1989-04-27

Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Before hearing Hon. Members, I want to advise the House that I have a number of applications of privilege. As the House knows, they must be heard in a certain order. The order is as they were received.
They are in the following order and these are the Hon. Members who have put forward their questions of privilege. The first in order is the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: What time?


Mr. Speaker:: Eight thirty p.m.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: My privilege!


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member has a point of order, I will hear her. If she has a question of privilege, then I will receive her notice. However, I have not received it.
As I say, the first was received at 8.30 p.m. from the Minister of Finance. The second was received from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) at 11.22 p.m.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The third was received from the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Milliken) at 11.25 p.m. The next was received from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) at 11.40 p.m.. The next was from the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) at 11. 44 p.m. The next
was from the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) at 10.13 a.m. today.
I will hear the Hon. Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gauthier:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Riis:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray):
That the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition now be heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has moved a traditional motion that another Hon. Member be now heard. That is properly a matter for a debate. In my view, having set out the fact that we have questions of privilege here which take precedence over other things, I think I am bound to proceed as I indicated I would. The Hon. Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is attempting to rise on a point of privilege presumably based on the leak that occurred yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Theft!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I believe that this is out of order. I believe that this is a diversionary tactic because if Your Honour will refer to Beauchesne's, Citation 82, Your Honour will see that it states:
A question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the
House at the first possible opportunity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on a number of occasions you had to rule questions of privilege out of order because they were not raised at the earliest possible moment.

April 27, 1989
Privilege
Last night at 5.30, Global Television informed the office of the Minister of Finance, his officials, that they had the contents of the Budget and read out the details of the Budget at 5.30. At 5.55 the House Leader for the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister came into the Chamber and asked that the sitting of the House of Commons be extended. I contend that the Government and the Minister of Finance knew at 5.30 that there had been a leak of his Budget. That was the time for the Minister of Finance to have been on the floor.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: We are seeing parliamentary practices breached, parliamentary traditions breached, 500 years of tradition breached. The honourable thing for the Minister of Finance to have done, at the first and earliest opportunity which was before six o'clock yesterday, was to come into the House of Commons and indicate at that point to the House that a breach of security had occurred, and that he was not going to present the Budget the next day as per the Standing Order. He would have done that as an honourable and respected member of the Crown. That is what ought to have happened. That is why I contend that this request by the Minister of Finance for a point of privilege is out of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the Hon. Member. It is certainly true that a question of privilege should be raised as soon as it is reasonably possible. I point out that we have a number of questions of privilege raised, and I have them here, at different times. I do not feel under the circumstances that it would be appropriate to cut off the Minister of Finance, and I recognize him.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we are rewriting the rules of this House at this time. A motion that another Member be heard is always in order by all traditions at any time.


An Hon. Member:: Challenging the Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am not talking to the Speaker. I am reminding this House that we are rewriting the book, and I disagree with that.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Challenging the Speaker. Shame.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I want to take the earliest opportunity to explain to this House the extraordinary events that occurred last night.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Shortly before suppertime yesterday-


Ms. Copps:: Resign.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -employees of Global Television informed officials of my Department that an anonymous telephone caller had read to one of their staff-


An Hon. Member:: What time?


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise all Hon. Members that we may be in for quite a long debate today. Hon. Members will note that I said debate. I think that debate requires the right of all Hon. Members who wish to contribute to be heard by other Hon. Members. The Hon. Minister of Finance.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, shortly before suppertime yesterday employees of Global Television informed officials of my Department-


Some Hon. Members:: What time?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -that an anonymous telephone caller had read to one of their staff members information that purported to be part of the Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: What time?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Shortly thereafter in a news broadcast the network displayed that document and made public certain details indicating-


Mr. Speaker:: The Speaker is fully aware that the issue that we are addressing at the moment is a very important one, both historically and in the conventions of Parliament. There is another convention of Parliament, that the Hon. Member who is an experienced Member of Parliament also understands, that there is free speech in this House. That means that a person should be listened to when they have the floor. The Hon. Minister of Finance.
April 27, 1989


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Shortly thereafter in a news broadcast the network displayed the document and made public certain details indicating that it was in fact a printed document entitled The Budget in Brief which was part of the Budget package scheduled to be presented to this House today at five o'clock.


An Hon. Member:: Where was it printed, Mike?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The premature release of details of the Budget appears to have resulted from a breach of trust, a wilful criminal act against which there can be no certain security.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have asked the RCMP to investigate to determine how this occurred and who was responsible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am advised by my officials that this violation did not result from negligence, carelessness or lack of proper security arrangements for the Budget documents. The Budget documents are produced under tight security in my Department.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: When ready for printing, they are conveyed to the Government printing plant and proofs returned to the Department under equally tight security. The printed documents themselves are stored in a secure area-


An Hon. Member:: How secure?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and when shipped, are accompanied by security personnel.
There are two essential considerations underlying budgetary secrecy: The need to ensure that a person does not profit or otherwise gain advantage from advance knowledge of the content of the Budget, and the principle that the Government's financial policy should be disclosed to the House of Commons before it is made known to others. In the present circumstances in which the Budget has been the subject of an unauthorized disclosure, the Government approached the opposition Parties in this House to ask for their co-operation in approaching the Chair to seek a special sitting of the House last evening in order that I might have presented my Budget before the House immediately. Unfortunately, the Opposition Parties did not see their way to
Privilege
co-operate in seeking a special sitting of the House of Commons.


Mr. Langdon:: Point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mindful of the importance of not permitting any individual from profiting or gaining other advantage from advance knowledge of the content of the Budget-


Mr. Tobin:: Why didn't you come at six o'clock when you knew?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -accordingly, the Government concluded that the prudent course of action was to make the Budget public immediately, and that was the course of action followed last evening.
Before doing so, I transmitted copies of the Budget documents to Your Honour through the Clerk of the House and to the Leaders of the Opposition Parties. I understand that the Clerk has received these documents and has caused them to be distributed in the normal way.
I regret that this course of action was necessary-


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Then resign.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -since it denied the right of Hon. Members to hear the Budget presented in the House before it was released elsewhere. Under the circumstances I believe it was the most appropriate course of action.
In reaching this decision the Government sought the advice of constitutional experts inside and outside of Government. There was a consensus that the course of action chosen was the only sensible one to take having regard for the principles underlying the tradition of Budget secrecy.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about parliamentary experts? They will tell you to resign.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I view this matter with the utmost seriousness. That is why I have taken the earliest possible moment to make this explanation to the House. Thank you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Dimer@Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak not only to the Minister's question of privilege but to my own, and I believe on behalf of all Canadians whose privileges have been breached by the negligence of the Minister.

April 27, 1989
Privilege
I notice that the Minister was playing to the cameras, as he usually does on Budget afternoon. This is not a matter for the camera. This one is for the House of Commons. This is one of those important times in the history of Canada when no presidential style of Government can prevail. This is the House of Commons of Canada and we will have something to say about that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: What we are talking about is absolutely unprecedented in the history of our country. It is unprecedented in the history of our Parliament. It is unprecedented in the history of parliamentary democracy as we know it.
We are dealing with the fundamental role of Parliament, Parliament having the right to approve taxation and approve expenditures as against the Crown, as against the Government of the day. That is why we are before Your Honour on the most serious matter that I can recall in my lifetime in Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The cause of his life.


John Napier Turner: Because of the importance of the matter, Mr. Speaker, I know you will allow me the indulgence to bring the full issue before Your Honour, Members of the House and thereby the country.
The role of Parliament is believed to have existed from the year 1265 A.D., when the Commons was first summoned by Simon de Montfort for the purpose of discussing and raising new taxes. This concept is fundamental and historic. We are dealing, therefore, with the principal issue of this country's form of democracy, an issue that stretches back 724 years, an issue with a history that exists from 602 years before the creation of our own Confederation. Since 1265 it has been a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy that the House of Commons, the elected representatives of the people, have control over all new taxes, all alterations in taxes, and all new expenditures or cutting of expenditures. That is the issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Government may try to trivialize this as a minor theft. This is the issue for which, before the British House of Commons, the commoners put a King to death. This is an issue over which the United States went to revolution. This is the fundamental issue of taxation and representation. That is what it is.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) scoffs. Before this debate is over the Prime Minister will learn what parliamentary democracy is all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Ibrner@Vancouver Quadra: Whether or not the
Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) recognize it, the principle about which we are talking is fundamental. It is the principle upon which our parliamentary democracy resides. It is a principle which has been asserted time and time again in the statutes of the western world. It is a principle which was assented to in the British North American Act, 1867 and reconfirmed in the Constitution Act, 1982. It is the principle which is asserted in the written procedures of every parliament throughout the world.
It is the principle which is asserted and reasserted in the unwritten practice of eveiy parliament throughout the world. The primacy of the House of Commons in tax matters is to protect the public. It is not a constitutional myth. It is not a parliamentary fiction. The Minister of Finance comes before Parliament so that no one gets an advantage, a benefit, an insider advantage, and the people of Canada are treated fairly. That is the reason.


Charles Joseph Clark: Why did you refuse to come to work last night?


John Napier Turner: The primacy of the House of Commons and budget secrecy have had as their fundamental raison d'etre the protection of all our citizens from those who could accumulate private gain at the expense of the uninformed.
I say this is a privilege of the House, as a House of Commons, a privilege of every Member sitting in this place, but it is a privilege which we exercise in a custodial and fiduciary fashion on behalf of 11 million Canadian taxpayers and 26 million Canadians. Twenty-six million Canadians must not be prey to those who may have a hidden advantage, an advance over the rest of us, for their own benefit. The present unauthorized advanced release, not of an item in the Budget nor of an individual tax, but of the entire Budget is unprecedented in 724 years of parliamentary history. It is the largest and most serious violation of parliamentary budget secrecy in 724 years and in any parliamentary democracy in the world. I am therefore stunned that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance do not understand the primary responsibility of parliamentary tradition and history. The issue is whether the Prime Minister and the Minister of
April 27, 1989

Finance understand their overriding role as trustees and custodians of our parliamentary system.
The issue is not whether the Minister of Finance personally released information to the news media, the issue is one of trust placed by this Parliament in him because of his role, trust placed by Canadians in him because of his custody over the finances and accounting of the nation.
The issue is not why the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance did not choose the correct course of action immediately upon learning of the largest release of budgetary information in the history of democracy? That is what Canadians want to know. Why, when this was first discovered, did the Prime Minister not come immediately before the House?
Why did the Prime Minister not ask for his resignation? More importantly, why didn't the Minister, to preserve what remaining credibility he has, offer that resignation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Simmons:: Resign. Resign. You do not have the guts to do it.

Mr. Speaker, the main issue before the House is not whether the Minister himself is negligent, whether the Minister is personally responsible. In our system of government, he holds a position of trust. He must assume his responsibilities for Finance and for his officials and for everything that goes on under his authority.
So I am very surprised that this Minister has not had the courage, the honesty, in keeping with Parliamentary traditions, to offer the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) his resignation. Since he did not, why did the Prime Minister not ask for his resignation?
Privilege

There is no alternative in our system of Government. That is why we need a new Minister of Finance, that is why we need a new Budget, and that is why this a non-event under your authorship.
There is no alternative, there is no substitute for meeting the people's representatives in the House of Commons to have a hastily-called budget presentation before the media and thereby to Canadians.
We have a democratic system. We have a parliamentary system. The people of Canada entrust us with the responsibility of reviewing their taxation and their expenses. The Minister of Finance has abused that trust and in doing so he has abused a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy.
We are talking about ministerial responsibility. We are talking about the integrity of our system. We are talking about the integrity of our form of government. We are talking about the public's confidence in our system.
We are not talking about whether or not the Prime Minister can salvage the Minister of Finance. We are not talking about whether or not the Minister of Finance can survive.
The Prime Minister should already have demanded his resignation and this Minister should have already resigned.


Some Hon. Members:: Resign. Resign.


John Napier Turner: In the circumstances before you this morning we consider this to be a non-Minister, a non-Budget, and a non-event.
Budget secrecy is not just some minor rule which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance can throw away at whim.


Mr. Beatty:: We heard that at the press conference last night.


John Napier Turner: It is at the heart of how we function as a people. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance know that and they cannot avoid it. It is extraordinary, it is shocking, it is disgraceful that in their arguments so far to the public and this morning here in the House of Commons, the Minister has missed the point. He has perverted our system, attempted to blame the Opposition, and not accepted the responsibility for those for whom he is responsible.

April 27, 1989
Privilege
I want to deal with the Minister's argument that it is all the Opposition's fault that we are here this morning.
Standing Order 28(3) gives the authority to the Speaker to call the House of Commons back from adjournment if the Speaker is satisfied after consultation with the Government, that this is in the public interest.


Charles Joseph Clark: Blame the Speaker.


Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Blame the Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: You are shameful.


John Napier Turner: If, Your Honour, you feel, after being petitioned by a Minister of the Crown, particularly the Government House Leader, that it is in the public interest that Parliament be recalled, you can recall it and you have recalled it on other occasions.
Had the Speaker called the House last night, the Opposition would not have been able to prevent the Minister of Finance from at least presenting the House with his taxation proposals.
Standing Order 83(1) explicitly gives any Minister of the Crown the right to table a notice of Ways and Means motion at any time during the sitting. The Minister could have come in here, Your Honour could have called the House back at the House Leader's urging, surely it was an emergency situation. Then the Minister of Finance could have stood up in this House and presented his Ways and Means motion and spoken to it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Blame the Speaker.


John Napier Turner: Having failed to resign, the Minister of Finance followed his own incorrect course of action. He followed that course of action and acted improperly.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are unwilling or unable to seize and to understand that this is a classic, indeed the classic failure, of ministerial responsibility in a parliamentary democracy.
Ministerial responsibility is not just another anachronism, left over from another time, that the Minister of Finance can discard.


Charles Joseph Clark: Speaking of anachronisms.


Mr.   Dimer@Vancouver Quadra: It is another fundamental facet, another fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy.
For the House of Commons to perform its functions, for our way of government to work in a fair manner, the Minister has no choice but to accept full responsibility for this, the largest violation of budgetary secrecy in the history of the Parliament of Canada.
I heard the Prime Minister on the radio saying: "Well, if a shop gets robbed you do not punish the shopkeeper, I mean it is the thief's fault". My reply was,"It depends on whether or not the door was locked", and in this case the door was not locked.
The Minister of Finance has been unable to control his Department.


Charles Joseph Clark: What do you know that we don't, John?


John Napier Turner: He has been unable to meet his fiscal goals as a direct result of his own monetary policy.


Charles Joseph Clark: Who sent the thief?


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: You sent it. You said it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Who sent the thief?


John Napier Turner: He has been unfair with Canadians in his taxation policy, and now he is unable to deal fairly with the presentation of his policy.
We accuse this Minister of deception in the House of Commons because he did not tell the people the facts last autumn. We accuse this Minister of deception because they said there were spending commitments which have been violated in this document. We accuse the Minister of mismanagement for having doubled the public debt of this country in four short years. Now we accuse him of breach of trust for failing to resign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Chretien, Chretien, Chretien.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the unanswered questions are legion. When did the Minister of Finance personally find out about the unprecedented release, the budget leak? What did the Minister of Finance do when he did find out?


An Hon. Member:: He did not come here.


John Napier Turner: Why didn't he resign immediately? Why, at least, did he not come onto the floor of the House and urge you, as the Speaker, to reconvene the House through his Government House Leader?
April 27, 1989

When did the Prime Minister find out? Why didn't the Prime Minister immediately demand the resignation of the Minister of Finance?


Roger Simmons: He knew it at 2:45 yesterday.


John Napier Turner: Why did the Minister of Finance decide to try to proceed with a Budget when the principle of Budget secrecy had been violated? Why did the Prime Minister allow him to proceed in that fashion? Why didn't the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance realize that their trust responsibilities, dating back to the birth of our parliamentary system, forced him to resign to maintain that tradition, or did they not care?
How many other of these documents were floating around?


An Hon. Member:: That is the question.


John Napier Turner: Who else knew, and in the meantime what stocks have been traded, what real estate has moved, what other transactions have taken place because these documents were not held confidentially by the Department of Finance? How many millions of dollars, indeed hundreds of millions of dollars, could have been made by the release of these documents?


Charles Joseph Clark: Why didn't you come to work last night, John?


John Napier Turner: How many insiders benefited at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer? What privileged few could have made a killing at the expense of the rest of Canadians? Why didn't the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance realize that hundreds of millions of dollars could have been made at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer? Why didn't they realize that when an entire Budget falls into a few hands it is necessary that the Budget be cancelled, a new date set and a new Minister of Finance appointed?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Or did they care, or did they understand? Why does the Minister not recognize that ordinary Canadians who work hard for their money and pay taxes grudgingly but willingly will not and cannot tolerate a system that is abused, and cannot tolerate the release of an entire budgetary document which may have gone to the benefit and advantage of
Privilege
people we do not know about, but who will surely turn up.
Why don't the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) understand that the 724-year-old rule that lies at the heart of parliamentary democracy and at the heart of our democratic system is there not only because of constitutional proprieties, not only because of constitutional niceties, and not only because Members of Parliament feel they have a special privilege, but because here we have a fiduciary position to protect the ordinary Canadian, and that is why this practice is here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the privileges of all the representatives of the Canadian people have been breached and violated. Even more important, the rights of every single Canadian have been breached and violated. Every single Canadian has the right to feel confident in the understanding and with the assurance that the tax that they pay is revealed, supervised, challenged, controlled, and spent in a fair manner. If Budget secrecy does not apply to all Canadians then the system will not work.
If the Minister of Finance will not resign over the largest release of budgetary information in the history of parliamentary democracy, then there will be chaos in the system, lack of trust, lack of confidence, and lack of willingness of 11 million taxpayers to assess themselves voluntarily and to file that assessment with the Department of Finance.
If the Prime Minister cannot see his failure to compel and force the resignation of his Minister of Finance, or if the Minister of Finance does not understand his role as a custodian of the accounts of this country, and if the Prime Minister does not force the cancellation of the Budget, then he is saying that, fine, it's all right for some Canadians to have inside information while others do not. He is saying that it is all right any time in the future for some Canadians to reap untold millions of dollars of wrongful benefits while other Canadians pay the price.


Mr. McDermid:: What nonsense.


John Napier Turner: An Hon. Member says "What nonsense". He does not understand what this democracy is all about.

April 27, 1989
Privilege


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, during this debate, you will hear precedent after precedent, legal arguments, technical arguments, all sorts of things, but the basic argument involves the privileges of Canadians, whose trustees we are and for whom we are responsible. Now is the time for this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), for this Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to recognize their responsibilities and to comply with the requirements of our Parliamentary system. Let the Minister of Finance resign, because through his Department, he was negligent by allowing a whole budget to be revealed before the date it was to be presented to the House. He violated the privileges of every Canadian by telling them to trust our system, to trust our Parliament, to trust their Government, and above all, their Minister of Finance, who holds the most sensitive and important position after the Prime Minister.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, if you grant me a prime facie case of privilege, not only for the Hon. Members on both sides of the House, not only for the House itself, but for all Canadians, I would be prepared, at your discretion, to present a motion whereby the House can make the final decision.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, this morning when he came into the House the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) raised the question of his alleged claim to an offence of his privileges as a Member. I say to the Minister of Finance that it is all other Members of the House of Commons who have a question of privilege against the incompetence and total irresponsibility of a Minister of Finance who should have resigned this morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We have had the clearest possible demonstration coming from the Minister himself, supported by a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who I hope will join in the debate, who is sitting there and giving support to a Minister who comes into the House and does not resign when he ought to, rises on a question of privilege and does not even have the-and I choose my words with care-responsibility to move a motion to have
this subject referred to a committee that would examine what went on. That is what the Minister ought to have done, and he did not even move the motion.
The Government that we have seen for a number of years has had all its lines of communication and its standards set by the republic to the south of us. It is in the midst of discovering, and I say this to the Minister and to the Prime Minister, what the supremacy of Parliament and parliamentary democracy is all about in this debate.
The Minister in getting to his feet and in his all too brief statement said that there has been no negligence, there has been tight security and we wonder how it got out. Both of those statements we do not know and they ought to be examined, and then there is something we do know something about. The Minister of Finance said that he came to the House at the earliest possible moment. I say to the Minister that that is not true. The Government knew about this at 5.30 yesterday and it ought to have come to the House at that time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Instead of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) phoning the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and myself and getting us to collaborate in this totally inappropriate course of action, the correct course of action would have been for the Minister of Finance, when he discovered this important breach for which he is ultimately responsible, to have come into the House yesterday, said what happened, and submitted his resignation as an honourable man.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: This tradition of parliamentary supremacy and accountability of Ministers is not a mere secondary aspect about our form of democracy. In the United States of America, Ministers-Secretaries in the Cabinet-do not have to come before Congress. For a President who has done some wrong, the only procedure left open to the American population is the very exceptional impeachment process.
We have in this system accountability of Ministers on a day-to-day basis, on the assumption that they understand they are accountable for what they do to the House of Commons, and if we have ever seen the clearest illustration that they do not understand parliamentary democracy, we have seen it this morning.
April 27, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there are many instances in Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and throughout parliamentary systems in the world where the question of the breach of confidentiality of Budget matters has been raised. Ministers of the Crown this morning know that all of us on this side could quote arguments of past instances from them when they were on this side of the House. And later in the day they may find that their words will be quoted back to them.
But I will say, on a very recent incident involving the then Minister of Finance, Marc Lalonde, in 1983 when the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) and his House Leader at the time were rightly critical of the Minister, that the then Minister at least acknowledged the supremacy of what was involved by having a change made when some information from an alleged document was made public.


Charles Joseph Clark: Made public by him.


John Edward Broadbent: He had recognized the principle involved by making sure that that did not come back before Parliament as a Budget. This Government had the effrontery not only to claim it can go right ahead with everything it has produced, even though the whole country knows, but the Government used television instead of coming before the Parliament of Canada to present that Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It would be perfectly understandable if people witnessing this debate in Atlantic Canada-

in the province of Quebec, in the Prairies or in British Columbia, all Canadians want to know exactly what is going on, want to understand exactly the reason the Opposition Parties are completely against the Government on this point. I would like to explain.

It is not a question, Mr. Speaker, about the rules that are pertinent to the conduct of some kind of game or sport activity. What we are involved in now is the accountability of the Government for literally millions of dollars of public expenditure, taxpayers' money-indeed, billions of dollars. So the secrecy that we talk about as being essential in the parliamentary tradition has behind it an entirely appropriate concern about the public good.
Privilege
I want to mention just a couple of items that have become public as being seen to be part of what the Government is describing as its Budget. One, the complete privatization of Air Canada. Two, a major change in defence expenditure. When I heard of this yesterday and heard there was no resignation, I asked myself, what time does the stock market close; what time did this information become available? We now know, Mr. Speaker, that that information was available perhaps as early as 2.45 p.m. yesterday. If there was one journalist who had that information and presented it on the public network at supper time, the relevant question that a Minister of Finance ought to be concerned about is who else had it and who may or may not have phoned his or her stockbroker to make a deal on the Toronto or the Montreal Stock Exchanges. If people did that, then I say that the Minister of Finance is responsible-if they did it, I say to him, and he has no way of knowing if they did or not-for privileged access by a small group of Canadians who might have made millions of dollars at the expense of the public, and for that and that alone, the Minister of Finance should be resigning.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I cannot understand why a Minister of Finance who claims to be concerned about his privileges would speak so briefly about such a fundamental matter without having a motion to refer this to a committee of the House to examine it. If he believes there was no breach of security, why is the Minister not prepared to do the traditional thing and have a committee examine the matter? If he says there was no negligence in any way on the part of his staff or his Department, why will the Minister not have a committee look at the matter? In particular, Mr. Speaker, I say that when the Minister came here and said to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada that he spoke and acted as soon as possible, we know that that is false. For those reasons, among others, there ought to be a committee examining this very serious breach of trust.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The privilege involved does not involve simply the Minister of Finance. I was informed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had attempted to contact me after supper time yesterday. His office was calling, and no doubt this call was followed up by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) who contacted both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and myself about this matter. Once I heard there was a Budget leak and had it confirmed that it was on television, I asked myself, did the Minister of Finance-he has not told us this yet-go to the Prime Minister and offer his resignation, which he ought to have done? Did he offer his resigna-

April 27, 1989
Privilege
tion? If he did not, did the Prime Minister, who has responsibility for all the Ministers of the Crown, do the right thing and get the Minister of Finance on the phone and say, "Look, Michael, this may or may not have been your direct responsibility but you are accountable to Parliament, to the people of Canada, and I, as the Prime Minister, ask for your resignation"?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: What is at stake here is not simply the credibility of the Minister of Finance, which is now completely shot, but also the credibility of this Government and the Prime Minister who had presented before them a situation on which the Prime Minister ought to have acted and did not. The people of Canada will have noted that as well.
We say that instead of proceeding later today, as the Government would hope, with a Budget debate at five o'clock with this Minister of Finance, we say this Minister of Finance should no longer be Minister of Finance. We say that the Prime Minister should name forthwith a new Minister of Finance and he should withdraw this alleged Budget, set a new Budget date down the road and do the proper thing for the people of Canada.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, if you judge in responding to these points of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition and myself in response to the Minister of Finance, I want to suggest the wording of a motion to which I would like to see the Government respond affirmatively before you make a ruling. I use the words used by the then Opposition House Leader in 1983 in a similar-


Charles Joseph Clark: Not similar.


John Edward Broadbent: -circumstance involving a Minister of Finance, and I say to the Minister of Justice-


Henry Perrin Beatty: It was dissimilar.


John Edward Broadbent: -who spoke at that time in defence of the motion moved by his Party then in opposition that if the logic and reason of these words made sense then, if they reflected honestly the correct parliamentary traditions, not only of Canada but around the world, then they make sense in 1989.
Some Hon Members: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if you rule that there is a prima facie case, I would be prepared at the right time to move the following:
That a special committee be appointed to inquire into all the circumstances relating to or associated with the disclosure of Budget information on April 26, and that the committee consist of 11 Members of the House, and that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
I hope that a Government that has demonstrated no commitment to integrity in the past 24 hours on this important issue will do the right thing, that this Government will rise and support this motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate on the point made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). I appreciate the remarks that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) just made vis-a-vis that tremendous speech that I made in 1983. I do not remember winning the argument. There are some very good reasons why I did not win the argument.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I would like to point out if I may to our hon. friend that in 1983 there was no RCMP investigation, such as is under way at the present time. That is the difference.
It is important that we lay the facts on the record and we do it in a manner in which the House will understand and the Canadian public will understand because it is important that the people know how this Government acted and how responsibly we acted under the circumstances.


An Hon. Member:: It was a cover-up.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There is no question that there was a television program in which a reporter in the first instance referred to an uncorroborated suggestion that there had been a leak of Budget material. You will note that that particular reporter-I know that it is a little beyond your jurisdiction but let me say this, if the tapes were reviewed, I think you would find that that particular reporter, in a responsible manner, did not run the story until he had it corroborated. That is right. He did not run the story until he had it corroborated. We were aware of that story on the wire. We were aware of that story on
April 27, 1989

the wire. But when that reporter held up a copy of the pamphlet entitled Budget in Brief, it became evident to the Government that-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -this was much more than informed speculation, that there was in fact a theft of Budget material. I think you would find the record would show that when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke, and when the Leader of the New Democratic Party spoke, we asked our Members to give them the courtesy that they were owed in this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.
Mr. Lewis Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question becomes, and this is the question that the people are asking, what did the Government do?


An Hon. Member:: When did the Government do it? When did the Government know it?


An Hon. Member:: That is the question.


An Hon. Member:: Shame on you.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Immediately that seven o'clock program confirmed that there had been a theft of Budget material, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) convened a group of senior Ministers and officials to discuss what action we should take to properly correct a very serious situation. We met, we considered and we acted. Here is the important point: We have talked about traditions in this place and there are some traditions. If you want to bring one tradition into play, you bring them all into play.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There are some traditions, and I will get to the proof a little later on, that prevail. We acted immediately. I did it myself. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will know this. At 8.05 p.m., I phoned the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and I advised him of the following. This is what I said because I read from notes.


An Hon. Member:: Did you tape it?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No, absolutely not. You know me better than that. You know me better than that. I do not for a minute suggest that you taped me, sir.
Privilege


John Napier Turner: No, sir, it was not
worth it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I said this: "Somebody in a position of public trust has leaked Budget information to the public and we must act quickly and responsibly. I ask for your co-operation to call the House into session tonight in order that the public be informed as soon as possible and the Minister may deliver his Budget in the House of Commons."


An Hon. Member:: Did you go to the Speaker?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I will get to that in a minute. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said: "I understand this. I'll get back to you or call me back.", telephones being what they are these days. The same call was placed at 8.10 p.m. to the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the same message was given to him. He said: "I'll get back to you or you get back to me". We took these right hon. gentlemen at their word.


An Hon. Member:: Why did you not speak to the Speaker?
Mr. Lewis There has been a suggestion, and let me deal with that now, that we should have used Standing Order 28(3). It is our position that we have every right to use the rules but we have no right to abuse the rules.
Some Hon. Members Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: At six o'clock last evening the Speaker rose and said, and I am paraphrasing, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow morning. That is notice to every Member in this House, be that the Government side or Opposition or even my friend from the independent Party. That is the notice that she and every Member is entitled to, that there is no more Government business until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. It is our position that had we tried to approach the Speaker under Standing Order 28(3), we would have found ourselves in the wrong court. That rule is for use by the Government as follows:
28. (3) Whenever the House stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, the Speaker may give notice -and thereupon the House shall meet to transact its business-
Et cetera. If one reads the annotated notes-


Mr. Boudria:: That is out of order.

April 27, 1989
Privilege


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It may be out of order to read the notes-


Mr. Lapierre:: Don't abuse the rules.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: If one reads it one will see that it refers specifically to the House being recessed during the calendar, not overnight. I submit it would have been an abuse to go before-


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) could indicate before he gets into argument what his point of order is.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is my understanding that when what is called the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons were tabled in this House it was stated by you, Sir, that the annotations were not to be referred to in argument. If that is correct then I would like to draw that to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis).


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Minister of Justice had put aside the annotated notes and was arguing freely.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Surely the point is that we sought the co-operation of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party-officers of this House. We sought that co-operation. It was not forthcoming because when we phoned back they said: "No, I am sorry, we cannot co-operate".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: "We cannot co-operate. We can go to a press conference but we cannot come back to this House of Commons. We can go to the other side of Wellington Street but we cannot come to the House of Commons".


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We sought that co-operation in the best traditions of this House-


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is a cover-up.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -and it was denied to us. Under those circumstances the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) went before the media and disclosed all the contents of the Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: In keeping with the traditions of this House the full copies were tabled with the Clerk. We went public as soon as we could, in a responsible manner.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is the issue. There have been a great many comments about precedents .There have been references to them but nobody has cared to get much into the meat of the precedents.
In 1936 in the United Kingdom there was some unusual activity in the insurance market. There was a tribunal held. It was concluded that a Cabinet Minister, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had leaked budget information for personal gains of a private citizen. The Minister resigned.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Good precedent.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: In 1947 in the United Kingdom, and this is the famous Dalton case, on his way in to deliver a Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an offhand remark said something to a reporter such as: "You'd better buy your cigarettes now because the price is going up tonight".


Sheila Maureen Copps: What happened?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: This is what happened. The Minister resigned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: One hell of a
precedent.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The distinction of course is that there is no direct relation in this case between the Minister of Finance and the stolen Budget document-none whatsoever. There is no suggestion of that at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: In that case the Minister gave the information away. In this case our Minister has no connection with that document.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Now I would like to get to the Canadian precedents if I may, Mr. Speaker.
In March, 1982, details of the Saskatchewan Budget were aired on CBC television three days before the Budget. The Minister tabled his Budget as planned and although he was reported to have tendered his resignation, it was not accepted. He did not resign. That distinguishes that precedent.
April 27, 1989

In April, 1983-and here is one with a close connection-details of the Lalonde Budget were put forward in a photo-op by the Minister himself holding it up. What happened? He came to the Commons the next day with a changed Budget. The Minister did not resign.


John Edward Broadbent: It was changed!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: In May, 1983, a reporter found some Ontario Government Budget papers in a garbage can outside a printing company before Budget day. The information became public. The Provincial Treasurer, Frank Miller, did not resign.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Where is he now?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: In May, 1987, the Quebec Finance Minister faced a similar situation in which some details of his impending Budget were leaked to the press. The Minister immediately tabled the Budget a week ahead of schedule. He did not resign.


Jean-C. Lapierre: He offered his resignation first.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Here is the Abbot example for the Liberal Party side of things. Mr. Abbot said this: "I announced some two or three weeks in advance of Parliament being in session, although it had been announced that Parliament was called, that it was the Government's intention and my intention when Parliament was convened to ask Parliament to enact these particular taxes effective from November 17. The conclusion that I arrived at and the Government arrived at after a great deal of consideration was that the circumstances were so exceptional, the emergency was so great that action should be taken".
That is another case wherein a Minister announced details on the radio, came to the House and that was his defence. The Minister did not resign.
I wish to talk about co-operation for a minute. The Leader of the New Democratic Party talked about traditions. I would tell him that the respecting of traditions is perhaps a little more highly held by one Bob Rae who has broken ranks with the Leader of the New Democratic Party and said that it was not necessary for Mr. Wilson to resign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: What does that prove?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Last, I want to deal with the action of Mr. Stanfield in 1968. When the Government of the day, the Liberal Government, lost a vote at third reading on a finance Bill there was great confusion in the realm. What happened? Mr. Pearson went to Mr. Stanfield and
Privilege
said that he wanted an adjournment of the House in order to regroup and decide what action the Government should take.


Mr. Valcourt:: In the best interests of Canada.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, in the best interests of Canada. In the best interests of Canada there was an adjournment. That would have been the parallel to saying: "Look, we come into the House of Commons and sit tonight. You can get your people here and we know that". That would have been a tradition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The point is that Mr. Stanfield saw a greater sense of value in this place than pure political marks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Kaplan:: Then let us have an election on this Budget.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I want to wind up in this manner if I may. I am not here defending the suggestion that the Minister of Finance resign because there is no reason that he should resign. There is no reason for that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am defending the traditions of this place and what the responsibility of a Government is when it finds it has a problem on its hands. We could have sat it out. We could have brazened it out. We could have said, no, no, we don't believe what we see on television. We could have waited until five o'clock this afternoon. No, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) convened the meeting I spoke of.


Jean-C. Lapierre: To ask the Opposition to co-operate.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Once it was proven at seven o'clock, it became no question. How did we go public as soon as possible-


Jean-C. Lapierre: What did you do before 5.30 and six o'clock?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -in the interest of all the people of Canada? We tried, as we had to, to get the co-operation of the opposition Parties. I make no apology for that. I said to them: "Put partisanship aside. Come in to the House of Commons." It did not work. That is fine. We will be judged by how we conducted ourselves. They will be judged by how they conducted themselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 27, 1989
Privilege


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: This Government is ready to be judged on how we acted.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Let's have an election.


Mr. Epp:: You don't have a leader.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I submit there is no point of privilege. I thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has the kind of look on his face which indicates to me he must be saying to himself after hearing the speech of the Minister of Justice that he thinks he should get himself another lawyer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It has been a long time since this House and the Canadian people have heard such an inept and unconvincing attempt to defend the indefensible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) said we have every right to use the rules, but we have no right to abuse the rules. This point did not seem to concern the Minister of Justice when last June and last December he and the government Members butchered the rules in an attempt to get their way with this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Minister of Justice obviously failed to carry out his first responsibility to his Government and to this House when he failed to even approach the Speaker and ask the Speaker if he would be willing to apply Standing Order 28(3).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Minister of Justice confirmed that when the House adjourned yesterday, the Speaker said that the House stands adjourned, which clearly is the foundation for the application of Standing Order 28(3) which reads:
Whenever the House stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, the Speaker may give notice that being so satisfied the House shall meet, and thereupon the House shall meet to transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
The Hon. Minister of Justice speaks of parliamentary tradition. Surely the basis for that tradition is to at least
approach the Speaker when the rules of this House give some reasonable basis to do so, to ask the Speaker to use the authority this House has given him in the Standing Orders. If the Minister of Justice did not do so, then he has no business trying to blame the opposition Parties for his incompetence and that of his colleagues.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the co-operation of the opposition Parties was not required to have the House sit last night if that is what the Government thought it was in the public interest to do. All that had to be done was to approach you, Sir, and ask that the Standing Order be applied. But, it is clear the Government was more interested in scrambling around trying to hide its own problems, trying to find some way out, than relying on the parliamentary tradition that the Minister of Justice is crying about right now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his own equally unconvincing statement earlier today, said that he was in the clear because, as far as he could determine, there was no negligence on the part of his officials, and that there was some type of deliberate effort to have the information in the Budget in the hands of the public before it was done properly pursuant to the rules and traditions of this House.
The Minister of Finance has given no facts, no evidence, no basis on which this House or the Canadian people can accept that this statement is correct, and that there has been a sufficient examination of what went on to reach that conclusion. In any event the Minister must take responsibility for the actions or inactions of his officials. This was clearly established in a recent court case in the Federal Court of Appeal where it was determined that the former Member for Kingston and the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) had to take responsibility for the actions of their officials even though they were not personally informed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If the Minister of Finance was so concerned about doing things in the right way, then he should have come in to the House, accepted his responsibility, resigned and said that he was withdrawing this Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 27, 1989


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Minister of Justice has not demonstrated to this House, nor to the Canadian people, that it was not possible for a limited number of individuals to benefit improperly through the early disclosure of the information in his Budget. We have been doing some checking, and it is certainly clear from the information that we have that people in various time zones around the country or around the world could well have learned of this information in the Budget when it was broadcast, and that orders for transactions could have been given in various Exchanges in a way that they could benefit from enormously, in ways that were quite absent from the opportunities of Canadians generally.
The Minister of Finance comes in here and sanctimoniously tries to wash his hands of the whole matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: But that is not enough in terms of his responsibility as Minister of Finance and in terms of his responsibility as a Minister of the Crown for those who answer to him.
The final point I want to make is with respect to precedent. It is interesting to hear the Minister of Justice trying to recant the words he used in this House in 1983 in connection with the Lalonde case, a very different case. It involved only one small element of a budget, and did not involve anything from which people could have benefited personally. The Minister of Justice, as I have said, is attempting to recant his words. I do not know if the Minister of Finance behind the curtains has wrestled him to the ground and made him cry uncle and go into the House to do this, but these words are still on the record of Hansard. These words are an endorsement of other words spoken by the present Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, the then Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). The Member for Calgary Centre said in Hansard at page 24635:
It has been established very clearly that there has been important information leaked to the public, information that dramatically affects public financial markets from a document identified by the Minister of Finance as the Budget.
The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) went on to say:
This House has the absolute right to establish procedures, rules and requirements. One of the absolute rights of the House, established over hundreds of years, is the right to hear the Government's budgetary proposal before anybody else, or simultaneously with anybody else.
Privilege
The Member went on to say:
Nothing could be more fundamental to the privileges of every Member elected by Canadian citizens than that we be told of the budget by the Minister of Finance in this House and not learn about it from television reports or speeches that he makes to the Chamber of Commerce or by some other method. Nothing is more fundamental than that, Madam Speaker. Any self-respecting Minister of Finance would resign.
Those are the words of the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre in 1983.1 trust he will not get up and try to recant what he put on the record at that time, because he made a very valid and sound statement of principle that should be followed by the Government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) today.
After the Member for Calgary Centre took his seat, the Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Fewis), now the Minister of Justice, was recognized and said, as reported at page 24636 of Hansard:
Madam Speaker, I wish to address a few brief remarks to this question of privilege and perhaps to wrap up the argument for this side.
He went on to say:
- I support the argument of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), that the privileges of all Members of the House have been breached in that we read about and saw on television matters which were obviously in the budget which will be presented tonight.
It is a breach of our privileges as Members that this material was disseminated through the media before it was presented to the House. The effect on the market, the effect on what action private citizens will take, has yet to be seen. The question of whether or not the Prime Minister will stand on tradition has yet to be known.
Then the Minister of Justice went on to argue that one of the privileges of Members of this House was the right to confidentiality. Then he in effect concluded by saying: We would argue that in either case, whether you take the argument of the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre or my argument, the privileges of a Member or Members of the House have been breached.
The Member for Calgary Centre and the present Minister of Justice, as I understood their remarks, did not put qualifications on them to limit them only to the case of the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Falonde. They were stating what they considered to be principles of general and permanent application. It is hardly credible for the Minister of Justice now to get on his feet and say: "I recant, I did not mean to say what I did, I wish I could expunge it from the record". It is there. It is on the record. It counts now no less than the Minister of Justice intended it to count at that time.

April 27, 1989
Privilege
If these words are on the record and if the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) are serious about their responsibilities, and in particular if the Prime Minister is serious about his responsibilities, he will insist that the Minister of Finance resign and that there be a new Budget. The Canadian people, through their elected representatives in this House, deserve no less. They deserved far better from the Minister of Finance last night. They deserve far better from the Minister of Finance today, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, then the inept, unconvincing crocodile tears about how the Minister of Finance mismanaged his responsibiities.
I think it is clear that the Minister of Finance must resign. This Budget must be withdrawn. Otherwise there is no way that the democratic process and the role of this House can be taken seriously any longer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to make a couple of points in response to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Opposition House Leader for whom I have a great deal of respect in a parliamentary sense. I want to say that in all sincerity, but I believe they are distorting the interpretation of Standing Order 28(3) and I think it has to be clarified once and for all.
They are suggesting in the House today, Mr. Speaker, that you could have called the House back sometime last night without the consent of the opposition Parties. I think that would have been physically impossible-


Brian Vincent Tobin: What about last summer?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can you just wait a minute? I think it would have been physically impossible because, in order for the Speaker to do so after being satisfied that there was an emergency situation and indeed it was in the public interest to resume the sitting of the House, it would have then been necessary for the Speaker to give notice to every individual Member of Parliament.


An Hon. Member:: So?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Speaker has to ensure that adequate notice has been served. What is adequate notice, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps in the course of rendering a decision you will be able to elaborate on that, but I
think you will find that generally, when we talk about tradition, convention and precedents, it is at least 48 hours.


John Napier Turner: Oh, come on!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: At least 48 hours. I know there have been cases when there has been a special Order Paper initiated in 24 hours.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You can't have it both ways.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If you had decided that indeed there was a case of an emergency, it would have been impossible to convene the House on that basis, under Standing Order 28(3), for at least 24 hours or possibly 48 hours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Everyone should know that the only way that this House could have come back sometime last night, whether it be at ten o'clock, twelve o'clock, one o'clock or two o'clock in the morning, would have been with the unanimous consent of all the Members of the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Nonsense. That is nonsense. Once again you are distorting the rules.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Second, after convening the House, what would have been the order of business? There was no order for that day. There would be no Order Paper. Again, for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to introduce, produce and present his Budget to the House would have required unanimous consent. On a double case, we would have needed unanimous consent on both counts.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You know it, John.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is the point that the Hon. Members across are overlooking. You have two cases.
What the House Leader outlined are the steps that the Government took in the best traditions of parliamentary democracy to call the House back under consent-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Resign.


Mr. Peterson:: You're desperate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not desperate. I am as good a parliamentarian as you are, and I have done as much as you have to preserve parliamentary tradition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 27, 1989


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I get a little annoyed when I hear people talking about the subversion of Parliament when they indeed subvert the rules-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Oh, come on!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and disallow Parliament to function in a normal fashion. That is the inconsistency of the Opposition.
I have never heard such doubletalk. On the one hand they charge the Government with subverting the rules, with contempt of Parliament-


John Edward Broadbent: What about the ringing of the bells?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -with affronting the institution. What has really happened is that the Opposition has denied Parliament the opportunity to deal with this.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: What a laugh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has indeed blocked the parliamentary process by his actions last night-


John Napier Turner: You can't be serious.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and the NDP. Then he comes into the House and talks about the sanctity of Parliament. In the same breath he turns his back on Parliament.
What nonsense, Mr. Speaker. He denied Parliament the opportunity to function as it should. Though he takes us back to 1265 in history, he does not have to go that far back.
As the House Leader outlined, we have the rather interesting situation where a former Minister of Finance, the Hon. Douglas Abbott, brought forth a Budget in a radio broadcast on November 17, 1947 when the House was not in session. Then he came back into the House on March 9, 1948 when the House was convened, and adopted the Budget.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition says that Parliament has the right to control expenditures, that Parliament has to approve the Budget.


An Hon. Member:: Why have us here then?
Privilege


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No one is denying Parliament that right under the situation that we have before us today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Just so it is abundantly clear to all Members of this House and all members of the Canadian public, we are not denying Parliament the opportunity to deal with this Budget.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You already did. You already have.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is absolutely wrong.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You did last night. You have failed. Listen to your mandate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You have failed. You should resign.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is nonsense and you know it. Parliament will still have the opportunity to pass judgement on this Budget, every line, every detail, every corresponding piece of legislation. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that, and so does the Leader of the NDP.


Sheila Maureen Copps: How many leakers do you have over there?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition talks about the primacy of Parliament, and then he and his colleagues and friends in the NDP do everything in their power to hijack it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You stormed the chair. What about you ringing the bells?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What nonsense. Squeal a little more. Squeal a little more. That is all you have been able to do on this issue.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You do not know what you are talking about.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are the hijacker.


Mr. Marchi:: Selective memory.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Storm the chair.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Government has taken every available course of action.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Except the right one.


John Edward Broadbent: Try the right one now.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We need a new Budget. Back to the drawing board. That is what you should do.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Members want the resignation of the Minister of Finance.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You will never do that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I say to you and the Leaders of the two opposition Parties and the Members of the House, you are not going to get his resignation.

April 27, 1989
Privilege


Mr. Nault:: How much money did you make?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am deeply disappointed at the cheap political tactics of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition who should know better.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Out, out, out.


John Napier Turner: Why don't you get the Prime Minister up on his feet?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Back to the cameras, John.


Sheila Maureen Copps: If the heat gets too high he will cut him loose.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the Hon. Members that despite the seriousness with which all Hon. Members view this matter, it is still a question of privilege, and I would ask the Hon. Members to assist the Chair in that regard.


John Napier Turner: He is provoking his own reaction.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Government took every step available to fulfil the parliamentary traditions in every respect.


An Hon. Member:: Remember Stevens?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Stevens. He's coming back too.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is customary that Budgets be presented to the House, but there have been deviations, as I have outlined in the case of Mr. Douglas Abbott, and in the extraordinary circumstances that prevailed last evening it required co-operation and goodwill on the part of all Members of this House in order to deal with this issue-


Sheila Maureen Copps: If the heat gets too high he will cut him loose.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and that was not forthcoming.
We hear a lot about goodwill and we hear a lot about co-operation, and you and I know that this House cannot function without a certain amount of goodwill and co-operation, and I have heard it from you and I have heard it from Members across, and in cases where there are extraordinary circumstances, that is when this institution really lives to the fullest. I am sorry to say that it did not do that last night primarily because of the lack of co-operation of the two Leaders of the Opposition.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It was already on TV. It's a big leak.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What we have here is a classical case of political opportunism.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Exactly.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The last time you were this articulate was on behalf of Sinclair Stevens. We have heard it before.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sure most Canadians will interpret it that way. It is a case of political chicanery, and I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he is not serving Canada and he is not serving the public interest of Canada by his actions. I doubt very much that he is even serving his own political interests, and I am not sure what his political interests are these days, but he is certainly not serving the interests of Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Cheap shot.


Some Hon. Members:: Cheap, cheap, cheap.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Look at the smile on his face.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Don't you have the guts to stand up, Brian? Why don't you stand up and defend your Minister?


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you feeling all right, Sheila?


Sheila Maureen Copps: We know you will cut him loose.


Charles Joseph Clark: Feeling all right, Sheila?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You can't.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In extraordinary circumstances this institution comes together. We have talked about the case in 1968 when Mr. Stanfield rose above partisan interests and came to the call of the public interest of Canada, and I say to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that that is what he should be doing now.


John Napier Turner: You were against him at that time. You thought it was the wrong move too. I remember what you thought.


Mr. Mulroney:: He says it was the wrong move.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I know that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has had more parliamentary experience than I have, he was here when I came here in 1968, and I always respected his commitment to this institution.


An Hon. Member:: But you stayed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He has always demonstrated his commitment to this institution and he was always an excellent parliamentarian, and I think he still is, but I ask him on this occasion to rise above political partisanship.
April 27, 1989


John Napier Turner: You get me right here.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You insult people and drag in the arguments.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Put the public interest first, put Canada first.


John Napier Turner: The public interest is that that fellow resign. That is the public interest.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The precedents are very clear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why doesn't the Prime Minister speak? He is going to cut him loose. Why doesn't he defend his Minister?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the Hon. Member is suggesting that his Party is going to fall down on the side of the criminal act and support the criminal act that occurred, if that is the choice that they are taking, then I am very, veiy much-
Sonie Hon. Members: Shame, shame.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Because if he does that, what he is really saying is that, in the future, any act of sabotage such as we have witnessed yesterday is going to become commonplace, so that it will be impossible for any Finance Minister in the future to function, and he should consider that as well.


John Napier Turner: Oh, come on. Come on.


Mr. Kristiansen:: The negligence is over there.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why doesn't the Prime Minister defend him? He is going to cut him loose.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sure that over the course of lunch the Leader of the Opposition may have cause to reflect and think about this, because I think it is a very urgent matter.


Roger Simmons: Get off it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is a very urgent matter, and I would hope that he would again put the interests of the country first.


Mr. Crawford:: Put Canadians first.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Never mind your rich friends. How about the rest of Canadians?
Privilege


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You may regret that remark someday. You are making an underhanded accusation that is totally unfair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You can't tell the truth, Maz, and you know it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the Hon. Member opposite is alleging that I had something to do with this budgetary theft that helps my rich friends, then I think that is a very serious charge. If the Hon. Member wants to make that charge, he knows what he can do.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who else had the Budget?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I conclude by saying to you, Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House, that Parliament is not being circumvented in this case. The Budget is before the House now and the honour is still there.


An Hon. Member:: No, it's not.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It will be at five o'clock. Just because the Leader of the Opposition does not want to co-operate, that does not mean to say that the will of the House will not prevail.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Another cheap shot.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Parliament is not being circumvented, nor is the Government on a course which would disallow Parliament from dealing with all aspects of the Budget, so that is not the case at all.
I remind you again, Mr. Speaker, that it was the Opposition that prevented Parliament from working in this case. I make that point again, and again, and again.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Wrong, wrong, wrong.


Charles Joseph Clark: They wouldn't come to work.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You're desperate, Maz.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Minister of Finance acted responsibly under the circumstances and took every step available to ensure that the integrity of the Budget was upheld and that all Canadians were informed as quickly and as fairly as possible. He did it, and I stand 100 per cent behind him in that exercise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Finally, the Minister of Finance rose in his place this morning at eleven o'clock and explained to his colleagues, his peers in the House of Commons, in a chronological manner, outlining in full detail what occurred-

April 27, 1989
Privilege


Sheila Maureen Copps: What time did he find out about it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and what steps he took in order to preserve the integrity of the Budget and to preserve the economic welfare of the country. The Opposition is playing with fire in this particular case.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are playing with fire.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit you on the nose. You haven't spoken the truth today.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are playing with the lives of Canadians.


Sheila Maureen Copps: How come the Prime Minister hasn't said anything? He's going to cut him loose. He's not defending his Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Members opposite are playing with the welfare of Canadians. They are playing with the integrity of the Canadian economy. They have a choice. They can go on with their political gamesmanship and their political chicanery, or they can choose Canada and stand up for Canada, and now is their opportunity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, today we are witnessing something that is unbelievable. Here is a Government that pulls the biggest parliamentary blunder in parliamentary history and then blames the Opposition for what it has done.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is unbelievable. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) talks about the sabotage that occurred. What we have seen today is the sabotage of the parliamentary process and parliamentary traditions as the Government has turned this place into some combination of Sesame Street and Saturday Night Live.
It is unmitigated gall on the part of government Members to stand up and make suggestions in terms of serving Parliament and parliamentary traditions, and acting in a co-operative way. This was the Government that stormed the Chair of the Speaker. This was the Government that stopped the House of Commons from working for 16 days. This was the Party that not only muzzled Parliament but now has set aside 700 years of parliamentary tradition and has introduced a Budget at a press conference. That is the type of situation we are seeing, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Let me return to some of the comments made by the House Leader of the Government. He began his remarks by suggesting that he called the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party and explained to them that a leak had occurred.


An Hon. Member:: A theft.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, he said that a leak had occurred. He read from his notes and he communicated that a leak had occurred.
It is interesting that he had also stated that there was no way that we could refer this to a committee for investigation because the RCMP is already looking into it. I want to remind the Minister that he was one of the most articulate spokespersons when the RCMP was looking into the Mackasey and the Masse affair. He wanted to call for parliamentary investigation at the same time. He cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: We are well aware that the Government, some time during the day yesterday, at least by 2.30 yesterday afternoon, or perhaps a day earlier, or perhaps an hour earlier-


Charles Joseph Clark: False.


Jean-C. Lapierre: How do you know, Joe? Are you the new policeman on that side?


Nelson Andrew Riis: -but by 2.30 in the afternoon information of the Budget had leaked out and security had been broken.
At 5.30 p.m. when Parliament was sitting, Global television from Ottawa phoned the office of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and informed his officials of the details of the Budget. They were not some vague references to the Budget, but the details of the Budget. They articulated point after point what was in the Budget. That means that at that time the Minister of Finance knew precisely that the Budget had been leaked some time previously.
We know at least that one document went public. I recall that the Minister of Justice said that they only believed it when they saw the picture on television. However, by 5.30 at least they knew that the details had been leaked out to at least one journalist. How much
April 27, 1989

more had been leaked out and to whom is unknown. However, at that time the Minister of Finance knew that there had been a leak. He did not know how extensive that leak was, but at that time he should have done the honourable thing and come into the Chamber of the House of Commons and offered his resignation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: That did not occur. The Deputy Prime Minister ran in, the Minister of Justice ran in. They huddled and decided that, perhaps to buy some time, the hours of the House should be extended. These discussions always take place with the House Leaders, and there were no discussions. Out of the blue, just before six o'clock, the Minister of Justice rose and asked to extend the hours. Again, this is a clear indication that they were well aware that a Budget leak had occurred at that time.
It would have been at that time that the Minister of Finance should have done the honourable thing, offered his resignation, and while the House was sitting, indicated that there would not be a Budget, that the Budget process would be put off for a number of weeks, and that a proper Budget would be brought in at a proper time by a proper Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is incomprehensible for the Deputy Prime Minister to suggest that sometime during the evening, after the information had been leaked, after the news media had presented the details of the Budget, members of the Opposition could be expected to co-operate in some kind of a rescue operation, or some kind of a cover-up operation, to give the illusion that this was an appropriate process, by agreeing to recall the House of Commons so that the Minister of Finance could stand up at that point, after it was public information, and indicate the details of the Budget. It was irresponsible of the Minister to even ask members of the Opposition to co-operate in that manner.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that it is one o'clock, and ordinarily we would adjourn until 2 p.m. The Chair is, of course, in the hands of the Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Call it one o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I sat in my seat this morning and watched the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) smirk as points of order and questions of privilege were raised relating to the very serious matter of this major Budget leak. I look at The Ottawa Citizen of today which suggests that at least 20 people have known about the Budget contents for several days. I look at the Toronto Globe and Mail, in which the chairman of Air Canada, at a meeting that took place yesterday and finished at 12.30 is broadly hinting to shareholders that there will be a sell-out announced in the Budget today.
When the Government of Canada and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) do not have the integrity to resign on an issue of such fundamental importance, how many people sold off their shares, how many people made money? How many people speculated on submarines as a result of this major leak which was caused by the negligence of this Government and by a Prime Minister and a Minister who take Budget secrecy and treat it as a joke. Why did the Prime Minister not stand up in the House this morning and speak to the issue? He hung his Minister out to dry because he knows the Minister was negligent. He knows that the information was flying fast and furious around-


An Hon. Member:: He should resign.


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



Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, the measures announced in the 1989 Budget are aimed at reinforcing the efforts made in our first term to control and substantially reduce the national debt.

April 27, 1989
The Budget contains a comprehensive program for expenditure reduction, designed to deal directly with the debt problem and to make it possible to pursue major initiatives that will enable the Canadian economy to produce more jobs, offer more opportunities and raise the standard of living of Canadians.
Thanks to these budgetary measures, by 1993 the deficit will have declined to $15 billion, less than half its present level.
It was incumbent on the Canadian Government to take such measures so as not to leave a legacy of debt to future generations.
The solution is obvious: We must start paying today, to avoid suffering tomorrow, and that is what we are doing as responsible managers.
Canadians are responsible people, and I am convinced they will support the Government's decision and will congratulate the Government on having the courage and insight to ensure the future prosperity of this country for generations to come.



Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, during the past 24 hours we have witnessed an unprecedented failure on the part of a Minister of Finance in the exercise of his responsibilities to this Parliament and to the people of Canada. Never in the history of parliamentary democracy has such a complete disclosure of a Budget occurred. The issue here is at the heart of the parliamentary system. The issue here is the integrity of the parliamentary system itself. It is the duty of the Finance Minister to protect that integrity.
The Minister does not seem to understand that this leak may have led to an unfair advantage being gained by some investors at the expense of all Canadians.
There has been a breach of security at the Department of Finance. The Minister is responsible for that Department. In view of the fact that this Minister has demonstrated in the last few hours that he is not prepared to accept his responsibilities, it is therefore a must for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to ask for, receive and accept the resignation of the Finance Minister (Mr. Wilson).



Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement that is being echoed throughout the nation today. That is that our present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is the best Minister of Finance this country has had-


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Gregory Francis Thompson: -in the last 50 years.
He has made tough decisions, hard decisions, but decisions that had to be made for the good of all Canadians. The Opposition Parties, for purely partisan reasons, are now demanding the resignation of the Minister of Finance.
I would like to read a quotation from an article in this morning's newspaper, and I quote: "Should the Minister resign because others broke the law?" They answer that question by another quotation: "This is no time for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to resign". Canadians from coast to coast are saying the same thing. They have confidence in this Minister and confidence in this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: It has been alleged that the privileges of this House have been breached. I do not doubt it.
The Fifth Edition of Beauchesne's notes, at Citation 79:
The House maintains sole control over documents in its possession.
The public may see papers which have been tabled in the House.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said this morning that he sent copies of his entire Budget package to the Clerk, for the Speaker, before his television show last night. The minute the Clerk received those papers, they became documents in the possession of the House, but had not yet been tabled. They still have not been tabled. Yet the Minister made them public.
April 27, 1989

The 19th Edition of Erskine May notes, at page 141, that:
To abstract any record or other document from the custody of the
Clerk-will constitute a contempt.
Last night, having delivered it to the custody of the Clerk, the Minister of Finance abstracted from his Budget speech in front of the nation's television.
As well, Erskine May notes at page 138:
Disobedience to the orders of either House, -is a contempt of that
House.
The House had ordered the Budget speech be presented in this House, not in a TV studio, at five o'clock this afternoon, not at 10.15 last night.
There has been a most serious breach of the privileges of this House by the Finance Minister.



Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, budget secrecy appears to be so sacred they are asking for the resignation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) because the theft, I repeat theft, of a public document, just led to parts of the 1989 Budget being revealed.
Last night, all Canadians received the same information almost simultaneously. What is the problem? Michael Wilson has not absconded with public funds. He has not committed a crime or sold State secrets. When someone steals something from a store, do we arrest the shopkeeper? No, Mr. Speaker!
Mr. Speaker, how could anyone blame the Minister of Finance in this case?



Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada stand shocked today by the unprecedented leak of an entire Budget document, more than 24 hours prior to its proper presentation before the House of Commons. Indeed, news reports indicate that individuals unknown were openly peddling purported Budget documents to local media outlets as early as yesterday afternoon.
This unprecedented bungling has undermined the integrity of the entire parliamentary system. Will this Government not now do the right thing: Admit its folly, fire its Minister, can this scandalous document and restore confidence to our parliamentary system.



Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the process involving the presentation of the federal Budget. The Opposition have cried an irresponsible cry for the resignation of our Finance Minister (Mr. Wilson). This theatrical reaction is not what ordinary Canadians expect from the Opposition.
In order to provide the kind of measures required to guarantee total security for the Budget, a Gestapo-like environment would be necessary. The Government would be compelled to incarcerate all personnel involved in the process, from the printing to the final distribution. Is the Opposition suggesting a police state, an aura of Fascism?
This is not a matter of Government incompetence. This is a criminal act and, in my opinion, an act of treason. Our Finance Minister is and shall remain Canada's Finance Minister. He will be recognized historically by all Canadians as one of Canada's bravest, most dedicated and competent parliamentarians.



Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the credibility of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and his integrity have been seriously put in question by events related to this Budget. Canadians are asking: Where is the accountability of this Government?
Upon learning that his Budget had been leaked to the press, why did the Minister of Finance not come directly to this House and not give a press conference Budget? It is the people's representatives who should hear about the Budget and not the Press Club.
Canadians are asking: Where is the trust? This is not solely a case of breaking parliamentary tradition. It is far more serious than that. It is a breach of trust between the Canadian people and the Canadian Government. For weeks the Finance Minister has been preparing Canadians to bite the bullet with his new Budget. I call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to bite the bullet. We need a new Finance Minister and a new Budget. The Finance Minister must resign.

April 27, 1989
5. O. 31 THE BUDGET


DOCUMENT LEAK-ACTIONS OF OPPOSITION AND GLOBAL TV
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, as days pass and tempers cool, Canadians will judge the decisions and actions of the Government, the Opposition and the media. A Budget affects the economic well-being of Canada as a nation and also Canadians individually, whether as lenders, borrowers, importers, exporters or travellers.
When someone stole the Budget and Global TV took possession and published that stolen document, it caused harm to Canada and to Canadians individually. When the two Leaders of the Opposition Parties refused to permit Parliament to convene and deal with the grave situation, they put their own personal and Party interests ahead of the interest of Parliament and Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Shameful.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, but that Canadians will harshly judge the Opposition and Global TV for acting in a selfish manner rather than in the best interest of Canada and Canadians.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a very dark day for this Parliament. As the youngest Member of Parliament in the House, I am extremely disillusioned and disappointed by the actions of this Government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should have demanded the Minister's resignation as required by the tradition of Parliament when Budget secrets are released. This so-called Budget is not a valid document. This event is one of the most extraordinary blunders in the history of parliamentary Government. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) should have resigned.
Disclosure for potential financial gains is a serious violation of the supreme authority of Parliament. Let us restore public trust in this Parliament and ask this Government and the Prime Minister for the Minister's resignation.



Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, last night in a hastily summoned news conference the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) declared that we had a non-Budget presented at a non-event by a non-Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Felix Holtmann: We obviously did have a Budget. Anyone who bought a package of cigarettes this morning can tell you so. We obviously did have an event and we are having an after event right now, Mr. Speaker. The Ottawa Citizen today put it perfectly about our Finance Minister, as follows:
Wilson acted swiftly, adroitly and with common sense. If anything, he looks like an even more solid Finance Minister. He proved again that leadership is not measured by a lack of problems but by the ability to deal decisively with problems.
To quote the late esteemed Member of this House, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker:
When you are hunting big game you do not get diverted by rabbit tracks.
Canadians will not be fooled nor will our Finance Minister be diverted by rabbit tracks laid down by the Opposition. It is time for the Opposition bunnies to regroup in their burrow.



Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the question is not so much how this Chamber is affected, although that is a big issue. We have to remember that there are 26 million Canadians who are also shareholders and owners of this country. It is through their citizenship that they are repulsed by the activities of this Government. This is no joking matter. It is not a light matter. It is not a laughing matter that the previous speaker wishes to make it out to be.
We need a new Budget to restore new confidence. We need a new Minister who can restore integrity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 27, 1989


Sergio Marchi: If the Government is not willing to give us a new Budget, if it does not wish to give us a new Minister, then let us have the integrity and let the people decide. Let us go to the people.


An Hon. Member:: That happened last year.


Sergio Marchi: This Parliament is being hijacked by individuals who believe that the process, the means and the ends are secondary to the interests of Canadians and Canada. Public opinion will be on the side of those who have the strength and leadership to show moral fortitude.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, there is only one issue at stake in this fiasco of the press conference Budget. The privileged information, possibly worth millions to whoever had access to this information, found its way into the hands of a few. Canadians are asking themselves, who had this information and how many people could have profited from it? We have a story in the press today that a public servant said he had a copy of the Budget on Tuesday. He told some of his friends and those friends may have told others.
Canadians want fairness and expect the trust they bestowed on their Government to be respected. They do not want to be asked to pay an extra $1,700 a year in new taxes while a privileged few become wealthy from insider trading.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), Canada's Ivan Boesky, has a duty to his shareholders and the people of Canada, and that is to resign. For God's sake go, but go now.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, by failing to resign, the Minister of Finance
Oral Questions
has brought dishonour on himself and discredit to our whole parliamentary system. By failing to demand that resignation of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister has broken trust with Canadians.
My question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Did the Minister of Finance offer his resignation? If he did, why did the Prime Minister not accept it? If he did not, why did the Prime Minister not demand it? Why is that man still Minister of Finance of this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition's last question I believe is, and I use his words, why is this man still Minister of Finance? Because he is one of the most distinguished and honourable public servants ever in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Did I ask for his resignation, Mr. Speaker? No, I did not. Did he offer his resignation? No, he did not, and if he had offered it, I would have turned it down.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


INQUIRY RESPECTING WITHDRAWAL OF BUDGET
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that same Minister of Finance is responsible for the biggest parliamentary blunder in Canadian history.
In the circumstances, if the resignation was not offered and a resignation was not asked for nor demanded by the Prime Minister, why didn't the Prime Minister order the immediate withdrawal of the Budget? Did he ask the Minister of Finance, as I now ask the Minister of Finance, whether he can prove that no one profited as a result of those prematurely released Budget documents, however many there were? If not, how can the Minister of Finance credibly go forward with his Budget presentation in this House this afternoon?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend begins his question with some prefatory remarks about what he suggests is the only course of action that the Minister of Finance can follow given these circumstances. He is forgetting that very distinguished Canadians, such as Eugene Forsey and Bob Rae, Leader of the NDP in Ontario-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Are you sure it wasn't Shirley Carr?

April 27, 1989
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: -have concluded differently. For a very interesting reason, unlike the Leader of the Liberal Party and the opposition, Canadians are concerned with the criminal and not with the honourable Minister. Canadians are concerned with a person who stole the property. Hon. Members should be worried about the person who stole the property.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is not a single question that has been asked today about what the RCMP was doing in terms of investigating this, how the Opposition could be helpful to the RCMP-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -in this important criminal investigation. All the attacks came against the Minister of Finance.
According to experts such as Mr. Forsey and many others, as well as many leading editorialists across the country, the Minister of Finance has fulfilled totally his responsibility as an honourable and respected Minister of Finance. Anybody who holds the Minister to a higher standard is himself doing a disservice to Canada. Canadians know what the Leader of the Opposition is up to.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if there had been proper security for which the Minister is responsible, this would not have happened. That is why this issue is before the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXPLANATIONS REQUESTED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister quotes some authorities, but a budget fiasco of this magnitude is unprecedented in Canada. Can the Prime Minister explain to us why he did not dismiss his Finance Minister? Can he explain to us why he did not cancel or withdraw the Budget? Can the Prime Minister be sure that someone did not profit from the premature release of these documents?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I said and I repeat, the Minister of Finance conducted himself at all times and in all circumstances with integrity and as a responsible Minister of Finance. As for my hon. friend's comments-

-he began by saying that the issue now is proper security. I ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, if he wants to be fair, to consider the comments of a reporter by the name of Mr. French of Global Television who was the first person who received the call from the individual who took the documents. Here is the transcript.


John Harvard: How do you know that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Let me quote his transcript.


Mr.   Dimer@Vancouver Quadra: What does this prove?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The reporter says with regard to this individual who betrayed the trust: "I guess the criminal likes to return to the scene of the crime". The reporter who received the information qualifies the individual as a criminal who indeed returned to the scene of the crime. The Leader of the Opposition should not be basing his calls for a ministerial resignation on a gentleman who may indeed have been involved in criminal activity.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a very serious situation involving the Minister of Finance, of course, and the security surrounding such important documents must be very tight. Could the Minister of Finance tell us in this House whether the security surrounding the printing of the Budget was as tight as it was for previous Budgets? [English]


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The security measures taken on this Budget have been the same as with Budgets for many, many years.


WERE THE PRINTERS SWORN TO SECRECY
Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask another question. I would like to ask the Finance Minister whether the employees who worked on printing the Budget took an oath before they did their job, as in past years?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty to answer the question for a reason that will interest the House, because given the Hon. Member's interest, as far as I know, the Hon.
April 27, 1989

Member who just asked the question is the only one in the House who was a member of the Hon. Robert Bourassa's Cabinet in May 1987. And in May 1987, when the Hon. Member was a Minister, there was a breach of security. The Minister of Finance did not resign and the Hon. Member supported Mr. Gerard D. Levesque.


LEAK OF DOCUMENT-INQUIRY WHETHER INFORMATION USED FOR PRIVATE GAIN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The whole country knows that at least two Canadians late yesterday afternoon had private knowledge of the details of the Budget that gave them the access to using that information, for example, on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Today in the late edition of The Ottawa Citizen there is a story which states that two days ago another public employee in this city had the same information. It is alleged that he told at least 20 of his friends and relatives.


John Horton McDermid: Name him!


John Edward Broadbent: He says that he did not use it for stock market purposes because he did not understand the stock market or how he could possibly benefit.
Can the Minister of Finance offer us guarantees that there are no Canadians who used this information in the past 48 hours for private gain?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has any information to the effect that someone has used any information for gain, let him inform the RCMP so that a proper investigation can be done. This is what this Government has done with regard to the breach of security, the criminal act that is alleged to have been undertaken with the result that the document was released to Mr. Small of Global Television. If the Hon. Member has any other information, let him convey that to the RCMP himself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE INSIDE TRADER ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister of Finance who has the responsibility for Budget information, not Members on this side of the House. He ought to know that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


John Horton McDermid: What responsibilities do you have?


John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask my question of the Minister again since he did not answer. The Minister of Finance knows that the reason for confidentiality and secrecy in Budget matters, among other things, is to avoid inside trader action on the stock market. Since he knows without question that at least two Canadians had that information before the Budget came down-and the story is that another Canadian who had it told 20 more-I want him to assure us that there is no Canadian who used this information for private gain. If he cannot give us that assurance, will he give us his resignation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Canadians I think are getting sick and tired of-


Mr. Barrett:: You!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -the political posturing of the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: So is Bob Rae, his colleague, who I think will be taking his place in a very short few months.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Who will take yours?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The point the Hon. Member has raised was the point of discussion for two hours before lunch. We indicated to the House at that time that when we found out the information, we acted as promptly as we could.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, you did not. Not true!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We contacted the Leader of the New Democratic Party who is now saying: "Why did you not do something differently?" when he himself was obstructing the efforts that we were undertaking to get that Budget to the House in order to present it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as a man who was once involved in dealing with stocks in the private sector and who heretofore has acted with responsibility and integrity, I say frankly to him that he knows it is the mere possibility of having access to information that could give private gain that goes to the core of ministerial responsibility as Minister of Finance. For that reason he should resign. He knows that.

April 27, 1989
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WHY DID THE PRIME MINISTER NOT ASK FOR THE RESIGNATION OF HIS MINISTER OF FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if we consider that many people had access to this information and that there is a possibility of private gain, my question is simply this: Why didn't the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Finance to resign?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is making very serious charges against the Minister of Finance. The Minister did try, by entirely lawful means, to have the Budget tabled in the House of Commons last night instead of bringing the Budget directly before the public. However, when the request was made, the Leader of the New Democratic Party refused to give his consent. Now that is a case of total hypocrisy!


THE BUDGET
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance just claimed that the security measures which were associated with the printing of this Budget were the same as in the past. I want to ask him to confirm that, unlike the past, during the printing of this Budget of his no secrecy oaths were sworn by those involved in the printing of the Budget. Can he confirm that?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: can assure the Hon.-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I can assure the Hon. Member that every single individual who was in the printing area where the Budget and relative documents were being printed has been cleared to a level of secrecy, secret or top secret level.


An Hon. Member:: That's not the question.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is in the same tradition as all other security matters which were identical in all the previous years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE OF EXTRA SECURITY PERSONNEL DURING PRINTING
Robert Phillip Kaplan: I think, Mr. Speaker, the House will have noted that the Minister did not answer the question that I asked.
I want him as well to confirm that, unlike the printing of past Budgets, on the occasion of this Budget there were no extra security personnel brought in to be certain that the printers, while they were printing, were not reading the documents that they were printing. Can he confirm that?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the Hon. Member that all the precautions that have been taken in previous years were applied again this year, and that the 200-odd printers that were involved have all been cleared to a level of secret or top secret.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Finance Minister. If in fact the Budget leak was the result of a criminal act, then that particular person or persons were aided and abetted by the circumstances which would have allowed the criminal act to take place. Ultimately it is the Minister of Finance who is responsible for the secrecy and confidentiality of his Budget. I would like to put the question to the Minister: Exactly what is his concept of ministerial accountability and responsibility?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Hon. Member that if there was anybody who was aiding and abetting a criminal act, it was the Leader of the Opposition by not allowing-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Withdraw from the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Finance, I am sure, realizes that he has gone a little too far, and I would ask him to withdraw his remark.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment.
April 27, 1989


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put my question again. The Prime Minister and others have referred to the Budget leak as a criminal act, and it may or may not have been a criminal act. But the fact remains that it was possible for someone to have had access to that particular Budget in Brief. We know that this may in fact not be a single source leak. So the point is, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister, as the Finance Minister, surely must be ultimately responsible for the secrecy of his Budget. So I put the question to the Finance Minister again. What exactly is his concept of ministerial responsibility and accountability? Does he assume any responsibility whatsoever for the fiasco in which he finds himself?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very serious question. As Prime Minister responsible for the Ministry, I owe it to my hon. friend to respond. The question goes to the extent and nature of ministerial responsibility. I think I can say in fairness to my hon. friend who has been here for four or five years, that the conduct of the Minister of Finance himself over the four or five years is indeed, I believe, a model of ministerial responsibility. I think that has been the record.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I suppose that the question that Canadians and parliamentarians will have to ask is, does the concept of ministerial responsibility extend to the limits suggested by Senator Forsey, or does the elastic go all the way to the limits extended by the Right Hon. Deader of the Opposition, where even an individual who perpetrates a criminal offence comes within the purview of the Minister? That is a legitimate question, I think, for consideration.
May I say to my hon. friend that although an RCMP inquiry is going on, I draw the information from the individual who was communicated with, Mr. French of Global who said, and I quote him: "I guess the criminal likes to return to the scene of the crime". It was the individual who received the information, who then made it public, who used the term "criminal".
The question to be answered is, did the Minister of Finance conduct himself in full keeping with the demanding traditions of British parliamentary democracy, and the answer is yes.
Oral Questions THE BUDGET


QUERY RESPECTING BENEFIT FROM INSIDE INFORMATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is the Minister of Finance whom we in this House have known for a long time as a man who realizes his responsibilities and his obligations to the people of this country. I want to say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that he did not answer the question of my Leader as to whether or not anybody had benefited from inside information. I want to ask him very clearly and slowly, and for him to answer categorically, if he can assure the House that no one has used inside information from this Budget for personal gain?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have no evidence of that at all. If the Hon. Member has any evidence of the fact, then surely he owes it to the House and to the people of Canada to report that to the RCMR


THE BUDGET
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said he has no evidence, and he cannot give us any assurance. Would the Minister respond positively to the following question that was put by Sinclair Stevens on April 19, 1983, during the Marc Lalonde affair, as reported at page 24628 of Hansard:
Finally, has he -
The Minister-
- taken steps to ensure that securities commissions in every Province in Canada will be immediately asked to investigate what trading has taken place, particularly in the very volatile bond field, to determine if insider profits have indeed been made?
Has the Minister done that?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister and the Hon. Member, as soon as the RCMP was informed of these events early yesterday evening, a thorough investigation of the allegations was underway, and the securities commissions in the provinces concerned were contacted. I believe an investigation is now underway at the securities commissions of four provinces, because we take this very seriously. When such allegations are made, I believe that either one should provide evidence, before the House or

April 27, 1989
Oral Questions
elsewhere, of the allegations, or else one goes to the securities commission or to the RCMP with the requisite proof. However, it would be irresponsible to speculate about facts that have not been corroborated. The investigation is underway, Mr. Speaker, and as soon as we have the facts, the findings, we will be able to disclose them.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF THE PEOPLES' ASSEMBLY OF MOZAMBIQUE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Marcelino Dos Santos, President of the Peoples' Assembly of Mozambique.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the essential question of ministerial responsibility, particularly in this case, the responsibility of the Minister of Finance as trustee of the public purse. Yesterday afternoon the Minister and his colleagues knew that there had been a leak of vital information on the Budget, in fact the entire Budget. There is now evidence that that leakage was widespread and that there were a number of sources.


Charles Joseph Clark: What evidence?


An Hon. Member:: Where is the evidence of that?


Lloyd Axworthy: He also knew that the stock markets of this country were still open, particularly those on the West Coast where shares in companies affected by the Budget, like Air Canada, were already traded.
Under those circumstances it was clear that the opportunity for private advantage, for private gain existed, which fundamentally breaks the principle of budget secrecy and ministerial accountability. Therefore, why did the Minister not withdraw the Budget and do the honourable thing and resign?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker,I think the Minister explained this morning, in response to other questions, the reason for the actions that were taken. The initial intention, when the information became known, was to bring the Budget to the House of Commons. Unfortunately, because of the absence of consent, we were prevented from bringing it to the House.
I have explained to my hon. friend the manner in which the Minister has always discharged his responsibilities, in this case as well.
In fact, I bring to the attention of my hon. friend from Winnipeg a comment in this morning's Winnipeg Free Press, which states in regard to the Minister: "The Minister cannot, however, reasonably be held responsible for the illegal actions of functionaries far beyond his control".
The Winnipeg Free Press takes a reasonable and thoughtful position on this matter, and I urge it upon the Member for Winnipeg South Centre.


REQUEST THAT BUDGET BE WITHDRAWN
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Prime Minister has it wrong. The questions being raised are not about whether the Minister of Finance was responsible for illegal actions. But he is responsible for the Budget of Canada. He is responsible for whether that Budget gives private advantage to certain individuals. Therefore, he must take responsibility for proceeding with a Budget which has all the potential of giving private advantage, private gain, private profit to individuals as a result of this secrecy. Therefore, is it not true that both the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister had only one honourable option, which was to withdraw the Budget? No Budget or Minister stands above the rights of this Parliament or the rights of Canadians to be treated fairly and properly in the Budget process.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Minister has followed all of the appropriate procedures that have existed over the decades-


Some Hon. Members:: 


Martin Brian Mulroney: And the evidence is that he has.
April 27, 1989


Jean-C. Lapierre: We'll see!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) says: "We'll see!", the implication being that he has arguments to the contrary. If that is the case, say so. Stop being such an incredible hypocrite!


THE BUDGET
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I suggest that the Prime Minister confuses his loyalty to his friend, the Finance Minister, with his responsibility to the people of Canada.
Budget information was available 24 hours in advance of the scheduled date, at least, perhaps as early as Tuesday. We know that the actual documents were printed on Sunday and Monday, so perhaps they were available as early as that date. Is the Prime Minister suggesting to the people of Canada that the potential millions of dollars in private benefit given to a privileged few can be legitimized in the interest of keeping his friend, the Minister of Finance, in the federal Cabinet? Is that what he is telling the people of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Minister of Finance has followed all the historic proceedings in regard to security-


Jean-C. Lapierre: 


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and he has. There is no evidence at all that he has not. If has fulfilled all of the historic obligations pursuant to his office, and he has because there is no evidence to the contrary, is my hon. friend saying, as a new constitutional principle of ministerial responsibility by the Liberal Party, that henceforth Ministers of the Crown are not only responsible for all within their traditional purview, they are also responsible for criminal acts and misdemeanors performed by others with a view to subverting or sabotaging an honourable ministerial undertaking? If he is saying that, that is a dramatic departure from accepted British parliamentary traditions.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just articulated a new principle, and it is very simple. It is that friends of the Prime Minister must be saved at any cost, including public trust and public integrity. That is the new principle put forward by the Prime Minister.
Oral Questions


REASON FOR REQUEST FOR EXTENDED SITTING
Brian Vincent Tobin: have a question for the Minister of Justice, and it regards the conduct of the Minister of Finance.
It has been argued today by the Prime Minister and argued earlier by the Minister of Justice, that the Minister of Finance acted immediately when he knew there was a leak. Members of this House know that at 5.50 p.m. yesterday the Minister of Justice, and Government House Leader came into this House and asked for extended hours. He did not tell the Opposition why he wanted extended hours but he asked for them. When the request was refused, he left.
I want to ask the Minister of Justice, did he know yesterday at 5.50 of a Budget leak? Did the Minister of Finance know about a Budget leak? Did the Prime Minister know about a Budget leak? Why didn't they come clean with Parliament at 5.50 when they made a mysterious request for extended hours? Why the cover-up?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I was in a committee meeting in Room 209, West Block, and I received a phone call at approximately 5.40 p.m. from the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance indicated to me that there was an indication of a possibility of a potential Budget leak.


Some Hon. Members:: Cover-up, cover-up.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I said, the potential of a Budget leak. We knew that we had to keep our options open.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Damned right you knew, but you didn't tell us.


John Napier Turner: What reason did you give to the Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has advanced a very specific question, the Minister is trying to answer, and he deserves the courtesy of being allowed to finish.


An Hon. Member:: You have just entered your plea of guilty.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: As a measure of prudence we made an effort to keep the House open so that in the event that the Budget leak was substantiated we could come to the House of Commons, which is exactly what we asked the Opposition to do last night, but they refused to co-operate.

April 27, 1989
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Guilty, guilty. Cover-up, cover-up.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister participated in a cover-up.


THE BUDGET
Nelson Andrew Riis: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Would the Minister of Finance explain to the House why, when he received the information from Global Television at 5.30 p.m. last night that detailed elements of the Budget sufficiently to indicate very clearly that someone had a leaked document, will the Minister of Finance explain why he did not come into the House at that time, when the House of Commons was still in session, to explain what had happened and to do the honourable thing and resign?


Mr. Andre:: He would have required unanimous consent, which you wouldn't give.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think the previous answer by my colleague, the Government House Leader, has indicated very clearly what we did.
When I found out the information, I first called the Prime Minister, I then called the Government House Leader and the Deputy Prime Minister, and advised them of this, and I said "I think it might be wise if we kept the House open pending"-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Why didn't you tell the House?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -until we could ascertain more precisely what we were expecting to hear on the Global Television program.
When that information did come, we then went to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Leader of the Official Opposition, and requested a special sitting of the House at which we could provide that information to the House. That request was denied.


MINISTER'S RESIGNATION REQUESTED
Nelson Andrew Riis: The question for the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister is the following: What the Minister of Finance has just indicated is that at 5.30 p.m. there was sufficient evidence to believe there was a leak.


Harvie Andre: No there wasn't.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, yes there was. They had the figures.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They had the detailed information, however the House was misled. Rather than come to the House recognizing that the possibility existed, the House Leader came in and gave some spurious argument that he wanted to continue to debate the issue of the day. They knew it was before us, but they didn't have the courage to come in and explain what had happened.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is false.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. You asked for the resignation of a previous Minister who visited a nightclub in Germany. This Finance Minister has committed the largest political, parliamentary financial blunder in history. Why wouldn't you ask for his resignation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We do take these matters extremely seriously.


Some Hon. Members:: Cover-up, cover-up.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is why we did not jump to snap conclusions, as the Hon. Member is suggesting that we should have done. We felt that it was very important for us to substantiate what was being told us on the telephone before jumping to a quick conclusion that we had to, in his way, scrap a Budget or come immediately to the House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Meanwhile the stock market is trading away.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me just read what the reporter, Mr. Small said: "Many of these things have been predicted, but as I say this was incredibly well detailed, but on the basis of only one anonymous phone call we were not going to report the detail that we have got it". So that is the basis on which my colleague, the House Leader, felt we should try, as a precautionary measure, to keep the House open until we found out precisely what sort of information we were dealing with.


THE BUDGET
Felix Holtmann: I want to direct my question to the Minister of Defence.
April 27, 1989

In view of the fact that the Budget has announced that the proposed submarine program will be cut, along with closures of 14 military bases across Canada, one of which is in my constituency, I ask the Minister whether he can assure this House that other areas of the White Paper, in particular reinforcement of the reserves unit, will still be put into force? Further, I ask him to assure my constituents that he is prepared to work with all other federal Departments to help replace the economic loss of that area.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is out of order.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: can appreciate the interest of my hon. colleague in the Budget, the necessity of the Budget, and what has been brought about. The White Paper and the broad parameters of the White Paper will be maintained. Also reserves will continue to be increased. We will not be able to make the estimate of some 65,000, but the reserves will continue to be a total part and a very important part of the build-up of military strength.
Regarding the closures that have to take place-


Some Hon. Members:: Out of order.



Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. When he got that report from the journalist, did he not recognize his own Budget, which he wrote himself? If that was the case, why didn't he and the Government House Leader come clean, at least with the House Leaders of the Liberal Party and the NDP right away? Why did he create that problem by his own negligence?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member knows that in anticipation of a Budget there are all sorts of stories going around, all sorts of speculation by Members opposite as well as members of the media, so that it is important that before we jump to those conclusions, we find out just precisely what we were dealing with before making those decisions.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Canadians will find it hard to believe that the Minister did not recognize his own Budget when he was told about it.
Oral Questions
I want to ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice a question, especially since I was in the House at the time the Minister of Justice moved his motion for extended hours, I was there and stood up to block the motion, along with at least 15 other people. I ask the Minister of Justice why he didn't come over to me and even ask me if I would help him deal with the matter on my oath as a Privy Councillor? Why did he let two hours or more go by so people could make use of the information? Why did he not once again, I ask him, release the whole problem?


Roger Simmons: You blew it, Doug. You blew it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Contrary to the suggestions made previously, I came into the House, was recognized, and immediately moved the motion under the rules with no debate whatsoever, so there was no misleading of the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why didn't you tell the truth?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I say to my hon. friend yes, my hon. friend was in the House and stood up to block the motion, but when I entered the House my hon. friend was not here.
We took the precaution of trying to keep the House open so that if it was substantiated that there had been a Budget leak we could have come into the House. However, once again the opposition blocked us.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question from the Hon. Member for Burnaby.



Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We have heard from the Solicitor General that a full inquiry has been ordered into the possibility that individuals may have profited personally from the Budget leak, including an inquiry with securities commissions.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance's own colleague recognizes the possibility that there may have been personal profit as a result of this Budget leak, what else does it take for the Minister of Finance to do the honourable thing and resign? Does he not recognize his responsibility?

April 27, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Waddell


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered that question, but I would be happy to try to respond again.
As I understand it, the nature of the RCMP inquiry was initiated given the fact that a journalist was on television saying that he had received what appeared to be, as qualified by himself, proceeds from a crime, from a criminal.


John Napier Turner: A crime? How do you know?


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is the statement made by the journalist.


John Napier Turner: Is Small a criminal because he received it? I would like to know the answer to that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The RCMP is conducting a full investigation. That investigation extends to the actions of presumably all of those involved in that part of it, and also extends to the stock exchanges to ascertain if anybody has profited in any way from any kind of information. Thus far there is no indication whatsoever of that. However, the Solicitor General has said if any information comes to him he will report to the House immediately, and I know if my friend has any accusations or any specific information he will make it known to the RCMP.


Mr. Speaker:: Prior to the noon adjournment we were dealing with a number of questions of privilege and the Hon. Member for Kamloops had the floor. I will return to that Hon. Member in a few minutes.
However, I have received a question of privilege arising out of this Question Period and I will hear the Hon. Member for Port-Moody Coquitlam.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I refer to yesterday's Hansard at page 1001.
During Question Period today the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) told the House that he rose in the House at 5.45 p.m. and tried to continue the sitting of the House because he thought that there was a Budget leak. He indicated that he had facts about the Budget leak, and in
his answer to the question he indicated that he had a call from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wiison).
Yesterday at 5.45 p.m. I was about to speak, and at page 1001 of Hansard I raised a point of order when I was interrupted by the Minister who stated:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of coniinuing consideration of second
reading of Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act.
The Minister was not telling the truth to the House. He was seeking to adjourn-


Mr. Speaker:: There are ways and places to make a charge, and I am sure the Hon. Member has an argument here. However, I have some difficulty understanding where the point of privilege is. When the Hon. Member completes his submission, I would like him to show where there is a point of privilege. I know the Hon. Member will want to put his remarks in such a manner that he is not transgressing the rules.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Had the Minister indicated to the House at that point that there was a problem with the Budget, then it quite likely would have been possible to continue the sitting of the House. The Minister did not tell the House that. Indeed, in my submission now, he is telling us the opposite. He misled the House and misled me. I say that is a question of breach of privilege of the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my friend is correct in his citation of Hansard vis-a-vis the page. However, I indicated earlier that when I rose yesterday there was no discussion. I made the only motion possible at that time, which was the continuation of consideration of second reading of Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act. We made that very clear.
I have made it clear outside the House and I have made it clear inside the House that we had an indication of a Budget leak. At that time that was all it was. However, we felt if we could keep the House open we would then have a forum which is open to all Canadians and televised instantaneously to make this matter public.


An Hon. Member:: Why didn't you say that yesterday?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There was no co-operation at a quarter to six, and there was no co-operation at 8.30 p.m. either.


Mr. Benjamin:: If you wanted co-operation, why did'nt you tell us?
April 27, 1989	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops is seeking the floor on the same point.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I just wish to correct the point made by the Government House Leader when he said that this was the only way to have extended the sitting. There are two other ways. He could have consulted with the opposition House Leaders, both of whom were in the building at the time. Also, had he come clean with the House of Commons and explained that there was a situation pending, with unanimous consent we could have agreed to not see the clock and the hours could have been extended beyond six o'clock. However, he did not come clean with the House of Commons; he tried to pull a fast one on us.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West is seeking the floor. I will hear him and the the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.
I do wish to point out that this is becoming debate. It is the issue upon which the entire privilege debate is taking place and which is going to be resumed shortly. I will hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West, but I would ask him to keep that in mind, and then I will hear the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, shortly before the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) entered the House to move a motion under Standing Order 261 went briefly to the Parliamentary Reading Room around the comer. When I returned to the lobby I was informed that the Minister had just put his motion, and seeing no reason that I could think of to justify a motion to extend hours on Bill C-9, a Bill to amend the Bank Act, I went into the House with my colleagues to stand up and oppose the motion.
It is a gross distortion, to say the least, for the Minister of Justice to accuse me or any Members of the House who opposed the motion at that time of not being willing to co-operate in dealing with the problem the Government created for itself in not maintaining the security of its Budget.
If the Minister of Justice had come clean with the House Leader for the New Democratic Party and myself, at the time he came into the House, things might very well have been different.
While I spend a lot of time trying to read the minds, if I may use that word loosely, of Government Members and discern what they are up to in their proceedings in

Privilege-Mr. Prud'homme
the House, there is no way that I or anyone on this side of the House could have figured out the real reason for the Minister moving the motion.
It does raise a question regarding the privileges of the House when the Minister comes into the House and moves a motion for one purpose when he has another much more serious purpose in mind and fails to disclose that to people like myself who might well have something to do with the arrangements of the Business of the House.
It is also a breach of the privileges of all Members for the Minister of Justice, in effect, to project on Members such as myself any responsibility for the problem he got into because of his own negligence and incompetence.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker,
I was here last night at exactly 5.56 p.m. I was here for the hour before that but I was here when the Hon. Minister raised the question.


Mrs. McDougall:: You are always here.


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, I am always here. The reason I rise today is that my name is there and I participated as you can see it recorded in Hansard at page 1001.1 do not want to complicate your task further today but I would like to say that if I had been given any indication why the Minister came here to interrupt and ask to proceed according to Standing Order 26(1) which states:
That this House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of second
reading of Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Bank Act.
That is what I objected to last night. If you read page 1001 of Hansard you will find it is that to which I was referring. I could not understand why so early in the session the Government wanted to poison the atmosphere by sitting later on the first day of debate on a Bill. One usually does that toward the end of a session when Members talk too long, when the Government has its own agenda and wants to have more legislation to show it has been doing something for the good of the country. But so early in the session, I could not understand why the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis), the House Leader, and a good friend-we can debate very passionately in this House without destroying the system, that is my style-would not have indicated the reason. I feel that I am a responsible and an orderly Member and I would have rushed to my leader-I do not like to have a boss but I know how to proceed-

April 27, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Riis


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: I would have immediately informed whoever is responsible for my Party about what was going on.
But what has happened today is the reason I want to be on record. I did not raise a question of privilege earlier because of what the Minister said during the Question Period.
Your Honour would rule me out of order eventually if I did not stand up today at the first opportunity, and that is why I am now taking the first opportunity to reserve my right to speak later after I have listened attentively to see if we cannot get out of this difficulty.
Your Honour will realize that last night it made no sense for the Minister to come here to participate, I thought in the debate-because that is what the rule is all about-but the Minister was recognized to participate in the debate. The rule is clear. It was during the last hour and, had the Minister taken the floor, he could have put the motion. But that is not what he chose to do. He just came in to put the motion. He lost the vote and he left. That is why I was running after him to tell him that I wanted to listen to the Minister participate in the debate.
This is the explanation I want to make at this time because my intervention would not make sense if I did not give that explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the proper thing to do would be for the Chair to consider the remarks of the Hon. Member for Port Moody-Coquitlam (Mr. Waddell) and others. I will consider them at the close of the entire debate on privilege.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) has the floor.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to continue my remarks by running through in logical sequence what happened last night. We believe that there has been a very serious breach of Parliamentary privilege. We are aware that sometime yesterday definitive evidence indicates that there was a Budget leak. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) described it in those words when he called the two opposition Party leaders late last night indicating that there had been a serious Budget leak and that the House of Commons ought then to resume to allow the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) an opportunity to present the Budget.
New evidence today in the press indicates that there was a possibility that some people even had the Budget a day or two in advance. They say in the press today that not only did they have a copy of the Budget but they presented the information to at least 20 other people. What has become clear is not only was there a Budget leak, but there was the possibility at least of a number of copies of the Budget circulating beyond Parliament Hill.
The Solictor General (Mr. Blais) indicated today that he believes there is a serious possibility of a comprehensive extensive leak so he has asked for the Securities Exchange Commissions to carry out investigations in terms of insider trading. The Minister of Finance knows all about insider trading because of his previous career as a stockbroker. I think he understands the value of this kind of information. We found out later that the Minister of Finance was informed precisely of the details of the Budget at 5.30 p.m. At that time, he informed the Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader, of this possibility.
Those Ministers had an opportunity at that time to share this information with the House of Commons, and certainly with the House Leaders of the opposition Parties, but they chose not to do that and attempted some spurious argument to enable the House to continue. I have to say that was almost misleading the House because they knew why they were asking for an extension of the hours but did not explain it. As a matter of fact, they gave the wrong explanation. We found later that the Budget had now gone public as a result of broadcasting. At that time the Government asked that the House of Commons resume sitting. We, of course, realized at that point it would be folly to do so because the Budget was public and the people across Canada, hundreds of thousands of Canadians, already knew the details of the Budget. It seemed to be after the fact and we were not interested in being part of a cover-up operation or a last minute rescue operation to try to save the faces of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulro-ney).
It becomes clear that a number of privileged individuals may have had privileged information in order to advance their own monetary standing. That is a possibility. There is no question of that. Yet the Minister of Finance refused to resign. In my estimation, this is a very clear indication of incompetence on behalf of the Minister and his House Leader. Rather than come clean with the House of Commons, they chose to, if you like, launch a cover-up operation, again misleading the House of Commons, again an act of incompetence in his role as Government House Leader. Yet the Prime Minister
April 27, 1989

today said that all is well "Don't worry, be happy", in spite of the largest budgetary blunder in Parliamentary history, not only in Canada but in every Parliament of the world. This has never ever happened before.


Harvie Andre: Except in Quebec a few years ago.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yet the fact that many, maybe hundreds or dozens-who knows-stand to gain privately because of this leaked information which is now confirmed, the Budget is presumably going to be introduced later today, after the fact. This is very, very serious.
A former Minister of Justice for the Conservative Party in 1983, in response to the then Minister of Finance's one item leak which was later changed and introduced in a new Budget, said as recorded in Hansard on page 24622 of April 19, 1983.
If-we are to accept the proposition that the Minister either inadvertently or consciously is able outside the House of Commons to present the budget, that acknowledgement alone would render the House of Commons impotent. It would mean there would be no need for us to come here at all. If the Minister could make his budget presentation outside the House, there would be no need for him to present it to Members of the House of Commons.
That is exactly the point. Last night, when the request came for the Minister to present it, it had already been presented publicly outside the House. I suppose, in the usual tradition, what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) perhaps ought to do is to hold a vote in the National Press Gallery in terms of getting their support for this Budget because it makes no sense now to bring it to the House of Commons for presentation and processing.
There are other very serious issues here.


An Hon. Member:: You had better believe it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Earlier the point was made that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) saw fit to ask for a Minister's resignation because that Minister had visited a nightclub in Germany. At that time that was considered to be sufficient reason to ask for that Minister's resignation, and he did. Here we have a leak, a budget leak unprecedented in parliamentary history anywhere in the world. I use the term advisedly because I am quoting from the Minister of Justice and the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) whom I respect a great deal, who called it a leak when he called my Leader late last night.
Privilege-Mr. Riis
I want to go on and make some points. The Minister claims that his privileges have been breached by a criminal act. Whether or not a criminal act has occurred will eventually be determined. The point that we are making today is that the Minister has essentially acted in contempt of Parliament, that the privileges of every single Member of this House have been breached. Every single Member of this House represents the people of Canada. They give us their trust, they provide us with the responsibility, if you like, of collecting and disbursing taxes and criticizing that process.
Our rights have been, if you like, eliminated. Our rights and privileges as Members of Parliament have obviously been breached because this Government decided that the appropriate place to introduce the Budget after the leak had occurred was in the National Press theatre.


Charles Joseph Clark: We thought it appropriate here, you would not come to the House of Commons.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) indicates that he did not want this to happen as it did. I remember in 1983 the present Secretary of State for External Affairs standing up in this House and going on for almost an hour-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is when you tried to join my Party.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -about the importance of any type of leak whatsoever resulting in the automatic resignation of the Minister of Finance. He went on and on for page after page in Hansard. It is all here in Hansard. It did not matter how the leak occurred, where it occurred, who leaked the information, the fact was that it did occur and the present Secretary of State for External Affairs made the point that it was the Minister who was ultimately responsible. The buck has to stop some place, and with the Minister of Finance it has to stop with him.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I would like to say that the most convincing, and I suppose extensive argument in terms of what the proper conduct for the Minister of Finance ought to be, was made by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Erik Nielsen. Mr. Speaker, I think it is useful to quote it back to the Members.

April 27, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Valcourt
Budget secrecy is a basic principle of our traditions of parliamentary Government. It means that the Minister responsible for bringing down a budget is also held responsible to see to it that the provisions of that budget are not prematurely released. The reasons for this are many. Foreknowledge of budgetary measures has led to the acquisition of private gain and to sharp market fluctuations. My information is current that those fluctuations are taking place and that the Canadian dollar is indeed now falling on the markets.
We have received preliminary information to that effect ourselves. We know that this has had an impact in the international market-place, and the currency values of the Canadian dollar have obviously been seriously fluctuating.
Then he goes on to say:
What we are talking about here is not in the book of rules. We are
talking about the absolute necessity that the integrity and the probity
of the Minister of Finance with regard to the Budget be maintained.
The Minister of Finance in his heart of hearts knows this.
I believe that the Minister of Finance over the years has indicated time and time again that he understands the responsibilities given to him. He understands the obligation. He is responsible for maintaining the security of our financial system and for its stability. He accepted that responsibility. I would expect that the Minister of Finance, knowing the expectations that are with him and the obligations that he has accepted by accepting that ministry, would do the honourable thing, now that such a gross error, a gross blunder has occurred. He has to accept the responsibility that the security was breached in terms of budget secrecy. There is no question of that.
I think it is rather galling of the Minister to begin this discussion today by complaining that his rights as a Minister have been breached, and then for the Government to suggest that all of this was the opposition's fault. This is absolutely unbelievable that these kinds of comments are being made.
I would like to conclude by remarks by simply saying that there are a number of things that become extremely evident. One is that the Minister of Finance has to accept responsibility for Budget security. That Budget security was breached. There was an obvious leak of the Budget, an entire Budget, in terms of its content being made public prior to it being tabled in the House of Commons. There is no other alternative than for the Minister of Finance to resign. I must say that for the Prime Minister to not at least request that resignation,
itself is a breach of the responsibilities and obligations that the Prime Minister assumes.


An Hon. Member:: Shame, shame.


Nelson Andrew Riis: More importantly, the people of Canada have a right to have Budget secrecy exist. My hon. friend, the finance critic for the New Democratic Party, pointed out earlier that in his haste for propaganda in the country, the individuals and firms that happen to exist or have lobbyists in Ottawa, have also received privileged information. They received all of the budgetary details at 10 o'clock last night. All the details, the fine tuning of the Budget, they received here in Ottawa. In Vancouver, Regina, Halifax, a day later they received the information. Last night a privileged group of Canadians who happen to live or to be in Ottawa last night were receiving detailed budget information hours in advance of those living in other parts of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: And Members of Parliament.


An Hon. Member:: And local broadcast area.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Of course, as my hon. friend for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) indicates, those who received Global broadcasting had extra privileged information. It is a shemozzle. It is beyond imagination. For the Prime Minister to allow this Minister to continue, as far as we are concerned, is completely unacceptable.
I do hope that you find, when you review the arguments put forward by Hon. Members, that in terms of parliamentary privileges of Members of this House, every single Member's privileges have been breached. There is no question of that. As my Leader has indicated, the appropriate thing to do would be to send this entire matter to the appropriate standing committee for review. Following that, the Prime Minister should do the honourable thing and not only ask for the Minister of Finance's resignation but withdraw the Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Flear, hear!


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, Marc-Yvan Cote was talking about them when he-
Mr. Speaker, the question before the Chair today is very important, and even exceptional, considering the circumstances last night and what happened when we had an unauthorized disclosure of parts of the Budget.
April 27, 1989

This morning, the House heard an eloquent speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) on a question of privilege-to which I intend to speak today-an eloquent defence of the principles of parliamentary democracy. This is the same gentleman who a few months ago asked non-elected senators to obstruct the will of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bernard Valcourt: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when you consider the question,-


An Hon. Member:: The Senate-


Bernard Valcourt: -the Senate, who are not elected. Of course, the Liberal Party's concept of democracy does not go beyond the petty interests of the Liberal Party and ignores the interests of the people of this country! And there is a big difference, believe me, between the interests of Canadians and the interests of the Leader of the Liberal Party and his followers.
The issue before the Chair is whether the privilege of Members of this House has been breached. I believe that this morning, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis), clearly explained before the House what circumstances caused the Government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the best one we ever had in this country,-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bernard Valcourt: -to reveal the contents of his Budget earlier than anticipated, and to do so before the Canadian public.


An Hon. Member:: Participatory democracy!


Bernard Valcourt: The Liberal Members who spoke earlier and my hon. friends in the New Democratic Party are upset by what happened and about this terrible breach of British parliamentary tradition, namely that the Budget was not brought down before this House. I admit that to me it is also a matter of some concern because usually, according to parliamentary custom, the Budget is brought down within the precincts of this House before the elected representatives of all Canadians and, through television, before Canadians across this country.
Yesterday, however, the public interest was threatened by a person who may have committed a criminal offence. That person did not attack the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Justice. That person attacked our country by violating one of its fundamental laws. That person violated a section of the Criminal Code by stealing a document. It is all quite straightforward, Mr. Speaker. Did you hear the Leader of the Opposition this morning? And his new principles? It seems that since the
Privilege-Mr. Valcourt
election on November 21, the Liberal Party has acquired some new principles. They have a new principle of physics which says that everything that goes out can come in. This morning, we were given a new principle of criminal law, which says it is all right to steal if the door isn't locked. This, from the Leader of the Opposition. That is what he told us this morning.
However, Mr. Speaker, when you examine the question before the Chair, I think that in addition to protecting the interests of our Parliamentary system and our Parliamentary tradition, you must also consider the people of this country who witnessed the petty politicking of power-hungry Liberals and white-collar socialists, who are interested in only one thing and certainly not in the interests of Canadians. The socialists keep complaining that the rich are not taxed enough. Look at last night's Budget. Look at the minimum tax on corporations, the tax on the wealthy, on people earning over $50,000, all of which the socialists have been demanding for a long time. There is good news in the Budget for this country.
They do not want to talk about it. They would rather try to cloud the issue by calling for the resignation of the Minister of Finance who has the reputation for being the most credible and most honest in Canadian history. I speak of my colleague, the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said so this morning, as did the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankows-ki): there are two basic principles, I believe, that underlie the issue of budget secrecy. Of course, people are not to profit while others cannot, and also the principle that the Government's financial, economic and fiscal policies should be laid out in the House of Commons. Now, what happened last night?
This morning, I heard Opposition Members accuse us of saying that what happened yesterday was the Opposition's fault. No one on this side of the House ever said that! The Minister of Finance never blamed the Opposition for this crime-neither the Liberal Opposition nor our friends the social democrats. No way! But what we are complaining about is that, you see, those people are talking out of both sides of their mouths. On one hand, they complain that Parliament did not receive the Budget, but on the other, when we wanted to call Parliament, with their consent, to present the Budget, they were opposed. Where I come from in Madawaska, we call that talking out of both sides of the mouth. There is a cruder expression for it in English, but that is what they are doing. Today, they think that they will impress

April 27, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Valcourt
Canadians. This morning, Mr. Speaker, our caucus got up early; we were earlier than usual, raring to go.


An Hon. Member:: Is your conscience bothering you?


Bernard Valcourt: No, I have a clear conscience. I would like to be able to say as much for you!
Mr. Speaker, I listened to ordinary citizens on an open-line radio show, first in English. Seven people called: seven Canadians, ordinary people whom they love to claim to represent, who voted for us on November 21. These people were saying: "Michael Wilson, the Minister of Finance, resign? Not on your life! He should not resign!" Because Michael Wilson cannot be held responsible for a criminal act that someone else committed. Canadians understand that. They understand that in Madawaska, they understand that in New Brunswick, they understand that in Gaspe, they understand that in Bellechasse and they understand that in Kelowna too. They understand that everywhere. But when you have partisan interests that go beyond the famous principles of "Parliamentary traditions", those people don't give a damn about traditions.
The finest British Parliamentary traditions are not what concerns them. What they are asking you to do, Mr. Speaker, is to hold the Finance Minister guilty for something someone else did. You are being asked to push the principles of British Parliamentary traditions to a ridiculous extreme. You are being asked to forget the principles of fairness that underlie the British Parliamentary system. You are being asked, Mr. Speaker, to forget the principles of common sense and the "reasonable person" test that underlies the British Parliamentary system and in fact all common law. You are being asked to ignore that.


An Hon. Member:: A prudent administrator.


Bernard Valcourt: You are being asked to ignore that. In Quebec, it is called the bon pere de famille-iX is the criterion used. There, it is the "reasonable person". It made sense in Quebec and everywhere else. What you are being asked to do is to say that although the Minister of Finance took all the normal security measures that a reasonable person-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Bernard Valcourt: The clowns say no, but they have no evidence. All they know is that someone got hold of a document, and the Minister of Finance said it was not a member of his staff. Someone did it. The police is investigating, and we will have to wait and see. We are not going to speculate on the outcome of this investigation. We will leave that to our hon. friends opposite. What the Chair is being asked to do is to extend those principles well beyond our tradition. And when they talk about tradition, they talk about precedents.
Mr. Speaker, I am an Acadian from New Brunswick. I studied law at the University of New Brunswick, and I know about precedents. The precedents these people are talking about, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider them-First of all, according to my modest legal training, for a precedent to be applicable, it must apply to all the facts of the matter at issue. A precedent must deal with facts that are similar, and the principles of law must also apply. In this case, what they are asking the Chair to do is to ignore the difference between the precedents to which they refer and the situation before us today.
In 1936, in the United Kingdom, and the Leader of the Opposition, the Whip says: Oh, wow! When I heard his Leader last night, I also said: Wow! He hasn't improved. He was talking-


An Hon. Member:: You weren't even bom in 1936!


Bernard Valcourt: No, I wasn't, and maybe-


An Hon. Member:: It shows!


Bernard Valcourt: I could say the same about you. The Hon. Member is one of the old timers. Maybe he has been around for too long-Sometimes they tend to forget.
In any case, when in 1936, it was found after an investigation that a minister had shared his knowledge of the Budget with someone else for that person's benefit, he had to resign. Has any Member opposite alleged that the Minister of Finance knew that he had revealed information on the Budget to a third party? If anyone wants to make that charge, let him put his seat on the line! But that is not what they are saying.
April 27, 1989

When we look at the precedents, Mr. Speaker, we see that at no time in British parliamentary history has there been a situation where we had a deliberate theft of a Budget document that was subsequently handed to a third party.
Mr. Speaker, today you are being asked to condemn the Minister of Finance for something over which he had absolutely no control. In Quebec, and Manitoba, in Saint-Boniface and Caraquet and Bellechasse, Canadians are not about to accept the Opposition's proposal that the Minister of Finance be held responsible for a criminal offence committed by someone else. That is taking the principle of ministerial responsibility to unprecedented levels. If we want to show Canadians that one can serve the public honourably and if we want young Canadians to come and work here as Members in this House, we cannot burden reasonable people with absolutely unreasonable and unrealistic standards. That is what they are asking you to do, Mr. Speaker, and I know that, in your wisdom, you will want to consider this argument.
This morning when I heard-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Bernard Valcourt: You really make me sick!
When we heard the Leader of the Opposition harshly criticize the Minister of Finance and ask for his resignation because the Budget was not tabled in the House-
Mr. Speaker, the Budget will be officially tabled in the House at five o'clock this afternoon, but Canadians have already seen it. Those who revel in being the people's representatives will have an opportunity to vote on this Budget because it will be debated in the House, and every one of us will be able to discuss it. I would encourage you, in the interest of Canada, to vote in favor, even the Hon. Member for LaSalle-Emard (Mr. Martin). The Hon. Member for LaSalle is dead-I mean even the Hon. Member for LaSalle-Emard can vote in favor of the Budget.
In fact, the rights of the Hon. Members are not affected at all and despite the vast experience of our colleagues opposite, they will realize in the days to come that they have an opportunity to discuss the Budget. There will be a debate on the Budget and its contents will be analyzed. Canadians will witness all this and, at the end of the budgetary process, you will vote on the
Privilege-Mr. Valcourt
Budget which I have read, Mr. Speaker, and which happens to be fair, equitable and responsible.
While in my constituency of Madawaska-Victoria last weekend, I talked with some citizens about the upcoming Budget and they were speculating on all kinds of measures that could be in it. But all of them agreed, as do all Canadians, that our financial and economic situation is such that the Government must take important and responsible measures to protect the pension plan for our senior citizens, the family allowances program for our needy children, as well as the health insurance system, and they do not want to lose the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).
When we see in the Budget, for example, that Atlantic Canada will benefit from a 35 per cent increase in regional development funds in the next five years-Canadians will not want to criticize the Minister of Finance for that.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on a point of order.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think all Members as well as the Speaker have to be patient today when hearing the question of privilege to which all Members have to contribute. I think all Members want to hear everyone's contribution, even if it means granting a little more lecuracy than might normally be the case. That's one thing but to discuss the so-called strong points of the Budget that's going a bit too far.
We on this side of the House have not discussed its weak points. We have talked about the question of privilege, namely whether the budget should or should not be "heard", whether the Minister should or should not stay on as Minister and whether this Budget which the Minister intends to table should be called a Budget. But we have not discussed the substance of the document!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Minister to stick to the question of privilege.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, how did they put it? To justify their position, they spoke about a non-Budget, a non-Minister, a non-leader, a non-event-

April 27, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Boudria
Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals think this is a non-Budget, let them go buy a pack of cigarettes this afternoon! They will find out there is one! And those who like scotch need only go for a drink or buy a bottle, they will see for themselves that there is a Budget.
Mr. Speaker, I would think that you will be taking the matter under very serious consideration before making a railing in accordance with the principles of British parliamentary tradition. The question boils down to deciding whether or not the Members of this House will have to abide by standards which do not take into account the rales of natural justice.
Our friends on the other side simply ignore the rules of natural justice which have always been the hallmark of parliamentary tradition and their British peers. In the name of democracy, Mr. Speaker, they are asking for the resignation of the best Minister of Finance Canada has ever had. They keep repeating the great democratic principles but, like I said before, these are the same Liberals who do not hesitate to call upon non-elected people to thwart the will of Parliament.
The Liberals are advocating double standards for this House, but I am aware of the wisdom of the Chair and I am sure that you will not give currency to these ridiculous claims made by the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing a promising future. Canada should look to the future with confidence and I would urge you to ask my colleagues in this House to put an immediate end to this debate just so we may do what we were elected for and sent here to do, which is to govern and to make decisions in the best interests of the country.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the issue before Parliament today is indeed very serious. I have given prior notification of my intention to rise today on this question of privilege. As a matter of fact, I drove from my residence last night to Parliament Hill in order personally to serve that notice on the Clerk of the House of Commons.
Some Members may not think that driving 50 miles at midnight is important, but I felt the issue was of such importance that it warranted that action. Perhaps Members opposite do not think that not only parliamentary privilege of the House but the more important privileges given to us by our constituents to serve them in Parliament are as important as some of us believe. However, I believe those issues are fundamental to this country being the great democracy it is. I hope that at least some Members opposite would share that view.
If you determine, Mr. Speaker, that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to refer this issue to the parliamentary committee. Of course, that statement is indeed necessary in order to proceed with this item further, if Your Honour finds there is a prima facie case of privilege.
There are three issues at stake. The first is that the privilege of this House has been abused and, more important, the privileges of all parliamentarians have been abused, and even more fundamental, the privileges of the constituents who send us here have been abused. The second is that secrecy has been breached. The third is that a commitment made to the House by the Government has been breached.
Perhaps I can start with the last item and describe that to Your Honour. You will know that it is recorded the Votes and Proceedings on Wednesday, April 19, 1989:
By unanimous consent, it was ordered,-That notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, at 5.00 o'clock p.m. on Thursday, April 27, 1989, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and proceed forthwith to the consideration of Ways and Means Proceedings No. 1, for the purpose of hearing the Budget statement of the Minister of Finance;
Of course, that was provided for by unanimous consent because the Speaker rose in his seat and asked for the unanimous consent of all Members for the Minister of Finance to proceed at the time indicated in the motion I just read to deal with the issue of the Ways and Means motion, namely, the reading of the Budget in the House.
We gave the Minister of Finance our consent for him to read the Budget in the House. Implicit in that consent is obviously the fact that the Budget would be read in the House and that Members of the House would learn of the existence of its contents before or at least the same time as anyone else in the country. That has been breached twice. First, it was breached by the neglect or whatever caused the leak in question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Theft.
April 27, 1989

Privilege-Mr. Boudria


Don Boudria: I notice the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs who is a lawyer-


Charles Joseph Clark: My wife is.


Don Boudria: I am tempted to say something to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. Not being a lawyer, I will not do it.
However, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs will know that for him to state suddenly that this was a theft, and convict whoever it is leaked the document to the media, not knowing whether the individual had been sworn or the person who gave it to him or her, if there was such a person, had been sworn to secrecy, is just a little presumptuous on the part of the Minister. I am sure that upon reflection he will know that as well.
In any event, the first breach was the incident which resulted in the television broadcast and any other situation that caused individual Canadians or a number of Canadians to learn of some of the contents of the Budget. There is a breach of that order of the House which was agreed to by unanimous consent that is even more important, because it was deliberate on the part of the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance stood at the press theatre across the street from Parliament Hill and chose to read excerpts from the document and publicly release the document at a time when Parliament was not sitting, and in contravention to what he himself had agreed to with all other Members of the House by virtue of special order in the Votes and Proceedings of April 19, 1989. I submit that those are at least two different occasions when our privileges as parliamentarians were breached. I have described how the commitment to the House was breached.
Second, there is the issue of the commitment to secrecy. You will undoubtedly know, Mr. Speaker, that the parliamentary constitutional conventions are not solely those we have established in our Canadian House of Commons. They are also those that we have inherited from the mother of Parliament, namely, from the United Kingdom.
Now that is not just something that is convenient to say.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, Section 18 of the Constitution Act dealing with legislative powers states, and I quote:
The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the constitutional conventions established in the Parliament of the United Kingdom are part and parcel of our own constitutional conventions.

Now, I want to bring the following document to your attention. I have an excerpt here which I want to bring to your attention from a book entitled, Cabinet Government, Jennings, Third Edition, published in Cambridge. This, I am told, is one of the foremost books of Parliamentary Government or Cabinet Government which is often utilized in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I read from page 110 of the book in part:
The third principle is that inasmuch as the secrets of the Government are specially in charge of Cabinet ministers, no minister, and particularly, no Cabinet minister, must in any circumstances put himself in a position where he is not able to be the complete guardian of those secrets in that there is any possibility of any private interests being served through a knowledge of those secrets.
Obviously, that part of our Parliamentary constitutional convention was breached yesterday. The Minister may say it was a breach which was excusable, he may make that case, but I submit to you that I would contest that. His argument would not be valid.
More importantly there has been a breach, wilfully or otherwise. Even if he maintains that it has been otherwise, that particular convention has been breached by the two situations that occurred yesterday.
There have been a number of cases which have been raised as precedents in the Canadian Parliamentary system as well.
Members of this House will no doubt be aware of the 1963 Walter Gordon case where outside experts had been employed to work on the Budget. There was no evidence of a breach of secrecy, no evidence of wrongdoing, no evidence of a leak, but the mere fact that someone from outside saw the Budget was cause for the Minister to resign.

April 27, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Boudria
Who asked for that resignation? The Conservative Party. It was achieved. The Government made it such that the Minister of Finance had to resign at that time.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Valcourt) asked where were the precedents for what we were asking. This case, which was minute compared to the one we have now-every case is minute compared with the one we have now because there has never been a leak of this size-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Your speech is minute compared with everybody else's.


Don Boudria: The Minister of Justice, who put a defence this morning such that he has actually almost convicted two of his colleagues, is talking about the contribution of other Members in this debate. I find it particularly ironic, of all Members across the way, given the testimony that was given by the Minister of Justice in the House today, that he would try to diminish the importance of anyone's contribution here.
The Minister of Justice this morning, and some of his colleagues, have spoken of what is known as the Abbott case where a Budget was presented outside the House of Commons. Two things are different.
First of all, it wasn't a Budget. It was a statement on tax reform and not a Budget per se, as I am told.
The second thing, even more importantly, is that there was not a leak in the sense that some Canadians were made aware or were given or had an opportunity to find out the contents of that document prior to others. It was broadcast simultaneously to everyone who cared to listen to it, obviously a tremendous difference. That is the second difference I have brought to your attention.
Thirdly, the Minister of Finance at that time had not made a commitment to the House that he would present that document in the House. That is in contravention of what we heard today again, so you can see that the defence that was put up this morning by the Minister of Justice was a little less than credible in terms of defending the situation that has occurred now.
A series of events have happened since this morning which I think merit being brought to your attention.
Firstly, this morning the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) said it was somehow the fault of the opposition that this Budget had not been presented in Parliament last night.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Don Boudria: In rationalizing this behaviour, which is hardly rational, the Minister said the following about what the Government had tried to do: That they had sought the unanimous consent of all Members of the House by asking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). How can the Leader of the Opposition give unanimous consent for everyone in the House? That is a little hard to follow.
I would really like the Minister to explain how the Leader of the Opposition can give consent for me, how he can give consent for the Independent Member from Alberta who sits at the other end of the House, or anyone else.


An Hon. Member:: Or Alex Kindy.


Don Boudria: Or even some of the Conservative back-benchers of this House who are less than enamoured with the Government across the way, particularly the whips and others in official capacities in the Conservative Party. Need I elaborate?
Obviously, no one can give that unanimous consent. Unanimous consent can only be sought one way. Mr. Speaker knows it well. Unanimous consent has to be sought inside the House by the Speaker.
In order for the Speaker to have asked for that unanimous consent inside the House, there was only one way to do it. The Conservative Government across the way would have had to ask Your Honour to recall the House pursuant to Standing Order 28. Once the House had been recalled, the Speaker could have asked the House, after being recalled, for its unanimous consent to deal with the Budget, or to deal with anything else for that matter.
You cannot ask Members for their unanimous consent unless they are already in the Chamber. That is why the argument of the Government lacks credibility totally.
I still do not know, and of course I cannot ask the question of the Chair, but I am wondering whether the Government ever did go to Mr. Speaker and ask Mr. Speaker to recall Parliament. We don't know that yet, but given that the Government has not volunteered that information, I can only assume one thing: that the answer is no, because if the Government had asked Mr. Speaker for that, they would have obviously indicated that in their statements raised last night.
April 27, 1989

The Deputy Prime Minister talked about the fact, in one of his speeches this morning, that the House had to be recalled in order for the Budget to be before the House. A little while later in his speech he talked about the Budget, which he described as already being before the House. Well, the order that was passed is such that we can only deal with the Budget at 5 o'clock this afternoon.
So which is it? Was the Budget before the House when the Deputy Prime Minister was making his statement this morning, or was it not before the House? He has, in fact, said both.
My submission is that the order that was passed calls for two things: one, for this Budget to be brought before the House at 5 o'clock today, and secondly, that it would be brought before this House on or before the time that it would be given to anyone else in the country. Given that the Government has breached that part of the agreement, I do not feel that the unanimous consent we gave for the Budget to be presented at five o'clock today still holds, because it was a conditional consent, an inherent one albeit but nevertheless one which I believe holds, that that Budget was to be presented to us before anyone else. That was breached twice. Once, by the leak caused by the negligence of some type or another, and secondly by the Minister's own speech and the Minister's deliberate handing out of those budgetary documents, which was done across the street last night shortly after 10 o'clock. I went to pick up one of those documents myself. Initially, the official refused to give me a copy of the Budget, saying that I was not a member of the Press Gallery.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Don Boudria: I stated to the official: "You are telling me, sir, that I cannot have a copy of the Budget? As a Member of Parliament, I cannot have a government document?" I also said: "That is going to make an interesting point of privilege tomorrow". Of course, I was given one immediately, as one might expect.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that across the street yesterday, initially even Members of Parliament were denied the privilege of getting a budgetary document. In other words, the press had access to the Budget not at
Privilege-Mr. Clark
the same time as MPs, but before, and deliberately by an action of the Government.
I believe that I have indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, a number of cases which should convince you that I have indeed a prima facie case of parliamentary privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it has been some time since I have been involved in procedural questions, but there are a couple of matters I wish to raise. As the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) drew to the attention of the House, I am not a lawyer, but I have had the benefit of some instruction from my wife on some of the intricacies of the law.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You tried to be a lawyer.


Charles Joseph Clark: I hope that my school friend, and his quiet seat-mate, will allow for that.
There are a couple of narrow questions that have to be judged by yourself, Mr. Speaker. They are narrow questions about the propriety of the conduct of the Government in quite extraordinary circumstances.
It is important to take a look at the precedents with regard to the activity of a Minister of Finance when information relating to a Budget comes into the public domain. Those precedents are very precise. Whenever there has been a suggestion that a Minister of Finance must resign, that has been because the information relating to the Budget was published by that Minister; it came from the Minister. That was the case. Some Members of the House are shaking their heads. If they have other information, they can bring it forward in this debate.
However, that was clearly the case in the situation of Hugh Dalton who made an incautious remark himself to a journalist on the way into the Mother of Parliaments in Westminster. That was clearly the case in the situation of the Hon. Marc Lalonde who was careless with a zoom lens at least once in his life and had to rewrite his Budget as a consequence. That was the case in all those circumstances in which a suggestion has seriously been made that a Minister of Finance must relinquish his position as Minister because information became available. That did not happen here. That is not the circumstance in this case.
Questions of where ministerial responsibility begins and ends are very serious questions. As the House Leader of the Official Opposition indicated today during his intervention in this point of privilege, there has been a decision by the Federal Court of Canada with respect to that question. It is a decision with which I am rather acutely acquainted, because it had to do with myself and

April 27, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Clark
the Hon. Flora MacDonald when she was the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I should say that is a decision under appeal and the Government of Canada has been granted leave to appeal that particular case. The finding in that case was that a Minister was responsible for certain of the actions or failures to act of an official.
However, the point here is that we are not talking about the action of an official. We are not talking about the failure to act of an official. We are talking about an action that occurred when someone took a document and deliberately conveyed it to a journalist, for reasons known at this stage only to that individual. We are not talking here of officials. We are not talking here of a Minister himself. We are talking here of a thief. That is how this document came into the public domain. Somebody stole it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How do you know?


Charles Joseph Clark: I ask Members of the House to consider whether they are really interested in anything other than simple partisan advantage and making a debate for a day. If they are interested in the principle that is at stake here with respect to ministerial responsibility, they should ask themselves whether it makes sense to suggest that a Minister of the Crown is responsible for actions that occur to that Minister's Department as a result of a thief. Is a Minister of the Crown responsible-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier rises on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Minister has just contradicted himself. In 1983, on page 2462-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier cannot rise on a point of order. He will have later an opportunity to rise. Debate. The Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs has the floor.


Sergio Marchi: What did the Federal Court say on your Department, Joe?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has just asked about the court decision to which I referred. Perhaps he was absent from his seat, or perhaps he was absent in his seat when I mentioned that.
It would certainly be a perversion of ministerial responsibility to claim that a Minister is responsible for the actions of a thief.
Let me suggest a parallel. The other day, many Members of the House were concerned with allegations made by one of our colleagues, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), that there had been a break-in in the office of the Hon. Member for Skeena.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is this a break-in?


Charles Joseph Clark: That is now under investigation by officials of the House as to whether or not there was that type of break-in. I ask the House, should the Member for Skeena be asked to resign because someone broke into his office? That is precisely the logic the opposition is proposing here. Members opposite are suggesting that because there has been a document stolen from-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) talks about a break-in. Is he suggesting that the office of the Finance Minister (Mr. Wilson) was broken into? If that is the case, could he please clarify?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.
On debate, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Charles Joseph Clark: The point to be made is the principle that many of us have accepted through time and the unreality of the suggestion that the Member for Skeena should be held liable for a break-in into his office applies as strongly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


Sheila Maureen Copps: There was no break-in in your case.


John Carnell Crosbie: Somebody broke into the Budget, girl!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister should not be held responsible for a theft.
I make the point, Mr. Speaker, that this doctrine is more than ludicrous. If Members of the House are seriously interested in looking at this problem, they would have to examine the consequences of having the Speaker find that a Minister of Finance, or indeed any
April 27, 1989

other Minister, was responsible for acts of theft against the officials or the officers who were under the responsibility of that Minister. If such a finding were to be made, it would certainly invite anyone who was interested in setting off course any Budget at any time in the future by that type of frivolous action. That interpretation of that principle simply is not an interpretation that can apply.
The other point to which I want to turn some attention has to do with the question as to the response of the House, particularly of the Opposition Parties to the request that the House of Commons be allowed to meet once this extraordinary situation had arisen to allow the Budget to be introduced so we could avoid or limit any of the kinds of concerns that may have arisen as a result of the theft of the document.
There has been some concern expressed about when the Government knew the detail of information that was entering into the public domain. It is important we make that quite clear. The House rose yesterday at six o'clock. My colleague, the House Leader, sought to have an extension of hours for reasons that were explained-


Sheila Maureen Copps: On Bill C-9.


Charles Joseph Clark: -during the Question Period this afternoon.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is a lie. It is a cover-up.


Charles Joseph Clark: What was known before the House rose was that a reporter for Global Television was alleging, without himself believing he had enough proof, that a leak had occurred. There were two broadcasts, Mr. Speaker, by Global. Those two broadcasts related to different levels of detail which were in the hands of Global TV and its reporters. There were also two attempts by this Government to have the House of Commons deal with that issue. Those two attempts were made at times when there were different levels of detail available to Members of the Government-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the subject was discussed in some great detail. The House of Commons was asked to continue sitting to discuss Bill C-9. I am sure the Member would not want inadvertently to mislead the House.
Privilege-Mr. Clark


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The right of Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is lying.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may have been busy talking at the time and was not listening to answers from this side of the House, but the House Leader in response to that very suggestion made the point that when he moved the motion yesterday at about 5.45 p.m. he used the only language that was open to him under the rules of the House of Commons.


Sergio Marchi: Nonsense.


Charles Joseph Clark: In any event, there were two broadcasts by Global reflecting two levels of detail available to Global. There were two attempts by the Government of Canada to provide the opportunity for Parliament to deal with the eventuality of Budget information.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Government by Global.


Charles Joseph Clark: Those two attempts by the Government of Canada also reflected different levels of detail that were available at the time.
It is worth reading into the record of the House of Commons, because of the importance of this matter, the text of the news report that appeared on Global-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Which one?


Charles Joseph Clark: The first news report when there was a relatively light level of detail available.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why didn't you wait for Canada A.M.?


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me quote:
On the basis of only one anonymous phone call, though Richard, we're not going to report the detail that we've got in it. We, of course, immediately checked this with the Finance Minister's office. We were told of course that there's lots of speculation at this time of year, particularly the day before a budget. He repeated that, the Finance Minister's chief spokesman, said that he wasn't going to comment any further on that, and he hoped that we would proceed very cautiously on the basis of what we had.
That was the record of what was in the public domain prior to the rising of this House yesterday. There was a suggestion that Global should proceed cautiously. Global proceeded cautiously, as it would be appropriate for them to do.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister didn't recognize his own Budget.


Charles Joseph Clark: The first information available to the House Leader was the information referred to by Global Television in the excerpt that I have just read. It was not enough for us to suggest to the House of

April 27, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Clark
Commons that there had, in fact, been the kind of publication of details that later became clear. We did not know that. We knew that there was a possibility and that possibility meant that it was prudent for us to ask for the House of Commons to stay in a position where it would be possible for Parliament to receive a Budget early if that were necessary.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Come on.


Charles Joseph Clark: That was the simple act of prudence taken at that time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Just as it would have been irresponsible for Global Television to have suggested more in their broadcast than they knew, so would it have been irresponsible for this Government to have suggested that there was a substantial publication of Budget information-


Sergio Marchi: What is wrong with honesty?


Charles Joseph Clark: -before we knew that there had, in fact, been that kind of substantial publication of Government information.
It was prudence that led the House Leader to seek agreement to have the House continue in case there was something more serious. It is simply false to argue that the Government knew of the nature of this theft before the House rose yesterday.
In any event, Opposition Parties denied the House of Commons the opportunity to extend its hours. When the document was seen on television around 7 p.m., it became clear that we were dealing with something more than a reporter's speculation because the journalist in question, Mr. Small, held up for the first time a document-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Did Wilson need that to recognize his own Budget?


Charles Joseph Clark: -which was clearly a document that bore the logo of the Budget and added the extreme likelihood that there had, in fact, been the entry into the public domain of a budgetary document.
A budget document had evidently been stolen. There it was.


Sheila Maureen Copps: How do you know it was stolen?


Charles Joseph Clark: It had not been released by the Government. It had not become available through the work of a Minister or anyone else.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Do you know who stole it?


Charles Joseph Clark: But it was there in the public domain on television. It was quoted. That raised the possibility that somebody might take advantage of that information.
I think this is an important part of the debate, Mr. Speaker, because there has been some suggestion here in the House, I take it a serious suggestion, intently felt, that there was a possibility of abuse since this information was available in the public domain before it had been tabled in the normal way. We were concerned about that. It was precisely that concern that there may be some kind of abuse that caused us to act as quickly as we could to regularize the situation, and we did two things. First, we immediately launched an investigation so we would find out what it was that occurred. As my colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) said earlier in question period today, not only was there an RCMP investigation but also precautions have been taken with various security commissions across the country, and that activity is proceeding.
In addition, we knew there was a danger that would grow if there was information available over Global Television that had not been formally presented to Parliament. What we wanted to do was close that gap. We wanted to recognize that a theft had occurred, that a document was in the public domain, that something had to be done to ensure that we limited the range of abuse. What did we do?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You should have scrapped the Budget.


Charles Joseph Clark: The House was not sitting. We needed some way in which to put this document, this Budget, in the possession of the House of Commons. It was urgent to act quickly for two reasons. First, to prevent abuses. Second, to respect the rights of Parliament.


Jean-C. Lapierre: It was urgent at five o'clock.


Charles Joseph Clark: The question was how could the House of Commons meet quickly?


Jean-C. Lapierre: You call the Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Opposition Parties in a quite extraordinary abandonment of their responsibility today has suggested that that question of referring the matter to the House of Commons was the sole responsibility of yourself, sir. It was the sole responsibility of the Speaker.
April 27, 1989


Jean-C. Lapierre: Of the Government.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Opposition has suggested that reference could be made to Rule 28. The Opposition knows that Rule 28 would not have applied in that circumstance because it applies to a recess and not to adjournment.


Sergio Marchi: Says who?


Charles Joseph Clark: They also knew that it would take fully 24 hours for the requisite notice to be given. What the Opposition Parties are arguing today when they try to blame their delay on Mr. Speaker is that we should have delayed for another 24 hours the process of making regular a Budget presentation that had been interrupted and set off course by an act of theft. That, Mr. Speaker, is simply unacceptable to us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have had some most disingenuous suggestions from the Opposition that there would not be a need to consult with Opposition Parties in order to get agreement in this House. But, Sir, we have been here long enough to know how the House of Commons works.
We have been here long enough to know that if an Opposition wants to raise questions of principle, to raise points of order at 11 o'clock in the morning, it can keep the debate going until 4.30 in the afternoon. We know that can be done. We know that is possible. We also know that the way one gets agreement in this system is to speak to Party leaders. That is what the Government did last night when we were faced with a situation when we had to make regular the situation where part of the Budget had been published. It was in everybody's interest, including in Parliament's interest, that we make that regular by getting the whole document before the House of Commons. We had to find a way to do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It was clear that we needed the co-operation of the opposition Parties. It is clear that that co-operation was necessary. My colleague, the Minister of Justice and Government House Leader, phoned the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Member for Oshawa and asked for their co-operation. They quite properly asked for a little time to consider. Then they came back and said that they were not going to co-operate with the attempt of the Government to bring Parliament's Budget into Parliament. That was the position that was taken by the two opposition Parties.
Privilege-Mr. Clark
We sought that agreement. The opposition Parties denied the co-operation that was the only basis upon which the House could have met last night to receive the Budget, the only practical basis on which this House could have met, but the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party denied Parliament the opportunity to receive the Budget. That was not the Speaker's fault. That was a deliberate decision of the two opposition Parties.
Denied the co-operation of the opposition Parties, the Government followed the only course that was open to have the Budget received by Parliament and to have the Budget published officially for Canadians. Copies were sent to officers of the House of Commons. That was the first thing we did.
My colleague for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell suggested that documents were made available to the press before they were made available to Parliament. That is dead wrong. We were careful to ensure that the Budget Papers had been delivered to the Clerk of the House of Commons for distribution by the Clerk in the normal way to Members of Parliament before the Minister of Finance went to a press conference to meet the press. Copies were sent to officers of Parliament and a press conference was held.
Results of that theft of the document were very harmful to Canada. They have been very harmful to the country. This is interesting, if Members are interested, because we looked at international markets and there was some concern. There was a drop in the value of the dollar when it appeared that there was political turmoil in the country. That trend reversed. I would like to know if my hon. colleagues will continue to laugh. That trend reversed when the process was made regular and when we were able to present, by the only way open to us, that Budget to the Parliament of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: You do not know the difference between a leak and a theft.


Charles Joseph Clark: Opposition spokesmen know, have claimed and made issue here today that there might have been abuse because of this lapse in time. It was precisely because we wanted to avoid that kind of abuse that we asked for the help of the Opposition. We asked not just in Parliament's interest, not just in the Government's interest, but in the interest of Canada, that the Parliament of Canada, that the opposition Parties in Canada would recognize that there had been an extraordinary situation developed and that there needed to be extraordinary action. We were prepared to go more than half way. The opposition Parties absolutely refused to co-operate. Instead of getting on with the business of the country, they now seek to detain the business of this

April 27, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Milliken
House of Commons with spurious calls for the resignation of the Minister of Finance.


An Hon. Member:: Who started it?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Liberals say that it is a cover-up.


Charles Joseph Clark: My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare-


An Hon. Member:: What a hypocrite.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member was making a rather voluble point about an event that occurred in the House some time ago.


An Hon. Member:: Thirteen years ago.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thirteen years ago. It was an event that was of great concern to many of us. It indicated in fact a time when there was the kind of disunion and tumult in this House that none of us wants to see again.
I did have a role to play in those events. The role that I had to play in those events was not to lead people in a charge upon the Chair. The role that I played in those events was to try to do everything I could to restrain Members who were outraged at the procedures at that time from storming the Chair. That is the record. Those are the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In any event we sought a means by which we could make regular a process-


An Hon. Member:: You were not too successful.


Charles Joseph Clark: Like the Hon. Member I share with the Hon. Member the distinction of not always having been successful. I share with the Hon. Member the desire to try to encourage some order in this House and some fidelity to the record of the House. His colleague, I am sure in an error of youth, misremem-bered events of several years ago and I took the opportunity to set the record straight.
There are two final points that I would like to make. One is that we sought the co-operation of the House of Commons once this problem had arisen, to ensure that we could act in a way that would respect the economic interests of Canada and that would respect the traditions and the rights of the House of Commons of Canada. That co-operation was denied, but, Sir, I think that was irresponsible on behalf of the opposition Parties.
However, that is not the issue here. The issue here is whether the Minister of Finance acted appropriately in these extraordinary circumstances. The record is clear, the record is clear. Whether it is judged against all of the precedents of all of the Parliaments of our tradition, or whether it is judged against other events that have occurred in this House, the record is clear that the Minister of Finance in these extraordinary circumstances acted openly, acted decisively, and acted with his customary honour.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It would be absurd for him to resign because some thief stole the document. That would be absurd. Every precedent of Parliament says he should continue. That is important, but in addition to every precedent of Parliament saying that the Minister of Finance should continue, his conduct in that office as an extraordinary and outstanding servant of this country and this Government and in this House indicate that it is in the interest of this nation that he be allowed to continue and that we get on with the business of Canada and stop this kind of partisan diversion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second occasion I have had to rise in this House on a question of privilege in the course of this session.


An Hon. Member:: What happened to the first one?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We will soon find out. The Speaker has not ruled on the present one, but frankly I am dismayed that both of the occasions have involved the principal business of the House of Commons, namely, financial matters.
The first question raised on April 6, as Your Honour will recall, dealt with the question of the Business of Supply. Today we are dealing with the second item of business under financial matters, Ways and Means. What the Government has done is effectively damage the rights of the Members of this House to deal with both these cardinal issues that under the Constitution are the most important single items with which this House is called upon to deal.
April 27, 1989

I will read again to a citation from Bourinot's Second Edition as I did on April 6, 1989, as reported at page 175 of Hansard. Obviously the impact of it did not sink into the hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches opposite. It states:
The principal purpose of the House of Commons, in fact, is the consideration and criticism of the Estimates and the taxes required to meet the public expenditures; and the committees in question are the parliamentary machinery by means of which the House chiefly exercises its political and constitutional functions.
We are here today because the Government ran into a problem yesterday. I suggest to the Government that it is of its own making. It is one that it had to deal with. By failing to deal with it, it has effectively limited the opportunity for Members in the House to receive the Budget in an orderly way and to deal with it in an orderly way.
Notwithstanding what we have just heard from the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), I say that the position the Government found itself in last night was clearly one of panic. I was here at 5.55 p.m. last evening when the Hon. Government House Leader, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis), came into the House. He was clearly exercised. He was ashen. He was running back and forth. He sat down on the other side of the House and he was clearly upset. I said: "What's the matter?" He did not hear me, or if he did he ignored it. He tried his motion and it failed.
We have had a version of events from the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs that needs to be corrected. I would like to set the record straight.


Mr. Friesen:: And this guy knows.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Last evening I was here and I observed these facts. Perhaps the Hon. Member was not.
At 5.55 p.m. the Minister of Justice came into this House and he asked that the sitting of the House be continued for the purpose of considering Bill C-9, which was then under discussion.
Privilege-Mr. Milliken
Why did he not come over to the Opposition House Leader and say: "We have a problem. There may be a problem"? He admitted in Question Period today that he thought that there might be a problem, that there was a possibility of a probability of a chance of a leak. It was a flood. The Minister might well have known that.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) phoned him because he was so concerned. He obviously thought that what he was hearing from the reporter was his own budget speech. He called the Government House Leader and said: "Do something, we are in trouble here. We are in a pickle". He came running into the House. He left his committee meeting and came over here to try to get us to sit late. He now blames us as members of the Opposition who are here doing our job.
There were more than 15 of us here. We stopped that motion last night. He now blames us for stopping consideration of Bill C-9 because, he says: "Really what I wanted to do was read the Budget. Consider Bill C-9 until I am ready to read the Budget and then I will come in to read the Budget". That is what he was really trying to do.
He was on Canada AM this morning. Some Hon. Members may have seen him. You may have seen him too, Mr. Speaker. There he was waxing eloquent, talking about British parliamentary tradition as though it were the most wonderful thing in this great spirit of co-operation he was talking about and how always under British parliamentary practice there was tremendous co-operation between government and opposition. Where was it last night? Why did he not come over here, come clean and say: "There may have been a leak. We may need your help"? He did not do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Then, having had the House adjourn at 6 p.m., he did not use Standing Order 28(3). I want to read it because obviously the Secretary of State for External Affairs has a strange comprehension of common English. He has failed to grasp the essentials of this rule. He said that it only applied during a recess. Nonsense. He said that it could only work if there were 24 hours' notice. Nonsense. Read the rule, I say to the right hon. gentleman. I will read it for him.


Charles Joseph Clark: Read the whole rule.

April 27, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Milliken


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I will read it slowly. It states: "Whenever the House stands adjourned." It does not say recessed but adjourned. "If the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Government", not with the Opposition but with the Government. We are not supposed to be involved in that consultation. The responsibility rests four-square on that side of the House. Their job is to go to the Speaker and ask. They did not even do it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is the rule. It states further: "after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time". It does not state on 24 hours' notice. It continues: "the Speaker may give notice", and it does not say notice of 24 hours''. It continues: "that being so satisfied the House shall meet, and thereupon the House shall meet to transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time".
Those are the relevant parts of the rule. It is crystal clear.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Read it all.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I do not know what more we need to read, but I will read the rest of it. It states: "In the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees, or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in the Speaker's stead for the purposes of this section."
I hope I did not read that too fast. However, I do not think that is relevant to the issue that is here. There is no suggestion that Mr. Speaker was not available last night.
I suggest to Hon. Members opposite that they failed to take a look in the rule book. They phoned the Leader of the Opposition. They phoned the Leader of the New Democratic Party. When they found that they could not get their consent, they said: "Well, we will just go to the airwaves and make it public in Canada. So what if some Canadians have gone to bed expecting that they will be able to manage their affairs tomorrow morning on the basis of a Budget to be introduced the following evening at 5 p.m., so what about them". They really did not care. Everything went on last night at 10 p.m. The Minister of Finance came in and made a statement last night.
I suggest that the Government knew when it received the information about the leak that it had a problem. In spite of all the protests that we heard today, it knew that the responsibility of the Minister of Finance was to resign at once. The Government knew that its obligation
was to withdraw that Budget, to appoint a new Minister of Finance and to set a new date to bring in a proper Budget.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is what the precedents indicate. For the edification of Hon. Members opposite I would like to take a look at a few of those precedents. They have referred to a few of them from time to time here today. Hon. Members will recall in 1963 the outrage expressed by some Hon. Members opposite on the occasion of Mr. Gordon's Budget. As Hon. Members will recall he had hired some outside consultants to assist in the preparation of the Budget.


Charles Joseph Clark: He had hired them. He, the Minister.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: There was never any suggestion of any leaks except from some members of the Opposition. The Hon. George Nowlan who was the chief opposition critic at the time gave a speech on June 19, 1963. I recall he waxed eloquent on the subject of the sins of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Gordon. He went on and on for pages and pages, saying how dreadful it was that these people had been brought in on the budget process. At the end of his speech he moved a motion of non-confidence in the Government. If we ever do get a Budget here, we will undoubtedly be doing the same thing.
The motion reads in part:
This House regrets that the Minister of Finance by failing to
maintain the constitutional practice of the essential secrecy of the
budget has seriously weakened public confidence;
Those were the words that Mr. Nowlan intoned in his motion. It was supported and seconded by Mr. Diefen-baker. That concept of budget secrecy and its essential importance for our Constitution was unquestioned by Mr. Nowlan. He was a predecessor of my hon. friends opposite. Indeed, his son sits on the opposite side of the House to this day.
There are other quotations. I do not want to put the Minister of Justice in the embarrassing position of reading his earlier quotations.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Go ahead.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I noticed him this morning squirming and saying that he was making an argument that he did not deserve to win. I agree with him. He did not deserve to win it, but not for the same reasons he thinks. The difference was that the Hon. Marc Lalonde had not done anything like this Minister has done. When his Budget was introduced-
April 27, 1989


John Carnell Crosbie: He leaked his own Budget.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: -it was not the same as the document that had been filmed. His document had been changed. As Mr. Trudeau said so carefully at the time: "It is not a Budget until it gets into the House". That is why we say we do not have a Budget today. There was not one then until Mr. Lalonde tabled it in this House. When he did, it was not the same document that had been filmed.
In spite of that distinction, which I submit is a very significant one, I would like to read a question that was asked on April 19, 1983 by the Hon. Sinclair Stevens, a gentleman well known for his knowledge of resignations and the requirement for resignations from Cabinets. He asked the following question:
Madam Speaker, in view of the story with which we are well acquainted, for example, The Citizen indicating that a budget leak occurred yesterday evening, in which a deficit of $31.2 billion is anticipated for the forthcoming year, and in view of the fact that this is an example of gross negligence on the part of a Minister, a breach of a Minister's oath of secrecy, something totally unacceptable in our parliamentary system, would the Prime Minister indicate whether he has received the resignation of the Minister of Finance and, if so, whether he has accepted it?
That was the question that was posed. No one challenged the fact that if there had been a gross breach of budget secrecy the Minister should resign. Yet this Government denies that principle. It denies that principle in relation to the taxes that it seeks to impose upon the people. It denies the principle in relation to the expenses that it is trying to claim from this House by having them passed by Governor General's warrants.
I would like to read another quotation of the Acting Leader of the Opposition on the same day in 1983, the Hon. Erik Nielsen, a man of fond memory to Hon. Members opposite.


An Hon. Member:: He is looking after VIA.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He is looking after VIA now, the carving up operation. He said:
No doubt they will try to brazen this out by bringing in changes, altering a decimal point or altering a few pertinent phrases in that Budget. Does the Prime Minister really believe that he can get away with that and that that will cure this gross breach of the normal secrecy that surrounds budgets?
Privilege-Mr. Milliken
Note the words: Normal secrecy.


An Hon. Member:: Did he change it?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Of course he did, and he was right, he could. Does he not agree that he should ask for the resignation of the Minister of Finance who, if he were self-respecting at all, would have submitted that resignation after he discovered his error yesterday? What would Mr. Nielsen say to the present Minister of Finance in these circumstances? Aye, there is a former Minister of Finance sitting across the way, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He knows what it is like to be a Minister of Finance. He did not have leaks like this, and neither did the Leader of the Opposition when he was the Minister of Finance.
I want to turn to the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister. He gave us a lot of pious nonsense in the House this morning, suggesting that the House could only be called with unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has put paid to that argument in my submission. It is quite obvious that unanimous consent is not going to assist in the circumstances because as the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell indicated, it could only be obtained by having the House sitting and every Member here and agreeing.
Members of this House are elected to serve their constituents. They are elected to represent their constituents in Parliament. One of the ways they represent their constituents is by dealing with the financial plans of this Government, of any Government. Indeed, the House is charged with the responsibility for dealing with those financial plans in two aspects: on the expenditure side and on the revenue side as I have indicated.
What the Government is doing by its failure to deal with this Budget in a proper way, in having the Minister resign and setting a new date, in failing to bring its Estimates before the House in a timely way-they are still not here-and in producing its records for inspection by this House and allowing this House to deal with the questions of Supply and of Ways and Means in a proper and orderly way, is depriving us of our right to do our duty to represent our people, to represent our constituents in Parliament.

April 27, 1989
Privilege-Mr. Milliken
With great respect, we have heard today several members of the Opposition stand and seek to represent the rights of their constituents by asserting the ancient privileges of this House. It is fine to talk about parliamentary privilege. Maybe it means nothing to a lot of people in Canada who hear the expression and think that it is not important. It is important because those privileges are in fact the representation of the privileges of the people. It is those people that all 295 of us are here to represent.
I recognize, and I think all Hon. Members recognize it, that the persons who occupy positions in Cabinet have an additional or slightly different responsibility. I can understand. Members of Cabinet, when they are caught with their pants down as they were last night, lost the biggest thing they could have lost, namely, the Budget. It went out the window, disappeared on the streets and was published in the newspaper. I can understand their embarrassment, their unease and their desire to get that clammed up and to shore up their position. They ran to the media and got the thing public, even though it had been public for many hours already, in an effort to diffuse the criticism to which they knew they would be subjected.
I can understand that. What I cannot understand is why we have not heard from any of the Members who sit behind government Members on that side of the House. I would have thought the Hon. Member for Macleod (Mr. Hughes), who is a vociferous defender of the rights of the individual, or the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Dobbie), or the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Reid), although he is not here at the moment, or even the Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy), might have been up on their feet defending the ancient rights of their constituents who are represented by them in this House. They are to deal with the financial affairs of this country in an orderly way, not on the airwaves, not in press releases, not by handing the stuff around at midnight.


John Horton McDermid: Why would you not agree to us sitting last night?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Because I have been through that. If the Hon. Member had been here, he would know the answer to that question. I have just given the answer. I think those Members should get on their feet and stand up for the rights of their constituents. The rights of this Parliament are being steamrolled by the procedure being adopted by the Government opposite on this issue and
on every other financial issue that it has had to deal with in this Parliament.
Considering your ruling on this point, Sir, I invite you-


John Horton McDermid: Nobody is listening to you.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You obviously are.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, heard!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I suggest the Hon. Minister keep doing so. It is doing some good.
As I was saying, in considering your ruling on this very important question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to have regard to the rights not just of us as Members, which is of course your principal duty, but to bear in mind the rights of the people whom we as Members of Parliament are charged with representing in this House and the rights of Canadians to avoid taxation without representation and to avoid being taxed without that tax having been approved in this House by their duly elected representatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Hon. Member,


An Hon. Member:: That is two of you.


Harvie Andre: I can see that his potential clients should be grateful that he is back here.
I wonder about the question of duties and responsibilities and wonder if the Hon. Member and his colleagues ever considered what might be the national interest in all this.
There is no Standing Order to deal with the theft of a budget document. What is required when something like that happens is for there to be co-operation between members on both sides of the aisle, in recognition that hopefully we both have the national interest in mind.
What the Government House Leader attempted to do yesterday was to achieve the co-operation of the Opposition in presenting to the public the budget documents as quickly as possible, given the theft that occurred. The opposition Parties said "No, no". The national interest which might have been served in that way was not something that they were interested in pursuing but rather it is potential partisan advantage. I think the last laugh may in fact end up on our side. Quite frankly if Hon. Members opposite have been talking to their constituents today, they will see that Canadians in overwhelming majority are backing the Minister of Finance.
April 27, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise all Hon. Members that, as I am bound to do by the Special Order, I intend to read the beginning of the motion. However, I want to say that I am anticipating points of order. I ask the co-operation of the House to allow me to do what I am directed to do under the Special Order. I will stop short of recognizing the Minister and then I will hear points of order.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, April 19, 1989, the House will proceed to Ways and Means Proceeding No. 1.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speake, I rise on a point of order. The process has been soiled. The House has been betrayed.
The motion you just read received unanimous consent on April 19, 1989, and the Official Opposition would like at this time to make certain comments regarding that unanimous consent.
Our understanding was that we were to deal with a Budget speech prepared and presented in the traditional way, including all the traditional security measures that were taken for granted by all of us here for several years.

Mr. Speaker, we had every confidence in the budgetary process. We had every confidence in the Minister of Finances' integrity. We had every confidence in the Government's honesty towards the House of Commons, in the Justice Minister's honesty. Our trust was betrayed.
The Budget

We were deceived. Our trust was betrayed. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has been extremely negligent. He did not take appropriate measures to protect the integrity of the budgetary process.
Last night, the Government House Leader was not straight, honest and above board with this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He made no attempt to talk to other Party Leaders in the House so as to share with them his concerns about the extremely important situation the Government was in. He did not preserve the integrity of the budgetary process. He did not uphold the integrity of his ministry. He was deceitful and less than honest when he attempted to tar the Opposition Parties-


Harvie Andre: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member can express his concerns in more appropriate language and I would ask him to do so.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In consequence, the Official Opposition withdraws its unanimous support for this motion adopted April 19, 1989 and says so openly. We disagree with the Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Some days ago you asked if there would be unanimous consent for a Special Order that would permit the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to read his Budget for the first time so that all the people of Canada would have an opportunity to hear the Budget statement in the House of Commons. We gave our unanimous consent. We felt that was the time-honoured tradition of the House, and have always done it that way. We were quite prepased to give unanimous consent to have it $one in 1989.
However, some things have happened since that came before the House. I do not have to remind ur ce'essarily th!t at seven o'Clock ,ast night the Prime Minister (Gr. Mulroney) haD aO decision to make. He had been informed that there was a leak. He was aware of the details that someone had possessed in terms of the Budget.
He could have made two decisions. He had a choice. One would have been to recognize that a massive blunder had occurred and that he ought to call for the resignation of the Minister of Finance and start the process over again properly and have a Budget later. However, he decided to push ahead. In spite of the fact that there were a number of people in the country who had leaked information, who had privileged information-

April 27, 1989
The Budget


Paul Wyatt Dick: Do you know who?


Nelson Andrew Riis: We were aware at that time that at least one of the networks was going to go public with it and that there was at least two people in the country who had detailed information, perhaps many, many more. Knowing that, the Prime Minister decided to surge ahead and try to ram this Budget through.
We are at a difficult point. For the entire day we have been arguing the question before the House whether the budgetary process is consistent with the traditions and long-standing practices of the House. That is what we have been arguing all day. We have been hearing from Members on both sides whether this process is acceptable.
Mr. Speaker, you are asking us now, before that debate is concluded, before any decision of the House has been taken, to proceed to a special motion before us which anticipates a decision by this House that would say that what the Government is doing is acceptable. We have not come to that conclusion.
The arguments are being put forward, as of 10 minutes ago, yet you are asking us to make a decision now. I suspect you are in a position to have to make a decision whether or not this anticipation of a decision is appropriate.
New Democrats have held that the Minister of Finance ought to have resigned, that the Budget, as it was presented in the press conference last night, ought to have been cancelled and a proper one introduced at an appropriate time. For that reason, on behalf of my Party, I have no other choice but to withdraw our support for proceeding with this special motion at this time.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my friends opposite make the point that at the time unanimous consent was given they expected that the Budget events would unfold in the normal way. We all did. There is no question about that.
The motion states that for the purpose of the Budget statement of the Minister of Finance certain things shall take place. A Budget document was made public in another forum. National television, it is true.
I guess the question is whether Members of Parliament or the House of Commons are going to be held hostage to the actions of a thief.


John Napier Turner: Oh, come on!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is the question.


John Napier Turner: That is not the
question at all.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The House came to a decision as to an appropriate order of events for today. The House took that decision. That is our position.
We feel that the decision of the House last Wednesday was a valid decision and should go forward and should stand.
I want to make reference to my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), who I have known for some time and respect. I think there are comments made from time to time in the heat of this place. I know I have made them myself. I regret those comments. I have had a lot of things said about me, but I do not think my honour has been questioned. I will say to you that I take them in the heat of battle and I will not remember them tomorrow because I know my friend to be an honourable person. I know he fights hard and well for his Party and I think they were made in the heat of the battle.
Last night at 5.45 my duty as the Government House Leader was to preserve our options if in fact there was an authenticated, substantiated, corroborated Budget leak. I say to you that the gentleman, Mr. Small, who brought this Budget leak to the attention of the Canadian public, did not authenticate it, did not substantiate it until he had it in his hand at seven o'clock. So at quarter to six I took the action I could. I suggest to you that the only option was to move under Standing Order 26(1) to preserve our options. Therefore I moved it. I say to you Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, that I believe the House Order duly voted upon, unanimous consent by the House, stands and is valid, and I suggest that after you have had an opportunity to consider the matter you might wish to reserve. We are in your hands.
The Hon. Minister of Finance should proceed in the event that your ruling is favourable.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not need to remind Hon. Members that we are having an unusual day.
April 27, 1989

I have listened with considerable care to the Hon. Member from Ottawa-Vanier, the Hon. Member for Kamloops and the Minister.
The position that both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party is taking in this argument is that because of changed circumstances the Order, despite the fact that it was obtained by consent, ought to no longer bind the House. I think that is the point.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Speaker:: I am going to ask the co-operation of the House to stand down for a short while as I consider this unusual circumstance.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.11 p.m.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 5.34 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: On April 19,1989, an Order was made by this House. It was a unanimous order as a consequence of discussions as so often happens here between Leaders of all three Parties. That Order-I am citing this so that Hon. Members and the public will clearly understand what is taking place-related to the presentation of a Budget. The agreement entered into prior to the Order being presented to the House and the unanimous consent that was given to the Order when it was presented to the House were clearly based on the expectation that the Minister of Finance would rise today and present his Budget. I read the Order:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, at 5.00 o'clock p.m. on Thursday, April 27, 1989, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and proceed forthwith to the consideration of Ways and Means Proceedings No. 1, for the purpose of hearing the Budget statement of the Minister of Finance;
That, immediately following such budget statement, the House shall revert to the Routine Proceedings "Introduction of Government Bills" and, following introduction and first reading of a bill or bills, the Speaker shall recognize a member of the Official Opposition in debate on Ways and Means Proceedings No. 1; and
That would mean in the usual course a representative of the Official Opposition would speak and, if that took place, would have unlimited time. It continues:
Privilege
That the House shall not adjourn until the adjournment of the debate on Ways and Means Proceedings No. 1, following which the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.
And by unanimous consent it was ordered:
That, on Friday, April 28,1989, the House shall meet at 11 o'clock a.m. with Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31 at that time, Oral Questions at 11.15 o'clock a.m., until 12 o'clock noon, followed by the Daily Routine of Business;
That, immediately upon the completion of the Daily Routine of Business, the House shall proceed to Government Orders, Ways and Means Proceedings No. 1 (the Budget motion);
That, during the debate on the Budget motion, on that day, there shall be one speaker for the Official Opposition followed by one speaker for the New Democratic Party and, that both speakers will be allowed whatever time is necessary to complete their speeches; and
That, immediately upon completion of the speech by the New Democratic Party speaker, but in any event not later than 3.30 o'clock p.m., the Speaker shall adjourn the House until Monday, May 1, 1989, at 11 o'clock a.m.
That is the Order which was entered into by consent.
Several things have happened in the last 24 hours as Hon. Members and the public know and as a consequence the Government decided that the Minister of Finance had to proceed with the presentation of the Budget by way of a press conference yesterday evening rather than wait until today and present the Budget by way of the Special Order.
It is not for me to argue about these events except to record, as Hon. Members and the public are aware, that the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party have argued this afternoon that it is not appropriate to proceed under this Order even though consent was given before because circumstances have changed.
Both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party have taken the unusual step of advising the House that under the circumstances they withdraw their consent. By that I take it to mean that they no longer feel that they ought to agree that the House should proceed under the provisions of the Special Order.
I am quick to point out that there are negotiations that take place here all the time and sometimes when agreement seems to have been reached, but prior to it having taken effect on the floor of the House, circumstances may change.
Sometimes what may have seemed to have been consent earlier is not followed through because of changed circumstances.

April 27, 1989
The Budget-Mr. Wilson
The difficulty the Speaker is in, in this present situation, is that while fully understanding the position of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party and fully understanding the reason for it, the fact of the matter is that we now have a House Order, which was passed by the House. I can see no way that I can unilaterally change that.
This House Order could be changed, of course, if the House wishes to direct me in that way, but I have not received such a direction. I am bound to follow it unless, of course, I am directed otherwise. As I say, the House has not done so.
There was another argument advanced, that is, that the Budget ought not to go ahead until the argument over privilege-because there are a number of privilege applications all being heard in one debate-is completed.
I am continuing to hear argument on what may or may not be a contempt of this House. I do not prejudge that. While the matter to be heard under this special House Order that I have described, and the questions of contempt and privilege are related questions, I have looked at them carefully and it is my view that they are not dependent one upon the other. Each stands alone as a unique proceeding.
The Speaker cannot foresee the future, that is, what the House may eventually do if there is a prima facie case of contempt or privilege. As I said, I intend to hear further argument on the privilege matter. It is not closed off this afternoon by any means.
However, while I do not know what may eventually happen on the privilege issue, I do know what the House has done with the special House Order. I must advise Hon. Members that I am bound by it. Therefore, it is my duty to recognize the Hon. Minister of Finance.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I expressed this morning my regret at not being able to deliver my Budget speech first to the House of Commons. Members on all sides have debated the circumstances surrounding this matter during the course of today.
Let me now make some summary comments about my Budget, a Budget which I view as most significant for Canadians.
It is important for Members of the House and all Canadians to understand the budgetary policy that has shaped the measures in the documents that I am tabling today.

It is also important to understand the major economic and social objectives which our policies will help achieve.

Our Budget is designed to deal with the over-arching national problem that stands between Canadians and a better future for ourselves and for our children: our large and growing public debt.
It is now more than $320 billion. The debt is more than 20 times larger than it was in the mid-1970s when it began to grow faster than the national economy. Interest payments on the debt will require more than one-third of all government revenues this year.
As a Government, we recognized the threat posed by the debt and its enormous momentum of growth when we came to office four and one-half years ago.
As part of a broad agenda of action to strengthen the foundations of Canada's economy, we acted to slow the growth of debt by reducing the annual deficit. We succeeded in reducing the growth of the debt from almost 24 per cent in 1984 to less than 10 per cent last year.
During the same period, the Canadian economy generated substantial growth. It created one and one-half million new jobs and expanded faster than most other industrial nations.
The paramount fiscal policy objective of this Government is to continue getting the public debt under control through deficit reduction, and to reinforce the policies that helped to achieve the record of fiscal and economic progress.
April 27, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is now a new urgency to the challenge. In response to rising inflationary pressures in Canada and abroad, short-term interest rates have risen. They will be much higher this year than was widely expected by most commentators even a few months ago.
If we do not act now, we will face a growing danger of higher inflation and even higher interest rates. This could lead to a severe recession. At the same time, the projected cost of paying the interest on the debt has risen by more than $6 billion this year. This interest cost alone will be $39 billion. That is more than we spend in total on health care, family allowances, old age security and social assistance.
What is at stake here is nothing less than our capacity as a Government and as a nation to maintain the high standard of living and quality of life that Canadians expect.

If we want to protect and improve our standard of living and quality of life, we must adopt firm, balanced and coherent financial and monetary policies which will help us continue the process aimed at lowering inflation and interest rates and prevent them from going up again; we must adopt realistic and balanced policies which carefully strike a proper balance between short term dangers and long term objectives.

The decisive debt control actions in this Budget are essential to the achievement of the right policy balance now and in the years to come.
The budget measures that I am proposing, and which are set out in detail in the documents that I will be tabling, include a wide range of reductions in government spending and measures to increase revenues. In addition, fundamental economic strength and revenue stability will be enhanced through reform of the federal sales tax.
Major reductions in program spending have been achieved. When fully implemented, these will total about $2.5 billion a year. These measures build on the expenditure restraint actions undertaken since 1984. As a result, program spending has declined from 19.5 per cent of our national income just five years ago to 16 per cent this year. In 1993-94, it will fall further to just over 15 per cent. Mr. Speaker, that is the lowest level it will have been in a quarter century.
The Budget-Mr. Wilson
Our debt control actions, both expenditure reductions and revenue increases, will total more than $5 billion this year and $9 billion next year. This will offset most of the increase in interest costs this year and reduce the annual deficit to $30.5 billion. Next year, it will be reduced to $28 billion.
The debt-to-GDP ratio will stabilize next year. This means that the public debt will stop growing faster than the economy for the first time since the mid 1970s.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: By 1993-94, the deficit will be cut in half to $15 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The decisive actions announced in the budget are essential to the achievement of a necessary balance between our budgetary and monetary policies to ease inflationary pressures, create a margin for interest rate reductions and maintain economic growth.

As the deficit continues to go down, the debt will shrink as a proportion of our national income. Interest costs will take less of every revenue dollar. This will restore the flexibility that we need to continue to maintain the programs that Canadians value, and to build a better future for our children and for our grandchildren.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: More important than any numbers that we can cite, we will have a Canada that is continuing on course for a rising standard of living and better quality of life to pass on to the next generation, a Canada that is building for the future, not borrowing from it. That is our responsibility as a Government. That is surely our goal as Canadians.
Four years ago we brought forward a plan to build a better future for Canada. We knew that to stay on that course would require a sustained national effort. Together we have made great progress. Our future success will depend on the will of the Government to continue making tough choices and on the understanding and commitment of Canadians to join in building a stronger Canada. That is what the policies in this Budget are all about.

April 27, 1989
The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
Today, I am tabling all the budgetary documents, including notices of Ways and Means motions covering changes to the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Customs Tariff and the Old Age Security Act. Details of these measures are included in the material that I am tabling. I ask that an order of the day be designated for the consideration of each of these Ways and Means motions.
In addition, pursuant to a motion of this House I will introduce today a Bill seeking the borrowing authority for the 1989-90 fiscal year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order adopted on Wednesday, April 19, 1989, the House will now revert to the item "Introduction of Government Bills".



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Michael Holcombe Wilson: for leave to introduce Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the Budget that was made public some 24 hours ago demonstrates what many Canadians have known for years. It is that the Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is at one and the same time unfair and indifferent to the real needs of Canadians, and incompetent in the management of the finances of our country.
That the Government hopes to deal with its deficit by slashing programs and raising taxes is now painfully clear. Much will be said in the next weeks about this Budget and its impact on the average Canadian family. We on this side of the House shall participate in that debate. We shall have a great deal to say about it.
In these next few minutes I want to say something about deficits, not the Government's deficit, not the many dollars that separate its spending from its income. I want to talk about the deficits that every Canadian understands, the deficits with which every Canadian can identify, the deficits that touch the lives of every Canadian in a very real way.
There are many deficits in this Budget, but they are very different from the deficit the Government talks about. There is a deficit of compassion, of assistance, of caring.
Ask a single mother in Brampton who relies on day care to enable her to work full time who believed the Prime Minister when he promised a comprehensive national day care plan. Where is that promise today? There is a deficit of caring.
Ask a woman in Vancouver whose husband was left for two nights in an emergency ward because no hospital bed was available. Ask the people who hoped that funding for our health care system would be increased, not mindlessly cut as it has been in this Budget.
There is in this Budget a deficit of assistance, assistance for Canadians in real need. Ask the young family in Bonavista who has to survive on unemployment assistance for seven months of the year, who now faces cuts not only in unemployment insurance but also in regional development grants which can offer them a way out of poverty. Now the Government is withdrawing from unemployment insurance.
April 27, 1989

Ask the teenager in Yorkton who hoped to receive financial assistance to attend university this autumn but who will now despair upon learning that this Budget reduces spending on post-secondary education.
There is also a deficit of fairness in this Budget. What is fair about expecting farmers to cope with high interest rates and at the same time to cope with the gutting of funding for vital agricultural programs?
For a middle-income Canadian family, this Budget will mean an additional $700 in taxes, for a total increase of almost $2,000 in taxes since the Government came to office. Every single community in Canada, every single family, will be hurt by the cuts in spending on medicare and education. Many will also be hurt by cuts in regional development. What is particularly deplorable is that the very communities least able to weather the Conservative reduction will suffer the greatest cuts.
Federal funding for our hospitals, for our colleges and universities is reduced by this Budget at a time when the need for more money is very obvious to all Canadians. Our health system, already under great strain, will suffer at a time when public confidence is already weakened. Colleges and universities, already plagued by years of declining funding, now face the almost impossible task of maintaining their standards of excellence. Their academic credibility, already under fire, is greatly undermined by this Budget. Worse, students and would-be students will find it increasingly difficult to obtain an education.
In every Budget in every year since this Government came to power in 1984, the Minister of Finance has denounced the deficit. We have heard him promise repeatedly to do something about it. In each of those years, the Government has failed utterly to do what it said it would do.
We learned from this Budget that the deficit is increasing for the second year in a row in spite of six consecutive years of high economic growth. Clearly, these people do not know what they are doing. This is a fudge-it Budget. The economic assumptions on which this Budget is based are simply not credible. Once again the Minister of Finance is fudging the books. There are no guarantees whatever that the deficit target of $31 billion will be reached. In fact, there is every reason to believe that the deficit will be higher than that.
The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
The Minister of Finance's optimism is not widely shared. He forecasts that the economy will grow in the next year at a rate of 3 per cent, much higher than any other forecasts. Worse, he is predicting that the interest rates will average 12 per cent for the year, despite the fact that interest rates today are already more than 12.5 per cent.
Next year the Minister expects the economy to slow considerably, predicting growth to drop by almost one-half. No doubt this is to be expected as a result of this Government's prolonged mismanagement of the economy. The Government cannot at the same time reduce its spending, increase taxes, raise interest rates and hope that somehow the economy will continue to grow. Canadians are now to pay a heavy price for the Government's incompetence. Today's Budget-or should I say yesterday's Budget-makes it clear who will suffer. During the past four years taxes on individuals have grown faster than taxes on corporations. With today's Budget, Canadians will pay yet more taxes. During the past four years, taxes on low and middle-income Canadians were increased sharply while tax increases on the wealthy were far less.
Interest rates have risen to the point where small businesses have been put at risk, where many families fear that they will lose their homes or despair of ever owning one. Now we face cuts in spending and widespread change in our social programs that will leave many low-income Canadians worse off than ever.
The Minister of Finance is intoxicated with deficit reduction, but it is Canadians who will suffer the hangover. For four years this Government has continued to talk about its commitment to deficit reduction. Today Canadians have learned what they must pay for this commitment through higher taxes and cuts in government programs. But where is the deficit reduction? The deficit continues to grow even as Canadians pay for its reduction. Real deficit reduction, we are told, will come later, but the bill arrives today. Clearly, the Finance Minister has run out of time to get his act together.
Canada has been transformed, and now we must ask if we agree with the direction of this transformation. This Government is intentionally lessening the ties of Canadians to each other. What was once a compassionate and a confidently administered society is today run by a Government without a heart, without an understanding of what it is to be poor, and without the slightest understanding of how to manage our economy compassionately and competently. Canada, under the Conservative Government, as the figures released by the Minister of Finance himself show, has removed hope and

April 27, 1989
The Budget-Mr. MacLaren
optimism from Canadians and left them with the prospect of recession.
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy):
That the House now be adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis).


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I believe the normal motion is that the debate be now adjourned. That is if the motion is acceptable, in order to continue the debate tomorrow if my hon. friend wishes to continue.


Lloyd Axworthy: Accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Minister. Mr. MacLaren, seconded by Mr. Axworthy, moves that the debate be now adjourned. Do Hon. Members adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Order made Wednesday, April 19, 1989, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 28, 1989