1977-07-06

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
SECOND SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 26 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Printing and Publishing, Supply and Services, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9
80020-1 Vi
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 6, 1977


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity arising from the letter signed by the former solicitor general, the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), dealing with an alleged extra-parliamentary opposition to which was attached a list of the names of 21 people whom the letter stated were suspected of being engaged in or sympathetic to EPO activity and suggested they should be watched in the interest of national security with more than normal care. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Prime Minister advise the House as to why the name of Mr. Robert Rabinovitch, assistant secretary to the cabinet for priorities and planning, appears on this list, whether or not he has been cleared of all such insinuation and innuendo with a subsequent apology being given, and if not, whether the government is prepared to either substantiate the minister's allegations or to clear the name of Mr. Rabinovitch now and to dismiss the former solicitor general from the cabinet as an obvious total incompetent.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact the Foreign Investment Review Agency has allowed United Parcel Services of America Inc. through its subsidiary, UPS Ltd., to take over Delivro Canada Inc., despite objections from the Post Office, CN, CP Express and the governments of Ontario and Quebec, and in view of the fact that UPS of America has been convicted of monopolistic practices in the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That this House instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to intervene personally to stop this take-over, which will jeopardize Canadian companies and Canadian jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an urgent matter of pressing necessity.
Since Statistics Canada reports that a great many Canadians are experiencing housing difficulties; since more than 280,000 Canadian families spend over half their income for housing; and since interest rates are the main reason for the high cost of housing in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House immediately take all necessary steps to reduce without delay the interest rates on mortgages so as to soften the impact of those excessive interest rates and to make the purchase of a house financially interesting for all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of

July 6, 1977
Government Administration
urgent and pressing necessity. Having regard to letters tabled yesterday by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) relating to his involvement in the APLQ affair and having regard for discrepancies regarding the date of the RCMP's reply to Lieutenant Colonel Cameron, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That the documents tabled by the Minister of Supply and Services on July 5, 1977 be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the fact that the Department of National Revenue in information circular 76-4R under the sub-heading "Kickbacks, Bribes, etc." explains to businessmen how to turn a bribe into a tax write-off by obtaining a receipt and since this is another example of loopholes in our tax laws like the use of Section 18 of the Income Tax Act to write-off the costs of prostitution, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue to take immediate steps to introduce new legislation to tighten up the loopholes in the Income Tax Act which allow write-offs on such questionable items as bribes and prostitution.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presentation for debate of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the decentralization policy carried out by the government has been happily received in all regions of high unemployment and low average income, and in view of the fact that all five eastern provinces have profited from this program up till now except Nova Scotia and its most needy populous area, that is, Cape Breton County, and in view of the fact that the minister in charge has been saying that the

language question in Quebec is preventing this now, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That heavily unemployed Cape Breton in Nova Scotia be now the recipient of such a decentralization policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I was impressed and intrigued by the Prime Minister's reference yesterday to the major role to be played by members of parliament in bringing Canadians together. In light of that endorsement of the major role of members of parliament given by the Prime Minister, 1 should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government will agree to establish immediately [DOT] a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on national unity to recommend such constitutional, economic and social measures as will allow the federal system to respond fully to the needs of all Canadians?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that question is presently before the House for debate. If and when it comes to a vote, we will make the position of the government known at that time.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thought the Acting Prime Minister might be a little more slick in his reticence. I wonder if he might not come clean and tell the House of Commons whether the government of Canada intends to allow this parliament to become engaged in a continuing way in bringing together the people of this country and whether it is the intention of the government to establish the special joint committee that was referred to yesterday- yes or no?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The same answer, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBILITY OF MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS ON NATIONAL UNITY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a reversion on the government side from the position where, yesterday, there was the prospect held out by the Prime Minister that we were somebodies again, to the
July 6, 1977

present situation in which the Acting Prime Minister refuses to state the position of the government of Canada on the position of this parliament in resolving the national unity problem. Since the Acting Prime Minister will not extend to this House the courtesy which he extended to a radio station earlier this morning when he answered there a question he refuses to answer in this House, let me try with another question. Let me ask if it is the intention of the government of Canada to convene immediately a meeting of first ministers, to call upon the continuing advice of the premiers of the various provinces of Canada concerning means to strengthen and reform the federal system?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such plan to call a meeting of first ministers.


Mr. Paproski:: What do you know? Resign.


An hon. Member:: You don't look any too happy, Allan.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the House of Commons would be like if Allan MacEachen were alive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That was nasty, Joe. You are getting careless.


PROPOSED PROGRAM OF CHEAP TRAVEL TO PROMOTE NATIONAL UNITY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me try another question. In his 1976 annual report the Commissioner of Official Languages proposed that the Prime Minister of Canada should meet with the presidents of Air Canada and CNR, to discuss the means by which there could be brought about a massive program of cheap, mass travel for Canadians, to allow Canadians to understand this country better. We know there has been a minor, little program introduced by the Secretary of State. 1 want to know if the Prime Minister has acted on that particular recommendation of the Commissioner of Official Languages and met with those officials to discuss the possibility of a program which would allow Canadians to better understand our common country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, to answer that point, the proposals the Leader of the Opposition mentioned are presently under consideration and we hope to be able to make a statement on the point in future.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that was not the question. My question was, has the Prime Minister met with those presidents?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why don't you go back to sleep, Allan?
Oral Questions


TASK FORCE ON NATIONAL UNITY-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Will the special task force on national unity be preparing reports on its work or making recommendations for parliament to consider formally or will it, as set out in its terms of reference, act solely as a private source of advice to the government on unity issues? If it is to report to parliament, will this be done on an interim basis or only at the conclusion of its term of office; or, in fact, is parliament further to be excluded?


Mr. Grafftey:: It will report after the referendum.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No,
Mr. Speaker, parliament is not to be further excluded. Parliament is presently debating the subject matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That has been the object of several questions. The debate will continue today.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: My question concerns the task force or commission.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The purposes and objects of the task force are to be found in the statement the Prime Minister made yesterday. Certainly, the members of the task force are free to carry out their responsibilities as they desire and if they make reports or statements, surely it is open to members of parliament to become aware of them and take any action which is desired.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: This is incredible!


ROLE OF PARLIAMENT IN NATIONAL UNITY ISSUE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given that the Acting Prime Minister has not said that the task force will report directly to this House and given that the present two-day debate on national unity was forced on the government by this opposition-


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Indeed it was. Given the obvious reluctance of the Prime Minister to involve this institution in any formal way on the greatest threat to our nation's survival, will the Acting Prime Minister say what he does consider the role of parliament as an institution to be in this issue, if he has considered the question at all?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should remind the hon. lady that the suggestion that a special debate be held on the subject of national unity was a suggestion by myself on behalf of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 6, 1977
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was as a result of discussions which I had with members of the other parties that this debate has taken place. I am very pleased that the debate has had the effect it has had, that is to create this interest in the subject. Hon. members opposite had many opportunities in the course of this session to bring before the House on their allotted days the question of national unity and they failed to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we in the opposition know what should be done on this particular question. What 1 am asking the Acting Prime Minister is what he thinks the government should be doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-MEASURES TO ENSURE EQUITABLE SHARING OF GROWTH OF INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. No doubt the minister is aware that the first clause of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement signed in 1965 states that the objective of that agreement is to ensure that both countries share equitably in future growth in the industry. A review of the pact which was tabled by the government last week shows that this country is losing out disastrously in many parts of the industry. Specifically, we have lost some 20,000 potential jobs in the auto parts industry. What was the government doing prior to the tabling of the report and, in particular, since then to redress this very important discrepancy in terms of the objective of the pact compared with its results?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to defer to my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who has had the primary carriage of these considerations of the structure of the Canadian auto industry and auto parts industry and also with regard to the offset change in the provisions of the auto pact in this regard. On the basis of the analysis, we are now in the position to continue the discussions with the Americans with regard to the possible arrangement. The precise timetable, as I say, is that which my colleague has been presiding over.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the past four Ministers of Industry, Trade and Commerce, including the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, have been telling this House that they have been prepared to renegotiate the auto pact, at least ever since I have been here, and have done nothing. The Minister of Finance should be particularly concerned that we have had a $16 billion deficit in auto parts trade since 1965. Is the minister

telling this House that as the financial minister, he has no direct input into proposed changes in the pact? If he is not saying that, can he tell us what kind of initiative the government is proposing?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Of course I am not saying that. I am pointing out to the hon. gentleman that the restructuring of this aspect of industry is dealt with by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


John Edward Broadbent: They have done nothing.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The auto pact, over its history, has been substantially beneficial to Canada; the result has been very much more beneficial than had the Canadian industry not received that kind of protection. With regard to changes in the pact, particularly in relation to the impact on the U.S. and Canadian market of competition from other producers of parts and of automobiles, this has naturally been of some concern, particularly to those preparing for the multilateral trade negotiations.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that since 1965 the United States has gained substantially more investment in relation to equity in the industry than Canada, and that in the auto parts section the industry in Canada produces only 6 per cent of North American auto parts although we consume 12 per cent of total parts, would the minister explain to us why he considers the net result of the pact to be beneficial? In the context of that answer, would he tell us which aspect of the pact he finds disagreeable and what specific suggestions he has in mind with regard to improvements in the arrangement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is asking for a detailed explanation of the effect of the pact on the auto industry in Canada-


John Edward Broadbent: Any explanation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would think that coming, as he does, from an area which is directly concerned he should be as familiar as anyone with the beneficial effect the pact has had on investment and employment in his own constituency as well as in other parts of southern Ontario. I would gladly arrange for a detailed explanation of the pact to be made to him; he would then have a better understanding of the whole subject and might be in a better position to inform his constituents.

[ Translation]


CONFEDERATION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the announcement made yesterday by the right hon. Prime Minister about setting up a committee to promote
July 6, 1977

harmony in our country, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether that committee will be asked to meet the authorities of the various provinces to look into the possibility of holding a summit conference that would not be imposed by the federal government but would be agreed upon by the provinces and to which representatives of labour as well as business and finance would be invited in the hope that later on, at some other conference, a new constitution might be proposed that could be acceptable to all Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot go as far as that in predicting the outcome of the operations of the task force. As the Prime Minister stated yesterday, the primary purpose of the task force is to encourage the efforts of the general public, particularly of non-government organizations, in the field of national unity.


An hon. Member:: Laughable!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
In 1970, the government asked a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to study that constitutional problem. That committee reported to the House in March of 1972 and the governments, both federal and provincial have since seen fit not to take into account its recommendations. If the committee announced yesterday which will be asked to study the constitutional problem in our country, hands in an intelligent report, does the government promise to take it into consideration with a view to remedying the situation and restoring the confidence of Canadians so that we can live together in real harmony?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether the task force will operate precisely in the same way as the committee to which my hon. friend refers, which did report on the constitution of Canada. I believe that that report did have some rather important effects on the subsequent thinking of the government and provincial governments as well.


DEMPSTER PIPELINE-INQUIRY AS TO ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY AND DATE WHEN NATURAL GAS CAN BE DELIVERED
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises out of the report of the National Energy Board and the fact that the cabinet must make a very important decision quite soon respecting development of northern resources. I should like to know whether the government will be able to provide to members of parliament before the time of the debate on the pipeline answers to the following questions: (1) Will the
Oral Questions
Dempster extension be economically feasible? (2) What will be the socio-economic impact of the Dempster pipeline if it is built? (3) Will the government be able to guarantee that Dempster can be finished so that natural gas can be delivered to Canada by 1982? Will we have answers to those three significant questions before we begin the debate on the pipeline in August?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, the government has not yet had an opportunity to consider the National Energy Board report. We have undertaken that a decision will be reached following the presentation of all the reports, and that is likely to take place in the month of August. In the meantime we will make every effort not only to make information available to the House but to make available to the government itself information which will be required in making a reasonable decision. The questions which the hon. member has posed are questions that anticipate certain decisions by the government of Canada. At the present time no decision to build a pipeline or on the site of a pipeline has been taken by the government, but all the information will, of course, be accumulated in order to assist in that decision making process.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the government's position that a decision can be made without answers to the questions I have just posed? In that regard, has the government underway at this moment, since time is so short, studies, a task force or anything which will give us a response to these questions, which I would argue must be answered before the government can make any sort of decision whatever on a pipeline?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe the hon. member has made some valid representations which the government will have to consider before it makes a decision, and it will have to assess the type of information required in order to make that decision. But as I said earlier, the government have not yet had an opportunity to discuss these particular points since the NEB report was tabled.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment relating to the question which I put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources yesterday but which he was unfortunately unable to answer. In view of the emphasis placed by the National Energy Board upon the importance of the Dempster link in the Alcan proposal, and in view of the fact that there has been no environmental study prepared or commissioned on this 600 mile corridor, is the minister able to tell us whether his department has the capacity to complete an
7358

July 6, 1977
Oral Questions
environmental assessment of the Dempster link in an acceptable form before September 1 of this year?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in fact the environmental assessment panel under Dr. Hill was given the mandate to include the Dempster link in its terms of reference. I expect its interim report-and I underline the word "interim"-before August 1, or on August 1. As I said in the statement which I made when the panel was set up, this initial report will be followed by a more thorough examination and details could be added to what would be environmental clearance if and when this is required. The panel will not necessarily terminate its work by August 1; it will give an interim report.


POSSIBILITY OF APPROVING ALCAN ROUTE PRIOR TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF DEMPSTER PIPELINE
William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Even on the basis of an interim report by August 1, is it the minister's position that the government may give a commitment to the Alcan route, an important part of which is the Dempster link, before receipt of an acceptable and thorough environmental assessment review of that link?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the discussion will be on words like "acceptable". It is obvious that an environmental assessment report will identify the problems. Then, the work of putting in conditions which would overcome the problems could continue even after a decision is made. In other words, a decision can be made if something is "acceptable" on a given number of conditions, and this is the work which would continue.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence with, I hope, a side whistle to the beautiful ear of the Minister of National Revenue. Since Canadian customs is now using the practice of taking verbal declarations by Canadians returning to this country that their purchases abroad do not exceed $50 within the allowed period, would the minister ensure that armed forces personnel be treated the same way instead of exactly the opposite?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, that was a sort of double-pronged question. Certainly, I will yield to my colleague the Minister of National Revenue.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member without any hesitation that the armed forces are treated equally, and if we were ever

sinners in the past it was in giving them the chance of pre-clearance.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. 1 do not know which way to direct my supplementary because I have seen some documents which state exactly the opposite of what the hon. lady said and I would not want to doubt her word. May I therefore put the question down for ten o'clock and send both ministers a copy of the telegram which has gone out from the Department of National Defence in Ottawa, which says-I hate to say this-exactly the opposite of what the hon. lady said.


CONFEDERATION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister announced a task force, but today, as I understood the Acting Prime Minister, though perhaps I got it wrong, he indicated that there were no written terms of reference. Am 1 correct that there are no written terms of reference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, 1
did not say that, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Then, if there are terms of reference, will they be tabled in the House and perhaps made available through Hansard? Since the task force is supposed to be directed to the public as much as anybody, I think it is of the utmost importance that the terms of reference be made clear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection that an order in council is required in order to establish the task force, and I will be happy to consider tabling that order in council.


BILINGUALISM
[Stage Direction]
REQUEST THAT REPORT BY FfiDfiRATION DES FRANCOPHONES HORS QUfiBEC BE MADE PUBLIC
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
Since the two-year study commissioned by the Secretary of State on the situation of Francophones outside Quebec has been completed and filed with the Secretary of State, I believe, can the minister tell us whether he is willing to give the public access to that report or study, for it seems, according to one newspaper which has already commented on it, that it does in fact represent fairly well the proposals or recommendations
July 6, 1977

made by the Federation des francophones hors Quebec? Can the minister publish that study and if so, when?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Of course, Mr. Speaker, 1 received that document yesterday. I read its recommendations last night. I have not all the document which is 500 pages long. 1 intend to send copies of it to all the regional offices and table it here in Ottawa so that hon. members, as well as the public, of course, can read it if they so wish.


REQUEST FOR COMMISSION TO STUDY POSITION OF FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
Seeing that barely ten days ago the federation expressed its complete displeasure with the Tellier group and still recommended the setting up of a special commission by the Privy Council, can the minister tell us today, after having had, 1 believe, excellent communications with the federation, whether he is willing to recommend the establishment of the special commission so forcibly requested by the federation?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, there has not been any communication from the FFHQ to me since the meeting at which the decision to establish the task force was made. 1 have not received any communication from them, at least one I am aware of along the lines the hon. member has suggested. If they write me, of course I will consider carefully whatever it is they suggest.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for DREE and his parliamentary secretary, 1 address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the fact that British Columbia has been nearly sucked dry by federal taxation policies, and in light of the fact that we have seen in excess of $400 million of DREE funding transferred to the province of Quebec, which needs it, including $95 million for highway improvements, much of which is to be spent in the minister's riding and that of his provincial counterpart, the two architects of this agreement, is the Acting Prime Minister now prepared to indicate the degree to which the federal government is going to provide support to the province of British Columbia under the subsidiary agreement to be signed by the Prime Minister later this week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to regard the hon. member's question as serious, when he describes the policy of regional economic expansion as one of sucking the province of British Columbia
Oral Questions
dry. It is hardly in accordance with the noble sentiments we heard from his leader yesterday about national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Flear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Acting Prime Minister to read the first part of my question in Hansard. Obviously, he was not listening.
As a result of the recent meeting relating to the critical and crucial water shortage of Castlegar and district, between the British Columbia director general for DREE and the British Columbia deputy ministers for economic development, environment and municipal affairs, is the minister prepared at this time to indicate whether this latest agreement, to be signed by the Prime Minister, is of sufficient scope to allow for DREE funding to be directed to this specific and serious problem?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries and advise the hon. member.

[ Translation]



HOUSING


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to put my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Further to the question I asked in the House a few weeks ago concerning the site of the Angus shops, after meeting with the management of the firm Marathon and after noting that this project is of a cooperative nature and that it would create approximately 4,000 new permanent jobs, could the minister tell the House whether he is willing to give his support to the members representing the ridings of Maisonneuve, Lafontaine, Sainte-Marie and Hochelaga, to consider thoroughly the Marathon project with a view to urging its implementation?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yes I had the opportunity to consider the file which is most interesting, and I congratulate the hon. member for trying to speed it up. In this regard, he can count on the support of my department.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Did the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State receive my telegram of July 1, which was Dominion Day, regarding the obvious omission of New Brunswick in that CBC three hour program on Dominion Day night, and particularly in the opening remarks? Can the Secretary of State now give a better expla-
80020-2'/2

July 6, 1977
Oral Questions
nation for such an omission than that of the CBC, when it said it was because there was no mobile equipment available in New Brunswick? What equipment is necessary in order to say: "The province of New Brunswick"?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the hon. member's question. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster has been very vigorous in making similar presentations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McGrath:: Romeo, Romeo, wherefor art thou?


John (Moody) Roberts: Of course, my hon. colleague sitting beside me has been involved as well.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Dionne does not care, Romeo LeBlanc does not care.


John (Moody) Roberts: I should like to respond to these representations, Mr. Speaker, by telling the hon. member that I have communicated with the CBC and it indicated that in the planning of the program it was essential, because of the over-all demands on the system and the equipment, that events combining in one centre the appearance of a number of performers representative of various provinces be telecast. Such an event was available in the form of the Summerside lobster festival concert, which assured representation by artists from each of the maritime provinces, including the Jeunes Chanteurs d'Acadie from Moncton.
I should like to indicate to the hon. member, if any slight was taken to what happened, it was inadvertent since the producer for the entire program, Jack McAndrews, is a native New Brunswicker who is very conscious of the importance of New Brunswick in the celebration. He has apologized publicly for any slight which may have been taken, and I would do the same.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Secretary of State. 1 read the apology of the man which he mentioned, Jack McAndrews, who purports to be a native New Brunswicker. Nevertheless, he said that it was the lack of mobile equipment in New Brunswick. 1 should like to know why there is not equipment in New Brunswick, and what equipment is necessary to say: "The province of New Brunswick"? It can be said quicker than Pierre Elliott Trudeau or the Hon. John Roberts-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. On June 16 the minister acknowledged that an error was made in the calculation of the revenue of Canadian National Railways as a result of an overstatement of certain subsidies which were received from the Canadian Transport Commission under the provisions of the Railway Act. The minister undertook to provide a more detailed explanation to the House or to give a statement. I am wondering if he is in a position to expand upon his answer of June 16, or whether he is prepared to table such information as to what the amounts were, the timeframe in which these subsidies were overstated and the precise amounts?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 would be glad to do that. The amounts which were overpaid related to the years 1974 and 1975, in the order of under $2 million in the first year and the balance of approximately $17 million in the second year. There was no impact upon the 1976 year, nor upon the business of the railway for 1977. The adjustments had already been made by the time 1 reported to the House the last time, as I have indicated. The appropriate adjustments will be made to the Canadian National accounts for the years in question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Am I to take it then that the minister is saying that the deficit for the years prior to 1976 will in fact be greater by the amounts that the minister has pointed out?


Otto Emil Lang: That is correct. In effect the deficit for 1974-75 will be larger by those amounts. The result is that CNR will be debited for those amounts in terms of its branch line subsidy program payments, but of course will be credited with identical amounts in terms of the additional payment by the Treasury of the deficit. The balanced financial position is therefore the same, but obviously the actual book deficits are larger for those two years.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. In his speech to the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism in Vancouver two weeks ago, and in response to the council's recommendations, the minister announced some new programs regarding supplementary third language schools, such as the rate of $4 per hour for teachers up to a maximum of 50 hours a year, and, as well, for such teachers taking courses in personal development, $15 a day is to be allowed to cover

July 6, 1977
travel, accommodation and tuition costs. How were these figures arrived at, was it as a result of a government study or were the figures arbitrarily picked out by someone in the minister's department?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of State (Multicul-turalism)):: Mr. Speaker, the new cultural enrichment policy to provide increased opportunities for many Canadians is well appreciated and received by the various ethnic groups in our country, and I can assure the hon. member of that. We arrived at that particular conclusion after many representations made by ethnic groups, and finally it was recommended to us by the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism. It was as a result of their recommendation, which we studied, that we came out with the program. It is not an ideal program; we realize that, but it is a start, a beginning. I can assure the hon. member and other members of the opposition that this program is greatly appreciated by all who benefit from it, all good Canadians.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and it relates to the decision of the attorney general of Ontario to set up an inquiry into the break-in and arson at the offices of the Praxis Corporation in Toronto. I would like to ask the Solicitor General if he will take every step to co-operate with the inquiry in Toronto, and will he make available to the inquiry such things as files from his own office, officers and ministers attached to his office over the years to appear before the inquiry to testify?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the House and to the attorney general of Ontario our desire to co-operate fully with them in the conduct of the investigation which he has referred to the police commission in Ontario.


Frank Oberle: I would like to ask the Solicitor General if it is the intention of the government to complement the inquiry into the involvement of the various police departments with an inquiry into the involvement of the various political agencies in the whole matter of the extra parliamentary opposition, particularly the involvement of the former solicitor general and the involvement of the committee on security and intelligence headed by the Prime Minister at that time to determine what effect the EPO concept and the letter that the Solicitor General wrote at that time had on the individuals that were named.


Francis Fox: I am not sure what the hon. member is getting at.
If there is any specific matter he wishes to draw to my
attention, I will be pleased to have it and examine it.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN FEDERAL SHARE OF COST OF HIGHWAY PROGRAM FOR ATLANTIC REGION

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it has to do with the $100 million highway strengthening program in the Atlantic region. The minister is aware that the ministers of highways in those provinces requested something more generous than the 50-50 cost-sharing which was offered by the minister. Has he had a chance to reconsider that decision, and will he be a little more generous in the cost-sharing with regard to the four depressed areas in the country?


Otto Emil Lang: The ministers of highways have raised a number of issues. On most of them 1 was able to meet their wishes and adjust the program. On this one our position seems to be very reasonable since the highway programs we are talking about are essentially within provincial jurisdiction, and for us to offer 50-50 sharing seems reasonable. I have no change to make in that position.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that one of the badly deteriorated highways is in the province of Newfoundland, in view of the fact that when the government built the Trans-Canada Highway it was on a 90-10 basis, and in view of the depressed state of the economy in Newfoundland, I wonder if the minister would consider for that particular part of the Trans-Canada Highway greater generosity in cost-sharing.


Otto Emil Lang: I am not sure that a previous generous treatment necessarily ensures its repetition at a later time. It might be difficult, when we are looking at highways from the transport point of view and the cost benefit analysis point of view, to justify different treatment for one province. In our analysis the improvements in these highways do indeed produce an economic benefit which justifies the expenditure. A great part of that benefit goes to the province, and the basic jurisdiction in relation to the highways lies with the province. That is the basis of our view in this matter.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: My question is for the Minister of Justice, and 1 welcome him back from sunny Vancouver. I should like to refer the minister to my question on Monday at which time the acting Minister of Justice and the second acting minister were both absent, and therefore the Department of Justice was not represented in the House. My question concerns James Peter Kennedy who has been held in jail in Vancouver for over five weeks. I want to refer the Minister of Justice to a letter handed to me yesterday from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in which he says:

July 6, 1977
Oral Questions
The special inquiry officer conducting the hearing has decided to continue his detention.
Is it the policy of Canadian justice that any holder of a Canadian visa can be held for lengthy periods of time on the wish of a government bureaucrat, without charges being laid and without a public hearing?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Any such holding would be pursuant to the Immigration Act and the law relating thereto. As I understand, the subject to whom the hon. member referred has taken habeas corpus proceedings in the courts in British Columbia. Obviously, it is a matter under inquiry and before the courts.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: The hearing that the minister refers to will be held tomorrow, but the question is: What is the charge on which Mr. Kennedy is being held?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As 1 understand-the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is not here unfortunately-it is a hearing under the Immigration Act being held pursuant to the Immigration Act.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Would he confirm that Dr. Craigan of his department, together with Jim Murphy of the Pacific region and Jim Phelps of the Saskatchewan region, went to England in order to interview psychiatrists, I presume to work in the penitentiary service. I wonder if the minister would confirm that he has worked together with the Department of Manpower to make sure there are no professional people in Canada who have been overlooked for this opportunity. It does seem strange that these officials went to England during the week of the Jubilee celebrations. Does the minister not think that that might not have been the most conducive time to conduct interviews?


Francis Fox: 1 will be pleased to investigate the matter on behalf of the hon. member. I should point out, however, that traditionally there has been some difficulty in obtaining in this country that kind of high level psychiatric services.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. It relates to the topic of parliamentary committees, on which the government has been very
(Mr. Clarke-1
sensitive and wary in the last 24 hours. In light of the sympathy expressed by the Postmaster General last Thursday, as reported on page 7223 of Hansard, concerning the motion by my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, under Standing Order 43 which urged the Postmaster General to name a parliamentary committee, would the minister now indicate to us if he favours the establishment of a parliamentary committee to investigate and report on all aspects of our postal system?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: It is too early to say, Mr. Speaker.


Bruce Halliday: In view of that answer does the Postmaster General feel that members of parliament, together with appropriate research staff, are incapable of making a valid assessment, and if not, why would he not have what could be potentially a four-party, unanimous report upon which he could base changes in our postal system?


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



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the representations of the Chinese community in Montreal that the plans to construct the $200 million Place Guy Favreau would destroy Montreal's Chinatown, would the minister now stop the project and spend the $200 million on low-cost housing in Montreal?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the area to which the hon. member refers has been classified historically by the government of Quebec, and we have undertaken that anything we do there will respect such classification. However, we are looking at possible modifications to the development of Place Guy Favreau.


John Gilbert: In view of the lack of consultation on the project-and that has been emphasized by the Chinese community-would the minister keep the Chinese community and other interested groups informed of any anticipated developments?


J. Judd Buchanan: That is something at which I am looking very seriously.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During the course of the question period in answer to a question by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) the government House leader
July 6, 1977

left the impression with the House-I hope it was inadvertent; if it was not, he deliberately misled the House

that the idea of a debate on national unity was first proposed by him representing the government. So that we might be absolutely clear, 1 would like to draw to the attention of hon. members that the first suggestion concerning this kind of intervention by the House of Commons did not come from the government but in fact came from the official opposition on more occasions than merely one.
The matter was first brought to the attention of the House of Commons by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) on January 27, 1977 by way of a motion under Standing Order 26 because of the emergency situation which we felt had developed at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The subject matter of that motion on that day was the failure of the government to counter the threat posed by the government of the province of Quebec. That was the first time this matter came before the House of Commons. On April 18, 1977 the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) again asked that the matter be brought forward. On March 30, 1977 the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) asked that there be a debate in the House on this matter. Again on March 31, 1977 the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona asked that we proceed with that matter and deal with the problems of our confederation as well as the matters raised by the government ultimately in its motion, but as well on the basis of the social and economic problems facing this country.
Finally, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands raised the matter with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on April 28, 1977. At that time the Prime Minister said he was favourably disposed to the idea. The proposal for the establishment of a committee and the involvement of parliament in this debate has been in existence for a long period of time. It was first raised by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and I hope it was not the intention of the government House leader to mislead the House when he indicated that he was the instigator of the idea. He was nothing of the sort; he sat silent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Walter David Baker: The government House leader said we had opportunities to raise this matter on allotted days. As a matter of fact, we did raise the matter on allotted days. On May 19 on a motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) we had a debate here on national unity and on the failure of this government with regard to economic and social programs which has led to much of the distress we have in this country. In addition, when the government finally acceded, we gave up one of our allotted days for the debate. We pressed for extended hours for this debate. I asked the government House leader if he would give up one more day for the debate. There was no answer.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: The reason this is important as a matter of privilege is that the government House leader knows 1 have pressed him. This is my personal matter of privilege. I have pressed him for a debate involving the kind of motion which was put in the amendment dealing with a parliamentary committee. 1 did this in various meetings we have had because I feel it is important. Like the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I feel it is important that parliament be involved in an ongoing way. That was suggested in the motion put yesterday in the excellent speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Nothing that occurred between my friend, the government House leader, and me indicated that this would not be acceptable to the government until June 9, 1977 when I was advised that, notwithstanding the suggestions I had made and the pressure 1 had applied with regard to the form of the debate and the proposal of a committee, the government was reconsidering the motion it would put. I am now advised that while the Prime Minister initially felt that a parliamentary committee would be a good thing, it was the government caucus that finally indicated that it did not want to have that kind of intervention.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to hear the hon. member on the question of privilege, but he is wandering to the debate on the subject matter.


Walter David Baker: If the representation that it was the government which first dealt with this matter was innocent, and if the minister tells me that that is so, I accept that. However, if he is not prepared to say that, then 1 demand that he withdraw the statement that it was the government which first brought this matter forward because if he does not, the minister is misleading the House.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Walter David Baker: There is one other matter I want to raise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 do not know if there are to be further contributions. By way of a question of privilege the hon. member has raised complaints about statements made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) during the course of the question period this day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that so much time is being taken away from the all-important question of national unity by a debate over an item which, whether it is decided in one way or another, is really not very crucial.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

July 6, 1977
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: National unity is not important?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, when I made the comment in reply to a question that it was I who had suggested that there be a special debate on national unity, 1 made it in good faith and 1 still believe it to be an accurate statement. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) did raise the question on March 10, 1977.


Walter David Baker: No; January.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The first reference is quite irrelevant to the question of a special debate-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: The truth is clearly crucial.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -because the Standing Order 43, as I heard the hon. member read it, made no request for a special debate on the question of national unity.


Walter David Baker: No, u was Standing Order 26.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Maybe I did not hear the full motion.


Charles Joseph Clark: Ralph will explain it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On March 30 the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona invited the government to bring before parliament some measure or measures "which will allow members to express their ideas and convictions about ways to hold the country together". He invited the government to bring forward some measures that would allow members to express their views. Maybe that was a suggestion for a debate and if it was, I give the hon. member full credit for it.
I referred to a statement that had been made in another forum by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and I referred to statements made earlier by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) about the relevance of parliament, and I went on to say it was my desire to bring forward opportunities to deal with special issues, including the question of national unity. That is the first occasion I can find when the matter was dealt with, and I think it justifies the comment I made earlier.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has done something again today which has rarely been done by persons who carry the responsibility of House leader of their party and that is to refer to private and confidential discussions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would simply point out to him that if he wishes to continue the valuable forum that we have had as House leaders, then he had better learn a very simple rule and that is, to keep matters confidential.


Charles Joseph Clark: Both sides of your mouth!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise just to ask one question. Would it not be better to get on with the debate rather than argue over who fathered it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Scott:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this question because I expected just what we have heard from the government House leader. This is why we are sitting here now instead of being out in our constituencies where we should be-it is because of his mismanagement and the excuse he has given to the House. I want to draw his attention to this, Mr. Speaker. On January 27 1 moved, under Standing Order 26-I will not read the whole thing because if government members do not value the time of this House I do, with respect, and that is why I am on my feet now-but in part I said, as reported at page 2448 of Hansard:
This question must be transferred from the public arena to its proper place, the chamber of the House of Commons, where it can be debated by the representatives of all the people of Canada.
I am very, very disappointed to hear the government House leader-who is supposed to be guiding the business of this House-make the statement he has today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will realize we are now locked into a disagreement over a representation of events that have taken place. If there is any connection with a question of privilege as I have defined it on previous occasions, I have not heard an argument to that effect as yet. There is a disagreement about the interpretation put upon certain statements and events. That is the way it remains.


An hon. Member:: He can withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Statements by ministers. The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Fox).


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invited discussion on the question of privilege. I have now indicated that it is essentially a disagreement and does not constitute a question of privilege.
I have, perhaps regrettably, made a ruling and I have no opportunity now to re-open the question. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) seeks the floor on the question of privilege that I have just decided.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Solicitor General.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which relates directly to the statement to be made by the
July 6, 1977

Solicitor General. I have the responsibility for responding to this statement which was received by our party at approximately 2.15 p.m. today, and I want to say something about that to the Solicitor General as well as the way in which he deals with this House.
The government House leader talks about taking up the time of the House and the apparent interest in this debate, but then allows the Solicitor General to make a statement on motions that will take up one hour of the time of this important debate. Important as his statement is, it could have been made at a later date. I think the first thing the government House leader should have done was ask that the time taken by this statement on motions be added on tonight. He could make a specific motion rather than sitting there in a cloak of sanctimony. If the statement is to be made, and if we are to give the national unity debate priority the government House leader should rise and ask that whatever time is used for the statement be added to the time for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Solicitor General.


Charles Joseph Clark: What a spent Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I thought very sincerely that the statement I am about to make would be of interest not only to the House but also to the general public, and I think it is important to proceed with this as soon as possible. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about a subject on which my colleagues are extremely well informed, and I think that the whole thing will require a minimum of time if there is some good will on all sides. [English]
On June 17 last, I informed the House that the government had seriously considered the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry in March, 1976 when, for the first time, the government was informed of the participation of the RCMP in the unlawful entry of the premises occupied by L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec, in October 1972. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the then Solicitor General received at that time repeated and unequivocal assurances from the RCMP that the APLQ incident was exceptional and isolated and consequently there was no need of a commission of inquiry. The government eventually decided, as I previously informed the House, not to establish a commission of inquiry. The government remained firmly committed, however, to re-examining the need for a commission of inquiry after the judicial processes, more particularly the investigation initiated by the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Quebec authorities and the court proceedings that could follow, had run their normal course.
Since making my statement in the House concerning the APLQ incident, allegations have been made that members of the RCMP, and more particularly members of the security service, have, on other occasions, been involved in unlawful actions in the discharge of their duties. The APLQ incident, according to those who made the allegations, was not of an isolated and exceptional character as I had reported in my statement of June 17.
These allegations received our immediate attention. At my request, the deputy solicitor general of Canada and the assistant attorney general, criminal law, personally met with some of the individuals who made these allegations. In addition, I asked the Commissioner of the RCMP to undertake the investigations which were warranted. He later informed me, after having made preliminary inquiries, that some of these allegations might well have some basis in fact. According to the commissioner, it would appear that some members of the RCMP in the discharge of their responsibility to protect national security could well have used methods or could have been involved in actions which were neither authorized not provided for by law. As a result, the commissioner has modified his position and has recommended that the government establish a commission of inquiry into the operations and the policies of the RCMP security service, on a national basis. [Translation]
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and considering these new developments, the government has decided to establish an inquiry commission composed of three members who will be responsible for determining the scope and frequency of inquiry practices and other activities which are not permitted or provided for in the law, involving members of the RCMP, and for examining the policies and procedures regulating RCMP activities in their task, which consists in protecting the country and ensuring its security.
It is necessary, for the good administration of the RCMP, that all the light be shed on charges of unlawfulness that have already been made as well as on all other allegations of the same nature which might follow. That, Mr. Speaker, will be one of the important tasks entrusted to the commission set up by the government. After the light has been shed on these incidents which may be drawn to the attention of the commission, the decisions called for will unfold as they should in each particular case, in close co-operation, if need be, with the responsible authorities. But beyond particular incidents which might be brought before the commission, it is important to think about the lessons to be learned for the future. That is why the government has asked the commission's advice in terms of policies and procedures that govern or should govern RCMP activities in the accomplishment of their task, namely to see to the protection and the security of the country, of necessary mechanisms for implementing these policies and procedures, and finally of the amendments to the legislation

July 6, 1977
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
which could be necessary, in keeping with the security requirements of our country.
Even if the commission is particularly requested to inquire into matters related to the security service of the RCMP, the government has also requested to have brought to its attention any incident involving illegal action on the part of RCMP members, outside of security service operations. Regular police operations are more immediately submitted to the control and surveillance of the courts. Nevertheless, the government prefers not to restrict the terms of reference of the commission to the security service, so that eventually it could know about incidents involving unlawful acts that could be drawn to the attention of the commission. Thus, the government will be able to take the necessary steps at the appropriate time.

I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of the commission whose establishment I have just announced. We must, as I have just mentioned, get to the bottom of those allegations which have been made recently against RCMP members. This process will, I hope, help to clear the air and improve the climate within which our national police force is now working.
In a democratic society such as ours, the policies and procedures which govern the activities of the security service must conform with the rule of law. At the same time, the rule of law must be responsive to the requirements of our national security. The rule of law and the requirements of national security constitute two facets of one unique reality which have never been easy to reconcile even in countries with firm democratic traditions. The recommendations of the commission will, I am confident, assist us in meeting this ever present challenge.
As I said on June 17 last, the rule of law is and must be paramount. It constitutes the vital force of our society without which our basic freedoms run the risk of becoming empty slogans. Clearly, there can be no compromise in this regard; it is upon the rule of law that the integrity and survival of our democratic institutions and our fundamental liberties are based. The recommendations of the commission will help us, I have no doubt, to improve the policies and procedures that govern the activities of the security service, and will help us as well in our search for ways to improve the working of the security service in the vital role assigned to it for the protection of our national security.
I take pleasure in informing the House that Mr. Justice D. C. McDonald of the Supreme Court of Alberta will be chairman of the commission, the other members of which will be Mr. Donald S. Rickard of Toronto, and Mr. Guy Gilbert of Montreal. With the consent of the House I should like to table in both official languages official copies of the terms of reference of the commission.


Mr. Nowlan:: You can't get away with that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Fox.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You members opposite should be crying, not clapping.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's request to table a document is made after the tabling of documents has been called and therefore requires the unanimous consent of the House. Does the minister have consent to table those documents?


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the tabling of the documents-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not a debatable proposition. Either the minister has unanimous consent to table the documents, or he has not. Does the minister have the consent of the House to table the documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The documents cannot be tabled at this time.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot raise a point of order at this particular moment.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, the point concerns the tabling of the document. I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. According to the procedure under which we are now operating, the minister may make a statement, which is met with a statement in reply made by the parties. 1 am prepared to call on spokesmen of the various parties and allow questioning, within some discretion, but at the moment I am not aware that I am able to consider a point of order in respect of any of these proceedings.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, which is this. The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) mentioned the tabling of certain terms of reference concerning a public inquiry or royal commission. Mr. Speaker, those could just as easily have been read to the House for inclusion in Hansard. In this way all people would know the exact terms of reference.
I feel my privileges have been abridged by the minister's failure to do this. His action therefore deprives me of the necessary knowledge I must have in order to evaluate properly the statement the minister just made.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order or question of privilege, whichever it may be. If we are to respond seriously to the statement concerning the announcement of the inquiry or establishment of the commission, surely it is relevant that all members should be aware of the terms of reference within which the royal commission will work. 1 had the opportunity to read them, and they raise certain questions in my mind. 1 suspect they will raise questions in the minds of others, and are therefore relevant. Members should know them. I appeal through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. 1
July 6, 1977

ask him to reconsider what he has done and complete his statement by reading to the House the terms of reference of this royal commission.


An hon. Member:: Or include them as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has made his statement. I do not think there is any proceeding whereby the House can instruct or demand the minister to say more or less. There is a period provided for questions to be put by the opposition with regard to statements.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: What are you hiding?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with the incredible-I must term it outrageous- statement the Solicitor General made, let me say that my party, and I am sure the NDP would be agreeable, would concur in any motion the Solicitor General might move to have the terms of reference printed as an appendix to Hansard in order that the people of Canada may know precisely the kind of document to which the minister was referring.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, 1, of course, am trying to find a way which would make the terms of reference public. I tried to table them in the House of Commons. If it would be in any way helpful to the hon. member, I would be more than willing to consent, with the agreement of the House, that the matter be printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Charles Joseph Clark: Well, we forced that out of them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At the moment there is no consent that the documents be tabled at this time. The minister has now indicated that he is prepared to ask that the documents be appended to Hansard as if they had been read. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no agreement.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I note that the refusal came from the government benches. That will not be lost upon the Canadian public. It was the government benches that refused to have this printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 should indicate for the accuracy of the record that the refusal that I heard was not confined to one side of the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know that Your Honour's hearing is at least equal to mine, and 1 am not going to comment further.
The fact is that the terms of reference and the statement made by the Solicitor General are in keeping with the tradition that has developed within the government of attempting to avoid dealing with issues until the very last moment. It deals
Royal Canadian Mounted Police with very important matters raised in this House by members of the opposition. It is part of the tradition that it only deals with these matters after considerable pressure has been exerted by members of the opposition. In this case it has protested for a period of over one year with regard to the line of questioning that has taken place relating to this whole matter.
The government suggested that our questions were not constructive but rather destructive of our police force. However, today we have the Solicitor General standing up and having the audacity to tell this House and the Canadian people that he misled this House and the Canadian people on June 17 with respect to the activities of the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When the Solicitor General was appointed to his position we had some hopes for him as a man of ability, a man who with some sense of integrity would deal with his responsibilities as Solicitor General. However, he is now falling into the way in which his colleagues acted during the terms of their administration, waiting until the last moment. They have not let us have statements until the very last moment. They have been involved in a continuous misleading of this House and this country over a period of one year.
I read and listened to the statement of the Solicitor General.
I should tell him that I received the statement in only one of the official languages. In future I ask that he take special care that we receive his statements in both official languages. I read and listened to the Solicitor General's remarks. I am incredulous. Not once in his five page statement did the Solicitor General mention the fact that the RCMP reports to a ministry and reports to a minister, the Solicitor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Not once did he mention the fact that in theory this government and the present and former Solicitors General have had and should have used ministerial responsibility with respect to the activities of the RCMP when the indiscretions and illegalities were reported to them. Not once did he mention this as an issue of government incompetence and potential wrongdoing.
We have been asked to believe by the solicitor general of the day that the government knew of the RCMP's interest in the raid on APLQ, yet in the formal meeting to discuss the letter accusing the RCMP of involvement in the APLQ break-in, he did not ask whether they were in fact involved.
When a letter was received by the office of the former solicitor general, the answer was that somehow he simply accepted advice. Letters have been tabled in this House stating that advice was received through the office apparatus and that he ignored serious suggestions of illegal acts by the RCMP. That has shown his incompetence to act in that position, by doing nothing with respect to a serious allegation.
The Solicitor General at one time stated that he had no
knowledge of RCMP involvement. He subsequently indicated
that he knew of the involvement but he did not take the

July 6, 1977
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
reasonable rational step of acting on it. This statement that has been made by the Solicitor General is not credible. It seeks to whitewash the government while witchhunting on the RCMP by its terms of reference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Solicitor General stated in his remarks today that they have not limited the investigation to the activities of the RCMP with respect to the APLQ but want to look at all RCMP activities and all the illegal activities of the RCMP. He failed very notably to mention the fact that the terms of reference will not be extended to involve the role of the Solicitor General, those who have held that office, and the activities of the RCMP and their degree of competence, incompetence or wrongdoing. That is a glaring omission from these terms of reference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On the basis of the Solicitor General's approach to this whole matter, we in Canada are running closer and closer to Nixonian politics of stonewalling until they are finally forced to give out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This may have some bearing on the reason why the Solicitor General has been so anxious to have an election now, before we can uncover more incompetence and more wrongdoing that has taken place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is not the kind of inquiry that has been asked for by such responsible groups as the Canadian Bar Association. It is not the kind of inquiry asked for by such distinguished and eminent Canadians as the Hon. Emmett Hall, representing the Civil Liberties Union.
An attempt by the government to whitewash its responsibility with regard to its relationship with the RCMP is an attempt to focus attention on that fine force for which we in this party have tried to preserve respect in this country, unlike the government and the Solicitor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We cannot accept this to be a complete judicial inquiry with respect to the matters we have raised in this House, and only because the government has now decided to act under considerable pressure, unless there are included within the terms of reference the following: that the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) must testify under oath with respect to his involvement in this whole matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Second, it must be completely clear in the terms of reference that there will be complete access to the

minutes of the cabinet committee on security and intelligence, chaired by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Third we believe the commission should have, on a confidential basis if necessary, and I refer to the previous suggestion as to the terms of reference that it could well be on a confidential basis to the commissioners as provided for in an inquiry, access to the files of the Solicitors General, past and present. Also, the terms of reference should provide that the present Solicitor General and the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand), the former Solicitor General, testify under oath with respect to the operations of the RCMP.
The terms of reference should make it perfectly clear that it includes a complete investigation of the preparation and distribution of the extra parliamentary opposition list which has been of some prominence in this House. This is the list which is apparently related to the break-in at the Praxis Corporation in Toronto.
We finally suggest, and because we have had such a brief time these are only certain suggestions, and we may raise further suggestions for the benefit of the Solicitor General, that there also be an investigation of the wrongful destruction of RCMP documents alleged to have occurred on June 2 and 2 of this year. Unless these matters are included in the terms of reference we can only come to the conclusion that this inquiry is an attempt to stall any discussion with respect to this matter, an attempt to focus the inquiry exclusively on the RCMP. Certain senior officers of the force have something to answer with respect to its activities-I am not disputing that-but I want to make perfectly clear that the government bears a very substantial responsibility with respect to the incidents that are now raised and which have generated this judicial inquiry.
Since the Commissioner of the RCMP has stated that the illegalities of the RCMP may now be considered to be widespread we must also have the opportunity in this judicial inquiry to look at the climate which existed in government and in which apparently the government either neglected or refused to investigate allegations of wrongful acts committed by the RCMP. That should be an essential part of any inquiry, and it must be included.
I must say, in conclusion, that we feel the Solicitor General should give this undertaking that we shall not be precluded from asking questions or raising inquiries with respect to any illegalities on the part of the RCMP merely because there is now some general, wide-brush investigation in process. I hope the Solicitor General will deal with these matters when they are raised in the House, because we intend to raise them as they come forward in discharge of our responsibility to the people of Canada.
There is one danger which I should like to draw attention to with respect to this inquiry. I have been concerned for a long period with respect to the apprehension that the Prime Minis-
July 6, 1977

ter and solicitors general have felt with respect to the operation of the RCMP as some sort of threat to government. We in the opposition will be vigilant to ensure that this inquiry does not lead to suggestions being made by the government and actions being taken by which the government will attempt to obtain partisan political control of the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is the kind of complaint one hears in editorial comments about the way in which the government itself regards the RCMP. We are concerned about the interface, about the operation between the force and the Solicitor General, but if the government takes any steps to attempt to use this situation as a vehicle to obtain political control over the RCMP it will be fought to the bitter end by members of our party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baldwin:: Bring back impeachment!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I must begin by saying I am just a little confused by the logic of the last point the hon. member made. If I understood the case which was being made, it was that in a democratic state it is absolutely essential for there to be political control.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Partisan political control.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Anyway, what is of basic importance in this matter is, precisely, political accountability, and I do not hesitate to say that this means political control. Of course if at some point the manner of political control becomes inappropriate then we make, in a free society, political judgments about the government concerned.


Charles Joseph Clark: If we can get the evidence.


John Edward Broadbent: I wish to turn now to the subject of this inquiry. If I may say so, Your Honour did a real service to parliamentary democracy when you made the important ruling which enabled the House to conduct a serious debate on this matter, in the course of which all opposition parties had an opportunity to bring to the country's attention the serious mess we are now in, involving both the RCMP and the government.
It is a compliment to the parliamentary system and other free institutions that the editorial writers and the civil liberties groups, as well as others, should finally force the government to act in setting up an inquiry. However, I regret to say that the terms of reference of this inquiry will raise, in the mind of the public, at least as many serious questions as the inquiry was set up to answer. I, for one, cannot understand why the government has done what it has done in this respect, unless it is stupid or foolish or has something to cover up. I shall try to show what I mean in terms of the logic of my argument. There are some important questions to be raised about the terms of reference of this commission. I want to begin in the following
Royal Canadian Mounted Police way in terms of the sequence of getting the commission established.
We are now told that the Commissioner of the RCMP advises that RCMP members may have been involved in "activities which were not authorized or provided for by law". Important questions follow from that statement made this afternoon by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox). The first question which occurs to me is: when did the commissioner learn this? When did he find out that this was the case? We have it on the authority of a number of ministers, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) not long ago, that something quite to the contrary was believed by the commissioner. When did he draw it to the minister's attention?
The minister did not tell us this afternoon when the government learned that there was perhaps a pattern of illegal activities on the part of the RCMP. Was it two weeks ago? When was it? I assume it was after the minister's statement in the House on June 17 when he said something to the contrary. Presumably, also, it was after he and the Prime Minister assured us that the Montreal incident of 1972 was an abberation.
On June 22 the Prime Minister assured me in the House that he had been informed that the Montreal incident was, and I quote from Hansard for June 22, "an abberation, an incident and an isolated one." That was just a couple of weeks ago. Now it turns out it was not an abberation or an isolated incident but that it was presumably part of a pattern. I repeat: when was the Solicitor General informed about this new situation? In replying to me on June 22 the Prime Minister was answering a question I raised about the allegations made by a former corporal in the RCMP who had alleged, back in 1972, that the kind of illegal activities which the minister today suggested were part of a pattern, did exist back in 1972. And it was on June 22 that the Prime Minister was replying to a question I put to him about the allegation by that corporal, who had made it in 1972 but repeated it just a couple of weeks ago.
Once again, the Prime Minister said-and this is important to the point I shall come to in a minute-that it was an isolated incident. It is clear now that it is not. It is clear, also, that the investigation allegedly undertaken, not in 1972 but in 1976, was a sham. When this matter was raised in the House a year ago, we were assured by the Solicitor General and the minister responsible to the House and to the people of Canada that this matter was investigated. We were assured last year * that it was an isolated incident.
Surely some important questions arise. It is clear now, it seems to me, if I understand correctly the minister's statement, that there was a pattern of illegal activities by the RCMP- clearly the government believes that now, or it would not have set up this kind of inquiry-and I would think it is clear that this pattern of activities goes back at least to 1972.
If that is so, we on this side of the House are understandably concerned about the assurance that we were given, not only by

July 6, 1977
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
the Solicitor General in the House last year but also by the Prime Minister, that the matter was under investigation, that indeed there was no pattern of wrongdoing at that time. I recall that that is all that was asserted. From my point of view, in terms of political accountability that is all that has to be said at this point.
I suggest another question which has to be answered by this inquiry if it is to be of any use to the people of Canada is this: in 1972 did the then solicitor general have access to all the relevant facts? It is on record-and again I reluctantly bring out the contradictions-that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) said he was informed back in 1972. It is also on record through the words of the Solicitor General that the then commissioner of the RCMP and another senior official recalled-I forget the precise words but this is the logic and substance of the point-that they thought they normally would have verbally informed the minister. It seems to me that if the inquiry is to be useful it ought not to concentrate just on the RCMP in this instance but that the opportunity should be welcomed, I submit, by the government to clear up the contradictory implications of the statements which were made.
Similarly last year what kind of investigation was undertaken by the government? How much information was provided to the then solicitor general? How much information was provided to the Prime Minister? If, on the one hand, little information was provided to them, if they had just a superficial investigation, then they are politically accountable to this House for misleading the House and the country when they told us there had been a systematic and thorough investigation. That is what political accountability is all about, Mr. Speaker.
If, on the other hand, they were not informed by the RCMP last year, then it is important for us to ascertain the truth since questions are raised about the political accountability of the RCMP to the government. Either way, Mr. Speaker, we must examine the question. Either the government was deceptive and misled the people, or the government was not informed by the RCMP as it ought to have been. However, the terms of reference of this inquiry make it impossible for us to find the answer to that question.
Although in one sense we welcome the inquiry because it will examine some of the basic questions involved, as I said at the outset it will raise more questions than it will settle. What we have on the surface here is the government deciding to restrict narrowly the terms of reference to see whether there is systematic wrongdoing on the part of the RCMP. But the government has entirely left out very important and unresolved questions concerning political accountability on the part of the ministers themselves. Therefore from our point of view this is a very unacceptable inquiry.
As I have said, I take the view that the RCMP must be responsible to the cabinet of the day. In previous assertions in the House the Solicitor General, the Prime Minister, and others agreed with that. But they have also gone further. 1 am sure that if I checked back in Hansard I would find statements made by the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister in which they said that the political accountability point does

concern them. If the political accountability point concerns them, why have they left it out of the terms of reference of this inquiry?
The implications are not pleasant, Mr. Speaker. The implications are that the government is either stupid or it has something to cover up.


Some hon. Members:: Both.


John Edward Broadbent: Therefore I appeal to the government to reconsider immediately its terms of reference so as to include the very specific item of making it mandatory that this commission look into the political accountability question in general vis-a-vis the RCMP and the government, and specifically the political accountability that existed around the time of the 1972 break-in and that involved in the report back to the House in 1976 when the matter was seriously raised. Clearly, as it stands this commission is unacceptable.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief since there is a debate going on in the House on national unity, but I must say how surprised 1 am to see that RCMP members are the subject of a royal commission of inquiry. In my childhood I had great admiration for this police force, we used to call it the mounted police, it was more imposing, very impressive for us little boys, and I still admire it. But for the last three weeks, I have been greatly surprised to hear that RCMP members have committed unlawful acts. I appreciate they are human beings. I also appreciate they are under all kinds of pressures, but if we have come to the point where we cannot rely on our police forces to take care of our security, where their investigations are shady, I am wondering where we are all going?
In the beginning we were told that it was merely an illegal break-in on the premises of the APLQ. I do not know when we were told the truth, but at that time we were told: It happened only once; there is nothing wrong with overlooking it, just this once. But now, we are told that it happened in other circumstances. Other circumstances means several times: perhaps twice, perhaps five times, or ten times. Perhaps even 25 times. No one knows. In any event, there are surely victims when illegal raids take place. The law is not being respected, in addition to which the public is not being given the protection it is entitled to. I am absolutely amazed to see that in the minister's statement. It is written that allegations have recently been made to the effect that certain persons, then members of the RCMP, were implicated, in other circumstances, in procedures of inquiry or other acts that are not authorized by law.
There must be some code or other to guide police agents who are not dumbbells. They can read and understand the rules and instructions they are given. So, those people act according to their whims. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the statement says in part: Whereas public support of the RCMP in the discharge of its responsibility to protect the security of
July 6, 1977

Canada is dependent on trust in the policies and procedures governing its activities. That is true, and it should be so.
Will a royal commission of inquiry really wipe the slate clean and restore public confidence? 1 certainly hope so. But there again, will it really be able to get to the truth of the matter and clarify the situation while restoring public trust in the RCMP? Be that as it may, if I could do anything to help clear up the matter, I would be eager to cooperate. It is in that frame of mind that I read the statement of the minister today. Further on, it says: And whereas the maintenance of that trust requires that full inquiry be made into the extent and prevalence of investigative practices or other activities involving members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that are not authorized or provided for by law.
I am somewhat broken-hearted to see that again the province of Quebec is involved in this. The government of the province of Quebec. I see the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) who is saying no with his head, but if the newspapers are telling the truth, an investigation will be carried out in the province of Quebec in connection with the break-in at L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec. Mr. Speaker, a provincial government and a federal government are both looking into the activities of our police forces. And in view of the current political climate, I really wonder if this is not likely to influence those who are in charge of these investigations. If only we could be convinced that they will cooperate for the general public well-being, I would be less concerned then to see that under two governments two inquiries will be held at the same time on the same matter. 1 understand that the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) added in his statement that the inquiry commissioners will go farther in that matter.
In conclusion, I hope at least that a very serious inquiry will be made and that it will not result in confrontation with the Quebec Minister of Justice. I hope that Quebec City and Ottawa will try to serve well the interest of justice so that our policemen responsible for the security of Canadians will regain their confidence and the public will be able to cooperate efficiently with these people responsible for the interest and protection of the public. If we fail to do so, doubts will still be in the air, I am afraid. I am not overly impressed but I fear that the new generation has somewhat less respect than we do for our policemen who generally carry out their duties sometimes at the risk of their lives. Anyway, I am afraid about the result of that inquiry. I hope that it will be properly made, that it will give good results and that we reach the goal set.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order has to do with the matter which was raised earlier by my colleague. It is appropriate to raise it now in the form of a point of order because we have reached a stage in the proceedings where members, under the provisions of the Standing Orders, are entitled to direct questions to the minister based on his statement.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
My point of order is this: a few days ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) attempted to circumvent the Standing Orders by bootlegging what was an oral statement through the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), which provides for the tabling of documents. Today we see the same kind of procedure. Under the provisions of Standing Order 15(3) the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) rises in his place to make a statement, and the operative part of that statement, namely, the terms of reference, are not read by him. He has to have them tabled. It is a fact that these terms of reference have already been distributed publicly to the press, but they have been denied to members of the House. Consequently I am being denied the opportunity to ask questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course I shall allow the hon. member to continue, but there is a practical difficulty, as I am sure the hon. member will realize. I should like the hon. member to address himself to the difficulty, and that is, the order of calling of business is the tabling of documents first and statements by ministers second. Under the circumstances, the minister could scarcely table the document before he made the statement, because the document relates only to the statement. There would have been a practical difficulty if the minister had attempted to table documents on terms of reference of a royal commission which he had not announced to the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid you misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that the minister should use Standing Order 41 to table the document. If he is going to make a statement under Standing Order 15(3), he should make the full statement and not try to circumvent the rule by asking the permission of the House to table the operative part of the statement. In effect he has not made a complete statement. The Standing Order makes provision not only for replies by representatives of the other parties, but also makes provision for members to direct questions to the minister, based on his statement. How can I direct questions to the minister, based on a statement setting up an inquiry into the operations of the RCMP, if I do not have before me and I do not know what the terms of reference of the inquiry are?
This is clearly an abuse of the Standing Order. If ministers are to be allowed to abuse Standing Orders in this manner, then I would suggest that by the same token we are going to be denied our rights under the Standing Orders. If Your Honour is not prepared to rule now, then you should take the question under advisement. There was not a great deal in what the minister had to say, apart from the appointment of the commission. The operative part of the minister's statement was not read into the record; it has not been tabled; we do not know what it is; and I suggest the minister should be directed to read that part of his statement into the record.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know if hon. members want to contribute to the point of order or want to ask questions. I will take the point of order under advisement, but in the circumstances I am having great difficulty. The minister could not

July 6, 1977
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
table the document previously. Then he made a statement and offered to table the document, and that sequence would have required consent, which was not forthcoming. Then the suggestion is that the Chair is in a position to order the minister to read the statement. 1 do not know if I have that authority, but in any case I shall take it under advisement.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the terms of reference have been handed out to the press gallery in the press kit accompanying the statement of the minister, and were not given to members of this House or the subscribers of Hansard, my question to the minister now is: will he please read the terms of reference?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, if it will be helpful to the House, I must say once again I am astonished by these charges. Since the beginning of this afternoon 1 have been trying to table the document.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: If the hon. member had allowed me to table it, he would have had a copy by now. In any event, I would be delighted to read the terms of reference. Following my reading of the document, I should request permission to table it. It seems to me that is the only way it will become part of the record for official viewing. My reading of the terms of reference quickly is not going to be particularly helpful to hon. members. But with Your Honour's permission, I would be prepared to read the terms of reference.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Francis Fox: In answer to the question, I shall read the terms of reference. They read as follows:
WHEREAS it has been established that certain persons who were members of the RCMP at the time did, on or about October 7, 1972, take part jointly with persons who were then members of la Surete du Quebec and la Police de Montreal in the entry of premises located at 3459 St. Hubert Street, Montreal, in the search of those premises for property contained therein, and in the removal of documents from those premises, without lawful authority to do so;
WHEREAS allegations have recently been made that certain persons who were members of the RCMP at the time may have been involved on other occasions in investigative actions or other activities that were not authorized or provided for by law;


An hon. Member:: The interpretation system does not work.


Francis Fox: Since the interpretation system does not work, I shall give the rest of the answer to the hon. member opposite in French.
WHEREAS, after having made inquiries into these allegations at the instance of the government, the Commissioner of the RCMP now advises that there are indications that certain persons who were members of the RCMP may indeed have been involved in investigative actions or other activities that were not authorized or provided for by law, and that as a consequence, the Commissioner believes that in the circumstances it would be in the best interests of the RCMP that a Commission of Inquiry be set up to look into the operations and policies of the Security Service on a national basis;

WHEREAS public support of the RCMP in the discharge of its responsibility to protect the security of Canada is dependent on trust in the policies and procedures governing its activities;

AND WHEREAS the maintenance of that trust requires that full inquiry be made into the extent and prevalence of investigative practices or other activities involving members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that are not authorized or provided for by law.
THEREFORE, the Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise that, pursuant to the Inquiries Act, a Commission do issue under the Great Seal of Canada, appointing Mr. Justice David C. McDonald of Edmonton, Alberta Mr. Donald S. Rickard of Toronto, Ontario
Mr. Guy Gilbert of Montreal, Quebec to be Commissioners under Part 1 of the Inquiries Act:

(a)	to conduct such investigations as in the opinion of the Commissioners are necessary to determine the extent and prevalence of investigative practices or other activities involving members of the RCMP that are not authorized or provided for by law and, in this regard, to inquire into the relevant policies and procedures that govern the activities of the RCMP in the discharge of its responsibility to protect the security of Canada;


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is reading too fast and the interpreters cannot keep up with him.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, it is a difficult situation. The minister is reading very quickly, and of course that poses a great burden on the interpreters. Perhaps the minister could read a little more slowly.


Francis Fox: The text goes on to read:
(b)	to report the facts relating to any investigative action or other activity involving persons who were members of the RCMP that was not authorized or provided for by law as may be established before the Commission, and to advise as to any further action that the Commissioners may deem necessary and desirable in the public interest; and
(c)	to advise and make such report as the Commissioners deem necessary and desirable in the interest of Canada, regarding the policies and procedures governing the activities of the RCMP in the discharge of its responsibility to protect the security of Canada, the means to implement such policies and procedures, as well as the adequacy of the laws of Canada as they apply to such policies and procedures, having regard to the needs of the security of Canada.
The Committee further advise that the Commissioners:
1.	be authorized to adopt such procedures and methods as the Commissioners may from time to time deem expedient for the proper conduct of the inquiry;
2.	be directed that the proceedings of the inquiry be held in camera-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Francis Fox: It goes on to read:
-in all matters relating to national security and in all other matters where the Commissioners deem it desirable in the public interest or in the interest of the privacy of individuals involved in specific cases which may be examined:
3.	be directed, in making their report, to consider and take all steps necessary to preserve
(a)	the secrecy of sources of security information within Canada; and
(b)	the security of information provided to Canada in confidence by other nations;
July 6, 1977



4.	be authorized to sit at such time and at such places as they may decide from time to time, to have complete access to personnel and information available in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to be provided with adequate working accommodation and clerical assistance;
5.	be authorized to engage the services of such staff and technical advisers as they deem necessary or advisable and also the services of counsel to aid them and assist in their inquiry at such rates of remuneration and reimbursement as may be approved by the Treasury Board;
6.	be directed to follow established security procedures with regard to their staff and technical advisers and the handling of classified information at all stages of the inquiry;

7.	be authorized to exercise all the powers conferred upon them by section 11 of the Inquiries Act; and
8.	be directed to report to the Governor in Council with all reasonable dispatch and file with the Privy Council Office their papers and records as soon as reasonably may be after the conclusion of the inquiry.
The Committee further advise that, pursuant to section 37 of the Judges Act, His Honour Mr. Justice McDonald be authorized to act as Commissioner for the purposes of the said Commission and that Mr. Justice McDonald be the Chairman of the Commission.
Certified to be a true copy, signed by the Clerk of the Privy Council.
To facilitate the reading of the material by hon. members I would once again request the consent of the House to table the full text of the document in both official languages so that hon. members may examine it at their leisure.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the reading by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) of a document which, however, he should have had the courtesy to circulate to all members of the House, as he did to members of the Press Gallery, before coming to the House of Commons.
1 should like to ask the Solicitor General whether it is the view and the intention of the government that the terms of reference which he has just read allow the commissioners to require testimony under oath and preferably in public from the former solicitor general, the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), concerning his precise role as the minister responsible for the RCMP during the period and concerning the events into which the inquiry will inquire.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that once hon. members have had the opportunity to examine the terms of reference in detail, particularly paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), they will see that the terms of reference are drafted in very broad terms. It will be up to the commission to decide whom they would wish to hear. They could, of course, call the former solicitor general, the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), and they could call me and my predecessor in office. The terms of reference are designed to permit the commission of inquiry to do so. Whether or not the commission would do it in camera or in public depends on the decision of the commission itself in conformity with its terms of reference and powers.


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister claims a question of privilege-perhaps he should speak first.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1 have already stated in the House of Commons that never before March, 1976, did I have any knowledge of illegal activities being committed by the RCMP-either prior to or following their occurrence. The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) stated that the RCMP had given him the assurance that L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec incident was an isolated incident and, as far as I know, this was correct. It is only today that 1 learned of alleged involvement of RCMP members in other illegal activities over the years, and I am pleased that a royal commission has been appointed to verify and study these allegations.
I can assure the commission of my fullest co-operation. It is importat to ensure that the police abide by the country s laws and that the RCMP image be respected both within and outside Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that the purpose of that intervention might be in anticipation of a reply to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) as to whether or not it would be the intention of the minister to appear before the commission.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the continuing soap opera of the Minister of Supply and Services.
I note that the terms of reference cited specifically by the Solicitor General allow the commissioners to conduct investigations concerning practices that are not authorized. This is contained in paragraphs (a) and (b), the only two parts of the terms of reference that are relevant here. In view of the fact that what is of interest to us in this House is precisely the steps which might-or might not, to give him the benefit of the doubt-have been taken by the present minister of Supply and Services to evade giving the authorization that a minister normally would have given, it appears to me that there is a possibility that these terms of reference-


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Make a charge!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister should move from soap opera to comic opera. It appears to me that the very careful wording of this particular term of reference relative to authorization would not require the appearance before the inquiry of the Minister of Supply and Services because he claims he did not authorize what should not have happened without his authorization. What I would like to have from the Solicitor General is a categorical undertaking that it is the intention of the Government of Canada to have the Minister of Supply and Services appear before this inquiry in open session, under oath, to explain all aspects and answer all questions relative to the state of his knowledge concerning the activities of the RCMP in any matter being inquired into by the inquiry. May we have that specific undertaking?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, prior to the hon. gentleman's question I must say I had some difficulty following the language

July 6, 1977
Royal Canadian Mounted Police which was being used. I noticed that at one point the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) referred to an authorization which would normally have been given. It seems clear to me-and during the course of the debate it has always been clear-that in no case would any minister of the Crown want to be in the position of authorizing an illegal act because at that point, of course, he also would be involved in criminal activity. My understanding is that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) has just promised to extend his fullest co-operation to the commission of inquiry.
According to the terms of reference which have been referred to in the House, it seems to me that the commission of inquiry will have all the authority necessary to inquire into the APLQ affair and to summon the witnesses it thinks are necessary to cast light on the questions surrounding the matter. For me, or for the government at this stage, to tell the commission how it ought to conduct its own inquiry would be improper. I think the terms of reference are clear. The commission has all the authority necessary, and my expectation is that the commission would want to look into the APLQ affair.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to keep pressing this matter. Given the government's obvious interest in clearing up this matter, I wonder if the Solicitor General would give us a clear undertaking now that the government will request that the Minister of Supply and Services be allowed to appear in open session under oath to explain all aspects.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I have done it here, but still you ask questions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Would the Solicitor General please answer that question?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add very much to the previous answers I have given. The commission of inquiry has been set up and has full powers to inquire into all aspects which are brought to its attention. Some aspects will undoubtedly have to do with the APLQ affair. Questions have been raised in the House by various hon. members. They have raised questions of cover-up and other related matters. In the course of its inquiries into those matters I suppose the commission will wish to call on members of the government who have additional information in that regard.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question about the terms of reference. I am not a lawyer, and that may or may not be a handicap under the circumstances, but having read the terms of reference with care, I do not reach the conclusion the minister seems to reach, that is, that the royal commission can look into virtually an unlimited range of questions pertaining to allegations of wrongdoing. I think- and I put this in the form of a question to the minister-that there is a rather narrow legal interpretation of terms of reference and, if there is no specific mention of the political accountability point, is it not the case that once the commission begins its work and looks with care at its terms of reference, it may well conclude that, quite apart from what the minister says here today, it is not entitled to get into the political accountability question at all? I ask that in light of

the fact that there is not a specific reference instructing the commission to do that.
My question is twofold. Is it not a clear possibility that the commission might read this document and reach that conclusion; second, if it is a possibility, given the minister's own expressed concern about the issue of accountability on many occasions in the House in recent weeks and the alleged concern of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about political accountability, why is that not in the terms of reference?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the terms of reference are wide indeed. Section C of the terms of reference states that one of the powers given to the commission is to advise and make such reports as it deems necessary and desirable in the interests of Canada regarding the policies and procedures governing the activities of the RCMP. It can look at the policies and procedures, and this could include procedures regarding reporting to the political level.


John Edward Broadbent: It could.


Francis Fox: Yes. If the commission believes it is necessary, I suppose it will be examining a number of matters. The terms of reference are extremely wide in the sense that they allow the commission to have a look at all allegations which have been made. I think some of them are clearly unfounded, but perhaps the commission will conclude that some of them have basis in fact. I suppose the commission will have a look at how matters were handled within the force and what relationship there was between the force and the responsible minister. However, as to the over-all question of accountability, if the government is not satisfied with the present state of accountability-and I am not saying we are not-then it would be up to the government to present legislation in the House. We would not want to divest ourselves of our responsibility in that regard.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I find that answer incredible. Considering that during the period when we were questioning in the House about the 1972 break-in in the first place, to which the minister refers in his opening paragraph in the terms of reference, serious conflicting implications-and I will not put it more strongly than that-emerged with regard to the degree of knowledge of the then solicitor general-and I am not questioning that minister's integrity at the present time at all-and considering that we have conflicting testimony in its implications from then Commissioner Higgitt, another man whose integrity I have no other reason to question, is it not important to have that resolved and to have the political accountability with regard to that specific incident looked into?
Second, is it not important for the commission, given the important principle of ministerial responsibility, to look into the information which was given to the House-a year ago, when the Prime Minister and the then solicitor general said that after the 1972 issue was raised in the House it was investigated, there was no pattern established and they received adequate answers? I forget the precise words, but the clear political commitment made in this House by the Prime
July 6, 1977

Minister and the then solicitor general was that there was an investigation and there was nothing to be concerned about.
Is it not important, in terms of the public knowledge of this event, to know whether there was a cover-up, to use the going word, whether the government of the day was misleading us or whether the RCMP was misleading the government at that time? Surely that is a very basic question that in one sense goes to the root of the whole problem and this whole inquiry, and leaves open the possibility of getting answers rather than making it mandatory.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of instances that have been brought to the attention of the House and a number of instances, as I indicated in my statement, that have been brought to my attention since I made my statement in the House on June 17. It is my firm belief that the terms of reference not only allow the commission of inquiry to look at those cases which have become public but some which are not public at the moment because they have been brought to my personal attention and have been investigated. It would also allow them to look at other possible cases coming up or that they may uncover during the course of their investigation. The powers they have would enable them to look at the APLQ affair from beginning to end to see whether, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) suggested, there was a criminal cover-up at any level. That is, of course, one of the things that the commissioners will be looking at during the course of the inquiry.
Perhaps I should read Hansard again, but my understanding of the whole matter is that assurances were given to the House, on the basis of information received by the force, that the APLQ affair was an exceptional and isolated incident. Of course I stand by those statements. It is only post-June 17, post the time that I made a statement in the House-


John Edward Broadbent: When did you find out?


Francis Fox: -that specific allegations were brought to my attention. As I stated here, it is not enough simply to have allegations. I asked the Deputy Solicitor General of Canada and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Law, to interview the people who had made the allegations and to look further into the allegations to see if there was any semblance of fact there. I also requested that the commissioner of the RCMP look into them to see whether on his side there was any basis in fact. It was only when I received reports to the effect that there apparently may be some basis in fact-


John Edward Broadbent: When did you find out?


Francis Fox: -that this was brought-


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary, the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates to the very restrictive terms of reference. I can well understand why the minister was ashamed to read them in the House. Having had
Royal Canadian Mounted Police a hand in drafting terms of reference I can assure the House that they are extremely restrictive.
Based on the logicality of the terms of reference, wherein the inquiry has been called because of certain allegations, the main allegation in this House involves the former solicitor general. This means that inextricably interwoven in this whole matter was the knowledge of serious and, as it turns out, genuine, allegations of police intervention in criminal activities-knowledge which was sent to the minister. In other words, there was ministerial knowledge of serious allegations. That was the basis of most of the allegations that came certainly from this party, within this House. Bearing that in mind, is it not rather strange that there is absolutely no term of reference to permit the commissioners to inquire into the relationship not only of the minister but also of his staff, with the RCMP?
I do not want the minister to make the same error that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) made when he confused political responsibility with political control. We are talking about political responsibility here. Why was there not a term of reference inquiring into the relationship between the political head and the operational head of the RCMP?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the premises on which the hon. member's question is put is that someone was aware of potential or alleged criminal activity. I think it is quite clear, and my statement bears it out, that as soon as any matter concerning alleged criminal activity was brought to my attention or to the attention of any Solicitor General, the necessary steps were taken to investigate it.
The establishment of the royal commission is a clear indication of the government's stand that the police must act within the limits of the law. Through the top management of the force, the police completely subscribe to that proposition. The whole purpose of the royal commission cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, ever be conceived as a cover-up operation. If it were it would be a poor way of handling the matter. The fact is quite the opposite. The purpose is to give to the commission of inquiry all the latitude and power it needs to look into every allegation, founded or unfounded, whether brought forward in a responsible or irresponsible manner, and to get to the bottom of the matter. Surely that is the purpose of the royal commission.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I have a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Back in 1973 the existing system failed. Serious and genuine allegations of criminal activity were made to the minister, and he bungled it. It may not have been his fault but he bungled it one way or another. The system failed. Under these terms of reference the commissioners cannot inquire into that relationship. I suggest to the minister that is a whitewash term of reference. Why are the commissioners not asked to inquire into that relationship?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member looks at the terms of reference he will find that the commission has full

July 6, 1977
Royal Canadian Mounted Police power to inquire into all matters it wishes. The hon. member conveniently forgets that a number of initiatives have been taken by this government which relate in good part to the problem of accountability raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). 1 refer to the changes in the Protection of Privacy Act in 1974 concerning both the criminal side of the operations of the RCMP and the security side of the operations of the RCMP.
The hon. member referred to the situation in 1973. Naturally we are all interested in finding out whether some forms of criminal activity were entered into by some police officers-as a former attorney general the hon. member should be well placed to know that with a force of 19,000 people spread across the country it may unfortunately happen that some person committed an act that he ought not to have committed. I do not think that is sufficient reason to say that it is necessarily a pattern of activity. It has raised sufficient concern in our minds, however, that we feel that full light should be shed upon the matter.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, since the commission will be committed to scrutinize seriously the various break-in situations, in cases where they would discover that an RCMP officer acted in cooperation with other police forces, either the Montreal Urban Community's or the Surete du Quebec, would they have under their terms of reference the authority to compel officers of those other police forces to give evidence before them in order to further clarify the case? If so, would such evidence be kept secret or made available to the public?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, in answer to this, I would say that under the exact terms of reference they are to scrutinize the actions of the police force for which we are responsible federally. The aim is not to inquire into the actions of municipal or provincial police forces. The commission, however, has all the powers of a commission of inquiry, including that of issuing subpoenas, of requiring appearances before the commission and, where Canadian citizens wherever they may be in Canada had information of such a nature as to enlighten them on RCMP operations, clearly the Commission could require them to appear. As far as in camera proceedings are concerned, the commission is instructed by the government that all hearings must be held in camera in matters involving the national security of Canada. In other matters, the commission has discretionary powers to decide whether hearings are to be held in public or, in keeping with the inherent rights of citizens to be protected against allegations unless there is some degree of evidence against them, to decide that those parts of the hearings that could affect the civil rights of Canadian citizens should also be held in camera.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the government takes this matter of national security and intelligence so seriously that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) chaired the cabinet committee on national security and

intelligence. On that committee served the then solicitor general, the then minister of justice, and the then minister of national defence. Since there was interplay between that committee and the RCMP through the Solicitor General my question is this: Does the government intend to have the Prime Minister, who was the chairman of the committee, or the secretary of that committee, testify before the commission under oath on those incidents which will be exposed in the inquiry?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question relates, apparently, to some grandiose scheme or plot. He spoke of evidence. I do not think we have seen evidence of the type of grandiose plot he described in his question. It would be up to the commission of inquiry to decide on the conduct of this inquiry and, if it was found in the incidents the hon. member referred to that there was a cover-up, it could ask witnesses to appear. On the other hand, speaking hypothetically, if the commission came to the conclusion there had been no cover-up, and if people were entitled to assume that the investigation the Montreal Urban Community Police had launched would come to a head, I suppose the commission might not pursue the matter further, in the belief there is nothing else to pursue. The province of Quebec instituted a commission of inquiry, which is considering precisely why the inquiry conducted by the Montreal Urban Community Police into the APLQ affair came to an end.


Frank Oberle: The minister accuses me of introducing another grandiose scheme to the House. Those grandiose schemes, so-called, to which I drew the minister's attention probably led to the setting up of this inquiry. The minister is still hanging on to information he obtained from me, and I intend to give him additional information. Being a layman and not a lawyer,
I do not know if certain sections of theTxdera! Court Act, particularly section 41(2), will apply to the inquiry being launched. I am referring to provisions allowing the minister to s sign an affidavit, on the strength of which he can withhold evidence from the court if it is deemed as being injurious to national security, cabinet secrecy, federal-provincial relations, and so on. I ask, will that provision of the Federal Court Act be waived in this particular inquiry?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disappoint the hon. member, but none of his wild accusations or allegations led me to change my stand. After following up by way of investigation the allegations the hon. member made, I was not able to find evidence of criminal conduct or criminal wrongdoing. Be that as it may, the question the hon. member raised a number of times in the House is presently being investigated by the Ontario Police Commission, and I am content to leave it at that for the moment.
To answer the hon. member's specific question, if I were to exercise the rights which parliament confers on me under sections 41 and 42 of the Federal Court Act during the course of the inquiry 1 am sure the hon. member would hear about it and I would be fully accountable for my actions in that regard, as usual to the House of Commons.
July 6, 1977


Frank Oberle: The minister has not said if that particular section will apply to evidence which the commission may request of a minister of the Crown or even the Prime Minister.
If the allegations or information I have made known privately to the Solicitor General are without foundation and have nothing to do with the setting up of the commission inquiry, will he now give me permission, publicly, to divulge that same information to the press, since, according to what he says, it is without foundation?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, two different considerations are involved.


Walter David Baker: One is the truth.


Frank Oberle: Yes, or no.


Francis Fox: We are talking about the foundation for the conduct of the inquiry. I hope the hon. member agrees that most of the information he relayed to me related to police forces not under the jurisdiction of the federal government.


Frank Oberle: It related to the RCMP, your office, and officers in your office. Answer yes or no.


Francis Fox: Obviously the hon. member feels strongly about the matter. The matter is being examined impartially and independently. Surely the hon. member, a member of the Progressive Conservative party, does not object to the Ontario Attorney General, for whom I have the greatest respect as an attorney general, looking into the matter. As for the other part of the question, I think I answered it fully in my previous response. I would not intend to file any such affidavit, but I would have to consider the matter. I suppose if the commission wants to look into matters which have nothing to do with its terms of reference, I would need to consider the matter.


Frank Oberle: That is right. You would cover it up.


Francis Fox: Further, I would seek the advice of the law officers of the Crown on how I should conduct myself in the circumstances and I shall answer in the House of Commons, as usual, for any actions I may take.


Frank Oberle: I have finished playing ball with you.


Francis Fox: The Federal Court Act gives me certain powers. And it is not for me to say parliament was wrong in giving me those powers.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). Let me preface it by saying I have read the terms of reference carefully and they seem narrow and restrictive. Would it not be in the minister's own interest to include in the terms of reference provisions which would allow the commission to inquire into the relationship between the Solicitor General and the RCMP, particularly as it relates to accountability and responsibility? Surely that is germane to this whole question. I ask the minister, in light of the exchanges which have taken place in
Royal Canadian Mounted Police the House today-and I commend him on his manner of handling himself-if it would not be in his own best interest to have that matter spelled out in the terms of reference, so that the commission can look into that particular relationship and determine if it can be improved?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, no. I appreciate the hon. member's advice, but from my reading of the terms of reference 1 cannot share his opinion that they are restrictive. The first part would allow the commission to conduct such investigations as, in the opinion of the commissioners, are necessary. I cannot think of broader language. Part (b) would give the commission power to report facts relating to any investigative action or activity, and so on. That language is also broad in the terms of reference. I could have phrased the terms of reference in such a way as to resrtrict them solely to the APLQ matter, the Praxis affair, or to some of the other matters other hon. members raised. I felt it would be better to hold a more open, wider inquiry. I wanted to let the Canadian public know that this commission has all the powers necessary to look into all the allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the force. I want to re-establish, in that way, the previous excellent reputation of the force, a reputation it still deserves, and will continue to deserve.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated that only recently he had obtained information concerning incidents of alleged wrongdoing on the part of RCMP officers. On the basis of that information, apparently, he set up the commission of inquiry. How many incidents of alleged wrongdoing were brought to the minister's attention? More important than that, have any people been suspended as a result of the allegations of illegal action, and have any been charged?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, between June 17, I believe, and the present, a number of allegations have come forward. Consequently the deputy Solicitor General has had but a short time to examine these allegations. I asked him to do it. I also asked the Commissioner of the RCMP to look into the matter. This has been done as quickly and humanely as possible, in the circumstances. Certain new facts came to light in the past couple of weeks, and it takes a certain length of time to determine if there is any basis to some allegations. I cannot say that we have hard evidence at present as to who committed what acts. We felt that the best way to deal with the matter was to set up an independent commission, which would examine the facts and so avoid the sort of criticism the hon. member's leader levelled at the government concerning the RCMP in-house investigation of 1976.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will see the hon. member for a supplementary question, and conclude questioning with the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty), the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), and the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones).


John Gilbert: Will the minister direct his attention to the number of incidents that were referred to him? Is it right to

July 6, 1977
Royal Canadian Mounted Police assume that no persons have been suspended or charged? More important, in light of the information supplied by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), will the minister take steps with regard to protecting the documents and letters that may be involved with regard to investigation?


Francis Fox: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A directive has now been issued by the Commissioner of the RCMP to stop any further destruction of documents by the RCMP, even in their normal course of operation in the destruction of documents that have lost their use.


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister indicate whether my understanding of the terms of reference is correct, that the commission of inquiry is specifically directed that the proceedings of the inquiry be held in camera on all matters relating to national security? If that is so, can the minister indicate whether any investigation into the mishandling of this affair by the former solicitor general, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), conducted by this commission will have to be held in camera in view of the fact that the illegal break-in into L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec was justified on the grounds of national security? In other words, is it not the case that the terms of reference are so restricted that the inquiry is directed by the government that any investigation of the activities of the former solicitor general with regard to the L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec affair will have to be held in secret behind closed doors?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, that is not the reading I have of the terms of reference. The terms of reference are quite clear that if, in the opinion of the commission, there is a matter of national security which is at stake, it has the power and is indeed directed to sit in camera. However, if matters do not relate to national security, matters which I presume are information and national security is not involved, there would be no obligation to sit in camera.
In light of previous experience, for example in crime inquiries in Montreal where numbers of people had allegations made against them and no opportunity to defend themselves, a commission should take that into consideration and make up its mind whether there is a public interest and whether it should be held in camera or open. They should also consider whether individual rights are involved which may be adversely affected if the proceedings are not held in camera.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House will be very interested to see whether that investigation will take place in camera or in open session.
With regard to the terms of reference, may I also ask the minister whether in his opinion they are intended by the government to be broad enough to cover the exchange or correspondence tabled in the House yesterday by the Minister of Supply and services which included a letter from his assistant, Mr. Cameron, dated October 11, 1972, and marked urgent. It asked the RCMP for a recommendation as to what sort of acknowledgement, if any, should be made to the letter
[Mr. Speaker.)
of allegation from L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec, concluding with the final sentence "It is noted that reply has been requested by 11 a.m. on Friday, 13 October, 1972, two days later." , and to determine what the reason was why it took 15 days, including 13 days beyond that deadline, for the RCMP to reply, and determine whether there was any other form of communication by the RCMP and the Solicitor General's office during that period?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question may be very interesting from a historical point of view. The facts are as the Minister of Supply and Services has indicated. The letter was discussed at a subsequent meeting with the head of the RCMP. The matter was dealt with at that time in the manner I indicated in my statement and the minister indicated in his. What happened in between does not seem to have very much relevance.
[ Translation]


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, when the Solicitor General made his statement on the APLQ incident on June 17, 1977, I thought precisely that it was certainly not of an extraordinary or isolated nature. Here is my question: To pursue the matter I had raised at the time with the Solicitor General, in view of the fact that the Quebec government has appointed Mr. Keable to investigate almost the same matter, because it would be wrong to think that this inquiry will be carried on largely outside Quebec, since it will take place essentially in Quebec, I believe, can the minister tell the House whether this royal commission-and I congratulate him for setting it up because it was necessary, in my opinion-will cooperate with Mr. Keable or will they have authority to ask Mr. Keable to appear before them as regards the investigation he has been carrying on? Can he also tell us what results can be expected? If so, does he think this matter might lead us to a constitutional fight.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this matter might lead us to a kind of constitutional fight, as the hon. member has suggested. In my opinion, our position is extremely clear. If it had been an isolated, extraordinary and very specific case, if it were a criminal offence perpetrated within this province, this inquiry would fall under the jurisdiction of the provincial attorney general, who is responsible for the administration and implementation of the Criminal Code within his province, and this is what we have done.
At the present time, other allegations lead us to believe that it was not an unusual nor an isolated event. Therefore, as the government responsible for the federal police force, it seems to me quite normal to set up a commission of inquiry to examine the behaviour of the federal police under the circumstances. However, I do not expect any clash between the two commissions of inquiry and I do not see why the federal commission should call Mr. Keable as a witness. I think that Mr. Keable has very definite terms of reference on four specific questions which have been raised, among others why the inquiry of the Montreal police force came to an end. As for us, there would be other practices, perhaps illegal, which we suspect and we
July 6, 1977

really want to solve the matter and learn exactly what happened.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister three questions. They will be very brief and he can answer them briefly. Will all the members of the cabinet, the parliamentary secretaries, their predecessors in office, their respective staffs and all relevant documents, be compellable witnesses and compellable documents by subpoena or otherwise? Does this inquiry include certain problems that are taking place in the RCMP in New Brunswick? Will the government pay for counsel and legal fees for the RCMP individually and collectively?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first question I believe the answer in broad terms will be no. With regard to the second question relating to the RCMP inquiry by the New Brunswick government, once again the answer is no, if I understood the question. On the third question as to whether legal counsel would be provided to members of the force, there is a force policy under which in most cases funds for legal assistance are provided to members of the force in connection with things that may have been done in the pursuit of their duties.


Leonard C. Jones: Do I understand that the inquiry will not have the right to subpoena members of the cabinet?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, if it is a legal question the hon. member is asking me, 1 will have to check. However, 1 cannot imagine that if any member of the cabinet is asked to supply relevant information to the commission of inquiry, he would not be willing to do so.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 have two questions for the government House leader. First, what is the intention of the government with respect to business for tomorrow, Friday, and next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow we shall resume the third reading of Bill C-27 followed by C-17, the Air Canada bill, and C-49. Next week I would hope also to deal with the report stage of the amendments to the criminal law.


Walter David Baker: The other question 1 have in mind relates to the debate on national unity which, according to the understanding between all parties, was to occupy two days. By the luck of the draw, there happened to be one long day and one short day. The government saw fit, for a reason which escapes me, to make a statement in the middle of the short day. I am being charitable when I say the reason escapes me; this has happened on other occasions and I think it is a practice which ought to be avoided. That a statement of at
Business of the House
least partial capitulation, which some have called a cover-up, should have made in relation to an important matter on a day set aside for a debate on national unity is beyond my comprehension, and the government House leader owes an apology for dealing with the matter in that way.
In addition, he owes us some time. I am not worrying about the time we took up on the question of parliamentary privilege. That is part of the normal parliamentary process and I might add that more could be heard about that matter tomorrow. But as to the statement catapulted in by the minister, I believe the request made by one member of the House to extend the time set aside for the debate so as at least to make up the period lost, about an hour and 45 minutes, ought to be granted by the government House leader, and I would ask him to seek whatever order might be required so that the time could be made up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member says it escapes him why the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) decided to make a statement today.


An hon. Member:: It doesn't escape me.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It does not escape me, either. The reason is related to the importance of the matter, one which, in the opinion of the Speaker, was of such urgency just a short time ago that the business of the House of Commons was set aside to deal with it. It was the view of the government that just as soon as a decision had been taken to establish a royal commission related to our national security, that decision should be communicated to the House of Commons as quickly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is why the statement was made today. It was because of the gravity of the subject matter, and for no other reason. The hon. member said his question of privilege was part of the parliamentary process. Of course it was. But a statement by a minister is also part of the parliamentary process and was justified on the grounds 1 have indicated.
The hon. member has suggested that further time might be made available for today's debate on national unity. I am not ready to make or to receive a proposal at the present time because I know the circumstances are not right and that the mood is not right at the moment for securing the kind of concurrence which would be required. However, I would be ready to consult through usual channels to determine whether it would be possible to agree on some extended period. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) must bear in mind that the proceedings of the House have been taken up with these two matters-important matters-which have engaged the time, interest, and intellect of members of the opposition, for the most part, rather than members of the government.

July 6, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: The government House leader has said that the atmosphere in the Chamber is not now conducive to an agreement on an extension of hours. I simply want to say on behalf of my party, and I am sure the spokesmen for the other parties on this side of the House will agree, that we are prepared to support an extension of the time of debate today to allow the agreed time to ensue for a discusion on national unity, and we do not want that decision to be delayed simply because the government House leader is in a state of pique. We are prepared, now, to agree to the extension of sitting time until 8.45 p.m. tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Suggestions are being made by way of a point of order. There is no point of order to be dealt with at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it would not be unreasonable for us to have discussions among the House leaders while debate goes on this afternoon. We might agree to the suggestion which has just been made by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark). However, 1 would offer an alternative, perhaps even two options. To sit right through until 8.45 p.m. would be unfair to everyone. Perhaps we might rise at six and sit from 8.p.m. until 10 p.m. Or maybe we could sit until 7 p.m., as now ordered, and then sit for an hour or two on another day. After all, we had the experience the other day of trying to make arrangements on the spur of the moment in this Chamber, and look where that got us.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the difficulty in which we find ourselves-we are attempting by way of a point of order to determine whether or not agreement can be reached. It is not a proper vehicle for such a discussion. Some proposal would have to be made to the House for consideration. Obviously, the time is not right.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that in the course of the afternoon an hon. member on the government side suggested the idea of extending the sitting from six to eight o'clock or from eight to ten o'clock with a break for supper between six and eight o'clock. I answered that yesterday we happened to suggest such an extension for today but he refused. This time, I put some conditions, as was my privilege. They were to tell me about this but 1 did not hear from them. As far as I am concerned, I stick to the status quo as defined in the motion which has been passed yesterday proposing to sit until seven o'clock tonight.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following ques-

tions will be answered today: Nos. 1,521, 1,553, 1,61 1, 1,784, 1,948, 2,320 and 2,464.


Mr. Malone: What was the demurrage cost of grain ships for the crop year 1975-76 at the Port of (a) Vancouver (b) Thunder Bay (c) Churchill?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as the
Canadian Wheat Board is concerned: The Canadian Wheat Board advises that their records are not kept by individual ports but are broken down only into East Coast and West Coast categories. Demurrage charges for the 1975-76 crop year for West Coast ports, the bulk of which were at Vancouver, were $3,114,919, while those for East Coast ports were $193,812. No demurrage costs were incurred at Thunder Bay and Churchill.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Was the Manitoba Institute of Management employed in 1975 and 1976 to do consulting work for the Farm Credit Corporation and, if so (a) were tenders called before the contract was awarded (b) who selected this firm and who decided to award it the contract?
2.	Was the Chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation, Mr. Baldur Krustjan-son, a director or a member of the Board of Manitoba Institute of Management when the Institute was employed to work for the Corporation?
3.	How much has the Farm Credit Corporation paid in total to the Manitoba Institute of Management?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Farm Credit Corporation advises: 1. Yes. The Institute assisted the Corporation in the preparation of terms of reference for a management audit program, (a) It was considered inappropriate to put the project out to tender until the terms of reference had been completed, (b) The selection was made by the Chairman and ratified by the Members of the Corporation.
2.	Yes.
3.	Payments made to the Manitoba Institute of Management Inc. were as follows:
Year	Consultation	Expenses	Total1975	$30,940	$6,814	$37,7541976	$33,660	$9,308	$42,968


Mr. Jones: 1.	Is Dylex Ltd., 637 Lakeshore Blvd. West, Toronto, Ontario, a federally incorporated company and, if so (a) on what date was it incorporated (b) what are the objects of the company (c) who are the officers and directors (d) who are the shareholders and, in each case (i) how many shares are held (ii) what is his/her address?
2.	Is the company Canadian owned and, if not, what percentage is foreign?
July 6, 1977

3.	What is the name and address of any branch, subsidiary or business associated or controlled in any way by Dylex Ltd. and what are the details of all holdings in each case?
4.	Has any investigation or inquiry been made by the government into Dylex Ltd. and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what are the details of the findings?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes. l.(a) April 4, 1928. (b) The objects of the corporation are contained in the Letters Patent and are available to the public from the Corporations Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Note: Too lengthy to be contained in an answer), (c) Louis H. Posluns, James F. Kay, Wilfred Posluns, Irving Posluns, Jack Posluns, Samuel F. Kay, David Korn, Arthur Zaldin, Hubert J. Stitt, William Singer, Daniel W. Casey, Lionel Robins, Irving Levine, Harry Rosen, Kenneth Axelrod, George Fine, Henry Zagdanski, Samuel Shainhouse, Sydney Loftus, Schuyler M. Sigel. (d) Information disclosed by the Corporation in Section A of the Annual Return required to be filed under the
Order Paper Questions
Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act reveals that of the total 869,079 issued shares, 145,422 are owned by Oelsak Limited-address: 637 Lakeshore Blvd. W., Toronto M5V 1A5. 117,477 are owned by Nadler Bros. Limited-address: 637 Lakeshore Blvd. W., Toronto M5V 1A5. There is no information on the owners of the other issued shares.
2.	Eight hundred sixty-three thousand, seven hundred sixty-five shares are held in Canada while 5,314 are held in the United States.
3.	See Table "A".
4.	(a) No investigation has been made by the Corporations Branch into the affairs of Dylex Ltd. since no complaints from shareholders have been received, (b) In 1973, Dylex Ltd. (Fairweather Inc.) was convicted under section 36 of the Combines Investigation Act. For a separate case, again of section 36 of the Combines Investigation Act, Dylex Ltd. (Fairweather Inc.) was acquitted in March 1974.
Shares or other Corporations Held by Dylex Limited
Manner	Date	Place	Letters Patent	January 12, 1968	Ontario	100 per centLetters Patent	May 4, 1928	Dominion	100 per centLetters Patent	December 24, 1971	Ontario	100 per centLetters Patent	October 6, 1959	Ontario	52.9 per centLetters Patent	October 11, 1956	Ontario	100 per centLetters patent	July 26, 1955	Ontario	100 per centLetters Patent	December 3, 1964	Ontario	100 per centLetters Patent	April 21, 1970	Dominion	N/RLetters Patent	April 13, 1965	Ontario	100 per centB.C.	100 per centB.C	N/RLetters Patent	December 14, 1960	Ontario	Letters Patent	September 3, 1933	Dominion	Letters Patent	February 24, 1932	Ontario	Letters Patent	November 21, 1933	Ontario	Letters Patent	May 28, 1965	Dominion	Letters Patent	February 5, 1965	Ontario	
Family Fair Inc.
Dylex Acceptance Corp. Ltd.
Fashion Council Ltd.
Fairweather Inc.
Harry Rosen Men's Wear Ltd.
National Knitting Mills ltd.
Bradford Spinners Ltd.
The Young Canadian Clothiers
Corp. Ltd.
Canadian Clothiers Corp. Ltd.
Jermaines (1948) Ltd.
Jermaines (Oakridge) Ltd.
Inactive Companies
Dylex Properties (Eastern) Ltd.
W. H. Leishman & Co. Ltd.
Crown Tailoring Co. Ltd.
W. R. Johnston & Co. Ltd.
Daroff of Canada Ltd.
Sobel, Newman & Kutner Ltd.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) consulting and construction contracts were awarded in (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 to (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) the Atlantic provinces (viii) other?
2.	What percentage of the total number of CIDA consulting and construction contracts in (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 were awarded to (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) the Atlantic provinces (viii) other?
3.	What percentage of the total Canadian population in (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 lived in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) the Atlantic provinces?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned: The answer to parts 1 and 2 of this question will be found in the following table.
February 23, 1977
Consulting and Construction Contracts
1974	1975	1976Number	Per cent Number	Per cent	Number	Per centBritish Columbia	14	12.3	14	12.3	10	8.1Alberta	7	6.1	4	3.5	7	5.6Saskatchewan	2	1.7	2	1.8	2	1.6Manitoba	6	5.3	-	-	3	2.4Ontario	34	29.8	53	46.4	34	27.4Quebec	45	39.5	35	30.7	57	46.0Atlantic Provinces	5	4.4	4	3.5	9	7.3Other	1	0.9	2	1.8	2	1.6114	100.0	114	100.0	124	100.0In so far as	Statistics Canada	is concerned:	3. The	percentage of the total Canadian population in 1974, 1975 and 1976 in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces is provided on the following chart.
7382

July 6, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Percentage Distribution of Canadian Population for 1974, 1975 and 1976<a>
1974	1975	1976British Columbia	10.7%	10.8%	10.8%Alberta	7.6	7.7	7.9Saskatchewan	4.0	4.0	4.0Manitoba	4.5	4.5	4.4Ontario	36.1	36.1	36.1Quebec	27.3	27.1	27.0Atlantic Provinces	9.5	9.5	9.5Territories	0.3	0.3	0.3Canada	100.0	100.0	100.0(Total population, in thousands)	(22,446)	(22,800)	(23,110)
99 Post-censal population estimates produced by using 1971 census counts as the base. All these figures will be revised based on final counts from 1976 Census.


Mr. Epp: 1.	What is the projected cost to the taxpayer for parties held or to be held in Vancouver, Kelowna, Prince George, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Oshawa, St. Catharines, Peterborough, London, Windsor, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Waterloo, Barrie, Hamilton, Saint John, Halifax, Moncton and Charlottetown in conjunction with the proclamation of the new Citizenship Act?
2.	What is the projected cost to the taxpayer for the liquor to be served at each of the parties?


John (Moody) Roberts: Costs incurred for receptions held as part of the information programme on the occasion of the Proclamation of the New Citizenship Act: 1. Vancouver, $4,052.85; Kelowna, $1,007.57; Prince George, $1,089.20; Edmonton, $1,516.00; Calgary, $1,890.20; Regina, $1,531.00; Saskatoon, $1,996.00; Winnipeg, $2,310.32; Oshawa, $1,611.64; St-Catharines, $1,775.73; Peterborough, $1,898.00; London, $2,500.38; Windsor, $1,704.12; Sudbury, $1,685.21; Thunder Bay, $1,211.40; Waterloo, $1,524.05; Barrie, $1,485.50; Hamilton, $1,794.57; Saint John, $2,535.45; Halifax, $1,852.58; Moncton, $1,691.13; Charlottetown, $1,910.45. Sub-total, $40,573.35.
2. Vancouver, $1,506.30; Kelowna, $152.35; Prince George, $263.20; Edmonton, $360.00; Calgary, $628.45; Regina, $474.50; Saskatoon, $930.00; Winnipeg, $763.02; Oshawa, $663.64; St-Catharines, $509.80; Peterborough, -; London, $1,189.00; Windsor, $791.12; Sudbury, $754.25; Thunder Bay, $543.40; Waterloo, $545.71; Barrie, $382.50; Hamilton, $711.50; Saint John, $1,405.15; Halifax, $1,152.17; Moncton, $847.50; Charlottetown, $845.15. Sub-total, $15,418.71.


Mr. O'Sullivan: L With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,943, which stated in part, that the total cost included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for telephone and other related communications equipment rentals was $4,412,836, what was the cost (a) incurred by (i) the Atlantic Provinces (ii) Quebec (iii) Ontario (iv) the Western Provinces (v) Yukon (vi) NWT (b) for (i) telephone equipment (ii) teletype equipment (iii) radio and other mobile communications devices rental (including any paging equipment) (iv) payments for actual communications services and rental of time on communications lines?
2. With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,943, which stated in part, that the total estimated cost included in the 1976-77 Estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for telephone and other related communications equipment rentals was forecast as $4,153,189, what was the cost (a) incurred by (i) the Atlantic Provinces (ii) Quebec (iii) Ontario (iv) the Western Provinces (v) Yukon (vi) NWT (b) for (i) telephone equipment (ii) teletype equipment (iii) radio and other mobile communications equipment rentals (including any paging equipment) (iv) payments for actual communications services and rental of time on communications lines?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. (a)(i) Atlantic Provinces, $426,078; (ii) Quebec, $1,104,829; (iii) Ontario, $1,823,503; (iv) Western, $1,034,457; (v) Yukon, $11,276; (vi) N.W.T., $12,693. (b) Atlantic: (i) $314,912; (ii) $1,693; (iii) Nil; (iv) $109,473; (b) Quebec: (i) $858,404; (ii) $39,216; (iii) Nil; (iv) $207,209; (b) Ontario: (i) $1,484,820; (ii) $83,493; (iii) Nil; (iv) $255,190; (b) Western: (i) $642,981; (ii) $27; (iii) Nil; (iv) $391,449; (b) Yukon: (i) $5,698; (ii) Nil; (iii) Nil; (iv) $5,578; (b) North West Territories: (i) $8,008; (ii) Nil; (iii) Nil; (iv) $4,685.
2. (a)(i) Atlantic Provinces, $395,071; (ii) Quebec, $1,045.935; (iii) Ontario, $1,741,349; (iv) Western, $943,245; (v) Yukon, $11,504; (vi) North West Territories, $16,085; (b) Atlantic: (i) $318,406; (ii) Nil; (iii) Nil; (iv) $76,665; (b) Quebec: (i) $821,185; (ii) $59,354; (iii) Nil; (iv) $165,396; (b) Ontario: (i) $1,448,961; (ii) $107,079; (iii) Nil; (iv) $185,309; (b) Western: (i) $682,167; (ii) Nil; (iii) Nil; (iv) $261,078; (b) Yukon: (i) $5,643; (ii) Nil; (iii) Nil; (iv) $5,861; (b) North West Territories: (i) $9,341; (ii) Nil; (iii) Nil; (iv) $6,744.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Did CBC have a number of employees measured for special suits to be used during the Olympics and, if so, how many?
2.	Were any suits subsequently purchased and (a) if so (i) how many (ii) at what cost (b) if not, for what reason?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the CBC as follows: 1. No employees were measured for special suits. Certain items of clothing were supplied but were to the nearest stock size.
2. No. Separate items were purchased. (a)(i) Sufficient quantities were ordered for the more than 2,000 Olympics personnel under the control of CBC as host broadcaster as well as for personnel involved in CBC domestic coverage. The clothing purchased served as a uniform and readily identifiable appearance for these personnel, (ii) 198 melon jackets at $63.40 each, 16 blue jackets at $63.40 each, 1,997 "common image" windbreakers at $26.17 each, 16 melon pants or skirts at $30.80 each, and 4,046 blue pants or skirts at $25 each, (b) Not applicable.


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


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order involving all members of the House and arising out of the answers just given to us by the Parliamentary Secretary to the
(Mr. Goodale.]
July 6, 1977

President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale). Looking at today's order paper I find there are at least 24 questions of a vintage more than a year old. Some of them were placed as early as November 3, 1975, on the order paper of another session.
I simply want to say that it is not acceptable to have 24 questions standing in the name of one person, which happens to be the hon. member for Leeds, (Mr. Cossitt) remaining unanswered. There is more than inability to answer at work here; there is vindictiveness at work, and 1 for one am not prepared to be a member of a free assembly which allows the government to show spite, malice, and deliberate indifference toward any of the members of this assembly.
I am not going to go through all of them because we should get back to the national unity debate, but question No. 31 in the name of the hon. member for Leeds is almost a classic illustration of the problem he is up against. Let me read just part of it:
With reference to the answer to question No. 3,573 of the first session of the 30th parliament, asking details on government business awarded to Urbanetics Limited which stated: "See answer to parliamentary question No. 3,359" of the first session of the 30th parliament, for what reason does the government consider this possible since question No. 3,359 of the first session of the 30th parliament has not been answered?
I think that is contempt of an almost unbelievable degree. 1 just want to tell the parliamentary secretary this, that some of those questions are going to be answered, and they are going to be answered starting tomorrow, or I will use the technique or moving the adjournment of the House on every possible occasion on behalf of the hon. member for Leeds until the government comes to its senses and revokes this revolting habit simply because it does not like the fact that a member has moved from one side of this political principality to the other and has changed from being a Liberal to being a Conservative.
In any event, I have made my indignation known and I am going to use every technique I can against the parliamentary secretary and the stonewalling of the government.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Halifax-East Hants and I have had an opportunity to work rather closely with one another-at least, I had thought that was the case-in our work on one particular standing committee of this House, as well as in the House itself, and 1 am amazed and disappointed at what he has just said, particularly with regard to his imputing of motives to me and to the government in the process of answering questions which appear on the order paper. What he has just said is not only untrue, but 1 think unfair, and leaves a wrong impression with all members of the House and certainly with those who watch the proceedings of the House. 1 must take strong exception to the tone and the tenor of what he said, because it is simply untrue.
I have indicated on other occasions when dealing with a similar point of order that it is our objective to endeavour to answer all of the questions which appear on the order paper before the end of this session. I indicated to hon. members that
National Unity
in recent days some members had placed rather extensive lists of questions on the order paper which had the effect of delaying the process of answering questions simply because of the new bulk of questions appearing on the order paper.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we do intend to respond to all of the questions before the end of this session. We will do our level best to do that, and I can inform the House that with respect to some of the questions to which the hon. gentleman referred in his remarks just now 1 think I will be in a position to provide answers within the next couple of days. But I can assure him that the suspicions that he has expressed with respect to motives are absolutely without foundation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the notices of motions for papers be allowed to stand for today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed ?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, July 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That members of this House dedicate themselves anew to the continuing unity of Canada as a free and independent country organized on the basis of a federal form of government with two official languages and a diversity of cultures.
And on the amendment of Mr. Clark (p. 7321).
Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, last night at 11 o'clock when we adjourned I had just quoted a paragraph from the document which had been tabled in this House some weeks ago called "A National Understanding". Perhaps that should be re-entitled "A National Misunderstanding". The paragraph I had read reads, in part, as follows:
In any event, the federal government asserts that it is incompatible with the unity of Canada that Canadian citizens should be able, when they move from province to province, to send their children to schools where they are taught in their own language.
80020 -3V6

July 6, 1977
National Unity
What this paragraph means, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea. But what it says is that it is not beneficial to national unity for a parent to be able to place a child in school of his or her own language when moving from province to province. Surely the language in that document must be in error, because the statement goes on to say that facilities should be provided-we might conclude in the French language-for those transferring from the province of Quebec to any other province.
Already this has conflicted with the previous statement on incompatibility with national unity. The paragraph goes on to say that facilities will continue to be provided in the province of Quebec for those transferring into that province. How can English language facilities be continued in the province of Quebec when Bill 1 states that people coming into the province must be educated in the French language? In the next paragraph of this statement the government agrees with the policy that Bill 1 promotes, that immigrants into the province of Quebec must be educated in the French langugage regardless of their origin, or even their wishes. The government feels this must be the case if the province is to remain predominantly a French language province.
The government also states in the same paragraph that the same choice must be available to immigrants to other provinces. It would seem to me that there is no choice for immigrants in the province of Quebec.
We have allowed Quebec to have a double standard for too long now. It is time we realized that we cannot continue to live as a nation with ghettos of English and ghettos of French. We must become Canadians. And that goes for Quebec too; they must become Canadians if they are to remain in Confederation.
In closing, may I say that the Quebec story is a sad one indeed. It leaves all of us, in the maritime provinces particularly, in a peculiar situation. My suggestion is that the Quebec problem, the national unity problem, be taken out of the political arena. It is time that members of parliament, each and every one of us, realized that we do not sit here as party members but as the representatives of the people of Canada. It is time that the government turned to the realities of the situation at hand and stopped making a bit of a mockery of disunity. It is time it stopped making our disunity a popularity issue.
It is perhaps true that if a non-partisan committee comprising members of parliament, Senators, MLA's and elected officials of all kinds met on a tripartite basis in all parts of the country, and non-partisan regional committees were set up across the country, we just might make some headway. But as it now stands the politicians are inflating the emotions of all concerned persons, so that soon a viable solution may not be possible due to emotion upheaval.
If unity is to be achieved, equality must be the law. It must be the rule. We must have equality of race, religion, creed, of province and region. Politicians alone cannot begin to mend the problems of the state. The people of this country must also be consulted. Unlike other members here, I suppose I have to say why I do not agree entirely with forcing the province of

Quebec to stay in Confederation, or in unity. Unity can be accomplished only if all parties are willing. There must be a consensus ad idem before we can reach any kind of agreement. Likewise, for reconciliation there must be some consensus.
Unity can only be attained if all Canadians become true Canadians. Unity and the repairing of a state can be fulfilled only if we all take the time to work together toward a common goal. The best place to start uniting this country is with a common goal of work for all. Some refer to this as full employment. 1 suggest we can have something approaching full employment. In seeking truth and happiness, we will find unity and harmony in our country, and in seeking unity and harmony among our peoples we will find a better nation, one which is strong and free.
I find it difficult to bring myself to support a motion which alleges and states continuing unity. There has not been national unity but a great deal of disunity, and economic problems which have been caused as a result of improper implementation of programs, hastily and ill-conceived by the federal government, and by some of the provincial governments as well.
National unity cannot be achieved in debate by politicians, but like love and brotherhood can be only achieved by people working together with God's will and counsel. As to linguistics, which is only part of the national unity question-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member his allotted time has expired.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, my leader made a tremendous speech. 1 did not fully realize what a shattering day it was for the government until the two foxes in the government today concocted this method of trying to capture the media.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The second fox being my old friend, the government House leader.
I enter this debate today with a feeling of great sadness. It is almost exactly ten years ago that I, as the premier of Nova Scotia, decided to enter federal politics. I thought I might be able to do something to strengthen our country, and in particular to improve the understanding between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians, and also to improve economic opportunities in the Atlantic provinces. It makes me sad to view the sorry state today of the economy of those provinces, but it moves me almost to tears to see our country economically hobbled and menaced by threatened disintegration.
I wish to speak to this House very bluntly, and I should like to be heard, even though some members may not like what I say. What I say will be said very deliberately. I do not wish to add to the difficulties of our country, but we must be frank with one another and with Canadians. Disunity today is not entirely the fault of the government, but the government ought
*

July 6, 1977

to set the tone and should give leadership. I say that it is not just the government's fault, because some individuals and groups outside the government and outside the Liberal party have pushed concepts of this country which are clearly divisive.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has expressed concern about the rise of provincialism. Certainly excessive provincialism is divisive, but there are concepts and goals which transcend provincial or regional lines and which are even more dangerous to Canadian unity because they are divisive, even if they are put forward in the name of national unity. Thus, our present crisis is not just the fault of our present government.
This government has too often engaged in confrontation and polarization, rather than reconciliation. We saw these tactics employed to set the east against the west back in 1973 and 1974 in connection with oil, for the purpose of trying to secure votes in an election, leaving wounds in the west that will be many years in healing. The present emergency relates to the province of Quebec. Admittedly one cannot reconcile to federalism those who are fully committed to separatism; but did this government have to polarize opinion in Quebec between federalism and separatism? You either accepted the Trudeau concept of federalism or you were stigmatized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This federal government made no effort to reconcile Quebec nationalists who were federalists but were also concerned by the heavy hand of Ottawa in areas they consider vital to the future of their province-language and culture. Whether or not this hard line was maintained by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues, this was maintained tragically through an underestimate of the strength of Quebec nationalism. It was not very long ago that the Prime Minister said separatism in the province of Quebec was dead. Whether or not this was a result of a tragic mistake in judgment is speculation. What is beyond speculation is that the Trudeau government helped to polarize opinion in the province of Quebec.
1 am very unhappy that the Prime Minister chose to risk the future of our country on a shoot-out between himself and Rene Levesque. In all honesty and fairness 1 have to say that Mike Pearson would never have done it. The lesson in this for the future is not that we should now try to conciliate Mr. Levesque or members of his government-dedicated separatists-but that we should create confidence in the minds and hearts of Quebecers who are not separatists but yet do not buy the Trudeau orthodoxy.
The ministers of the government are reported to be urging an early election on the basis that this would settle things down. My attitude toward the next election is a little different from theirs. I will not be running again. My professional interests will not be involved. A federal election will prove nothing as far as the future of Quebec is concerned. Because of traditions in that province, the Liberals will probably win a substantial majority of the seats. This will in no way indicate that Premier Levesque could not win a substantial majority for
National Unity
the provincial government when the chooses to go to the people. We could conceivably go on for some time with federal Liberals and the Parti Quebecois each doing well in the province of Quebec, with our country churning in a continuous turmoil. Perhaps the government and its supporters are happy with such a prospect. Obviously they are happy with the way things are going. One can observe this daily in this Chamber. Politically they were in a bad situation before the election of the Levesque government. If the Levesque government had not been elected, this government would have to invent it. They have tried to wring every last ounce of political benefit from crisis, and apparently will continue to do so while pretending not to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But our problems of unity, the future of this nation, surely are, or should be, beyond partisan rivalry. The future of our country is at stake. The country was created by co-operation between politicians who had been bitter opponents but recognized that only through co-operation and joint effort could everything be prevented from going down the drain.
One of the alarming aspects of the present danger is that the government sees this crisis as a political benefactor. The Prime Minister has not even called in the provincial premiers; he has not even consulted or invited other federal party leaders for private discussions. No doubt his supporters will point to the Pepin-Robarts commission as a non-partisan response to this crisis. I do not object to that commission, indeed I wish it well, but our problems will be solved, if they are solved at all, as the Prime Minister himself has said, by the elected representatives of the people. The commission may be helpful, but it is far short of an indication that the Government of Canada is putting the interests of the country ahead of its own partisan electoral interests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is one area in which we have had bi-partisanship or, more accurately, multi-partisanship, that is, bilingualism. We have had multi-partisanship toward institutional bilingualism not because the government sought it but because the leadership in the opposition parties supported institutional bilingualism. I supported it because I considered it to be in the national interest, as well, frankly, as in the long term interests of my own party, but it was and is an unpopular policy in a large portion of this country, in the west, through much of Ontario and through much of the Atlantic provinces. In my own province of Nova Scotia public opinion was heavily opposed to that policy as it was perceived by the people.
Those of us who supported and continue to support bilingualism do not expect any medals, but it was not easy for many members of my party to vote for a measure that their constituents thoroughly disapproved of as they perceived it. It was particularly difficult for members from the west, for reasons that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) indicated very

July 6, 1977
National Unity
clearly last evening. It was difficult for many members, but who was it who tried to induce as many members as possible to vote against the Official Languages Act? Who was it who arranged by stealth to have the necessary number of members call for a recorded vote in order to put the greatest possible constituency pressure on members? Who was it? It was the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And that is only part of the story. To find Canadians whose conception of Canada differs more from the Prime Minister's than that of the hon. member for Crowfoot you would have to look pretty hard.
Yesterday the Prime Minister emphasized the need for accommodations. A few weeks before his government launched its charter on language rights, about which the minister will probably be speaking in a few minutes, the Prime Minister made a deal with the hon. member for Crowfoot. Is this what the Prime Minister means by accommodation? The Prime Minister has betrayed those who supported him at no small cost to themselves in putting in place and trying to gain acceptance for the central theme of his conception of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not know of any act of comparable cynicism committed by any prime minister of this country. Machiavelli would be proud of him. What hypocrisy! But the cynicism and the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister do not weaken in any way my support, nor the support of my leader, which is more important, for language equality in Canada. Bilingualism is generous in spirit and essentially necessary to our country.


Monique Bégin: That is not what Joe said yesterday.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is exactly what Joe said yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: And you know it, Monique.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do not get too excited over there; there is more to come. Be patient.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) has the floor. Will he please address the Chair?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say that a policy of bilingualim is essential to the country.
A policy of quasi-unilingualism-English across the country with French permitted in Quebec and perhaps around the national capital-would not work, quite apart from any concept of justice in the country. It would be resented, of course, by the Francophones. Needless to say, unilingual French in any part of the country would be resented by the Anglophones.

Having said that, one must recognize and state-as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) did yesterday and we would be wise to recognize it-that bilingualism does have its divisive aspects. For the English speaking minority in Quebec and for the French speaking minority in other provinces, bilingualism has a very strong positive appeal if it carries conviction-I do not know how much conviction the government's appeal carries today. It is their best assurance of something like equality of language.


An hon. Member:: You sound bitter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am bitter because of the mess in which I find my country to be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: He sacked you; aren't you bitter?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I only have a few minutes left.
I believe that institutional bilingualism is necessary in Canada, and I think that should be reasonably clear by now. But it is folly to believe that bilingualism by itself or in itself will unify this country. I believe that millions of Canadians, including a good many in Quebec, accept it grudgingly at best. It would be of no service to Canada to pretend otherwise. I believe that Canadians should be encouraged to learn both French and English. I believe we should make that far easier than we have in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to see both English speaking and French speaking minorities in Canada able to go to school, to be taught, in their own language.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Minority language rights are a worthy goal for Canada and for Canadians, but language rights-and it is equally important to be realistic-if we can achieve them, and I hope we can, will not unite us. Language differences will continue to cause tension.
I hope that we in Canada can overcome the feelings of intolerence and insecurity that are so often associated with language differences, but if we are wise we will not try to build national unity on language differences. I think that this is a fundamental error of the Prime Minister. Language differences are a cause of stress and strain, not cohesion. Certainly they are too a source of enrichment, but why pretend they are a source of unity? Certainly the language of English and French speaking minorities should be respected, both in terms of decency and for the future of our country, but we will have a far better chance of achieving unity if we recognize the stress and strain and look elsewhere for our national cohesion.
I disagree with those who oppose bilingualism, and I will continue as long as I live to fight people who oppose bilingual-
July 6, 1977

ism in Canada. We are a bilingual country, and recognition of this truth is essential to our survival as a country, but bilingualism will not by itself unite Canada. The government tragically under-estimated the difficulty of persuading Canadians across the country to accept bilingualism, and now the government seems, unfortunately, to be making bilingualism the heart of its program of national unity.
Mir. Sharp: Who said that?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I listened to the Prime Minister yesterday. I read the charter and listened to the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). I distinguish between the government's political strategy and its unification strategy. Its political strategy, outside Quebec, is very simple; it is Rene Levesque. The Prime Minister and the Minister without Portfolio will not be running in Alberta on language policy. They will be running against Rene Levesque; that is very simple. The government's unification policy seems to be bilingualism. Admittedly, it throws in some other things like regional equality and equality of opportunities, but with the regional disparity and the unemployment we have today nobody takes the government very seriously in those areas.
The government seems to be putting all its marbles on bilingualism, and that is not good enough. Canada is Englishspeaking and French-speaking, but it is much more. We must accept Canada's duality, and cheerfully, but we must accentuate the "much more", not by having a phony war on poverty, a phony quest for a just society, or a phony war against controls one time and a phony crusade for controls another time, and not by cynical deals which compromise the government's principles and its integrity. Let us start with a little simple honesty. We need goals which are both realistic and challenging, goals which recognize our right to differ and which recognize our right to be different but goals that sublimate our differences. That is our challenge. And I thank the House for listening to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I have followed the debate so far with great interest and some dismay. There have been many moving, eloquent, and challenging speeches. I am going to confine my remarks to the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent), even though there have been other speeches which deserve response. I am going to do that because, to my surprise, the debate has revelaed much greater divergences among the party leaders as to the approaches which should be taken in relation to this major issue of national unity than I thought was the case before the debate began.
It is clear that we are now embarked as a society on the process of a fundamental re-examination of our governmental structures. I am going to give some warnings and state some reservations, not about undertaking that process but about some of the dangers in that process.
National Unity
At the outset I want to associate myself with the comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday when he said that he, and indeed the Liberal party, do not stand for the status quo. Far from it; on several occasions we have indicated that we are committed to considering, together with the people of Canada, the possibility of basic changes in the direction of the country, in our federal institutions and in our constitution.
I support that.
I hope that the comments I make will not be interpreted as an indication that that open approach is undesirable, but I want to express hesitations I have about the expectations which may be aroused in that process. The first reservation has to do with the idea of decentralization, which has become "a buzz word" or a magic wand, described by many people as an approach which will almost automatically resolve the difficulties which are facing our Confederation.
The Leader of the Opposition yesterday made himself the exponent of the view that decentralization of jurisdiction and administration is the proper response to the problems we now face. I think the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby gave the proper reply to that suggestion. In Canada we already have one of the most decentralized federations in the world, and in the last 15 years it has become much more so. Yet it is hard to say that in the process of decentralization we have abated the forces which have a tendency to divide this country. It is difficult to believe that further moves in this direction will automatically result in a resolution of the tensions within our society and that they will keep it together.
It is interesting to reflect on the analysis Mr. Parizeau, the minister of finance of Quebec, made when describing what led him to become a separatist. Mr. Parizeau said that the basis for his decision was his belief that Canada has already become so decentralized by way of giving powers to the provinces that it will be unable to maintain itself effectively as a single society and as a single economy, and that therefore he had to go whole hog and embrace the separatism philosophy in order to use the state to achieve desirable public goals. I believe he is wrong, but I think the reasoning which led him to adopt his decision-decentralization of federal powers having gone too far-is something which should be a warning to those who believe that the resolution of our problems could be found axiomatically in a further decentralization of federal power. That is not to say that we should not discuss decentralization. We should look at powers in terms of functional needs and decide which are most appropriate to which level of government. However, it would be a tragic mistake to believe that decentralization itself is a magic wand which will resolve our problems.
I believe that the same is true of constitutional change. There are those who embrace the idea of almost any kind of constitutional change as a means of resolving our difficulties. The fact is that twice in the past 15 years we have embraced constitutional change. We have tried that direction.
Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition objected to the
federal government's "buying into" provincial areas of jurisdiction. He must know that at the Victoria Conference the

July 6, 1977
National Unity
federal government suggested that the federal spending power be limited. Twice in the past 15 years we have not succeeded in finding a solution through constitutional negotiations. If we have not been able to succeed in 15 years of negotiations with provincial governments, which at least accepted the idea of the maintenance of Canada as one country, what basis for optimism do we have that we can successfully undertake negotiations now when we have as one important factor on the other side, the government of Quebec, which refuses even to accept the idea of the maintenance of Canada as a fundamental basis for negotiation? In the words of my namesake and friend- sometimes it is confusing-the hon. John Robarts, "it takes two to make a deal," two to negotiate, and unless we have at least the common understanding that we are seeking to preserve some entity called Canada, negotiations cannot possibly lead to a successful resolution.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You don't want to negotiate.


Mr. Malone:: You can't negotiate with a gun.


John (Moody) Roberts: It is certainly worth discussing different approaches or different views at the provincial level or with the people of Canada. Perhaps we can agree on precise grounds for negotiation, but negotiations should not be undertaken simply for their own sake. They should be undertaken when there are reasonably optimistic grounds to think that those negotiations could lead to success.
It would be a tragedy if these buzz words or magic wands, as I have called them, were taken for complete reality; it would be a tragedy if they persuade us that if we simply undertake constitutional negotiations, or a re-thinking of powers, or a different management of economic policy, our problems would be resolved. That would lead us away from the main question which confronts us; it would be a tragedy to believe we can escape confronting the present "moment of truth".
As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we have, as a society and as a country, arrived at the moment of truth. It is not, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party said, a moment of truth in which the Prime Minister claims that Quebecers must decide between being Quebecers and Canadians. That is a complete distortion of the moment of truth. The question that Quebecers face is whether they wish to be Quebecers within Canada or Quebecers without Canada.
There is a moment of truth, too, for English-speaking Canadians, which calls upon them to decide what kind of Canada they wish to create, what idea of the country they have for the future.
It is not simply a question of leadership. Yesterday the Leader of the New Democratic Party asked why have we abandoned leaderhip in the province of Quebec? Why let Rene Levesque take the action? Why have we not been saying that French should be the language of work in the province of Quebec? Why have we not been doing the same things to indicate our support for strengthening the Francophone cul-

ture and language in Quebec? Mr. Speaker, where has the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby been? We have been saying those things. The Prime Minister has been saying them. He showed leadership in Quebec before he entered this House. He showed it as Prime Minister in the speech he gave in Quebec City after the election of November 15, and in the speech he gave to the United States Congress. Do hon. members opposite think the Prime Minister has not provided leadership, that the public does not see that leadership in view of the place we stand in the opinion polls of this country? As a Ukrainian friend of mine used to say, "It is a nonsense."


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not think you have any Ukrainian friends.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I have a Ukrainian friend sitting right beside the hon. member.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Not if you keep on like that.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the jibes of hon. members. Seriously, however, I think we have arrived at the point where there is a fundamental divergence of opinion between political parties, and I think that is important.
The question is: what is our idea of this country we are trying to build? I said earlier that I approached the debate with some sense of dismay. A large part of that stems from the remarks made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. I would have thought that those remarks might be the result of some imprecision or carelessness of language in debate, but he restated them quite clearly last night on television.
His remarks, reported at page 7319 of Hansard, reveal an idea of this country at variance with the idea of Canada that we, as a government, hold for our country. It is clear that he regards bilingualism, or official languages, not as something which unites this country but as something which divides it; not as something that is valuable and to be welcomed, but something that is grudging-


An hon. Member:: That is true.


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. member says that is true. 1 hope it is not, and I trust that I am not misstating the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. He regards it not as something which draws us together but something which drives us apart. He feels that unity in our country is despite bilingualism, and is not based upon it.
That is a fundamental divergence from the approach we take on this side of the House. We do not regard two official languages as something to be accepted grudgingly. We do not believe it is divisive. The Leader of the Opposition said that two official languages, by definition, divide us. I suppose you could say the fact that there are two sexes, by definition, does not unite. Yet in fact those divisions are the basis of solidly uniting a family unit. So it is with two official languages. It is our view that the existence of two official languages is a keystone to our society-not one that we are reluctant about, not one that is regrettable or a source of division but some-
July 6, 1977

thing that we welcome and embrace. It is at the heart of our idea of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: There are, of course, many other elements of national unity and we have talked about them in this debate. I am not suggesting that bilingualism is the sole pillar of unity in this country. It is essential to the fabric of this country and to the survival of this country that Canadians accept it as a strand that is to be welcomed and appreciated, not something to be scathingly diminished as the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday. He reminds me of a man who stumbles over opportunity, picks himself up, dusts himself off, and races away from that opportunity. Two official languages give opportunity to this country and instead of slighting it we should support it, welcome it, and make it the idea of the country we are trying to build for ourselves, our children, and our children's children.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: If the hon. gentleman wishes to maintain that idea of Canada he expressed in debate yesterday, it illustrates the fundamental division between this side of the House and that side,-a division on which at one stage the people of this country will have to pronounce.
I should like to refer to the consequent comments of the hon. gentleman. Speaking of the situation in Quebec, as reported at page 7320 of Hansard he said:
If they have doubts about the future of their language and their culture within the boundaries of their province, they do know that their National Assembly, which represents a population more than 80 percent French-speaking, will always be much more conscious and more capable to act to preserve the French language and culture than any other legislature, including the parliament of Canada.
That is also a fundamental divergence from the position taken on this side of the House. It is our argument to Frenchspeaking Quebecers that the maintenance of Canada, of a federation, which contains two official languages, is a better and safer means of protecting the language and culture about which they care than if Quebec separated and became isolated from the other contingent parts of Canada.
It is an overriding objective of our policy to ensure that there is a context for the survival and flourishing of the French language within the province of Quebec and outside it. That is an essential preoccupation of this government, and we do not believe it can be safely left to a provincial government alone.
I want to say to the hon. gentleman that the argument he presented is the argument the separatists presented in the province of Quebec- -that the legislature of Quebec and the government of Quebec are a better safeguard for what they care about than the maintenance of the federal system. If the hon. gentleman believes that- I hope he does not, but that is what he said

that, too, is something upon which the country will soon have to pronounce. I say that seriously because-and 1 think also of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) - it seems to me that the Conservative party has now brought
National Unity
forward an idea of Canada in their approach to official languages and what they wish this country to be, that I for one cannot possibly accept. I think that is of fundamental importance.
I do not want to conclude without referring to the speech of the Leader of the New Democratic Party. The major part of his speech was interesting but I do not have time to discuss it all. 1 want to refer to his closing remarks, however, because there too I find a rejection of the idea of Canada that we are trying to build on this side of the House-a clear rejection which I think is of extraordinary importance. In the last paragraph of his speech, reported at page 7325 of Hansard, he said:
What I think is really required in our country, more than anything else, is a leadership which says to the people of Quebec and to ordinary Canadians outside the province that there are, in fact, two great cultures. I say that to the Prime Minister who tries to pretend that somehow it is simply a multicultural society. It is multicultural, but he knows as well as I do that there is a predominant Francophone culture established as a society in the province of Quebec, and there is the English community outside of it.
I say to him that his idea of Canada which is that there is one country, two languages and two cultures, is fundamentally in opposition to the idea this government has developed. What we stand for is one country, two languages, and a plurality of cultures.


Steve Eugene Paproski: At election time.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman wants to fight an election on that issue I, for one, am prepared to enter the lists; and because of my personal friendship with the hon. member I should like to see him return after the election, but there would not be many beside him on the benches opposite.


Steve Eugene Paproski: 1 meant you only talk about other cultures at election time.


John (Moody) Roberts: I say to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by-I am sorry he is not here, but 1 am sure the party's former leader will convey my words to him-that he should be precise and know what those words of his mean. 1 hope he is not saying he espouses a bicultural country. Our diversity of cultural heritages is not something to be fobbed off, but something to be supported, something which should thrive, for it is an essential, integral part of what we arc trying to build.


An hon. Member:: Only at election time.


John (Moody) Roberts: Let me also say, because I do not have much more time, that the situation of-

. . . Francophones outside Quebec and that minority is very important. That is the core of the policy we are following. That is not something to publish or use during partisan debates. We are really concerned about creating a situation whereby these groups will be able to preserve their culture so that it may survive and flourish outside and inside Quebec as well.
7390

July 6, 1977
National Unity

We have a marvellous opportunity in this country. People outside this country look in wonder and amazement at a country which has so much in human and physical resources, and a long tradition in history and culture, but which is at the point of trying to decide whether it can continue as one country, whether it can survive. In one sense I suspect the election of November 15 was useful, for it made us much more conscious of what it is we are proud of in this country and what we are trying to create. We are reflecting in the present debate on this idea of one country. That idea of our country for us is one of two languages, two languages at the heart of that country, as a keystone for what we are doing. They should not be accepted as an unfortunate necessity and a temporary phenomenon, but as something as the heart of two countries- one country and two languages-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Two countries, that is right. You said it, John.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.


John (Moody) Roberts: I did not mean that. I corrected myself immediately. We have one country, at the heart of which are two languages but many cultures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Arnold John Malone: So, you believe in two countries.


John (Moody) Roberts: We believe in one country in which there are two languages and many cultures-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, that is for me a serious duty to take part in the debate on the motion put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which reads as follows:
That members of this House dedicate themselves anew to the continuing unity of Canada as a free and independent country organized on the basis of a federal form of government with two official languages and a diversity of cultures.
Mr. Speaker, in a few words, that motion sums up the whole history of our country, Canada, which was founded on the recognition of equal rights for two official languages, French and English, and of various cultures. The constitutional debate did not arise overnight, it is not likely to end tomorrow; however, during the last few years, a certain consciousness appeared and expressed itself in a real constitutional activity. This debate on Canadian harmony, by its nature, will show the need for Canadians like me to conceive a new constitution in

order to replace the existing one which is essentially a deal reached between two nations that founded our country.
Since 1760, Canada has experienced many constitutional changes. The first regular constitution, born of the British system, was the royal proclamation of October 7, 1763, effective August 10, 1764. It is at that time that New France was officially named the province of Quebec, but its territory was broken up later and King George III submitted the people to English law and abolished French law. In 1774, the Statute of Quebec recognized the French fact and re-established the French civil law, but the province was administered by London. Still the Statute of Quebec may be considered as the great charter of Canadian freedoms. Therefore, it is important that Canadians of 1977 be aware of the detailed events which have developed and which constitute the history of our country.
This constitution of 1 774 raised the dissatisfaction of the English element, just as in 1977 there are some who challenge the reality of equal rights for the French-speaking and English-speaking people even if the number of citizens of either language is not equal. No wonder then that in 1977 many Canadians of either tongue want a new constitution, which would be better suited to the present time, because for the last 300 years our country has had several forms of constitution, but that did not check its growth and the fact that it has become an important nation whose reputation is well known at the international level.
In 1791, the new constitution had the effect of dividing the province of Quebec in two distinct governments, one for Higher Canada now known as the province of Ontario and the other, Lower Canada, that became the province of Quebec. Thus, this new constitution recognized the political existence by giving the colony a separatist constitution set up under the model of the British constitution of that time, and this constitution created the first legislative assembly. That was the beginning of our constitutional struggles.
In 1837, Canada was the scene of the patriots' uprising, which resulted in the Union Act of 1840. Later on, the delegates of both Upper and Lower Canada, together with those from New Brunswick and Nova Soctia, took part in a conference in London which began in December 1866, and it is during this conference that a new constitution was adopted and received royal assent on July 1, 1867, a document which is known as the British North America Act. Then was born the federal government as we know it today. That is why we have every reason to say that the federal government was born from the will of the provinces and that it must still be subjected to the provinces and not become their master.
During the debate which took place before the adoption of the final constitution, two opposite approaches of the Canadian state had collided. Some, with Macdonald, were in favour of a single state in what they called at the time the legislative union of the provinces. Others, with Cartier and the French-Canadian delegates, were seeking a federal system which left a wide margin for self-government by the provinces. That formula was finally adopted, and it was recognized that French

July 6, 1977

Canadians would never have agreed to join Confederation if it had not guaranteed the legal existence of the French element in Canada. Thus, section 92(13) confirmed the existence of separate civil law in Quebec, and section 94 gave the federal Parliament authority to make provision for the uniformity of all laws in Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia all the while it being forbidden to change the Civil Code of Quebec adopted in 1866. That is why we can say with reason that Quebec is not a province like the others. Which does not mean that it is in any way worse than the others for all that. No, Quebec is not a province like the others, and the Fathers of Confederation were the first to say so. It was confirmed by the constitutional act of 1867 and it has been thus for 110 years. One Prime Minister of Canada alone spoke one unfortunate phrase, and he lived to regret it because it gave rise to much controversy in Quebec. Indeed, the right hon. Louis St. Laurent one day said that Quebec was a province like the others, which does not reflect the truth of the matter.
In 1977, the constitution no longer meets adequately the needs of either Anglophones or Francophones. More than ever before throughout Canada, there is talk of the need for a new constitution if Canadian unity is to be preserved. The problem does not exist only since the November 15 elections; it is not only since then that Quebecers in particular are not satisfied with the interpretation and application of the constitution by the federal government. Under Mr. Duplessis' government, Quebec fought against the centralization of the governments in Ottawa, and Mr. Duplessis insisted on their giving the provinces more autonomy. Remember the alliance between Mr. Duplessis and Premier Hepburn of Ontario to check the centralization of the then Liberal government. The struggle continued under Mr. Jean Lesage, the Quebec premier. He was the one who first used the expression "State of Quebec". Daniel Johnson went one step further and spoke of equality or independence. His reasoning was very logical. Bertrand, who succeeded him, continued in the same vein. Robert Bourassa, the Liberal premier of Quebec, even while Ottawa had a Liberal Prime Minister, could not get along with it where the constitution was concerned. Since 1867, the federal government has centralized the power and allowed French Canadians to be the victims of many injustices.
An English Canadian, named Gordon Robertson, recalled some of these injustices when speaking before the graduates of Dalhousie University in May 1977, and I quote:
His thesis is clear: "For more than a century, both at the provincial level, except for Quebec, and at the national level, our history is the denial of the very principle of the coexistence on an equal footing-or even simply of the coexistence-of both cultural communities."
Here are the facts:
He recalls a few facts, and I quote:
In 1885, Louis Riel was hanged because he attempted to defend the interest of French-speaking Metis in the west.
In 1890, Manitoba failed completely to consider the rights of the French language and made English the sole language in its legislative assembly, in its statutes and in its courts.
Of course, such measures are unacceptable, whether they originate from French or English-speaking people. What is
National Unity
right, is right! What is wrong is wrong! One has to recognize it. I continue that quotation:
In 1891, the clauses of the law regarding the French language were repealed in the Northwest Territories.
In 1905, the newly formed provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan denied any rights to the French language on their soil.
In 1913, Ontario passed regulation 17 which forbade the teaching of French in its schools.
And Mr. Robertson ended by the following remark which I quote:
Sweeping aside as an illusion the argument regarding the standard of living used by so many Liberals, Mr. Robertson predicts that lest the Anglophones start doing away with their pettiness, their lack of understanding and their hostility "the French Canadians will sooner or later rather take the chance of impoverishment in order to recover their dignity. A proud people cannot be bought".
If such were the comments of a Francophone, one could say that they came from someone who likes beefing, and does it all the time. But these were the comments made by an Anglophone who observed the situation, who knows that everything derives from history and simply intends to warn us against the situation we are presently experiencing in Canada. What is the use of talking about national unity when one knows full well that the federal government finds it to its advantage to keep the opinion of the provinces divided in order to keep running the show. This difference of opinion has been evident for quite some time. We find division everywhere. The provinces still feel dissatisfied after every conference. No one can or wants to agree. It has now been 50 years since the federal government and the provinces have been talking about patriating the constitution, but we have never succeeded in putting forth a formula for an amendment on which everybody could agree.
So long as we will not decide to deal seriously and in depth with a revision of the power sharing formula, it will be useless to expect to get a new constitution. We cannot expect to unify a country while there still are serious regional disparities and thousands of workers unemployed. Mr. Speaker, I will take the liberty to quote a few sentences which were pronounced in Toronto last March 21 by the Chairman of Royal Bank of Canada who said:
. .. the problem of Canadian unity which confronts us today (and which may very well destroy our country if we do not settle it) has its origin in the type of federal system which we have adopted.
And he added:
... it is not the time to replaster but rather to rebuild, a task which is inevitably linked to the constitutional reform,... and in the review of our constitution we would be better off to study a system which would ensure better consultation mechanisms between the provinces and the federal government ... as the series of federal-provincial conferences which we have had so far seem to have turned into avenues of confrontation, contestation and political publicity.
Incidentally, we have had 27 federal-provincial conferences on that subject since 1963 but we have not moved one single step forward.
We were told a few weeks ago that personalities would tour
the country lecturing on national unity. I would invite them to
visit our constituencies and address our former textile, cloth-
80020-iiA

July 6, 1977
National Unity
ing, furniture or shoe industry workers. Let them speak at leisure to them. They will be listened to with such attention, but let them also listen afterwards. Those workers will repeat what they are telling us. The federal government is not discharging its responsibilities, it is letting in imports to compete with our own production, workers are laid off and plants are closing down.
They will tell them for instance that in January 1977, 68 per cent of the Canadian shoe market was occupied by imports. So let us stop dreaming in colour and let us tackle the real causes. Canadian harmony is a very laudable goal to everyone, but under the current constitution, it is sheer utopia. As long as our provinces do not have enough revenues to cope with their responsibilities to the people, there can be no Canadian harmony.
I had an opportunity to follow through as an observer one fiscal federal-provincial conference. Provinces were requiring a larger part of the fiscal basis, but the federal government refused to transfer any more tax revenues because it did not have enough for itself. So the conference ended without solving the problem. In January 1966, at a federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers in Ottawa, Quebec requested no less than the transfer of family allowances, old age security pensions and manpower centres.
At the 1968 federal-provincial conference. Premier Daniel Johnson stated: "The government of Quebec insists on regaining full responsibility for social security for two main reasons. First, the coexistence of two governments in that area hinders efficient social security planning, allows for contradictory programs and leads to administrative duplication and waste. Then because social security measures on the whole affect the nation fundamentally as a society."
The most serious and sound suggestions that were made yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), should serve as a basis for the drawing up of a new constitution. For my part, I would recommend that the provinces equip themselves with a mechanism having the authority required to call a real summit meeting which would be attended by representatives from all the provinces, the federal government, community organizations, social and cultural organizations, industry, business and finance. Then, the provinces could meet again to draw up a new constitution incorporating the suggestions and recommendations made at the previous meeting. Such a new constitution should spell out as clearly as possible the actual role of the federal and provincial governments. I am convinced that this procedure would afford greater satisfaction and would generate a genuine harmony in this country.
In 1970 a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was set up to look into the whole constitutional problem. It submitted a report on March 16, 1972, and each and everyone of us as well as the government would find it profitable to take a second look at it and draw our inspiration from it because the report does contain rather commendable suggestions. However, Mr. Speaker, if we really go to the bottom of things, we will find that the main cause of the lack

of understanding between the provinces and the federal government is mainly and above all of a monetary nature.
As long as the federal government will engage in loansharking with the provinces, which means that they have to pay back $5.00 for each dollar they borrowed, it will not be possible to live in harmony. It is not right that a government should lend money to another government for profit; it should be first and foremost to provide services for the people.
If the legislative, executive and judicial branches of any sovereign government are the powers that be there is another source of power which supersedes governments themselves. This super power which does not proceed from any constitution and which is exercised under no specific conditions or requirements is the monetary power. As monetary matters come under federal jurisdiction, if the federal government were to fulfill all its responsibilities in this area by making this financial system available to governments and to the people, it would largely contribute to the settlement of the constitutional problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat dismayed at the bitterness of the attack by the opposition on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). One would be forgiven for concluding that members opposite wanted this debate as an occasion on which to attack and seek to destroy the Prime Minister. That attack will not work. I will not deal with the specific statements which have been made because my hon. friend, the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), has dealt with them very effectively.
There was one charge made in the House this afternoon which I believe should not go unanswered. I refer to the attack upon the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that on May 27, 1969, in the vote on Bill C-120, "an Act respecting the Status of the Official Languages of Canada," there were 17 members of the Conservative party who voted against that bill, and that at that time the party opposite was led by the hon. member for Halifax. Ten of those members who voted against Bill C-120 are still members of the Conservative caucus today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, none of us has ever made any personal attack on members over there for the way they voted on any bill.
I am participating in this debate today in order to express some thoughts on the question of national unity from the point of view of a representative from New Brunswick, to try to state what Confederation means to us. First, it means a guarantee of our provincial identity. New Brunswickers, and indeed all
July 6, 1977

Canadians with roots in Atlantic Canada, are a strong-willed people, fuelled by a quiet pride in their cultural heritage and regional distinctiveness. We cherish a unique heritage upon which our province has been built. It is a three-fold heritage. There is the Acadian heritage, the loyalist heritage, and the Irish heritage. From these backgrounds our province derives a flavour which we cherish and defend, and it is in the defence of this provincial identity that we have consistently rejected a wider maritime union. It is also the reason we embrace Confederation, for we are confident that this Confederation with nine other provinces guarantees our right to be different and singular; it guarantees our distinct regional identity.
Second, it means a firm commitment to social reform. Throughout Confederation, Canada has built a concern for the needs and well-being of all its people and has grown strong on the basis of four commitments from the federal government, commitments which are shared by every provincial government in this country, or, at least, by every provincial government save one. They are: to do everything possible to avoid another great depression; to establish a system of social security and other support programs which will minimize the privations of family rearing, of old age, of unemployment, of sickness, and of crop failure; to create a society of greater opportunity culturally, linguistically, economically, and educationally; and to strengthen the federation of Canada and the economy of each region by a fair distribution of the wealth of our country in order that all our people will be able to maintain a basic standard of living-the standard to which they have become accustomed through good fortune, good government, and good personal and collective effort.
Confederation is based on a willingness to share a political process of cooling and reconciliation, of working out regional differences through sensible compromise rather than through senseless confrontation and violence.
What would separation by the province of Quebec mean to us, Mr. Speaker? It would mean the loss of the idea of the rich provinces helping the poor. It would create a new era of provincial selfishness and isolation. It would mean the loss of a large number of regional-development-minded members of parliament from Quebec, and thus a weaker voice for economic development in the less wealthy areas of our country. In addition we would lose our relatively easy and inexpensive access to central Canadian markets with a resulting rise in the cost of our food, clothing, and manufactured goods. Restricted accessibility to central Canadian markets would also hinder the sale of our processed foods and of our pulp and paper exports.
Another result is that subsidies for imported oil would probably be discontinued, resulting in increased annual energy costs of approximately $450 for every man, woman and child in the Atlantic region. This would result not only in higher fuel bills for home heating and travel but, even worse, a much slower rate of industrial development where such development is most urgently needed. Coupled with the loss of federal aid, even in part, the result would be a severe economic crisis. In
National Unity
such a crisis we would probably be forced into a union with all the Atlantic provinces, or into becoming part of the state of Maine. Our provincial heritage and identity would thus be subject to the melting pot of maritime union or of American homogeneity.
So how should we look upon Quebec, Mr. Speaker? Separatist tendencies are not a new phenomenon, nor are they restricted to Quebec. Indeed, in New Brunswick our legislature was clamouring for separation from Canada even before the ink had dried on the British North America Act. Separatist tendencies do rear their ugly heads in various regions throughout Canada but are held in check by the belief of each region that its existence and identity are secure.
This sense of security does not exist to the same extent in the province of Quebec. As a predominantly rural society, Quebec probably could remain isolated and develop independently; but with the change to an industrialized society which began after the war and became greatly accelerated during the sixties, Quebec has been forced to defend its identity against the larger North American English society which dominates business and industry.
Thus, Quebec needs new guarantees for the continued existence of its Quebecois culture. Support for Confederation by Quebecers must be based on the ability of the federal government and the Canadian people adequately to guarantee their continuation. We need, on the one hand, a constitutional revision and, on the other, a new tolerance by all Canadians. We must show the people of Quebec that we will guarantee their identity, and we must give them concrete proof by our actions. If we cannot convince them of our sincerity they will be forced into the arms of the racism now being advocated by Rene Levesque.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn my attention for a moment to the Acadians. Aside from the indigenous people of Canada, probably no other single group of Canadians has made such a valiant effort to preserve and protect their linguistic and cultural heritage. The fact that the Acadians were able to survive, to reconstruct their lives and to maintain a distinct way of life following the expulsion and dispersion in 1755, is indeed a great tribute to the tenacity and devotion of these people.
It is only in the last generation that a real effort is being made to bring the Acadians into the mainstream of New Brunswick life. The greatest impetus to that drive came from that great Acadian premier of New Brunswick, Senator Louis J. Robichaud. But the separation of Quebec would be very detrimental to Acadians. It would mean the removal of the largest group with the greatest possible interest in bilingualism and the development and enhancement of French Canadian culture. Without the Quebec bulwark, these values would fade. As Bill 1 has made plain, an independent Quebec would offer no such protection to minorities and none to Acadians. Even joining Quebec would mean the loss of the Acadian identity.
There are those, of course, who would advocate a separate Acadian state. Such a state is simply not economically viable.

July 6, 1977
Business of the House
That part of New Brunswick which is home to the largest group of Acadians is in a state of economic distress and requires continued federal help. Although the idea of a separate Acadian state might make a few purists happy, it would cause a lot of hungry bellies among the workers. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the rest of New Brunswick would react peacefully to such a proposal. Acadians need a Quebec in Confederation.
Therefore, what can we all do? We can create the national will to maintain Confederation. We must show the separatists that we want Condederation and that we are willing to fight for it. We must create a new social contract by which the rights of every minority and every group are amply protected-a social contract embodying a new constitutional arrangement; a social contract embodying the willingness of each Canadian to respect unselfishly the rights and needs of each other and of each region of our great country; a social contract embodying the goal of social and economic equality for all Canadians; and for us in New Brunswick, a social contract in which we work for the right of Acadians to work, to live, to receive justice, in their own language, and to ensure that they receive a fair share of provincial wealth and opportunities.
In conclusion let us return to the fundamental ideals on which this nation has grown and prospered-the commitment to provincial self-identity and the commitment to social reform. Let us get our youth involved in promoting and protecting these ideals. There is a great reservoir of strength in our youth. Rene Levesque has offered Quebecers an equitable society but a racist society. Let us offer Quebec and all of Canada an equitable society and a just one. If we fail to make this fragile Canadian experiment work, we are unworthy of the trust our forefathers have placed in our hands. We are unworthy of the place we have proclaimed for ourselves in the world. We are unworthy of our nation. The future is in our hands. Let us not fail to bear the torch.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 should like to report to the House that we have had some consultations, and in order to provide additional time for this debate tomorrow we have agreed to devote the period from four o'clock until six o'clock to it. I should like to go further and say that 1 will call it as the first item under government business. If we get to government orders before four o'clock, we would have until six o'clock for the debate; but I should suggest that because we do not know what may intervene tomorrow-there may be a repetition of what happened today-and if we do not get to government orders until 4.15 o'clock or later, I would suggest we sit for at least two hours from that moment, even if it is beyond six o'clock. 1 want to assure the House that there will be no unhappy moments that we can avoid in any event.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say that the minister is notably generous on his birthday. In the spirit of that generosity I should like to wish him a happy birthday and say that we concur in the proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we did have a very pleasant meeting at which we came to this agreement, and we are happy to concur in it.
I join with my hon. friend in extending to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) best wishes on his birthday. I do not wish him many returns of what he has been through on this particular day. However, I do hope his fortieth, forty-first and all his other birthdays, now that he is past the age of 39, will be happy ones.
[ Translation]


Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to join with my two colleagues in this discussion, and I might add it is precisely with this kind of debate that we will finally reach a consensus and above all bring about unity among all the parties represented in this House. I should also like to join my two colleagues, in wishing a happy birthday to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Many happy returns.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is so ordered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one point should have been made clear, that is, that there will be no private members' hour tomorrow afternoon.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CONFEDERATION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That members of this House dedicate themselves anew to the continuing unity of Canada as a free and independent country organized on the basis of a federal form of government with two official languages and a diversity of cultures.
And on the amendment of Mr. Clark (p. 7321)
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, it is very significant that the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) who finished his speech a few moments ago did not attempt to refute the serious charge made in the preceding speech by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) that the Prime
July 6, 1977

Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) actions on the language issue have been an incomparable act of cynicism, more so than that of any prime minister in the history of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Douglas Roche: The hon. member for Halifax told the truth and it cannot be denied.
Yesterday my leader made a magnificent speech on national unity which showed why this country would be so much better united if he were the prime minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: Time is short. Alberta wants action, not oratory, on national unity, so I will take only one minute to make four points.
First, Alberta is committed to Confederation. The outflow of dollars from Alberta to Ottawa has averaged $172 per person per year. Our contribution to the well-being of Canada, through staging in oil and gas increases, will soon be measured in the billions of dollars.
Second, Alberta believes that the Prime Minister is blackmailing the Canadian people by insisting once again that languages are at the heart of the national unity problem. Rather, national unity demands a redispersal of power and economic advantage based on the principle of stronger rights for all provinces. We will not accept language problems in Quebec as an excuse for not dealing with Alberta's economic problems.
Third, Alberta supports linguistic fairness, but the application of the Official Languages Act has divided Canadians, and that is why the act should be re-examined. Bill 1 in Quebec, if passed, should be sent to the Supreme Court. Minority rights in every province should be strengthened, including more services for ethnic Canadians.
Fourth, Alberta wants a new national economic policy that recognizes western Canada not only as a region of primary producers but as a major manufacturing complex. We want new transportation and tariff policies that will accelerate development of secondary industry and secure greater markets for Alberta petrochemical and manufacturing exports.
A renegotiated Confederation demands not a public relations task force but fundamental economic and social changes. A stronger Alberta is good for a unified Canada.
Let us stop this lament for a nation and get on with an all party parliamentary committee to draw blueprints for the rebuilding of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, never has my country been more deeply divided than it is today, more deeply at odds with itself, inside itself. It has been threatened before, but it is deeply divided today. It is threatened today, not because of the government which was elected
National Unity
in Quebec on November 15 last, but because of the policies of this government, its confrontational stances and its rigid centralism. These things had much to do with the separatist vote in the province of Quebec last November. That vote prompted uneasy stirrings, moreover, elsewhere in this land, to which 1 shall come.
Today in this House we witnessed two events which indicated to me that the policies of the government will continue unchanged and that the government has learned no lessons from the past. Even in the face of the unity crisis the government is concerned only with its perpetuation in office.
The first of these incidents was a statement on motions on a matter which has been before this House for, I would say, four or five months. It was brought to the attention of this House by members of the party which I have the honour to represent. After almost five years of dead silence this statement came in the midst of this debate which, despite what the government House leader said, was not brought on by his initiative but by the initiative of hon. members on this side of the House. We had that interruption because of the outstanding speech made yesterday by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Clark), which captured the imagination of the press. As the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) said, one of the "foxes" tried to get into the act today to draw attention away from yesterday's speech. That was the first indication that the government had one interest and one interest alone, namely, its perpetuation in power.
The second incident took place when the government House leader misled the House and was not required to withdraw his remarks. I came into this House with an innate Canadianism, which I hope all of us in this House have. I have studied Canadian history, political philosophy, and political science. I served in the defence of my country when it was threatened. 1 proudly represented my country abroad, but only up to a point, until I ceased to represent my country abroad. 1 came into this House thinking that with that background I could represent my constituency well in this forum and believing I could make some contribution to my country. But what do I find? I find this kind of jiggery-pokery, this nonsense of choosing this time in the midst of an important debate to draw attention away from a good speech, for a political end.
While the hon. member for Halifax was speaking, an hon. member opposite had the downright effrontery to say that the hon. member was feeling bitter. Of course he retaliated quickly. The hon. member for Halifax said he was feeling bitter because of the mess this country is in, and I am feeling bitter because of that too. It is very sad that, considering my record in defence of my country and in representing my country, I have cause to be bitter.
I am glad we had no part in drafting the resolution under debate altough I think we had a hand in bringing about the debate. The resolution begins:
That members of this House dedicate themselves anew to the continuing unity of Canada ...

July 6, 1977
National Unity
Mr. Speaker, I stand here proudly. I defy anyone to require me to dedicate myself anew to the unity of Canada. 1 have been working for the unity of Canada all my life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Surely there is somebody on that side of the House with enough command of the English language to produce something meaningful for us to debate. In the middle of the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday he had the effrontery to come up with the notion that what we need at this stage is a task force. That is what required us to call for a proper forum in which these matters could be discussed. There has been a down-playing of this parliamentary forum as the proper place in which these matters should be discussed.
I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that Australia is facing this same problem. Their constitution is not working well and they have established an Australian constitutional convention. An article published in "The Parliamentarian" in April this year, written by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Australia, sums up the purposes of the convention. The last paragraph reads:
The solutions to basic constitutional problems must be political solutions acceptable to the people at large and the open discussion of constitutional issues by politicians from all the major political parties and representing all the regions of the country should contribute much to the removal of difficulties which have bedevilled constitutional reform and Commonwealth state relations in the past.
Just by changing a few expressions in that paragraph we have the justification for the commission recommended in the amendment to this resolution.
I should like to make some more comments but I am not going to stand in the way of others who wish to speak. I urge the government to reconsider its notion of a task force, and to assign to those to whom it belongs the problem of looking into the matters which have brought us to our sorry state-matters
which have caused bitterness in many minds because of the confrontations the government has brought forward. I cede the floor, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, usually it is a great honour and privilege to join in any debate in this House, but at this moment in the history of our country it is very important to say something in a positive way about the unity of the country. I am not going to try to assert any particular reason or right that I might have.
Born of Scottish parents who emigrated to this country, to live in Verdun, Quebec, 1, with my family, associated with one of the great founding races of this country. Mr. Speaker, my parents chose to live here; they were not born in this country, although 1 was fortunate enough to be born here. My parents, of Scottish heritage, decided they wanted to live in this country and bring up their family here. In those early days I remember hardly any discussions, in that province or city, concerning the division of the country, although there was bigotry and unfairness. But it was not directed just at the French or English; it was directed at the Jew, at the so-called hunky, at the black, and at others. 1 grew up at a time when such bigotry and unfairness were rampant.
Because of my experiences and because of my background, 1 am not willing to listen to those who say that our different cultures, the cultures of the English and French, our two great founding races, and the cultures of other ethnic groups, are divisive. I am not willing to admit that the acceptance of such diversity of cultures brings about divisiveness in Canadians.
May I call it seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being seven o'clock p.m., pursuant to orders made on Thursday, June 30 and Tuesday, July 5, 1977, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.
At 7 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Thursday, July 7, 1977