Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):

Those opposed will please say nay.

Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):

Call in the members.

Mr. Speaker:

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. The question is now on the amendment.

Mr. Speaker:

I declare the amendment lost.

The Chairman:

Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax.

It being after ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House. Is this agreed?

Agreed.

Progress reported.

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in the adjournment debate this evening on the question of conflict of interest involving the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and his unfortunate trip on the Seagram jet. For some time we on this side of the House have pressed for a full explanation concerning this trip which is certainly greatly misunderstood and has brought the government into contempt in this House.

Adjournment Debate

I refer to a fact that is well established in precedent and in particular in a letter dated November 30, 1964 signed by the then prime minister of this country, the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, about what is the proper standard of conduct for a minister of the Crown. In that letter it is stated:

There is an obligation not simply to observe the law but to act in a manner so scrupulous that it will bear the closest public scrutiny. The conduct of public business must be beyond question in terms of moral standards, objectivity and equality of treatment.

It is also stated:

There can be no special treatment on the ground of personal acquaintance, sympathy or anything of that kind. Least of all must there be any suspicion of special treatment when there is cause to believe that a violation or evasion of law may be in issue.

Again, it is stated:

The essential thing is to ensure that all appreciate the grave responsibility, not only that we have but that the members of our staffs and others in positions of authority have, to maintain the confidence of the people of Canada in the probity of government in this country.

I would suggest that these guidelines, laid down by the then prime minister, have been breached by the Minister of National Health and Welfare; and I believe it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has not seen fit to rebuke the minister for the fact that he has broken the guidelines established over ten years ago.

On November 8, I put on the order paper starred question No. 788 in which I asked the government to identify what in fact are the standards with respect to the conduct of ministers of the Crown at the present time. In my question I basically recited the highlights of the Pearson letter to which I have referred. Specifically in my question I asked if there is any standard which calls upon a minister to:

. .. refrain from placing himself in a position where he is under obligation to any person who might profit from special consideration or favour on the part of the minister or ministerial colleague or who might seek in any way to gain special treatment from the minister or ministerial colleague ...

That question has not yet been answered. I have asked the Prime Minister if he intends to answer it and on all occasions he has been evasive both within this House and outside this House. I would remind hon. members of what transpired.

We learned that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had chosen to take a trip to Israel. We learned that he had chosen to travel on board a Seagram's jet owned by Seagram's of New York.

He travelled for free. We learned this when the minister was in Israel. At that time we suggested he return by some other means, presumably some other aircraft owned by the Canadian government.

The first response of the Prime Minister was to treat it in jest. When the Minister of National Health and Welfare was approached by the press in Israel concerning this trip, he tried to pass it off lightly.

When the minister returned to this House, we pressed him as to who in fact invited him to take the trip. First there was some evasion. The impression was left that somehow it was a trip arranged by the ambassador from Israel. It then transpired that the trip had in fact been arranged between Mr. Bronfman and the Minister of Na-

28626-64'/2

February 11, 1975

Adjournment Debate

tional Health and Welfare. The ambassador from Israel had been brought in at a later stage.

We are entitled to an explanation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has made speeches concerning the advertising advantage now held by brewing companies in this country to the disadvantage of distillers. This minister has general supervision over drugs in this country. He has publicly stated that he now has under consideration the entire question of what should or should not be the type of advertising permitted over television and radio by liquor companies and breweries.

Why would the minister not feel there was a conflict of interest in the sense that Mr. Pearson spoke about ten years ago when he chose to accept that free trip to Israel? Why would he not feel that on his return he should at least give an explanation to the Prime Minister, the cabinet and members of this House as to why he chose to take a free trip, possibly showing a conflict of interest in the terms that I have now stated, and which I stated more fully in November of last year? I hope somebody on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare will give those answers tonight.

Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):

Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I have not discussed the matter with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) today. By coincidence, I happened to be in the House when the hon, member raised the issue. I do know there is a green paper on conflict of interest before the appropriate committee of the House.

I suppose it is possible the Minister of National Health and Welfare did not consider this a conflict of interest because there are some of us who can regard the Bronfman family in a proper perspective, as a good Canadian group of people who are not out to bribe, intimidate, coerce or seduce ministers of the Crown or anyone in the House of Commons. There is no family in Canada that has done more for Canada in general than the Bronfman family.

Surely every minister and every member of parliament has enough integrity to determine what is going to influence that minister or member to be dishonest, if he is apt to be dishonest. A free trip to Israel today or a free trip across the street tomorrow makes little difference. I am appalled at this attack on the integrity of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I listened attentively to the hon. member, for whom I have had a lot of respect and whom I have known for a number of years. He did not say one word which linked the minister with the slightest dishonesty in his trip to Israel.

The minister made it abundantly clear why he visited Israel at the invitation of the Ambassador. If the word of a gentleman cannot be accepted in the House of Commons, we shall have to establish a different code for people who see dirt behind every corner.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Mackasey:

I can remember the former prime minister saying to a member: "Get your mind out of the gutter."

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Wednesday, February 12, 1975