, which I found not only instructive but quite thorough. We greatly appreciated their willingness to help and most of all their candour.
I would also like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister for the way he chaired the public hearings in Montreal, on February 16, 17 and 18 last. I was very happy with the calibre and diversity of the submissions we received. I am convinced we should take them into consideration when we draft our report to the Minister.
Earlier this week, the Government published a statement confirming the visit of the Group of paliamentarians to Haiti next week.
The fourth paragraph of the statement says the following:
During their visit to Haiti, Canadian parliamentarians will have an opportunity to meet with representatives of the new Haitian Government, unions, business communities, members of organizations for the protection of human rights. They will also have the opportunity to visit aid projects in and outside the capital of Port-au-Prince and to discuss with the beneficiaries of those programs.
They will also contact members of the Canadian community in Haiti, as well as representatives of international organizations and other countries maintaining relations with Haiti.
It is on the strenght of that program that we think our visit to Haiti will be useful. I will therefore be happy to join that delegation where I will represent the Liberal Party of Canada.
We fully realize that we cannot rewrite recent Haitian history. We believe that the Haitian people were ready for democracy but that bloody events have clouded the issue. While recognizing that Mr. Leslie Manigat has come to power in rather special circumstances, we cannot in all fairness hold him responsible for the incidents that happened at the end of 87.
As a witness was saying in Montreal last month, and I quote,
The record of new President Leslie Manigat speaks in his favor and gives the people some hope as to his competence. However, we must be aware of the
political and economic context in which the new President will assume his
duties.
I must also say that the electoral program of Mr. Manigat's political organization, which was sent to us and which I reviewed very carefully, is very impressive. And surely if Haiti can implement that program, the Haitian people will benefit substantially.
Therefore, I hope to hold frank discussions with both government and opposition representatives during my stay in Port-au-Prince. However, I would be greatly disappointed if our parliamentry delegation was unable to meet with the President himself to discuss frankly and informally with him his intentions concerning the enforcement of the Constitution which has been readily and massively supported by the Haitian people. That new Constitution prescribes some duties to the government and we hope that the new President will comply with them.
Secondly, we will have to inquire directly to the president, the prime minister and senior ministers about Canadian aid. We have been advised by party representatives that the new President disapproved of the proliferation of non-governmental organizations. Yet, a very high percentage is not vitually all of the Canadian aid to Haiti goes through non-governmental organizations and surely if this type of aid is not welcomed, the nature of Canadian aid in that country could be substantially altered.
Finally, in closing I should like to ask this government what are its intentions concerning the enforcement of human rights. Unquestionably, the bloody events of last year were absolutely unfortunate, those responsible of such incidents must be brought before the courts and justice must be done. And it would be interesting and even important to learn from the President himself what he intends to do about that.


Mr. Roger Clinch (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the parliamentary group responsible for looking at relations between Canada and Haiti will visit Haiti from March 13 to 18, 1988.
After the installation of the new Haiti Government on February 12, our Embassy had an opportunity to discuss with the authorities in charge the details of the group's visit. The Haitian authorities have requested a slight postponement, to have more time to ready themselves and to sift through their outstanding business. In turn, the Embassy will arrange meetings of parliamentarians with various non-governmental groups, such as representatives of the opposition, churches, labour unions, business groups, human rights organizations. Members of the group also will have an opportunity to visit aid projects, to meet members of the Canadian community and representatives of international organizations and other countries active in Haiti.
March 8, 1988

This is therefore a major program that should allow the group to proceed with the completion of their mandate. The latter essentially is to observe the situation in Haiti on the aftermath of the January 17 elections, as well as the mechanics of Canadian co-operation, in order to determine how Canada's relations with Haiti can best be organized to meet the Haitian needs and aspirations, including their desire for a better democratic life.
In fulfilling its mandate, the group will be careful to respect Haiti's internal sovereignty and resist pressures that might lead it to launch into investigations beyond its terms of reference.
In conclusion, I would like to point out there is every appearance that the parliamentary group will visit Haiti in a period of significant calm, after two years of political turmoil in that country. The new Haitian Government seems to be enjoying favourable conditions to put in place the elements that will allow it to implement its political agenda, but considering the challenges of economic development and prevailing social divisions in Haiti it presumably will not enjoy a long respite. In that context, the comments and recommendations the parliamentary group may want to share with us will rapidly face the test of reality.



Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Over the last few months and years, Mr. Speaker, I have told you a number of stories. I wonder if I have ever told you the story of the Canadian who went to visit the United States. He travelled to Windsor, drove across the border and up to the U.S. Immigration Customs official. The official, of course, asked him the standard question: "Where were you born?". His answer was: "Toron-na". That is the way we refer to Toronto in our city. The next question was: "Where are you going?" He said he was going to Detroit. The officer then asked: "Are you carrying a gun?" This particular person was taken aback but he said, no, of course not. The officer reached in his pocket and said: "Here, take mine, because if you are going to Detroit, you will need it".
I do know whether or not you thought that was a humorous story, Mr. Speaker. It was intended to be a little humorous, but it is an illustration of a tragic fact. It is tragic that someone might even consider that one should need a gun if one went to visit Detroit or, indeed, many other places in the United States. I think there are a number of Canadians and other people who feel that that in fact is the case, that it would be essential. They feel that because, after all, some of the crime statistics in the United States are frightening.
For instance, in 1985 in the City of Chicago, which is somewhat comparable in size to the City of Toronto, there were 666 murders as compared to only 61 murders in Toronto.
Adjournment Debate
In 1985 in the City of Houston, which is comparable to your city, Mr. Speaker, Montreal, there were 457 murders compared to only 81 in Montreal.
In Washington, D.C. which is comparable to the City of Calgary, there were 147 murders as compared to 16 in Calgary. Milwaukee is roughly about the same size as Winnipeg. It had 68 murders as compared to 16 in Winnipeg. Jacksonville, Florida, is roughly the same size as Edmonton, Alberta. It had some 90 murders in 1985 compared to only 19 in Edmonton.
When I mention Jacksonville, Florida, immediately comes to my mind the fact that last year the State of Florida passed some new gun laws. It passed something called the Concealed Weapons Licensing Act. That particular Act did not in any way restrict the use of or the carrying of hand guns. In fact, it did not control hand guns in any way. What it did was allow all the citizens of Florida to carry hand guns. That is exactly the opposite to some sort of gun-control law. Now everyone in the State of Florida can carry a hand gun, the taxi driver, the local butcher, the baker or candlestick maker. Any of them under this legislation can carry a hand gun, a colt, a magnum, a barretta, you name it, Mr. Speaker, they are all quite legal now in the State of Florida.
I know that the United States Rifle Association thinks that is probably a good idea. After all, it is consistent with the American Constitutional right to bear arms and it is consistent with the concept of fighting crime, I suppose. I suspect at the same time there are many Canadians who would agree with that and who feel that the Florida gun law was probably quite appropriate. Perhaps you do, Mr. Speaker, although I hope not. I am glad to see you shaking your head, Mr. Speaker.
However, there are as you know, Mr. Speaker, rural Canadians, hunters, those in gun clubs-perhaps even the Parliamentary Secretary is a hunter, I do not know, although we will be hearing from him in a minute-who feel that we do not need stricter gun control laws. I was speaking to the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) yesterday and when he heard the mention of gun control laws, his hair stood on end. He was shocked by the very thought.
However, my constituents, at least most of them, being urban constituents feel very strongly that we need some stricter gun control laws in Canada. They feel that way because they know that the police say that there is actually a direct link between the availability of guns and the number of people who get killed or injured each year. They recall and in fact become jittery when they think of the fact that last August Canada Customs seized a shipment of more than 900-more than 900-fully automatic light and heavy machine guns that were bound for Calgary.
These things disturb me, and they disturb my constituents. That is why back on October 14, 1986-not 1987 but 1986-I asked the Minister if he intended to further tighten up our gun

March 8, 1988
Adjournment Debate
control laws and when we could expect this. The Minister's answer at that time, back in October of 1986, was that we could expect those new gun control laws "shortly".
Time passed and in November of 1987, over one year later, I again asked the Minister in the House when was "shortly". What was the Minister's reply? The Minister replied that shortly is soon.
A little later than that, in October of last year, Mr. Nick Austin, who is one of the chief bureaucrats in charge of gun control legislation, was quoted in the newspapers as saying that we could expect gun control legislation to come in before the end of the year. That was 1987. However, he said that more likely it would be "early" in the new year. That was 1988. We are now into March, getting close to being a little later than early.
Tonight I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can tell my constituents, and Canadians, how shortly is shortly? How soon is soon? How early is early? I hope that we will get a response from the Government to indicate that we will get some action on this matter, and get some action quickly. I would hate to have the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) have to return to the House as a Minister in order to get some action on gun control laws.


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), that I do not even own a pellet gun. So, he can rest assured in that respect.
Gun control has a long history in Canada. It has been supported by successive Governments. In fact, the first nationwide permit system respecting hand guns was introduced in the 1892 Criminal Code. The strict control of hand guns has been a fundamental principle of Canada's gun control program.
As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) assured the House in a statement on November 3, 1987, the Government does not intend to emulate the State of Florida by relaxing the control of hand guns.

Mr. Speaker, Parliament made major changes to the firearm legislative provisions in its 1977 legislation amending the Criminal Code. Following the implementation of these provisions in 1979, an independant assessment carried out over a three year period brought to light positive changes in the use of firearms and the sentences imposed in criminal matters. For instance, murders committed with firearms as a percentage of all murders are considerably down. The 1986 statistics on homicides published recently by Statistics Canada also demonstrate that Canada's legislative provisions have a positive effect since the proportion of homicides committed with firearms went down from nearly 40 per cent in 1976 to 30,8 per cent in 1986.
The Statistics Canada report also indicates that in 1986, the number of offenses committed with handguns was considerably down compared to the total number of offenses committed with firearms. It went down from an average of 29.3 per cent over the past ten years to 21.7 per cent. In 1986, 39 homicides were committed with handguns in Canada compared with 10,000 in the United States. In other words, the number of murders committed with handguns is 25 times greater in the United States than in Canada, taking into account our respective populations.
As the Minister of Justice has previously indicated, a process of ongoing review and extensive consultations are continuing to identify where amendments to the firearms legislation might be appropriate. However, substantial shifts in the direction of Canada's gun laws are not contemplated.
The Government favours a balanced approach which recognizes the legitimate interests of firearms users and the needs of public safety. In seeking to strike an appropriate balance, the Government has welcomed representations from all those groups and individuals affected by the legislation, and federal and provincial officials have maintained a close collaboration.
At this moment, Mr. Speaker, available evidence suggests that there is no need for changes to Canada's firearms legislation.
In closing, if at any time the Hon. Member for York East has the intention of looking at the application and supervision of the law in Florida, and if he wishes to visit Miami, I will fully support and offer my service to join with him in his visit and to see that in Miami there is not only vice but there is something nice too.
NATIONAL REVENUE-NORTHERN TAX ALLOWANCES- REQUEST THAT REGULATIONS BE AMENDED/APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity today to interrogate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Grise) on the northern tax allowance. I am also a little regretful in that the answer given to me on February 23 when I raised this matter in the House was not that far from satisfactory, and certainly better to receive than some that loosely pass for answers in this place.
Yet it is a matter I have no alternative but to pursue, because the way in which the regulations for the northern residents tax allowance have been framed set up major inequities between neighbouring communities in many parts of the country, although most of the examples that I use will be from my riding.
On a seemingly arbitrary basis some communities which are as isolated and remote, or more isolated and more remote than
March 8, 1988

some of their neighbours, appear to be excluded, while others have been accepted for a tax provision that I think I can say in a non-partisan way is a relatively generous recognition of some of the problems faced in day-to-day living by residents who live in remote and northern areas of our great country.
The Minister did indeed acknowledge in his response that there are some anomalies in the legislation. He noted that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will soon be appointing a committee to explore some of the difficulties that may exist. Last Friday, the Minister of Finance again used the word "soon", which brings up a theme that my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), was expounding on to very good effect. We now have a movement in northwestern Ontario to ask the Government to introduce some equity into this whole situation. Mr. Michael Powers, Mayor of Geraldton and President of Northern Ontario Municipal Association, has asked the Minister for a meeting, as have the presidents of the Thunder Bay Municipal Association and the Kenora District Municipal Association, Wendy Bell and Sandra Walkey respectively, as well as Dick Lyons, Mayor of Fort Frances, and George Boissenault, Mayor of Dryden. These community leaders are concerned about not only the equity of the situation but the effect on their tax base when, by the operation of these distinctions, essentially their residents are being offered a premium of up to $60 per week, in some cases, to move just outside the boundaries of their communities and thus undercut the tax base of the community providing the services.
I should like to refer to some brief examples. Kenora, a principal town in my riding, is too close to Winnipeg to qualify. Vermilion Bay, a much smaller town of some 700 people, 90 kilometres from Kenora, is judged too close to Kenora. Dryden, 140 kilometres from Kenora, is judged too close to Kenora. Yet, when we get to Wabigoon, just 15 kilometres from Dryden, it is judged to be an isolated community. Dinorwic, just 6 kilometres down the road from Wabigoon, does not appear on the list of excluded or included communities. Borups Corners, a hamlet of some 30 people, is absent from either list. Ignace, surely one of the most isolated towns in northwestern Ontario although it is on the Trans-Canada Highway, is judged to be too close to Thunder Bay.
Similarly down in Rainy River, Fort Frances, the major community, is excluded but communities to the west, to the east, and to the north of Fort Frances are all judged to be eligible. Nestor Falls, whose students face the longest bus ride anywhere in North America to get to high school, is also excluded, as is its neighbour, Sioux Narrows, another community which falls to about 300 people in the winter-time. Both these communities have the majority of their adult residents- and I think it is somewhere in the 80 per cent range-signing petitions against this inequitable application.
My constituents and many other Canadians in remote communities want to know if the operations of the Minister's committee will be open to the public, if the conclusions will be
Adjournment Debate
retroactive, and primarily, of course, if the communities I have listed, as the Minister asked me to, in letters to him last Monday and Tuesday will be admitted to the operation of the northern residents' tax allowance.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious question on a very serious issue to which I will try to reply in the few minutes I have left, because the Sergeant-at-Arms is on a very strict schedule.
For several years before 1986, some fortunate people benefitted from special tax privileges granted to the residents of isolated areas. They had the good fortune of working for corporations or businesses that were able to give their employees generous tax-exempt benefits under income tax remission orders.
When the Government introduced northern tax allowances in 1986, it marked the beginning of a new era of tax fairness for people residing in remore regions. Now not only employees but also retired people, independent workers and all taxpayers living in remote regions may ask for tax deductions to offset the high cost of living in these regions.
It is a sizeable deduction, Mr. Speaker, but more important still, it is much fairer. This legislative measure ensures that nobody becomes entitled to unduly generous tax benefits related to employment conditions in remote regions while others do not. This legislation ensures equitable tax treatment for everyone as all residents of a community designated by regulation can claim a deduction on the basis of their place of residence.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we all agree with the concept of tax equity for the residents of remote areas. However, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) has raised the issue of tax inequity. He has vigorously stated that the list of remote communities whose residents are eligible to the deduction does not include certain communities which could be considered remote and which do not receive such tax benefits. He demands that changes be made to the list.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) has already conceded that the legislation creates anomalies in some areas. In addition, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will soon be appointing Members to a committee that will explore these anomalies with a view to fine tuning the legislation. In the interim, Mr. Speaker, you have the commitment of the Government that it will exercise compassion, sound judgment and administrative accommodation wherever possible. Across this country, employees of the tax department are routinely checking and rechecking the designation of communities to ensure fair treatment for all taxpayers.

March 8, 1988
Adjournment Debate
The Government is on the right track. We are confident that the premises of the legislation are on target. Any review of their intent will serve to show that, indeed, this Government has succeeded in bringing far greater equity to the tax system than existed previously.

I have every sympathy for people in communities adjacent to eligible communities, who may feel they are being treated unfairly. That certainly is not our intention.
You may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that when members of Mr. Wilson's task force have completed their study and made
their conclusions known to the Government, all Canadians will be convinced we took note of their concerns and responded to their expectancies, which has always been the basic feature of this Conservative Government's policy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, March 9, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers