1988-08-31

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government finally announced its program for grape producers in Ontario that it is putting out of business with the Mulroney trade deal. The Government declared that there will be $100 million of aid, but when we check the details we find that $10 million will be used for tax credits to the wine companies and another $10 million will be used for an annual grape surplus purchase program. That will leave less than $80 million to assist the half of the grape growers who will be put out of business.
The Ontario grape growers have demanded $156 million over the next six years to begin to adjust to the destruction of their farms, their livelihood, and their business. Thus, there will be only one-half of the funds that are needed to assist these grape growers. Worse still, the funds will be provided over 12 years instead of six years.
This is a foretaste of the treatment that workers and businesses which will be destroyed by the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) trade deal, will receive. It is totally inadequate, unfair to people, too late, insensitive, and lacking in any care for the people whose lives are being destroyed.

[ Translation]


TRIBUTE TO THE LATE HONOURABLE JEAN MARCHAND
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the late Jean Marchand was fond of quoting this sentence by Peguy: "Tout commence par la mystique et finit par la politique". Jean Marchand started with the "mystique" and always came back to it, and his message to us is not to become a slave to politics.
Today, on the day of his funeral, Hon. Members would do well to think about this message, about the role of democracy, the powers of the House of Commons, the legislative authority
of the House of Commons, the independence of the Senate and about frankness and honesty.
That would be the most eloquent tribute we could pay Jean Marchand.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, last week Immigration Canada stopped examining refugee claimants in Toronto, Windsor, and Vancouver, saying that the new immigration and refugee board would handle all the 50,000 or more cases in the backlog.
This irresponsible action throws still more refugee claimants onto provincial public assistance, although they are eager and able to work. It also leaves them in deepening destructive anxiety about their future.
This week the Chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Gordon Fairweather, declared that his Board has neither the money nor the personnel to handle the backlog. He pointed out that the Cabinet must decide between an amnesty for all in the backlog, an amnesty for only some, such as the former administrative review, or more money and staff for his board.
1 call on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to remember his promise of compassion toward refugees by breaking this deadlock, allowing refugee claimants to work, and making a clear, quick decision about their future.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, last week giant BCE Inc. of Montreal bought Terra Nova Tel. This week it bought profitable NorthwestTel, the other formerly CN-owned telephone company. BCE, through Bell and its other subsidiaries, now controls some 65 per cent of all telephone lines in Canada and has a monopoly on service north of 60.

August 31, 1988
In order to be a good northern corporate citizen, BCE should operate NorthwestTel as an autonomous affiliate, seek ways to ensure northern ownership in NorthwestTel, and have resident northerners both sitting on its board of directors and also in senior management positions.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, this morning at the Winnipeg International Airport immigration officials executed a deportation order against Miss Sally Espineli, just the latest example of an uncaring, unforgiving attitude which has permeated the Department of Immigration since the Government came to power.
Miss Espineli first came to Canada eight years ago. She was unable to get a job under her married circumstances, and told immigration officials she was single because that was a requirement by the company, even though she is now divorced.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is currently investigating Miss Espineli's case to determine whether immigration policies have in fact discriminated against the human rights code. This decision will have national implications.
Yet despite presentations by the head of the Human Rights Commission to the Minister directly, and the mock signs of concern, the deportation order was executed. By refusing to display any sense of compassion she has shown herself well suited to the administration of the kind of Draconian immigration policies which have characterized the Government. To use Sally Espineli's own words: "This is my home now, my second country".
The Minister has ensured that this is no longer the case. There is still a final chance. Miss Espineli will not have to leave the Port of Vancouver until five o'clock. I remind everyone of the ancient words of the Talmud: "To save one life as if you saved the whole world.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec Est):: Mr. Speaker, we cannot build a strong Canada, as the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Turner) would have us do, with a weak economy, a record deficit and record inflation, interest and unemployment rates, which was the situation we had under the previous Government.
To stand on its own two feet and defend its sovereignty, Canada must be strong and it must be respected. The kind of sovereignty to which the Leader of the Opposition referred is theoretical and illusory.
The sovereignty we defend is genuine sovereignty that allows political and economic relations with other countries and at the same time makes Canada stronger.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Liberals in this House and in the Senate will not take Canadians hostage, because those same Canadians will soon be judging their actions, and that judgment will be merciless.
1 also ask the Senators to ratify the agreement within the next few days, because otherwise Canadians will ratify the agreement for them, thus making those Senators redundant.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, it was a great surprise to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) yesterday suggest that the trade deal with the United States would enhance Canadian vitality and ensure the expression of our nationhood, and then use Newfoundland's union with Canada in 1949 as an example.
He should know that by joining with Canada in 1949, Newfoundland forever gave up its right to be a sovereign nation and many decisions about Newfoundland's future would be made in Ottawa, not in Newfoundland and Labrador, including social programs and regional development policies.
He should also know that the earned income of Newfoundlanders in 1949 was less than half the Canadian average and now is only slightly better at 55 per cent, after almost 40 years.
It is still the province with the highest unemployment and the least share of regional development funds. Average Newfoundlanders and average Canadians will not benefit from throwing our lot in with the great North American market and tying our hands regarding our future.
August 31, 1988

Even within Canada, Newfoundlanders must struggle to get treated fairly and obtain economic independence. Newfoundlanders and Canadians need government action to ensure fairness for all regions and all Canadians. They do not need a Conservative Government which gives up this battle.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has led this House to believe that Hamilton never agreed to assist Pearson Airport with its waste disposal. For the record, 1 have a letter dated October 7, 1987, from Hamilton-Wentworth to Air Canada agreeing to assist Pearson. I quote an excerpt: "Regional Council at its meeting on October 6, 1987, approved the committee's recommendations". In July, 1988, only seven and one-half months later, when Pearson was in a bind, it reversed its approval stating: "Give us planes and we will take your garbage". I do not believe Canadians, even Hamiltonians, would consider that fair play.



Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) to come into my riding and find out what the people of Hamilton-Wentworth think about his garbage. The fact is that when the initial approval was given, it was claimed there would only be 20 metric tonnes of garbage a week. We then discovered that the airport planned not only on dumping its international garbage on us, but all its garbage, 250 metric tonnes per week.
It was the Member's Government and the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Transport that misled the people of Hamilton into believing it would only be 20 metric tonnes.
Frankly, 1 think it is an insult to the people of Hamilton. We are not good enough to fly into. The Member for Etobicoke North says Hamilton is just a small town and someday we may be a big city and people may be able to fly there, but in the meantime he expects us to take his garbage. Well, you can have your garbage, you can the mess from the Toronto International Airport, and you know where you can put it.


S. O. 21 TRADE CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-SUPPORT FROM SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, today's vote on third reading of the free trade legislation is greeted with great enthusiasm in Edmonton.
Small businesses and manufacturing firms in my riding of Edmonton East continue to express strong support for this historic trade agreement. For instance, officials at Emery Apparel Canada Inc. of Edmonton have informed me that its 200 employees will benefit greatly from increased commercial access to the U.S. market. They want free trade.
Another small business, Scorpion Small Engine Repair, which employs only five people, wants free trade to eliminate the existing 28 per cent duties on engines and engine parts.
Edmonton and Alberta will thrive because of this historic agreement. Future generations of Albertans will look back upon today as a landmark achievement in Canadian nation building.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, there is a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who said in this House just yesterday that Canada's rivers and lakes are not for sale. I said to myself: "Did 1 hear that before?" Well, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, a short story. Once upon a time there was a Prime Minister of Canada who said social programs were a sacred trust. Then he decided that social programs were not a sacred trust and tried to make life harder for many average Canadians.
I will tell you another story, Mr. Speaker. Once upon a time there was a Prime Minister who said that the CBC and Air Canada were not for sale. Then he decided to sell Air Canada. We will see how many Canadians decide to buy shares in their own company which offer no return on their investment.
Who can believe a Prime Minister who wants us to believe in fairy tales? It is a fond hope that for once the right hon. gentleman means what he says. Let us also hope he calls an election immediately so the people of Canada can show how they deal with Prime Ministers who say one thing and mean another.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I got a telegram from my friend this morning. Here is what it
says:

August 31, 1988
Oral Questions
Felix, let the people decide just like they did in '84. Oh, but this time it will be different. No bottom patting, no Liberal hacks appointed because Trudeau cannot make me do it.
He has no option and this time he has no rain-maker again. Looks like his caucus is solidly split behind him.
Felix, can you imagine a galaxy of star candidates from Quebec which appears now to be only a black hole?
After yesterday's performance by Turner and Broadbent, Ma and I are convinced more than ever that we are supporting Mulroney.
Your friend, Bill


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, we have to refer to Shakespeare to find an apt description of Tory science and technology policy. We remember the famous words of Macbeth about "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
What was the big Canadian news from the International Congress on Genetics held last week? It was not a Canadian scientific discovery, but another Canadian scientist who has discovered the United States.
Huntington Willard, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, surprised a news conference by announcing that he is leaving Canada "due to the lack of resources for the pursuit of fundamental science".
After all the consultations and conferences, after all the talk and palaver, after all the glossy brochures and hyped up announcements, we find the Tory record amounts to nothing. Worse, it is a litany of neglect and broken promises.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment. As he well knows, on June 30 of this year the Minister proclaimed with great fanfare that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is the law of the land. Canadians could sleep better because senior investigation officers had been appointed to enforce the Act in each regional environment protection office across the land.
Did federal investigators visit the storage site at Saint-Basile-le-Grand and report to the Minister on the status of the facility? If no federal investigator visited the facility, can the Minister explain why?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the Hon. Member's question is yes. In fact, officials of my Department were on the scene of the explosion and the fire at Saint-Basile-le-Grand within 30 minutes of the incident. What is more, next to the fire department itself, I think that we were the second on the scene.


POSSIBLE PROSECUTION OF SITE OWNER
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, that means that the grand announcement of last June was that the Government acts upon disaster and not on preventive initiatives. Why did it wait until the disaster took place?
The Minister rejected twice, and he knows it very well, a proposal by the Official Opposition to amend the Environmental Protection Act so as to give the federal Government the power to set national standards for PCB storage and destruction. To make things worse, the Minister rejected our amendment to put into the Act a general prohibition against the release of toxic substances.
Does the Minister now realize that he thus removed with his own hands the Government's capacity to act promptly in prosecuting the owner of the PCB storage site at Saint-Basile-le-Grand? Does he realize that?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, a full investigation is under way by the federal Government through my Department into the possibility of a violation, by Marc Uevy and his company, of federal law, especially the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We are not encumbered in our capacity to deal with Mr. Uevy, if there was a violation or infraction.
To boot, any suggestion by the Hon. Member that anything I did in committee watered down the Bill is sheer nonsense. The Bill is strong, and what is more, it is a lot stronger by virtue of the committee deliberation on the Bill.
I do have authority under Section 35 to take action akin to regulations, but without the time-consuming process surrounding regulations, through the vehicle of an interim order. I have instructed my officials to prepare such an interim order.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister would like the House to believe that, having opposed the general prohibition, he made the legislation stronger. That is a pretty hyperbolic pretension on his part.


NATIONAL INVENTORY OF PCB STORAGE SITES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my third question for the Minister of the Environment is as follows: Last week in the House, the Minister of Labour promised an inventory of all PCB storage facilities in Canada. Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said in the House, and I quote:
August 31, 1988

Wc have prepared a national inventory.
And a few minutes later, he said the inventory was being prepared. My question is, where is the national inventory of PCB storage facilities? Will all Members receive a copy of this inventory tomorrow, before they go back to their ridings?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member for Davenport realizes that the inventory that has been prepared is not specific to the Saint- Basile-le-Grand fire and explosion.
The Department of the Environment has a current, regularly updated inventory of storage sites across the country for PCBs. In light of the widespread interest in this subject, following the accident in Saint-Basile-le-Grand I have caused to have established an interdepartmental mechanism within the federal Government to identify and to update the list of all federal sites for PCB storage facilities.
We are working hand in glove with the provinces to ensure that our national inventory of provincial sites is also as complete as possible.
I am pleased to report to the House that, earlier today, I was talking with the Hon. Edward Connery, the Minister of the Environment for the Province of Manitoba. He is the current Chairman of the Council of Resource and Environmental Ministers. At my request he will convene a federal-provincial conference, a special meeting, within days to review that inventory and to make arrangements for its release.


TESTS FOR FURANS AND DIOXIN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday, after the Minister's reply that the Department of Health's disease control laboratory was carrying out tests on blood samples and samples of mother's milk, a subsequent check of this information revealed that the information the Minister gave us was false. The laboratory referred to by the Minister was not the right laboratory, and the laboratory that was supposed to do the testing hasn't started yet.
This morning Dr. Weber, head of the laboratory of the Quebec Department of Health which has the samples, confirmed that none of the calls made to the federal Department of National Health and Welfare since last Friday had been returned. Why did the Minister give us the wrong information, why was his information inaccurate, since the testing for furans and dioxins has not yet started?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to my Assistant Deputy Minister of Health at the Health Protection Branch yesterday prior to Question Period. He advised me that some samples of cows milk have been taken for the federal Government, and that testing is being done specifically for furans and dioxins.
In respect to breast milk, I understand that the Quebec Government has advised nursing mothers to stop nursing and to attend at one of the Quebec hospitals to have their milk tested. I believe that is in conformity with what 1 stated yesterday when the Hon. Member asked a similar question.


ANALYSES OF BLOOD AND MOTHER'S MILK-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Of course the Quebec Department of Health can ask mothers not to nurse their children, but that is beside the point. Did the Department of National Health and Welfare do an analysis of blood samples and samples of mother's milk? His answer was yes, and that is totally inaccurate.
I do not think the Minister's answer is acceptable. Why does the Minister continue to assert that the tests have been carried out? The laboratory which he said yesterday was conducting the tests is the wrong laboratory. The laboratory that should be conducting the tests has not even returned the calls made on behalf of the Government of Quebec. The director of the Food Directorate, Dr. Kirkpatrick, told us this morning that nothing was being done. Why is the Minister misinforming this House and the people of Saint-Basile-le-Grand?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am not misinforming the House. With respect to breast milk, 1 gave the Member the information. It goes back to the provincial jurisdiction concerning health.
As I said yesterday, the federal Government with epidemiology and the LCDC are standing by ready to help. Additionally, as I said yesterday to the Hon. Member, the information that I conveyed to her was information that I received from the Assistant Deputy Minister. I will check further as to what additional tests are being done by the Health Protection Branch and I will be willing to give that information to the Member as well.
1 do not think the Member should be making statements categorically because 1 made statements very clearly with respect to what information 1 received from the Department.

August 31, 1988
19106_____________________________________
Oral Questions


DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. 1 hope he will use the occasion to correct the record. Yesterday he misled the House in a rather important way.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I am assuming it was inadvertent and 1 would like him to be able to clear it up.
Yesterday he said, and I quote from Hansard, with reference to the PCB situation and the storage of such a substance:
We are ensuring that those sites meet the most rigorous national standards for storage.
He went on to say:
I can tell the Hon. Member that if in any one province any site does not meet national standards for PCB storage, then the federal Government will swoop in and occupy the territory.
Will the Minister now admit that the federal Government has no such authority in law to enforce "national standards"? Second, it has no such authority because the Conservative majority in the committee that dealt with this law voted against an amendment that would have given the Government that authority.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is patently false. Under Section 35 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, I have the authority, as Canada's Minister of the Environment, to seek and obtain an interim order which is equivalent to regulations without the time-consuming process surrounding that option to act in exactly the manner that I described yesterday, both inside the House and outside the House in the form of a scrum.


NATIONAL CONSISTENT LEVELS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I simply say to the Minister that in my judgment what he has just said is categorically false.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Can the Minister support what he has said? If he can support it, will he at the same time explain why the Government rejected the words "national standards" and had put in their place-after a prolonged argument on the point because some of us wanted to control this problem, not evade it-the words "national consistent levels", a nice ambiguous phrase? Why did the Government do that?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP wants to get into a battle of semantics on the floor of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Michael McMillan: He says, with all the sanctimony that is characteristic of the NDP these days, that-


John Edward Broadbent: Your official told the truth about it.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -"some of us have been fighting for strong laws on PCBs". In the three years that I have been Minister of the Environment, I have not before received a single question from the Hon. Leader of the NDP on PCBs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 simply want to say to the Minister that in this Party we have effective Members who work on committees, unlike that side which voted down the amendment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The whole country-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: The whole country will have noted that the Minister refused to answer the question because he had no answer.


AID FOR VICTIMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is simply this. A week ago, I asked whether the federal Government intended to offer a compensation program to the families affected by this disaster. At that time, the Government said yes. Today, I would just like to ask if the Government can tell the House of Commons what this answer means and, secondly, would the Minister care to say whether or not the federal Government intends to provide legal assistance for the affected families?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the NDP probably knows, I did draw the matter to his attention-yesterday, I think, or earlier. The Government does have a program and has long had one, Emergency Preparedness Canada, under which an individual province affected by a disaster or an emergency can apply to the federal Government for direct assistance to people affected by that disaster within the boundaries of the relevant province. There is a formula that either applies or does not. When it does, it pretty well sets the amount of subventions from the federal treasury for the same purpose, depending on the extent of the damage and the population, because it is a per capita formula applied to the province concerned.


John Edward Broadbent: Legal costs?
August 31, 1988


Thomas Michael McMillan: As 1 understand it, the Province of Quebec is tallying up all of the costs associated with the Saint-Basile-le-Grand disaster, the costs to the individuals, the costs to the community, the costs to the Government. Based on those calculations, which are yet to be completed, as the Hon. Leader of the NDP would understand, I presume an overture will be forthcoming from the Province of Quebec, and I can tell the Leader of the NDP, on behalf of the Government of Canada, that we will view that overture very favourably indeed.


IMMIGRATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday in the House in response to questions concerning Miss Sally Espineli, a seamstress from the City of Winnipeg who is presently having a case heard by the Human Rights Tribunal, the Minister promised she would actively investigate the case. This morning immigration officials accompanied Miss Espineli to the Winnipeg airport and are now executing a deportation order against her.
If the Minister had undertaken the investigation, she would know that a Minister of Immigration has discretionary power in cases like this that has been exercised many times in the past, and she would know that the Chief Commissioner of Human Rights has asked specifically that the deportation order be halted until the tribunal has a right to hear the case. I would like to make this question an appeal to the Minister.
Miss Espineli's plane does not leave Vancouver until five o'clock this afternoon Ottawa time. Will the Minister please exercise the discretion the Minister of Immigration possesses and allow Miss Espineli to stay in the country until her case is heard, both for the sake of Miss Espineli and for all the other immigrant domestic workers who have the same rights that are being tested at the tribunal in an important case that will have important implications for thousands of people now living in Canada?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I did undertake to review this case personally, which I did. Let me just explain a little bit about what has happened in this case. 1 want to assure the Hon. Member that the case went before an independent adjudicator. It went before the Immigration Appeal Board. It was appealed, not once but three times, and heard by the Federal Court. The decisions are all consistent that this person misrepresented a material fact on her application to enter the country.
Oral Questions
As the Hon. Member knows, once a deportation order is issued and has been upheld by the Immigration Appeal Board and the Federal Court, the court order must be carried out. My discretion does not extend to that extent.
Let me also say that there are some other elements to this case. The Federal Court was certainly familiar with the human rights case when it heard the case and it was very clear in its decision.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER HALT DEPORTATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Immigration, the Minister would well recognize that the question of misrepresentation is in fact what is being tested in front of the tribunal. That was a condition of employment in this country. Second, the Minister has the right to order the person who is under deportation order to be temporarily removed from the country and brought back immediately. Over 200 cases have been so executed by the Minister's Department already this year under those circumstances, because the Minister has the right to exercise compassion and discretion in individual cases where there are extenuating circumstances.
This is clearly a case in which compassion can be exercised and in which there are extenuating circumstances. The Minister has four or five hours to act. Would she please act and have Miss Espineli stay in the country until her case can be heard?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that this is not a new problem. This woman was granted landed immigrant status in 1980. She came to Winnipeg, she worked for a Winnipeg company at the time when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry was the Minister of Employment and Immigration and may also have been Minister responsible for the status of women, for all I know.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Have a heart.


Lloyd Axworthy: I was the one who brought in the policy that allowed them to stay, you might remember that.


Barbara Jean McDougall: There are many, many cases in which compassionate grounds apply. Many immigrant women come to this country and seek employment, and my Department has clear instructions from me that, if there is a problem in terms of any kind of discrimination, it will be investigated, which we will do. However, there are many people who come to this country without misrepresenting themselves whom I also represent.


Mr. Keeper:: You forced her to lie; you forced her to lie.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

August 31, 1988
Oral Questions


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The Government promised a list of PCB storage sites for all ridings, for all Members across Canada. Canadians want to know whether PCBs are stored in their riding, in their area, in their neighbourhood.
We are leaving tonight. Will the Government provide all Members with this list before we leave tonight? If not, why not?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it pretty clear, and if I did not I will use the occasion to do so now, that at the federal level there is an interdepartmental task force identifying all of the PCB storage sites across the country on federal Crown land or under federal jurisdiction. For our part, we are working with the provinces to make sure that the federal Government's national inventory of PCB facilities under provincial jurisdiction is as complete as possible.
I hope to meet with my provincial counterparts in a very few days, certainly within a week, to make sure that the list is in fact as complete as possible. I anticipate, although I cannot speak for the council but can only speak for myself, that in the spirit of the joint management of PCBs in Canada through CREM, the Council of Resource and Environmental Ministers will make that decision, both about the form in which the list will be made public and about when it will be released.
[DOT] |I440)


LIST OF SITES
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, last week, when the Leader of my Party asked the question he was told that there would be a list in our hands before the end of the week. I asked the question again earlier this week. 1 was told that the list existed. The Minister of Labour, who was substituting for the Minister of the Environment, is nodding his head, and that answer is in Hansard.
Does this list exist? Is it still being prepared? Are officials going out looking for PCB sites right now? Is there a list? Are we going to have it? Why the cover-up? Canadians want to know. It is important.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, you can always tell, when the NDP is void of any policy on environmental matters, it resorts to such exaggerated rhetoric.
I want to make it clear to the Hon. Member that we are not preparing a special list in light of the current interest. The federal Government has had an ongoing list which is regularly
updated through investigations. However, because of the special public interest in this matter, we are joining forces with the provinces to identify every possible site.
In the past the inventory has been for internal management purposes. We are going to ensure that the list is comprehensive and up to date. It will be made public by the federal Government and, I presume, the provinces through the Council of Resource and Environmental Ministers. I do not think I can be more helpful than that.
*
* *


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State responsible for the Treasury Board. The Minister is aware of the difficult situation that is taking place at the present at CFB Halifax among the ship repair units and their concern for wage parity between the East Coast and West Coast.
Has the Minister had an opportunity to review the situation? Can he indicate to us the Government's intention with respect to wage parity and whether he is prepared to move on wage parity between the East Coast and West Coast?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, subsequent to yesterday's Question Period the matter was discussed with Members of Parliament. We checked into the matter and I have found that we are on record as requesting a mediator. We are in favour of a mediator who can look at the difference in pay rates between the East and West Coasts. It is our understanding that the Public Service Staff Relations Board will be in a position to appoint such a mediator in the very near future.
* *
*


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the integrity of existing and proposed new conflict of interest guidelines now before the House of Commons.
The Deputy Prime Minister is fully aware that the National Citizens Coalition, a right-wing business lobby group that exists solely to attempt to influence government policy in a range of areas, has decided to give the International Trade Minister a $10,000 cash award. The Minister has announced his intention of collecting that award on October 18.
August 31, 1988

The Deputy Prime Minister is here as the primary custodian of those conflict of interest guidelines, in the Prime Minister's absence. Does he believe, upon reflection, that it is appropriate for any Minister of the Crown, in any portfolio, to accept a cash award from any lobby group, a lobby group being something which exists solely to try to influence government policy?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is asking a question about a private organization, a legal organization, which has a membership of tens of thousands of citizens of Canada, which operates quite independently from the Government of Canada, and which wanted to honour its founder. It believes that this year I have made the greatest contribution to the economic and political development of Canada by promoting the cause of free trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: They, therefore, have decided to give the second Colin Brown Award to me, the Minister for International Trade.
If I decide, after listening to Members of the House, that it is proper to accept it-and I see no reason so far why I should refuse it-I will use the money involved in the award for a good cause. It will not be used for me personally but for the cause for which it was awarded, and probably other charitable causes as well. There is nothing in any conflict of interest regulations and nothing in any legislation-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes there is.


John Carnell Crosbie: -that rules against accepting such an award. If I was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -and I well may be one day, should I refuse that?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, there is no danger of the Hon. Minister being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question which goes right to the heart of the intent of the conflict of interest guidelines which were established to avoid real conflicts or the appearance of conflicts. A Minister of the Crown is saying that he has no trouble receiving a $10,000 cash award, whether it is used by him personally or not, from a lobby group. Whether a lobby group is right wing, left wing, or centrist, it is a lobby group, the stated intention of which is to influence government policy to reflect the views which that particular group holds.
I am not interested in the view of the Minister whose hand is itchy for the cheque. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who is
Oral Questions
the custodian in the House today of the conflict of interest guidelines, whether he realizes the danger inherent in the precedent being established by the Minister for International Trade.
Will he and the Prime Minister review this award and the Minister's intention of accepting it, with a view to putting a stop to this kind of activity before it causes problems and a crisis of confidence in this nation in the whole notion of conflict of interest and Ministers acting independent of the views of any lobby group?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is just a continuation of a campaign of calumny which was started yesterday. That is quite obvious.
With respect to this matter, the Canadian Labour Congress is an organized lobby group, as are many unions. Do we argue that they should not provide funds to the people they think represent them or any of their views, or have done something good in politics? I wonder how often the Leader of the New Democratic Party has received funding from those kinds of sources.


John Edward Broadbent: Aren't you in the Cabinet? Aren't you a Minister of the Crown?


John Carnell Crosbie: The Citizens Coalition, just the same as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Manufacturers Association, is quite in order to operate in this country and to make awards to those to whom it wishes.
If my friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister, indicates to me that there is any impropriety in accepting such an award, I would be happy to give it up. I never asked for it in the first place. It came out of the blue and it can go into the blue as far as I am concerned.


DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to pursue the PCB issue with the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday in the House of Commons he said:
We are ensuring that those sites meet the most rigorous national standards for storage.
The Minister has had three opportunities earlier today to respond to my Leader regarding these national standards. Since the Conservative caucus members on the committee voted against including the term "national standards" in the legislation, would the Minister now have the courage to admit that there are no national standards to enforce?

August 31, 1988
Oral Questions


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, if anything, the House Leader of the NDP knows even less about this subject than his Leader. The fact is that there was a manual published by the Government of Canada with respect to acceptable standards for storage of PCBs. It had nothing whatever to do with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It was in place beforehand.
We are simply saying that all the judgments that our scientists have made, as expressed in this manual, with regard to what the experts say should be done when PCBs are stored, ought to be enforced through regulation at the provincial level because it is their jurisdiction. It has been done in most provinces.
1 went on to say that in those provinces where such standards are not enforced, we reserve the right, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, specifically Section 35, to take the necessary action at the federal level.


MINISTER'S ANSWERS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister will know full well that what he is talking about are national guidelines that have no status in law whatsoever. The Minister has had three opportunities to respond to my Leader's questions. He had an opportunity to respond to my direct question regarding the existence of enforceable national standards. I can only say that he is deliberately misleading the House on this issue. Will he not have the courage to stand up and say that he is deliberately misleading the people of Canada on this issue?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, of course, has every right to indicate in a question or in debate that, for whatever reason, any other Hon. Member through mistake, error or otherwise, may be setting up something that the other Member does not agree is correct. He may say that that is misleading, but the Hon. Member knows he cannot say intentionally misleading. I know he would want to withdraw that part of the question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. I must say that I have never used the term "deliberately mislead the House" before. I hope I will never have to use it again. At this point, I cannot withdraw.


Some Hon. Members:: Throw him out.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York-South Weston.


APARTHEID
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In 1985 his Government announced a series of
measures to demonstrate opposition to apartheid in South Africa, including the termination of Canadian Government procurement of all South African goods and services.
If the Minister and his Government are committed to these measures, will he explain why two South African companies operating in Canada, Boart Canada International and Long Year Canada, have received grants from the federal Government, and that Long Year and another company linked closely to Boart Canada have received $2 million in government contracts? Does the Minister feel that the Canadian taxpayer should be subsidizing South African companies operating in Canada? How can the Minister purport to be a leader in the fight against apartheid when his Government is taking a business as usual attitude with South African companies operating in Canada?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, at this moment I am not aware of the details of the arrangements that the companies named by the Hon. Member might have with the Government of Canada. I will look into them. If there is any cause for us to act or anything inconsistent with our policy, I will take the appropriate action then.


John V. Nunziata: I am somewhat surprised that the Minister is not aware of grants made by his own Government.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in December, 1985, the president of one of the companies receiving grants from the Government of Canada snubbed his nose at the Minister and said the following: "Despite the press and posturing of our politicians-" referring to the Minister "-our business with our South African associated companies is proceeding in normal fashion".
Why is the Minister continuing his posturing? When will he stop his posturing, show some real leadership and sever all economic and diplomatic relations with South Africa?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. colleague was not aware of the details for the very good reason that my hon. friend opposite phoned my office to get the information rather than the office of my colleague.
I have the information. I can tell the House that the Department has not provided any financial assistance to Boart Canada Incorporated. At the moment there are some applications from Boart or Long Year before the Department, that any corporate citizen can make. They are under review and, following the request of my hon. friend opposite, I have requested that these particular cases be brought to my immediate attention.
August 31, 1988


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines. The federal-provincial agreements on mining development are important for the outlying regions of Canada.
Can the Minister tell us in this House whether these federal-provincial agreements will be extended or renewed beyond 1989-90?

Hon. Gerald. S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry
and Mines)): Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's continued interest in mining matters. I can tell the House, and therefore the public, that the matter of renewal of MDA's was a discussion topic at the Ministers' meeting in Quebec City yesterday. I should mention that the Quebec MDA does not expire until 1990, so we have almost two years to deal with that particular issue.
The recent agreement that was signed under Economic Regional Development with the Province of Quebec allowed for a topping up of economic regional development agreements in that province. They may very well wish to tap that particular source.
1 might say that the mining sector has been treated fairly well by Governments over the years, through the Canadian Exploration Expense, through flow-through share mechanisms, and, of course, through the $210 million new program for exploration that this Government just announced through the CEIP.


THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
AIR FLIGHT TO THAILAND BY MINISTER'S SPOUSE-BILL C-! 14
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Today this House will debate and pass in principle the Government's conflict of interest Bill. The Prime Minister, upon the introduction of the Bill in February of this year, clearly indicated that while the Bill was not law then, the spirit of the legislation was in effect immediately. In fact, in that Bill there is a clause that requires that a Member's spouse or dependant who receives any gift or benefit must record and table that information with the registrar.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House exactly what he intends to do in the case of the Minister for International Trade whose wife and daughter received a trip costing about $5,600 on Thai Airlines? What does the Government intend to
Oral Questions
do about that, when it is a clear violation of the spirit of Bill C-114?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows, and he has correctly pointed out, that public office holders have to disclose any gifts over $200. That was not the case here. If it had been the case, the Minister assures me that he would have complied by providing the notice to the ADRG.
I am also advised by the Hon. Member that if the Bill passes second reading, which is the approval in principle, he will obviously comply with the spirit and intent of Bill C-114. Since it is now public knowledge, always was public knowledge, the Minister examined this consistent with the current conflict of interest guidelines. He is fully prepared to comply with them as well as the future ones that are put forth in the principle enshrined in Bill C-114.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PAY COST OF FLIGHT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who introduced Bill C-114 in the House and who, outside the House, made it crystal clear that in cleaning up the mess that exists in the Government the spirit of Bill C-114 was immediately in effect.
In light of the fact that another Minister in the Ontario Government has quite willingly said he is prepared to pay for the ticket for his wife, is the Minister for International Trade prepared to pay for the tickets for his wife and his daughter? Why do you not follow the example of another Minister of another Government at another level?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it might be fair if we got this in the proper perspective. Thailand, a country with which we have very good relations and with which we want to do expanding trade, after a negotiation with the Government of Canada and concessions for Canadian airlines, was allowed to start a route from Bangkok to Toronto which will assist both countries and the commerce of both countries.
As is the custom with every airline in the world, they invited the Minister for International Trade to go on their inaugural flight. I could not go, but my wife went in my place, and other Ministers from several provincial Governments and from municipal Governments, known as guests. One Minister paid because he was going on a business trip to the Far East in addition to Thailand.
My wife went to represent me and this country and in furtherance of good relations between this country and Thailand. It is not a gift in the ordinary sense of the word. Therefore, these suggestions are hardly fair, but we don't expect fairness from the Opposition.

August 31, 1988
Oral Questions
With respect to the regulations, if the present conflict of interest Bill passes second reading, we are quite willing to make the necessary declaration to the Registrar General, which I would have done had I gone, in any event. There is no conflict of interest. There is no breach of any present rule. There is no impropriety. This is simply a goodwill gesture between this country and Thailand, the same as has happened with Singapore Airlines, Air Canada, Canadian Airlines, Wardair, and dozens of other airlines in the past.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Mr. Gordon Fairweather, Chairman of the new Immigration and Refugee Board just established through the Government's refugee legislation, stated yesterday that his budget for financial and human resources is not enough to process the existing refugee backlog of 55,000, nor would it allow the board even to keep pace with the regular number of claimants. Therefore, if the Minister is committed in her support and promotion of this new system, why did she fail to allocate the necessary resources needed to do an adequate job?
If the Minister wants to prevent the system from breaking down, even before it starts, what plans does the Government have to tackle this huge refugee backlog in the system?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had been paying attention over the last few weeks, he would have known that I have said on several occasions that the backlog will be treated distinctly from the new refugee determination board, the board I am very pleased to have headed by Mr. Fairweather. I know it is going to be an outstanding example of the refugee and immigration tribunals in the world because of the kind of training they will have.
I have said any number of times that I will make a separate announcement about the backlog, that the three options on dealing with the backlog summarized by Mr. Fairweather yesterday are exactly the ones I have been mentioning myself. The only difference is that I have publicly said that there will be no amnesty.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, just before the passage of the two refugee Bills the Minister kept saying: "Deliver these Bills. That's all I need". She has those Bills. She has been promising Canadians an answer to the backlog, but still she continues this evasive dance about an interest that is uppermost in the minds of many Canadians. The Minister can be as evasive and as sanctimonious as she pleases, but there are basically two general options available to the Government.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Three.


Sergio Marchi: Will the Government provide additional resources to the new board so it can manage effectively with the backlog? If the Government has an alternative plan with respect to resolving the backlog separately, what is that plan and why the delay? Why not inform the House, and through the House, Canadians, of her plan-


Mr. Speaker:: Given the hour, I think the question is long enough. The Hon. Minister.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we are developing a way of dealing with the backlog. I know it is important to many Canadians, especially those who are involved in the backlog. When I have an announcement, I will make it.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A report called "Women and Reproductive Technologies", which was prepared for Status of Women Canada, raises very serious ethical, health, and equality questions with respect to surrogate motherhood, gender selection, artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization. Will the Minister arrange for this report to be made public? And will he tell the House what specific steps he and his Government are taking to establish a Royal Commission on new reproductive technology which, I believe, he favours?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, first, to establish what this report is. It is one in a series of papers which is being developed because there is a federal-provincial status of women working group on the issue of women's health, generally, and reproductive technology is part of that. So there will be other papers as well that will be studied by this group in reaching its own conclusions on a separate topic.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who surely recognizes the need for action, and action now, on this whole matter. It is fine that the Status of Women continues to do its thing, but the new technologies-which have been developed primarily by men, I think he would agree-have major impacts on women's health, relationships with children and women's rights, yet women have had no say in these developments. Will the Minister consult with the Minister responsible for the status of women and with women's groups, including the new coalition, and recommend to the Government that a Royal Commission must be established and must be composed of 50 per cent women?
August 31, 1988


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the Hon. Member has said with respect to some of the issues she has outlined. I have said that myself on other occasions.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Get on with it, then.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In terms of consulting with the Minister responsible for the status of women, that has been ongoing, as well as with some other members of Cabinet who have related responsibilities. With respect to the coalition, I have met with them. They have made their presentation to me and have given the reasons why they feel a Royal Commission should be established.
I have not given them an indication as to what position the Government will take, but I have said in this House and other places that I believe the issues of ethics are important. They should be studied. 1 think too often in medical science and other sciences, that science gets ahead of the ethics of these issues. But I cannot confirm or give the Member any assurance today that a Royal Commission will be established, either in terms of time or in terms of reference.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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 51 petitions numbered as follows: 332-4899, 3324973, 332-5096, 332-51 11, 332-5154 to 332-5156 inclusive, 332-5172, 332-5187, 332-5208, 332-5209, 332-5215, 3325216, 332-5226, 332-5238, 332-5239, 332-5241, 332-5249, 332-5251, 332-5255 to 332-5267 inclusive, 332-5272 to 3325277 inclusive, 332-5281, 332-5282, 332-5287, 332-5296, 3325306, 332-5314 to 332-5316 inclusive, 332-5323, 332-5324, 332-5326, 332-5357 and 332-5367.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@Pembina: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present to the House of Commons a duly certified
Petitions
petition. The petitioners are from the communities of Morin-ville and Legal, Alberta. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament that the child care decisions be left with the parents, where it belongs.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that we are not actually bringing forward a Bill. In my hand I have petitions with more than 20,000 signatures supporting Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drug Act, which would require restaurant labelling on foods to heighten public interest.
I would like to table these petitions with special thanks to the Allergy Information Association and other groups, including the Consumers Association of Canada, the Celiac Association, the Allergy Foundation, the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, the Canadian Council of Children and Youth, the Allergy Foundation of Canada and the Food and Nutrition Research Foundation, for their special help in gathering these more than 20,000 signatures.
I hope that by the time we get together again it will be postelection and we will be able to do something about it.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of some 75 or more residents of the City of Toronto who are concerned about our immigration policy. Among other things they point out that in 1986 the then Justice Minister promised that the unfair distinction between Canadian citizens and permanent residents of three years or more would be eliminated so that both groups would have equal rights to sponsor parents of any age. Since this promise has not been fulfilled, they call upon Parliament to ensure that the Government fulfil this promise now.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is also my duty to present a petition to you.

The petitioners are from Bayfield, New Brunswick, Port Elgin, Cape Tormentine and Baie Verte.

August 31, 1988
Order Paper Questions
[ Translation]
The signatories of this petition are very concerned about the change that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) has made to the qualifying period for unemployment insurance.

The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to bring justice to the situation by keeping in place a 10 week qualifying period for the rural areas of southeast New Brunswick.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the petition that I wish to present today is headed: "Help Save the Rouge". I table it pursuant to Standing Order 106. It has been certified by the Clerk.
The petitioners state that the Rouge Valley in Scarborough is a unique and precious natural area and that protecting the endangered wildlife and wilderness areas in this particular valley is in the national interest. The petitioners join with the Scarborough City Council, indeed, with the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the Save the Rouge Valley System, the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations and also, Mr. Speaker, you, who have given your support to this very worthy cause.
They ask the Government of Canada and the provincial Government to work together to save this very beautiful area as a park.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have with me 350 petitions from Canadians who have a Romanian background in which they have pride and in which they have fond memories. They have written to the House with respect to what is taking place in their more than 13,000 villages in Romania which have been destroyed. They have asked the Government to bring to the attention of the Romanian Government their concern in this regard.
The Romanian Government is presently engaging in certain acts which violate basic human and minority rights that are destroying more than half of the 13,000 villages in Romania to build agri-industrial centres, resulting in the loss of a cultural and historical heritage which will deprive not only Romania but also future generations of priceless heritage by annihilating magnificent examples of Roman, Gothic and Reform periods of architecture.
Whereas that same Government has decreed that all geographic designations be changed from the Hungarian and Saxon languages to Romanian thereby seriously violating minority rights; and whereas the Romanian Government's current harassment through interrogation and house searches of the clergy will result in the destruction of both Protestant
and Catholic religions, these Canadians of Romanian origin have asked that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) bring this concern of the Canadian people to the attention of the Romanian Government.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and the honour to present two sets of petitions. The first set of petitions declares that schizophrenia is a major illness in Canada, affecting about 1 per cent of the population, causing severe mental anguish and suffering to the patients and their relatives and costing Canadian society more than $3 billion annually in direct health care and other support costs.
The petitioners go on to point out that there is low funding for research in schizophrenia. They therefore call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will be commensurate in the future with the seriousness of this illness in Canada. The petitioners are from Sudbury, Ontario.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the last group of petitions I have is from residents in Vancouver, British Columbia, Val Caron, Hanmer, Sudbury, Blezard Valley and Capreol, Ontario.
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. Whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised; and that in fact the trade agreement negotiated between the Mulroney Government and the Reagan Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political life, the petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to dissolve now and allow the people of Canada to make the decision with respect to whether or not they want to enter this Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 385,392, 393, and 408.


Mr. Brisco: To the knowledge of the Government, what is the average annual cost for {a) institutional care (b) prescription drugs for a quadriplegic patient?
August 31, 1988


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports:
(a)	There is no information available on the cost of caring for quadriplegic patients. However, Statistics Canada's Survey of Residential Care Facilities indicates that the average annual cost of maintaining a physically handicapped patient in an institutional setting is approximately $46,000 per year. A quadriplegic patient may be placed in this type of facility.
(b)	Information on prescription drugs for a quadriplegic patient is not available from the Government of Canada.
Further information may be obtained from the: National Office, Canadian Paraplegic Association, 520 Sutherland Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M4F 3V9.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): For each fiscal year since 1980-81, have Canadians who grew up in Third World countries been employed by the Canadian International Development Agency as (a) professionals (b) contractors and, if so, in each case, in what numbers?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: The Canadian International Development Agency does not keep statistics of the type requested. Personal information obtained by the Agency can under Section 7 of the Privacy Act only be used for the purpose for which it was initially collected or for the purpose of responding to specific circumstances outlined in Section 8 of the Privacy Act. The compilation of the requested statistics would not be consistent with those conditions which must be met before personal information can be disclosed to a third party. Accordingly, it is not possible to assemble the requested statistics.


Mr. Brisco: Are any persons (a) on the Canadian staff of the International Joint Commission (b) on the Canadian staff of the Permanent Engineering Board (c) in the Department of the Environment (d) in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (c) in the Department of Justice (/) in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (g) in the Department of External Affairs well informed on all elements of the Columbia River Treaty, from the beginning of negotiations between Canada and the United States to the present and, if so, what are their names?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: 1 have been informed by several departments as follows:
The Columbia River Treaty was negotiated to resolve issues between Canada and the United States relating to the cooperative development of water resources of the Columbia River basin. It was signed in 1961 and came into effect in 1964.
(a) At present, the individual most familiar with the Columbia River Treaty in the International Joint Commission
Order Paper Questions
is Commissioner E. Davie Fulton, who was Minister of Justice of Canada when the treaty was negotiated.
(b)	Mr. Gordon M. MacNabb, current Chairman of the Canadian Section of the Permanent Engineering Board.
(c)	The Department of the Environment was not established until after the Columbia River Treaty was negociated and ratified. However, Mr. E.M. Clark, Regional Director of the Department's Inland Waters Directorate in Vancouver (although not involved in the negotiations) is well informed on all elements of the treaty. Mr. Clark is also the Secretary of the Canadian Section of the Permanent Engineering Board and the alternate federal member of the Board.
(d)	Since 1964, Fisheries and Oceans has had little direct involvement with this Treaty and its operations. Consequently there are no DFO employees with a thorough knowledge on all aspects of the Treaty. However, Mr. Tom Bird can answer questions concerning the fishery impacts of damming rivers and altering water flows. He also can act as a contact for previous DFO employees who were involved with the Columbia River Treaty.
(e)	The Department of Justice does not have persons within the Department responsible for advising on the Columbia River Treaty. If legal questions arise from time to time they would be considered on an individual basis and advice given to the appropriate client department, agency or institution.
(f)	No.
(g)	The officer currently responsible for the Treaty in the Department of External Affairs is Mr. Alan Kessel of the Legal Operations Division.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	Was Canada one of the nations which, on August 5, 1988, in Geneva, formed a group for the purpose of proposing an amendment to the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty to ban all nuclear testing in support of a proposal by the Parliamentarians for Global Action and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Will Canada be joining this group of nations and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


Charles Joseph Clark: 1. No. Canada strongly favours the earliest possible conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT). In practical terms, an adequately verifiable CTBT can be achieved only through direct negotiations and must be binding on all nuclear weapon states. Such a result cannot be achieved through simple amendment of the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963.
2. (a) No. (b) See 1. above.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.

August 31, 1988
Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 391 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 391 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): For each crop year from 1980-81 to 1986-87, have Canadian grains and oilseeds been exported via (a) St. Lawrence Seaway ports to Pacific rim countries (b) St. Lawrence Seaway ports to European or Mediterranean markets (c) St. Lawrence Seaway ports to other markets (</) West Coast ports to Pacific Rim markets (e) West Coast ports to European or Mediterranean markets (/) West Coast ports to other markets and, if so, for each variety (i) in what quantities (ii) at what average price?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I bring to the attention of the Minister of State who undoubtedly knows that a question that I have had on the Order Paper since March 15 still remains unanswered to this day. I know that the Minister himself usually does his best to ensure that answers are provided. I am just wondering if I could get a commitment from the Minister that he will do his best this afternoon to contact the proper officials so that tomorrow prior to adjournment the answer to a difficult question, granted, but a question which has been on the Order Paper for two and a half months longer than our rules provide, is answered in a manner consistent with the rules of this House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the point of order if I may in order to assist my hon. friend and other Members of the House who may wish to pose a question which
I am not for a minute suggesting was not a forthright question to which the Hon. Member wanted an answer. The problem is in the wording of the question.
When my hon. friend asks-and I have not got the exact wording although I think I am paraphrasing it properly-"has the Government or any Crown corporation, or any agency"-it is very difficult. A questionnaire then has to go out to all government Ministries, all Crown corporations and all Departments. Until we get all of the answers back it is impossible to answer my hon. friend's question.
If the next time he poses a question which has some specificity to it in that he is after a gentleman who worked for the Ministry of Communications and/or a Crown corporation, it would be of a great deal of assistance to the Ministry, because there is a lot of time and effort involved in answering those questions, if it could be spelled out exactly which Crown corporations or Ministries he was referring to. That type of answer is much easier to obtain.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member on a point of order.


Don Boudria: Perhaps there is a compromise which would be available, if the Minister would be willing to give an indication, perhaps privately later, if he thinks he has an answer from 80 or 90 per cent of those agencies that could be tabled, and the House could agree to have a tabling of that answer, and then consider it a complete answer at that point, if that were possible. Perhaps there could be private discussions later and tomorrow at the appropriate time whatever information is available could then be deposited, and perhaps we could close that issue which I have raised in the House approximately 10 or 12 times.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 will leave it with the Member and the Minister of State.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, you may recall during Question Period I was seeking some answers to a question posed to the Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). Although I felt the answers might have been a little confusing, I used the phrase that he was deliberately misleading the House.
Upon reflection and respect for your chair and your request, Mr. Speaker, and the traditions and the history of this House, I would like to withdraw the use of that term in reference to the comments of the Minister of the Environment.
August 31, 1988


Mr. Speaker:: We all know that sometimes answers, and sometimes questions, are confusing and that leads to remarks that would not otherwise be used.
1 want to say to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, the House Leader of his Party, that I appreciate his comments. I wish to put on the record that the Hon. Member has given the Chair very good co-operation at all times, and 1 thank him.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the Parties, and there are one or two things I would like to deal with in my comments, so I will go slowly.
First, there have been discussions among the Parties and we have agreed to a change in the order adopted with respect to the business of the House. This afternoon, under Orders of the Day, the Government will call Bill C-143, which is known as the Substance Abuse Centre Bill.
The intention of all Parties is that this Bill will be disposed of this afternoon rather quickly. There will be a change made during the debate on the Bill by the Parliamentary Secretary to change the motion which currently reads to move it to a legislative committee. The motion will change that to move it to a Committee of the Whole House and through Committee of the Whole House, report stage, and third reading today.
We will then proceed with Bill C-114 until six o'clock p.m., at which time we will call the third reading vote and votes on Bill C-130, the free trade Bill.
There has been agreement among the Parties that tomorrow the business of the House will be followed as though it were a Friday. The House will commence at 10 o'clock a.m. with Orders of the Day for the continuation of Bill C-114. The debate on Bill C-114 will be completed at or before 11 o'clock a.m. There will be no further business called by the Government until 11 o'clock a.m., at which time the House will proceed to the normal Statements by Members and Question Period. After Question Period there will be the normal Routine Proceedings. Immediately after Routine Proceedings are finished, which will give Members an opportunity to present petitions, or whatever, the House will adjourn until 11 a.m., September 13, 1988.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. In order that the public can understand, on the basis that this House can do anything, if there is unanimity, tomorrow will be Friday. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, August 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-143, an Act
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act
to establish the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that there have been consultations with the three Parties that the motion be amended to read "to a Committee of the Whole House" instead of "to a legislative committee", and that would be done on the understanding that the Bill would proceed through the rest of today in all stages without further debate. That is my understanding, and 1 would like it confirmed. If it is the will of the House to do that unanimously, then I think we could deal with it in that fashion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) has some time left in his second reading speech. He wishes to put a number of concerns that he has on the record. Following that, we would move to Committee of the Whole and proceed expeditiously without any further debate until the Bill is passed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. House Leader has put the situation accurately. The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed the case that on August 19 the New Democratic Party Members of this House wished to expedite and facilitate passage of this Bill. Indeed, the Bill would have been passed through all stages that afternoon, except the spokesperson for the Official Opposition chose not to address herself to the contents of the Bill, which are perfectly consistent with the report of the House Committee on Health and Welfare entitled: Booze, Pills & Dope, which recommended the creation of such a centre. There could be no question of opposition to it.
Before my intervention was interrupted on August 19, we indicated that while we were sorry that 29 of our 31 recommendations were either neglected or rejected, that did not constitute a reasonable basis for putting impediments in the way of the quickest possible passage of Bill C-143. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that this afternoon this Party will cooperate in ensuring that the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse will be implemented through the passage of Bill C-143.
In respect to my intervention during the previous portion of my speech, one of the dramatic findings of our committee was that there was not in fact a drug epidemic in this country which, to those of us who are trained in the field, constitutes an explosive incidence of a disease within a population. Rather, what is at issue is an endemic situation where a large percentage, or a significant percentage of the population is affected by a condition which we are quick to emphasize was not a condition of the abuse of illegal drugs to nearly as great an extent as the abuse of legal drugs, such as alcohol, prescription drugs, and substances which, although not considered to be drugs are abused as drugs, such as glue and propane.

August 31, 1988
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act
I want to take note of the observation made by the committee that there are a number of agencies in existence in Canada, particularly the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation in Ontario which, in these times of attempts to form centres of excellence in the scientific area in Canada, has been recognized by the World Health Organization as a centre of excellence.
Similarly, we gave recognition to a National Native Alcohol and Drug Abuse Program, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Commission, the Nova Scotia Commission on Drug Dependency and other agencies, provincial or otherwise, in Canada, which have made a significant contribution with respect to drug abuse prevention, rehabilitation and treatment. We recognize the view shared by many organizations in this country that there should exist a similar sort of organization at the national level which would co-ordinate these kinds of activities nation-wide and make available information on those subjects to all of Canada in order to facilitate our attack on substance abuse.
With that, it is not my intention to delay but to complete what I initiated on August 19. I express my support and my Party's support for this legislation, and give my assurance that we will do everything to ensure that we can complete Committee of the Whole consideration and third reading this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-143, an Act to establish the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 7 carry?
On Clause 7-First Board


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Chairman, I would like to have some clarification as to whether the board is subject to the usual Order in Council review. I want to know whether it is subject to the usual Order in Council appointments process. Are the appointments by the Minister or by Order in Council?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, six of the board members are by recommendation from the Minister, GlCs, and the remainder are by recommendation from the board.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They are not reviewable? They are not Order in Council appointments and, therefore, they are not reviewable?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, if I would be given the liberty by Hon. Members to direct their attention to Clauses 6, 7 and 8 rather than one clause, that would help me in my explanations, if that is acceptable. If Hon. Members look to Clause 6, the six members that are referred to are the chairperson and the five additional board members. Additional board members will be appointed to the board, if one would look at the board of directors. Under Clause 6, the Hon. Member will find that there can be additional ones appointed whose backgrounds or experience would assist the centre with the fulfilment of its purpose, and they would be reviewable, as other review-I will check that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I understand that in Clause 8 the chairman and up to five other directors are appointed by Governor in Council, so they are reviewable. The nine directors who are appointed by the board, because they are not Governor in Council appointments, are not reviewable.


Don Boudria: Otherwise, how could they be referred?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, they are not reviewable by the Governor in Council. That is correct. It is the arm's-length approach that we are trying to build into the board, having both GICs and the separate board members. It is the second group that would not be reviewable.


Don Boudria: If I may, Madam Chairman, I just want to clarify this in my own mind. There may be good reason for this, but I am trying to identify how it works. The Governor in Council appointment review process is now called the experimental process, but it will probably become permanent in the future In any case, a process has existed for a few years whereby the Privy Council Office sends the names of the appointees to a parliamentary committee for it to review and comment on within 30 days. That will apply to the people who are appointed by the Governor in Council. The others, as far as I can see, are not referred to the Privy Council Office at all. The Privy Council Office cannot send them for review because they are not Governor in Council appointments. I want to be clear. Am I interpreting that clause of the Bill correctly?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, I believe that the Hon. Member is reviewing it correctly. We are in this experimental period. If we also look at the rules of the House covering committees, Standing Order 103(1) and (2), I believe that under those rules any committee of Parliament can also review appointments. If it is only restricted to GICs, then maybe the Hon. Member could indicate to the House what other route they may be considering. It is the arm's length that the Government is trying to build in, according to the recommendations made to the Government, that some of the members of the board would in fact be at arm's length.
August 31, 1988


Don Boudria: There is one possible alternative which I offer to the Minister as a possible suggestion. The Bill would say in this clause that the Governor in Council would appoint members upon recommendation of the board. Those additional members would technically be Order in Council appointments, but they would only be made upon recommendation of the board. You would have in that regard the independence that the Minister is looking for and at the same time they would be accountable to Parliament pursuant to the McGrath Report, which was later ratified by a decision of the Prime Minister, as announced in this House.
I do not think that it is a very complicated amendment. I offer it as a suggestion to the Minister, and he or his official may want to propose something.
Perhaps we can stand that clause momentarily and go through the other clauses in order to have a few minutes for the Minister's legislative draftsman or expert who are accompanying him today, and then we could have a review process, the kind of process that we have described, in order to make it consistent with the policy of the Government and of this House.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, 1 do not think there is any conflict between what the Hon. Member is saying and what we are trying to achieve. I think the question is does Clause 8 achieve what we are trying to build in?
Under the Governor in Council appointments, as that procedure is established in Clause 7, the Minister is obligated under Clause 8 to have consultations with the board prior to making recommendations. That is in Clause 8 now in order to meet the various requirements, be they linguistic, cultural, professional and so forth. Whether or not an amendment should be considered whereby the arm's-length is retained, which we all want and which is consistent with the recommendations and whether or not Clause 8(b) does that, is the question. Possibly to help the committee move on, if it is acceptable that we stand Clause 8, we will go through the other clauses and look at whether or not there is some method by which we can meet what I think seems to be an agreement on both sides of the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall clause 7 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 7 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall clause 8 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It was agreed that clause 8 would be stayed for a while.
Clauses 9 to 12 inclusive agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall clause 13 carry?
On Clause 13-Principal Office
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Chairman, could the Minister give us the rationale behind the suggestions that the principal office shall be in the National Capital Region?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, the centre is not expected to be housed in a separate building as such. In other words, what we are dealing with is not a mortar and bricks entity. We will be dealing with a small staff of professionals and we will be relying on a great amount of interchange within Departments, federal-provincial as well as professional. We feel as a Government it is best to have the office in the National Capital Region because of the expertise available, if not only in Ottawa but at least because of the communication that takes place in Ottawa on a number of health-related issues.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Chairman, I am not questioning the rationale for it, although there are certainly other centres of expertise in terms of the problems of substance abuse. I just wonder about the procedure of putting that into the legislation. It seems to me that if the National Capital Region is the most logical place for it, then that can be determined by the Minister. Actually, to lock that in in the legislation I think is highly unusual. That sort of thing is not usually written into any piece of legislation. Would the Minister give the rationale for having it? It kind of handcuffs the office. The Addiction Research Foundation has many operations in other parts of the country other than Ottawa.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, I think the clause is drafted in such a way that while the National Capital Region is mentioned, I am sure the board would want to look at whether the National Capital Region is the best site. There are reasons that one could put forward why it is the best site. One could also mention the matter of the legislation that is drafted relative to Crown corporations if an example is needed. If the Hon. Member looks at the last part of Clause 13 she will see as well that there is discretion as to location. I think both eventualities are actually covered.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Chairman, the clause refers to a principal office which would suggest that there would be other offices in Canada. Can the Minister indicate what he envisions with respect to the centre once it is in full operation? Does he envision offices in major cities throughout the country? Does he envision more than one head office?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, it is not the intention at this time or our visualization that there will be offices across the country but rather one office working as a clearing house, working in liaison and working with interchange. If the board in its wisdom decides to have additional presence in other locations of Canada than where the principal office would be located, that would be a decision for the board to take. I think the board has to take it on the basis of delivery of service. That I think should be the criteria rather than the legislation dictating to the board where different offices might be located.

August 31, 1988
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act


John V. Nunziata: Madam Chairman, can the Minister indicate what type of budget the centre will have? Does the Minister have some figures for the first year of operation? If he does, can he give us some examples of how money will be spent by the new centre?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, Madam Chairman. There is a budget allocated for national drug strategy. There was a recommendation at one time of $1.4 million. The standing committee recommended that that should be reconsidered and it should be somewhat higher. We have allocated a budget of up to $2 million annually for the centre at this time.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Chairman, exactly what does the Minister expect to do with $2 million? It seems to me that that is a small amount of money in relation to the magnitude of the problem. If you are only allocating $2 million to the centre, how much advertising could you possibly do with $2 million? How much promotion could you actually do? Presumably the centre would have to pay salaries, rent and other such matters just to be in operation. Can the Minister indicate exactly what will be done with the $2 million, and does he feel that $2 million is enough or is it just a token amount?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, Madam Chairman, I do not regard it as a token amount. If the Hon. Member would go back to the recommendations that were made by Mr. Archibald with respect to the setting up of a substance abuse centre, I think the recommendations are inherent in the Bill and the amount of money I have mentioned is in keeping with the recommendations.
Second, it is not the purpose of the Centre to "run the federal Government's drug program". As the Hon. Member knows, that is a drug program of $210 million over a five-year period. What was identified and needed was a clearing house for various types of information and activities, and while we have passed Clause 3, if I could direct the Hon. Member to Clause 3 as to the purpose of the centre, I could go through the five sections but they are listed in Clause 3.
Clauses 13 to 26 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 27-Registered Charity


John V. Nunziata: Madam Chairman, Clause 27 indicates that the centre, for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, shall be deemed to be a registered charity within the meaning of that expression for the purposes of that Act. Does the Minister anticipate that the centre will be on a fund-raising drive of sorts? Will individual Canadians and organizations be in a position to make donations to this centre? Does it expect to operate, to some extent, through public donations?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, as I indicated earlier, up to $2 million has been allocated for the running of the centre. The recommendations from Mr. Archibald were that there should also be corporate and public participation in the funding of the centre, and so Clause 27 was inserted in such a way that those who make donations to the centre would get the same tax consideration as those who donate to other charities.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 27 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 32 agreed to.
On Clause 33-Evaluation


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister why there is legislation which calls for review only after the fourth anniversary of the coming into force of the Act. Why would there not be a review after the first anniversary, or does the Minister not intend to bring this on stream for four years?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, there will be annual reports, and as the Hon. Member knows, annual reports are subject to review by Parliament and specifically by Standing Committees. If she were to check back to the national drugs strategy, she would see that there was a comprehensive review mechanism built into that after the fourth year as to the continuation of the program. This is parallel to that.
The Hon. Member asked if we intend to bring the Substance Abuse Centre into place after four years. No, we intend to get the legislation passed and the Substance Abuse Centre established this year, possibly even flowing into this fiscal year.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Chairman, it seems to me that if the Minister's intention is to coincide the evaluation of the centre with the evaluation of the national drugs strategy, he should call for an evaluation of the centre in two years. Presumably the national drugs strategy has been in operation for almost a year and a half and the evaluation process should then occur in 1990. Therefore, the Minister will be two years out of sync according to his own Act.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, no, I do not think that there would be enough time for the Substance Abuse Centre to have established itself or to have an evaluation that comprehensive so soon. I think it is better to give it a five-year program as we do with other fiscal arrangements to get it established, although there will be annual reports which are obviously important and will be studied by Parliament each year.
August 31, 1988


John V. Nunziata: Madam Chairman, I have a question or two on the reporting procedure under Clause 31. It indicates that the chief executive officer shall, within three months after the financial year of the centre, submit to the board a report. It indicates that the report should be available to the public at the principal office of the centre and then it says that a month after that, the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be provided with the report. This seems to suggest that the public will get a copy of the report before Parliament, and then the Minister is required to report to Parliament. Why is the reporting procedure laid out in the way it is? Would the Minister not agree that it would be far more beneficial to have the board report directly to Parliament without all these intervening steps?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare is responsible, under the Financial Administration Act, for the moneys that flow under this legislation, if passed, and therefore I am responsible for its reporting and also answerable to Parliament through that reporting mechanism, and this is parallel to other reporting mechanisms.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 33 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I believe the committee should now go back to Clause 8.
On Clause 8-Appointment to the Board


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Chairman, I have asked for a further check on whether Clause 8 in fact meets the requirements of Members opposite and the intentions of the Government. Standing Order 96 refers to powers of standing committees and reads:
Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, to report from time to time, and except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting . . .
(2) The standing committees, except those set out in sections (3) and (4) of the Standing Order shall, in addition to the powers granted to them pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order and pursuant to Standing Order 82(15), be empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House. In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on:
(a) the statute law relating to the department assigned to them;-[DOT]
I understand from that that while it is at arm's length, the committee and specifically Parliament through the committee can in fact review those appointments.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Chairman, that is absolutely false. Of course, any committee is empowered to subpoena anybody under any circumstance, but the principle of review of appointments has been endorsed as it relates to Order in Council appointments. Clearly the appointments are not Order in Council appointments and they are not automatically referred.
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act
Obviously the Minister must realize that making an order of the nature he is suggesting under the Standing Order he related would only occur in the case of a national emergency on an issue and would probably then not be passed. The point that was made is that while we appreciate the fact that the executive board is reviewable, we feel that all positions should be reviewable by a parliamentary committee and we are sorry that the Minister chose to derogate from the principle of parliamentary review of all appointments in relation to the nine directors. We feel that they should also be reviewed by Governor in Council and we feel that would be a very easy amendment for the Minister to choose to make.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Chairman, as a former committee chairman, I think the important principle coming out of parliamentary reform is that significant appointments made by the Government, decisions made by the Cabinet, appear in The Canada Gazette and there is an automatic ministerial reference to the House of the named individuals and a further responsibility to provide resumes and things to assist the committee in its work. In a number of statutes, there are other kinds of groups that are appointed by the board itself. There is quite often a power to set up subcommittees of the board to appoint people to the board to do certain tasks. There are generally appointment powers for all kinds of Crown corporations and other organizations.
The members of the Parliamentary Reform Committee and the Members of this House, in the revision of the Standing Orders on the issue of permanent reference, gave committees not just the power but the responsibility to review all matters which fall on the administrative side as well as the policy side.
We are dealing here with an administrative matter. The appointment of board members by the board itself is an administrative matter in the hands of the board and not in the hands of the Government. I think it would be appropriate for the members of a standing committee, in this case the members of the Committee on National Health and Welfare, to consider whether or not they want to examine the board's behaviour, and that takes them to the issue of the nine members that it is possible to appoint under this statute.
Under the clauses of this Bill the Government is responsible for notification of the House and committee of all of the board decisions which the Government makes. That is consistent with the other statutes that we have had in recent times. However, it is up to the committee itself, under Standing Order 96, to look into administrative matters of the board which would include the board's power to appoint an additional nine people. I think it would be a mistake to change this clause.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Chairman, obviously that is within the power of the committee. I am willing to lodge our protest and have this clause pass on division. We are talking here about the

August 31, 1988
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Act
creation of a new centre, not the established practice for centres that have existed in the past. The fact is that Parliament has endorsed the principle that Parliament, not the Minister and not an elite group, however competent it may be, but the people of Canada have an opportunity, through their elected representatives, to review all appointments to government boards and agencies. This, unfortunately, is in violation of that principle. We have registered our protest and are willing to pass it on division.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 8 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On Clause 1-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Since we are discussing the over-all intent and spirit of the Bill I would like to ask the Minister a question. First, I think there should be recognition made of the work of David Archibald and those in the field who have been working for a long time for the creation of a centre of this type. This goes back to the days when the former Minister of National Health and Welfare, John Munro, almost achieved the creation of this type of centre.
Why did the Minister leave the false impression with several people in the health community that the Liberal Party was in fact opposed to this Bill when in fact the Liberal Member on the committee which looked into this issue argued most vehemently in favour of the creation of the centre? Why would the Minister leave that false impression?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I do not want to leave any false impression. If I was wrong and the Liberal Party was not opposed to it, I withdraw that. I just regret that the Hon. Member has not been able to fulfil the deals which her Party made. That is the point which must be stressed again.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Chairman, if it is the decision of the spokesperson for the Liberal Party that it was the Liberals on the Committee on National Health and Welfare who initiated or were preponderant in the consideration or recommendation of this or any other matter in committee, let me assert here and now that the deliberations of the committee involved an equal participation of all sides. All sides were unanimous in all recommendations and most of us shared the concern that the Government has failed to address the other recommendations which were made.
Some 29 of 31 recommendations have been substantially ignored or rejected. We are all concerned about that. However,
1 think the self-serving discussion which is now taking place on a matter which we promised on August 19 and today would be passed to the House in as quick a fashion as possible is just unacceptable.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, 1 do not want to prolong this. I will go through this very quickly because that which the Hon. Member has been saying is simply not true. Of the recommendations which were made, recommendations 1, 4, 7, 6, 17, 18, 28 to 31, 26, and 27 have been implemented.
Implemented through a different strategy and a common goal were recommendations 2, 3, 9, 11 to 14, 15, 16, 24, and 25. Under active review are recommendations 5, 8, 10, 22, and 23. Recommendation 23 is covered by the private Members' Bill dealing with head shops. We lack jurisdiction for recommendations 12 and 20. The Government has rejected recommendations 19 and 21. Therefore, what has been said is patently wrong and I think Hon. Members should understand that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Chairman, in response to the comments of the Member for Windsor-Walkerville, I am shocked that the representative of the NDP is saying that they are working so hard in the area of drug abuse when that Party supports the legal sale of cocaine spoons and other illegal drug paraphernalia. I am very sorry that the Member has not fought the good fight in his Party and has not let his Party know that the sale of cocaine spoons and other illegal paraphernalia should be outlawed as was recommended in the report to which the Minister just referred. 1 wish the Member would spend his time talking to his colleagues as opposed to speaking out in the House about all the things his Party is doing when in fact it refused to support a private Member's Bill to make the sale of cocaine spoons and other paraphernalia illegal.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Chairman, the Hon. Member has gone from duplicity to falsehood. The committee, as she very well knows, specifically rejected the proposal to ban the sale of specific utensils. The committee did recommend that consideration be given to the elimination of head shops. That is quite different from the elimination of spoons. Of course, even after lengthy deliberations, the Hon. Liberal Member learned very little and would not know that a cocaine spoon is no different from any other kind of spoon, that a cocaine razor blade is no different from any other kind of razor blade, and that a marijuana paper is no different from a tobacco paper. Of course, that is a complex matter beyond her understanding.
We were able to agree, however, that a place that was predominantly devoted to the sale of a number of items, books or whatever, which would encourage the use of drugs, should in fact be regulated. My Party, every member of my caucus, and I presume every member of the Party across the nation, shares the common sense view that substance abuse in this country needs to be controlled and attacked and agrees that alcohol is the preponderant substance of abuse in this country and that prescription drugs are a significant substance of abuse in this country. Symbolic actions to which we may say we are devoted, which are going to accomplish nothing in the effort to do something about the drug problem, do no good.
I thought all members of the committee agreed upon that. It surprises me that the Hon. Member, whose Party agreed that this Bill would be facilitated in its passage on August 19 yet deliberately delayed passage on that day and continues to do so today, would introduce an argument of this sort at a time when one significant recommendation which we made is about to be dealt with by the passage of this legislation.
August 31, 1988


John V. Nunziata: Madam Chairman, the Hon. Member says that a cocaine spoon is no different from any other spoon. Has he ever tried to eat Shreddies from a cocaine spoon? There is one use for a cocaine spoon and that is for the purpose of using cocaine.


Mrs. Sparrow:: Space-size Shreddies.


John V. Nunziata: Yes, space-size Shreddies. Seriously speaking, to set the record straight, I was on the committee that dealt with the Private Member's Bill to outlaw drug paraphernalia. The New Democratic Party did not participate at any of the meetings. There was not a single New Democratic Party Member who attended the meetings. In addition to that, they tried to obstruct in this House the passage of the legislation which would outlaw drug paraphernalia. I say that only to set the record straight.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. I must call the committee to order. That which happens in standing committees does not have a place here. The rule of relevancy is being abused today and I believe we should get back to the Bill we are studying.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.

Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Prime Minister) moved: that Bill C-114, an Act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of office of Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, to establish a Conflict of Interest Commission and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate today in the debate on Bill C-114, which is known as the Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons Conflict of Interest Act. This Bill is important not only to Parliamentarians themselves, to whom it is principally directed, but also to the Canadian public who want the operation of their Government to work properly, fairly and above reproach for the benefit of all Canadians.
1 believe it is fair to say that at all levels we want that for our democratically elected institutions. Canadians are concerned about the issue of ethics in government and high standards of behaviour in Canadian public life. I suggest that no one Party has a monopoly on that concern, nor does any one Party have a monopoly on solutions. We must work together to develop these solutions.
Conflict of Interest
Because of these concerns and the public interest in the integrity in the Government decision-making process, this has given rise to ever increasing demands for openness and accountability in the conduct of Government. Parliament and all of its Members, both in the House of Commons and the Senate, is under an intense and very legitimate scrutiny, scrutiny by the media and by the people of Canada, on this very important issue.
Our Government welcomes this scrutiny with all of its consequences. It is right and appropriate that we who hold public office should be judged against very high standards of conduct, standards which Canadians believe demonstrate the health, vigour and integrity of our parliamentary democracy.
The principle that no one in public office should use that office to further his or her private interests is fundamental to those standards and to our system of democratic parliamentary Government. This basic principle is one which the Bill before us is designed to uphold and to strengthen.

Madam Speaker, the Bill before the House of Commons today seeks to strike a delicate but necessary balance: to preserve and respect the individual responsibility and privacy of every Member of Parliament, while maintaining and promoting the highest standards of conduct among all Parliamentarians in the performance of their duties.

As we all understand, and as Chief Justice Parker noted in his report to the Government on the issue of conflict of interest, ethical conduct is fundamentally a matter of personal conscience and individual behaviour. In his comments on this question, Chief Justice Parker said "Public trust and confidence in the integrity of Government depends upon the integrity of individual public office holders and their individual sense of honour".

Canadians have a right to expect Members of the House of Commons and Senators to be persons of honour and integrity. The purpose of these new proposals to deal with conflicts of interest is to help those who are well-intentioned to conform to our standards, while at the same time as far as possible respecting the right of those who choose to serve the people of Canada to a minimum of privacy.
In short, Madam Speaker, this piece of legislation is unprecedented in Canada's federal public sector. It is unprecedented in that its purpose is to help Members of Parliament to avoid conflict of interest situations. It is unprecedented because it provides for administrative assistance, and it is unprecedented because it invites all Parliamentarians to close ranks and show the public that we are determined to maintain the highest standards of conduct in Canadian public life. There is, of course, other legislation besides this Bill that deals with the matter.

August 31, 1988
Conflict of Interest
Finally, Madam Speaker, it is very important to be aware of the underlying principles on which this Bill is based, and of this Government's commitment to ensure that all Parliamentarians meet the expectations of Canadians.

In our debate today, we must not lose sight of the fact that the spirit of this Bill is in accord with the policies that have been adopted by this Government since it assumed office in September, 1984. In my comments today I want to set the context of the Bill in a wide scope so that Canadians will understand not only its important provisions but its place in the comprehensive approach our Government has taken on the question of integrity in public life.
Since 1984, my colleagues in caucus and Cabinet have been diligently working on a number of political reforms to ensure fairness and openness in government. I believe if you examine what we have done and what we are trying to do, it can be said that this is a Government committed to reform and more active in that respect than any of its predecessors.
I want to deal with some of the reforms that we have initiated and their implications for Parliament in particular and for Canadian political life in general. For years, the most significant development in our system of Government has been the perceived increase of Cabinet power, with the apparent resultant decline in the influences and effectiveness of Parliament. It is a favourite subject of editorialists. They lament the fact that there has been a loss of power by the Members. But I believe we have been the first Government in our history to try to reverse that trend with any measurable degree of success, and we have done that since 1984.
1 want to point out some examples. I start with the McGrath committee. As a result of an exhaustive study and non-partisan effort-I point out this was a committee of all Members of the House and there were excellent contributions from all sides- what we did through that committee was strengthen the role of the Member of Parliament and parliamentary committees. We enhanced both the position of the Member of Parliament and his or her contribution and effectiveness on committees. I see here today the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) who epitomizes what has been done by this Parliament and what can now be done by a parliamentary committee under the new rules.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Under the chairmanship of my colleague there have been far-reaching reforms with respect to what a parliamentary committee can do. We all know the leading role that has been taken by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, under my friend's chairmanship, and what we want to see in the next Parliament is a continuation of
that role and an expansion of all standing committees. Members of Parliament will then have that sense of fulfilment that has been prevalent in the finance committee and other committees. That was the first step. The second step, and it has been referred to today, was to give parliamentary committees the power to review appointments, to bring appointments of the Governor in Council and Government before a parliamentary committee and have it examine the background of the person. Why is he or she an appropriate appointment for this committee?
I have to say there was some concern that we would find this process devolving into the way it is handled in the United States. I make no criticism of our neighbours to the south, but 1 find their appointment review process to be something I would not want to see copied in Canada. The appointment review system is a very good examination of some people. The Opposition has acted very responsibly. It has not called for every appointment to come before a committee. It has chosen to examine some appointments and not others. I think that has been healthy for the political process.
As you will know, Madam Speaker, the House of Commons now chooses the Speaker itself with a free vote by all Members. That was an excellent process and we ended up, I might say, as one of the combatants, with an excellent representative of all the Members of the House. Our Speaker has served the House well from the day of his election. And I think the election itself was healthy. We wanted to do that.
I have to say that there have been times through the process of appointments, and through the efforts of my friend, who was so energetic on the Finance Committee, when there was a little discomfort on the part of Government. There were things being done that caused several phone calls to my office. The caller usually started out by asking: "Why are they doing that?" I would try to explain to someone why they were doing that and the phone calls soon stopped. I think the whole process is healthier because of that.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that there have been many other changes, minor changes, which have affected the way Parliament works. It is my personal opinion that this Parliament will be remembered for many things, but basically because of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) complete and absolute determination to change the way things worked.


John R. Rodriguez: Don't make me laugh.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is not difficult to make my friend laugh. It is easily done.

It is our objective to make the political process easier to implement and easier to understand for political Parties and their candidates and for Canada's electorate.
August 31, 1988

Our goal must be to encourage well-intentioned people to seek public office and to prevent such office from jeopardizing the reputation and solvency of the incumbent.
The proposed legislation is part of our effort to have a political system where the views and desires of Members are taken into consideration in the debate that takes place in Parliament and in the decisions that are made there.
To have an open, fair and equitable political system, the Government has tabled legislation to regulate the activities of professional lobbyists.
The Bill was passed by the House of Commons and is now in the other Chamber, where we hope the Senators will adopt the legislation without delay.
We feel it is important for the puplic to know what lobbyists are and what interests they represent, if our system of government is to function in an open and fair manner.
It is therefore important that this legislation should become effective as soon as possible.

There have been other initiatives of reform. Some time ago the Government announced a new system for the selection of federally Governor appointed judges. In designing and developing the process, we were acutely aware of two principles by which Canadians expect their judicial selection process to be governed. First, to ensure that the outcome of the process will be judicial appointments of outstanding capability and undoubted merit. The second principle is to ensure that the workings of the process be fair and open, moreover, that they be seen to be fair and open. Similar principles, merit and value, fairness and openness, have guided our thinking in fashioning a series of improvements to the federal Government's procurement process. In designing these improvements, we have been determined to ensure that at all times suppliers receive a fair opportunity to compete for government contracts and that they are made aware of the rules of the game so they can see for themselves they are being dealt with fairly and even handedly by the Government.
I want to say something about appointments. There have been various allegations of patronage to which the media has devoted so much attention.


Don Boudria: And government back-benchers.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: One should know that government appointments to agencies, boards, commissions and foreign service postings, are the exclusive prerogative of the Prime Minister, as they have been in the past. There has been no change in that system. The Government in Council appointments involve some 2,613 jobs on government agencies, boards and commissions. That is 1.1 per cent of the total Public Service population of some 231,000. Of the 2,613 appointments to these agencies, boards and commissions, only 377 are full-time jobs. Therefore, the Prime Minister of Canada, whether it is the present Prime Minister or past Prime Minister, has the authority to appoint 0.2 per cent of the number of full-time
Conflict of Interest
public servants. It is not as though that is ail a Prime Minister spends his or her time doing.
I could review for the House a list of outstanding appointments, but I just want to refer to the last two. The last two appointments are the appointment of Yves Fortier to be the Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations-


John R. Rodriguez: How about McDermott?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I will get to Mr. McDermott in a moment-or Ian Deans. And Donald Macdonald who will be the Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom.


Don Boudria: I want to hear all about Gil Christie.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, Gil Christie.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That demonstrates the Prime Minister's commitment to make appointments that are firmly based on merit and not political affiliations. Both my hon. friends opposite may want to denigrate the appointments of Yves Fortier, Ian Deans and Dennis McDermott, but I do not think that is fair. All those gentlemen served their country. My friends may want to denigrate their appointments, but I do not think it is fair. They are not here to protect themselves. I am rather disappointed that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) would want to denigrate those appointments in that way.
Madam Speaker, we have before the House today a piece of legislation dealing with conflict of interest. As soon as the Bill becomes law, it will affect all Parliamentarians, both in the House of Commons and in the Senate. As my colleagues have explained in greater detail, the Conflict of Interest Commission, an independent body consisting of three members, will monitor the implementation of these provisions. The Commission will report to Parliament. Members of Parliament, their spouses and their dependents will be required to disclose fully all personal interests to the Commission.

The Act is quite complete. It provides, for example, for definitions to conflict of interest and permitted private interests. It details the obligations of Members of Parliament. It details how contracts and benefits to former Members of Parliament should be handled. It prohibits the carrying on of business by certain Members of Parliament. It establishes a conflict of interest commission, as I said, to oversee the Act, to regulate, to provide opinion, to investigate and to report. Members will be required to furnish a personal information statement within 60 days of their election, and they must report material changes. Any infractions under the Act have to be reported to the House of Commons, and they must be considered by the House of Commons within 15 sitting days.

August 31, 1988
Conflict of Interest
Before I wrap up my speech I wish to refer to my experience in my business career prior to becoming a Member of Parliament. I want to suggest that no one should enter public life with the idea that there is a great deal of money to be made unjustly, or that there is an influence to be used unjustly. 1 think it is fair to say that we all seek to serve the public and hope that during our years of service we will emerge with our reputations unscathed. Unfortunately, that is not always possible, whether by reason of human frailties, unfortunate circumstances or a lack of knowledge of the rules. The rules of conflict of interest are, unfortunately, not always as clear as one might think. Errors in judgment can be made in good faith which, examined in retrospect, indicate a potential conflict of interest which was not there on the first examination.
As a lawyer in a small city I was often faced in business with potential conflicts of interest. Usually, they were easy to determine and we could avoid the conflict. We might get into an action, a proceeding or a transaction on behalf of a client and find that the lawyer on the other side was a partner. That would be an immediate conflict of interest, no difficulty in determining it. So we would have to resolve it, whether by advising all concerned of the conflict of interest and securing agreement to go ahead, or in the alternative by saying: "Look, someone has to seek advice from another source". Occasionally, we even started out knowing that there was a conflict of interest but had the agreement of the clients on all sides for us to act on both sides because they wanted either me or my firm to put the deal together.
Those were situations in which we knew what the conflict was. It was evident at the start, or it became evident. I say to you, Madam Speaker, that when I practised law I knew where the conflicts of interest were. But I say to you, Madam Speaker, at the same time, that in politics, acting as an elected representative, it is not always that easy to determine at the start. I have compared it, if one looks for a comparison which can be understood, to playing football on a field where the goal-lines are easy to determine but the sidelines are either indistinct or continually being redrawn.
Everybody who enters public life and runs for office seeks to reach the goal-line at the end of one's career. That goal-line is to end up one's career without any conflicts of interest, without besmirching one's reputation. But often we find that the sidelines are either disappearing on us or being redrawn. I think it is fair to say that in the past four years of my life as a Member of Parliament there has been more found out about conflict of interest and potential conflicts of interests than in the first five years because we are learning. We are learning how to protect ourselves and how to see those sidelines while still seeking the goal-line. We all do. But we are learning more about how to draw the sidelines so that we protect ourselves and do not go out of bounds. I suggest that that is what we are going to do with this Bill. Nobody would suggest it is perfect. However, it is an effort.
The other personal thing I want to say is that there may be even yet other areas that we should look at, not within this Bill but I want to go back to my days as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee when we examined the report of
the Auditor General with respect to Canadair. Members from all sides on the committee found that there were some potential conflicts of interest which did not even involve money or influence. This is where public servants were appointed to the boards of Crown corporations and there was a very definite conflict of duties, not with any compensation, not with any intention that anybody do anything incorrect or favour one rather than the other. Public servants were being placed in untenable positions. I suggest that we are still learning about conflict of interest.
There are some who think that these new requirements will discourage Canadians from seeking public office because maybe the regime we propose is too rigorous. I am confident that that will not be the case. My conclusion is that after the conflict of interest regulations and requirements are put in place people will become familiar with the regime, it will be accepted and be welcomed as a necessary part of political life. There are sacrifices to be made, but I think there are many men and women of good will and dedication who will accept these discomforts as part of what one has to do in order to serve the interests of Canada.
I think that we have managed to strike a sensible balance between the public need for openness and the politician's acceptable right to some privacy in their private and financial affairs. 1 believe that the record of this Government will show, with our acknowledged imperfections and human failings, that we have made good beginnings in this important area of political reform. We understand and we appreciate that there is more to be done. But we expect that this Act will address the expectations of all Members of Parliament. We invite discussion in committee as to how it might be improved. We also hope that Canadians will put these reforms in perspective and appreciate the efforts which our Government has made over the course of the last four years.
We have made these efforts to fulfil our commitments and to respond to the concerns of the public. We believe that we have listened to the hopes and wishes and the criticisms of Canadians. In doing so we will continue the reform process of the political system, a commitment made by the Prime Minister prior to his being elected, a commitment which I think has distinguished this Government from its first days in office.
We do not suggest for a minute that all of the work is done. But with the support of Canadians our Government will continue to make effective political reform a reality for Parliament and for Canada.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, it is with mixed emotion that I speak today on Bill C-114. In a way I am happy to say that the Government is proposing in a certain measure some of the things that I have been advocating for some time. The Bill, of course, is not complete, and 1 will get into the details of how it is deficient later.
August 31, 1988

There is in one part that sense of happiness. But there is also a sense of sadness that, in fact, such legislation is required at all. Unfortunately, the legislation is required.
Why is it required? We could speculate on that for the rest of the afternoon and probably for the next weeks and months and never arrive at a final conclusion. In so far as I am concerned, I am of the opinion that these stricter rules are necessary because of the fact that rules in the past have been looked through much like an accountant goes through the taxation Act, in other words, attempting to find loopholes rather than the spirit of the legislation. When that happens it is unfortunate because, of course, if one Member of the House is found to be in a situation of conflict of interest in a certain measure, albeit not totally, that casts a dark shadow over all Members of Parliament.
Nevertheless, as an opposition Member, if we on this side of the House, or for that matter, a government Member is of the opinion that another Member has in any way abused the privileges that were given to him or her by the electors, it is of course his or her duty to report that publicly in order that the people of Canada can judge upon it. It is also the duty of that Member not to make allegations which would be unfounded, because that would cast the dark shadow, to which I referred earlier, unnecessarily and without foundation. That would ultimately ruin the credibility, not only of the person who made the accusation, but also many times of an innocent victim.
Today we are discussing Bill C-l 14, a Bill introduced in the House on February 24, 1988. How did we get into this mess? Well, it is difficult to say. Let me read a few quotes which would perhaps assist the House and Canadians in understanding about conflict of interest, abuse of power, and patronage.
On May 24, 1983, a prominent Canadian stated: "There'll be jobs for Liberals and NDPers too after I've been Prime Minister for 15 years and I can't find a living breathing Tory in the country". That was printed in The Globe and Mail on May 24, 1983.
On July 9, 1984, the same prominent Canadian stated: "I commit myself to set up criteria for quality which will impress the Canadian people. I think that what took place is completely unacceptable in an open democratic society. We are going to reform this instrument of our national life", referring to patronage.
On July 16, 1984, the same prominent Canadian said about patronage that it is a "fraud, a deceit and a sham". On that same date, the same prominent Canadian stated: "The method of making appointments could be corrected by dramatic measures . . . We are going to bring in a brand new dimension to them of objectivity and representation and fairness for all Canadians". On the same day, this Canadian, referring to his previous speech of May 24, 1983, stated: "I was talking to Tories then and that's what they want to hear. Talking to the
Conflict of Interest
Canadian public during an election campaign is something else".


John R. Rodriguez: Who said that?


Don Boudria: An Hon. Member asks who said that. In July, 1984, the same person said about a political appointee: "There's no whore like an old whore".


John R. Rodriguez: I know who that is.


Don Boudria: I am not sure if those words are parliamentary, but I am sure of who made the statements to which I have just referred.


John R. Rodriguez: Now I know.


Don Boudria: Let me quote a statement made on July 19, 1984, considering patronage. The same individual stated that he would "never resort to that kind of attitude". On July 20, 1984, the same prominent Canadian stated: "The overriding criteria will be competence and a willingness to serve Canada". Again, that statement was about patronage.
When talking about 19 political appointees on July 25, 1984, the same Canadian stated to his opponent in a television debate: "The least you should do is apologize for having made these horrible appointments".
I think the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has already guessed who this prominent Canadian is. I think you have also, Madam Speaker, and I think most Canadians have. Indeed, the gentleman who made all those statements is now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of our country. Perhaps that explains in part why we are in the mess that we are in regarding the credibility of public office holders, and regarding the attitude that public office holders are to have vis-a-vis conflict of interest.


Mrs. Mailly:: Nonsense. We are in this mess because you are irresponsible.


Don Boudria: The Member opposite can say "nonsense". I challenge her to rise in her place and tell me which one of those quotes is erroneous.


Claudy Mailly: Or out of context.


Don Boudria: I challenge the Hon. Member, and she knows, as I do, that every one of those quotes is precise, not out of context, and made to the people of Canada, or for the people of Canada to hear or read.

Madam Speaker, no legislation can be effective enough to prevent the abuses we have witnessed in the last few years. However, as a Member of Parliament, 1 accept this new legislation, although with some reservations that 1 will mention in a moment. The legislation is somewhat like Ontario's, except that Ontario's is superior, in my opinion, to what the Prime Minister has presented to us. The legislation covers Members as well as Ministers. It covers spouses to a lesser degree and, unfortunately, it does not cover the political assistants of Ministers and Members at all.

August 31, 1988
Conflict of Interest
As I said, we have some concerns about the way the Bill applies to spouses. I still feel that the Bill should require public disclosure of Members' assets, instead of secret statements. I believe that the parliamentary committee should have some powers, and we know that the committee's powers are not too clear in the Bill. For compliance measures to work, public statements should be required, and the legislation is rather confusing on this point.

Some people will claim that, if conflict of interest rules are strict, or if government ethic rules are strict, this would discourage people from seeking public office. To all those people who are of the belief that stricter rules discourage people from seeking public office, 1 wish to quote from the Hon. W. D. Parker's Commission of Inquiry into the Facts of Allegations of Conflict of Interest Concerning the Honourable Sinclair M. Stevens which states at page 350:
By all accounts the U.S. disclosure requirements are working reasonably well. There have been criticisms relating to investigation and enforcement, but the requirements in principle have received wide-ranging approval.
I was particularly interested to learn that the disclosure requirements have not discouraged "good people" from entering politics or running for public office. For example, a study of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics in 1985 found no one who felt that financial disclosure affected his or her decision to seek public office.
In other words, there is no evidence to support the contention that some people might have that conflict of interest rules, in particular public disclosure of assets, would discourage people from seeking public office.
1 would like to argue the contrary, that, in fact, good and appropriate rules would probably encourage people to seek public office, knowing that their reputation will be enhanced once they are in office rather than observing the sad spectacle which we sometimes see today. One of the things that this Bill does not do, as I said previously, is that it does not provide for public disclosure. Justice Parker, in his report, insisted that this be a component of any new legislation or code regarding conflict of interest. He also said that public disclosure has to apply not only to the spouse and to the Parliamentarian, but that there should also be a disclosure of assets for spouses of Parliamentarians.
I read here from page 357 of the Parker Commission report, where His Honour, Justice Parker, said:
In light of these views, and despite any apparent unease men may have about being publicly scrutinized because of their wives' public profile. I am satisfied that a modern conflict of interest regime requires public disclosure of the financial interests of spouses, whether male or female. I am fortified in this conclusion by the fact that all Canadian provinces with rules for disclosure by office holders apply a disclosure requirement to spouses as well.
In other words, what Justice Parker is telling us is that, at the provincial level, where rules exist concerning the disclosure
of assets by public office holders, the spouse of the public office holder is always covered.
What the Government is proposing in this Bill is a mild form, if you wish, of the same thing. It is interesting to note that it is that proposal in the legislation which has caused the most uproar, particularly from spouses of Members opposite.
The Minister seemed to suggest a while ago that in fact this Government had invented rules on public sector ethics, as if it was a normal process of evolution of Governments whereby this Government established all kinds of new rules and that it is the fault of not having rules there which made the situation what it is today. First of all, that is totally incorrect. This Government did not invent the rules. I must say that in my opinion this Government needs more rules than any other. Be that as it may, the first conflict of interest guidelines that were introduced-and I have a copy of them at hand-were introduced in Parliament on November 8, 1974-
An Hon. Mlember: There was no law for 18 years.


Don Boudria: -by then Prime Minister Trudeau. On August 7, 1979, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), when he was the Prime Minister, introduced a new set of guidelines. They were not a law either, but we forgive him for that. He introduced guidelines in 1979, when he was the Prime Minister of Canada. I now hear Conservatives across the way saying, "Those were not laws". That is true. It is quite correct to say that the Right Hon. Secretary of State, when he was Prime Minister, failed to introduce a law, just like everyone else. So if the Parliamentary Secretary, who is making these funny noises across the way, is suggesting that, I agree with her.
On April 28, 1980, the Liberal Government, when it came back into power, introduced new and tougher guidelines. These guidelines were getting more and more complex, as they should have been in order to ensure that Governments were behaving in the way that they should. The same Government commissioned a working group in order to produce a report.

1 have in my hand here a copy of the report from the conflict of interest task force chaired by the Hon. Michael Starr and the Hon. Mitchell Sharp-they were co-chairmen-and the executive director of the project was a man by the name of J. Patrick Boyer, who is now a Member of this House. This report was tabled in Parliament and it recommended reforms of ethics in the public sector. Well, all this to say, Madam Speaker, that this matter has been under consideration for a long time. Several successive Governments have presented different initiatives. So the Minister who just presented his Bill to us was a little mistaken, to say the least, when he suggested that his Government had invented the wheel. This Government has not invented much, as we know, Madam Speaker.
August 31, 1988

Now, on September 9, 1985, after a series of scandals embarrassed this Government, the Prime Minister rose in the House and presented a new code of conduct for public office holders. He presented this whole package, this new morality kit, all wrapped in a blue ribbon, and set it here on the Clerk's Table in the House. I have in my hand this so-called code of conduct for public office holders. It is quite an interesting document and we know that Judge Parker addressed the issue of how well or badly some Ministers followed the code presented in September 1985.
Now, in September 1985, the Prime Minister made some statements. On one hand, he sent a letter to MPs and Senators; on the other, he also proposed measures related to public morality in areas not covered by the code of conduct for public office holders. First, he proposed a code governing conflicts of interest; second, on September 9, 1985, he proposed new rules for the awarding of jobs or contracts. This concerned Ministers-I won't name anyone-who were sometimes tempted to hire their relatives, like their son as a lawyer, say, or their brother, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and so on. This has happened in some cases.
There was also a new code of ethics for MPs and Senators set forth in a letter the Prime Minister sent to them. Another provision of this code of ethics was parliamentary review of Order-in-Council appointments. So this was established.
There was a Bill on lobbying. Madam Speaker, I am sure you remember it took me 15 questions in the House, over a period of two years, to convince the Government to proceed with this measure. Finally, it did. There were further steps, such as the advice to Crown corporations to stop hiring lobbyists. We all know that Frank Moores was hired by a number of Crown corporations to lobby the Government, and this while Mr. Moores was a friend of the Prime Minister, and so forth.
In concluding, the Prime Minister said in his letter, and I am quoting here from page 11-he mentioned this new code of ethics. He said: "This package of reforms is evidence of the Government's intent to adopt ethical standards worthy of the respect of the Canadian people ... ". And we know what happened next. In so doing, we wish to further the process of national renewal by revitalizing the faith of the citizens of this country in their institutions of government. Many of these steps are long overdue, and heaven knows this Government has had cause to regret their absence." That is well said, Madam Speaker." But now they are in place, or in the process of being put in place, and we can look forward together to the dawning of a new day of trust and confidence." That was September 9, 1985.
Eater on I will talk about what has happened since September 9, 1985. I may remind all Members of this House and all Canadians of what I just read: The dawning of a new day of trust and confidence.
Conflict of Interest
So as of September 1985, we had this set of codes, a set of new rules governing or regulating the conduct of public office holders, and so forth.
If one did not know any better and if one had left Canada that day or perhaps had left the planet for somewhere else and come back this afternoon, one would believe that everything worked well after September 9, 1985, that no Conservative Cabinet Minister got himself or herself into trouble, that no accusations of conflict of interest had been made that a contract had been awarded improperly-


Claudy Mailly: That is garbage!


Don Boudria: -that no people were charged with criminal wrongdoing or anything of the sort. We cannot comment on the people who have been charged individually except that the process will take care of itself. We know that has happened. We can talk about the other issues, particularly those involving conflict of interest.
1 see the Member across the way is becoming rather excited because 1 am talking about the conflict of interest rules. I know it is an exciting topic. Perhaps her colleagues can contain her for a few minutes while I finish my remarks.


Mr. Siddon:: What you are doing is cowardly slander!


Don Boudria: I want to read from a September 9, 1985 article that appeared in The Ottawa Citizen. This was two days before the code of September 9 was introduced. The article is entitled "Firm Hires PM's Pal, $200,000 Job Follows." It reads like this:
A Toronto law firm was awarded $200,000-a-year worth of federal government legal work shortly after one of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's closest friends joined it earlier this year. The Citizen has learned.
It goes on to describe how Mr. Sam Wakim was hired by a Toronto law firm and by coincidence a lot of government contracts followed in that direction.
On October 2, 1986 there was another article-
[ Translation]


Claudy Mailly: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Ms. Mailly), on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Madam Speaker, I am starting to wonder about the relevance of what the Member is saying. He makes allegations about what some people who are not Members of Parliament might have done. The Bill we are considering today concerns conflicts of interest involving Members of Parliament and their spouses. I believe that he is having a great time, but 1 do not think it has anything to do with the Bill. Besides, it is his irresponsible attitude that has put us in the situation we are in today and not the Bill.

August 31, 1988
Conflict of Interest


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am sorry if the Hon. Member is not hearing clearly what 1 was saying. I will attempt to speak more slowly to make sure she understands everything in the future.


Claudy Mailly: Go outside and say it.


Don Boudria: Again, perhaps I will repeat so that even the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) will understand.
The Member across the way and some of her colleagues are saying that I am insinuating and making false accusations.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Total innuendo.


Don Boudria: I suppose the RCMP is making false accusations and that the Conservative Members of Parliament who, over the last 10 days, have made all kinds of comments in the House are making false accusations. In other words, the Member is probably suggesting that everyone who disagrees is crazy but everyone who agrees with her is all right.


Claudy Mailly: What you have just said is morally bankrupt.


Don Boudria: That "I am all right, Jack" attitude. Madam Speaker, is totally inadequate. Canadians have had enough of it.
I have a newspaper article for September 23, 1987. I can provide this article for Members opposite if it pleases them. In this one we read:
At 8.45 a.m. this morning, David Kilgour was still stewing.
He has been stewing now for 173 days, ever since that Saturday in April
when he warned the government it had better clean up its act or else.
The article continues:
Kilgour said he would either cross the floor or else quit altogether if the government failed to meet his two conditions: (i) Pay attention to the economic woes of Western Canada, and (ii) Come up with some suitable conflict-of-interest guidelines.


An Hon. Member:: What are you referring to?


Don Boudria: I think 1 am referring to conflict of interest guidelines. I am even referring to a request that a Conservative Member made. Surely I have the right to make that speech and I have the right to be heard. If the Member wants to be heard, I can yield the floor to her momentarily, she can make her point and I can come back to my speech provided that time is deducted from the amount of time that has been allotted to me. I know she will have ample opportunity to speak later.
As I was saying, the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) was saying that the Government had to come up with some suitable conflict of interest guidelines. Those remarks came from a September 23, 1987 newspaper article from The Ottawa Citizen written by one Roy MacGregor. This was not the only case. There have been others. I could read on and on from newspaper clippings of various cases involving conflict of interest. I could refer to Members individually but it is not the purpose of what we are doing
today. We are trying to propose rules which are better. If I am provoked by the Member across, we could get into this further.
I want to indicate to the House and to the Government that what is proposed to us today may be part of the answer, but it is certainly not the full picture. The Government has offered us only a partial set of rules involving conflict of interest, not a total package, and it has left many questions unanswered.
I have been asking myself, Madam Speaker, and you have probably wondered about this too, as I am sure most Canadians have, why this Bill was presented to us on February 24, 1988. Shortly before that, in 1988, there had been a number of issues raised in the House of Commons concerning conflict of interest. The Prime Minister, in the Throne Speech of 1986, had promised a new set of conflict of interest rules. It is interesting to note why we needed a new set of conflict of interest rules in 1986 when the Prime Minister had invented a new set in 1985 which he said were the best in the western world. If they were the best, how would they need to be fixed up? In any event, in 1986 in the fall Throne Speech here we were again with the Government committing itself to new rules regarding conflict of interest.
Lo and behold, the Government forgot about the necessity of having new conflict of interest rules until a few other problems arose, namely the Commission of Inquiry into Facts of Allegations of Conflict of Interest Concerning the Honourable Sinclair M. Stevens. This report was tabled last year and after it was tabled the Government presented us with a Bill on February 24, 1988, the same Bill that we are reviewing today, Bill C-l 14, entitled an Act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of office of Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, to establish a Conflict of Interest Commission and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This is the Bill that was presented to us on February 24, 1988.
On that date, the Prime Minister wrote to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), and presumably to the Leader of the third Party as well, and this is what he said in the letter that he sent to my Leader:
Dear Mr. Turner,
I enclose a copy of a Bill dealing with conflict of interest for Members of the Senate and the House of Commons, which I intend to table later today.
The Bill sets forth the Government's proposals in respect of conflict of interest. Its provisions, which affect the rights and privileges of all Parliamentarians, address some of the most difficult and complex issues facing persons in public life today. It deserves the most careful scrutiny by all Parliamentarians, and 1 invite you, as I am also inviting Mr. Broadbcnt, to join with me in asking all our colleagues in both Houses to review these proposals in the constructive spirit with which they are being put forward by the Government.
Listen to the next sentence, Madam Speaker:
August 31, 1988

I believe it is in the public interest that consideration of these proposals should proceed expeditiously so that the Bill may be enacted and proclaimed as soon as is prudently possible-
A few weeks later, I rose in my place in the House of Commons and asked the Prime Minister why it was that if this Bill had to be dealt with expeditiously, we were not proceeding with it. The Prime Minister ignored the question, answered something insignificant and just kept on going. The issue died. We did not hear about it for months.
Then a member of the governing Party, a former member of the government Cabinet, started making very serious allegations to the media, not to a Member of this House but to the media. After that, the Prime Minister decided that this Bill has become an urgent issue again. One must wonder, is the Bill urgently required because it is required or is it required because the media have started to ask questions once again? I do not know the answer, but 1 will let you speculate on it, Madam Speaker.
One must also ask what was the cause of the delay between February 24, 1988, and today, August 31 of the same year, in dealing with a Bill that was supposed to be urgent. I think there are answers to that question. Let me describe what I believe are some of those answers.
I have a newspaper article here entitled "Tory MP calls ethics law 'monstrosity' ". The article indicates that a Conservative Member of Parliament from Nova Scotia claimed that this Bill was a monstrosity and that it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was not a member of the Opposition but a member of the Government. He said, according to the article, the following:
"As far as I'm concerned, this bill runs totally against the fundamentals of Parliament," he said.
I read further from the same article written by Stephen Bindman:
One Conservative MP, who did not want to be identified, told Canadian
Press he questions whether the government wants a vote on the stiff new rules,
considering the possibility of a caucus split.
The article concludes:
And former speaker John Bosley said in an interview there is "quite a bit" of
opposition in the Tory caucus to the legislation as it stands.
It appears that some Members of Parliament were objecting and objecting strenuously to the passage of this Bill. Some people would be misled into believing that it was members of the Opposition who were obstructing the Bill. Sometimes people believe that of members of the Opposition, but that was not so. Every one of the Members of Parliament mentioned in this article are members of the governing Party.
It appears quite clearly that Members of Parliament on the government side did not want the enactment of this legislation.


Claudy Mailly: Who says that? It's in a newspaper.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member for Gatineau has asked me who said that. These are quotes of individual Members of Parliament.
Conflict of Interest


Claudy Mailly: In a newspaper.


Don Boudria: I will go further, if the Hon. Member for Gatineau would calm down and listen for a minute. I myself participated in a debate at CJOH Television in Ottawa. I was there with the wife of a Conservative Member of Parliament and she was there to present a case on behalf of the Conservative Spouses' Association as to why we should never enact Bill C-114. That is available on video tape. I was there supporting the Government's Bill.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Who was that, Mrs. Who?


Claudy Mailly: It was her right, it's a democracy.


Don Boudria: I can certainly state who it was. It was the President of the PC Spouses' Association.


John Napier Turner: Who's that?


Don Boudria: The lady's name was Mrs. Schellenberg, and I am sorry, but I forget her First name.
We had this debate on CJOH and the person in question was saying that these rules should not be enacted. The point I am making is that it is that kind of lobbying in the background from Conservative Members of Parliament and from the PC Spouses' Association which has caused this Bill not to have been called for second reading debate until today. It was not because members of the Opposition would not co-operate.
The minute we were asked to go along with the passage of this Bill, we agreed to it and we will deal with this Bill in two short days of debate in the House of Commons. We will have three hours of debate on second reading of this very important piece of legislation. That is the co-operation the Opposition has given to the Government, and I do not take credit for that myself. It is the same for all opposition Members. This has been unanimously agreed to. However, it took almost seven months for the Government to move on this Bill, no doubt because of the lobbying it was subjected to from Conservative Members of Parliament and from the PC Spouses' Association.
This does not mean that the Bill as proposed is perfect, because obviously it is not. Like most things that Members of Parliament look at, we want to offer amendments to it and we want to offer our input into trying to make the Bill better. In the short minutes left to me, I will just describe some of the amendments for which I am looking.
First, this Bill does not require full disclosure. The amount of disclosure is set by Cabinet. The Bill does not prohibit blind trusts, which I do not think work in any circumstances. Chiefs of staff are not included but the spouses and children of Members of Parliament are. I think that is inconsistent and we need a statement by the Government as to whether or not chiefs of staff will remain covered by the present conflict of interest code.

August 31, 1988
Tabling of Documents
Members are allowed to accept fees and gifts as long as these gifts are disclosed. We will want to examine practices in other jurisdictions to see if we should not prohibit the acceptance rather than require disclosure. I think that should be examined in committee, and I invite the input of all Hon. Members. The Bill does not prevent such things as loans or gifts from political Parties. Need I remind Hon. Members of the bill paid to redecorate 24 Sussex Drive? That particular issue involved the sum of $308,000.
The Bill in question is vague. We will want to tighten it up sufficiently. In closing, I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the time that has been given to me today. I invite all Hon. Members to support speedy passage of this Bill. Let us send it to committee so we can have full and thorough hearings on this very important piece of legislation.


Mr. Layton:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that there is consent from all my colleagues on all sides of the House for me to present a report from committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent that the Hon. Member table a report from a committee?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert E.J. Layton: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-114, an Act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of office of Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, to establish a Conflict of Interest Commission and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I want to participate in this debate because I have been a close
observer of what was supposed to be a brand new era. The Tories swept out the Liberals because the Liberals had done so many bad things. They had established bad practices like tollgating, patronage, and pork-barreling. I was here when the Liberals were in power and every time they got up we sang "Roll Out the Barrel".
We all remember very vividly when, in the leadership debate, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) recited the list of appointments which Mr. Trudeau had made, to which the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) had not objected. He pointed at him and said those memorable words, "You had an option, Sir". Everyone said that that was the turning point, and I believed it because I observed that debate. The Prime Minister established himself as a harbinger of new beginnings, of a clean slate. There would be no more of this dirty stuff, we were going to have Mr. Clean in spades. The honeymoon of the Tories with the people of Canada lasted six short months. Then we saw the deluge.
I listened to the Minister who introduced this second reading debate. To hear him tell it, Bill C-l 14 is somehow or other a normal evolutionary process of Conservatives on the way to becoming clean, cleaner, and cleanest. That is the impression he left. The Prime Minister is lying on his bed crying out for absolution. He is saying, "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, ideo precor beatam Mariam virgine". That has not been brought about by any evolutionary process but because of a list of scandals.
We had the Sine Stevens scandal. The taxpayers of this country know full well that the Parker inquiry has cost them millions of dollars. They know who picked up Mr. Stevens' bills. It was the taxpayers of Canada. They know of the stonewalling that went on in this House for weeks by Erik Nielsen. He stonewalled day after day as the Opposition ferreted out the facts one after the other. The Government was pushed into establishing the Parker Commission inquiry.
We have not forgotten the Bissonnette affair, the Cote affair, the Frank Moores affair, or the toll-gating claims made by the former Minister only a couple of weekends ago. The most recent one happened in July and was raised in the House today. The wife and daughter of the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) accepted two freebie tickets worth over $5,600. The Minister said that she does not have to declare that.
In an open letter to me and to all Members of Parliament written on September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister said the following about ethics: "It is a great principle of public administration, I could even say an imperative, that to function effectively the Government and 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".
August 31, 1988

The height of their standards is the gutter. We have seen evidence of that. These are not figments of the imagination and the people of Canada are responding to it.
I suggest that you read the latest polls. When asked which leader reflects honesty and integrity the Prime Minister is not the first choice. He does not emulate those qualities. He does not show leadership in those qualities for Canadians. After all, 26 million Canadians cannot be wrong.
Expecting me to believe that Bill C-l 14 has arrived on our desks for debate as a result of an evolutionary process is like expecting me to believe that Moby Dick once existed as a minnow. That is crazy. There is no Canadian in this country who would believe that.
Let me give you another example. Everyone heard about the Gucci shoes. The Prime Minister received a $158,000 loan from the PC Canada Fund. The guidelines said that loans had to be declared. That came out as a result of the Cote deal. It was then discovered that the Prime Minister got a loan. He said that it was not a loan but an advance. When is a loan an advance, Mr. Speaker? When the Prime Minister gets it. Then he said that he paid it back. If you give me an advance and I pay it back, is that not a loan? Of course it is a loan. Canadians are not simple-minded, they understand that. One of the clauses in this Bill is called the Gucci clause.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, we are very much amused but we are afraid our colleague will have another heart attack. He is not being relevant to the Bill, apart from the fact that he is being dishonest in the way he is presenting his so-called facts. I would like him at least to be relevant while he is entertaining us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I am sure the Hon. Member is going to touch on the Bill occasionally during his oration.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Conservatives are so sensitive. We are debating principle on Bill C-l 14 which talks about truth and honesty, and that is what I am talking about. They are trying to tell me that the Gucci shoes did not exist. Of course they did.
The Minister who introduced this Bill for second reading and spoke on it first compared it to a football game. I want to compare it to a boxing match. The image is that Bill C-l 14 is a peak-a-boo Bill, now you see it, now you don't. It's the Cassius Clay stance, the peak-a-boo stance. Every time you think it's there, it is not. When you think you have an opening to take a punch, you find it is closed, the gloves are there and your punch gets picked off.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Conflict of Interest


John R. Rodriguez: It is obvious that I have them on the ropes, Mr. Speaker, and now I am going to deliver the knock-out punch. I am going to give them the left upper-cut. Of course it will be a left upper-cut. This Bill was introduced by the Prime Minister himself back in February. It is now August, the dying days of this Parliament, and at the eleventh hour Bill C-l 14 is put forward for debate and we have some more scandals brewing.
We heard the Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) talk about crumbs falling off the table. One Member said that if he told what he knew he could put 12 people in jail.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


John R. Rodriguez: It is not New Democrats who are saying that. It is Conservatives. They are not only shooting themselves in the foot, but in the head. That is not difficult if they can find it.
Why have the Conservatives brought the Bill in at this last minute? They do not want to pass the Bill. It is as simple as that. They want no change in the rules. They are not even being honest about Bill C-l 14.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: They do not want an effective conflict of interest law. You know that the Bill will not pass when an election is called within the next couple of weeks.
We paid several million dollars for the Parker Commission report. Maybe we ought to look at what Justice Parker had to say about conflict of interest. I want to quote Justice Parker. Justice Parker said that the key-


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can the Hon. Member give us the page he is quoting in the Parker report?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Justice Parker said: "In my view-"


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is not a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Can the Hon. Member give us the page that he is quoting from in the Parker report so that we are assured he is not reading it out of context?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: That is not a proper point of order. It is up to the Hon. Member whether he does or does not do so.

August 31, 1988
Conflict of Interest


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, Justice Parker said: "In my view, public disclosure should be the cornerstone of a modern conflict of interest code".


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What page?


John R. Rodriguez: Justice Parker has said that that question of disclosure is the very essence of a modern conflict of interest code. One would think that the Prime Minister, having read this report, would in fact incorporate that suggestion into this conflict of interest legislation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Have you read the report?


John R. Rodriguez: But it is not there. In the United States, they have full disclosure in their conflict of interest rules. In Great Britain there are full disclosure rules. In many provinces in Canada there are full disclosure rules. In municipal council there are full disclosure rules. But is there full disclosure in Bill C-114?
If the principle of the Bill is conflict of interest, then it ought to be based on a cornerstone, which is that public disclosure is the essence of any conflict of interest law.
In fact, Bill C-114 is diametrically opposed to that because it only requires Members of Parliament to reveal their assets to a registrar who may or may not make public any or all of the information provided by the Member. In fact, this is no disclosure at all. What has been inserted into this equation now is a bureaucrat. The bureaucrat and the Member will decide what, if anything, shall be disclosed.
That is not fulfilling what Justice Parker has said and has discovered in a very exhaustive hearing is essential to a conflict of interest guideline. What is being offered here is something called reasonable privacy of Members. That is a variation on the theme of full disclosure. It is not even consistent.
In fact, we in the New Democratic Party cannot accept that idea which is contained in Bill C-114. We criticize it for that because, in fact, it sets up a filtering system and some bureaucrat will filter what exactly the public should know. You cannot have a transparent system with that kind of filtering plant.
In fact, that is what is in effect now. The ADRG registers the assets. He does not have to reveal them. They are not public knowledge. Surely we should be aiming for something better than what we have had and what has failed us in the past. That is our first grave concern.
The second shortcoming of the Bill as far as we New Democrats see it is the whole question of requiring Members to make a public declaration of conflicts and withdraw from debate or discussion of the particular issue in which they have a conflict. When I was on municipal council, one had to declare publicly what the conflict was. Then one could not participate in the debate or in the vote.
According to the present Standing Orders of the House, the Member does not participate in the vote, but there is no public declaration of the pecuniary interest the Member has in the legislation that is before Parliament. As far as I am concerned, there must be a provision in the Bill that has some declaratory powers.
The third shortcoming of the Bill as we see it is the question of blind trusts. Again, Justice Parker has said-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: At what page?


John R. Rodriguez: -quite strongly, one of his recommendations-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: At what page?


John R. Rodriguez: You should know the page. You ought to know the Parker Commission report inside out. You should not be asking me the page, and I am pointing to Mr. Sinclair Stevens.
Why is he asking? He is better acquainted with Justice Parker than I am. He has spent more time with him. He spent more time with him, at my expense, so do not ask me the page. Do not ask me the page.


An Hon. Member:: Go eat a banana, John.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: This is creating a considerable amount of disorder in the Chamber. I would be most appreciative if the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) would refrain from using pronouns in the first person.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I observe that. You have given me a chance to cool down. But here is a guy on 14 counts-not one, two or three, but 14 counts of conflict of interest-


Mr. Brisco:: A point of order.


John R. Rodriguez: He spent more time with Justice Parker and he is asking me what page the recommendation is on. Buddy, what did I pay that lawyer for, who is now a judge? What did I pay Sopinka for? Let him tell you the page. Call Sopinka. I will pay the dime.


Robert Hylton Brisco: A point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I would appreciate if the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) in the last minute he has, would refrain from using pronouns and speak through the Chair.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to take from the Hon. Member's last moments in his speech, but out of regard for the Hon. Member when he is outside the Chamber, I remind him that if he exercises himself too passionately he may well be addressing the House in his last moments. He should have some due regard for his own welfare.
August 31, 1988


John R. Rodriguez: When I consider this cause that I am on the public interest-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: The Tories are laughing. They think this is a joke. They do not know what it is to feel passionately about some issue. That is Tories for you, Mr. Speaker. No wonder they are in the mess they are in today. No wonder we need strong conflict of interest guidelines.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I would like to tell the Hon. Member that I am rising, through no fault of his, at this time to admit that there was a mistake and he has another 20 minutes if he so wishes.


John R. Rodriguez: I thought 1 had to run through the speech, now I can savour each moment. Justice Parker in one of his recommendations said, key to our opposition: "In my view, the blind trust should be abolished". We paid millions of dollars for this kind of high-falutin' recommendation. We New Democrats think that it is a pretty smart recommendation, so why has the Government not included the abolition of blind trusts in the legislation?
It is the Cassius Clay stance. You think you have blind trust, but you notice the guard is still up and you are bobbing and weaving and it catches you a punch and you flick it off. It is because of this filtering system where one goes to a commissioner of trusts and you tell him what you owe. Then he says: "Sit down, my son, now which one of these things do you think we can make public?" He wants to know: "Should we make your 50,000 shares in Christ coins public?" You reply: "No, I do not think we should do that". He asks: "How about the Sunday newspaper you have in Ottawa? Should we make that one public?" There it is. It is as effective as a roaring rabbit. Of course, no one can challenge the decision of the commissioner, so there is no one to watch the watchdog. Who watches the watchdogs? No one. So we do not have an abolition of blind trusts.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with a great deal of interest to my hon. friend opposite. I know he studied Bill C-114, the conflict of interest Bill very carefully. I wonder if he would like to comment on whether the Bill goes far enough so that it will stop the laundering practices of the New Democratic Party, which launders money through the Elections Act to the municipal-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gormley:: How much money did you clean last month?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, what do they call that? Remember the guard is up. What do they call it?


Jack Wendele Shields: Answer the question.
Conflict of Interest


Claudy Mailly: Why don't you answer it?


John R. Rodriguez: They call it reasonable privacy. Nothing that embarrasses. Nothing that really makes life tough for an elected politician, no, Sir. And who decides the reasonable privacy? The Member and the buddy the Government appointed as the commissioner, probably a Tory.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said it has never been an acceptable practice. He said he would never make it a practice to buy Canadians with their own money, and we all know Mr. Clean is in the House-


Mr. King:: What about laundering, John?


John R. Rodriguez: -and that hundreds and millions of dollars were spent to win a by-election.


Don Boudria: It was $162.8 million, to be exact. But who is counting?


John R. Rodriguez: That is right, $162.8 million.


Frederick John King: What about the laundering, John?


John R. Rodriguez: We have another problem, Mr. Speaker, with this Bill. We New Democrats have a problem, and that is the clause in the Bill which we call the Gucci clause.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: What is the Gucci clause?


John R. Rodriguez: The Member asks me what the Gucci clause is. I want to prove to these Members that I have read Bill C-114 and I am relevant to Bill C-l 14. The Gucci clause refers to the Leaders of the political Parties in the House of Commons who do not have to reveal any moneys they receive from their national Parties. We all remember the $158,000, the loan/advance to the Prime Minister. That is a euphemism. English is not my first language but I think we call it a "euphemism" for a loan. It is an advance. But then I ask, why would you pay back an advance? He pays it back. The answer is: "Because I think it is a loan". You see, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have two laws, one for the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, and the rest for us small fry in the back benches. We cannot operate that way. We have to be even-handed. Of course, this is something the Tories do not understand. I could see my Party giving me an advance. I could see the Tory Party giving some of those Tory hacks in the back some advances. I know the Liberal Party does not have any money to give. It is looking for some money for itself.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just wondering if the Hon. Member, who is in such full flight, could perhaps fill us in on the $1,345 million his Party received from unions in this country. That is $42,000 for himself.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Everyone knows about that.

August 31, 1988
Conflict of Interest


Don Boudria: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has a lot of difficulty with what is going on right now. It becomes very difficult when Hon. Members keep getting up on points of order which are not points of order, and which the Chair has to judge, and those Hon. Members do know that the point which they are going to bring up is not a point of order. There are only a few minutes left before six o'clock and I would expect the House to come to order. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Madam Speaker. That is the first legitimate question we have had and I will answer that question. I think it is an important question. I want to point out that the million odd dollars that unions contribute to the New Democratic Party is given openly and by vote. It is a democratic process. I want to say that that is not the same as the banks of Canada contributing money to the Liberals and Tories when they do not take a vote of their shareholders. They take it right out of the pockets of their shareholders. They starve to death because they take $80,000 and give it to the Tories.
Let us get back to the Gucci clause. We have a problem with the Gucci clause. We do not think there should be any exemptions. Since he said that the Minister had to step down as a Minister because he did not record his loan, the Hon. Member from Quebec Est did not declare his loan and the Prime Minister should have declared his loan-his loan/advance. We have problems.
However, we have another problem with this Bill because what the Bill is setting up is a quasi-judicial agency. This commissioner of trusts is a quasi-judicial agency. When the Prime Minister wrote to me and to all the lowly Members of Parliament in this House in 1985 he was very clear. This is what he said, and I want to put it on the record. In his letter of 1985 one of the things he said to us was: "You will find no quasi-independent agencies in this code that will allow the Government to shirk its responsibility by saying the problem belongs to someone else. Nor will you find anything that will relieve me and my colleagues of the necessity of exercising judgment". The man was telling us that in fact he would not pass off the responsibility of Government to any quasi-judicial agency. In fact he, the Prime Minister, was going to call the shots.
What have we got in Bill C-114? We have a quasi-judicial agency, a commissioner of trusts, a bureaucrat whose decisions will never be appealable and who will be appointed by Tories-hopefully they can pass the Bill before they get defeated. We cannot accept that in the Bill.
One of the other things with which we have some difficulties is the question of the spouses. In this Bill it requires that the spouses must declare their assets. We believe that there is a
necessity to balance the right to privacy of spouses with the public interest. This is of great concern, particularly to women since the majority of spouses are women-just look at this House-and also a concern as we want to have greater equality in the House. It would serve as a barrier to having greater participation and equality in the House of Commons. What we are saying here is that the Government has to look at this particular clause again. We are prepared to introduce, when we get into committee, an amendment that would state that spouses disclose only those kinds of interests that might reasonably be said to give rise to concerns regarding conflict of interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: I think that is a particular area that has to be examined closely. We have a Charter of Rights in this country now. We cannot trample on the rights of spouses of Members of Parliament. That is not to deny public disclosure.
I made a very important distinction.
Madam Speaker, I want to conclude-


Some Hon. Members:: Good!


John R. Rodriguez: They are in the mood of trying to paint themselves white.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: 1 hear you, Howard. They want to paint themselves blue-bluer than the driven snow. Look at what we have had. We have had no changes to the Election Expenses Act. We have heard Tories talking about: "Oh, we will not take contributions from corporations. We have clean hands". Yet they have 14 pockets in their coats. Then they pass a resolution which states: but it's voluntary.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about the unions?


John R. Rodriguez: They do not have to take it. So there have not been any important changes to the Election Expenses Act so we can have another Masse affair by all Members.
Second, look at what we passed for a lobby registry Bill. It has so many loopholes in it that a herd of elephants could walk through. Is that creating transparency? No wonder a recent poll the other day-March, 1988-


Sheila Maureen Copps: The other day?


John R. Rodriguez: It was a few months ago. That is in Liberal time. We know how long it takes for Liberals to do anything.
The majority of Canadians look with some askance at the integrity of Parliamentarians. Honesty of Parliamentarians is not high on the list of those we govern. Of course not. Because they look and see these things. In fact, there is an Election Expenses Act by which one can two-track and spend all kinds of money. Then there is a lobby registry Bill that allows every Tom, Dick and Harry to do whatever he wants. One does not
August 31, 1988

have to declare the issue and how much one spends on the lobbying activity. We have had problems with that. Ask Frankie baby how much a fishing licence is. He will tell you: "It's $3,000 if I talk to the Minister. It's $5,000 if I get it for you". Ask Gary Ouellet, the man who has written 14 books on magic. He is the man who has a tuxedo with 16 pockets in its jacket. He can make a deck of cards disappear. As a matter of fact, I think the Prime Minister wishes he had him on the team. He could make some of those Tories disappear. It would make life easier for him. Needless to say, poor old John, he wishes he had him.
In conclusion-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I am persuaded that there are a couple of things more that I want to say in conclusion.
This Government will be judged not on whether it brought the unemployment rate down, not on whether it brought the interest rate down, not on whether it brought inflation down-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: -but it is going to be judged on honesty and integrity. That is where Members opposite score zero- zero. In fact, I think that those guys should start plodding over to the Chateau, have a shadow Cabinet where members of the Party can plan to get rid of their Leader. The Party may be running ahead of the Leader.
It is clear that what Canadians are looking for and what they looked for after the 1984 election was a new beginning. They have not had a new beginning. They have had old Liberal ways in spades. I know they will point to the odd NDPer, the odd sterling NDPer who has been appointed, like Ian Deans and Stephen Lewis, as an excuse for appointing 50,000 Tory hacks. They appointed Gail Christie to the board of Air Canada. When asked what her qualifications for working on the board were she said: "I have a driver's licence". The other day I got on a plane. The first thing I did was to go went into the cockpit. I said: "Is there anybody here named Gail Christie?" Not a word came back. They were all too busy trying to buy Air Canada shares.
We are told one thing and something else happens. We were told that Air Canada is not for sale. Then, before we knew it, it was: "How much?" Water was not for sale. Then, lo and behold, it was there in the deal. The man said he was not for free trade. I do not know what kind of kinky ideas he has got. He said voting for free trade was like going to bed with an elephant. It blows my mind. If the elephant twitches and rolls over you're a dead person. He was right.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, in conclusion, we will support the Bill and look for changes in committee and at report stage.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, August 30, 1988, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the subamendment in relation to Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, August 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the third time and passed; and the amendment of Mr. Axworthy:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word
"That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the legislative committee for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 8.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. Just coming into the House I was handed a statement made by Mr. Bruce Rawson, who is the Deputy Minister of Western Diversification, which clearly shows that this vote is being taken under false pretences because-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask Hon. Members to keep in mind that whatever may be or however Members may feel about a particular issue, under the rules the Chair is now required to put all the votes. This is, after all, the way these matters are determined. I would ask Hon. Members to co-operate with the Chair. I know that there may be some wish to indicate Members' feelings during the vote, but I would ask that Members exercise the appropriate constraints and assist the Chair in keeping order in the Chamber.
The first question is on the amendment to the amendment.


Lynn McDonald: August 31, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
That the amendment be amended by deleting the period at the end thereof
and adding the following:
"and its implications on the economic and political sovereignty of Canada."


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the vote but I am bound by the rules of this place. May I ask Hon. Members, having made the point, to co-operate with the Chair and take down the flags.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I know that all Hon. Members know that this is the end of a debate which is of great importance to the country and to this House. But there is another issue here, and that is how we handle ourselves. I would ask the co-operation of Hon. Members.
Perhaps I can ask other Hon. Members, in return for the cooperation of some others, to remove the buttons.
(Division No. 568)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand
Althouse
Angus
Axworthy
Baker
Benjamin
Berger
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Boudria
Broadbent
Caccia
Cassidy
Copps
de Jong
Dewar
Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster
Fulton
Gagliano
Garneau
Gauthier
Andre
Attewell
Beatty
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Harris
Heap
Hopkins
Hovdebo
Isabelle
Jewett
Kaplan
Keeper
Killens
Langdon
Lapierre
MacLellan
Manly
Marchi
McCurdy
McDonald
(Broadview-
Greenwood)
McLaughlin
Mitchell
Murphy
++NAYS
Members
Bissonnette
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blenkarn
Blouin
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Nystrom
Orlikow
Ouellet
Parry
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rodriguez
Rompkey
Rossi
Skelly
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Tobin Turner
(Vancouver Quadra) Waddell Young-64
Bosley
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Bouchard
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Bourgault
Boyer	Halliday	NickersonBradley	Hamelin	OberleBrightwell	Hamilton	O'NeilBrisco	Hardey	OostromBrowes	Harvey	PaproskiCadieux	Hawkes	PennockCaldwell	Hees	PetersonCardiff	Hicks	PietzChampagne	Hnatyshyn	Plourde(Saint-Hyacinthe-	Hockin	PorterBagot)	Holtmann	PriceChampagne	Horner	Ravis(Champlain)	Howie	RedwayCharest	Hudon	ReidChartrand	Jacques	ReimerClark	James	Ricard(Yellowhead)	Jardine	RomanClifford	Jepson	St. GermainClinch	Johnson	St-JulienCoates	(Bonavista-T rinity-	SchellenbergCochrane	Conception)	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Collins	Johnston	ScottComeau	(Saint-Henri-	(Victoria-Haliburton)Cook	Westmount)	ScowenCorbett	Joncas	ShieldsCossitt	Jourdenais	SiddonCrofton	Kelleher	SparrowCrosbie	Kempling	Stackhouse(St. John's West)	Kilgour	StevensCrosby	Kindy	Stewart(Halifax West)	King	SulukCrouse	Ladouceur	TardifDantzer	Lanthier	(Charlesbourg)Darling	Layton	TaylorDaubney	Leblanc	Thackerde Cotret	Lesick	ToupinDella Noce	Lewis	TowersDesjardins	Lopez	TremblayDomm	MacDonald	(Quebec-Est)Dorin	(Kingston and	TremblayDuguay	the Islands)	(Lotbiniere)Edwards	MacDougall	TupperEllis	(Timiskaming)	TurnerEpp	Mailly	(Ottawa-Carleton)(Provencher)	Malone	ValcourtFerland	Mantha	Van De WalleFontaine	Marin	VankoughnetForrestall	Martin	VezinaFraleigh	Masse	VincentFretz	Mayer	WeinerFriesen	Mazankowski	WenmanGass	McCain	WhiteGervais	McCrossan	WilsonGirard	McCuish	(Swift CurrentGormley	McDermid	-Maple Creek)Gottselig	Mclnnes	WilsonGraham	McKinnon	(EtobicokeGray	McKnight	Centre)(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	McLean	Winegardla-Madeleine)	McMillan	WiseGrise	Merrithew	Witer-179Guilbault	Minaker	(Drummond)	Mitges	Gurbin	Moore	Gustafson	Mulroney


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
I would ask for the attention of Hon. Members for just a moment. The rules of decorum in this place are primarily designed to maintain order. There is no magic precedent for what on another occasion was allowed or not allowed. I have asked Hon. Members to co-operate, and for the most part they have. There are some Hon. Members who are not yet co-
August 31, 1988

Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement
operating, and they are creating disorder. I would ask that the	nays
pins be removed, and I would ask that the flags be held down.
Members
The next question is on the amendment of Mr. Axworthy. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.

August 31, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind Hon. Members that one thing just leads to another, and we will be here quite a long time. I would ask Hon. Members to desist.
[Editors Note: Whereupon all Hon. Members rose and sang O Canada]


Some Hon. Members:: We want an election.


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk will carry on with the voting.
(Division No. 570)
++YEAS
Desjardins	Kelleher	RavisDomm	Kempling	RedwayDor in	Kilgour	ReidDuguay	Kindy	ReimerEdwards	King	RicardEllis	Ladouceur	RomanEpp	Lanthier	St. Germain(Provencher)	Layton	St-JulienFerland	Leblanc	SchellenbergFontaine	Lesick	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Forrestall	Lewis	ScottFraleigh	Lopez	(Victoria-Haliburton)Fretz	MacDonald	ScowcnFriesen	(Kingston and	ShieldsGass	the Islands)	SiddonGervais	MacDougall	SparrowGirard	(Timiskaming)	StackhouseGormley	Mailly	StevensGottselig	Malone	StewartGraham	Mantha	SulukGrise	Marin	TardifGuilbault	Martin	(Charlesbourg)(Drummond)	Masse	TaylorGurbin	Mayer	ThackerGustafson	Mazankowski	ToupinHalliday	McCain	TowersHamelin	McCrossan	TremblayHamilton	McCuish	(Quebec-Est)Hardey	McDermid	TremblayHarvey	Mclnnes	(Lotbiniere)Hawkes	McKinnon	TupperHees	McKnight	TurnerHicks	McLean	(Ottawa-Carleton)Hnatyshyn	McMillan	ValcourtHockin	Merrithew	Van De WalleHoltmann	Minaker	VankoughnetHorner	Mitges	VezinaHudon	Moore	VincentJacques	Mulroney	WeinerJames	Nickerson	WenmanJardine	Oberle	WhiteJepson	O'Neil	WilsonJohnson	Oostrom	(Swift Current(Bonavista-T rinity-	Paproski	-Maple Creek)Conception)	Pennock	WilsonJohnston	Peterson	(Etobicoke(Saint-Henri-	Pietz	Centre)Westmount)	Plourde	WinegardJoncas	Porter	WiseJourdenais	Price	Witer-177NAYS	Members	
Members
Andre	Bradley	CoatesAttewell	Brightwell	CochraneBeatty	Brisco	CollinsBclsher	Browes	ComeauBernier	Cadieux	CookBertrand	Caldwell	CorbettBissonnette	Cardiff	CossittBlackburn	Champagne	Crofton(Jonquiere)	(Saint-Hyacinthe-	CrosbieBlais	Bagot)	(St. John'Blenkarn	Champagne	CrosbyBlouin	(Champlain)	(Halifax 'Bosley	Charest	CrouseBouchard	Chartrand	Dantzer(Roberval)	Clark	DarlingBouchard	(Yellowhead)	Daubney(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Clifford	de CotretBourgault	Clinch	Della Noce
Boyer
Allmand	Foster	ManlyAlthouse	Fulton	MarchiAngus	Gagliano	McCurdyAxworthy	Garneau	McDonaldBaker	Gauthier	(Broadview-Benjamin	Gray	Greenwood)Berger	(Windsor West)	McLaughlinBlackburn	Guilbault	Mitchell(Brant)	(Saint-Jacques)	MurphyBlaikie	Harris	NicholsonBoudria	Heap	(Trinity)Broadbent	Hopkins	NunziataCaccia	Hovdebo	NystromCassidy	Isabelle	OrlikowCopps	Jewett	Ouelletde Jong	Kaplan	ParryDewar	Keeper	PepinEpp	Killens	Prud'homme(Thunder Bay-	Langdon	RiisNipigon)	Lapierre	RobichaudFinestone	MacLellan	Robinson
August 31, 1988

Rodriguez	Tardif	WaddellRompkey	(Richmond-Wolfe)	Young-64Rossi	Tobin	Skelly	Turner	(Vancouver Quadra)	
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. The House adjourned at 7.11 p.m.

Thursday, September 1, 1988


[Stage Direction]
Prayers