1989-05-31

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the parade goes on at Canada Post. The parade of allegations of deplorable management, sexual harassment, bribery, fascist tactics, human degradation, unfair dismissal, and reprisals against employees. This parade of allegations started in Toronto and is now clearly evident in Ottawa.
Yesterday, I listened to an employee who worked in security for Canada Post. He stated that wallets placed in the postal system for safe return to their owners were stripped of cash and then discarded at the instruction of supervisors. These wallets often contained drivers' licences and other proper identification but still were not returned by Canada Post. He also alleged that keys with tags issued by the War Amputations of Canada organization were often discarded as scrap metal.
The losers in this deplorable internal battle in Canada Post are the Canadian people. Canadians deserve a postal system that operates properly. I demand the Minister carry out an unbiased investigation of Canada Post. The Minister must investigate these allegations through a royal commission.


QUEBEC MAJOR JUNIOR HOCKEY LEAGUE IN BEAUPORT
Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, the right of the beautiful city of Beauport in my riding to join the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League for the 1990-91 season was confirmed last weekend. That decision follows numerous representations by Swiss developer Jurg Staubli, supported by Beauport citizens including Mayor Jacques Langlois and lawyer Frangois-Xavier Simard.
Mr. Staubli and his team also plan to build in Beauport a World Trade Centre at a cost exceeding $25 million.
Congratulations and best wishes of success to all those who contribute to economic growth and sports development in Beauport as well as the entire beautiful Quebec city region.


BEHAVIOUR OF MEMBERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, the behaviour of some Members from both sides of the House during Question Period is totally unacceptable to the people of Canada. Not only are we calling upon ourselves the disgust and justifiable disillusionment of all Canadians, we are in danger of bringing this House and our institutions into disrespect.
Therefore, I offer you my total support and I respectfully request and urge you to use every rule and custom at your disposalto stop the outrageously long preambles, declare unacceptable the innuendo and character assassinations, and demand that both questions and answers be precise, tough and courteously put and answered.

May 31, 1989
I ask and urge all Members to remember who we are, where we are, and why we are here. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that all Canadians can be proud of our democratic institutions, let alone their elected representatives.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, the much vaunted agreement that was reached yesterday at the NATO talks as a result of negotiations between the Americans, the Germans, and other NATO countries in our opinion has one fatal flaw. It is predicated on a guarantee that there will be no elimination of short-range nuclear weapons.
It seems to me that any negotiation and any agreement worthy of this planet would have been one at least to head toward the elimination of these weapons. I think the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) are not doing themselves any service by boasting about an agreement in which they had a part, the essence of which is the preservation of short-range nuclear weapons.
Short-range nuclear weapons are the most dangerous kinds of nuclear weapons because they have to be used within minutes of any kind of incident. They are precisely the kinds of weapons the Government should be committed to removing, not partially reducing and thereby preserving.


EXTERNAL RELATIONS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-St-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to express an overwhelming Canadian point of view in supporting and encouraging the restraint and tolerance being demonstrated thus far in China.
I am particularly impressed by the spirit of democracy expressed by His Excellency Wan Li, Chairman of the National People's Congress, during his recent stay in
Canada, and support the commitment he has made to: "firmly protect the patriotic enthusiasm of the young people in China".
I am also heartened by the tolerance shown by the People's Liberation Army. It was not lightly that a captain said: "We will not shoot the people. We are veiy tolerant".
I ask the Government of Canada to encourage the Chinese authorities to end martial law as soon as possible in order to progress toward greater democracy and tolerance in China.


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my concern for a very serious problem that arises out of certain definitions in the Free Trade Agreement.
Annex 1502.1 of Schedule 2 in the agreement lists geological technicians but not geologists among those persons who are able to move freely to provide their services on both sides of the border. This is of particular concern to geologists in Alberta, as Alberta is the only province which specifically licenses and regulates the practice of professional geologists. In other provinces they are free to classify themselves as geological technicians, or they may practise as geological engineers. Engineers are also on the approved list.
I appeal to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) to seek some way of obtaining an administrative ruling that will allow professional geologists in Alberta to be recognized as the equivalent of geological engineers in the other provinces pending the outcome of negotiations to have geologists included in the list of approved professions in Schedule 2 of the agreement.


EXTERNAL RELATIONS
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Lebanon is certainly not a new situation. In fact, the fighting in this region has now lasted more than 15 years. The most unfortunate news is that it grows

constantly worse, not better. Officials in the Department of External Affairs tell us that since the fall of last year the crisis has reached levels never previously seen.
In 1976, during the last escalated period of turmoil in Lebanon the Liberal Party established special immigration programs to deal with the vast number of Lebanese who wished to leave their troubled country for a better life in Canada. This resulted in 12,000 Lebanese immigrants to our country.
To date, the only action taken has been to open an office in Nicosia, Cypress, a country in which Canada has no official diplomatic status. This action is not adequate, as this tiny office has but one federal officer to deal with an average daily influx of between 200 and 300 Lebanese people per day.
I call upon the Minister to expand the facilities available so that the Lebanese who wish to immigrate can do so as quickly as legally possible.


THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to bring to the attention of the House a most inspiring project initiated by Cumberland County Family Planning in Amherst, Nova Scotia. This group, under the leadership of Ruthie Patriquin, the Community Director, recognized an area of education taken for granted in public schools but not available for hearing handicapped-that of sex education for youth.
Once the problem was identified they applied to the Department of National Health and Welfare for funding assistance to write, direct, and produce a professional quality video and accompanying user's guidebook.
Cumberland County Family Planning is to be commended for this innovative and needed project for the hearing handicapped. I am pleased to say that funding has been approved. The project is now under way under the supervision of Linda Franchi, Project Co-ordinator. It will employ hearing handicapped as directors, actors, and production staff.
Interest in this video indicates that it will fill a void nationally and maybe even internationally.
Anyone requiring further information is urged to contact my office.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, they are at it again. Thanks to the Conservative's Budget, the CBC is once again examining the reduction if not the elimination of regional radio and regional television services. That was tried by the CBC in the past and failed. This time the cuts may be even more disastrous for Canadians.
The rumours are that there will be only one CBC radio station left in each province. If that is true, then in Ontario the stations in Thunder Bay, Windsor, Sudbury, and Ottawa are in danger of being made into small news gathering storefronts and if they are lucky at getting on to the mother station once in a blue moon.
In Alberta, which station will they close, Edmonton or Calgary? That battle would make the Flames and Oilers rivalry look very simple.
What about B.C.? Does this rumour spell the end to regional services throughout that province?
Whatever the truth to these rumours you can bet, Mr. Speaker, that this caucus and the people of Canada will once again stop the Government from undermining our regional radio and television services.


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on a Radio-Nord broadcast in Val d'Or journalist Andre Lavoie described two new native leaders in Canada, lawyer Romeo Saganash and Tracy Michel. Romeo Saganash has recently completed his law studies at the University of Quebec in Montreal. He is the first Cree lawyer in Quebec and is already working to establish an all-Cree legal system. Tracy Michel comes from British Columbia. She is the first native woman in Canada to fly a commercial plane. She works for Air Creebec of Val d'Or in Abitibi.
Mr. Speaker, those are two fine examples of the new native generation of whom the Cree nation as well as ourselves can be proud.

May 31, 1989



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Thrner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Either the Conservative Government is playing a most dangerous game conspiring to hide the truth on the one hand and bullying anyone who reveals the truth on the other, or the Government lost control during a crisis to a group of bureaucrats. In either case the result for Canadians is both disturbing and fundamentally wrong.
The Minister of Finance took 28 days to tell the House the story that he did not know about the Mutual Life leak during Question Period on April 27.
The Deputy Prime Minister took three days to tell us the same story.
We are now at day 35 of this scandal and Canadians have still not heard from the Prime Minister's own mouth exactly what he claims he heard about the leak to Mutual Life.
During his overseas trip-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


John Napier Turner: My question to the Prime Minister is this: When and how did he learn of the Mutual Life leak? When he did learn, why did he not immediately report to Parliament?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I was advised by the Clerk of the Privy Council about the telephone call from Mutual Life some time between 3.30 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon of April 27.
I was also advised by Mr. Tellier, the Clerk of the Council, that appropriate action had been taken, that the matter had been referred to the RCMP as part of their investigation which was already under way into this whole matter. I hope that satisfies my right hon. friend.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not satisfied with that.


THE SECOND BUDGET LEAK-REQUEST AS TO WHY INFORMATION WAS NOT TRANSMITTED IMMEDIATELY TO PARLIAMENT
John Napier Turner: We have a parliamentary system of government. We only have this Parliament which represents the Canadian people. And when Cabinet Ministers mislead Parliament for 35 days, they mock our parliamentary system and the people are misled.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition please put his question?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had already been informed around 3.30 p.m., why did he not immediately reveal the second budget leak, the one to Mutual of Canada, to Parliament, since he had promised this House the same day, April 27, at 3 p.m., half an hour earlier, that any new information would be immediately reported to the Parliament of Canada? Why did he hide the truth for 35 days?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we must vigorously refute the Opposition Leader's allegation that the Minister of Finance misled Parliament, when the Minister of Finance provided full and complete answers. He speaks of the Prime Minister's obligation to report to the House. In fact, as reported on page 1035 of Hansard for April 27, following a question by the Hon. Member for Bumaby-Kingsway, and I quote:

However, the Solicitor General has said if any information comes to him, he will report to the House immediately-
The Solicitor General has said, precisely at page 1032, and I quote him carefully:

The investigation is underway, Mr. Speaker, and as soon as we have the facts, the findings, we will be able to disclose them.
So, indeed, Mr. Speaker, the commitment I gave to the House has been followed to the letter. The information had already been reported by the Solicitor General and
May 31, 1989

my answer, like the Solicitor General's, was complete. If the Leader of the Opposition desires additional information, I will be pleased to provide it to him.


APPEARANCE OF SENIOR OFFICIALS BEFORE BAR OF HOUSE
Right Hon. John N. Rirner@Leader of the Opposition: I say to the Prime Minister: don't play games with the House of Commons and the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I say to him: don't play with words and don't hide the truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader will put his question.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, for 35 days the Prime Minister and his top Ministers have hidden the truth from the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Henry Reimer: In his response today he has corroborated what the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have told us, namely, that for two hours the three senior Ministers of the Government did not know.
My question to the Prime Minister is: In those circumstances, since bureaucrats were controlling what the Ministers and the Prime Minister knew about an essential fact, why does he not agree to my motion to call those three senior gentlemen before the bar of the House of Commons so that we can get the facts about why the truth was hidden from the people of Canada.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have all become used to the Leader of the Opposition denigrating members of the cabinet and members of the government, but even for the Leader of the Opposition it is a first for him to try to tarnish the reputations of distinguished public servants. The Leader of the Opposition, as a former Prime Minister, should know better.
The decisions on the night before were taken by the Prime Minister, with his Cabinet colleagues-
Oral Questions
An Hon. Member What are you afraid of?


An Hon. Member:: Not you, that's for sure.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am attempting to respond to the Leader of the Opposition.
An Hon. Member Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: On the evening that budget information was made public by a reporter, my first instruction to the Minister of Finance was to ask the Leader of the Opposition for the permission to come before the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In the absence of that, I instructed the Minister of Finance to make the budget measures public immediately. I also requested that a Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigation be undertaken immediately. That undertaking was followed. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigation was ongoing from the night before.
The information that was imparted by the Clerk of the Council to me after Question Period on the following day was very much consistent with that investigation. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police began the night before with their investigation. They followed it carefully and fully, and it resulted in the laying of charges. Anything else would have been to interfere with the independence-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -of an RCMP investigation and prejudice the rights of the accused, and that we will not do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DIRECTION TO OFFICIALS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. It deals with the explanation that the Government has been giving us for its ignorance of the leak for a two-hour period.
The Government wants us to believe that the reason officials did not report the Mutual Life leak to Ministers at once was that the decision had been made the day before to release the Budget to the media, and that all of the rest was immaterial and flowed from that.
In other words, isn't the Prime Minister telling us and wasn't the Deputy Prime Minister telling us the other day that they had given instructions to officials not to

May 31, 1989
Oral Questions
give them further information about leaks and allegations, to keep them in the dark-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -so they could benefit from being able to deny that they had information? Now that he is back, does the Prime Minister believe on reflection that that is an acceptable direction for Ministers to give to their officials: Keep us in the dark?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the question contains suggestions which bring discredit upon the Hon. Member as a former Solicitor General-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and is deeply offensive to senior members of the Public Service of Canada even to imply that they would ever accept such a suggestion from anybody. The Hon. Member should rise right now from his seat and apologize to the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Deputy Minister of Finance, and all the public servants of Canada who deserve better from the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FURTHER DIRECTION TO OFFICIALS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if it was not the Prime Minister's direction or his other Ministers' direction to officials not to give them further information, why did they not give them further information?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that the Clerk of the Council, Mr. Tellier, informed me, as he properly should have-


Mr. Tobin:: Two hours later.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -when the information was brought to his attention. When the information had come to the attention of the Deputy Minister of Finance on a telephone call, the day after the Budget-


An Hon. Member:: That took two hours!


Martin Brian Mulroney: If the Member is interested in the response, I will try to give it to him.
When the call came to Mr. Gorbet, the Deputy Minister of Finance, he acted-


An Hon. Member:: What time?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -in an appropriate and timely way.


An Hon. Member:: How?


Martin Brian Mulroney: He verified the information. He consulted immediately with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He passed on the information to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who were already investigating-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -this matter pursuant to a request the evening before. The inquiry was ongoing. This information was imparted by public servants to the Royal-


An Hon. Member:: That took two hours!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -Canadian Mounted Police. The Clerk of the Council informed me in a timely and complete way, as he did the Deputy Prime Minister when he was advised-


An Hon. Member:: And the Minister of Finance.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -when Mr. Tellier was advised.


An Hon. Member:: A two-hour gap.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This information comes directly from the Clerk of the Council, Mr. Paul Tellier, and Mr. Fred Gorbet. They have made the proper explanations which I convey to the House. I know my hon. friend will believe those explanations because they come from distinguished and non-political public servants.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUDGET LEAKS-REQUEST AS TO WHO WAS FIRST TO BE INFORMED
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Prime Minister. He just informed the House that he, as Prime Minister, was not informed of Mr. Masterman's telephone call until 3.30 p.m. Perhaps the Prime Minister could answer the following question: Which Minister was the first to be informed about Mr. Masterman's call? When was that Minister informed? Was he informed before, during or after Question Period?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question. As Prime Minister, I was informed between 3.30 and 4.00 p.m. In other words, it was after Question Period. I was informed by the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, Mr. Paul Tellier, who himself had been informed by Mr. Fred Gorbet, Deputy Minister of Finance. The information was quickly passed on to me by Mr. Tellier, and that is the answer I already gave the Leader of the Opposition.


EXPLANATION SOUGHT FOR 90-MINUTE DELAY IN INFORMING PRIME MINISTER
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question because yesterday in the House the Deputy Prime Minister said that to his knowledge no Minister was told prior to Question Period. I want to make sure that no Minister, including the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, was told during Question Period and, if some Minister was told, we should be informed of that now by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should also tell us why there was a 90-minute gap between the Masterman phone call and when the Prime Minister of Canada was told. That is highly irresponsible.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that the Deputy Minister of Finance received the information in a telephone call, I am informed, sometime in the neighbourhood of 1.30 p.m. He immediately conveyed the information to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As a responsible public servant would do, he sought to convey this to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police through his own security people. He sought verification. He then went immediately to consult and to advise the Clerk of the Privy Council, who having been advised called me when I returned to my office after Question Period.


Ms. Copps:: Two hours later.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I was informed between 3.30 and four o'clock, pursuant to actions taken by the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Clerk of the Privy Council, both of whom acted in a proper and timely manner. I convey that information to my hon. friend as I did to the Leader of the Opposition.
Oral Questions


EXPLANATION SOUGHT WHY 90-MINUTE DELAY WAS NOT MADE SUBJECT OF QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not find it strange that these senior officials of the Government would not inform the Prime Minister for 90 minutes? Is it not strange that the Minister of Finance was not informed and that the Solicitor General was not informed? Isn't it strange that the Minister of Justice was not informed by the most senior officials in the Government of Canada? And finally, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister did find out, and after there was a meeting on this issue after 3 o'clock in one of the offices of the Prime Minister, why didn't the Prime Minister come to the House? Or why didn't the Minister of Finance come to the House on a question of privilege, as we were dealing with privilege that afternoon anyway, and tell the House about this very serious leak?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks if there was a meeting on this matter after three o'clock and the answer to that is no. My hon. friend asks about coming to the House. I had already the night before instructed the Minister of Finance to make the Budget public, had requested that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police initiate immediateiy-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This information was made part and parcel of an ongoing Royal Canadian Mounted Police inquiry that had been initiated the night before. To have impeded that inquiry in any way would have been to render a disservice to the pursuit of justice in that particular inquiry and to the rights of those who may or may not have been charged subsequent thereto.


MUTUAL LIFE BUDGET LEAK-DECISION NOT TO INFORM HOUSE OF COMMONS QUESTIONED
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the second or the so-called Mutual Life Budget leak. The Minister of Finance has admitted to the House of Commons over recent days that on April 27, sometime between three and five o'clock in the afternoon, the so-called Government, in the broad sense, in other words Cabinet, took the decision to hide the second Budget leak from Parliament and from the people of Canada.

Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Now, as incredible as it is that the Prime Minister or any other Cabinet Minister would not have been notified of the Budget leak for two hours, I want to ask the Prime Minister specifically, he who is the chief executive officer of the Government across the way, why did he take the decision not to tell that information to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada? Why hide the facts?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that the Government took a decision to hide information from the people of Canada is, of course, an absolute and complete fabrication and falsehood by the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will inform my hon. friend again, and perhaps if he listens carefully he may want to reflect upon this before he raises any more charges against public servants or Members of the House.
The information came to the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Fred Gorbet. Immediately after 1.30 p.m. he began to contact the RCMP to advise them to verify information and to check back with the source. He consulted and advised the Secretary of the Cabinet and the Clerk of the Privy Council. This was done and information was conveyed to me by Mr. Tellier between 3.30 p.m. and four o'clock in the afternoon. This information was absolutely consistent with the information that the police were no doubt seeking in their inquiry that had already been unleashed the night before, of which the House had full knowledge. All of this information was then being acquired in a proper and normal way by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which has always served Canada by acting in an independent and proper manner.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, at page 2147 of Hansard and on several other pages it is stated that the Government, in the broadest sense, was aware of this information some time between Question Period and 5.40 p.m. that evening.
I want to tell the Prime Minister those are not nice words that he said about his Minister of Finance.


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the following supplementary to the Prime Minister concerning the conduct of his Minister of Finance.
On April 27, at page 1032 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said, in referring to the Minister, and I quote:
-the Minister has always discharged his responsibilities, in this case as well.
Considering the fact that the Minister, aided and abetted by the rest of Cabinet, chose to hide this information from the House of Commons for one month, does the Prime Minister still think the Minister acted in a responsible manner in this case? Should he not be called to Parliament today and asked to resign?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has served Canada and this House with great honour and perhaps one day, if the Hon. Member really changes his ways, he might aspire to the kind of honour achieved by the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I acknowledge that would take almost a miracle because the Minister of Finance has no lessons to take from that Member in terms of propriety and honour.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am asked whether the Government was informed, and the Hon. Member used the terms 'in the broad sense'. Of course the Government, in the broad sense, was informed. When the Deputy Minister of Finance was notified, he in turn notified the Secretary to the Cabinet and Clerk of the Privy Council. Indeed, as the Minister of Finance said, the Government 'in the broad sense' was notified, and all action taken by the Government and by the Minister of Finance was perfectly consistent with the statement made the day before, namely that a police investigation was already under way and that we would let the police finish its investigation.
May 31, 1989


REQUEST FOR NAME OF OFFICIAL WHO RECEIVED TELEPHONED INFORMATION FROM MUTUAL LIFE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the House and Canadians know that on April
27	Jack Masterman, Chief Executive Officer of Mutual Life of Canada, contacted a member of the staff of the Minister of Finance to inform that person that Mutual Life had been in possession of the Budget in Brief since April 25.
Precisely who in the office of the Minister of Finance was contacted? Who, in turn, did he contact and when? Were there any other calls made to the President of Mutual Life? By whom? Who in government contacted Mr. Masterman from Mutual Life? What instructions, advice or any-


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member has a series of questions, perhaps someone on the other side might want to deal with them.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the original call came to the office of the Minister of Finance. In the absence of the Minister of Finance it was immediately turned over to the Deputy Minister of Finance. He proceeded with the verifications, the consultations with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, advising the police at that time, and then advising the Secretary of the Cabinet. That is my information. If my hon. friend has anything at variance with that, I will be happy to examine it.


REQUEST AS TO WHEN MR. HARTT OBTAINED INFORMATION AND TO WHOM HE COMMUNICATED IT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we learned that the Prime Minister was not aware of the leak for two hours. We also learned that for
28	days, the Government hid this second leak from the Canadian people. I would like to know at what time on what day Mr. Hartt, of the Prime Minister's Office, obtained the information and to whom he communicated it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can
tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I got my information between 3.30 and 4 p.m. from Mr. Tellier, as I told the House. It was between 3.30 and 4 o'clock.
Oral Questions


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Hartt!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Pardon?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Hartt.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, it was Mr. Jfellier who provided me with this information, Mr. Tellier having obtained it a few minutes before from Mr. Gorbet, the Deputy Minister of Finance. So I find the process quite normal and logical. Now if the Hon. Member is asking me whether I was informed by anyone besides Mr. Tellier, the answer is no! I was informed in the circumstances by this individual, just as I said.


INSTRUCTIONS TO STAFF CONCERNING LEAKS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: My question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. We have seen how quickly the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General inform the House. There were allegations of other leaks on the night of April 26 and on April 27. What instructions were given to the office staff of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance concerning the procedures to follow if they found out about a second leak?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is completely ridiculous to suggest that the day before, we would warn individuals at the Privy Council or in my office about what to do if there were a second, third or fourth leak. When we found out that there had been a leak, right after, we asked for permission to come before the House with the Budget. The answer from the opposition parties was no. So, I ordered the Minister of Finance to make it public immediately and the RCMP to launch an investigation. This investigation began the day before and will continue until it ends and charges are laid.
So everything that was done the night before and the next day was consistent with an independent inquiry by the RCMP.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, Canadians and this House are sick and tired of hearing from this Cabinet: "There ain't nobody here but us chickens".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 31, 1989
Oral Questions


John R. Rodriguez: My supplementary question to the Prime Ministeris a question that not only this House but the whole nation wants to know the answer to. Who was on the bridge of the Canada Valdez on April 27 between 1330 hours and 1500 hours?


André Ouellet: Nobody.


John R. Rodriguez: Where was the captain, below deck? Who was in charge of the ship, the three bureaucrats?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have enough trouble some time. I hope he does not hold me responsible for the Valdez. The fact of the matter is that the information-


An Hon. Member:: It was on automatic pilot.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Perhaps, then, let me take a second. The Budget was scheduled to be released. The night before we were advised, as was the country, of the fact that clearly a Budget document had been improperly or perhaps illegally released.
As a result of that I immediately convened my senior Ministers. We asked the permission of the opposition Leaders to come immediately before the House, to lay it on the floor of the House of Commons. That permission was refused. Because of that, I then instructed the Minister of Finance to make it public immediately via the media. I instructed as well that an inquiry by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a complete police inquiry, be initiated immediately. That was done.
Any information subsequent thereto was conveyed by the Deputy Minister of Finance or by the Clerk of the Privy Council or by others to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, where it ought to have been left so that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police could conduct a thoroughly independent, impartial inquiry-


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General of Canada and concerns the national annual report on drugs published by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The report shows that the fight against drugs has been successful, since drug seizures have more than doubled.
However, the report also mentions that the drug trade generates between $5 and $15 billion annually, and that the number of users has tripled during the last two years.
Could the Minister inform the House, and thus reassure Canadians, about measures that will be implemented to strengthen our collective resolve and deal with a problem that has become a veritable plague? Especially considering that in a recent report published by the Library of Parliament, costs related to drug abuse in Canada totalled $11.5 billion in 1984.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very important point. The figures released this week are of considerable concern to our Government. With the help of police forces at both the municipal and provincial levels, we are trying to maintain a relentless campaign against drug trafficking. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have set up an anti-drug strategy costing over $200 million with the help of our colleagues at Customs and Excise, Health and Welfare and other departments, in order to provide better information for Canadians and keep our 10, 12 and 13 year-olds from falling into the drug trap laid by traffickers. I would urge all Canadians to help us in this campaign.


THE BUDGET
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am told that when the Prime Minister is in this country, he likes to read all the papers every day. I have a message for the Prime Minister. In his absence-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may have a message, but the Prime Minister is waiting for the question.


Diane Marleau: All the editorials across this country asked for the resignation of the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister is facing a lack of confidence in his Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to get to the point and put her question, please!


Diane Marleau: Will the Prime Minister ask for the resignation of his Minister of Finance, since the Minister is no longer able to perform his duties?
May 31, 1989


Martin Brian Mulroney: No!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, that is what they said about Sinclair Stevens, too.


ROLE OF FIRST MINISTER
Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister realize that by condoning the actions of his Minister of Finance he is demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of the role of a First Minister of this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is clearly a divergence of views between my hon. friend and myself with regard to the value of the Minister of Finance. If my hon. friend clings to the view that she has just expressed, why does she not bring forward a motion of non-confidence in the Minister and see what happens?


QUERY AS TO CHARGING OF GLOBAL TV REPORTER
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. On page 1012 of Hansard on April 27, 1989, the Minister of Justice in describing the events of the night before, that is the Global report on the Budget leak, said the following:
I think you would find that the particular reporter in a responsible
manner did not run the story until he had it corroborated.
I ask the Minister of Justice why a reporter who, in his own words, acted in a responsible manner, has been charged with a criminal offence?


Mr. Speaker:: I pointed out yesterday the very important distinction in terms of the administration of criminal law in Canada, that with respect to this particular prosecution which is now public knowledge, it is being conducted by the Province of Ontario and law officers under the direction of that province. Now the question has been put, the Minister of Justice can respond to it if he wishes.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is sub judice and I have no intention of commenting.
Oral Questions


POSSIBILITY OF FAIR TRIAL QUESTIONED
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would! like to ask the Minister of Justice this question: The Prime Minister of Canada has described what occurred, as long ago as a month, as a criminal act that could result in the incarceration of certain individuals. The Minister of Finance has described this whole matter as a wilful criminal act, as has the Deputy Prime Minister, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, the record will show so has the Minister of Justice.
I ask the Minister of Justice, given the principle on which he just refused to answer a question, whether he believes that any of the individuals involved can have a fair trial when the Prime Minister has already predetermined them to be criminals and likely to be incarcerated?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will not speak to the hypocrisy of that question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Answer the question. Hypocrite.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on April 27, 1989, in the House of Commons, in response to a question from my right hon. friend, I indicated that we had seen comments of a reporter by the name of Mr. French of Global Television who was the first person to receive the call-


Brian Vincent Tobin: He said a lot more than that, Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Perhaps I could conclude. Mr. French, who was a colleague at Global Television, was that same evening being interviewed on television. Mr. French was the first person who received the call from an individual who apparently took the documents. Here is what the line in the transcript said. The reporter, Mr. French, of Global Television said with regard to the individual, "I guess the criminal likes to return to the scene of a crime".
Mr. French of Global Television that night was referring to the individual who conveyed the information to Mr. Small. We believe that all these individuals who have been charged are entitled to the presumption of innocence-


Mr. Allmand:: You called them criminals.

Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and we should be saying and doing nothing in this House that would in any way diminish their full rights to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby-Kings-way.


Mr. Nowlan:: Aren't you going to recognize some of the Members in this institution? I have given you a note and-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby-Kings-way has the floor.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Oh, boy, that's great.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, he can have my second supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Who gets your second supplementary is up to the Chair. Would the Hon. Member put his question?


POSITION OF DEPUTY MINISTER
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and also deals with the criminal charges against Doug Small. The Minister admitted today that his Associate Deputy Minister took part in the discussions on the serious charges against Mr. Small. Mr. Speaker, what position did his Deputy Minister take on these charges? Did he notify the RCMP that these unprecedented charges against a journalist would constitute an attack against freedom of the press in Canada? What position did his Associate Deputy Minister take on these charges?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have before me a transcript from the scrum yesterday in which I was asked whether or not there had been discussions with officials. I said there may have been the normal deliberations or consultations from official to official in the course of discussions.
My hon. friend will know that the RCMP was called in to do the investigation, that they completed their investigation, that they dealt with the Province of Ontario, which is the jurisdiction that has carriage of the action in the courts. The RCMP then came back and laid the
charges. I am advised that Justice officials between the two jurisdictions routinely discuss matters in which the federal Government may have an interest in terms of this particular thing, being the Budget. This involves questions of law, questions of evidence and information. It is all quite normal.


POSITION TAKEN ON CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CHARGES AGAINST JOURNALIST
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point surely. I am asking the Minister of Justice, in view of the fact that the RCMP consulted with his Associate Deputy Minister of Justice, Doug Rutherford-confirmed that to me this morning-what position did Doug Rutherford take on the constitutionality of these unprecedented charges being laid against a journalist? In light of the seriousness-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: In light of the seriousness-


Mr. Speaker:: The question was very straightforward. What did somebody say to somebody else. He can ask the question. Whether there is an answer is up to the Minister.


Svend Johannes Robinson: It is a serious question about the position taken by the Government. In light of the unprecedented nature of these charges against a journalist, will the Minister of Justice do the right thing and seek leave to intervene on behalf of the Government of Canada in these court proceedings to argue on behalf, not just of journalists, but on behalf of all Canadians against this massive attack on freedom of the press in Canada?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can think of nothing which would be more of an interference in the course of justice than for me to answer that question.


ACTION OF OFFICIALS IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Right Hon. John N. Ihmer (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Clerk of the Privy Council, the Secretary to the Cabinet, when they came into possession of information of a leak of a magnitude to Mutual Life, their prime course of action after years in the public service would have been to advise immediately the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of Canada in time for them to meet the House at Question Period that same day.

Who gave him instructions not to inform the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, they were never of course given any such instructions. A suggestion of this kind that involves the integrity of senior public servants is profoundly unworthy of a former Prime Minister of Canada.


EXPLANATION SOUGHT FOR MUTUAL LIFE LEAK NOT BEING DISCLOSED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is the reason we want those gentlemen to have their say before the Bar of the House of Commons.
Once the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance knew at 3.30 or four o'clock in the afternoon, as did the Deputy Prime Minister-


Mr. Crawford:: Or earlier.


John Napier Turner: -or earlier, why did the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance not tell the House of Commons during the course of his presentation to the House of the Budget? Why, and on whose instructions, was the country kept in the dark on this Mutual Life leak for the next 28 days?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to that question, and the Deputy Prime Minister has responded to it many times.
The evening before there had clearly been an unlawful dissemination of a very important federal document. An inquiry of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was initiated. That inquiry began that very evening. At that point in time, any information thereafter was conveyed by Mr. Gorbet, Mr. Tellier and others to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as it should be, with a view to allowing this independent group of investigators to conduct their investigations and to lay charges, if those charges were appropriate.
Anything else would have been at variance with our obligation to a complete hands-off policy with regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is what we have done. That is what this House traditionally has asked Governments to do.
Privilege


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, during the course of Question Period, and this is not the first time that it has happened, while the Member for Sudbury (Mrs. Marleau) was attempting to ask a legitimate question, the voice of the Member for Sudbury was mocked time and again by Conservative Members on the opposite side of the House.
It is not a low voice; it is not a tenor timbre. It is a woman's voice. I raise this issue because it is not the first time in the House of Commons that women on this side of the House who raise questions are mocked on a consistent basis because they have the voice of women.
I would like to ask the Speaker to review the "Blues" and the comments that were specifically addressed to the voice of the Member for Sudbury, and to advise all Members of the House that the timbre and tone of a person's voice is the product of their physiology, and that we as women in the House are sick and tired of having the Conservative Party mock us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Justice.


RETRACTION OF REMARKS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin), and I know it was in the heat of Question Period, deliberately called the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) a hypocrite. I would simply call on my hon. friend to withdraw.


André Ouellet: Apologize first on what happened. Apologize for your cronies.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, and I advise the Speaker and indeed the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) to check the "Blues", the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) rose in his place and began his response to my question by talking about the hypocrisy of the Member opposite.

May 31, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Nowlan
You had better not hold your breath while you're waiting for me to withdraw my comment about the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East has raised a question. I will, of course, consult the "Blues" and if appropriate report back to the Hon. Member.
The Hon. Minister of Justice rises on a very different point of order. I will hear him further.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We accept the suggestion of the Hon. Member opposite. We will check the "Blues". I believe the statement that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was the hypocrisy of the question, not the individual placing the question.
Once again I would ask, if that is accepted, that my hon. friend withdraw his suggestion that the Prime Minister is a hypocrite.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the list of expressions that have been looked at in the context of whether or not they are parliamentary as found in Beauchesne's latest edition. You will find there are occasions when the word "hypocrite" has been found to be unparliamentary, but there are also occasions when it has been found to be parliamentary. I suggest you look at those rulings as well, Mr. Speaker, in considering the very timely comments of the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin).


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Windsor West could help the Speaker. On which side am I to apply the ruling in Beauchesne's?
The Hon. Member for for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would like to help, because of my great, profound respect for the Chair. It is greater than any other respect I have, other than for my mother, on this planet.
The Speaker knows I have great respect for the Chair. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), together with myself review the "Blues", and comes to the House after
Question Period himself and is prepared to rise and explain what he meant when he used the word "hypocrisy", I will be quite prepared, upon reviewing the "Blues", to examine what I had to say across the floor of the House.
We cannot have an agent of the Prime Minister standing here and telling us what the Prime Minister meant or did not mean. Let the Prime Minister come himself and fight his own battles.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member and the Minister of Justice have addressed the Chair on a matter. I will examine what the record shows.


FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the whole situation has been blown because Question Period is over. I have as great and fond respect for the Chair as does my hon. friend from Newfoundland, but I do not want to get into a maternity or paternity situation. Therefore, if you mix it up, you may call them some sons of something or other. Be that as it may, Members on the government side and in Opposition very rarely rise on a credible supplementary. We know that the questions about the leaks could go on for days. That is a political issue. But when the freedom of the press is involved, if questions had not come from the loyal Opposition or from my good friend, the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Kingsway (Mr. Robinson) on the problem of a reporter being charged, then I certainly would have risen in my place and, in a provocative question of privilege, got in my question.
My question would not have been as political as some of the others, but it would have been a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) about a most unusual situation, that is, a reporter being charged with stolen property. It deserves an unusual question. I was hoping to get this above board and in the public domain without all the problems of rumour and the perception of intrigue. You have stood, Mr. Speaker, so I have to sit down but-


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants is rising on a question of privilege. I have listened to what the Hon. Member had to say. He has a complaint of sorts and there are probably other places in which he can express it. However, it is not a question of privilege.
May 31, 1989



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the Government.


PETITIONS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.[



CITIZENSHIP ACT


William Warren Allmand: for leave to introduce Bill C-247, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (oath of allegiance).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in order to become a Canadian citizen under the existing Citizenship Act, an individual must pledge allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. This Bill to amend the Citizenship Act would require a pledge of allegiance to Canada and the Canadian Constitution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Petitions

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia, who are dismayed by the fact that the Government plans to cut out all or most of VIA Rail. They are asking the Government to reconsider the whole matter of these cut-backs. They point out that VIA Rail has provided good passenger service for a number of years and could do a first-class job if it were given the appropriate funding to do so.
They are asking that the Government reconsider its decision to reduce passenger rail service in Canada, to reconsider its decision to cut back on the moneys made available to VIA Rail.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House of Commons a petition certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 36, which calls upon the Government to revise the extradition laws to allow for the extradition of criminals either immediately or after they have been fully dealt with by the Canadian penal system.
This petition represents the signatures of 2,145 concerned citizens from across Canada. These Canadians believe, as I do, that our present extradition laws make Canada a sanctuary for the most dangerous criminals.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to present a petition which has been certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The 45 signatories, who are residents affiliated with the construction industry in the Sarnia-Lambton area, call upon the Government to introduce legislation which would recognize voluntary retirement at age 55, with no accompanying penalty for early retirement and with full provincial and federal pensions.

May 31, 1989
Petitions
The signatories believe that such legislation would more readily recognize the realities of construction work and aid in the further hiring and training of younger workers in the industry.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is signed by approximately 100 residents of Calgary and Edmonton. They are calling on the Government to enact legislation that would remove sexual orientation as grounds for legal discrimination. The petitioners are calling on the Government to bring in laws which will ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I am happy to submit this petition.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition certified correct in form and content, from 2,300 Canadians who call upon the Government to revise current extradition laws so that the Minister of Justice can order the extradition of fugitives and prevent Canada from becoming a haven for escaped convicts from other countries.


Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition on behalf of more than 12,000 citizens, stating that the genocide of the Lebanese people requires extremely urgent action; that the Syrian army occupies three-quarters of Lebanese territory and terrorizes the population; that only the withdrawal of all Syrian and non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon would restore peace to this war-tom country.
They humbly pray Parliament to do everything in its power to obtain an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council in order to demand the following for Lebanon: An immediate stop to bombardments; withdrawal of Syrian, Israeli and other non-Lebanese forces; a UN peacekeeping force for Lebanon; political and economic sanctions for those parties that do not abide by the decisions of the Security Council.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition from the residents of the greater Summerside area. This petition was circulated under the chairmanship of Mr. Jim Aikinson of the Downtown Business Association of Summerside and was signed by 12,000 Prince Edward Islanders. It has been certified correct as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions.
The purpose of the petition is to demonstrate the degree of opposition to the closing of Canadian Forces Base Summerside which, if effected, would bring economic min to the town of Summerside, the village of St. Eleanor's, and many smaller communities of Prince County, and to the treasury of the Prince Edward Island Government.
I present this petition to this Parliament with the confidence that the Government will appreciate the degree of concern which exists and will reverse its decision before the required 45 days.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to table petitions which have been certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions. These five petitions are signed by 225 residents of Canada from 35 different communities from Vancouver to St. John's, Newfoundland, from Churchill to London. These signatures were collected in the VIA Rail train station in Thunder Bay.
The petitioners call upon the Government to live up to its original pledge to support VIA Rail, and to abandon plans for cuts to VIA's budget and provide the necessary resources to allow VIA to operate as a modem, effective transportation company rather than a a museum. There would be a great many more petitions with more signatures, if there were more cars on the trains to accommodate people who want to ride on them.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit two petitions today pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The gist of the petitions is that they condemn the Government's involvement in ARMX '89. The petitioners also ask that the Government cease all involvement in the expansion of the international market for military and policing equipment.
These petitions were circulated at the annual peace walk in Victoria on April 22 in which 10,000 people participated. It is an annual event. It is the largest per capita peace walk in Canada.
The people of my constituency are very concerned that their Government is involved in expanding the international market of arms and policing equipment.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 46 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 46 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Rodriguez: For each year since 1986, were external consultants hired by the
Director of Investigations and Research (Competition Act) and, if so
(a) what are their names (b) what mergers did they review (c) what
sums were they paid (d) what was the total cost of hiring them?
Return tabled.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the
Ways and Means
Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that a Ways and Means Motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, laid upon the table on Thursday, April 27, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Guamieri
Harvard
Hovdebo
Jordan
Karpoff
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Lapierre
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacLaren
Mac William
Manley
McGuire
Mills
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Phinney
Prud'homme
Riis
Robinson
Simmons
Stupich
Tobin
Volpe
Whittaker
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-92
declare the motion carried.



Hon. Don Mazankowski (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Act, laid upon the table on Thursday, April 27, be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
May 31, 1989

Ways and Means

Members


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have many new Members in the Chamber and we have not had all that many votes. There is a rule that Members should not vote if they arrive in the Chamber late. I think there were a couple, one from each side of the House. I do not want to draw attention to the specific cases but I thought it was a perfect opportunity to remind Hon. Members that they should be seated and present before voting commences. Some day it might be important.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I was in a meeting that took longer than expected. I had to remain. I did not vote because I came in after everyone was seated. I did want

May 31, 1989
Excise Tax
to tell you, sir, and all Members of the House that if I had had the opportunity to vote I would have voted with the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was at the same meeting as other Members. I respected the rule, stayed out and did not vote. I saw some of the people at the meeting that I was at come in here and vote.
I hope the admonition of the Chief Government Whip will be taken into consideration the next time.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, just a point of order. Perhaps we could avoid all these problems in the future if it were understood that when we are called in to vote in the House,-a duty that transcends all others-the House Committees do not necessarily have to meet. I had one this afternoon, and when the bells started to ring, I cancelled the committee as we are allowed to do under the Standing Orders. To avoid all these problems which could get worse in the future, those chairing committees, both legislative and standing, should realize that generally speaking, committees do not sit when we are called in to vote.


EXCISE TAX ACT
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


NORDION AND THERATRONICS DIVESTITURE AUTHORIZATION ACT
Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)) moved: that Bill C-13, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Nordion International Inc.
Nordion and Theratronics
and Theratronics International Limited, be read the second time and be referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lead off debate on Bill C-13, which authorizes the divestiture of two Crown Corporations, Nordion International Incorporated and Theratronics. I hear the howling, the moaning and the groaning already from the New Democratic Party, the group that has held up the business of this House for two hours this afternoon for no apparent reason whatsoever. Now they are trying to shout down the Member who is speaking when we are debating a Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps we will wait a minute for those who must leave the Chamber to go to other business, then the Minister can begin.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, before I get into a clause by clause review of this legislation, I would like to say a word about the Government's privatization program in general. It is a very important policy of the Government, one that plays a vital role in our over-all economic strategy.
When our Government came to office in 1984, we made a commitment to revitalize the economy so that economic growth could be strengthened and productive jobs for Canadians created. As you know, we have created over 1.5 million jobs in this country since we came into office in 1984.
One of the ways we have pursued this goal is through a major review of Crown corporations. Those corporations which were determined to be commercially viable and which were no longer required to meet public policy objectives were considered for privatization.
Significant progress has been made since the program was first announced in 1984. All or part of the Government's holdings in 16 corporations have been sold to the private sector, two Crown corporations have been transferred to territorial Governments, and eight entities have been dissolved. These transactions have resulted in a transfer to the private sector of approximately $5 billion in assets and a significant reduction to the role of the federal Government in the economy.
One of the consequences of this has been an improvement in Canada's competitive position. Operating and financial performances of many of the corporations improved on being transferred to the private sector. I hear the NDP laughing. They think it is a great joke, when there has been improved employment in many of

May 31, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
the corporations, including de Havilland when there are some 1,500 more jobs today than when the Government held de Havilland. I could go on with other examples.
Management of federal resources have improved as well. Future potential financial demands on the public purse have been reduced. Most important, these goals have been accomplished without reducing the quality of services that Canadians receive.
In the April 3 Speech from the Throne and in the Budget that was released several weeks later, the Government reiterated its commitment to building a strong economy, encouraged by incentive and opportunity.
The social programs that Canadians value so highly, and the high standards of living to which we have become accustomed, depend on the strength of our economy being fully competitive internationally.
In earlier periods of our history, government ownership was sometimes justified because it was necessary to provide a service to the public that the private sector was unwilling or unable to provide. Sometimes it was to protect the technology or industry that was just getting started in this country. Sometimes it was to continue the process of nation building that was so critical to our future.
Today, government ownership in many cases can no longer be justified. Our social and economic infrastructure is relatively mature. Services for which we were once dependent on government now can be more effectively and efficiently delivered by the private sector.
The Canadian economy has the ability to grow and prosper without intrusive policies such as government ownership. Our privatization program has proved that Crown corporations can compete more effectively in the market environment if they are not tied to the Government's apron strings. Most of the federal Crown corporations now in existence were acquired or established for reasons that were justifiable in the past.
If I may be so bold as to speak to the motivations of past Governments, there was more reason than ideology in their establishment. The same is true today.
The Government of Canada is divesting itself of Crown corporations where there are good reasons so to do. Contrary to the vociferous and misguided protestations of Members opposite, the success of these privatizations can be amply demonstrated. One just has to look at the number of individual Canadians who acquired Air Canada shares in the initial offering to see that the Canadian people have faith in the future of our national flag carrier and are willing to invest their own dollars to participate in that future. The first share offering attracted approximately 130,000 initial purchasers from across the nation.
Employees, as well, recognized the benefits of that privatization and what it can bring. In the case of Air Canada, many worked actively through employee associations to bring about its transfer to the private sector. Despite three of the four unions that advised them not to buy shares in it, over 80 per cent of the employees of Air Canada displayed their faith in the new company by buying shares.
The Government recognizes that employees are as important to the future success of the company as they were in the past. It works closely with employee representatives to ensure that employee concerns are kept uppermost in mind throughout the entire privatization process, and that the transfer to the private sector is equitable to all concerned.
In several privatizations attractive share ownership plans have been offered to employees. In the case of Teleglobe, for example, employees were given shares in Memotec at discounted prices and were offered interest free loans to help them finance the purchase. When Fishery Products International was privatized shares amounting to approximately 4 per cent of the company were given to employees.
The well-being of employees is a key element of the Government's privatization program because while we want to build a more competitive and market-oriented economy we will continue to do it in a compassionate and caring way. By working together Government, employees and management in true partnership we can prepare for the challenges of the 1990s.
Let us take a look at what has been happening in two companies since they were privatized. Canadair Limited was sold to Bombardier in December, 1986. The sale has resulted in new commercial opportunities for Canadair and an improved ability to compete in foreign markets. Through the financial strength of Bombardier the com-
May 31, 1989

pany has also acquired access to the resources necessary to finance future growth. Another benefit resulting from privatization is the emergence of a greater willingness to embark upon new projects that will expand the company's abilities to meet the needs of the aerospace market.
The Northern Transportation Company Limited is giving its new owners a commercial stake in the future of the Northwest Territories, and a means to participate in economic diversification. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, with success after success. Now it is time to allow two more firms their opportunity to grow and to prosper.
Let me turn to the future of the two Crown corporations that are the subject of this legislation, Nordion and Theratronics.
Nordion is a leading global supplier of industrial sterilization systems and medical diagnostic products for the radiation processing and nuclear medicine markets. It exports these products to over 100 countries around the world. In fact, over 90 per cent of its sales last year were to export markets. The company has been in business since 1946. It functioned as a division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, called the Radiochemical Company, until last fall when it was transferred to the Canadian Development Investment Corporation in anticipation of privatization. This is a world-class company.
Nordion supplies over half the world's gamma radiation processing equipment, and 70 per cent of the world's Cobalt-60. The major application of this equipment is the sterilization of medical and consumer products, needles, sutures, bandages and rubber gloves. Nordion also produces a range of smaller research and clinical irradiators for applications such as irradiating blood, hardening electronic components and undertaking medical research.
In addition to these products, Nordion manufactures about two-thirds of the world's supply of bulk reactor produced and cyclotron produced isotopes for nuclear medicine applications. Its most recent development is an ultra pure iodine 123 which is creating new markets world wide because of its high purity.
Nordion and Theratronics
The strength of this company's technological and marketing abilities was recognized in 1987 when Nordion won both the Canada Award for Business Excellence in Innovation and the Canada Export Award.
Most of Nordion's 387 employees are based in Kanata, with the exception of a small group working at the TRIUMF facility in British Columbia and another group at the Canadian Irradiation Centre at Ville de Laval, Quebec.
Theratronics is also a former division of AECL, the Medical Products Division. It was incorporated last fall and transferred to CDIC at the same time as Nordion.
Theratronics produces and markets two main groups of products for radiotherapy: cobalt therapy machines and computerized planning systems for radiation therapy. These are major capital purchases by clinics and hospitals for planning and delivering radiation treatment to cancerous tumors.
As with Nordion, Theratronics is very much an export oriented company deriving over 90 per cent of its $41 million annual sales from the United States and overseas. However, Theratronics operates in a considerably more mature market than does Nordion though there is increasing market potential for its products in developing countries.
Currently, the company has over 329 personnel-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is a fairly long-standing practice which is set out in the Standing Orders to the effect that we do not read directly from a text. This is a Minister with much experience who has the floor. Certainly, this is a practice which tends to be waived for new Members. However, if this Member who has so much experience has the document, then why does he not just table it and save us the pain of having to listen to him?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister may continue.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her interjection. I needed a drink of water.
As with Nordion, Theratronics, as I say, is very much export oriented in deriving over 90 per cent of its $41 million in sales from the United States and overseas.

Nordion and Theratronics
I think the Government's rationale for turning these companies over to the private sector can probably be summed up by Nordion's own corporate philosophy statement which reads in part:
1.	We are committed to providing all our customers with the best products, technology and service.
2.	We are determined to retain our major share of current markets and attain leadership positions in new business areas.
3.	We continually review and respond to changing market conditions, believing that a dynamic and flexible management approach serves to strengthen the company's competitive position.
4.	We encourage growth and diversification, and seek opportunities for expansion or acquisition in areas compatible with the company's technological and management strengths.
5.	We recognize that our success depends upon the drive and ingenuity of all employees.
Surely, such a market driven and aggressive corporate attitude demands the freedom of the private sector so that it can be given a free rein. Privatization will provide both companies with a new impetus for growth and development leading to new successes for them in the future.
In the case of Nordion, the company will be in a better position to pursue fresh opportunities and increase its domination of world markets in its high technology field.
Theratronic, as well, will be free to explore partnerships with companies in related industrial fields of activity which could lead to new markets and product lines for the new company.
In both cases Nordion and Theratronics will have increased operating flexibility, better access to capital markets and enhanced viability as independent commercial undertakings.
The opportunity for growth and expansion within the private sector will also benefit the company's employees.
As has been said many times in this Chamber, the best guarantee of jobs and future prospects for employees is a dynamic and growing company. Strengthening both these companies will also benefit the country as a whole because their export orientation is important to our economy's future development.
Before I get into the details of the legislation, I would like to identify briefly the process that the government will be following in the sale of these two companies. We have taken a different approach for each company because we want to capitalize on their respective strengths.
With Nordion, it is our intention to proceed by way of a third party sale as recommended by our financial advisors. This approach-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It relates to the fact that at 5.05 p.m., at a time when we were being called into the House for a vote, the environment committee began a hearing. This is contrary to the policy of this House and particularly puts us in an extremely difficult position.
When we are called to vote for our ridings on behalf of the people of Canada and a committee of the House holds hearings concurrently, it is a violation of the longstanding tradition of this House. Furthermore, we in the Liberal caucus, including myself, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mrs. Catterall), and the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Crawford), were all absent from the committee due to the fact that we were discharging our responsibilities here in the House of Commons. This is a very bad precedent for this sitting of Parliament. It is something that should be nipped in the bud.
In particular, I am very disappointed with the members of the New Democratic Party. They wanted to have the third vote, which is their full democratic right, but they chose to ignore the longstanding tradition of the House and went to committee at the same time as they required a third vote, which took the attention of all Members of the House. In the meantime, they are expecting us to go to committee and ignore our responsibilities to vote. I consider it a breach of my privileges, and if the Speaker so finds, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Maybe it is a matter that should be looked into by the procedure committee. By virtue of our Standing Orders, committees do have the right to sit during House hours.


An Hon. Member:: During a vote?
May 31, 1989


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Committees can do as they wish. Most of the time they do not have to stop for a vote. By virtue of Standing Order 108, they can do what they please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point. In answering the question that the Member just put as to whether Members should be in the House when division bells are ringing, it has been a longstanding tradition that Members who are called to the House of Commons should come here to vote, to exercise their first democratic obligation for this House.
Having said that, I also understand the difficulties that we can get into when we have committees sitting during the ringing of bells. The Whips of all parties are always conscious of the number of Members that are in committee and the number that are in the House. I guess people looking in on the deliberations of the House wonder sometimes where the members are. They are indeed in committees.
I would like to have the Speaker understand that what we are asking for is a ruling as to what happens when the division bells are ringing. It is our purpose to assure the good working of the committee. Our presence at those committees is important. Our democratic right to be heard at those committees is important. Committees are a creation of this House and therefore should understand that the House comes first. When the House calls for a vote then this is where Members should be. I do not understand why we have not applied that Standing Order, that rule that states that the votes are first and foremost, which is what we should be doing here in this House.
I do not want to belabour the question, but I think there is a strong prima facie case here, Mr. Speaker, for consideration by a committee as to what happens in this Parliament now that the numbers are somewhat equalized. When a committee is sitting and the bells start to ring, does that committee continue to sit or is it going to be the practice of the committees to adjourn and have the Members come here to vote? I think that must be answered, otherwise some committees will pressure Members to stay and other committees will let them go. The Whips will have a difficult time deciding which committee sits and which committee does not sit. There has to be one rule for all of us, that we either come here to vote or we stay in committee. I would like to know what the answer is going to be to that question.
Nordion and Theratronics


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order. The Hon. Member rose under the guise of a question of privilege and interrupted the Minister of State for Privatization for the second time during his remarks on a second reading speech. The rules, as I understand them, require that a Member of Parliament wanting to raise a question of privilege do so at the earliest possible opportunity.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is what I did.


Henry Perrin Beatty: If the Hon. Member was complaining about an incident that took place previously, which she could have dealt with previously, then there is no reason in the world why she could not have immediately raised this matter on the floor of the House of Commons.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I was voting.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member shouts from her seat now. Members will be very much aware of the fact that she had already risen prior to this with a frivolous point of order to interrupt the Minister of State for Privatization. She apparently did not feel, when she was on her feet previously, that this was a matter of any importance. The rules are quite clear. Members of Parliament are obliged to raise questions of privilege at the earliest possible opportunity. The Member who was recognized in the House chose not to do that-


Sheila Maureen Copps: I did not know about it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -and chose instead simply to interrupt on a frivolous question of privilege at a time which is not permitted under the rules, and in so doing interrupted the Minister of State on an important contribution that he was making to second reading.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you have already given your guidance to the House and that any further discussion of this is a question of your ruling.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think two points need to be made in terms of the latest interjection.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East made the point of her prima facie case of privilege that she was explaining as a result of information brought to her attention. I can vouch for the same situation. A number of Members from the New Democratic Party caucus were in the same situation and brought to my attention the fact that they could not be in two places at the same time. They were wondering which should take precedence, a call to the House for an important vote-after all, Mr. Speaker, we were voting, virtually, on the implementation of the Budget, or a number of tax provisions within the Budget. All three votes were serious votes. It was important for Members of Parliament to be here to register, to stand in

May 31, 1989
Nordion and Theratronics
their places, either in support of this Budget or in opposition to it.
We put Members of Parliament in an untenable situation when they are attending committee meetings and are expected to be there representing their various caucuses, and yet the bells are ringing to call Members to a vote in the House of Commons. I might add, it was an important vote in the House of Commons, and I think that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East makes a very convincing case in terms of a prima facie case of privilege. I encourage you to take it seriously, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I did not know when I got up earlier today that what I was predicting could happen would happen so soon. It appears that some Members did not catch the translation. Sometimes people think I talk too often in English, according to an article in La Presse. I would still do this intervention in English because earlier today in French I said that it was a bad precedent and we should look into it.
When the bell calls us, that is our first duty, of many duties. I said that maybe we should look into that before we get into a long debate, eventually. I did not know that eventually would be today.
I liked the lecture of the ex-Minister of National Defence earlier on. I think he is totally wrong. I believe my colleague used what we call the first opportunity. What is the first opportunity? Next week would not have been the first opportunity. I consider that tomorrow may not have been the first opportunity. I think she was right in doing it today.
If anyone is interested in discipline, it is certainly the Chief Government Whip, as well as my Whip, and any
other Whip from any other third party. I think that should be looked into so we have consistency.
I submit this to you for your consideration. A chairman of a committee states: "To hell with the bell, we will continue sitting". Then we have chairmen who state: "Oh, the bell is calling us. I am sony, I will interrupt now." "What time is the vote? We shall interrupt later."
I suggest to the House that we should look into this matter because it will bring chaos to the House if some committees sit while the bells are ringing, when votes are taking place, and other chairmen prefer to show more respect for the House. The House is what should be primary. I would look into this with whoever is interested.
I submit to the Chair that he look into it. He need not render a decision today, but certainly it is an important issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Members for their interventions. Obviously this matter must be looked into, either by the Whips, the House Leaders, the Liaison Committee or a panel of chairpersons. When I figure out who, I will let Hon. Members know.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the matter is a serious one and must be looked into. The point was raised earlier today by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and the Speaker will look into the matter and report back to the House.
It being 6 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 1,1989