1976-03-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that since 1971 the Unemployment Insurance Commission has been applying certain administrative practices concerning delays in applications for benefits which have been ruled illegal by the Federal Court of Canada, to disentitle thousands of jobless workers; and considering that the Unemployment Insurance Commission bases its decisions on a set of internal regulations which have never been sanctioned by law, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier);
That this House take all necessary steps, as quickly as possible, to set up a royal commission of inquiry on all administrative practices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, to prevent jobless workers being denied unemployment benefits.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent, therefore the motion cannot be put.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 involving various investigations and related matters of general concern to the House and the country. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Solicitor General, assuming the Prime Minister has taken off the Solicitor General's muzzle which was applied last December 4,
report to the House on motions as soon as possible on the status of the myriad of investigations which have been of continuing concern for many months, such as the SIU, Hamilton Harbour, the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada, Sky Shops, Mirabel, the Olympic Village, the Report of the Marin Commission of Inquiry, travel agency irregularities and such other investigations and matters with which the Solicitor General has had time to familiarize himself in between prison breaks, parole violations and the development of his peace and security program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that recommendations have been made to this House by both the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee and the Committee on Regional Economic Development that a financial settlement be made by the Cape Breton Development Corporation with the preretired miners who were forcibly removed from their employment in the coal mines of Cape Breton, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates):
That this House now direct DEVCO to complete its negotiations with the miners affected by this forced preretirement in the shortest period of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 can only be presented for debate with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.
11822

March 16, 1976
Energy


SUGGESTED INVENTORY OF SOURCES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to move a motion on an urgent and important matter under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the present world-wide situation concerning the possibility of a shortage of energy and considering that we in Canada are badly informed on our real energy potential, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources draw up an inventory of all our energy sources now being used and make an appropriate study on the new sources which could be discovered and tapped efficiently.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.

Order, please. Before proceeding with the calling of oral questions I should inform the House that I have received a written notice pursuant to the Standing Orders of the intention of the hon. Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). to raise a question of privilege today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It has been suggested in the terms of the notice that has been given to me that a more orderly proceeding, and perhaps because of a possible influence on today's question period, would be that the raising and dealing with the question of privilege by the hon. Minister take place prior to the question period as opposed to after it.
It is clear that this decision does not rest with the Chair; it is a decision that can only be taken by this House. In attempting to decide whether the House gives its consent to dealing with that, and perhaps in the consideration of having a more relevant question period, the House would want to know the intention of the Chair with respect to the protection of the question period that might follow the remarks of the minister.
With that in mind I would assume it would be in the best interests of the House that the Chair should agree on a 45 minute question period to follow whatever might take place after the question of privilege. May I ask if the minister has the consent of the House to raise his question of privilege at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since my appointment as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I have concentrated all my energy to the defence and protection of consumers. It has been a major priority not only for me, but also for the government as a whole. A key element in this battle for consumer rights has been to expose and prosecute cartels and combines. And so it was, for instance, that the fight against sugar companies has taken up part of the efforts of my department in recent years. Hon. members will understand my surprise and disappointment when these companies were recently acquitted by Mr. Justice Mackay.
Following the comments I made on that occasion, Mr. Justice Mackay cited me for contempt of court and a few weeks later, I was found guilty of that charge by Associate Chief Justice Hugessen. Mr. Speaker, I immediately appealed that decision. Both during and after the trial, I refrained from any public statement on that case. Recently, as a result of a clearly calculated indiscretion, my case has given rise to a highly partisan political debate.
It has become quite clear to me in the past few days that my most basic rights, not so much before the courts, but especially before the public at large, as a defendant appealing a decision, could be seriously jeopardized by that political debate, while even my own resolution to keep silent-which goes back to the beginning of my trial-is questioned and used against me by some people. I repeat, I strongly intend to keep that resolution.
I think however that in the case now under appeal, it is not in my interest, as a defendant, nor in the interest of our judicial system that my appeal be heard in an atmosphere of political partisanship which some people, inside and outside the House, have deliberately created. I have no doubt that the Quebec Appeal Court can remain above those political considerations. Still, out of respect for the judicial system, I wish to do what I can to let justice take its course in the best possible climate. I will humbly submit to the decision of the court, whatever it may be, but in the meantime I intend to use every legal recourse that is available to a defendant before the courts.
Secondly, the debate over my case is very likely to jeopardize seriously my efficiency and the value of my work as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since my appointment, I have applied myself to proving to consumers that I was completely dedicated to their interests. It appears essential to me that consumers should never at any time be left to feel that the Minister responsible for their interests would in any way reduce his efforts on their behalf just to avoid legal or political problems. On the other hand, it seems just as important to
March 16, 1976

me that the minister should never leave himself open to charges of using the interests of consumers as a political screen. There once again, the debates of the last few days and the preposterous comments voiced by some opposition members while listening to me indicate clearly that they intend to make my task very difficult, if not impossible, at least until my appeal has been heard. I believe there are too many things to do, too many urgent tasks to accomplish on behalf of consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that when my case was first brought to court I asked for the advice and counsel of several colleagues and friends, some who are lawyers and some who are not. In particular, I discussed my case with the Minister of Public Works. I emphasize that I appeared before the court pursuant to a summary proceeding. In fact, I was not really opposed by another party; in this case, the court itself was to decide whether I had offended it. I asked the Minister of Public Works whether he could help me, without prejudice to my rights, to determine from Mr. Justice Hugessen what type of apology would be appropriate under the circumstances. I solemnly declare that I have never tried, either directly or indirectly, to exert undue influence on a judge of the Quebec Superior Court, in any case whatsoever, including most definitely the one in which I am involved. Everyone is aware of the integrity and high moral qualities of the Minister of Public Works. I deeply regret that his actions, which he took, in fact only because he is a gracious man, caused him so much embarrassment and unpleasantness which he certainly does not deserve. I want to apologize publicly to him for that.
Both as a citizen now before a court of appeal, and as a minister of the Crown, I cannot properly fulfill the duties I accepted as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Consequently, this morning I tendered my resignation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and he, at my express request, accepted it. I hope that, as an ordinary member of Parliament, my trial will proceed free from all political controversy and I trust that those, in the House as well as outside it, who for their own ends took advantage of these circumstances to carry this matter out of the judicial sphere to make a political football of it, will at least have the common decency to respect my most basic rights.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I assure all Canadians whom I served in the last few years that, as a back bencher, I shall carry on with the same determination the struggles I led as a minister.
With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the correspondence exchanged between the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and myself. [English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we have to be clear about the procedures we are following. We have received, following notice, remarks on a question of privilege which although very important, do not in fact constitute a question of privilege within our rules. In any event, it has not been followed by a motion. The Chair would have to hold that no question of privilege exists. I am not concerned about that. What I am concerned about is that in the interests of balance and equity that comment be made in turn by others. However, there must be some limit. I would presume to suggest that in fairness a brief comment might
Privilege-Mr. Ouellet
now be received from the leaders of each of the parties and then we ought to get on with the question period.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour not only to be brief but to make my comments in a much less partisan spirit than that which, unfortunately, characterized the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).


Mr. Sharp:: The former minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: The former minister. I appreciate that intervention. I trust that the comment made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) can be taken as an indication that in this case the resignation has been accepted. I should also like to express the hope-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), but to clarify the position, may I say it was my understanding, if I heard the minister's remarks correctly, that he said the resignation had been not only tendered but accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: In general terms, because of the importance of the announcement, I might observe that the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) was listened to, in general, with good attention and I think the same ought to apply to the comments by leaders of the opposition parties.


Charles Joseph Clark: I think I can say, without elaboration, that we on this side of the House expect and hope that this will not turn out to be a conditional resignation, but one which will prevail. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) declines to give that kind of assurance.


Mr. Trudeau:: I am waiting for your question.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am moved to comment that it was at least irregular for the hon. member for Papineau to use the occasion of his statement to try to divert attention from the highly important question of the propriety of the conduct of ministers of the Crown in this case-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and to try to pretend that there was some motive here, either partisan or personal in his case, for raising, as I and others in my party have done, questions as to the propriety of his conduct and the conduct of other ministers of the Crown in their relations with the courts. I think it is significant that we should now have an admission that there were conversations between ministers which led to an intervention with a judge who was hearing a case in which the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs was involved. I simply make the point, in passing, that the opportunity to have that kind of conversation with ministers of the Crown, in expectation that an intervention might follow, is a privilege which is not available to the ordinary Canadian involved in processes before the courts of the land.
2I419~56'/2

March 16, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Ouellet


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The only further comment I wish to make on this point is that since the questioning in this House has led the former minister to the position which he has taken, and has led the Prime Minister, in this case at least, to accept that resignation, and since it has also resulted in an admission by the hon. member for Papineau, the former minister, that there were indeed conversations with other ministers that led to an intervention before the courts in a case in which the minister was involved, we on this side of the House are going to continue to press for a complete and full indication of the nature of the involvement and conversations of the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs with other former and present ministers who might have been involved in what the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) has admitted was an intervention in the processes of justice in the land.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in informing the House of his resignation under circumstances that might well have been appropriate for the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) not to castigate members of the opposition for indulging in partisan politics when they were precisely practising their profound obligation as opposition members in a parliamentary system-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: -what the minister's unfortunate need to submit his resignation illustrates today is that the Parliament of Canada can sometimes be effective; because if it had not been for the vigorous pursuit of this issue by members of all parties on this side of the House-not on the other side of the House-I submit to Your Honour we would not have had this resignation today.
The second point I should like to make is that if the hon. member for Papineau has acknowledged that he did a wrong thing in speaking to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) and urging him to intervene on his behalf- because that is what is involved; let us call a spade a spade-and now after all these days he has submitted his resignation, which has been accepted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I ask Your Honour, where does this put the Minister of Public Works? If it is wrong to recommend that someone rob a bank, it is even more clearly wrong, in the context of the law, to carry out that advice. The Minister said in the House yesterday that he accepted responsibility for what he did. I submit that following submission of his resignation and acceptance by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister himself has some explaining to do in regard to why he can accept one minister's resignation who advised a course of action, but has not accepted another minister's resignation who carried out that advice. We will also continue in our insistence that if the Minister of Public Works does have integrity on this issue, he has an obligation to submit his resignation once again, and that the Prime Minister must accept it.
Let me go back to the need for a public inquiry. If anything, it seems to me that the need for an inquiry is even more apparent today. The Prime Minister has been saying for some days that all the facts are known. That is

strange, Mr. Speaker, because we have just had a new fact presented today that we did not know about. We have had an admission, for the first time, which was not on the public record.
There is a serious issue here in terms of the tradition of parliamentary democracy in Canada. I can think of the Favreau situation in this House some years ago, and there have been others in Great Britain having to do with the importance of cabinet responsibility. How is it that the Prime Minister knows that the course of action taken by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs actually did take place? Did he know some days or weeks ago? If he did, why did he not demand the minister's resignation at that time? If he did not know, then what was the nature of the conversations which took place between the former minister and the Minister of Public Works?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the opposition is not going to be bought off with the kind of sop we were given on Friday. The issue is still as serious as it was. There are almost as many unresolved issues in this matter as there were 24 hours ago, and we shall continue to pursue them.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has resigned because of preceding incidents. Still I think this regretful situation has its good side in that it shows to cabinet members that the judiciary power is one thing and the executive power is another. This shows that a minister, whoever he is, must not interfere in family quarrels whatever the circumstances. Under that aspect, I think that every minister will remain aloof in the future and that this can be taken as a lesson.
As for the allegations that the opposition is playing politics with this issue, Mr. Speaker, I would say that when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was summoned before the courts, he was then charged with contempt of court by Mr. Justice Mackay. But nevertheless we must be fair. After the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs took action against the sugar companies concerned and charged them under the combines legislation, when the decision of Mr. Justice Mackay was made public, I think that every body in this House, whether Tory, Liberal, NDP or Social Crediter, was quite surprised and disappointed indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: These multinational corporations had indeed been attacked on many occasions, especially by my friends from the NDP, who viewed them as a terrible combine. The Conservatives had the same impression and so did the Liberals and us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: For my part, Mr. Speaker, even though a judgment has been rendered, if the case is on appeal, as a federal member of parliament I still believe there is a sugar combine in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: That is why yesterday my colleague from Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) asked the
March 16, 1976

Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) whether a Canadian citizen, a member of parliament or anyone else, in a democratic country as ours, where one may express his feelings, may voice his disappointment about a judgment rendered by any judge across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: I believe that in the future, in order to avoid all these misunderstandings, it would be wise for a government not to appoint a judge through political channels or for services rendered to a political party but rather to contact directly the bar in order to be sure to have judges safe from influences that can arise here and there.
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) had a lesson; he is no longer minister but member for Papineau. Other ministers might have in the future temptations which they must not succumb to if this situation is not to be repeated in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before beginning the oral question period I think I should suggest that the oral question period should conclude at 3.25. I would also remind hon. members that the order of business for today concerns the subject matter that has been so much before the House in the last few days. It would, of course, be technical in the extreme for the chair to attempt to intervene or to stop questions relating to that subject matter. However, I would ask hon. members to bear in mind that it is the order of the day and, while some questions might be allowed to better prepare for the debate this afternoon, at the same time it would be appropriate after these many days to recognize a number of members today who also seek the floor to put questions on other matters that are of concern to them. I think we would have to watch for them.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Public Works who has so magnanimously over the last ten days accepted the blame for somebody else.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works.
The Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Justice Hugessen, has told the Chief Justice that he had the impression that the minister had called him, as reported, in fact, on page 11779 of Hansard for March 12, 1976. Here is what Mr. Justice Deschenes said, and I quote:
Oral Questions
I rather had the impression that he was attempting, if possible, to head off a confrontation between the executive and judicial branches of government.
Can the minister now reveal to the House exactly what he told Justice Hugessen about this matter and who, within or outside the Cabinet, suggested to him that there might be a confrontation which would affect the integrity and independence of the judiciary?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the question has two parts. Regarding the first one in respect of the confrontation, I think the hon. gentleman would agree that a case before the courts in which the court itself appeared to be one of the parties and a member of the executive being the other, carried out as a full-scale battle based on a possible misunderstanding at the outset, would be an unnecessary confrontation, and any conflict based on this misunderstanding appears to me to be inappropriate and useless. It is the job of a public official to avoid this kind of thing if that can be done, and that is what I was seeking to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works relates to the statement given to Chief Justice Deschenes by Associate Chief Justice Hugessen to the effect that, and I quote from page 11779 of Hansard of March 12:
The view which Mr. Drury felt was being expressed in some quarters in Ottawa that the proceedings against Mr. Ouellet were in some way a ganging up of the English speaking establishment against prominently placed French speaking persons.
My question to the minister is, was he personally of the opinion that the case against the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was, in fact, a ganging up of the English-speaking establishment against French-speaking ministers?
As to the particular nature of the words used, I think perhaps the paraphrasing which Mr. Justice Hugessen has provided to his superior, the Chief Justice of Quebec, more adequately says what I had to say to him than perhaps anything I could add here.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would say quite unequivocally and with great certainty that the answer is no.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VIEW OF MR. DRURY OF INTERPRETATION OF CONSUMER MINISTER'S CONTEMPT CITATION AS GANGING-UP ON FRENCH MINISTERS
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, in light of these remarks by the Minister of Public Works, and in light of the remarks by Associate Chief Justice Hugessen, I would ask whether the Minister of Public Works knows of any instance, either in the press or elsewhere, when the possibility of a ganging-up of the Englishspeaking establishment was alluded to as a result of the contempt proceedings against the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and did he put any credance in respect of such an interpretation of the case against the former minister?

March 16, 1976
Oral Questions


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Again, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


APPOINTMENT OF CROWN COUNSEL FOR APPEAL OF CONSUMER MINISTER'S CONTEMPT CONVICTION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In the matter of the upcoming appeal from Mr. Juctice Hugessen's conviction of the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, is the minister satisfied from a monitoring point of view that adequate arrangements have been made for the upholding and defending of Mr. Justice Hugessen's decision, since following the departure of the original counsel appointed the mandate of his replacement appears to have been circumscribed so that his only role may be to provide information that the appeal court requires, rather than being empowered to act as a vigorous advocate on behalf of the Crown, in the same way as counsel for the former minister will undoubtedly and properly act in attempting to overrule Justice Hugessen's decision?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member means by a "monitoring" position of the proceedings. The proceedings by way of contempt are clearly within the area of administration of justice under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of Quebec, who has appointed in the case the Batonnier of the Quebec Bar, and I am sure the matter is in good hands.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, in view of the sensitivity of the issue of the involvement of the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with the courts, which the Prime Minister admitted yesterday caused him to consider the possibility of a confrontation between the executive and judicial branches of government, does the Minister of Justice not consider that the utmost care should be taken so that the appeal of the former minister may never be perceived to have been handled in any way other than with the fullest opportunity for both sides to proceed with the utmost vigour to an ultimate conclusion according to the precepts and procedures of justice? Would he not agree that any possible procedural anomalies or handicaps which would appear to favour the appellant would be most undesirable in principle?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, let me state unequivocally that I have confidence in the administration of justice by the attorney general of Quebec and, apparently unlike the hon. member, I have complete confidence in the Court of Appeal of the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGED REQUEST OF MR. JUSTICE JACKETT TO SPEED UP TRIAL OF ROOSEVELT DOUGLAS-REQUEST FOR REPORT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice of which I have given him notice. In view of the Prime Minister's statement on Friday regarding ministerial conduct in the administration of justice, which I quote in part: "In future no member of the Cabinet may communicate with mem-

bers of the judiciary concerning any matter which they may have before them in the judicial capacity except through the Minister of Justice", etc., will the minister advise the House at whose request and on whose instructions did Mr. D. S. Maxwell, who was then the Deputy Minister of Justice, request Mr. Justice Jackett to speed up the handling of the case of Mr. Roosevelt Douglas in July, 1972?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member giving my office notice of his question about 20 minutes ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: That is better than you do with
statements.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in case my remark was misinterpreted let me say it was not meant to be a joke. I do appreciate being forewarned of what is obviously regarded by the leader of the NDP as a serious question. At the moment, I have determined only that the application by Mr. Maxwell in that case was made in open court with counsel present. I presume it was on instructions of the Department of Justice.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is looking into this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: For some curious reason the cabinet seems to be more concerned than usual today. While the minister is looking into it, would he also check the reason for Mr. Justice Jackett having said at the time "I am not going to tolerate that sort of message coming to me". Would the minister check into the general circumstances of this situation to find out why that statement was made and report back to the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am making inquiries but, as I understand it, at the present time the application made by the counsel for the Department of Justice was made in open court with counsel present. So at the moment I have no case to answer, so to speak, because surely it is quite proper for counsel to make an application to speed up either the trial or the appeal, I am not sure which, when that application is made in open court.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise just to have that point clarified. Is the minister saying that to his knowledge there was no such request made in private, that is to say not in open court?


Stanley Ronald Basford: That, Mr. Speaker, is my present knowledge. I am making further inquiries and if the hon. member has further information I wish he would give it to me because at the moment all I know is that an application was made in open court which, I think even hon. members opposite will agree, is a perfectly proper procedure.
March 16, 1976


FINANCE
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance.
It has been reported in the newspapers that an economist for Crang & Ostiguy in Montreal implied a couple of days ago that Canadians so far have only felt the tip of the iceberg with regard to the economic crisis which has hit industrialized countries starting in 1974. Only during the coming two or three quarters will they really be hit right on by restrictions, unemployment and inflation which will continue to be severe. Does the minister believe that the economic crisis will grow during the next six or nine months? Also, does he think that increases in the interest rates, either by the Bank of Canada or the Canadian banking system, will help stamp out or effectively fight inflation, or will not the opposite happen?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the views reported by the hon. member and which come from an economist for a Montreal investment company. With regard to the interest rates, the decision was taken by the Governor of the Bank of Canada to control the increase in the Canadian money supply and, as such, it is an anti-inflation policy.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT CONSULTED BY BANK OF CANADA BEFORE RAISING INTEREST RATES
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Does the Governor of the Bank of Canada consult the minister or the department before making such a decision? I ask this question because I would not want in any way the public to think that the government has absolutely nothing to do with that decision by the Governor of the Bank of Canada.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the governor did consult me about that increase in the interest rate.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Since Mr. Justice Mackay found it necessary to circumvent regular channels, and indeed ignore the prescribed list in the appointment of a prosecuting counsel in order to ensure that there would be no possible conflict of interest, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has had any consultations with the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec or the Attorney General of the province of
Oral Questions
Quebec or anyone else in the province of Quebec with respect to the handling of the appeal in order that in this instance there will be no conflict of interest and in order to ensure that the interests of the Crown are vigourously upheld.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General of Quebec has appointed counsel in the case, and it is clearly a matter within the administration of justice within the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec.


THE MINISTRY
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is more in the way of a related question, since it concerns the resignation of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I direct it to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In view of the great interest that the former minister placed on his former responsibilities as a consumer advocate, and one in which I wholeheartedly concur, may I ask the Prime Minister when the House can expect the appointment of a successor to the hon. member, and perhaps he could tell the House at the same time who will be answering in the interim for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, for the Anti-Inflation Board and for other agencies which answer through the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is, soon, and the answer to the second question is that there is the excellent parliamentary secretary to the minister who will be able to take the questions today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Who is it, Pierre? You don't know, do you?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Vancouver East. There are, of course, under order in council two acting ministers, the first one is the Postmaster General and the second one is the Minister of National Health and Welfare. So, the House will be afforded an opportunity to have the two ministers or the parliamentary secretary answer the questions until a full time minister is appointed.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and I gave him not 20 minutes but 24 hours' notice of it. I think it is important that this matter be cleared up. What status does the Minister of Justice contemplate he would have in communicating with the judge as suggested in the Prime

March 16, 1976
Oral Questions
Minister's statement of last Friday? Is it not true that the only way in which representations should be made by ministers or citizens should be through counsel in open court, and is not this the ethical position very clearly enunciated across this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine, in the circumstances-and I will be saying more on this this afternoon-it would be me or my counsel with the judge in the presence of counsel for parties to the action. I think the hon. gentleman will agree that it might not necessarily be in open court if all counsel were present. Of course, judges quite frequently agree to consultations in their chambers in the presence of counsel for all parties.


Mr. Fairweather:: I feel a great deal better.


Mr. Stanfield:: The minister should have spelled it out himself.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Of course, I will give the hon. member the assurance that my activities or those of my counsel will be in accordance with the cannons of legal ethics which prevail from province to province. I can foresee circumstances in which a judge might wish to communicate with me in the course of a trial, due possibly to illness and his inability to carry on.


ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITH JUDICIARY-REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF MR. DRURY IN VIEW OF RESIGNATION OF MR. OUELLET
Mr. Howard Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: My question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the statement made to the House this afternoon by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, will the minister now reconsider his position and re-submit his resignation to the Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it is not very clear to me that my circumstances have in any way altered as a consequence of what has transpired this afternoon.
Some hon. Members': Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: I ask this supplementary because I know of government tactics in this regard.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Say it.


William Heward Grafftey: During his conversation with Associate Chief Justice Hugessen the minister brought up the problem of ganging up on a French-speaking minister. Does the minister not feel that he should reconsider his position and make sure that there is not one rule for French-speaking ministers and another for English-speaking ministers?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Resign and sit down.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, I won't. I did indicate a little while ago that I attached no belief to these assorted stories.


William Heward Grafftey: Why did you bring it up?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: One wonders how they arise.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, one does. Check with the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would suggest that one possible source is the kind of question which was just asked, pretending that there is one rule or one law for Francophones and another for Anglophones. We do not subscribe to that, and I hope the hon. member does not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: Then will the minister be consistent and resign?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED PRESSURE ON DR. CONNOLLY TO WITHDRAW CHARGES AGAINST WHITEHORSE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: You will be laughing at the next election.


Erik Nielsen: I thank hon. members opposite for the usual warm welcome back to the House. I was involved in bringing entirely different kinds of pressure to bear upon Northern Canada Power Commission to prevent a doubling of our electric light rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: My question is for the Minister of Justice, and it involves the matter raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert last March 4 with respect to pressures being brough upon Dr. Connolly, he being threatened with the loss of his job unless he withdrew charges which were laid against the city of Whitehorse. Since his office and the official prosecutor in the Yukon were in charge of the case, I am wondering if the minister has consulted with his colleague the Solicitor General with respect to the conducting of an investigation by the RCMP into the matters raised by the right hon. gentleman with a view to laying charges, on what appears to be clear evidence, against those involved in bringing such pressures to bear on Dr. Connolly of obstruction or conspiracy to obstruct under the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I examined those reports, which were that the Department of Justice had brought pressure to bear upon the prosecutor to withdraw the charge, and I determined that there is absolutely no foundation for that allegation.
March 16, 1976


Erik Nielsen: I do not read any reference in the remarks of the right hon. gentleman that any pressures were brought by the Department of Justice at all, but indeed, a clear reference to pressures being brought to bear by the department of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I believe an investigation would disclose that officials of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs were also involved.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a supplementary, would he put it?


Erik Nielsen: The question is, because of the seriousness of the matter, will the Minister of Justice consult with his colleague the Solicitor General with a view to having such an investigation conducted, and if he needs a complaint upon which to proceed he has mine here and now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will review the question of the right hon. member for Prince Albert before I determine whether there should be an investigation.


ALLEGATION MR. LALONDE ASKED JUDGE MACKAY TO DELAY JURY DECISION-POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. My question is supplementary to the exchange we had yesterday.
In view of the statement made in the letter of Mr. Justice Mackay to Chief Justice Deschenes, which was tabled in the House, to the effect "that, he, Lalonde, and others in the Prime Minister's office felt that the situation was so serious that it was decided to see me with a view to delaying the jury's decision," does the Prime Minister regard that as a slip in the judge's memory, or does he accept it as a statement of what happened at the judge's home on Sunday morning, March 8, 1970?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member is asking exactly the same question he asked yesterday, and I will answer, perhaps not in the exact terms, but he could refer to Hansard. The answer is that it is obvious the two men, Mr. Justice Mackay and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, have a different memory of the event. They have both stated what they remember to be the case. We heard the words of the minister on the one hand and the statement of the judge on the other.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Which is no better.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was arguing then and I still make the argument that it is hard to see how a commission of inquiry, which is the proposition put forward by the hon. member's party, would get any different facts, since only those two men were present together, and each has a different memory of the events.
I did go on yesterday to say-and I repeat it since the hon. member asked me-that it is a matter of asking yourself whose memory is best, and I gave some examples to indicate that the judge obviously had a faulty memory in at least two respects.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just say as a prelude to my supplementary question that these things could be got out by cross-examination.
In view of reports that the High Commissioner to Canada of Trinidad and Tobago has said that the date of the decision was publicly known, how could the then principal secretary in the Prime Minister's office go to the judge's home to ascertain something which was already public information?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Read it again.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the hon. member's question that relates to a cross examination, of course there are two ways of doing that. One would be for the hon. member to ask the minister himself. Then, if he found that this kind of cross examination did not reassure him he could always lay a charge and have the minister come before a committee of the House. The hon. member is free to choose the course which his courage dictates. As to the allegation of the-


Charles Joseph Clark: You have a peculiar concept of responsible government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And you of responsible opposition. As to the supposed statement or alleged statement made by the High Commissioner for Trinidad and Tobago, this is the first I heard of it. I should like to know where the hon. member gets his information. Of course, all I have in my information are facts which are completely in contradiction to the ones they have.


An hon. Member:: Have an inquiry and bring it out.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. minister did bring it out. He referred to a request that the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs had made to him, the then first personal secretary or first secretary of the prime minister and he based himself on that information requested by the Undersecretary of State for External Affairs.


SUGGESTION MINISTER MEET PROVINCES TO ACHIEVE UNIFORMITY IN GRANTING BAIL FOR DANGEROUS OFFENDERS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday I moved a motion which I believe the Minister of Justice was somewhat sympathetic with, although the parliamentary secretary said no. May I now ask the minister if he is prepared to meet with the attorneys general of the provinces, in light of the fact that Mr. Nichols and Mr. Gamble were released on bail after having been charged with murder and attempted murder in Vancouver and then came to Calgary where a policeman was shot and several hostages held for 45 hours, in order to get some uniformity in the granting of bail for dangerous offenders?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's suggestion is a good one, although possibly a little premature. As the hon. member knows, the Bail Act is being amended. Last December I proposed amendments to the Bail Act to deal specifically with the

March 16, 1976
Oral Questions
kind of tragic situation we saw in Calgary the other day. Bill 71 has to be reported, dealt with on third reading by the Senate very soon and come back to this House for some technical amendments. I hope that we will have the cooperation of hon. members in passing those technical amendments in this House very quickly so that the changes to the Bail Act making it more difficult for those charged with murder, attempted murder or conspiracy to murder to get out on bail, will become law. Then, I would be happy to take up the hon. member's suggestion that the attorneys general meet-when the law has been changed- and that guidelines be drawn up to assist magistrates in awarding bail in those cases.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO ASSIST EXPORTERS IN VIEW OF DECLINE IN VALUE OF CURRENCIES OF SEVERAL COUNTRIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On Thursday, March 11, as reported at page 11701 of Hansard I directed a question to the Minister of Finance which concerned the decline in the purchasing power of the British pound and the possibility of assisting the United Kingdom with a view to maintaining Canada's flow of exports to that country. The minister promised to discuss this problem with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has the prime responsibility. In light of the continued decline in the value of the pound, and other events which are occurring in Great Britain which will have a major effect on Canada's exports to that country as well as our exports to Italy and France whose currencies are also declining, what steps is the minister taking to assist Canadian exporters in these circumstances?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will understand that having returned only yesterday there has not been an opportunity for the Minister of Finance to discuss the matter with me as yet. I shall be glad to look up the question and answer in Hansard and discuss it with the Minister of Finance. In general, I can say for certain types of goods and certain other markets to which the hon. member has referred there is, of course, export financing available. I should be glad to hear from him which particular exports he is interested in and put the officials in my department and perhaps the Export Development Corporation in touch with those exporters to see if there is some way they can be helped by that device. If there are others I would be pleased to look at them as well. I shall look forward to hearing from the member, specifically what products he has in mind.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he explain to the House why he accepted the resignation of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs after rightly refusing the resignation of the Minister of Public Works?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems the question did not cross the minds of many people. I am surprised that the opposition itself did not ask it. But since the hon. member for Charlevoix is asking it I must point out to him that the resignation tendered by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is based on two grounds. The first is his desire to pursue his case on appeal in all freedom and allow the courts to judge outside the political context that developed in recent months and past weeks. The second reason is that in his own view, in his own opinion, in his own feeling, he feels that while he is pursuing his appeal in the present context he cannot carry out his functions as a minister in the way he would like. Those two reasons led me to accept his resignation. Those reasons, as the hon. member knows, are completely different from those for which the Minister of Public Works tendered his resignation.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF TERM &quot;CALCULATED
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs cannot answer these questions, can the minister tell the House what was the calculated indiscretion to which the former minister referred which he said had brought about this controversy?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not know. I did not discuss that expression with the former minister. I would expect or surmise it was a reference to the leaks of correspondence which apparently, as I read the newspapers, were given to the newspapers by Mr. Holden.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question. Is the Minister of Justice telling the House that it is his position or the position of the government that this controversy was created by a calculated indiscretion on the part of Mr. Holden or was it one of the many other indiscretions which apparently have taken place?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have refrained from commenting on Mr. Holden and will continue to do so for fear that the comments might be either unparliamentary or unprofessional.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. Considering that last month's brightening of the unemployment picture proved transitory and noting that the unemployment rate has remained near 7 per cent for nearly a full year, can the minister tell the House when improvement in the unemployment rate may be expected and what he anticipates the unemployment rate to be for the balance of this calendar year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in May, as is the customary practice, I shall be making a statement in the context of the budget as to the government's perspective on the economy and its course in the succeeding months. It seems to me appropriate to wait until that occasion before making any kind of estimate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's forecast of a 5 per cent rate of growth in the economy in the current year, could he explain the basis of his forecast of the rate of growth at 5 per cent with a specific indication of job creation for the year, the level of inflation he anticipates and the trade deficit for the current calendar year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that in a budget debate.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister had a change of heart, and possibly of mind, after studying the excellent submission which the Canadian National Millers Association presented to the minister a month ago pointing out the disastrous effect of certain government actions on the export flour industry and on all our ports, but mainly Montreal and Halifax, from which flour is sent abroad from eastern Canada; or, does the government intend to cut out vital subsidies and give the export flour industry holus-bolus to the Americans, who are subsidized.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not share the views expressed by the hon. member as to consequences. The removal of the particular subsidy to which the hon. member referred is before the House in the form of legislation. It is my view that such subsidies, along with many other subsidies and transfer payments made in this country, create distortions which do not necessarily preserve the method of transport they are designed to support. By progressively removing these anomalies, we could end up with a far better low-cost
Oral Questions
system which effectively takes into account the proper functioning of the different ports of this country.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not recognize that the export flour business is in slump, having been reduced from about 32 per cent of world trade to one third that amount, or 11 per cent, and that this move will cut the trade even more?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will appreciate that notwithstanding the subsidies, the change in the world flour picture has had a dramatic impact on the trade. Clearly, that had nothing to do with subsidies, as the subsidies were in place throughout the whole period of the slump.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister inform the House if a concerted effort is being made by the Unemployment Insurance Commission to harass hundreds of claimants by requesting constant and repeated weekly interviews which could involve hundreds of miles of travel to district offices at the claimant's expense?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny the allegation put forward by the hon. member. The Unemployment Insurance Commission quite properly monitors the payment of benefits and insists on proper evidence of an active job search by claimants who receive benefits. That, I think, is proper.


William C. Scott: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say if UIC district offices have been instructed to implement such a plan in future?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think that is the same question but in another form, and the answer I gave previously would apply.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the sensational disclosure of certain ministers' actions as regards the administration of justice, the public wonders if such things were confined exclusively to the province of Quebec. Would the Prime Minister first tell us if members of his cabinet have advised him that they themselves took similar actions towards judges outside the province of Quebec and, second, if judges in provinces other than Quebec have indicated to the Minister of Jus-

March 16, 1976
Oral Questions
tice or the Prime Minister any action by members of the cabinet such as those revealed by Mr. Justice Mackay?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To the first part of the question, the answer is a firm no. To the second, Mr. Speaker, after consultations with justice ministers and with members of my own office, the answer is also no.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the minister prepared to set a firm date for meeting Mr. Tom Kent, the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, and me, to discuss preretirement leave payments for Cape Breton miners who were preretired between 1969 and 1971.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if we shall be able to resolve the problem to which the hon. member alluded. I intend to invite the hon. member and his colleague to join me and Mr. Kent tonight, after we adjourn the meeting of the standing committee.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should dearly love to direct a question to the Prime Minister, if he is still in the House and not dealing with other resignations. Considering the demands made in the last few days relating to the bad practises of the past and considering that many boards and tribunals are not courts of record, are not covered by the inadequate guidelines suggested by the Prime Minister, but make decisions which can affect thousands of people and which ought to be made at arm's length from the government-I cite decisions made under the Anti-Inflation Act as an example-will the government not consider revising and tightening the guidelines, to cover those cases which ought to be covered?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, many boards and tribunals are given two functions. One function is to act as adviser to the government. These bodies do this, in addition to carrying out their judicial functions. It depends on which of these the hon. member is thinking about. I can think of some with which the government ought to be in touch, in order to ask for their opinion.
|Mr. Matte.]


TIME AND DATE WHEN MINISTER RECEIVED REPORT OF CHIEF JUSTICE DESCHENES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Could he clear up a couple of points. Can he tell the House the exact time and date at which he received the Deschenes report last week? Was it either Wednesday night or Thursday? Also, at what time did he tell the Prime Minister the highlights of the report, if not the whole report?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the report was received in my office some time after lunch.


Charles Joseph Clark: On what day? Thursday?


Stanley Ronald Basford: On Thursday of last week. It was not seen by me. It was submitted to the department for translation. I saw it, and the Prime Minister saw it, late in the afternoon.


TRANSPORT
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I gave him notice of it. In view of the grave concern of public marine carriers, manufacturers and processing industry people in Canada's heartland, Ontario, about the increased cost of doing business, will the minister assure the House that tolls and canal fees for shipping on the St. Lawrence seaway system will not be increased for the current year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave previously still stands. The government has not considered the matter at this stage. We shall need to consider, in the near future, the financing of the seaway and the canal.


INCREASE IN FEES OF SEAWAY PILOTS-POSSIBLE REFERENCE TO ANTI-INFLATION BOARD
Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question arises from the recent announcement concerning the generous increase granted to pilots, who are to increase pilotage fees on the St. Lawrence seaway. Does the minister agree with and approve of this increase? If so, did he confer with the Anti-Inflation Board as to the eligibility of the increase, in light of the provisions of the anti-inflation guidelines?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not pleased about the increase. The relationship of this particular group to the Anti-Inflation Board and the guidelines is now under consideration.
March 16, 1976



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Robinson.
Order Paper Questions
seining in the Port Alberni canal and the death of thousands of juvenile spring salmon as a result of seining. The petition is to restrain seining in the Port Alberni canal, during the summer months, for cohoe salmon. May I present the petition, Mr. Speaker?

Twelfth report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr, Campbell.
Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am sorry that I was not in a position to give the Chair notice of my intention to raise this question. May I draw to Your Honour's attention that three separate standing committee meetings, scheduled originally for 3.30 this afternoon, have been rescheduled for eight o'clock this evening. Actually, a fourth committee meeting has been scheduled. Since I am a member of three of those committees, obviously I cannot attend all three committees simultaneously. I think other hon. members are in the same position. It is not fair. We have been placed in an embarrassing position as it is impossible to attend all committees at eight o'clock. I suggest that more thought should be given to the scheduling of standing committee meetings.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,968, 3,972, 4,080, 4,086, 4,099, 4,102, 4,117, 4,118 and 4,127.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. McKinnon: How much money was loaned by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Metropolitan Victoria, British Columbia in (a) 1973 (b) 1974?


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition to the House containing 2,797 names of constituents of Comox-Alberni. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that the petition concerns


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: See table below.
Net Loans Approved by CMHC Under the NHA Victoria Metropolitan Area, 1973-1974
1973	1974
Hostel	Hostel
Program	Loans	Units	Beds	$000	Loans	Units	Beds	$000
Home-Owner and Rental (Sec.								
58) Assisted Home-Ownership	1	1	-	8	8	8	130(Sec. 34.15)	117	117	-	2,794	205	205	-	5,608Co-operatives (Sec. 34.18)	1	74	-	1,334	1	8	-	50Low Rental (Sec. 15)	1	1	-	6	3	90	-	2,138Non-Profit (Sec. 15.1)	1	158	-	1,085	9	297	149	5,441Land for Housing (Sec. 42)	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	2,804Sewage Treatment (Sec. 51)	3	-	-	1,795	1	-	-	1,401Total	124	351	-	7,022	228	608	149	17,572


Mr. Marshall: Has the review of public housing rental scale been completed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and, if so, what is the new Schedule A, graduated rental scale for fully serviced accommodations in public housing projects for families and elderly citizens?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: The
public housing rent-to-income Scale is reviewed frequently by both CMHC and provincial housing agencies. The general consensus is that fundamental revisions are not warranted.
While current rents produced by the scale may be considered to be too high, substantial subsidies are nevertheless required. In these circumstances, CMHC considers that the rent-to-income scale should not be adjusted at this time.

March 16, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Did CMHC in Winnipeg conduct an in-service training programme in Brandon, Manitoba in January or February 1976 and, if so (a) what are the details of the programme and its purpose (b) how many of the Winnipeg staff were transported to Brandon (c) what was the total cost of the programme, including expenses for meals, hotel accommodation, travel, etc.?
2.	Were employees paid out of pocket expenses and, if so, in what amount?
3.	Were any babysitting expenses paid for children of staff while they were in Brandon?
4.	How many days tenure was the course?
5.	Was the course authorized by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs?
6.	How many courses are being conducted across Canada?
7.	How many were conducted across Canada in 1975 and what was the total cost?
8.	How many are planned for 1976 across Canada and what is the projected total cost?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. (a) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, from time to time over the past years, has conducted training courses and workshops for members of its staff. Because of increasing decentralization of the management of National Housing Act programs to its field offices, such courses have become increasingly important. Three in-service workshops were held in Brandon, during the weeks of January 12, January 19, and February 2, for the Manitoba Regional staff.
1.	(b), (c), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Staff training and related matters of personnel administration are the responsibility of the president and board of directors of CMHC, and it is not the policy to provide detailed information about them.


Mr. Marshall: Have details of the 1975 United Kingdom Commonwealth Scholarships for Canadian students been sent to Memorial University in Newfoundland and, if so, what action has been taken?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Association of Universities and
Colleges of Canada, which is responsible for administrating the Commonwealth Scholarship Plan in Canada, sent announcements to the following offices at Memorial University in Newfoundland: (1) The Librarian; (2) The Registrar; (3) The Faculty of Graduate Studies; (4) The Dean of Men, Financial Aid Office.
Three applications were received from students at Memorial University, one of whom was nominated for an award. Word has not yet been received from the administrators of the plan in the United Kingdom as to whether the nomination has been accepted.


Mr. Balfour: 1.	How many persons attended, at public expense, the launching of a new Canadian communications satellite from the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida on January 16,1976?
2.	What are the names of all persons whose expenses were paid in whole or in part by the government?
3.	What was the (a) total cost (b) specific cost to the government for (i) travel (ii) accommodation (iii) food and beverages (iv) other items?
4.	What was the cost to the government of the information package entitled "Introducing CTS, Catalyst in Space" produced by Don Hewson and Associates of Ottawa?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: 1. Eight persons.
2.	The Honourable Jeanne Sauve Minister; James Fleming, M.P.; Jacques Guibault, M.P.; M. F. Yalden, Deputy Minister; Dr. John Chapman, Assistant Deputy Minister (Space Program); P. McDonald, Special Assistant to Minister; P. Nadeau, Special Assistant to Minister; C. Pierrard, Secretary to Minister.
3.	(a) $3,516.81. (b) (i) $1,580.00, (ii) $736.49, (iii) $348.35, (iv) $851.97.
4.	$22,583.20.


Mr. Orlikow: How much money was spent in 1974-75 under the Canada Manpower Training Programme on (a) men (b) women in the form of (i) training payments (ii) allowances for Canada and each province?


Robert Knight Andras: See table below.
Canada Manpower Training Program Expenditures and Trainee Distribuion by sex by Province 1974-1975
Expenditures ($)	Institutional Trainees Industrial Trainees
Institutional Training	Full-time
Province and	Training	Allowance	Total Full-	Part-	Industrial	Grand	MaleFemale Per Per	Part- Time	MaleFemale Per Per	Region	Cost (1)	Cost	time	time	Total	Training	Total	cent	cent	Total	(2)	cent	cent	TotalNewfoundland Prince Edward	9,201,320	6,907,614	16,108,934	9,319	16,118,253	1,488,642	17,606,895	79.8	20.2	8,336	50	83.4	16.6	1,916Island	1,997,799	1,999,264	3,997,063	38,839	4,035,902	332,721	4,368,623	60.3	39.7	2,455	315	88.9	11.1	459Nova Scotia	10,195,629	7,827,594	18,023,223	23,461	18,046,684	2,229,910	20,276,594	75.9	24.1	10,518	382	72.4	27.6	3,087New Brunswick	7,705,289	6,733,127	14,438,416	14,911	14,453,327	1,719,092	16,172,419	72.8	27.2	8,775	286	80.9	19.1	2,331Atlantic	29,100,037	23,467,599	52,567,636	86,530	52,654,166	5,770,365	58,424,531	74.8	25.2	30,084	1,033	78.4	21.6	7,793Quebec	69,086,243	43,348,933	112,435,176	4,938,174	117,373,350	11,071,559	128,444,909	56.7	43.3	51,673	51,181	77.4	22.6	10,624Ontario 55,414,702 45,174,475 	100,589,177	1,638,853	102,228,030	11,662,393	113,890,423	58.9	41.1	45,732	1,990	80.7	19.3	20,214
March 16, 1976

Expenditures ($) Institutional Training
Province	Total
and	Training	Allowance	Full-	Part-	Region	Cost (1)	Cost	time	time	TotalManitoba	9,102,092	6,240,763	15,342,855	6,301	15,349,156Saskatchewan	6,733,828	5,136,567	11,870,395	-	11,870,395Alberta North West	18,712,100	10,036,962	28,749,062	9,445	28,758,507Territories	924,530	396,174	1,320,704	4,215	1,324,919Prairie British	35,472,550	21,810,466	57,283,016	19,961	57,302,977Columbia	18,196,047	14,520,725	32,716,772	501,832	33,218,604Yukon	734,456	392,640	1,127,096	-	1,127,096Pacific	18,930,503	14,913,365	33,843,868	501,832	34,345,700Canada	208,004,035	148,714,838	356,718,873	7,185,350	363,904,223
Alleged Interference with Judiciary
Institutional Trainees Industrial Trainees Full-time
MaleFemale	Part-	MaleFemale	Industrial	Grand	Per	Per	Time	Per	Per	Training	Total	cent	cent	Total	(2)	cent	cent	Total1,077,956	16,427,112	72.1	27.9	6,994	75	79.6	20.4	1,0971,317,095	13,187,490	69.5	30.5	6,035	-	83.3	16.7	1,8741,564,969	30,323,476	81.9	18.1	15,040	110	71.0	29.0	1,912173,694	1,498,613	58.9	41.1	431	15	66.7	33.3	834,133,714	61,436,691	76.4	23.6	28,500	200	79.6	20.4	4,9664,463,437	37,682,041	70.3	29.7	22,547	8,231	80.2	19.8	6,126186,561	1,313,657	46.1	53.9	450	-	98.0	2.0	2294,649,998	38,995,698	69.8	30.2	22,997	8,231	81.3	18.7	6,35537,288,029	401,192,252	65.0	35.0 178,986	62,635	79.4	20.6	49,952
Note: Expenditures: Training Costs and Part-Time Costs have been proportioned from actual figures.
(1)	Includes Training Improvement Program Expenditures.
(2)	Part-Time Trainee Data is not Available by Sex.


Mr. Robinson: Does the government recognize November 18, 1976 as the National Independence Day of Latvia?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The government of Canada does not recognize the national days of any countries except to the extent that messages of congratulation are sent to the heads of state or government of countries with which Canada has diplomatic relations. These anniversaries are listed in the publication "Diplomatic Corps and Consular and Other Representatives in Canada." Canada does not have diplomatic relations with Latvia. This does not mean that the date mentioned is not the anniversary of a real historical event.


Mr. Robinson: Does the government recognize February 16, 1976 as the National Independence Day of Lithuania?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Government of Canada does not recognize the national days of any countries except to the extent that messages of congratulation are sent to the heads of state or government of countries with which Canada has diplomatic relations. These anniversaries are listed in the publication "Diplomatic Corps and Consular and Other Representatives in Canada." Canada does not have diplomatic relations with Lithuania. This does not mean that the date mentioned is not the anniversary of a real historical event.


Mr. Robinson: Does the government recognize February 24, 1976 as the National Independence Day of Estonia?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The government of Canada does not recognize the national days of any countries except to the
extent that messages of congratulations are sent to the heads of state or government of countries with which Canada has diplomatic relations. These anniversaries are listed in the publication "Diplomatic Corps and Consular and Other Representatives in Canada." Canada does not have diplomatic relations with Estonia. This does not mean that the date mentioned is not the anniversary of a real historical event.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Edward Broadbent: That in view of the grievous damage the Prime Minister has done to the Canadian democratic system by refusing to accept the resignation of the Minister of Public Works, by not insisting on a full statement to the House by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and by failing to set up an independent inquiry into alleged interference in the course of justice by cabinet ministers, this House declares that the present government does not possess the confidence of the House or the country.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the last two weeks in the House of Commons have not been a pleasant experience for people or for members on either side of the House with any degree of sensitivity. Speaking for myself, I went into politics primarily to devote whatever energy and talents I may have to the question of the redistribution of power and income in Canada, which I take to be the principal concern of my political party.
It has not been pleasant to get involved in what is essentially a moral issue. What is at stake in the motion being moved today is the moral character of the present government. That is something that I, my colleagues and the official opposition, have been calling into question for some days now. During the past two weeks the government has revealed itself to be both dishonourable and arrogant in its actions. Three ministers of the Crown have had their

March 16, 1976
Alleged Interference with Judiciary behaviour described as either improper or grave by judges on the bench of Canada.
The former minister of consumer and corporate affairs has been deeply involved in the whole question at issue. Until today, and in fact including today, he has had neither the forthrightness nor the sense of propriety to make a statement which clearly acknowledges his own wrongdoing. He hid, and hid falsely, in the past two weeks behind a legalism which no lawyer on either side of the House would support, instead of coming clean about his role in the procedures and steps that led to the submission of a resignation by a minister, even though it was quickly rejected by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Even today, when the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) got to his feet to submit his resignation, we did not get, as the sequence of events unfolded, an admission of his own culpability.
Later in the question period, the Prime Minister answered a question from a Liberal backbencher as to the reason for the resignation. There was no acknowledgement in the letter of resignation from the hon. member for Papineau, the letter to which the Prime Minister referred, that he was guilty of some wrongdoing. The reason the minister gave this afternoon for resigning is simply incredible. Essentially what he said was that he could not carry out his ministerial responsibilities while another case in which he is involved was proceeding through the courts. I say, again, that is an absurd reason. The only reason for resigning is the one he should have given, namely, of wrongdoing in the first place. I will come to that in a few minutes.
To complete the week, as if it were not bad enough, in which we had this description of wrongdoing by three and, indeed, four ministers, we had the Prime Minister make what I thought was the most disreputable decision of his political life last Friday. In a serious perversion of the principles of parliamentary democracy without parallel in our country or in any other parliamentary system, he refused to accept the resignation of a minister whose involvement in the judicial process was seen by everyone, including the minister, as being wrong, unacceptable and unworthy of a member of a Canadian cabinet. In so doing, the Prime Minister revealed in the most glaring fashion that he has no real understanding either of democracy or of the spirit of the rule of law.
The right hon. gentleman sees our country as being ruled by a family or gentlemen's club of which he is the titular head. While it is appropriate for all other Canadians to obey the law, he and his ministers need not do so. The law of the constitution is to be obeyed or ignored, depending on the convenience of the Prime Minister and depending in part also on whether the violators are caught. If they are caught, as members of the club or family, the Prime Minister will accept their apologies, gently admonish them and carry on as if nothing of significance had happened. If members of the opposition have the audacity to raise questions about this process, the Prime Minister has the fatuous gall to suggest that we in the opposition are wrong for pursuing such a course.
The state is not a family. Those who make the law in a democratic state must themselves be subject to its laws and constitution. This is precisely what the Prime Minister fails to understand, as his casual and foolish retention of

the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) makes clear. The Prime Minister, I say with some sadness, but seriously, is an elitist who had the misfortune of being born in a democratic age. But his undemocratic behaviour must stop, or be stopped by members of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The sender of a telegram which arrived in my office this morning expressed it as follows:
Sanctioning impropriety is the first step toward condoning illegality.
Another telegram among a considerable batch which arrived in my office just before lunch reads as follows:
I am a Liberal but for the sake of representative government in this country I believe the government must fall for its flagrant abuses of the parliamentary system and the trust the people once placed in them.
That is from a Liberal. I think it sums up the attitude of people from one coast to the other who have been revolted by the course of action taken by the government in recent days.
I want to say something about two of the individual cases involved and why we think there are important, unresolved questions with which only a public inquiry can deal. First, the situation involving the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). As we know-and this is beyond dispute-the minister went to see Mr. Justice Mackay concerning a trial in process in which the defendants were students who had taken part in a disturbance at Sir George Williams University. Here is what Mr. Justice Mackay said in the course of a letter submitted to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec: he said the minister "felt the situation was so serious that it was decided to see me with a view to delaying the jury's decision." Judge Mackay continues:
I was inwardly disturbed by this visit. Not only did I feel I was being asked to see that the jury's decision was delayed, but if for any reason the defence attorneys learned of the visit there was a possibility of a mistrial after an arduous and expensive eight-week trial.
Mr. Speaker, as clearly as the English language could make any point, if what Judge Mackay tells us actually took place, what happened on that occasion was an attempt to interfere with the judicial process by exercising influence. It is important to note that in Judge Deschenes' report to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) he does not pass judgment on this particular case in one way or another, as he did on other aspects of his report with reference to other ministers involved. He lets the facts speak for themselves. The minister involved has stated in the House on a number of occasions, more particularly last Friday, that what Judge Mackay says is not the case. He has told us that the purpose of seeing the judge was not to influence, alter or change judicial behaviour with regard to a case which was in process, but simply to ascertain information concerning a date in the proceedings.
What are the issues which are unresolved? I submit the incident cannot be dismissed as something which took place years ago and which ought, therefore, to be left in the dustbin of history. There are many present implications arising from this situation, questions which come to mind and which must be settled. First, either Judge Mackay or the Minister of National Health and Welfare is providing us, to resort to a euphemism, with some misinformation. To
March 16, 1976

put it more bluntly, either the judge is lying or the minister is lying. Neither man's statement can be seen as resulting from some slight lapse of memory. Such a suggestion cannot be taken seriously.
How are we to get to the truth of this matter? The Prime Minister has been telling us we are in possession of all the facts. That is absurd, if only because some more facts came out today. One of the advantages of an inquiry would be precisely the advantage which comes from cross-examination to find out who was misinforming whom. If it is the Minister of National Health and Welfare who has been misinforming us, he should go from the cabinet forthwith. If, on the other hand, Judge Mackay is lying, he should be removed from the bench. I will put it as bluntly as that.


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We cannot have a man on the bench who is systematically stating mistruths.


An hon. Member:: We have to find out.


John Edward Broadbent: A Liberal is cheering the point. I turn to him and say that the only way of resolving the issue is to have a public inquiry.


An hon. Member:: The member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) is cheering.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes. I hope the hon. member for Timmins is going to vote with us on this motion. If he doesn't, he will just get a continued cover-up as in the past two weeks.


Mr. Benjamin:: This is the first time he has been in Hansard.


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to remind the Prime Minister that early in the 1960s, in Great Britain, in the Profumo case, when Mr. Profumo, then minister of war, resigned from the Macmillan cabinet he did so-I recall this because I happened to be there-not because of an indiscretion with a prostitute, but because he was caught lying to the House of Commons and to fellow members of the cabinet. As soon as that became known, Mr. Macmillan made it clear to him forthwith that his resignation was expected. The resignation came, and was promptly accepted. Mr. Profumo took the honourable course of action in offering it, and so did the prime minister in demanding and accepting it. So the Lalonde case, if I may call it that, is important because it has .everything to do, not simply with past behaviour but with the present integrity of members of the cabinet. This integrity must be maintained whatever partisan differences exist in the House of Commons. There must be complete faith in the honesty of members of the cabinet.
The second case about which I want to say something is the case involving the Minister of Public Works. We know that Judge Hugessen was considering the appeal of the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs who was facing a charge of contempt. We know, and this is on the record, that the Minister of Public Works telephoned Judge Hugessen to discuss two points: first, to determine whether an apology would bring proceedings to an end and, second, to inform the judge that some in Ottawa were saying there was an English-speaking establishment gang-up taking place in opposition to French-Canadian ministers, more particularly Mr. Ouellet.
Alleged Interference with Judiciary
Concerning the point as to ganging-up, Judge Hugessen reports-I am choosing the words with care, and quoting them-that he thought the point "ridiculous" and that he "could not even consider" such matters. Judge Hugessen went on to say that in his opinion the Minister of Public Works was trying to "head off a confrontation between the executive and the judicial branches of government." It is also true to say that at the conclusion of his report, Judge Hugessen stated, "I did not think he was attempting to influence my judgment." With all due respect to Judge Hugessen-and of course I am not questioning his integrity on this point-I am going to say something about his judgment and use of language.
The Minister of Public Works got in touch with the judge and made certain claims to which the judge responded. One word he used was "ridiculous"; a second phrase was that "he could not even consider"; and further on he said that the purpose of the conversation was to "head off a confrontation between the executive and the judicial branches of government".
I submit that if the English language means anything, the only purpose that the Minister of Public Works would have in making that phone call was to influence the judge. That is precisely what we mean when we use the word "influence". I checked the meaning of that word in the Oxford dictionary, and the definition is "to have an effect upon". What other purpose would there be in making a phone call to convey that kind of information, if the caller did not intend to influence the judge? I repeat, that is my clear judgment of what was involved. Because this was the unequivocal purpose of what is the normal use of that language, I submit that the course of action taken by the Minister of Public Works was wrong, wrong, wrong, that he should resubmit his resignation and that it should be accepted by the Prime Minister.
I should now like to turn to the case of the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs. If there were ever gradations of wrongdoing among the five people involved in the past week, he must be near the top. He sat there silently over the past two weeks, systematically refusing to answer questions, when for a good part of the time another minister was in one sense taking the blame for a certain course of action. Today the minister rose in this House and announced his resignation. I have a tendency to be naive at times, Mr. Speaker, but we cannot go through another phony routine of the sort we had last Friday. Surely the minister is going to get up and say that he did something wrong, as a result of which he is submitting his resignation.
I listened to the minister with care, but he did not once say he had done something wrong. When the Prime Minister replied to the question of a Liberal backbencher later on, the Prime Minister did not say that the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs had done something wrong. Not at all. What the former minister said was that he needs to be relieved of his ministerial duties so he can fight his present court battle.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that the acknowledgement of cabinet responsibility? Is that the demonstrable kind of moral leadership that we expect on questions of integrity?

March 16, 1976
Alleged Interference with Judiciary I am not talking about economic policy. Even as late as today the minister does not see that he has done something wrong. He gets to his feet today and says, "Yes, I spoke to the Minister of Public Works and I did urge him to go to the judge and present him with some information. If I give an apology does that mean I will be let off?" In effect, that is what he said. Having stated that, he does not acknowledge it is wrong. This is what this whole debate is about, in a sense. The minister does not recognize today that what he did was wrong, just as the Prime Minister and his colleagues over the past two weeks have not recognized the impropriety of such behaviour.
I have no doubt of the scenario that is in the mind of the Prime Minister, and it is this. Once the court proceedings are finished in the hon. member for Papineau's case, the Prime Minister will trot out his letter of resignation and say, "You see, his resignation had nothing to do with interference with the judicial process; oh no, God forbid. The reason he resigned was to fight his case. Now his case is over, of course, we can take him back in the ministry". I predict that that course of events has likely already occurred to the Prime Minister, just as the sequence of last Friday, where one minister submits his resignation in the morning and it is withdrawn in the afternoon, had probably been worked out the previous Thursday night.
There are a number of very serious questions that remain unanswered, Mr. Speaker. Did the hon. member for Papineau tell the Prime Minister about his involvement with the Minister of Public Works? Did he, in the past two weeks, go to him and say, "Yes, I urged him to have the conversation with the judge", which he described here today? If he did, we never knew it from the Prime Minister. He kept telling us that he had all the facts, but he did not take the trouble to give them to us. All he said, with great care was, "I have listened to both sides and I have decided there was no wrongdoing".
If the Prime Minister heard from the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, and he then went to the Minister of Public Works to urge him to intervene with the judge, then I seriously submit that the Prime Minister himself has been derelict in his responsibility as Prime Minister of this country. We want to know about those conversations, about what the Prime Minister knew about the case, and when he was told. We want to know what conversations took place between the Minister of Public Works and the hon. member for Papineau. Yet we have all this talk of cabinet solidarity, supported by backbenchers who don't have one ounce of the courage of the backbenchers of Great Britain in both Labour and Conservative parties who would have revolted weeks ago over an issue like this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Let me remind howling Liberal backbenchers that a man named Favreau resigned from this House not that long ago. The reason for his resignation is also important. The reason he submitted his resignation was that he had misinformed his Prime Minister. We want to know how many ministers on that side may well have misinformed their Prime Minister on this issue. If the Prime Minister has been misinformed by those ministers,

they should be out of the cabinet. If, in turn, he has been told the truth, then he should resign as Prime Minister.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset that the government's action during the past two weeks has been dishonourable, and I repeat that. The Prime Minister and his government have done a profound disservice to parliamentary democracy in our country. Ministers have abrogated their serious obligation to keep distinct the judicial and executive functions of government in our country. By not reacting swiftly to obtain or accept resignations in such a situation, the Prime Minister himself has abused the responsibility of his office. By treating such conduct by ministers as a mere breach of good conduct among gentlemen in a club, the Prime Minister has trivialized, in a cynical way, constitutional law and practice in our country, and I say in all seriousness that he has fed the forces already loose in our country that promote disregard of the law.
By not having insisted that the role played in this affair by the minister of consumer and corporate affairs and by others be fully aired, the Prime Minister has left himself and our institutions open to the serious charge of a cover-up. The integrity of the Prime Minister's office itself is open to challenge on this issue. This, Mr. Speaker, constitutes, I submit, a great disservice to the people of our land.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? L'honorable depute de Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).


Charles Joseph Clark: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is rising on a point of order.


Charles Joseph Clark: My point of order, sir, is that I am operating under the expectation that, in the normal course of events on this opposition day, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) having heard the introducer of the motion, would now want to speak. Naturally, I look forward to the opportunity of hearing him.


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) knows that this is hardly a point of order. Hon. members are recognized by the Chair according to the usual practice which the Chair tries to follow. The hon. Leader of the Opposition did not rise, and I recognized the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).


Charles Joseph Clark: Fine.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I feel very honoured today. I thought I was being mistaken for the leader of the official opposition. I am not too sure what happened but anyway I am pleased I have been given the floor. Mr. Speaker, I think the NDP members are trying to correct the mistake they made yesterday when they moved for adjourment simply to stop working
March 16, 1976

and go and doze in their offices. We are here to work and we proved it yesterday, that is why we voted against their motion.
Today, the motion tabled before the House includes three issues within one problem concerning the independence of our judiciary system. I shall attempt to refer to all three briefly.
The mover states:
That in the view of the grievous damage the Prime Minister has done to the Canadian democratic system by refusing to accept the resignation of the Minister of Public Works ...
-that the government can no longer have the confidence of the House following the questions of privilege raised on March 12, 1976 by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury), when the first expressed his regrets to Mr. Justice Aronovitch, the second also did so to Mr. Justice MacKay and the third one gave us a frank explanation, and even indicated he was glad that Mr. Justice Hugessen said that, in his view, the Minister of Public Works did not attempt to influence his judgment in the case of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
After professing his belief in the independence of the judiciary, the Minister of Public Works (M. Drury) said that he was in complete agreement with the Associate Chief Justice and stated impressively in the House, and I quote:
I very much regret taking the action which I did and which the Associate Chief Justice has characterized as improper, and for this I sincerely and deeply apologize to all those affected. I have, accordingly, tendered to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) my resignation from the ministry.
That, Mr. Speaker, was the action of a gentleman who recognized his mistakes and did the only thing he could do. Everyone in this House respected the gesture of the Minister of Public Works and was glad to end all these discussions which do not contribute to the effective running of the business of the House. I have always thought that by so acting for the greater interest of Canadian justice, the resigning minister, far from humiliating himself, drew the admiration of the Canadian people. Indeed, when I spoke after his resignation, I spoke with the greatest of sincerity, Mr. Speaker, and said this:
Mr. Speaker, I think the event which concerns us this morning must be a landmark in the judicial history of our country. And I hope that after all the events of the last few days, today's discussions and actions will result in a warranty of the integrity of our judicial system all over Canada.
This morning, we heard excuses from various ministers... This morning, we accept, not lightheartedly, the resignation of a minister. He is one of the ministers I admired most in the House for his honesty and integrity. This probably shows that we the people-I want to be the people's voice-see that the function of minister is not always a sinecure, that this function brings some responsibilities. Above all, the ministers being surrounded as they are by people who constantly clamour for more, I can understand that they, or hon. members, might be tempted to try and give more help to those around them who exert pressures ceaselessly. That is how I see the work the minister did with the judge, and I congratulate him for his action this morning: it is a guarantee for Canada that, among parliamentarians, there are still people who can recognize that they may have gone too far, who can go back and bow before the requirements of public interest.
I shall stop here, Mr. Speaker, and simply say that following this resignation that everyone accepted and after
Alleged Interference with Judiciary learning through the newspapers that the right hon. Prime Minister had a long talk with the Minister of Public Works before he made his statement, I was convinced there had been agreement on what the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) did. Had that meeting not given positive results, there was no point then in the Minister of Public Works tendering his resignation. If he knew in advance that it would not be accepted, why tender it? Did they want to give a show in this House and mock the people?
I confess quite sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that I was astounded when I heard the right hon. Prime Minister say he did not accept the resignation of the Minister of Public Works. I had so much confidence in the sincerity of the resigning minister that I thought he would rise immediately in the manner of the good military man he was and state to the Prime Minister that his decision was beyond appeal. But nothing of the kind happened, and there is this impression that everything was well orchestrated in advance to give more zest to the statements.
And what does the people think about all that? That it has to pay the piper again and that our justice will continue to be under the influence of all political currents. The various governments will continue to appoint judges of their choice who are highly regarded in the party or have served the party well.
After all that attempts will still be made to convince the people that our judicial system is safe from any political influence. What is urgently needed is a reform of our judicial system so those political appointments will stop once and for all.
As to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), I will be brief because his case dates back several years when he was not even a minister. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I never dig out the dead. My function is to bury them well.
If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did what he had to do this afternoon it is because he accepts to free justice and at the same time, hopefully, perhaps speed up the fight undertaken against the cartels that control our Canadian economy.
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that as far as Mr. Justice Mackay is concerned, I cannot but share the views of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). Incidentally, all the people I have met are unanimous in saying that the three sugar companies constitute one of the most dangerous trust ever against consumers, who were obliged to pay appalling prices for sugar. When will this government stop protecting all these trusts which determine our living conditions and are primarily responsible for the inflation we have been facing for the past few years?
The working people are again punished because of inflation, whereas all these trusts of every description can operate freely and make substantial profits every month.
Mr. Speaker, the motion also refers to setting up an inquiry. As regards the setting up of an independent inquiry into interference by a cabinet minister, I suggest, when all players have left the arena, that it will be useless to spend millions of dollars on analyzing a debate that will be completed, but this is on the clear understanding that the

March 16, 1976
Alleged Interference with Judiciary
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) holds to his initial decision.
As long as this situation will prevail, I will have to support motions like the one before us, which clearly states the matters at issue.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the very grave seriousness, not only of this matter but of the substance of the motion moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I would have thought that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would have sought the first possible opportunity to rise in his place to indicate his position and that of the government on this question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: However, since it is clear that he would rather follow me than precede me, I am pleased to rise to speak now. I enter this debate, naturally, with a very deep sense of concern for the issue and for the country, and also in the knowledge that a great responsibility has been placed upon the shoulders of the opposition in this parliament. We are engaged in what may turn out to be a very long struggle to bring a powerful government to account on a series of events that are cutting away at the foundations of Canadian democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Our immediate task is to repair confidence in the independence of the courts in Canada and to make this government give parliament and the citizens of Canada information, much of which the Prime Minister now possesses, about the conduct of his ministers in relation to the courts. However, there is another question too, and that is the question of public confidence in this institution. During the last few years it has been fashionable to say that parliamentary democracies offer the most effective checks on arrogant and secretive governments. That proposition is now being put to the test. I should say, Mr. Speaker, that while none of us has felt any happiness at the personal anguish involved in the proceedings that have unfolded in the last ten days, I think we can all be proud of the role that parliament has played, because parliament, working with a free and active press and with the support of the courts, has forced this government to take action which the government clearly would not have taken if left alone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: One minister has resigned; another minister seemed to have resigned, and certainly should have. The report of Mr. Justice Deschenes has been published, in part because the judge felt that the pressures raised on this question by parliament required that the report be published.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: So parliament has proven its strength and effectiveness in these last days, as we will continue to do,

although there has been no thanks in that regard to the government.

In this whole business, the Prime Minister deliberately used a diversion tactic, by refusing, basing himself on false premises, to direct a public inquiry. One thing is clear: the Chief Justice acknowledged the restricted nature of his action. He clearly stated: "I was not appointed to conduct a commission of inquiry and of course it is obviously not one of my functions to set myself up as a semi-official investigator on behalf of the House of Commons."
This statement, among others things, brings two facts to light: first, Mr. Justice Deschenes did not conclude that there was no attempt to influence the normal course of justice; in fact, the Chief Justice clearly said that he neither could nor would judge the conduct of the Minister of Public Works. All he did was exonerate his own court; second, the Associate Chief of Justice could only say that he had not been influenced and that he could not judge Mr. Justice Mackay's allegations because he had not been aware of the conversations between the two ministers. [English]
In refusing a serious and full investigation yesterday into these matters, the Prime Minister said:
In so far as investigation of the facts, we believe that the facts which have to be known, in so far as they might or might not have consisted of contempt of court or interference with justice have now been made known by the courts.
The Prime Minister might believe, or might pretend to believe, that these are the only facts that need to be known. But we in this parliament also need to know the facts and all the facts, not just those trickled out by ministers as they resign but all the facts about any conversations between ministers which led to an intervention, which has been admitted, with the courts of the land.
We need to know the full facts about any conversations between representatives of the Prime Minister and the judge hearing the case involving students from Trinidad, and we need to know any other facts which may be relevant. Just so the issue may be clear, we absolutely do not accept the position of the Prime Minister that he alone is competent in this case to judge the propriety of the conduct of his colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is particularly the case since the Prime Minister himself, on page 11660 of Hansard, said that he had had conversations with the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury), and that as a result of those conversations he had found that their answers, and presumably their conduct, was satisfactory. He admitted that he had been informed about the conversations which had occurred before the intervention. If he knew what the hon. member for Papineau-the Prime Minister shakes his head. Let me be clear as to what I am saying. My reading as to his remarks is that he had been told by his ministers all that had transpired between them before there was an intervention with the courts. It was not that his knowledge preceded the intervention, but that he knew what had occurred prior to
March 16, 1976

the intervention and that he had found that conduct, in his words, satisfactory.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: He now nods, again, that he had found-


An hon. Member:: He doesn't know what he is nodding for. He doesn't know right from wrong, or left from right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Henceforth, I will refrain from trying to interpret the nods of the Prime Minister which appear to be as inconsistent and difficult to follow as his oral responses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: However, I say to him that if he knew all the facts, including those raised by the hon. member for Papi-neau today, relative to the conversations with the Minister of Public Works, and found those facts to be satisfactory, then there may very well be cause for this House to question not only his judgment but also the degree of his own involvement in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a question which a full inquiry would help us to determine.
There are two other serious questions which we have a duty to pursue. The first concerns the standards of this government, and the second concerns the right of parliament to information. I believe it is of fundamental importance that all members of this House and, indeed, all Canadians, fully understand this Prime Minister's approach to political morality-what I might call the Trudeau doctrine. In essence, what the Prime Minister has been telling us for the past several days is that as far as he is concerned, the only code of ethics which he applies to his ministers and his supporters is the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: His position, and he has set it forth on numerous occasions, is that only in cases of clearly illegal action-as a matter of fact, outside the House he spoke of serious illegal action-would he feel it necessary to take any effective disciplinary action against a member of his party. Indeed, the Prime Minister goes even further than that. He has suggested on several occasions in the House- most recently, today-that if the opposition wants information about the activities of ministers, we must first lay a charge that is a perversion of the principles of responsible government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister knows it is a perversion; but let me say that if he will give us the facts instead of hiding them, and if the facts reveal that charges should be laid, they will be laid.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Alleged Interference with Judiciary


Charles Joseph Clark: But let us first have the facts so that this institution will not be poisoned by the suspicion that, just as the investigation by Judge Deschenes revealed actions the judge called grave, a wider investigation would reveal other damaging behaviour. Let me also make it clear that I do not accept for a moment the Prime Minister's pretence that the only standard which applies to a minister is the criminal law. Let me remind the Prime Minister of the much sterner standards set by his predecessor, the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, on November 30, 1964, in a code of conduct for his ministers. Mr. Pearson said:
It is by no means sufficient for a person in the office of a minister-or in any other position of responsibility in the public service-to act within the law. That goes without saying. Much more is required. 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.
Mr. Pearson went on to say that there can be no special treatment on the ground of personal acquaintance, sympathy or anything of that kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I add that the responsibility for ensuring that standard does not rest solely with me and with my colleagues here on the opposition side. It is a primary responsibility of the Prime Minister of Canada as head of government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: And we profoundly regret his refusal to exercise that responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Just so that there is not the slightest misunderstanding, I want to emphasize that we in this party, and I as its leader, do not subscribe to the lack of standards of the present Prime Minister. The Progressive Conservative government which we will form after the next election-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and we would welcome it whenever the Prime Minister chooses to call it, will have much higher standards and I, as leader, will enforce them. To demand nothing more than that ministers avoid doing that which is seriously illegal is to set no standard at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is, indeed, to demean the whole concept of political ethics at a time when, instead, they require to be lifted up, not battered down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In refusing to accept the resignation of the Minister of Public Works, the Prime Minister has put himself, the minister and this House into an untenable position. How can it continue to be perceived that the minister took an honourable course in offering his resignation, when four scant hours later it was rejected? Now we

March 16, 1976
Alleged Interference with Judiciary have the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, the hon. member for Papineau, resigning with the lame excuse that the reason for his resignation was so that he could better attend to his case in court, instead of dealing with what most of us in this House, until we are in receipt of a full version of the facts, must assume were pressures which flowed from his involvement in the intervention with the judge in that case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The action of this government and of the Prime Minister cast doubt upon all the actions of the government. I say, sir, that we in this House might as well be doing business with the operator of a shell game-"Now you see it, now you don't."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is no honour in this kind of operation; there is no integrity in it. There is sharpness, there is cleverness, there is talent of a sort, there is bravado-but there is no honour and integrity, and these are fundamental elements to the function of this assembly. They are not luxuries, they are fundamental, sir-and when they are lost to this House, then the country has lost something far more important to it than losing the usefulness of any minister, regardless of that minister's record of distinction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Those of us who place any value upon our responsibility as members of this institution-and this applies to members on all sides of the House-will not sit silently by and let the Prime Minister of Canada and his ministers continue to keep from parliament and the people facts which we should have.

It is not the first time that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) resorts to evasions and refuses to dialogue honestly and frankly with the people of Canada. The history of this government is made up of repeated efforts to conceal the truth, to refuse to answer questions and to set up inquiries on national matters of the highest importance to all Canadians. This was the case among others in the matter of the Hamilton harbour, the Seafarers' International Union-

And it is the case again today.
In this matter we have heard from the courts as to their inquiry, and while two ministers of the Crown are now prepared to question the testimony of judges of the courts, we in this party are not. We are prepared to accept, of course, the probity of the judges. But the question of the propriety of conduct of federal ministers is not a question for the court of any province. It is a question for the highest court in the land-this parliament. Because of that, we in this party believe, as my colleague the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) made clear on the first day this matter was raised in parliament, that the terms of reference of an inquiry should first be submitted to this House for consideration, and amendment if necessary, so

there can be certainty that the inquiry will be complete. If there is not a public inquiry, or if it is not an adequate inquiry, that will be perceived as a cover-up which will tarnish the reputation of the whole of parliament.
This House must have the information it seeks. Canadians must have the kind of public investigation they deserve-and, clearly, the Minister of Public Works must leave his post in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: These are the conditions which must be met if the standards of parliamentary democracy are to be redeemed. In preserving the worthiness of this institution and preserving respect for our Canadian way of conducting our affairs, there are no short-cuts and no easy ways out. Perversion of democracy in the name of efficiency, in the name of friendship, even in the name of loyalty, is perversion nonetheless and it simply cannot be suffered lightly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We do not take this matter lightly. The word "grave" is appropriate as we have seen it applied in the Deschenes report. In response to the gravity of the matter, we will later today vote no confidence in the government. That, sir, will not be a mere move in a parliamentary game, as we have seen on the other side during the last few days: it will be a simple, serious demonstration of our duty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the motion of no confidence criticizes me, the Prime Minister, on three grounds. I shall deal with the three in turn. The first is that I refused the resignation of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury). Mr. Speaker, very briefly I should like to remind the House of the origin of this matter. It originated in contempt proceedings which are of a special kind. There are two mechanisms for proceeding in contempt proceedings. One is by way of indictment or accusation where there are two parties, the Crown on one side and the accused on the other, each with their lawyer, and the judge in a criminal case who tries to judge between the Crown and the accused-the accused always, under our system, having the benefit of the doubt-and trying to reach the fairest and most equitable judgment.
The other procedure, which is less and less used in democratic countries, is where the judge or the courts judge, themselves, whether they have been offended or not. There are no two parties, the Crown and the accused, but the courts are sitting in judgment to determine whether they have been interfered with or otherwise outraged or influenced. In this case, the second course was taken.
It is important to remember that the time-honoured avenue of answering this kind of accusation is to make a proper apology, the kind of apology which would be acceptable to the courts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He would not apologize.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the particular procedure which was chosen, it was necessary, therefore, to ask the courts themselves. I am not saying the procedure was right. I did
March 16, 1976

criticize the minister for having used the procedure. But I am going back to the origins of this so that the House and the country understand that in this particular contempt proceeding, the courts were sitting in judgment on whether they had been offended, and it was in some way important to get to know from the courts how, and what, kind of apology they would accept.
This having been established, I said in my statement on Friday that there were different interpretations, in different jurisdictions and in different circumstances, on the question of how do you approach the courts in such circumstances. I laid out those rules in brief form, in summary form, on Friday so that in the future these rules be known and that they be part of the code of conduct of this and, I hope, future governments. I will not deal with that at any length because the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford), whose proper duty it is, will explain those rules at greater length, and I think the statement of them in an unambiguous way is important so that in future such cases, and any others, people in the government know how to address themselves to the courts.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the essential judgment which remains is that there was improper conduct by the Minister of Public Works in this case. It should be noted that it was not illegal conduct; that it was not complained of by the judge at the time. It was not regarded by that judge as an attempt to influence his judgment. It was not found by the judge or, for that matter, by the Chief Justice, to constitute an interference with the judicial process. Actually, the law officers of the Crown stated that in their opinion there was no such offence. The Minister of Justice will talk about this later. This improper action, this impropriety, was not undertaken for reasons of personal advantage. On the contrary, Mr. Justice Hugessen felt that it was done for the best of motives. He went on to say what he believed those motives were.
The House will remember that I did not condone this action. I even said that I regard it as a serious lapse of judgment. So the question before the House and the question before me is, what should the minister's punishment be for that lapse of judgment, for that improper act? That is the judgment I must make. It is a judgment for which I am accountable to this House. I am speaking to this motion in proper fashion. Incidentally, I am told that I am speaking in my normal turn, as is customary for government members who answer on opposition days. As I say, it is a judgment for which I am accountable. It is one which-I say this without pretension-keeps in mind the best interests of justice and of the country.
On the one hand we have to consider the importance of preserving parliamentary institutions and judicial institutions intact and making sure, to use the words of some commentators, that they are not brought into opprobrium through misconduct. On the other hand we have to consider the reputation and future career of a devoted and honourable public servant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Before I give some of the reasons for my judgment and assessment, it is not unimportant to remind
Alleged Interference with Judiciary the House that at this time we are to debate two major bills which will amend the Criminal Code. It is not unimportant to consider what part humanity and charity should play in the administration of justice.
I repeat, there has been no illegality, only impropriety. What should the punishment be in this particular case? I suppose that punishment is intended, in the first place, as a discipline. It is intended, partly, to discipline ministers, partly to act as an example for the future, and partly to establish that the sense of propriety has been respected and will be maintained.
Let me deal with the first part, the question of disciplining the minister. Well, let us begin with the fact that the minister apologized. We know, as the opposition previously said, that the minister has a recognized reputation in all parts of the country and all sides of the House for honour and devotion to duty. We know that he has served this country for over 30 years in war and in peace, in the armed services and in the public service. He has an unblemished record.


John Edward Broadbent: That is totally irrelevant.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We know, Mr. Speaker, that for over 15 of those more than 30 years he has served as a distinguished, modest parliamentarian. Against all this we must place the fact that I condemned him publicly in the House by not condoning his error of judgment, the embarrassment he has faced in the past few weeks in this House and in the country and, sad to say, the enduring humiliation caused by the words of the Chief Justice and in this very debate. As well, he apologized for his conduct. I judged him-but he was also judged by hon. members and by the country itself. I submit that this was discipline enough for an act which was undertaken with the best of intentions, as the judge himself recognized. It was in no way illegal and was connected with a complex and difficult contempt of court procedure which calls for unusual treatment, as I explained earlier in this debate.
What about the question of setting an example for the future? I suggest that the precedent of these very events is a warning to all of us. Certainly, the clear rule which I enunciated on Friday and which will be elaborated on, is the code for the future. I ask the opposition, do they want a body as well? Why do they want blood as well? Is this their sense of propriety?
I turn now to the question of propriety. Once again, there is some element of subjectivity here. I believe that people will take into account a lifetime of honour and unblemished conduct in considering whether this particular impropriety was punished severely or not.
Let me now comment on the argument concerning a double standard. The argument was mainly raised by the NDP, although I heard Conservatives raise it also. They talk of a double standard, as if a poor man would not have been treated thus. I am not sure what they mean, Mr. Speaker. Do they mean that a poor man would have ended up in jail? Surely not. There has been no illegality here. I do not know that anybody, poor or rich, ends up in jail or, for that matter, pays fines unless found guilty of some offence. Therefore, there are not two standards in the sense that the minister got off lightly for a crime; there was no crime.

March 16, 1976
Alleged Interference with Judiciary
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) keeps reminding us that what we have done is against the law, and so on. I think the Minister of Justice will deal with that. I notice that he sometimes speaks of the law of the constitution. Mr. Speaker, if he could elaborate on this, perhaps we would know what law the Minister of Public Works broke.


John Edward Broadbent: I will send you a copy of Jennings.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he has not broken the law, I suggest that members of parliament and the press or media people who reported it were themselves in a libel situation when they accused the minister of breaking the law. Mr. Speaker, I know of no ordinary or poor person who, having committed an impropriety, would not be forgiven after making an apology. Therefore, when we talk of double standards the only thing we can mean is that a minister should be treated more severely because of his high station and high duty.


Charles Joseph Clark: Precisely.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But this is completely different from the argument of double standard that has been used thus far. I submit that indeed this double standard, this greater severity, has been applied to, and against, the minister in this particular case. It is important to consider the injury to his reputation and the damage to 30 years of unblemished record caused by this incident, an incident in which he acted with his great generosity and great heart but in an ill-advised way. I think that is the blame, and it is blame enough in this particular case.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have acted with a sense of propriety. We have also acted with a sense of justice- justice for the man, justice with humility, and justice with charity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the second ground of the motion bears on the fact that I did not insist on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) giving the House a full statement. Considering the shortness of time and since the minister apologized this afternoon and stated that be regretted to be the cause of embarrassment to another minister and he resigned, for all these reasons, I will shorten this part of my speech. I would simply like to remind the House of the extremely difficult, even impossible, situation in which the minister found himself then. On one hand, either he could seek to appeal and obtain a final judgment of the court in the contempt proceedings, that is to say, he could exercise his right, as any citizen, to appeal without any prejudice; but he had to do it at the cost of looking suspicious and causing this suspicion to fall on the government, a situation astutely exploited by some people who would take advantage of his being unable to mention a case which was before the courts, in other words, who knew that he could not be completely open on this case without injjrfing his own right of appeal and would interpret his silence as an indication that he was hiding something. Or, on the other hand, he renounced his right of appeal, the right of every

citizen to defend his honour and the government's honour by making any comments he deemed fit to make on this issue between himself and Mr. Justice MacKay. Mr. Speaker, the minister made a choice. He chose not to be a minister any more in order to pursue his appeal outside the political arena, outside the polarization that took place in this House, and I respect his choice.
Mr. Speaker, clearly there are definite limits in such circumstances to what one may say when one's case is before the courts. I respect his choice and as long as he maintains his appeal, it automatically follows in my view that no one can expect him to speak on every aspect of the case on which the opposition would seek answers.
As for his resignation, I had an opportunity this afternoon to answer a question by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe). In my view, that was a serious question. Since I already gave an answer, I will not repeat myself. I would simply remind the House that his resignation had nothing to do, as the minister's remarks indicated, with his communication with the minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury). That communication resulted neither in an illegal act, nor in an attempt to influence the court nor again in an effort to interfere in any way with the administration of justice. The minister made his statement. Since his resignation was tendered before this House and accepted, I believe, Mr. Speaker, I have no further comments on this aspect of the question.
I now come to the third point, that mentioned in the motion now before this House,

I quote the motion:
-by failing to set up an independent inquiry into alleged interference in the course of justice by cabinet ministers-
Here, again, because of the shortness of time-I see the other leaders respected their time: am I exceeding it, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think I have about another ten minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member is seeking some indication as to the expiry of his time. According to my notes, he began at about 23 minutes to five o'clock. Normally his time would expire after 30 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 58(13). There are about seven minutes remaining.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think I can finish in the next ten minutes. I will not comment, therefore, at any length on the alleged interference which is mentioned in the motion; the Minister of Justice will do that. However, I hope that I will have occasion, perhaps in the question period, to come back to some of the allegations, particularly those that have been made by the leader of the New Democratic Party. He is, presumably, basing his motion on Mr. Justice MacKay's letter and making a very long and involved case that either Mr. Justice Mackay or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is lying, and concludes-rather generously-that it is probably the minister.
March 16, 1976


John Edward Broadbent: Not at all.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he is not alleging that the minister is involved in lying, and he says there must be a lie somewhere, he is probably alleging that Mr. Justice Mackay is lying.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The trained seals.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member from the New Democratic Party talks about trained seals. I want him to realize that what his leader and his party have been asking for is precisely related to that. They are asking for a fishing expedition; they want a licence to fish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think I used more judicial language the other day in rejecting the idea of an inquiry. I said that an inquiry, by definition, the very meaning of the word, pertains to inquisitorial forms of justice where you do not presume people are innocent but where you presume there is some guilt somewhere and you start asking questions of the people whom you suspect might be guilty of wrongdoing. As I said the other day, this type of fishing expedition is either to satisfy the ambition or aspirations of some or perhaps to satisfy the pique or curiosity of others. However, I say that they are contrary to the fundamental concepts of the rule of law. They are anathema to anyone who truly believes in individual rights and principles.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Such fishing expeditions, such inquiries- I have explained this many times in the House when refusing this request which has been made repeatedly by the opposition-are to my mind only justifiable when the normal judicial procedure cannot be followed, when there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the full facts are not known and cannot be known through the normal judicial process or, I would add, in the case of parliament, through normal parliamentary processes. That is why, under our system, if a member of the public wishes to lay an information and press a charge, that is his right. If a member of the opposition wishes to do that, well, that is fine, too, and the procedures are provided. But suspicion, innuendo, calumny-these are not the bases for proceeding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The opposition keeps repeating that an inquiry is needed to find out whether there are any further facts, facts which need to be known. Let us look at the three areas of fact which are of interest in this case. Concerning what took place between ministers and judges, we have what the ministers stated in this House last Friday, what they have stated in answer to repeated questions. I have always said that until we had Justice Des-chenes' report-I have heard the ministers and I take their word, but in fairness we must learn whether the courts feel
Alleged Interference with Judiciary aggrieved. That was the object of the letter which the Minister of Justice sent to Mr. Justice Deschenes. In that report, which was made public, we have the version of the three judges. So these facts are known-what the ministers said to the judges and what the judges felt they said when they were spoken to. It is hard to see how any inquiry could ascertain anything more than that. Perhaps there are some slight variations which I am prepared to ascribe to lapses of memory, but if members opposite do not believe this to be the case, if they do not want to take the word of members of parliament, they know what recourse they have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Only one word more on this aspect-I hate to go even this far, but I have been under questioning in the House-indicating there are some reasons to cast doubt, for instance, on the memory of Mr. Justice Mackay. I have given examples, and it seems to me that if there are fair-minded persons looking at this issue they would at least have an equal cause to suspect his memory as they have that of the minister. When that set of facts is known, there remains-before I gallop to an end-two other sets of facts which might interest the opposition. The first concerns what a minister might have said to another minister. I have said before, and I repeat it now, that the privacy of conversations between any two individuals in society, even if they are ministers, should be respected except when the greater good of society demands otherwise.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: A lot of claptrap!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope I have the agreement of the other side on that principle. They might argue about the circumstances; they might say that in this particular case the good of society demands that we infringe the privacy of conservations. If there was an illegality involved, if there was a conspiracy involved, I would have no doubt that the importance of dealing with that situation was greater than the need to respect the confidentiality of the conservations. We know, now, that there are no such allegations of illegality or of interference with the conduct of justice. We know there has been an impropriety.
Opposition leaders have made a good deal of such questions as this: Did you know about these things beforehand, or not? If you did, why didn't you act? If you didn't, why did you not find out?
Let me say, with regard to this and some of the other innuendoes which have been made, so that ministers may know it, so that members on this side of the House may know it and so members of the opposition may know it, that what two members of my cabinet say to each other is none of my business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Even if it leads to impropriety?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members will hear me out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Standing Order is clear. In order for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to continue for any length of time at all, the unanimous consent of the House is required. Is that agreed?
11846

March 16, 1976
Alleged Interference with Judiciary


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I appreciate the permission given me by the House. I have two more arguments to advance. I think the House is showing courtesy and respect for this issue by hearing me out. Who knows, I may say something which will lead to further debate, and they might want to question my principles. I am putting them before the House so that they may be judged. I have stated that I take the position that I have no right and no desire to know what ministers convey to each other even about leadership questions-if there are any such-except when there is any wrongdoing.


Charles Joseph Clark: Or impropriety.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: "Wrongdoing" is the word I chose, because it is imprecise. If the wrongdoing amounts to illegality, then, of course, I have a right to know.


Charles Joseph Clark: And if it is an impropriety?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear various interjections. If hon. members are so anxious to have me answer these questions, I am surprised they did not ask them during the question period. As the whip says, it seems I have to provide hon. members opposite, including the leader of the New Democratic Party, with the questions in order to give them answers.


An hon. Member:: Stop the histrionics.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have the answers hon. members are waiting for, if they will allow me. If there is an impropriety, I also believe I have a right to know what has gone on between them.


Charles Joseph Clark: And does parliament have that right?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I say parliament also has that right. That is why until Chief Justice Deschenes had looked into this matter and established that the facts were grave and that they had resulted in an impropriety, I refrained from asking in any great detail or with perseverance what the ministers had said to each other. I wanted to know whether they had committed an illegal act, and to that extent I did question them. Until the judgment had been made that there was an impropriety, and until I had this objective version of the judges, I did not press the ministers on every detail that might have gone on in their conversations.


Charles Joseph Clark: You still find it satisfactory?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not find it satisfactory, to answer the leader of the opposition. That is why I got an apology, and the House got an apology, from the minister. That is why the minister saw fit to offer his resignation. As I said in an earlier part of my speech, that indicates to me that there was an element of wrongdoing-not an illegality, but a wrongdoing-which the judge qualified as improper.


Charles Joseph Clark: What facts did the minister withhold from you?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as the minister of consumer and corporate affairs is concerned, he did tell me yesterday the exact nature of his conversations with the Minister of Public Works. Whether that kind of impropriety-advising an impropriety, or asking an impropriety, or whatever the minister said this afternoon he said to the minister-calls for resignation or not, I think is an academic question, since in any event he resigned for other reasons and is no longer a minister of my cabinet. But what is not irrelevant is his right privately to plan his defence, and I will continue to respect his right not to answer questions that he feels are in some way pertinent to the case now before the appeal court. I hope the opposition will also have the decency to do the same.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In an effort-probably fruitless, but nonetheless an effort-to dispel the suspicions of hon. members opposite, and in an effort to bring parliament back to a more efficient management of the business of the nation, I believe the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs went to the outer limits of what is permissible in regard to what he could say without infringing the sub judice rule. But this is for his judgment, Mr. Speaker; I just feel that he did it at considerable cost to himself, that he did it in a way that will permit him to exercise his right of appeal in this case. In the interim, I believe hon. members should at least respect the price he has paid in order to exercise that right. In the case of the hon. member for Papineau, I submit it is a question either of taking his word that that is what he said and did, or not taking his word and laying a charge in the customary fashion, with the customary consequences, Mr. Speaker.
I have dealt with conversations between ministers and the courts and between one minister and another minister, but it seems to me that there is a third area of uncertainty and that is what one judge might have said to another judge or what judges might have said to their counsel. Of these facts we know little. I am certain that an inquiry could attempt to find out more about that, but I am not sure whether it would be appropriate or desirable for the institution of parliament or the courts to get into that side of the inquiry.
Moreover, I would ask parliament by what mechanism it would conduct that aspect of the inquiry. How would parliament question judges, Mr. Speaker? If they want to question a minister, to cross-examine his version, presumably they would also have to question the judges. How would they do that, Mr. Speaker? There is one known procedure for parliament to question judges, and that is the procedure of impeachment; but I do not think the opposition are suggesting that.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Is that one of your straw-men, Pierre?

March 16, 1976


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I do not put it up as a strawman; I am just trying to exhaust the various avenues and mechanisms that exist.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Use a legitimate avenue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is another way, and this would be by parliamentary committee; but certainly not a normal parliamentary committee because I doubt that any judge would agree to sit in front of a parliamentary committee, whatever the form of subpoena issued to him.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Who has suggested a parliamentary committee? No one but yourself.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps the hon. member should suggest it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: You suggested it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is an avenue that the opposition might want to examine. You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that on Friday the opposition were constantly imploring me to discuss the terms of an inquiry that might be held. Now they do not want me to talk about the kind of inquiry that might be held.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are just trying to impress Charlie Lynch.


Charles Joseph Clark: You can take another hour.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members talk of strawmen. They should think about their own members. It is they who want an inquiry, Mr. Speaker, and I am examining the ways in which we could have an inquiry that could ask questions of judges.


John Edward Broadbent: A public inquiry would do that.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: He does not want a public inquiry, not a serious one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not going to elaborate, but it would be possible to have a committee of the House set up under special legislation to examine the judges. Another avenue for examining what happened between the judges themselves and the judges and lawyers would be the Canadian Judicial Council-but that is not what hon. members opposite want. Another avenue is to have the Bar look into the conduct of its members and ask questions of its members. That is an inquiry that might satisfy some aspects, at least, of the curiosity that seems to reign over on that side. I take it that when hon. members call for a public inquiry, they mean a royal commission of inquiry. I suppose it would be the least inappropriate way of asking judges questions about this matter.


An hon. Member:: And ministers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no question but that ministers can be interrogated. They can also be interrogated by a committee of the House, Mr. Speaker. If the opposition would reflect, and perhaps even draw up terms of refer-
Alleged Interference with Judiciary
ence-since they are so anxious to have that kind of an inquiry-they might discover that in drawing up those terms of reference they would find themselves in a position of having a royal commission of inquiry, of necessity, asking questions of judges. We would then have a judge judging his colleagues in this particular case. If we set up such a commission of inquiry, I wonder what then would happen to the much proclaimed and much vaunted theory of separation of powers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I get back to what members opposite called the strawman. The time-honoured way of asking questions of judges by parliament is impeachment; it is not by a royal commission of inquiry. I said it would be the least inappropriate way, and I am not sure it could not be done. I have not had time enough to have all the experts on parliamentary rules and judicial procedure give me their opinions on this.


Charles Joseph Clark: We could start with ministers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition says, in a very smart and judicial looking way, "We could start with ministers". Sure; but does he want it to end with ministers? Is that what he wants?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not doubt that he wants to end the ministers, but when he says we can start by asking them questions, is he so superficial as not to ask himself: What then? After we have heard from them, shall we hear from the judges?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If we only start with the ministers, then I would ask the opposition what good that would do. If we go on from the ministers to the judges, then, as I have suggested. We could be doing serious damage to this great theory the Leader of the Opposition says he believes in about the division of powers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are the theorists.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at least in my judgment I have indicated that the reasons for such an inquiry, and they do exist-there are reasons, and members of the opposition have stated them-are so very poor and small, in face of the harm that would be done by having an inquiry by parliament into the conduct of judges, that they should think this over before pressing for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) permit a question before he sits down?


An hon. Member:: Oh, no, Stanley.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
21419-57V!

March 16, 1976
Alleged Interference with Judiciary


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House extended its courtesy in order to permit the Prime Minister to go on, and technically I suppose there is no limit to the time he has the floor. I should think that if a question is put at this time, in this way, it ought not to be done simply with the consent of the Prime Minister but with the consent of the House. If the House gives its consent, I would not object.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a
question of the Prime Minister?


An hon. Member:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since, by innuendo, the Prime Minister has questioned the veracity of Mr. Justice Mackay, which I do not question, is he going to lay a charge against the judge or ask parliament to impeach him?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon, member really surprises me. The question was whether his memory was right, or the memory of the minister. Surely, whether one man remembers a thing one way, and the other another way, has nothing to do with veracity; it has to do with whether you have a good memory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: There go the ministers.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: There go the ministers, and there goes everybody else, I suppose. Perhaps I might make this observation, with the greatest amount of charity. It takes a motion like this to get an intervention by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the debates of this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It has always seemed to me he has not participated often enough, and once in a while something quite interesting does go on here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The throat-clearing performance usually takes place at the intermission, but if the doctor wants to go to his dispensary, he might go and paint his throat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The Prime Minister spoke of a different interpretation as to how to approach the court. Let me suggest there is no room for a difference of interpretation as to how to approach the court, and I am very grateful to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) who made that very clear in his answers to me today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am very grateful that this fact has been laid to rest once and for all. It seems to me that the

Prime Minister's so-called statement of ethics on Friday is today, on Tuesday, in tatters because of the answers of the Minister of Justice. I look forward to hearing from him later when he will enunciate on this.
The Canadian Bar Association's code of ethics is very clear. I have here the duties of a lawyer in public life. Mr. Justice Deschenes quoted the Quebec Code very clearly. I presume that the Bar Society of the province of Quebec is even now looking into the impropriety of members of the profession in that province as a result of the actions they have taken. The codes of every other province are also very clear in this regard. So really what we have now is no code of ethics.
The Prime Minister has suggested that the sum of our debate here is calumny. He has used the words "calumny" and "innuendo". I say that what we have been doing here, as my leader and the leader of the NDP have suggested, is carrying out the fundamental duty of the opposition in the parliamentary system.
I suggest that for a moment we should turn the whole matter around and ask ourselves what would have happened to the escutcheon of public life in this country if the occurrences of the last couple of weeks had never occurred. There would have been a continuation, presumably, of interventions on the part of ministers with the courts, which is quite contrary to the code of ethics, and there would have been a continuation of what a respected judge has called "grave" and "improper" conduct and for which, on Friday, we had Wynken, Blynken and Nod apologizing to us. But surely it must have been one of the most curious examples of ministerial repentance in my time here. They popped up one after another like popcorn on Saturday night, all apologizing to us and saying that in future they would follow a code which they should have followed long ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: What is the opposition's role? It is quite an interesting coincidence that the two quotations today, one on ethics and one on the role of the opposition which my leader and I have quoted unwittingly-and I have not talked to him, there is nothing improper here- should have come from the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. I want to quote that right hon. gentleman when He said:
In national politics during the years when I was in the government, I watched the Opposition perform their duty vigorously and industriously, with courage and determination. They rightly insisted on their right to oppose, attack and criticize, to engage in that cut and thrust of debate, so often and so strongly recommended by those concerned with the vigour and health of parliament and the health of democracy.
I suggest that, inconvenient as all this is-


An hon. Member:: What is the date of that speech?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Have you a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When was that written?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I will give the hon. member the citation, indeed I will-the Hon. Lester B. Pearson, P.C., M.P.,
March 16, 1976

"The Role of the Opposition", address delivered to the Canadian Club of Ottawa, 27 January, 1959.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He was leader of the opposition himself then.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Exactly. There is no difference in the code. This is exactly why I quoted the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Double standard.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Hearing that enunciation of the responsibilities of the opposition coming from the mouth of the Right Hon. Lester Pearson seems to upset one of his former colleagues. I have a couple of other quotations from two distinguished members of this House of Commons.


Mitchell William Sharp: You probably wrote it.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: If you want to choke to death on your own laughter, you are welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I find it passing strange that people should giggle at the remarks of Lester B. Pearson on how the opposition should fulfil its role. The right hon. gentleman did that, and he fulfilled the role of the Prime Minister with distinction. I may say that he has set a standard of conduct for his ministers that has not been met since.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It is perfectly obvious it has not been met since we had judges say that the acts were grave and improper. Why do you not cackle at that?
The other two references which I will not give to the House now about the role we are fulfilling because it is our obligation, duty, and responsibility were by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Fundamentally the topic which concerned us during the past several days raises the question of what kind of a society we are. That is why many of us discussed with the Prime Minister, in questions and in other ways, his obligation to all of us to set the tone for this government. It is nothing less than that, and that is what the public of Canada has the right to expect. The rather inadequate statement of ethics last Friday is ludicrous and in no way meets the problem with which we are faced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: After all, the profession of politics has its own history. I regret that I may be laughed at again if I raise the matter of the independence of the judiciary. It was raised in a very interesting article, which I commend to the Prime Minister, in the University of Toronto "Law Journal", and it is entitled, appropriately enough, "Scandalizing Justice". The reference is by a judge in Great Britain some 210 years ago, and it has to do with the preciousness of the separation between the judiciary and the executive. That is what we will be fighting to preserve, no matter whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) laughs at us, or whether other
Alleged Interference with Judiciary people howl in their seats. It is something that this parliament would be failing in its duty if it did not fulfil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The Prime Minister worried over Christmas about the country and about our institutions. I share his concern and I say that the events of the last couple of weeks have not helped to raise the public's consciousness about this institution. All of us have been smeared by this grubby business.
The Prime Minister spoke about the poor. No poor man would be allowed into a Westmount home to speak to a judge on Sunday afternoon, and no poor man could get a telephone connection with an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Quebec or of any other province. That is the double standard with which we are dealing. It is one thing for members of the executive to pick up the telephone or make Sunday afternoon clandestine visits. Can you think of anybody going from downtown Montreal, Ottawa or Toronto and trying to intervene with a high court justice of this country? He would not get past the footman.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because the judge thinks he is poor?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The judge's views were set out in the letter of the Associate Chief Justice. It is an indictment of the ministers of this government and of anybody who believes in the honour of public life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Are you saying a judge would not answer a telephone call from a poor man?


Some hon. Members:: Shut up.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The Secretary of State for External Affairs knows perfectly well the difference between a telephone call made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) and, God forbid, from himself to a judge, or from the principal secretary of the Prime Minister of Canada saying he would like to drop in for a chat, and a telephone call from somebody from Whycocomagh, Cape Breton. He knows the answer to that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, surely what the hon. member is saying-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The Secretary of State for External Affairs goes bipartisan when it suits him, and then suddenly becomes partisan when he finds others striking debating points.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: This institution is caught in a crisis of cynicism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 16, 1976
Alleged Interference with Judiciary


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Hon. members may not think there is a crisis of cynicism, but no less a figure than the Prime Minister of Canada spoke about it over the new year and the problem our institutions face in their public acclaim.
What I have in front of me is not written by the Right Hon. Lester Person, but a magazine edited by Norman Cousins, The Saturday Review of November 1, and it devotes the whole edition to the rather terrifying and unpleasant subject of what is happening to ethical standards in government, law, business, accounting, journalism, medicine, and education.
Because I was smug I did not think such a thing would ever have to be written or that a Canadian magazine would ever have to take up an issue dealing with ethics in our country, but I see; I was as usual, somewhat naive.
In Montreal in the spring of last year many of us were on another mission having to do with this institution, and the mission involved whether democracy itself was governable in the 1970's and 1980's. Government will never be easy, and democracies will never have an easy time of it if there are standards for the executive and standards for the rest of the citizens, and if the rest of the citizens see that the executive is in a different position to the mass of the public. That is what this motion is about, why I welcome it, why I support it, and why I think it behooves every man and woman who represent constituencies in this country to do what they individually can to try to restore faith in our system and to restore an ethical standard to this institution of which we can all be proud. And that has not happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I very much regret this, but it has not happened yet. I was in this institution one particular day, and I think that was the only time I ever did, or ever will, receive a compliment from the Toronto Globe and Mail in an editorial page. It was a grubby business that day. I see several hon. members who were here on that Friday afternoon, and some were then indulging in some activities of which I do not think many of us were proud. Without very much forethought it happened that I made the comment, "In God's name, what are we doing to this place?" Mr. Speaker, in God's name what were the members of the cabinet thinking of when they thought they could go to judges on Sunday afternoons or make telephone calls?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It happens that some of us care quite a good deal about this institution and about how it is perceived by the country. I see many courageous people in my party here who had more courage than I did in seeking the leadership of the party and who went through pretty difficult times, and I suspect that if I asked every single one of them they would tell me that the cynicism of which I speak was extremely prevalent from one end of the country to the other.
That is why I think it is worth while interrupting the legislative performance of the government, which in itself leaves something to be desired, to consider a matter which is so fundamental as this.


An hon. Member:: Now say something.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott)-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Jean Roy, shame!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: No, it was not Jean Roy. Jean Roy would not do that. It was the hon. member for Mississauga,
I suspect, who doesn't put himself down on the list.


An hon. Member:: Timmins.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Perhaps the hon. member who said it will have the courage to say so.


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I was accused of an intervention which I did not make.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I say without any reservation-and I have always done this-I accept the hon. member's correction. I can take as much as the Prime Minister of Canada can take.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: And more so.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Although he may not believe this, I do very deeply-the balance I think we are trying to restore to this country and its institutions has something to do with the following:
... surely, that is not law at all; on something that resides neither in institutions nor past achievements, but in the hearts of individual people, in the common, cognate, virtues of courage, kindliness and honesty, in the lustre of the spirit, in the faith and vision that nourishes and upholds all else.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You are describing Drury.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Exactly, but I regret it does not describe you, Sir.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: If ever I saw a knock-out, that was it.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like my first words to be in congratulation of the fine, sensitive, and honourable speech-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you.


Francis Andrew Brewin: -we have just listened to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I think there are some people in this country, some even in this House, who by their grinning and laughing in the House-I am not talking about the others- show that they totally fail to appreciate the gravity of the matter we are discussing. They do not seem to understand that the independence of the judiciary is a basic pillar of our whole society and our whole system. Failure to understand that and failure to defend it are the basic charge we make against the government on this occasion, and it is a matter which affects the whole fabric and nature of our society.

I should like to read what the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec said in this connection. He said:
It is of the utmost importance that this independence of the judiciary, achieved through great effort during the course of the last three centuries, be jealously guarded against all attacks.
The accusation I have to make is that it is not being jealously guarded. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in particular, through a series of minimizing and downgrading the whole business, has managed to make it look as if it were a trifling matter which does not have to be taken seriously. I have something I want to say later about the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury). I am afraid his conduct also falls in that category. I wanted to speak about him a little later but perhaps I will say what I have to say now.
I have the greatest respect for the Minister of Public Works. It has been one of the greatest disappointments I have ever had that, when he did the honourable thing in this House last Friday, he then permitted the Prime Minister to persuade him to do something less honourable. His first choice was the right choice and I wish he had stuck to it.
How has the Prime Minister downgraded and minimized this thing? One thing he said repeatedly during his speech, not only today but on other occasions, is that there is no illegality here, just an impropriety. He managed to say impropriety as if it did not matter very much. I remind the House that the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec in his report, which appears at page 11779 of Hansard, quotes Associate Chief Justice Hugessen as follows:
While I felt at the time that the call was improper (and I believe I said so to Mr. Drury), I did not think that he was attempting to influence my judgment.
But Mr. Justice Deschenes does clearly refer to the impropriety later when he says:
I have little doubt that the facts related by Mr. Justice Hugessen are grave, considering the stature of the person making the call and the circumstances in which the call was made to him.
I say that we have the judge saying it was a "grave" impropriety, and the Prime Minister tries to brush this aside as though somehow or other the Chief Justice had not taken the matter very seriously. How ridiculous it is to keep on talking about illegality. We all know that if we park in the wrong place that is illegal, and obviously it is not a matter to be taken too seriously by this House. But when you have an interference in the administration of justice such as we have seen clearly and transparently outlined in the facts before the House in the last few days, when you see this sort of thing then the matter is of very grave concern indeed. All the minimizing, brushing aside, use of the word "illegal" as against the word "grave" impropriety-all this is a calculated effort to minimize this and treat it as though it were unimportant, something of no supreme importance.
Another method of attempting to minimize the matter is to talk as though attempting to influence the judiciary was not a critical thing as long as you did not succeed. This is the most ridiculous doctrine that has ever been propounded in parliament at any time, I should think. I am glad that there is not the slightest suggestion that the attempt was
Alleged Interference with Judiciary in any way successful. But the attempt was there; the attempt was highly improper, and deserved to be regarded with full seriousness.
It is absolutely inconceivable-I think the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has underlined it but it was perfectly clear before-that the Minister of Public Works was sent as his emissary or spokesman or advocate to speak to the judge who was deciding the case of the hon. member for Papineau. If that was not a flagrant example of intervention in the administration of justice I do not know where you would find a clearer case if you had words, and words, and words of evasion. The facts speak clearly for themselves.
I want to read from the report of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec where he cites a regulation of the bar of Quebec. I am not a member of the bar of Quebec but I presume their regulations are authorized by statute and therefore have the force of law. Regulation 43.3 was cited by the learned judge so he must have thought it relevant. It reads:
In the absence or without the knowledge of the other party or of his advocate, he shall not make, before judgment or decision, on behalf of a party in a contested matter, any verbal or written representations to a judge, a court or the members of a judicial or quasi-judicial body.
I say we do not need any spurious code of ethics thought up by the Prime Minister. This rule sets up a law; it is the law of Quebec and I suggest it is probably the law of other provinces in the country. It is not only the law as written down, it is the law of ordinary morals and ethics. It is the law of the institutions of democracy and ensures their independence. We have seen here an effort to minimize the whole thing.
I did speak of the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker. I repeat that I hold him in respect and I found that one of the most unhappy things that has happened since I have been in this House was that he abandoned his own good judgment and permitted himself to continue to occupy a position which by his actions, however well intentioned, clearly disqualified him from being in the government of this country.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Unless the hon. member is rising on the same point of order maybe we could call it six o'clock. Or I could recognize the hon. member. Is it agreed we call it six o'clock after I have heard the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very important debate. I do not know how arrangements could be made but I think it would be most appropriate if committees of the House which were to sit this evening could be cancelled so that they will not keep members away. It is very important that this be done.

March 16, 1976
Alleged Interference with Judiciary


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to not going ahead with the committees so long as the schedules set for them will be continued. I understand the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts had arranged to dispose of Bill C-20 this evening.


An hon. Member:: No, it had not.


An hon. Member:: There was no arrangement like that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think we should get into a discussion on any kind of arrangement. I think the leaders of the parties or their representatives could get together and solve the problem quite easily. I think it is up to the committees themselves to arrange their program. I think this is a good suggestion and I hope hon. members will get together and solve it without taking the time of the House.


Jean-Jacques Blais: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard of any intention not to proceed with committees this evening so I am caught a bit short. I would have appreciated receiving some prior notice of the matter and some opportunity to negotiate it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There seems to be a disposition toward good will so I hope hon. members can get together and reach an agreement.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just before six o'clock the Conservative House leader said that perhaps we might make arrangements relating to the sitting of committees this evening. May I advise the House that no arrangement has been reached, and the committees are scheduled to sit at eight o'clock.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I regret that a greater effort was not made. I do not suggest that the parliamentary secretary made no effort. I say this because the present debate is extremely important, but despite its importance the government has not seen fit to re-schedule the committee meetings for this evening. It could have made other arrangements with the consent of members of all other parties in the House who are interested in maintaining the committee system but who are also interested in participating in this important debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It's the same old arrogance.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I lay the blame at the feet of the hon. gentleman from Grenville-Carleton who just spoke. If he had advised us before six o'clock that he wanted the committees not to sit, we could have communicated with members of my party who sit on the committees. But he did not do that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a point of arrogance.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have already mentioned some of the government's evasions and pretexts. I must now mention another important matter. I think the House has seldom heard anything as bizarre and preposterous as the reasons the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs gave for his resignation. They were absolutely ludicrous. He said he resigned in order to devote his attention to the contempt of court proceeding which affects him. That is beyond belief. What an extraordinary thing to say. Contempt proceedings last one day, possibly two. The appeal is prepared; the record is prepared. Presumably he hired a qualified lawyer, although he has not done well so far.


Mr. Gillies:: Are you available?


Francis Andrew Brewin: No. I would not want to be mixed up in that affair. Mr. Speaker, how can the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs pretend that he had to forgo his duties as minister of the Crown and protector of consumers because he needed to attend to a court case in which he was involved? The appeal can be discussed without his presence although, quite naturally, it would be a courtesy if he were to attend. Presumably he hired a lawyer who knows how to present a case. I do not see why he should use impending court proceedings as an excuse for giving up his job as the protector of the consumers in this country.


An hon. Member:: He said he did it for that reason.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, for that reason, and others. There may be other excellent reasons. One is so obvious that it led to the present debate.
That the minister should so pretend to the House is inexcusable. He clearly admitted that he requested the Minister of Public Works to interfere with the administration of justice relating to a case in which he was involved. Having admitted that, and then not uttering a single word of apology to parliament, although he was good enough to apologize for embarrassing the Minister of Public Works, is inexcusable.
By seeking to interfere with the judiciary the minister breached a basic, fundamental provision of the constitution of this country relating to the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. But not one single word did he say about that to parliament. Instead, we witnessed this preposterous pretense that he could not do his job because he had to deal with the matter before the courts. How contemptuous! Does he think we are so foolish or so childish as to accept his excuse?
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) made an excellent speech. I join with him in welcoming the role played by the opposition parties in this matter. I am thinking particularly of the Conservative party and my own party. We fulfilled the historic job of the opposition, and I think the opposition did it well. We have seen one
March 16, 1976

resignation-withdrawn, it is true-and another resignation tendered. I do not know how long that will last.


Walter David Baker: It is conditional.


John Edward Broadbent: So far it has lasted longer than the other one.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In any event the public has been alerted to a most serious attack on fundamental, constitutional provisions of this country. That has been our task. We have done it properly, and to pour contempt on us for doing it is ridiculous.
What has the government done? It has procrastinated, pretended, evaded, and adopted every type of stonewalling and evasion tactic you can imagine. The past-master at stonewalling and evasion is the Prime Minister.
The facts of the case are not difficult.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: They are clear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I recognize that. Certain facts could be established by a public inquiry. Otherwise the facts are clear indeed. It is now evident that the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs asked the Minister of Public Works to intervene in a judicial matter. I say that any man who does this is not fit or qualified to be a minister of the Crown. I say, further, that anybody who is so dumb as to behave like that is not fit to be a minister of the Crown. Although it pains me more to say this, because I know the minister personally, the same applies to the Minister of Public Works.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: He ought to have known better. I think he knows better. He knows a lot better now, but he should have known better before. Now he regrets it. He tendered his resignation and then allowed his resignation not to be accepted. I cannot believe he was so dumb that he would act as he did.


An hon. Member:: Why? Are you worried?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do worry. We must worry about it, as we are talking of responsible ministers and colleagues. If they show a poor, low standard, then it affects me and every member of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: The Prime Minister spoke about charity, good intentions, and good reputation. All of these things are absolutely irrelevant to the matter we are discussing. What does that have to do with this? What does charity have to do with the business of interfering with the administration of justice? I would get a long way in a court if I produced the argument that for some charitable reason I had intervened in the administration of justice and therefore my client or myself should be treated with charity!
I do not doubt that some of the minister's intentions were good. It may be that the Minister of Public Works, as his colleague said, was too generous, too naive or something. I do not know. However, it is not good intentions
Alleged Interference with Judiciary that count, but what was done. What was done was a clear cut open case of interference with the administration of justice.
I lastly come to the Prime Minister who has a major responsibility for this matter. He has pushed this away. He has sought all sorts of means of evasion. He has allowed the thing to go on. He acted either weakly, or for some other reason that I cannot comprehend, in permitting the minister to stay on in circumstances in which every other jurisdiction that has grown up with a civilized understanding of the difference between the judiciary and the executive would have stepped on quickly, firmly, and at once.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: In that he has failed this country. As far as I am concerned I regret it very much. I would like to respect the Prime Minister. I know he is a man of great ability. However, I have never seen a more disappointing performance than we have had this past week or so from somebody who aspires to the high office of Prime Minister of Canada. It has been a shameful performance.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) made some point of the desirability, indeed the responsibility, of lawyers to be precise. On two occasions he has charged the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouel-let) with interference. As he well knows, it is a term of art. Perhaps the hon. member was not in the House this afternoon when the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs read his statement. However, he specifically said that he had not interfered with the administration of justice. The hon. member just said he had.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer that. The minister did not interfere directly. He interfered through the agency of the minister who just asked the question. If not, what did the Minister of Public Works go for except to carry a message from the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs? There is an old Latin maxim which I will not quote in Latin as it is not often spoken in this House. It goes like this: "He who does it through another does it himself." I say the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs has a greater responsibility in this matter than the Minister of Public Works.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious debate in which there have been serious speeches. I would like to commence, as did the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, in reciting my obligations. I think it is appropriate in this debate to recite precisely what my obligations are, as I see them, to the government and the country. As the Chief Justice in his letter to me recited the Department of Justice Act, so do I. Section 4 states that it is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, and I quote:
1. to see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with law, and
11854

March 16, 1976
Alleged Interference with Judiciary
2. to have the superintendence of all matters connected with the administration of justice in Canada, not within the jurisdiction of the governments of the provinces.
I have stated in the House and outside the House that in relation to the subject matter the House is debating today and has been for some two weeks, I perceive my duties and responsibilities as being, first, to ensure there is no violation of the laws of Canada, including breaches by the ministers of the Crown and, second, to assist in ensuring the independence and the stature of the judiciary to assure its independence from interference or undue influence.
I agree, as I indicated in the House the other day, with the comments made by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec on page two of his letter, and I quote:
It is of the utmost importance that this independence of the judiciary, achieved through great effort during the course of the last three centuries, be jealously guarded against all attacks.
More particularly, it must remain protected from interventions from Members of the Cabinet, whatever may be the quality of the intentions that inspire them.
It remains to add, in the light of recent events that it must also be protected from interventions from Parliament.
As I indicated in the House, I subscribe to and support, as any Minister of Justice should and must, that statement by the Chief Justice. He goes on in his letter to me to expand upon his responsibilities toward the defence of his court, the management of his court, and my responsibilities. He states:
There exists then a definite point of contact between your obligations-
He is speaking of my obligations as Minister of Justice.
-and mine, though they may come from different sources.
It was for that reason that he had his responsibilities and I mine and that he considered it his duty to respond to my invitation to comment on the present case.
In outlining the obligations of Minister of Justice I would like to paraphrase Lord Shawcross speaking as Lord Chancellor and quoted in Edwards "The Law Officers of the Crown", which I had to quote to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) the other day when he suggested I was subject to political influence. Lord Shawcross said, and I am paraphrasing, that although the Attorney General is a member of the government he has certain duties which he cannot abdicate in connection with the administration of the law. The Attorney General has to discharge them with complete independence of the government. In these matters the Attorney General's duty, and it is his duty, is to concern himself only with the representation and protection of the public interest.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) spoke this afternoon of cynicism. I quote that expression because it is an expression of the obligations and responsibilities of the Attorney General. They are obligations that I recognize. They are obligations which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and former minister of justice of this country recognize. I raise the matter because I think it is important. If the hon. member for Fundy-Roy-al is talking of cynicism, let there be no cynicism in this House or in this country as to what are the obligations of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General. These obligations, as I perceive them, and as Lord Shawcross

perceives them, are the same perceptions as the Prime Minister has of the office of the Attorney General.
In this case the public interest as spoken of by the learned Lord Chancellor is to ensure the observance of the law and the independence of the judiciary. This is the course I have pursued since Mr. Justice Mackay first intimated to me allegations of interference with the judiciary by cabinet ministers.
I wish to emphasize, because people have said they do not have the facts, and have made allegations and inuen-dos, that prior to the receipt from Mr. Justice Mackay of specific information which he supplied to me at my request, neither I nor the Deputy Attorney General of Canada had received information from any source concerning these specific allegations or any allegations with respect to interference by ministers with any judges in Canada in connection with matters before them.
I hope members will observe and note that statement carefully and that the gentlemen sitting above you, Mr. Speaker, will note that carefully also.


An hon. Member:: All this is irrelevant.


Stanley Ronald Basford: If the hon. member who comes from Saskatchewan would listen, he might learn something.


An hon. Member:: Solid from ear to ear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The Minister of Justice has the floor.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Three accusations have been made by the opposition in relation to this matter. The first is that the government is determined to cover up approaches by certain ministers to the judges. The second concerns a so-called double standard in the application of the law about which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) spoke on Friday and again today. The third concerns the alleged interference with the course of justice.
Dealing with the first point, I want to repeat that Mr. Justice Mackay wrote to me on February 9 and that I received his letter on February 11. In that letter the learned judge devoted three lines of a three page letter to a passing reference to interference with the courts by ministers. At that time he provided me with no particulars and no request for any action. My first knowledge of any possible impropriety by ministers vis-a-vis the judiciary was in that letter. My response was sent on February 18. It was a prompt response and it requested further particulars in relation to his very general, passing comment. In his reply on February 20 there was specific reference to three incidents which have given rise to the debate today. He described ministerial conduct as "unwarranted attempts to interfere with the judicial process". I emphasize, however, that even in this letter there was no specific request for action but rather, if one looks at the letter carefully, there is a reference to the end of the exchange of correspondence.
The next thing that happened was this: without being asked by Mr. Justice Mackay to take any action, without
March 16, 1976

any action being suggested to me, I called upon my colleagues for an explanation of the incidents referred to in Mr. Justice Mackay's letter and, as is well known, I wrote to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court on March 4. I thought it proper to write to him because one of the issues which is involved, and one to which members of the opposition paid great attention, is the independence of the judiciary.
I thought it proper to write to the Chief Justice and say to him:
-if there is information indicating that anyone is or has been seeking improperly to interfere with the due administration of justice in a court, by approaches to a judge or otherwise, this is a matter of which the Chief Justice of the Court, as the judge principally responsible for the management of the Court and for protecting its independence and integrity, would be made fully aware.
I am therefore writing to you to invite you to draw to my attention, if you deem such action appropriate, information that may be in your possession respecting any unwarranted attempts to interfere with the proper administration of justice in your Court in respect of matters that should be of concern to me.
There was some question in the House the other day about the use of those words; they were the words used by Mr. Justice Mackay.
I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that my request to the Chief Justice was not limited to the three incidents then in the public domain. I wrote to the Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Prime Minister, because he is the person principally responsible for the administration and independence of that court. As the Chief Justice says in his letter, the statutory provisions of the Quebec Courts of Justice Act, Section 21(a) and the traditional common law practices which have developed around the office of Chief Justice make it clear that he is the man responsible chiefly for the administration, independence, and integrity of the court.
Next, I wish to emphasize that the Prime Minister, when that letter was sent, agreed immediately, subject to the views of the Chief Justice, to publish the reply upon its receipt. I draw attention to this history because the hon. member for Fundy-Royal spoke at such length this afternoon about the role and the importance of the opposition. The opposition obviously has a role to play, and this is important in a free society. But all these actions were taken by me as Attorney General, with the concurrence of the Prime Minister. The request was made to the Chief Justice, the request was made to Judge Mackay for further particulars, without benefit of questions from the opposition and without pressure from the media of this country.
These things were done on the initiative of myself and of the government to try to determine the facts from the one man in Canada who, under the law, is best able to provide these facts, namely, the Chief Justice of Quebec. I emphasize that they were done without the benefit of pressure from the opposition.


Mr. Andre:: That is not true.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am sorry hon. member, but it is true. I put that on the record because I want to take very definite exception, as does the Chief Justice, to the comment made by a member of the New Democratic Party that such a
Alleged Interference with Judiciary referral of this matter to the Chief Justice of Quebec was a "cosy, 'All in the family' arrangement".


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Members of the New Democratic Party have been getting up in this House and talking about damage to institutions, damage to the courts, yet they have the effrontery to suggest that the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec is somehow part of a "cosy, 'All in the family' arrangement". I take my responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, to protect the independence and stature of the judiciary I think rather carefully. I ask the members of the New Democratic Party to consider their words rather carefully before they start making stupid comments like that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Upon receipt of Chief Justice Deschenes' letter, I immediately and forthwith referred it, as I have informed the House, to the law officers of the Crown, as was my duty, obligation, and responsibility as Attorney General. I have also informed the House, as reported at page 11749 of Hansard, that it was referred to the senior law officers of the Crown and that the contents of the Chief Justice's letter disclosed to the chief law officers no violation of any law by any minister, and I so advised the Prime Minister of that fact. If there is any doubt on that question, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to table my letter to the Prime Minister. I would ask leave to table the letter, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed and so ordered.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is the date of that letter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: March 12. The course of action followed throughout in this matter has, in my view, been both consistent and open.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: You can be even funnier than that.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the opposition does not seem to want to hear what the facts are.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: We are still waiting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The minister has the floor.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, when reference is made to an opposition day it means that members of the government are not even entitled to speak. As I was saying, the course of action followed throughout in this matter has been both consistent and open. My goal was to determine from the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, the person principally responsible for the protection of the independence of the court, what interference, if any, his judges may have been subject to in respect of matters that should be of concern to me. This seemed to me the only proper course of action, one accepted by the Chief Justice
21419-58V1

March 16, 1976
Alleged. Interference with Judiciary
and which is consistent, if one reads his letter, with his own view of the different but closely related powers and responsibilities of his office and of mine.
Consequently, in light of the facts set out by the judges themselves, as this House knows they-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the minister that his time has expired. He may continue by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Minister of Justice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, several of us said no. I would point out to Your Honour that this afternoon the Prime Minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into the argument, but surely if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a point of order he should be heard first before recognizing me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the Prime Minister asked for a few extra minutes or perhaps 10. We gave him an extension of time and it became 20 or 30 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: There is no unanimous consent. The hon. member for Calgary North.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Quiet over there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Calgary North has the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our party would have been quite willing to give the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) extra time to finish his speech. I was most interested in what he was saying.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) has a point of order.


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member's comments are most interesting, unfortunately we cannot hear a word on this side of the House because there is too much noise.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr, Speaker, I am glad we have now settled all these points of order. I should just like to mention that I think all members of parliament would agree that this debate has been on a very high plane. I should particularly like to mention the speech of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather)-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -who made what I would say was a most enlightened and outstandingly good speech this afternoon and set the tone for this debate. I should like to commence my remarks by making reference to one of the points made by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.
The opposition has been under some criticism because we have dared to ask questions, to which answers have been refused. We have been stonewalled. Even when we got answers a big snow job was done. The Globe and Mail broke the story on March 3, and it was at that time that we met, on what I call that famous Wednesday in parliament, and moved motions and asked questions. I should just like to bring the House up to date on what has happened since that time before I make some further remarks.
We asked for an inquiry but the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said there was no need for an inquiry, that nothing was wrong, that there was no influence or intervention. He was the cardinal, he was the pope, he was the queen, and he was the judge of the facts. We have not got those facts even yet. I might direct your attention to the fact that we have yet to receive these facts since the time we asked for an inquiry and the story broke in the Globe and Mail. We have had the letter to which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) referred, written by Mr. Justice Mackay on February 20, and received on February 21. It was not until March 3 that he replied to the letter.
Some other interesting things have happened. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) resigned and then withdrew his resignation because the Prime Minister said he could not do without him. Today we had the resignation of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), now simply the hon. member for Papineau. Without questions, without interrogation, and without a search for that information from the government things of this nature would not have happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Justice talks about a cosy arrangement. The cosy arrangement to which I refer is that arrangement within the executive itself that allows it to create the problems, create the facts, make the decisions, and write the judgments. That is the cosy arrangement.
I do not think we can hide today the facts of the last ten days. Parliament has been shocked, as the country has been shocked. We have been shocked by the action of government ministers in reference to this very serious question of an inquiry into matters concerning the executive power of the judiciary. One resignation today does not
March 16, 1976

solve the issue, and this issue will live in this parliament and with this government for a long time to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It was very interesting to hear the Prime Minister say just a few days ago that there was nothing wrong. He said he had talked to this one and to that one and had sized up the facts and, in his judgment on the facts, nothing was wrong. Today he has set himself adrift, like Robinson Crusoe. He has said now that he has found his ministers were wrong. They did not commit any offence. He has made that decision, it is not one that has been made by anybody else under the criminal code.
The Prime Minister has sized up the facts and says now that his ministers have done wrong things, and that is why he has accepted the resignation of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and that is why he asked for and accepted an apology from the Minister of Public Works. One thing we have learned from the facts today is that the Prime Minister has set himself adrift from the rest of his executive because he felt in his heart, will all his knowledge and his training, that they were in the wrong.
I never thought I would see the day in parliament when the Minister of Public Works, and I agree with some who have said he is a man of high calibre, intelligence, and integrity, would tender his resignation because he had been wrong. The Prime Minister has arrogantly refused to accept that resignation in spite of the serious situation and issue now before the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The issue is not whether judges were influenced. The issue is whether there was an indiscreet attempt by certain ministers to call judges while matters were pending before the courts, and in particular when a member of the executive had been charged and found guilty of contempt of court. This is a very serious matter indeed for any lawyer or any Privy Councillor or member of the executive. It is a very serious matter when such an attempt would be made directly or indirectly by a member of the executive, either thoughtfully or without thought, deliberately or unintentionally.
There apparently was a discussion of a particular matter with the judge. What was that discussion? We have had to pry the facts from the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In the earlier days confessions came much easier than now, because the ministers now know they are in serious trouble. On March 3, 1976, I rose in my place and asked the following question:
I will turn, now, to another member of the cabinet, and address a question to the Minister of Public Works. In a letter to the Minister of Justice on February 20, Mr. Justice Mackay stated:
"After Mr. Ouellet asked Mr. John Turner to intervene on his behalf with the judge presiding over the contempt of court proceedings and was promptly rebuffed, he approached Mr. Drury with more success, but, as it turned out, without the desired effect."
Would the Minister of Public Works tell the House whether he was approached and what kind of assistance he rendered?
Alleged Interference with Judiciary
Here is what the minister said:
I may say for the benefit of those who are prepared to listen that in my opinion the integrity, the independence, of the judiciary is critical to the successful running of a country such as ours and I both respect and admire this principle. If it were not for the fact that I consider the Associate Chief Justice of Quebec, whom I have known for a number of years, to be uninfluencible, in a pejorative sense, I would have refrained from intervening-
What has that to do with it, whether he could influence the judge or not? The point I want to emphasize is that an attempt was made, and that is the important issue, not whether the judge is or was influenced. The question is whether there was an attempt directly or indirectly to influence him.


An hon. Member:: Oh, go back to Robinson Crusoe.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister says that he would have refrained from intervening or from having any conversation with him. He said:
Indeed, the only intervention that would be contemplated by me would be one to see that he was in full knowledge of the facts-
Let us stop there. Where does a judge get his facts in conducting any kind of an inquiry or case? He gets those facts from the witnesses called before him, from the records of the court or from documents that have been put in as evidence, and not from the executive or any citizen of Canada. If this is not an attempt to influence a judge, there never has been any attempt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then we have the crowning statement that the minister wanted to see that he was in full knowledge of the facts and that he did his duty. I appreciate the prerogative of the Prime Minister in appointing judges, but I do not think the prerogative extends throughout the executive, allowing them to call judges to inform them of their duties or how to perform them. Again I suggest that this is not a question of whether judges were influenced, and I will have something more to say about that, but rather a question involving an attempt by the executive to intervene and to influence a judge. That is the important point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree with the Minister of Justice and others that we have one of the finest judiciaries in the world. The appointment of judges by all governments has always taken place after a great deal of consideration of a man's education, training, and character, which the bar associations of this country demand of members of the bar. When a person is elevated to the Bench he must accept the challenge. Let me put this by quoting a former judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who was dealing with a commission in respect of a former judge who had resigned, Mr. Landreville. He said:
A study is made of instances in the past where in Great Britain and in the United States the conduct of Judges has been under review by Parliament and by the Courts. The importance of the independence of Judges is emphasized: "It should be the guarantee of security to the weak against the strong and to the individual against the community; it should present a shield against the tyranny of power and arrogance and against the irresponsibility and irrationality of popular action-" "...

Alleged Interference with Judiciary
the underlying basic assumption is the intellectual and moral integrity of the judicial officer in his pronouncements."
We have heard day in and day out that Chief Justice Deschenes has said there was nothing wrong. I am going to refer to his letter, but he never talked to any of these ministers. He did not talk to the former minister of Consumer and corporate affairs or to the Minister of Public Works, and he did not talk to The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). He has talked to his judges, and all he has said is that his judges have exonerated themselves and have done nothing wrong. But he has not had the chance to talk to the minister. I am glad the Minister of Justice has returned.
The Chief Justice has not talked to the ministers. How could he find, in view of the fact that he had no evidence before him, that the ministers had done no wrong? The only person marking that decision is the Prime Minister. He said they had done no wrong. That is why we are continually asking and that is why we have this motion before us, for which I congratulate the NDP, asking for an inquiry. The people of Canada and members of parliament are entitled to the facts, and those facts have not been obtained. They have been given to a judge secretly and quietly, The Prime Minister says he is the judge. He is the cardinal, he is the pope, he is the queen, he is everything. He has made the decision, he is judge and jury.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On the admission of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) there should have been a public inquiry, the kind of inquiry established by law so that information could be bared and so that we could have it before parliament and before the Canadian people. That is what we are requesting.
I know, Mr. Speaker, they have watched this for ten days and they cannot back out of it. They have even used questions of privilege which are fraudulent. They have used every method to avoid answering questions. Yet the Prime Minister, who must take the responsibility for it, says there is nothing wrong. I think there is something wrong "in the state of Denmark", there is something wrong with the executive and something wrong with this government.
What are the facts? This is what the Minister of Justice said, and these are the only facts we know, the ones we pried out of the government. The former minister of consumer and corporate affairs was charged and found guilty of contempt of court because he ridiculed Justice Mackay's decision on the sugar case. He used such words-here I paraphrase-as that a judge that would make that decision would have to be insane.


An hon. Member:: Silly decision.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That shows just how arrogant the Liberals still are.
The former minister of consumer and corporate affairs sought advice from the former minister of finance, Mr. Turner, who refused to intervene or interfere, who in fact rebuffed the minister. Then he turned to the Minister of Public Works, a lawyer, a Queen's counsel, a distinguished

soldier, a minister of the Crown, who placed a call to Mr. Justice Hugessen. He called the judge to give him some facts and to tell him what his duties were.
What did Chief Justice Deschenes say in his report? His examination and his research were in reference to judges. He found their conduct above reproach, but he set out very clearly that he had no mandate in law or in ethics to examine what parliament was doing or what the ministers of the Crown were doing, or what members of parliament were doing. There is the issue, there is the essence of the indictments against the Prime Minister and his government and his failure to tell parliament and the people of Canada what his ministers are up to and why they feel they have the God given right, because the Prime Minister appointed them to the executive, to breach all the rules of the bar association, and indeed breach the ethics and standards of the very essence of democracy, the foundations of which rest upon a complete separation of the powers of the executive and the judiciary.
Let us take a look at what Chief Justice Deschenes said. He reminded the Liberal government of one of its great leaders, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He said:
It is a strange doctrine to preach that the judges are responsible to parliament. Where is that responsibility? I have always understood that the judges were responsible only to their own conscience, and parliament has no power over them. True, they can be removed, but only on an address of both Houses of parliament. That law has been adopted to make them absolutely independent of parliament, and they are only responsible to parliament in extreme cases of malfeasance.
He also said:
It seems to me that we must discard any suggestion that the Canadian Judicial Council has a role to play in this matter. Its jurisdiction relates to an examination of complaints relating to the conduct of judges and not to complaints that might concern the conduct of third parties in relation to them
-namely, ministers who intervene, who call judges and try to tell them what their duties are. That is what Mr. Justice Deschenes told them.
He also said this:
I consider myself however under no obligation in relation to Parliament-save that of good behaviour-nor towards the government, and the invitations to undertake an inquiry which have been addressed to me in the House of Commons appear to me to be out of place.
In other words, he said it would probably be out of place for him to make any comment on what the ministers did or what the members of parliament did in their intervention or in their attempt to influence judges. That letter of the Chief Justice has no bearing on the issue in finding out what went on within the executive and how they attempted to influence judges.
The Chief Justice also said:
I was not appointed to conduct a commission of inquiry and of course it is obviously not one of my functions to set myself up as a semi-official investigator on behalf of the House of Commons.
Then he went on to talk about what happened with reference to the telephone conversation with the Minister of Public Works and he gave an account of what Justice Hugessen wrote to him on the subject as follows:
Mr. Drury telephoned me during the hearing of the contempt proceedings against Andre Ouellet. The call came to my home, in the evening, after dinner, when I was in the basement helping my youngest son...
March 16, 1976

Then he went on the say what the minister said to him. When the Prime Minister said there had been no offences under the code, perhaps someone should take a look at the code. This is what Mr. Justice Hugessen wrote:
The conversation dealt with two aspects of the Ouellet case:
1. Whether it would be possible for Mr. Ouellet to make a formal apology-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to inform the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does he have the consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that we on this side of the House have heard that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) had chosen to tender his resignation as minister.
As a result of the controversy and the extent of politiza-tion brought in this issue, it had become impossible for him to discharge his responsibilities as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and to continue to protect the interests of the Canadian consumers.
During the brief period in which I had the pleasure to sit with him in the House, I was often impressed by his ability, the respect he was showing for his responsibilities and his warm relations with backbenchers.
His departure from the cabinet will be a serious loss for the government. However, we hope that one day in the near future he will be re-appointed as a minister.

No one can have sat in this Chamber or read the debates concerning this matter without being conscious of the strong feelings held on both sides of the House. No need exists for me to recite the facts. Certainly the motion as proposed by the NDP is extreme in its critical implications, in my judgment unduly so.
For whatever reason, we are now engrossed in what is at worst an unseemly squabble, at best an assurance that direct ministerial communications to judges on cases being considered by them will be a thing of the past.
In respect of the controversy I would wish to deal with the independence of the judiciary, the call for a public inquiry, and the related situation of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury).
The independence of the judiciary of this country as guaranteed by law and tradition is inviolate. This is underlined by the quotation of a speech by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to this House on September 15, 1903, as quoted by Chief Justice Deschenes in his report. The only power parliament itself has over judges is to remove them on grounds of malfeasance, but only on an address of both Houses of Parliament.
Clearly, then, if Parliament itself lacks any power over the judiciary, no member of parliament or single minister
Alleged Interference with Judiciary could be in such a position. Cries by opposition members that the judiciary is a fragile blossom which might be trampled on by a minister, no matter how powerful, are sheer nonsense. The judiciary is independent and will remain so, not because of the forbearance of the government but because it has guaranteed rights which cannot be thwarted by parliament itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The question of a public inquiry opens problems for parliament and the judiciary which seem to me to be difficult in the extreme. Since parliament should zealously guard its privileges, any such inquiry involving its own members or members of the judiciary should necessarily be by a committee of parliament. If the misdemeanour lies with a judge, that is a parliamentary responsibility. If the misdemeanour is that of a member of parliament or minister responsible to parliament, that matter also must be heard by parliament.
Clearly, parliament would not wish to delegate this fundamental task to an outside body. We might thus have a committee of parliament conducting an inquisitorial investigation of what ministers might have said to ministers, what ministers might have said to judges, what judges might have said to judges, what judges might have said to lawyers, what lawyers acting for judges might have said to newspaper reporters, and so on, and on, and on. Even if parliament were to delegate the function to an outside appointed tribunal of inquiry, the same features would exist. Surely those wishing to maintain public respect for the independence of the judiciary would not welcome such a form of inquisition.


An hon. Member:: They would not phone a judge either.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The report of the Chief Justice of Quebec recited the facts and concluded that no impropriety could be asserted to have been committed by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). Nonetheless, they both apologized for any possible embarrassment caused by their contacts with the justices in question. Chief Justice Deschenes characterized the phone call of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) as grave, presumably meaning serious, or even very serious. Justice Hugessen had himself thought the call improper and so advised the minister at the time of the call.
There is now no doubt in anyone's mind that the phone conversation should not have taken place. The minister has recognized the impropriety of the act by an apology and by the tendering of his resignation. The question is, then, of the consequences or the penalty. The minister, with his unquestioned sense of public responsibility, saw his duty and carried it out. He was entirely prepared to accept the extreme penalty of climaxing a brilliant and honourable career by an exit in disgrace. Surely even the most uncharitable would look at all the facts and question the severity of the sentence which would be imposed if the minister's tendered resignation were accepted.
First, with regard to the telephone conversation itself, forgetting for a moment the indiscretion in placing the call, Mr. Justice Hugessen reported two items. One was to ask if an apology could bring the proceedings to an end.

March 16, 1976
Alleged Interference with Judiciary The other was to advise of a situation the minister perceived respecting English-speaking, French-speaking relations.
Again, setting aside the question of the act of telephoning the judge, the minister believed he was conversing on a personal level with the best intentions in mind. I have heard no one assert anything to the contrary, and certainly not Mr. Justice Hugessen.
The facts of the indiscretion, coupled with the comments of the Chief Justice, presented the minister with the only honourable course to which he felt he had recourse, that is, to offer a full apology and his resignation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) quite properly, in my judgment, brought other tests to bear. He acknowledged the lapse of judgment; he did not excuse it. He recognized that in future, with the present example in mind, that a harsher penalty might be applied. He also recognized that the career of one of the most dedicated, honourable public servants produced by this country should not be destroyed by this single lapse of judgment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: In the relatively unchartered waters presented by such a case it is difficult to know what sort of penalty should fall on a minister. It is an unsolved problem of democracy as to what penalty should follow from errors, follies, ignorance or even innocent miscalculations. In sterner times heads were the forfeit.
Despite willingness to acknowledge the splendid record of the Minister of Public Works, his integrity, and the basically innocent motivation behind his impropriety, some hon. members now seek his head, figuratively, as well.


An hon. Member:: We want your head.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Well, you won't get it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Surely the motivation behind an indiscretion or impropriety of this sort must be considered. If it was greed, venality, or even a desire to enhance his personal power, it could be understood and condemned. In this case, knowing the man, knowing what he said, and knowing his high standards of personal integrity, his motive was an honest desire to help a friend and a colleague.
In any event, the error was made. Perhaps one should recall the disarming remark of that great President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt.


An hon. Member:: Richard Nixon?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I am not thinking of your hero; I am thinking of Franklin Roosevelt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Franklin Roosevelt said, "I don't often make a mistake, but when I do it's a lulu."
In recent days we have heard the comparison made with the incident involving Hugh Dalton, British Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was obliged to resign when a newspa-

per printed a budget item which was leaked. In that case, though the indiscretion did not result in any action detrimental to the state, there was the long principle of the inviolability of the budget and the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the letter Prime Minister Atlee wrote accepting Dalton's resignation he pointed out this specific feature of the circumstance, and the historic character.
In this case before our parliament there was neither an attempt to influence the judge, as confirmed by the judge, not a feasible ability to do so. Nor again was there the long, hallowed tradition of a budget indiscretion. The analogy breaks down on every count.
I do not take issue with the oppostion criticism of the government's embarrassment in this issue. Not only is the government vulnerable, but I think the principle of judicial independence has been reinforced.
I do not support the idea of a public inquiry, for the reasons I have cited.
The core of my plea is a simple one. It is that all of us recognize that too few men of the character of the Minister of Public Works have given their lives to the public service of this country. His career has been a noble one in the highest possible tradition. Whatever else might come of this sorry chapter, I plead with the House to recognize that sometimes, in the words of the poet, "mercy should allay our stern resentment".
In a few days or weeks the House presumably will have turned its attention to other matters. I hope, and indeed pray that the honourable career of the Minister of Public Works will not be a tragic and unnecessary casualty of battle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments allotted to me tonight I should like to speak to the House on what I consider to be the inexcusable pattern of delays running through this whole "dial-a-judge" affair.
First of all, I should like to make a few comments respecting the words of wisdom and long lecture given to us tonight by the relatively new Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). With as much kindness as I can muster tonight, and with the feelings that I have on this matter, I should like to say to the Minister of Justice that some of us, on this side of the House in any event, need no lecture from him in respect of the high duties and high principles expected from attorneys general in this country and indeed throughout the whole British legal system.
Some of us have held that high office-in some ways in a more onerous administration of justice responsibility than he has, for a longer time than he has held that job.


An hon. Member:: Now you are in the big league.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I would agree with him that there certainly are special duties in respect of the attorneys general and Minister of Justice of this country and throughout the provinces. I bring up the question of the time table and the
March 16, 1976

delays by the Minister of Justice only because he seems to be making a big thing of it.
Let us go back for a moment, if we may, in respect of what was said.


An hon. Member:: Lost your notes?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Yes, I have lost my notes, solely and simply because I was not prepared to get into this until the Minister of Justice spoke. He made a great thing of saying that he received a letter on February 11 of this year from Mr. Justice Mackay which contained several broad allegations of improper activity on the part of his fellow ministers.
He did not act immediately on those allegations by letter. Instead he waited seven full days until February 18, one full week, until February 18 before he then fired off a letter to Mr. Justice Mackay which in effect said to Mr. Justice Mackay: what do you mean?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It was pretty obvious what he meant.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I think one week is far too long for a minister of justice to delay on a matter as important as that. In any event, on February 18 he dated a letter to Mr. Justice Mackay and said "I want details, I want specifics, I want the actual facts; no more of these allegations because I do not know."
Mr. Justice Mackay got that letter on February 19 and on February 20 dated a letter to the Minister of Justice in which he indicated in some detail fairly specific allegations of improper activity on the part of three of the colleagues of the Minister of Justice in the ministry respecting interference, or respecting intervention in any event, with members of the judiciary in the province of Quebec. On February 20 that letter was dispatched by Mr. Justice Mackay. The minister has not indicated when it reached his office but I suspect that was at least on February 21.
The minister comes along in a great blaze of glory here tonight to say that, under no pressure from anyone, on March 4 he sent off an epistle to Chief Justice Deschenes asking him to investigate the whole matter.
May I merely point out to you. Sir, that on the evening of March 2, fully two days before that letter of March 4 to Chief Justice Mackay, this story broke in the press of this country. The Globe and Mail on the evening of March 2 broke the story.


An hon. Member:: How did they get it?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am not worried how they got it yet, although I think we all should be. In any event, I merely want to say that, to me, the Minister of Justice was derelict in his duty by sitting or having others in his office sit on that letter between February 21 and March 4 before he did anything about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If he is so all fired blown up with the importance of the position he now holds I merely suggest to him, through you, that he should and could have acted much faster. One of the real conundrums in this matter is
Alleged Interference with Judiciary that no information gets out, either in this House of Commons or in the media, unless it is dragged out of these people kicking and screaming all the way.
I say that the Minister of Justice was derelict in his duty; if he was not around then his deputy was equally derelict for not acting on that letter long before they did. My suspicions are that the only reason the minister got on it at all was because the whole thing was already before the press of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) on a point of order.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think that raises a question of privilege because the hon. member is referring to dereliction of duty. I simply want to deny what the hon. member has alleged.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I think as well that the Minister of Justice, after giving us a lecture on the duties of attorneys general in this country, also did the wrong thing when he had that information. He referred it to a chief justice-a well renowned chief justice of this country, in such an odd way. I do not know if such a reference has ever been made before by a minister of justice in this country relating to a matter of such importance to a member of the judiciary, for that member of the judiciary to act in any manner, shape or form.
I merely want to read to you, sir, two short paragraphs from Chief Justice Deschenes' report which are selfexplanatory. To me they are a very sharp rap over the knuckles to the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). On page 4 of the report Chief Justice Deschenes said:
I consider myself however under no obligation in relation to parliament-save that of good behaviour-nor towards the government, and the invitations to undertake an inquiry which have been addressed to me in the House of Commons appear to me to be out of place.
All I can say to the Minister of Justice in relation to that is "hear, hear" for Chief Justice Deschenes because it was a wrong proposal in the first place not to give the man the investigative machinery or equipment he needed. This was a report that had to be based on an investigation when the Chief Justice really had one hand tied behind his back. He also said:
I can also only dismiss the proposition that I proceed to interview privately one or other members of the cabinet whose names were mentioned in the House. I was not appointed to conduct a commission of inquiry and of course it is obviously not one of my functions to set myself up as a semi-official investigator on behalf of the House of Commons.
Sir, no complete, thorough, impartial investigation could be made by Chief Justice Deschenes under those halfhearted terms of reference given to him by the Minister of Justice who boasts tonight about his separate and impartial duties.
I say that the Minister of Justice was derelict in his duty by doing what he did: he is still, sitting there tonight, derelict in his duty because he will not call, whether his Prime Minister likes or not-because he as Attorney General of Canada will not call a public judicial inquiry into this matter.

March 16, 1976
Alleged Interference with Judiciary


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: There is one further matter that the Minister of Justice in his boastfulness tonight did not deal with, and that is the question of the public release of the Deschenes report. I ask you, Sir, to refer to Hansard, to when this matter first came to the attention of the House. The Minister of Justice responded to representations made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) by saying that, if he had his way, he would not release the Deschenes report to this House, or make it public. He said that even before he saw the report.


Walter David Baker: Page 11613 of Hansard.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That was strange behaviour on the part of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. His attitude amounts to a travesty of justice.
I turn now to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was minister of justice in a previous Liberal government. By training and occupation he ought to be especially aware of the duties and responsibilities of those involved with the judiciary. It is a crying shame that the Prime Minister cannot distinguish between an improper action and an illegal action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Obviously ministers of the Crown are in a somewhat different position. The onus on them is greater, and the standard of care they ought to exercise in making sure they act with propriety is that much higher. Obviously the Prime Minister considers that such standards are met as long as what ministers do is not illegal.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You mean, so long as they do not get caught.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Why, I have known of ministers of finance being bounced out of office simply because they revealed some contents of a budget minutes before the budget speech was made in the House. That was not illegal, but it was improper. Traditionally, under our British parliamentary system of government, such improper actions are enough to force a minister's resignation.
This afternoon we heard the Prime Minister lecture us on what could be done in a contempt of court action. I could not believe my ears when I listened to him. Let me repeat at least one sentence of his speech, and if I misquote I hope the right hon. gentleman will say so. Talking about the intervention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) with associate Chief Justice Hugessen, the Prime Minister said this afternoon, and I quote, "It was important to know in some way what sort of an apology would be expected," He was referring to the apology to be made to Mr. Justice Mackay. Mr. Speaker, bargaining like that, on the part of a party to an action or others, should take place in court, preferably in open court, in the presence of counsel for both parties.
That a minister of the Crown, who himself is a member of the bar should do something expressly forbidden by the code of ethics of the province in which he was called to the

bar makes the offence more heinous. He did something which ought not to be done in any circumstances. I do not care what his motives were. The very fact he intervened with a justice seized of the matter is enough.
Again this matter came to our knowledge not because any minister was impelled, on the grounds of political morality, to disclose anything. We know about it because a member of the Quebec bar blew the whistle on the government. A disgruntled lawyer had not received his fees, and that led to disclosure. That is why the judge himself felt impelled to write the letter. Unless there is a public inquiry the public of this country will wonder on how many other occasions such an intervention took place.
Only after these matters were made public did something else happen. Forced by the media, by what took place on the floor of the House of Commons and by public opinion, the Minister of Public Works tendered his resignation. His delay in tendering it should be remembered.
The final act occurred today when the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs tendered his resignation. His excuse for tendering it was that somehow the contempt of court appeal hanging over his head made him unable to perform his duties as a responsible minister of the Crown. Sir, tonight we are in the third week of March, 1976. The former minister's notice of appeal was filed in the last week of January, 1976. If the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs was truly upset by this sword hanging over his head, why did he wait until this late hour before resigning?
I think the Prime Minister was derelict in his duty in not asking for, and receiving, specific information on this matter. He ought to have received it long ago. I think the Minister of Public Works was derelict in not submitting his resignation long ago. The Minister of Justice was also derelict in his delays. I condemn the former principal aide to the Prime Minister for delaying disclosure of the part he played in this matter. There is one reason and one reason only for these delays. The information has to be dragged out of these ministers on the floor of the House of Commons. If it were not for the work of the media we might know nothing of this. Faced with the criticism in the House and in the media, they grudgingly did something which ought to have been done weeks ago. In the case of two ministers it ought to have been done years ago.
Only one course of action will satisfy the members of this House. Hon. members, including those of the Prime Minister's party, know that only a full, complete, public and impartial judicial inquiry into this whole sorry mess of wire pulling and influence pushing will satisfy the people of this country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, since the very beginning of this incident, members of the opposition have had a full opportunity to bring the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government to account in the House of Commons. All the parliamentary devices have been utilized. There have been endless and repetitive question periods. In fact you could use all possible adjectives to describe the question periods with the exception of the adjective "searching".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They have used obstruction tactics. Last Friday, while the House was proposing to resume a debate on the law of the sea and depletion of the fishing stocks on the Atlantic coast, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) moved to adjourn the debate and the House adjourned.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the minister not know that that is not true, that I moved the adjournment during the hour between four and five o'clock after the fisheries debate had ended?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I are good friends. Indeed at one time we could have been described as close partners, in the period of minority government when we both pursued common goals and objectives. However, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has now, with a customary display of fickleness, selected new partners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Indeed on Friday afternoon when the House was in an uproar I was surprised to learn that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had decided to seek the assistance of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), having concluded that there was little opportunity to find that assistance within the ranks of his own followers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What a chill must have gone through the spines of the delegates who recently attended his national convention when they learned that the Leader of the Opposition had called upon the NDP. In the minds of his followers, the call upon the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby must have been a greater impropriety than a call by any minister to any judge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can tell the Leader of the Opposition in the way of friendly advice, don't count on the NDP; they let you down when you need them most.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Today, despite the claim of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) that the House of Commons is beset with a crisis of cynicism, the opposition have exercised their ultimate weapon. They moved a motion of non-confidence and they want to bring the government down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Alleged Interference with Judiciary


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal thinks we would have it otherwise. We would not have it otherwise. We want your questions. We do not mind your obstruction, and we are ready tonight to accept the judgment of the House on the conduct of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The main complaint of members of the opposition is that the Prime Minister has failed to accept the resignation of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury). The Prime Minister has given his reasons for not accepting the resignation that was offered. I believe that the reasons given by the Prime Minister do credit to his sense of justice and to his depth of understanding of human nature.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The opposition disagreed with that judgment and thereby display their desire for an over-kill solution to this problem. The peoples' representatives will deal with that subject tonight. They will back up the Prime Minister in the House of Commons and later, when this issue goes to the people, they will back up the decision of the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Prime Minister told the House and the Canadian people today that in this situation an apology, repentence, and amendment are enough. The opposition wants capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal, who in other circumstances is an enemy of capital punishment, today lined up with all others who are demanding not only an apology and a resignation from the Minister of Public Works, but for a beheading to end his career abruptly and to banish from public life in Canada one of the most distinguished members of the House of Commons.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal dwelt upon another subject, the equality of the citizen before the law. He made a most unusual argument in asking the House of Commons whether a poor man would be permitted to enter the living room of a Justice in Westmount or whether a poor man would be allowed to telephone the Associate Chief Justice of Quebec. Surely the hon. member came dangerously close to accusing the judiciary of Canada of bias.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Pathetic!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Time!


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I always heard that when the government is in difficulties it brings up its heavy artillery. The hon.

March 16, 1976
Alleged Interference with Judiciary gentleman who has just resumed his seat is the only speaker who has taken part in this debate who has managed to talk for nearly 15 minutes without touching the subject. Neither he nor the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have been able to understand the difference between a minister acting illegally and a minister violating parliamentary tradition, particularly the two men who have a responsibility for seeing to it that ministers do not improperly abuse the power of their offices.
Hugh Dalton, because he told a newspaperman on his way into the House that the price of tobacco and liquor would go up, sent his resignation the next morning to Prime Minister Atlee who accepted it. He did so not because Hugh Dalton acted illegally but because he had used his position in violation of parliamentary tradition, which the House has the right to expect the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) to protect and preserve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the debate and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings before the House, in accordance with section 9(a) of Standing Order 58.
The question is on the motion in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost. Motion (Mr. Broadbent) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until two p.m. tomorrow.
At 10.18 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, March 17, 1976