1977-11-15

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling motions pursuant to Standing Order 43,1 wonder if 1 might endeavour to borrow a moment of the time of the House to refer to some remarks which I made yesterday during the course of a ruling on the question of privilege raised by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
After I had decided on the question of privilege raised earlier by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the right hon. Prime Minister raised a question concerning some alleged comments connected with a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 earlier in the day. I rather quickly set that aside-upon reflection, perhaps a little too quickly. In any case, that was set aside yesterday, and I do not propose to return to it.
My concern, first of all, is that I had expressed the view that since the complaint raised by the right hon. Prime Minister yesterday was part of a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ought not to deal with it in the same way as I might those other areas of discussion which were subject to the strictures I referred to in the ruling yesterday. In fact, I was not entirely correct in that, because the sum and the substance of the complaint was not in the motion but in the preamble.
In any case, it occurs to me that I may very well have given an impression that motions and preambles to motions are somehow exempt from the strictures I have put on language used in debate according to the citations to which I referred yesterday. If I have done that, I want to hasten today to correct that impression, because it is quite wrong.
If in the past I have been in the habit of adopting and accepting a sort of self-policing feature about motions pursuant to Standing Order 43, I hope the House will understand that since there has been a limited time for the presentation of these motions, I have tended very much to allow them to police themselves in terms of aspects which might offend or come close to offending some of the rules. Sometimes I simply brush them aside and do not put the question, and I have not examined them with close scrutiny with respect to the opprobrious or unparliamentary language provisions.
I should like to refer to Standing Order 51 which reads as follows:
Whenever Mr. Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.
Furthermore, Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, at citation 199(3) reads as follows:
If the language of a motion is offensive either to the House, or to any member, the same proceedings may be had in relation to it as are proper in the case of disorderly or offensive words used in debate; and, for the same cause, a motion may either be refused an entry among the minutes, or if already entered, may be expunged.
Thus, I think I should make it clear to the House that if I created the impression in a somewhat peremptory answer yesterday to the point raised by the right hon. Prime Minister, that all motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 enjoy some exemption from the strictures against unparliamentary or opprobrious language, that was an incorrect impression. I hope the House will accept my penitence for having done so yesterday and my desire to correct the record as quickly as possible, before even taking any proposed motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. With inflation of over nine per cent this year and unemployment levels of over eight per cent, giving a combined misery index of more than 17 per cent, confirming that wage and price controls are not only not working but are also adding to our jobless ranks, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That there be an immediate reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs with respect to the government's decision to maintain wage and price controls for most of next year and with respect to the government's attempt to enforce a six per cent ceiling on wage increases, which appears to be based on its forecast of a six per cent inflation level next year, a forecast not shared by independent economists.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
80025-55V2

November 15, 1977
Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTION WAGE INCREASES BE PERMITTED TO EQUAL LEVEL OF INFLATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the well understood and brilliantly put motion which just preceded mine, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House deplores the economic policy of this government which has resulted in high levels of inflation and unemployment and calls upon the government to permit wage and salary increases within the framework of the controls program next year which at least match increases in the cost of living.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REFERENDUMS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order No. 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. In view of the present constitutional crisis and the ambiguous comments made by the Prime Minister about his idea of a national referendum, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister to clarify his proposal for a national referendum as soon as possible in order to remove every possible uncertainty, especially for the people in Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation for debate of such a motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity concerning the security service file bearing the code name "Featherbed". I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):

That the Solicitor General advise the House whether the government has had knowledge of this file or played any part in setting it up, specifically whether the file includes details or certain surveillance of members of the news media as well as considerable information about one of the highest ranking members of the cabinet, and finally, whether any attempts have been made to destroy the file and the whereabouts of the file or copies thereof today.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion pursuant to the Standing Order only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
 * *


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Recognizing and respecting the fact that it is in the best interests of the dairy industry, producers and consumers alike, that the national dairy policy, with some modification, continue; however, in view of the fact that a very dangerous impasse has developed between the federal government and the fluid milk producers of Quebec and that in addition dissatisfaction continues throughout most of the participating provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That the Minister of Agriculture call together immediately a meeting of all provincial ministers of agriculture along with representatives of all provincial milk marketing boards to resolve these ongoing difficulties and to reach a decision which is mutually acceptable to all.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion on a matter which is urgent and pressing and which will occur this weekend. In view of the fact that all the tickets were sold out by 9.30 a.m. November 10 for the western final game of the Canadian Football League between the British Columbia Lions and the Edmonton Eskimos in Edmonton this Sunday, which means there is no justification whatsoever for any blackout of television coverage of this playoff game, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
November 15, 1977

That this House request the Minister of Communications and the Secretary of State of Canada, who is responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to arrange with the Canadian Football League and the management of the Edmonton Eskimos to rescind immediately any blackout of television coverage so that people in communities such as Edmonton, Athabasca, Fort McMurray, Lac La Biche, Whitecourt, Hinton, Jasper, Leduc, Lacombe, and Wetaskiwin may watch this event along with other Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF LOSS OF MEDICAL DOCTORS TO UNITED STATES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. From 1974 until 1977, Canada lost 1,500 medical school graduates to the United States. The cause of this emigration lies in the increasing frustration of Canadian doctors with governmental and bureaucratic interference in the medical profession on the federal and provincial levels as well as with the prospect of better income in the United States.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco):
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for study and report to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion can be presented to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


FINANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since small and medium businesses in eastern Canada have a hard time competing with larger businesses located in large centres, and since those businesses use more diesel engines for their operations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That the House recommend a partial reimbursement of the tax paid on such fuel in order to help small businesses to survive and to contribute to job creation.
Oral Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
According to confidential information, it seems that thousands of applications for Canadian citizenship from ethnic groups are pending, and especially that the files of Quebeckers are knowingly and voluntarily withheld by some Ottawa officials, so as to deprive those future Canadians of a sacred right, the right to vote. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Smith):
That an inquiry be immediately undertaken by the Secretary of State to clarify this deplorable situation and that action be taken against the officials found guilty of such a misdeed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the House will agree that I will see the last questioner at five minutes past three. Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Figures released today by Statistics Canada show that inflation in 1977 so far is rising at an annual rate of more than nine per cent. As the Prime Minister knows, his government has proposed a six per cent wage ceiling this year and next year as far as our workers are

November 15, 1977
Oral Questions
concerned. Since prices are rising so much faster than wages, is the Prime Minister aware that the average Canadian family may well lose $300 in buying power if it is held to a six per cent wage ceiling and inflation continues? If the Prime Minister is aware of this would he indicate to the House why he believes inflation will only be six per cent next year or does he not care if the Canadian worker loses such buying power?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated in the budgetary speeches and economic speeches that we expect next year the cost of living index will go up at a rate of six per cent or less. That is still our expectation. We do not take the pessimistic projection that the hon. member has in mind as being true.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Since the policies of this administration have led to the unique state of rising inflation and rising unemployment, would the Minister of Finance consider waiving the manufacturing sales tax that the government now imposes in order to encourage consumer demand and at the same time lower prices with respect to the predictions concerned?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we discussed the possibility with the provinces a few weeks ago of lowering-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I was asking about the federal manufacturing tax.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We did discuss that and only the province of Ontario was willing to go along with the proposition that if the provinces were to cut their sales tax by one per cent we would help them with the other per cent, but there were no other takers. We have looked at the possibility of cutting the federal sales tax, but this was not judged a very good means because we were afraid that the benefits would not be passed on to the consumer. Instead of that, I have decided to cut, for January and February, income tax for people of medium and lower income by the amount of $100.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO ALLOW CONTROLS TO CONTINUE NEXT YEAR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is again directed to the Minister of Finance, who must realize that as far as the federal manufacturing sales

tax is concerned a rebate could certainly be made over the next six months. In view of the fact that we do have rising inflation, which would indicate that the controls program is not working-in fact, the controls program has been counter productive in that our jobless ranks are always swelling-would the Minister of Finance reconsider his decision to allow controls to continue well into next year and end controls at least before the end of this calendar year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that this would have exactly the opposite effect. Had it not been for controls in the last two years, we would be in an even worse position than we are now, and I do not think that the inflation indicator released today will make me change my mind as regards removing the controls by April 14. This confirms that I made the right decision when I made my speech on the economy.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, and I am interested in his last reply. The Americans are doing much, much better without controls. My question is this. What have his officials told him in regard to what proportion of the current inflation is a result of the devaluation of the Canadian dollar?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to know exactly what percentage of inflation at this time is due to the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. I do not know exactly how to quantify it, but it is certainly a factor. The report released this morning says, for instance, that higher housing costs are due to the rate increase in municipal and provincial taxes. And it is an area on which we have no control.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that his own officials have stated that probably about 25 per cent of our inflation rate is due to devaluation, what steps is the Minister of Finance taking to try to make Canadian industry more competitive or, indeed, to stop the continuing devaluation of the Canadian dollar? Has the minister talked to provincial governments about borrowing abroad? Has the minister considered any restrictions on travel abroad? What is the minister going to do to try to stop this balance of payments problem and the devaluation of the dollar which is contributing so much to our inflation and to unemployment?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. member to read the speeches of two ministers of finance who are not
November 15, 1977

supposed to be necessarily my friends, the ministers of finance of Ontario and Quebec, who have said that devaluation of the dollar at this time was probably something which was good for the manufacturing sector of Canada.


James McPhail Gillies: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister of Finance did not understand my question, which was very simple. What is the minister going to do to improve the balance of payments problem and to stop the continuing devaluation of the dollar, which everybody knows is having an incredible effect upon the rate of inflation in this nation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the hon. member does not understand that devaluation of the Canadian dollar is making Canadian products more competitive in the world. It is very basic to the economy. I would be very surprised if in the past he taught his students something else.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM REQUEST WAGE INCREASES EQUAL INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING AND PROPOSED OIL PRICE INCREASE BE DENIED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. No economic analysis group outside the government, whether we are talking about the Conference Board, U of T economists or labour groups, agrees that inflation will be held down to six per cent next year. In fact, most of them say it will be a minimum of eight per cent. The minister's own tax reduction of the grand sum of $100 will still mean, with the present rate of inflation, a net loss of $350 per family at the $15,000 level next year. The minister said a minute ago that he is prepared to gamble. Will he remove the gamble for Canadian workers, modify his program and permit increases in wages and salaries next year which will at least be commensurate with the cost of living?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate to change our economic policy just now. I am of course disappointed with the rate of inflation for this month. On the other hand, I am sure this problem would have been a lot easier to solve if only we could have obtained last August the voluntary support of management and labour, which would have enabled Canada to gain a more favourable competitive position on world markets. Unfortunately we have been unable to convince labour to co-operate with us.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister is at least consistent. Liberals never let facts get in the way of their policy. The government has already agreed that the oil companies will be permitted to increase the price of oil on January I by $1 a barrel. This will mean an increase in the cost for every
Oral Questions
Canadian who drives a car and heats a family home. As well, it will result in the loss of some 25,000 to 30,000 jobs on the basis of past experience. Will the minister take steps now to stop that January 1 increase in the price of oil?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this policy was established a long time ago. At the time of the increase in oil prices by the OPEC nations, we decided that rather than Canadians having to take the brunt of it in one shot, we would phase in the increase over a period of years. That policy, which was approved by all parties in the House at that time, has to be lived with today.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister is flatly wrong. The price increase was approved by his government. His government did that, not those on this side of the House. Will the minister confirm that the price increase will result in hundreds of millions of dollars in additional profit to the oil companies, something they do not need? Also, it will result in a one per cent increase in the cost of living and the loss of
25,000	to 30,000 jobs in the Canadian economy.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I remember a premier from Saskatchewan by the name of Blakeney urging us not long ago to have the international price for oil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Let the hon. member check with him.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilles Caouette (T6miscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, it seems very hard to obtain silence in this House or at least to get the ears of the hon. members.
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture or, in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary. As a result of the problems experienced by fluid milk producers who are having a hard time getting their subsidies since May, the chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission wrote recently to my colleague from Kamouraska that as long as members of the federation were accused of false representations, those cheques would not be sent out.
Can the parliamentary secretary tell us whether the attitude of the government and the Canadian Dairy Commission has changed and what he intends to do in this specific instance?

November 15, 1977
Oral Questions


Mr. Yves Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, following the many representations made by the hon. members on this side of the House, I am pleased to indicate that both federations, that is the Quebec Industrial Milk Producers Federation and the Canadian Dairy Commission have reached an agreement on the payment of subsidies. I must say also that this morning the cheques were mailed out for the months of May and June. The officials of the Commission are now in the process of figuring out the subsidies for the months of July, August and September. In about ten days, everything will have been straightened out and all producers will have been paid.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture for his positive answer, even if it took over six months.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether those agreements entered into recently, either yesterday or today, with both federations are long-term agreements or whether the same problem is likely to crop up again tomorrow?


Yves Caron: Mr. Speaker, I might tell the hon. member for Temiscamingue that these agreements are mainly the outcome of the negotiations conducted by members on this side of the House and not by members on the other side. I might add also that the federation got along very well with the Canadian Dairy Commission and that this agreement is applicable to the dairy policy for 1977-78.


FINANCE
Mr. John Crosbie (St. John's West):: A question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said last Tuesday in Winnipeg that the fall in the value of the Canadian dollar has been, and 1 quote "useful, and I hope it stays around for a while". And in the House last Wednesday he said this would help turn around the tourism deficit, correct our manufacturing problems and help our exports. I thought this attitude against the healthy Canadian dollar was a Horner hang-up until I heard the Minister of Finance express his views on the same subject. Is it the policy of the government to do all it can to devalue the Canadian dollar even further so as to strengthen the supposed virtues of an 89-cent dollar or is it the government's policy to fight the flight from the Canadian dollar?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can appreciate that the hon. member may have some difficulty in understanding the meaning of a devalued dollar but if he will refer to my speech during the debate on the Speech from the Throne he will find that I dealt with that matter at some length.
[Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue).J


John Carnell Crosbie: The Prime Minister was as clear in his answer today as he was in the speech he made during the debate on the Address, at which time he was pretty opaque. In view of the fact that according to the calculations of the Department of Finance the result of each one-cent decline in the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the U.S. dollar is the addition to our cost of living of one-tenth of one per cent within a year, and since the cost of living is expected to rise by four per cent within the next year in consequence of the decline in the value of our dollar last year, would the right hon. gentleman explain in what way the lower value of the dollar will help decrease costs in the areas of manufacturing and tourism, to name two examples. In other words, does he not agree that dependence on a declining dollar would be self-defeating?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this at some length but I will begin again and continue until you stop me. The hon. member will understand that the difficulty with industry in Canada, particularly the manufacturing sector, is that it is less productive than the United States manufacturing sector and that our costs are higher. Part of the policy of the government is to make sure our costs become more competitive with those of our main competitors. This is done by offering incentives on the positive side but it is also done by the money markets of the world making a judgment at some point with regard to Canada's high cost structure. When they make such judgment they sell the Canadian dollar short. When the Canadian dollar is worth less than the American dollar it means that our exports cost less to those who buy them, which makes us more competitive with other exporting nations.


Mr. Speaker:: The danger of attempting to deal in the question period with matters of general policy ought now to be very evident. The hon. member might wish to put a specific supplementary.


John Carnell Crosbie: Would the Prime Minister not agree that there is a grave danger that costs will only decline in the short term? Would he agree with the policy which was followed in 1963 when he and his comrades howled about the Diefendollar? Is this the Trudeaudollar?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not see the relevance of that question.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO INTRODUCE PRODUCTIVITY INCENTIVES FOR INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Now that the howls of the unruly mob have subsided, I will put a question to the Prime Minister. It is a very specific question and I should like to get a specific answer. The Prime Minister has stated quite correctly on two occasions in this House during the first week in this present session, and again in Fredericton last week, that if this country is to pull itself out of the very serious economic situation in which we find ourselves today we must greatly improve our industrial productivity. Would he explain why there was no mention either in the economic presentation given by the Minister of Finance on
November 15, 1977

October 20 or since then of any plan to introduce productivity incentives for industry to be paid in direct proportion to productivity increases?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member refers to my contribution in the debate on the Speech from the Throne he will find that I dealt with this question of productivity and indicated, as I believe the Conference Board will indicate next week, that Canadian productivity is closing the gap vis-a-vis the United States; we are closing the gap and government policies must therefore be correct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the second point: there are presently before the House fiscal measures in the name of the Minister of Finance which will have the effect of increasing productivity. They were debated yesterday and I believe they will be debated again tomorrow. I hope the opposition will understand this and enable us to dispose of these measures as soon as possible.


George Harris Hees: As the measures being discussed this week are only tax measures and have nothing to do with productivity incentives-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


George Harris Hees: -and since the Prime Minister's only contribution in the debate on the Speech from the Throne was to say over and over again that our productivity was 20 per cent below that of the United States and that steps must be taken to increase it, and since he has agreed with me both publicly and privately that this can only be done by introducing productivity incentives, I ask the right hon. gentleman when he intends to introduce such incentives. Does he propose to sit back and do nothing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 think there is probably an honest difference of opinion between these two economists-the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and myself.


George Harris Hees: Just make that one economist, Pierre!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member has just disqualified himself as an economist.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can understand that, because in his comment on my previous answer he said tax measures could not be an incentive to productivity. There is an honest disagreement here because we believe tax measures can be helpful to productivity.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Scarborough East.


George Harris Hees: You are taking him off the hook, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Andras:: You struck out, George!
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH MINISTER TO DISCUSS IMPRISONMENT OF ANATOLY SHCHARANSKY IN SOVIET UNION
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister agree to meet, as a matter of urgency, with members of the Parliamentary Helsinki Group to hear its plea that the Government of Canada through its delegation in Belgrade and in bilateral discussions with the U.S.S.R. express the extreme concern of Canadians about the imprisonment and impending trial of Anatoly Shcharansky and ask for the release of this man whose only crime was to appeal to the Soviet Union to live up to its pledges with regard to human rights under the Helsinki Agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than pleased to meet with the committee which I understand is made up of members of the House from all parties, and if the hon. member and others would like to get together to work out a mutually satisfactory time I would be pleased to do that.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I would like to know if the government is now willing to create a parliamentary committee composed of representatives of all political parties with a mandate to explore the issue of the Canadian constitution and national unity, since the Pepin-Robarts Commission has already done the larger part of its job. With regard to such a committee and the discussion of such issues, does the right hon. Prime Minister have in mind to give a role to play to the members of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to do better than that. Instead of referring the constitutional issue to a parliamentary committee, I would rather refer it to Parliament. I wish to remind the hon. member the proposal that Her Majesty made in the Speech from the Throne when she announced that during the present session the government intended to propose some constitutional measures. We expect to do that as soon as the major part of the economic measures proposed by the government have been adopted by the House of Commons. We propose then to open the debates on the national unity and constitutional issues and I intend to refer these issues to Parliament at that time.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister sincerely believe that such a
8002S -56

November 15, 1977
Oral Questions
committee could sit with similar committees from the provinces and that a joint dialogue with the provinces could enormously help the government in drafting these proposals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wonder if the hon. member has heard what I said. I never mentioned a committee, but I spoke only of the House itself, adding that the government meant to introduce in the House legislation or move a motion concerning the constitution, and that we hope that not only a committee of hon. members, but all elected representatives, hopefully including Progressive Conservative Party members might contribute some concrete ideas from their constitutional philosophy.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who I believe is behind the curtains.


An hon. Member:: He is hiding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The private from Quebec should come out.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of State for Urban Affairs aware that because of the many complexities involved in the insulation program only 2,800 applications have been received, which is only 800 greater than the anticipated daily inflow? In view of this initial lack of response, is the minister prepared to step up the program and extend the eligibility date to 1931 to allow more Canadians to take advantage of the program?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this program is under consideration.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious lack of tax cuts so far available to Canadians, I wonder whether the minister would make an exception and make the available grants tax deductible for those living in Ontario as well as the other provinces, other than Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia? Certainly, this would be an incentive. The program has not been too successful, as the minister will now concede, and I think it has cost $1 of every $3 in administration so far to get the grants to the public.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the proposition put forward by the hon. member. I think it is much too early to come to the conclusion he has made about the merits of the program. It is an excellent program which is just
[Mr. Grafftey.J
starting, and I think the hon. member should be patient and wait for a little >vhile before drawing conclusions about it.


FINANCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it arises from an answer he gave to my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, in which he said the premier of Saskatchewan had advocated the world price for oil. In view of the fact that Premier Blakeney based that on the proposition that any increase over $8 per barrel would go into a national resources development fund, and in view of the fact the government has not followed that practice but, instead, has made the oil companies the beneficiaries of the price increases with the result that the government's own monitoring figures show that between 1971 and 1976 the cash generation was $13.3 billion but, after tax, profits were $6.7 billion, an increase of over 50 per cent, does the minister not think it clear that if the government is not going to put this extra money into a national resources development fund, it ought to be used to reduce the price to take some of the burden off the Canadian consumers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is just confirming what I was saying, that the premier of Saskatchewan was, indeed, advocating international prices for oil. Of course, the hon. member is proposing to follow a different course in using the money, but this would not protect the consumer. In fact, since we did not go to the international price, we have been able to keep the price of oil and gas in Canada lower than the international price.


OIL-USE BY COMPANIES OF FUNDS GENERATED BY PRICE INCREASE FOR EXPLORATION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister makes light of the point that the money is not going into exploration. The fact of the matter is-


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact of the matter is that amount of money which has gone to the companies, according to the government's own monitoring survey, would indicate that whereas the petroleum industry in this country increased its domestic exploration by 104 per cent, it increased its foreign exploration by 568 per cent, an increase more than five times greater than the increase in Canada. In view of that, Mr. Speaker, is it not clear that because the
November 15, 1977

government's program of allowing the companies these very large windfalls has not resulted in increased exploration, the government should be prepared now to cancel the $1 increase per barrel which is to come on January 1 and the additional $1 increase on July 1, which will raise the price to $12.75 per barrel, with an increase in natural gas proportionately; to forgo those increases so as to relieve the consumers of Canada of, according to the commodity price index, an increase of 14.5 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could reply briefly to a very long, very convoluted and, I believe, very misleading question. The point the hon. member seems to be trying to make is that as a result of the price increase, Canadian companies have been using that money to explore abroad. He has quoted some very selective figures. If he looks at the base upon which those figures were made, he will see that even with the increases he mentioned, the funds devoted by Canadian corporations to exploration outside Canada are still a very small fraction of their exploration expenditures. Close to 90 per cent of those expenditures are made in this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is completely deflated by a statement in his own publication "An Energy Strategy for Canada" at page 38 which points out, by the government's own figures-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has been engaged in a fascinating debate up to now. However, it is the question period, and I think in his final supplementary he ought to stick to his question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, based on the government's own statements that over the next five years the industry will have, after taxes and royalties, $3 billion a year, is it not perfectly clear that the oil industry has had a windfall and we are justified on this side of the House in urging that instead of continuing the increase-this largesse to the oil companies-we ought to forgo the $2 per barrel increase which is to come into effect in 1978?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Canadian taxpayers would be better served if we were to receive a lot less rhetoric from the hon. member and a lot more action. The way in which I think he might be able to show some action would be to move expeditiously to get an agreement from his party to move quickly on the bill now placed before this House, the petroleum corporations monitoring act.


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASING EXPORT OF NATURAL GAS TO UNITED STATES AND USE OF TANKERS
Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Oral Questions
Does the government intend to export more gas to the United States in exchange for more trade opportunities for Canadian products? If so, would the government also intend to ask that an equal volume of gas be made availabe for Canada out of U.S. sources? Second, is the minister favourably considering the possibility of transporting Canadian gas from the far north by methane tankers rather than by pipeline, thus permitting us to balance production with Canadian consumption and provide significant incentives to shipyards?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board report, "Reasons for Decision", raised the possibility that it might be in Canadian interests to accelerate the deliveries of natural gas against existing contracts, or to make deliveries against future time swaps for American Prudhoe Bay gas. At no time am I aware that they have suggested we should increase, in any total sense, our gas exports to the United States.
I believe there may well be merits in the predelivery or swap arrangements. I do not believe it has been demonstrated that there will be any merit in increasing in total terms the export of Canadian gas at this time. Of course, it will depend upon whether the United States wants to make an application. So far no application has been made through the National Energy Board, either on a time swap basis or on an accelerated delivery basis.
As to the question of gas reserves from the high Arctic and from the eastern regions of this country, it is very likely that there will be an application placed before the National Energy Board which will seek to receive a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the building of such a pipeline. Also it is possible, it seems to me, from reading and talking to various officials, that we may be looking at a proposal with respect to liquefied natural gas from the high Arctic. Most of these projects-


Mr. Paproski:: Order.


George Harris Hees: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It relates to those parts of the 1969 Mackenzie Royal Commission Report which were not published, for security reasons. Did this unpublished material of the 1969 Mackenzie Commission deal with security forces methods and procedures as they related to such matters as interception of mail, surveillance of individuals and political parties, source 300 and so on?
872

November 15, 1977
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the House and the hon. member that the published version of the Mackenzie report was published by the Mackenzie commissioners themselves. They decided to edit out those parts, which were very sensitive in terms of security, from the report to the government. Therefore, obviously it would be impossible for me to tell the hon. member what in detail was edited out, because it was edited out for reasons of security by the commissioners themselves and not by the government. From the general tenure of my answer, the hon. member can assume that what was edited out-and the commission said so itself-were those facts, figures and data which had to do with very sensitive security matters, and not with the general question of government responsibility.


MACKENZIE REPORT-FAMILIARITY OF TWO PREVIOUS SOLICITORS GENERAL WITH CONTENTS
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my question has as its basis the fact that I believe there was available to the government the unedited report. Therefore, my supplementary question to the Prime Minister is: does he know whether the present Solicitor General and his two predecessors read either the unedited or unreleased portions of the Mackenzie report in order to be fully briefed on the security matters contained therein, after they were appointed to their respective cabinet offices?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know for a fact whether they did or not, but I assume they did. In so far as the question is relevant, I will assure myself that the answer is correct.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the Environment. Yesterday the hon. minister advised the House that he did not know of any intention on the part of the Kitimat consortium to reactivate the application for a Kitimat oil port which was before the National Energy Board. Yet, as the minister knows, immediately after the cessation of the Thompson inquiry into tanker routes and oil generally, there were newspaper reports indicating that the consortium would reapply. Can the minister now tell the House whether, to his knowledge or to the knowledge of the government, there is now going to be a reactivation of that application before the National Energy Board?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. Perhaps the question could be more appropriately directed to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I will put this question to anyone who has the answer.


James McPhail Gillies: That is nobody.


John Allen Fraser: Primarily I put the question to the Minister of State for the Environment because this is an environmental problem. Can the minister assure this House that no application before the National Energy Board for an oil port at Kitimat will be approved without the reactivation and the finalization of the Thompson inquiry or a similar inquiry? If anything less than that should happen, then the entire thing has been a wasteful, expensive sham.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is provision that the Thompson inquiry can be reactivated, but at this point it is hypothetical. As I indicated to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich yesterday, until there is a serious application before the board and we can see what the parameters of that application are, there is not really very much we can say. It is fair to say that the government indicated its intention to hold public inquiries relating to the application for a Kitimat pipeline when it established the Thompson inquiry.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. For the past two months the government of Newfoundland and the government of Nova Scotia have been proposing a fisheries development plan for Atlantic Canada costing an estimated $900 million over the next ten years, or less than $100 million a year. First, I should like to ask the hon. minister if he has seen this plan. If so, in light of the uncertainty which prevails both among the inshore fishermen, as well as the offshore fishermen in Atlantic Canada, over the six species which are presently being given away as surplus stocks, when can we anticipate an announcement from the minister as to his development plan that will enable Canadian fishermen to take advantage of these surplus stocks?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in order to answer the hon. member's question very quickly, I have not seen this plan. I have seen press clippings from the Halifax and Newfoundland newspapers. I am sure the hon. member is very well informed on these matters and would not want to mislead the House. Most of the species which are not taken by Canadian fishermen are in fact species for which there has been very little market in the past and at the present time. I am thinking of species like capelin, round nosed grenadier, silver hake and Argentines, which are not easily commercially exploitable or have not been in the past. Of course, we are making efforts to do this.
November 15, 1977


Mr. Forrestall:: Oh, oh!


Roméo LeBlanc: If the hon. member listens, he might learn something about fisheries. A lot of the misrepresentations on this issue assume that we have given away stocks in which Canada is interested. In fact, if the hon. member and all hon. members look at the figures, they will see that Canada's share of traditional fisheries has increased dramatically. We are keeping the fishing effort low for restoration of the stocks, and we are trying to find new markets for those stocks which we have not traditionally used.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the minister would not want to mislead the House. In truth Canada at the present time does not have any capability whatsoever for catching the six species which were mentioned, namely, round nosed grenadier, silver hake, offshore mackerel, capelin, squid and Argentine. I know that the minister realizes there is a market in Japan for all the squid we can catch. I would like to ask the minister when we can anticipate an announcement by the minister that we will start on a program of building freezer trawlers in order to catch some of the stocks which the minister is now declaring as surplus. Is the minister going to continue to give them away to foreigners forever?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looks at the squid market he will discover what I have feared from the very beginning, that a very heavy and dramatic development in the fishery in one season would create market difficulties, and it already has. As for the other species which Canada has not traditionally caught, if we find that the economics of vessels for catching these fish are such that they are justified, of course we will go ahead, but at the moment- and the hon. member knows this-the whole offshore fleet is just now beginning to be economic. That is a fleet which was being disastrously affected by the condition of the stocks. Surely, he is not advocating that we add another disaster to the disasters we have almost had and prevented by our actions since 1974.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what knowledge the government has of a security service file labelled "Featherbed", any part the government played in setting up that file and whether it includes details of surveillance of members of the news media and information about one of the highest ranking members of the government?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of it, but I am sure it is misnamed if it applies to the media. I am sure they are not featherbedders. I am surprised the hon. member would repeat this calumny.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I expected a rather flippant answer, as usual. Have attempts been made by anyone in the government to have this file destroyed since the Prime Minister entered the cabinet, and have any of his current remarks on the security situation in Canada been in any way influenced by the existence of the featherbed file?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member that I have never heard of the file.


An hon. Member:: How about "waterbed"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the minister has just returned from the Middle East, would he advise the House if any discussions took place regarding the use of a United Nations peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon and if any commitment was made as to Canadian participation in such an operation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of discussions, not only with representatives of various governments in the area but also with representatives of the peacekeeping force themselves, about the possibility of some involvement in peacekeeping in southern Lebanon, but these were of a very general nature, and there was no commitment made other than to say that, as we have always done, if there were a very specific proposal put to us, of course we would be glad to deal with it sympathetically.
Because this is the first time I have had an opportunity to give an answer, may I just add that I was pleased to visit with the Canadian forces who are in the peacekeeping service, and I can tell the people that they have every reason to be very proud of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: In view of the serious situation in Southern Lebanon, is the minister intending to recommend any new initiatives to the United Nations and, if so, what is the nature of those proposals?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not believe any special or new initiative would serve much useful purpose at the moment. The activities presently under way, as I was glad to note and as I am sure all

November 15, 1977
Electronic Eavesdropping
hon. members were yesterday, may very well bring the Prime	the debate might take	place. At the same time, may I ask ifMinister of Israel and the President of Egypt together. This, it	Your Honour intends	to table the report on the so-calledseems to me, as a further move toward a resumption of the	bugging device which	was found in the office of the hon.Geneva peacekeeping talks is by far the best thing we ought to,	member for Central Nova, so we can debate that as well at theand can, encourage at the present time.	appropriate time?


ALLEGED &quot;BUGGING&quot; OF MEMBERS' OFFICES-STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER ON INVESTIGATION
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I have already indicated to the House, I received advice by letter dated November 3, 1977, from the Leader of the Opposition that a discovery had been made by consultants retained by him that a telephone in the offices of the Leader of the Opposition had been altered in such a way as to make it capable of becoming an eavesdropping device. I asked that the equipment be examined by experts from Bell Canada. I received their report yesterday. While there is some disagreement with respect to the manner in which the device could be used, there is agreement that the telephone had at some time been altered so that it could have been capable of use as an eavesdropping device.
I will not attempt to paraphrase the reports, because in our conversation yesterday afternoon the Leader of the Opposition and I agreed that both reports ought to be tabled, and I will do so immediately. We also agreed that I ought forthwith to invite the Ottawa police to extend the investigation in which they are presently involved to include this occurrence, and I am instructing them accordingly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that these reports having been tabled, the government could look at them and debate them at some point?


Mr. Speaker:: 1 have attempted to make sufficient copies available because of the level of interest there would be, so that interested members might have an opportunity to examine them. It is difficult for me to see now whether we ought to attempt to discuss these during the course of the investigation or wait until the police investigation is in a more complete state.
However, I do recognize that all hon. members have an interest in the matter, and if there is to be some suggestion that a discussion might take place at any time after hon. members have had an opportunity to examine these reports, I will of course be pleased to hear suggestions as to whether it ought to take place during the course of the investigation or wait until its conclusion.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we will gladly have our House leader discuss the opportunity for a debate now or later with the House leaders of the opposition parties, and subject to Your Honour's decision on timing, we would agree as to when


Mr. Speaker:: I had not given that any thought, but not out of any reluctance to table it. The report of the consultants with regard to that occurrence was made available to me, and in turn our preliminary investigative report was made available by me to the hon. member for Central Nova. Both reports have been turned over to the police. I would think there would likely be no objection to tabling them in the same manner as we have just adopted. The hon. member for Central Nova is here and is indicating that he has no objection, so perhaps as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so, we will arrange to table the sets of documents with respect to that matter as well.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, because of the interest involved, I wonder if it would be in order to have the reports attached as an appendix to today's Hansard, since I am sure that thousands of people would want to read them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Neither document tabled today is overly lengthy. I think the report enclosed in the letter of the Leader of the Opposition is about three pages in length, as is the one from the Bell Canada experts. Perhaps if there is a disposition in the House, it would be agreed and now ordered that these documents be printed in Hansard as if they had been read.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed, and so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For reports referred to, see appendices.]


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order that all eventualities may be examined, I wonder if in your instructions to the Ottawa police Your Honour could also instruct them to continue their investigation including section 128 of the Criminal Code. The general tenor of it is to cause an investigation with respect to public mischief. We should get all the investigative matters taken care of by the Ottawa city police while they are investigating to see whether a criminal offence has been committed. If there has not, there may well be an offence under section 128, public mischief. I would suggest that Your Honour so advise the city police-


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very responsible way in which you have handled this investigation, the intervention of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre is an abuse of the privileges of this House. It is very interesting, if you review the history of this matter, that the hon. member himself made a suggestion some time ago that this investigation should be put into the hands of the Ottawa police. Now, by suggesting there is some doubt on the
November 15, 1977

extent of their investigation, he is casting doubt on the ability of the Ottawa police to conduct the investigation.
I must say, although I have not said so before on the record, that I hope the House-I can say that this is the case on this side of the House-is content with the Ottawa police carrying out the investigation. We are content, as well, with the way in which Your Honour has proceeded with respect to this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have indicated on previous occasions the difficulty of attempting to make interventions in this manner during the course of the investigation. It may be necessary to do so, but in light of the suggestion a short time ago by tire Prime Minister that discussions be held on whether or not an appropriate time should be set aside soon for discussion of this matter, perhaps hon. members will agree that any further discussion on it ought to wait until those discussions take place.


PRIVILEGE
Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, flowing from your ruling yesterday, relating to certain proceedings that took place this morning in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts involving some comments made at that time by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. I think it has been evident for some time that there has been concern within that committee with respect to certain matters relating to the sale of nuclear reactors and agents' fees associated therewith. This has been going on for a year or more. I should like to quote-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I ought to remind the hon. member that he can reserve his right to argue this matter further, but the House has always made a practice of never taking into account proceedings in the standing committees until they are reported to the House. The simple reason for this is that the committees are deemed to be masters of their own procedures. I think it is felt, therefore, with great wisdom, that the committees ought themselves to attempt to iron out any procedural difficulties they may have.
Members are able to take steps within the committee which would form part of the report that would be reported back to the House and would be the basis for some action at that time. It is a very dangerous precedent for the Chair to attempt to rule on activities that have taken place in committee, or for the House to direct its attention to events that have taken place in committees prior to those events being reported in the usual way by the committees. Unless there is some clear reason for doing so now, which the hon. member could explain to me at the outset, I would not want to entertain a question of privilege of the type he is now raising.
Privilege-Mr. Martin


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to quote immediately the extract in question and leave it in your good hands as to whether a question of privilege exists.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member misunderstands me. I am not concerned about what in fact happened. I am concerned about the hon. member being able to explain to me that, no matter what happened, the House ought to direct its attention to events in committees before those events are reported. I would need some persuasion on that point before I would ever look at or hear what took place.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, in view of the importance of your ruling yesterday, that it seems to me we are breaking new ground. I feel that before committees move any further we should have some clear ideas of the application of the ruling in this House to the committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will want to consult the record. I did make, I hope, some elucidating remarks about that ruling at the outset of today's session. With respect to the content of motions and practices related to motions, perhaps the hon. member might want to take an opportunity-I have confronted him with an argument that I am sure he had not prepared for today-to examine my remarks today, and also examine the precedents in respect of taking into account proceedings of committees before they are reported. After examining both of those, if the hon. member still has a question that he wishes to raise, of course I will respect his right to raise it.


Mr. Stollery:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order which refers to the fact that earlier this afternoon Your Honour decided differently than you did yesterday on the question of privilege raised by the right hon. Prime Minister with regard to the motion under Standing Order 43 that was put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I should like to bring it to Your Honour's attention that as the right hon. Prime Minister apologized to the House yesterday for his comments-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Spadina is making an assumption that is not correct. I was not in any way reopening a decision I took yesterday, and I thought I was at great pains to set that on the record today. As a result of checking yesterday's Hansard and re-examining the comment that was put forward, which I had set aside, by the right hon. Prime Minister yesterday, I did indicate that perhaps, in the circumstances, I had moved quickly in setting that aside and other considerations might have been taken into account, which I set on the record. I did that in order to make sure the House had proper guidance for future events. It was not in any way an attempt to second-guess my own decision of yesterday. I have no intention or desire of doing that at all.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I agree with Your Honour that it would be extremely unwise to second-guess oneself the next

November 15, 1977
Order Paper Questions
day. I thought the right hon. member for Prince Albert, since he professes such great respect for this House, and now that he knows what the rules are, would withdraw his scurrilous and unparliamentary language that he-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed in the last hour or so that government members have howled down members of the opposition. I do not intend to be howled down by anybody.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: However, I must say that I apologize for the fact that over the years I have had that regard for the Prime Minister whose petulance recently has indicated that something has gone wrong with him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not very good. No guts.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, questions Nos. 64, 134, 245 and 338 will be answered today.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the other questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Is French the only essential language required for the position of planner to participate in the preparation of policies and recommendations relating to the National Capital Commission's involvement in recreation, conservation and other land uses and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Who is responsible for the writing of the advertisements for personnel in the National Capital Commission and what are their qualifications?
3.	Are such advertisments written in French and then translated to English for the English newspapers?


André Ouellet: 1.	No. Some planning positions require English, some French and some require use of both official languages.
2.	Mr. A. H. Stevenson, Assistant General Manager, Administration, is the senior staff member responsible. Mr. Stevenson has 25 years experience in personnel administration work.

3.	Advertisements are normally prepared in both official languages.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What was the (a) regular (b) reserve (c) civilian strength of the Department of National Defence as of October 1, 1977?
2.	What was the (a) military (b) civilian strength of National Defence Headquarters as of October 1, 1977?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a)
78,447; (b) 22,653; (c) 39,234 (this includes 5,744 term employees).
2.	(a) 3,003; (b) 3,969.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to Uranium Canada Ltd. and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Alastair William Gillespie: Uranium Canada Limited reports as follows: 1 Nil.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Uranium Canada Ltd. obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Uranium Canada Ltd. in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Alastair William Gillespie: Uranium Canada Limited reports as follows: 1.
(a)	and (b) Nil.
2 and 3. Not applicable.
November 15, 1977



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised on the adjournment motion at 6 p.m. are as follows: the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)-Health; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Income Tax Act; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)- Regional Economic Expansion.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved:: -That this House has no confidence in the competence or desire of this government to follow the principle of ministerial responsibility, particularly as it applies to the direction of and methods used by the government security forces, and deeply regrets its unwillingness to allow a committee of this House to study the role of Ministers in security operations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will recall that, pursuant to Standing Order 32, not later than 10.15 this evening every motion necessary to dispose of these proceedings shall be put forthwith, in accordance with Standing Order 58(9).


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I might say, before beginning my remarks, that I am very pleased to have placed on the record of the House of Commons and on the table of the House the documents referred to by Your Honour immediately prior to the commencement of this debate. I must also say that I welcome the suggestion by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that there be a debate on these matters after the requisite investigations by the police of the city of Ottawa are carried out. We certainly look forward to that. Indeed, we think there are a number of matters which should be debated-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that the Leader of the Opposition is taking the right moment to raise these points.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that this is an opposition day. We have a motion in front of us which has nothing to do with
Security
the inquiry which is to be held. If he does open the debate to the point put forward by the Speaker of the House, I think it goes beyond the administration of the government. As I read the motion in front of me, it concerns the authority and the will of the government to control security in this country, not necessarily control the House of Commons and the workings of the House of Commons.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would, of course, never dispute your ruling in this matter. I was simply, as is a well-established custom in this House, warming up to my remarks.


Mrs. Holt:: It does take a while.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am told by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) that it takes a while. It has certainly taken her some while.
I think it appropriate, as we begin this debate on the motion now before the House of Commons, to note the quite surprising change in atmosphere evident today on the government side, particularly after the Prime Minister of Canada was forced, with his customary graciousness, to withdraw remarks which he made yesterday. I think it is clear to us all how painful it is for the Prime Minister to have to admit that he was wrong. I think it would be quite appropriate for me to say, on this first anniversary of the election in the province of Quebec of a government formed by a party which the Prime Minister declared dead, that the Prime Minister had better get used to the pain of being wrong.
As Your Honour knows, this is the first allotted day in this new session, and there are a number of matters which we on this side of the House could have chosen to raise in this debate. Current economic problems are serious and they show no sign of improving under the policies of this government. We have very serious problems in regard to national unity in this country, problems which were dramatized one year ago today by the election of the Parti Quebecois government, as well as problems regarding which there has been a signal lack of positive response or initiative by the government of Canada in the intervening years.
All of these, sir, are very important questions which could have commanded our attention on this day, but we have decided that it is of utmost importance for this parliament to deal today with the fundamental question of ministerial responsibility and with the refusal of ministers on the other side of this House to accept their responsibility in matters relating to the national security activities of the government of Canada.
I raised this matter in an adjournment debate a week ago. My colleague, the leader of the New Democratic Party, attempted to raise a similar matter yesterday, on privilege. It is a matter which is of fundamental importance to the House. I will not repeat the number of learned authorities which have been cited previously, because I think that the House of Commons accepts the practice of parliament both in the past and today that a minister cannot blame his officials when things go wrong, that the people who are responsible are the ministers of the Crown, not their officials.

November 15, 1977
Security
We raise this point, Mr. Speaker, because if we destroy that principle of ministerial responsibility we destroy the system of government which we have in this country. Our system says that the people of Canada elect members of parliament. Some members of parliament become members of the government, ministers of the Crown, but they answer to the rest of us for all-I emphasize the word "all"-the actions of the government.
The signal fact which has become clear in these last days is that these ministers will not answer for the actions of their government when those actions have been in violation of the law and practice of this country. I remind the House of what has gone on in the last couple of weeks. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), the man who was solicitor general of Canada at the time of the break-in in 1973, sat silent in his place throughout the long debate when this matter was first raised under special order of this House.
In the case of the APLQ break-in, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), the solicitor general of that day, deliberately declined to ask questions which he should have asked and which he knew he should have asked, because he wanted to remain technically ignorant of matters which he had a responsibility to know about. The present Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) admits that he has regular briefings, but he never seems to be told anything. We do not know, of course, what kind of questions the minister asks, and we might never know in this parliament because the cabinet refuses to tell the House of Commons anything.
Now, sir, in a very ominous development the government has prepared the way to give the royal commission of inquiry only a limited story, a partial story, as to the role of ministers in this affair. As reported at page 684 of Hansard, when answering my questions about the nature of testimony concerning the role of ministers to be given to the McDonald royal commission of inquiry, the Prime Minister had this to say:
-there may be some areas which must be kept secret and we would be guided by the law officers of the Crown in that regard.
Two things are important here, Mr. Speaker. One minor matter, except that it falls into the pattern, is that the government itself is not even accepting the responsibility of saying what should be secret and what should not be secret. It is passing that responsibility on to public servants so that the government can blame them if they are found out to be wrong. But what is more ominous, because it raises questions about the adequacy of the evidence before the McDonald royal commission, is that the government of Canada is preparing the way to limit the testimony which it gives concerning the role of ministers of the Crown in all these activities.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, in our system ministers have a larger duty than just to ask occasional questions at briefings. Ministers have a duty to oversee the general work of their departments. This matter has been debated before, so I will quote my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), who in 1969, when the Mackenzie report was tabled in the House, had this to say:

It would be completely unacceptable for the House to have the security operations of this country put beyond the knowledge of the Prime Minister or the responsible minister of the government.
That makes clear the fact that ministers have an obligation to ensure that they know what is going on. The Prime Minister, as usual, has tried to draw attention away from that responsibility of his ministers. On November 2, as reported at page 563 of Hansard, he pretended, when we asked him questions about general supervision of what the security service was doing, that he was being asked to begin monitoring the day to day operations of the police, asking them about their information, how they got it and who they got it from. Well, sir, no one has asked that. No one would. But the point is that there is a lot of room between reading every file and knowing nothing at all.
As the distinguished journalist, Mr. W. A. Wilson, has pointed out, the present Solicitor General has apparently been limiting his own questions to security officials by the form in which he puts them. I quote Mr. Wilson:
By the form of his questions stipulating acts that "ought to be brought to my attention," Mr. Fox left it to the RCMP to decide what he should know.
They may have been guilty of very bad judgment in saying no, but that is not the same thing as lying to their minister.
The point is of great importance because, according to his own statements, Mr. Fox has been doing exactly what most of his predecessors seem to have done: he has been leaving the vital decision to the force and its security service.
Mr. Wilson goes on to reach this conclusion:
Ministers have been derelict in their duty to supervise.
That is a conclusion which all fair-minded Canadians would share.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As I was reading that quotation I heard the Solicitor General shout across the House, "Was Mr. Wilson there? Was he in at the briefings?" No, he was not there. Neither was any member of this House of Commons there. Neither do any of us know what went on in those briefings between the minister and security officials; and the minister himself is certainly not going to tell us. He says, "If anybody has any business to know about that, it is the McDonald commission," and he will tell them a partial story because he has been given a cover to tell them a partial story by the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What is particularly alarming about this new practice is that when ministers do not accept responsibility themselves, then, sir, they go on and blame their civil servants. They do it directly or they do it implicitly. In this case, the impression is conveyed that the only culprits are the civil servants who actually broke the law, or else the civil servants who did not take the initiative to brief ministers, including ministers-for example, the Minister of Supply and Services who deliberately asked limited questions or in the case of ministers who asked no questions at all.
November 15, 1977

The line the government is putting out is that the people in the field are the culprits, the people who carried out the policy. But, sir, what about the ministers who set the policy? What about the ministers who have a duty to supervise policy? In our system they, too, are responsible. Indeed, they, above all, are responsible for what is done by the public servants under their direction. But this government is doing everything it can to protect the ministers and to blame the civil servants- whether those civil servants are Mounties, members of the security service or whatever.
What must alarm this House, what threatens the very basis of our system of responsible government, is that this is not the first time ministers of this government have blamed civil servants in order to escape responsibility themselves. In the case of the Lockheed affair, the government of Canada accepted millions of dollars of obligations on the basis that it had an oral agreement with Lockheed that would provide interim financing. The minister responsible for drafting the contract complained that one public servant did not reveal that it was simply an oral agreement. He blamed it on the public servant and, in so doing, seemed to suggest that this person, this public servant, stood between the minister and knowledge of: first, what was going on in an interdepartmental task force; second, what was going on in the head of his colleague, the then minister of national defence; and third, what was going on in the entire defence structure of the government of Canada. That was all the fault of one civil servant: it was not the minister's fault, of course!
We saw it again in the case of Atomic Energy of Canada where the minister responsible ducked, ran and tried to leave responsibility fully with civil servants. We saw in the Rudnicki affair. I remind the House that Mr. Rudnicki was fired from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the stated reason of showing a cabinet document to the Native Council of Canada, the group for whom he was supposed to be working. He was finally exonerated by the courts after a trial which indicated that the confusion about the document was the fault of his superiors. But the victim was the civil servant on the scene.
Now, sir, now it is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are being blamed for the actions of this government.


An hon. Member:: The government is shameless.


Charles Joseph Clark: This government has adopted the deliberate strategy throughout the last couple of weeks that whenever questions are raised about the role of ministers or, particularly, about the role of the security service, it pretends those questions are an attack on the RCMP. It is important, once again, to make the distinction clear between the security service and the ordinary member of the RCMP. The security service is run by a director-general who does not come from the force and who has the authority to report directly to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the Solicitor General of Canada. There is a very real question as to whether the actions of the security service are within the control of the Commissioner of the RCMP.
Security
I want to make it clear, sir, because I think it is very important to emphasize that this mechanism, this security service is put into the RCMP under a director-general who is controllable in all matters by the Commissioner of the RCMP. That mechanism was established by this government. The security service was not the choice of the police, but the choice of this government. The security service is probably not controllable by the police, but it is certainly controllable by this government, particularly by the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The point stands and remains that whatever the agency, these are civil servants who are acting under the direction of the government of Canada. The illegal actions we have heard about in the last several weeks did not just happen. They were not the result of a wild night on the town. They were done because civil servants thought they had orders to do them.
In his remarks on October 28 in this House, the Solicitor General referred to what he called the "political and social climate prevailing in 1973". I think it would be very worth while to examine that climate. Let us remember, sir, that we are speaking of 1973-not 1970. In the fall of 1970, the government believed there was a state of what was called at the time "apprehended insurrection" in the country. That view, presumably, led the government to give one set of orders to security officers which had to do with the FLQ. But that climate had changed markedly between the fall of 1970 and January of 1973. The Solicitor General might not think so, but his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), stated the reality which most Canadians accept when she said at Carleton University with reference to that time, January, 1973:
There is no way somebody is going to tell me that as a Quebecker there was a state of national emergency somewhere in Quebec and some threats to God knows what. I never perceived anything like that.
The point is this: just as she did not perceive any unusual political climate at that time, neither did anybody else. The question is whether the government of Canada, the political minister who had sounded the alert in the fall of 1970, did their duty and changed their policy instructions to the security service in the time between the October crisis and the break-in in January, 1973. Let there be no mistake about this: the ministers of the Crown had a duty to tell the security service that the mandate had changed because the climate had changed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It appears the ministers did not perform that duty, so the security service acted on the existing instructions. Now the members of that security service are being left alone to carry the consequences. When he first revealed what he thought was then the latest series of illegalities, the Solicitor General talked about the dilemma that exists in a free society, the dilemma of imbalance between the right to know and the

November 15, 1977
Security
need for secrecy involved in any kind of security activities. That is a very genuine and important dilemma. It is one I would welcome the opportunity to have this House discuss.
We in this House of Commons have two more immediate obligations. The first is an obligation to find out what went wrong, particularly since we are the group to whom ministers of the Crown are responsible. We have a duty and an obligation to find out what was the role of the ministers, what did they do, what did they know, what questions should they have asked that they did not ask? The second obligation is to ensure that some means is established to guarantee that in the future security activities of the government of Canada are bound and guided by policy directions which come ultimately from duly elected persons.
Concerning the first obligation, we need a means to ensure that information about the role of ministers is not covered up or hidden away. The government argues that the McDonald royal commission will inquire into that question. We believe their terms of reference will not allow the kind of inquiry that is required into the role of ministers. We believe there is not a mandatory requirement in those terms of reference to require the McDonald royal commission to make that kind of inquiry into the role of ministers of the Crown. Indeed, it is informative to look at the name of that inquiry: as I recall, it is called a commission of inquiry into certain activities of the RCMP, not a commission into the role of ministers of the Crown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister has frequently said that the terms of reference are broad enough now. If he is so sure of that, why does he not take the extra step and add the extra term of reference that we on this side of the House have proposed several times, so there will be no doubt about the adequacy of the terms of reference. We need to have spelled out beyond any question the obligation, not just the right, of that royal commission to look explicitly into the question of ministerial responsibility. Given the length of time this study will take, the conditions that were attached to it and the delay before a report, we do not think a royal commission is an appropriate vehicle for a matter that concerns parliament as centrally as the question of ministerial responsibility.
For that reason we have proposed a better way to get at the evidence as to what was the role of ministers. We want to have a special committee established in this House of Commons, a committee with unusual power to call evidence, to subpoena witnesses and to carry on research. We think it should be chaired by a member of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: Ha, ha!


Charles Joseph Clark: Someone on the government side laughs. We think it very important that this kind of inquiry should not be suspect. The best way to ensure that it is not suspect is that it be chaired by someone who is absolutely independent of the ministers whose conduct is being investigated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I make it quite clear that while we want someone from the opposition side, we do not insist that it be a member of the official opposition. I have not discussed the matter with the hon. member, but I say to this House that if a committee of that kind, with those powers and with that mandate, is established we would be delighted if it were chaired by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We think he would be an outstanding chairman for that kind of committee. A committee with that kind of power, looking into the question of ministerial responsibility, should also have on its agenda the power to recommend means by which we can assure some right to oversee security policy that goes beyond the political party in office at this time. There are ample models to draw from. In Britain there is a regular practice of briefing members of the opposition. In the United States there are congressional oversight committees which meet in confidence. Either alternative is better than the situation we have today in this country. I think all members would agree that discussion as to the way parliament will carry out its ultimate responsibility regarding security matters would better begin here, in this House, than in some royal commission.
There has been no action on these matters. I received a one-time offer from the Prime Minister to have one briefing on some aspects of security matters. That was in response to letters that I wrote. There is no system in place, and there has never been. There has been no willingness that ministers who set policy are responsible when things go wrong or when their supervision fails. Since this session of parliament commenced, the government has had ample opportunity to reveal the facts and to begin the process of establishing more effective means to oversee security activities. Instead, they have tried to cover up. That is the reason why today we have to move this motion, expressing lack of confidence in the way the government has conducted its affairs and suggesting a better way for it to proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: For the past several days the country has been preoccupied with matters that are undoubtedly serious. There have been stories of bams being burned, laws being broken by agencies pledged to uphold the law, and ministers not knowing or not saying what was going on. That has been in the headlines. All of that is important. Equally serious for this country, for our future and for the way we govern ourselves, has been the breaking down of the basis of the system of responsible government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In our system, the government must accept responsibility. Today, and too frequently in the past, the
November 15, 1977

ministers of this government have refused to accept responsibility. Instead, they blame somebody else. Parliament must have the power and the information with which to hold ministers accountable. Today, because of the refusal to come clean by ministers on the other side, we do not have that kind of information.
Some surprising and troubling things have happened to parliament in the last decade. Ten years ago we in this House had the power to control spending by the government of Canada. In the years in which this government has been in office, this House of Commons has lost that power to control spending. Throughout the life of this government there has been a refusal to add to the powers of private members, to add to the powers of committees and to make this place more effective. Often, ironically, that refusal has been defended by some reference to ministerial responsibility.
We have had further evidence in the past few weeks that the fundamental principle of a parliamentary system, the principle that ministers are responsible for the actions of their departments, is being broken down gradually, steadily and-in this case, sadly-dramatically. Ministerial responsibility must be restored. If the government will not restore it, parliament has an obligation to do what it can to restore it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: An inquiry by the parliament of Canada into this question is of fundamental importance to the future of our system. If the government of Canada refuses to allow the parliament of Canada to conduct that kind of inquiry in order to ensure that there is again a system of responsible government in Canada, it has no right to the confidence of parliament and no right to the confidence of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion. It is a serious motion, one that goes to the root of the problem in a way that the government, through its actions since the opening of parliament, has completely failed to do. I want to discuss two aspects of the motion. The first and most important one is ministerial responsibility which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has emphasized and which I raised in a question of privilege yesterday. The other aspect that I will be speaking on will be expressed concretely in the form of an amendment to the motion. That pertains to the important question of the rule of law.
On the question of ministerial accountability I shall take only a minute or so because I do not wish to repeat arguments I made in the House yesterday, nor do I wish to repeat some of the points the Leader of the Opposition made so well today. The people who are ultimately responsible for what takes place in the ministry of the Solicitor General, that of Justice, or that of Health and Welfare, are not civil servants, whether deputy ministers or the lowest ranking clerks in the department. The
Security
people who are responsible, in a parliamentary democracy, are the ministers.
There is one group of people today which has forgotten that principle in a way which puts all others to shame by comparison. I refer to the cabinet. I quoted yesterday examples from Jennings and from Dawson, two constitutional authorities- and I could add others-pointing out that the notion of ministerial responsibility does not mean a minister needs to have a day to day knowledge of what is going on in every section of his department. What it does mean is that he assumes responsibility for broad policy and the orientation of the law as administered by the department and that, in particular, when something goes wrong he should be ready to correct it promptly. This is the attitude which has been totally absent from the performance of the government and, in particular, totally absent from the performance of three successive solicitors general.
As I say, I do not intend to deal with this aspect at any length because it has been already discussed by the Leader of the Opposition and because I raised it in the House yesterday. Nevertheless, it is something which is essential to parliamentary democracy, and there has been complete failure on the part of the government, and particularly on the part of the Solicitor General, to recognize its responsibility in this area.
I wish to deal today with a broader question as one living, not in the thirties in Germany or in the seventies in Russia but as a Canadian who lives in a society which is basically free, overwhelmingly democratic, overwhelmingly civil libertarian. I address myself this afternoon to the response made by the government when it learned that there had been wrongdoing on the part of a minority in the RCMP and elsewhere in the security services. When I sit back and think of what happened in the United States a couple of years ago, I am scandalized by the response of this government.
Hon. members will recall that the Watergate inquiry, which ultimately led to the resignation of a president, came about because of revelations of spying upon a political party-one political party spying on another. At the time the issue was raised by Senator McGovern, a presidential candidate, the affair was dismissed as having little importance. Indeed, the reaction in the United States was not dissimilar to the reaction here in Canada to the issue we are presently discussing. On one hand, there was a tendency to dismiss it as a trifling thing, if it occurred, and on the other there was reluctance to criticize because of the supposed sanctity of the entities involved. In the United States, for example, people were asking themselves: How is it conceivable that the presidency itself could have allowed such a thing to occur, or actively direct it?
Here, in Canada, I would remind hon. members it has not simply been a case of one political party monitoring another. What we have before us is evidence of the commission of a number of crimes-crimes committed by the RCMP, I regret to say, involving the burning of property, the theft of property, spying illegally upon a political party, and the opening of mail which is categorically forbidden under the Post Office Act. We have learned, too, of "Operation 300," an illegal operation

November 15, 1977
Security
with respect to which the minister said the other day the allegations were substantially correct. These revelations in 1977 in Canada came on top of disclosures that certain security forces or branches of the RCMP or other security forces were spying on Canadian farmers in the National Farmers Union, spying on members of my political party, spying on all kinds of innocent Canadians democratically exercising their rights in a free society.
What has been the response of the government of Canada that dares to call itself Liberal? What has been its reaction to these revelations about burning, about theft, about spying on farmers, trade unionists and political opponents? Have we heard voices from small "1" liberals in the party which history links with the name of John Stuart Mill, saying, "This has got to stop. We are administratively responsible for a number of these things because they have come about through our failure to prevent them"? Did members opposite acknowledge their responsibility and take prompt action to put a categorical stop to it? What have they done? That is the question I want to deal with.
Mr. Speaker, the response has been a debasement of Canadian politics. You would have to go back a long way in Canadian history to see a worse one. First, we got misleading comparisons and phony information provided by a number of ministers. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) used the wonderful analogy that sometimes it is necessary to break the law; that on occasion one had to drive at 80 miles an hour to catch a thief. Then we heard the "spirit of the times" argument- another gem! How John Stuart Mill would have laughed to have heard this argument seriously put forward.
It was left to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to blurt out the truth in the course of an address to students at Carleton University-that in 1973 the spirit of the times was anything but violent; that it was certainly not an atmosphere which would have justified the breaking of the law if, indeed, that is ever justified. Another tactic of the government, arguments having failed, was to attack the opposition. The Conservative party and my own party were attacked for raising questions about civil liberties. We were attacked for suggesting that criminal wrongdoing by the police was every bit as wrong as criminal wrongdoing by other citizens. We were criticized for having the audacity to suggest that it was the government itself which was finally responsible for ensuring that the police obey the law like everyone else.
We heard a perfect example of that attitude in the speech given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to his Liberal cohorts in Vancouver over the weekend. He foamed at the mouth, I am sure, in his castigation of the terrible opposition parties who had dared to criticize the failure of the government; and he introduced a red herring by saying we had been critical of the RCMP. He knows, if he is honest, that we have been critical, on this side of the House, of the complete failure of his government to make sure the RCMP performs correctly.

There was a third device used by this great Liberal government, and that was the suggestion that such illegalities or moral wrongdoings were really carried out in the context of dealing with terrorists. Time after time we heard statements from a variety of ministers that they had to deal with violent groups in society. Extremism in defence of liberty is no vice, according to this government. This is wrong, in terms of their factual suggestions.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, rhetorically: Is the New Democratic Party a party committed to violence, and does it warrant spying upon? Is the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the largest union in Canada, representing working people in every community across the land, the kind of institution that should be spied upon? Is the National Farmers Union of Canada, representative of farmers in half a dozen provinces, the kind of institution that should be spied upon? Is the Quebec Federation of Labour, an institution organized by workers to work for the benefit of the working people in the province of Quebec, the kind of institution that should be spied upon?


An hon. Member:: Or members of parliament?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, to ask the question is to answer it. We have been concerned about the question of liberty and the rule of law. We have been concerned overwhelmingly over questions regarding the rights of free institutions, free parties, free movements and the free citizens' groups to go on about their lives unmolested by the police. Again the Liberal government, which dares to call itself liberal, has tried consistently to say that the issues we have raised always have to be put in some kind of context dealing with a terrorist group. That is a phony and dishonest approach.
Another approach-and I will be very brief with this- involves the buffoonery of the Prime Minister which reached its low point in recent days when he had the audacity to suggest that the official opposition planted some kind of bugging device upon itself. He did it off the top of his head, I am sure, in his characteristically frivolous and irresponsible manner in terms of dealing with a serious issue.
The most serious concern I have with the approach of the government in this whole episode, apart from the question of ministerial responsibility, has regard to the insidious suggestion made by no fewer than three ministers-the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister-day after day in this House and outside, that the end justifies the means. We heard from the minister of multiculturalism yesterday that gem of new reasoning, that gem of new legal theory, when he said that sometimes the rule of reason has to replace the rule of law. God forbid, particularly if it is his rule of reason! The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) was shaking his head when I said that.


An hon. Member:: I could hear it from here.
November 15, 1977


John Edward Broadbent: I want to say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister with the rattling head there who was correcting me yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: You will have your chance in just a minute. Do not be a cry baby. I quote for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker, that nice, rhetorical reply that came to the opposition the other day when a question was raised about freedom, and so on. He said, and I quote him, "No, the bottom line is security". Let me suggest to the minister that if he were really a Liberal he would not give us, and he should really appreciate this, that beautiful Stalinist argument.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I have been dealing today with correspondence from very serious people in the Soviet Union who have been put down by their government, that government which has refused to live up to the Helsinki agreement. As everyone knows, the reason the Soviet Union puts down its dissidents-


An hon. Member:: That's not true.


John Edward Broadbent: Don't give me that rubbish. It shows how little you know about that as well. Not only does the member know nothing about liberalism, but he knows nothing about socialism. I say quite seriously that the reason the Soviet Union does not permit the kind of dissidents-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: You will get the chance to make your speech. The reason the Soviet Union takes away liberties from decent citizens, which we take for granted here, is that the bottom line there is security. That is exactly the line used in every totalitarian society throughout the world. I suggest that for a Liberal to get up in the House of Commons and say that the bottom line is security, instead of saying that the bottom line is liberty, which is what they should be saying, is to perform a profound disservice to everything Liberalism stands for and everything parliamentary government stands for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: This attitude toward law, this callous indifference to the principle of the rule of law, reached its high point last Wednesday in Halifax when the Prime Minister said-and two reporters are prepared to swear to it-that the action taken by the RCMP in the province of Quebec in burning a barn in clear violation of the law was something with which he agreed. He said that in the presence of two reporters who stood right beside him.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that the kind of reasoning we should be getting at this period of crisis-and it is a crisis in terms of the supremacy of law and ministerial accountability? Is that the kind of leadership we should be getting from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice? Of course it is not. The irony is that it is precisely the kind of reasoning-the
Security
noble ends-that we are getting from ministers. The Solicitor General said that you have to look at the purposes of the people who are breaking the law. He said that with reference to the opening of mail. They did not know it was wrong, so it was permitted. Every violent group in Canada, in West Germany and in Ireland today says their purposes are noble and that that justifies breaking the law.
Let me suggest that when the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister travel around the country saying that as long as the purposes are acceptable, and as long as the long range goals are good, or to use the words of the minister of multiculturalism-


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not want to interrupt the speech of the hon. member, but I challenge him to put on the record any such statement of mine.


Mr. Woolliams:: Well, I will do it when I get there.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Put it on the record.


John Edward Broadbent: Let me reply to the minister. The Minister of Justice is a master of innuendo. He does not say it is proper to break the law; in fact, he carefully couches nice, low-key phrases which do not get cheers at Liberal conventions. He always says, "Oh, yes; of course, we believe in the rule of law". Immediately prior to that-this is when 7,000 Liberals cheered the minister, and that must have been all the Liberals in British Columbia-he was attacking the opposition for upholding the principle of the rule of law; and he knows that as well as anyone.


Stanley Ronald Basford: You are wrong, and you know you are wrong.


John Edward Broadbent: The serious point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that in addition to this government's failure to act according to parliamentary precepts of ministerial responsibility which go back at least 100 years, the most profound disservice this government has done, a disservice in the classical tradition of liberalism, is the complete undermining, in terms of leadership at this time, of the importance of the supremacy of law in our society. What this government has invoked is the classical argument about terrorists, whether at home or in other countries, and it may live to regret that in the province of Quebec. I suggest that once you start invoking the principle, in a democratic society, that your ends justify the breaking of the law, you are on a very slippery road to complete undermining of the law.


Mr. Fox:: No one said that. Get your quotes straight.


John Edward Broadbent: Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the word "forces", the following words:
"and as it pertains to the principle of the rule of law".


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to rebut some of the things said by the hon.

November 15, 1977
Security
leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). He went to great pains to quote statements which are said to have been made on this side of the House, particularly something to the effect that the end justifies the means. If those statements had been made, perhaps he would have a case. He set up his own wooden horse and then proceeded to knock it down. I should like to refer to the statement I made in the House in June, 1977, which reads in part as follows:
First of all, I cannot stress too highly that in a democratic society like ours, the rule of law is and must be paramount. It is the vital force without which our basic liberties run the risk of becoming empty slogans. No threat to such liberties can justify, in any way, and even with the best of intentions, the use of illegal means to protect these basic rights. Clearly, there can be no compromise in this regard; it is upon this premise that the integrity and survival of our democratic institutions and our fundamental liberties are based. If the law is not adequate to handle such dangers as threaten our liberties and our institutions, then the answer does not lie in breaking the law, but rather in changing it so that it can be effective in responding to such threats to society.
Changing the law in this country refers to the democratic way of changing the law by bringing proposals before parliament and having them studied in depth by parliamentary committees, with full debate. While the rule of law was paramount, I asked Canadians throughout the land not to be too harsh in their judgment of some of the people who carried out some of these actions. It was not because they can be justified, but to a certain extent these people have explanations for the way they acted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: I let Canadians judge as to what the situation should be. The matter has been referred to the royal commission. I asked the RCMP to give me a couple of indications of some of the illegal acts which have been carried out. I should like to give one example in connection with the mail. I should like to bring this to the attention of the House since it is a situation which is now being referred to the royal commission. In 1976 the RCMP obtained information on the identity of a member of the Japanese red army.


An hon. Member:: Here we go.


Francis Fox: Yes, here we go. It is important to note some of these things. That is why I indicated to the House that we ought not to be too quick in jumping to conclusions as to why these people acted. I should like hon. members to listen to the example of one case which I want to leave with them.


James McPhail Gillies: Why didn't you bring in legislation to make it legal?


Francis Fox: I should like to put the hon. member to a test in the not too distant future.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: The letter was identified as being addressed to a Canadian in this country. Through the mail-opening devices which have been described in parliament, the RCMP obtained access to it. As a result of this interception they were able to identify someone who was a member of the Japanese red army.

He was arrested at the border and deported to Japan. Subsequently, in Japan, he was convicted of bombing. He was one of the members of the Japanese red army whose release was demanded in the later plane hijacking by the Japanese red army. We can say it was not justified, that it was illegal; but I should like to bring this to the attention of the House as an example to indicate that we should not be too, too harsh in commenting on the actions of these people.


John Edward Broadbent: Right back to Nixon.


An hon. Member:: The end justifies the means.


Francis Fox: I am not saying the end justifies the means. I am indicating to hon. members that the people involved in some of these illegalities did so-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: Perhaps hon. members feel that they should not have tried to obtain information as well as they could on a possible member of the Japanese red army.


John Edward Broadbent: Within the law.


Mr. Orlikow:: Why didn't you change the law?


Francis Fox: I am pleased to hear that hon. members opposite now agree with the statement I made in June of this year, when I said:
If the law is not adequate to handle such dangers as threaten our liberties and our institutions, then the answer does not lie in breaking the law, but rather in changing it so that it can be effective in responding to such threats to society.


Mr. Gilbert:: This is November, not June.


Mr. Nystrom:: That was five months ago.


Francis Fox: I am pleased to hear that hon. members agree with all the statements made by myself, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that if the law is not adequate it should be changed along with-[DOT]


John Edward Broadbent: Don't get carried away, Francis.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would invite hon. members to allow the Chair to hear what the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) is saying. This is a very important debate. Anything said might upset members, but I want to make sure I hear everything. Interventions from across the floor at the other end of this chamber are making it very, very difficult for the Chair to hear what is being said.


John Gilbert: This fellow is very argumentative, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there is quite a lot of talk about these inequalities and some people say heads should roll. When I explained some of these operations to the House,
I underlined that some of them were dating back to an almost immemorial period in the history of the RCMP. In some cases,
November 15, 1977

operations dating back to the mid-fifties were traced back, such as for example the so-called Operation 300. This is the information given to me by the RCMP. Then it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that to be quite logical with the situation it is not enough to say to Mr. So and So or to any other person that he or she has lost his or her job in the RCMP but to refer the whole practice, the whole procedure to the inquiry commission to cast full light on this matter. The inquiry commission which has the means of examining sworn witnesses can study the matter in depth and make recommendations.

I am pleased we are having this debate today. I hope it ends up on a far more constructive note than the previous debate, the emergency debate which was called by the opposition parties. This debate gives us an opportunity to focus on a number of questions and issues of concern which are important to Canada's security service and its future role.
At the very outset I am disputing the use of the terminology used by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) when he referred to government security forces. The forces referred to in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition are not the government's forces; they are forces which are used to protect our national security and integrity. To imply that the RCMP is a political police force in the hands of this government is a clear attack on the integrity of the men and women who form the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Nobody ever said that.


Francis Fox: I believe it is an undeserved smear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: In spite of the severe criticism of the RCMP in the past few weeks at the hands of the loyal opposition, I believe Canadians and the government retain great confidence in the force and the manner in which, generally speaking, they have conducted themselves in carrying out their responsibilities.
There are two parts to the motion introduced by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The first part deals with ministerial responsibility for national security and the national security service. By convention, the responsibility for national security devolves upon the Prime Minister and is shared with those ministers charged with specific responsibility for the police, external relations and the administration of justice.
In part, the government accepted the Mackenzie recommendations in relation to the structure and the responsibility of the security service. It is responsible to a designated minister, the Solicitor General. The head, the director-general, has the right of direct access to the Prime Minister, and the head has a high degree of independence as recommended by the MacKenzie commission. I refer hon. members to recommendation 277(b), page 106 of the Mackenzie report. Also, the government accepted that the security service should become a more clearly recognized, separate and distinct element of the RCMP since there is a clear distinction between the operation-
Security
al work of the security service and that of the police force. On June 26, 1969, the Prime Minister said the following in this House:
It is therefore the government's intention, with the full understanding of the RCMP, to ensure that the Directorate of Security and Intelligence will grow and develop as a distinct and identifiable element within the basic structure of the force, and will be more responsive, in its composition and character, to the national security requirements described by the commissioners... The security service, under the Commissioner of the RCMP, will be increasingly separate in structure and civilian in nature.
As far as policy and operational responsibilities are concerned there is, of course, by positive decision of the government, a very clear line of distinction between responsibility for the policy under which the security service operates and responsibility for the direction of the operations of the security service. That, I understand, is also a position approved of by the Leader of the Opposition-a distinction between policy guidelines and the day to day activities of the RCMP.
The political level, of course, has responsibility for the over-all policy guidance and mandate of the force, and while the security service has some form of operational independence from the political level under policy guidance, the government is convinced that this distinction is right and should be maintained. If I understand the Leader of the Opposition correctly, that is also his position. In that broad context, the commissioner and the director-general of the security service are involved in the over-all operational direction of the security service. The director-general has exercised delegated responsibility for operational policy of the security service.
The government believes that to exercise direction over the day to day operations-in other words, to assume direct operational control over the security service-would be counter to the basic principle of the independence of the police to which we have strongly subscribed for many years. The government has subscribed to this principle in order to make clear that there must not be any possibility of the use of executive authority to influence the work of security and intelligence agencies for partisan political purposes.
We all know from recent painful experiences elsewhere that where executive partisan control is exercised over security and intelligence services, there can be perversion of them for partisan purposes. Watergate is past, but not forgotten. The other thing Watergate showed us is that if there is political intervention in operations and perversion of them for partisan purposes, the involvement of the political level can make disclosure and investigation very difficult. There can be the cover-up of activities or the suppression of information because they involve activities at the executive level. It seems to me that it is, therefore, a great disservice to the country and to services such as the RCMP and the security service to suggest or imply that they have been involved in a Watergate. They have not, and they do not deserve the slur.
Any suggestion that the government should take responsibility for operational control of the security service is one which if implemented could lead to the very situation that was

November 15, 1977
Security
Watergate. We prefer to be judged responsible on the basis of the policy guidance given to the service by the government and by the initiatives we take in relation to the legal framework that governs the operations of the service. In that regard, we continue to examine our policies and the legal framework under which operations are conducted for which we in the government are responsible. We take our responsibilities seriously, as is clearly demonstrated in the initiatives taken in respect of the policy direction given the force and in relation to laws which govern us all.
I would like to enumerate approximately 15 instances of policy guidance given to the force over the years. This has been a matter of continuing attention and concern to this government, especially since the royal commission on security reported in 1969. However, even before that commission reported, the government of Mr. Pearson took steps. In 1963 that government enunciated the security threat and effected procedures to protect the individual and to define the role of the RCMP in the security screening process. In 1966 responsibility for the RCMP was transferred to the Solicitor General from the Department of Justice, to ensure more comprehensive and intensive attention to law enforcement.
In 1966 the royal commission on security was established. In 1969 the report of the royal commission on security was tabled and a number of points were emphasized. Some of these points were that Canada remained a security target and that security should remain the responsibility of the RCMP, but in the context of an increasingly separate and civilian security service. In 1971 the then solicitor general announced the formation of a planning and research group in his ministry to provide civilian analysis and advice on internal security matters. In 1972 the committee structure reporting to the cabinet committee on security and intelligence was restructured. In 1974 the government proposed legislation to govern wiretapping to ensure protection of the individual and to ensure control by the minister responsible of wiretapping where legitimate reason for it was established. Prior to 1974 there was the implementation of those powers by the then solicitor general.
In 1975 and 1976 the government provided guidelines for the security service and clarification of those guidelines in the context of separatist activities. There was the establishment of the Marin commission of inquiry, which reported in 1976. In March of 1977 there was the establishment of an operational review committee. In-camera briefings were offered to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs over the past few years, including this year. A letter was written to the Leader of the Opposition this year offering him briefings on the matter of security.
Finally, this year a commission of inquiry to investigate evidence of illegal activity by the security service was established to advise on policy and procedures of the RCMP and on the adequacy of the law relating to security. Those are approximately 15 measures which have been taken over the years, all for the purpose of ensuring greater policy direction by, and accountability to, the government, the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General.


Mr. Peters:: They all failed.


Francis Fox: While the government has worked toward ensuring appropriate guidance for the security service, it has tried to continue the long-established tradition that the government should not become involved in the day to day operations of the RCMP, including the security services, which is a position argued time and again by some hon. members of this House, particularly hon. members in the opposition-and I think more particularly of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


William Arnold Peters: The minister should have some general knowledge of what is going on.


Francis Fox: It is this aspect of the problem that is being emphasized by the opposition, and in my view there is a very difficult problem here for which we must find a solution. I do not think the solution can be found in the simplistic criticism that the government must be responsible for the detailed operational activity undertaken by the security service in trying to ensure national security. However, there is a challenge for the future. In any human organization there is surely room for improvement. That applies to the Tory party and to the NDP as well as to the RCMP, although in the case of the opposition parties to which I referred, the reasons are more self-evident.
I believe we must arrive at decisions on a series of complex policy and legal issues in order to ensure that police operations can and will be carried on within provisions and procedures authorized by law; to decide to what extent the law may have to be changed to permit measures that are considered necessary to combat terrorism, organized crime, espionage and other matters of that kind; and to ensure that our decisions are consistent with the protection of basic and fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. We must ensure these things while still preserving the independence of police operations from possible political intervention, but with ministerial control of policy. The issues are very important for the country and our society as a whole, but we must not undermine or make impossible the effective work by the RCMP in order to have quick, dramatic and possibly wrong solutions.
In the second part of his motion the Leader of the Opposition also proposes the establishment of a parliamentary committee to look at ministerial responsibility in directing the security forces. I make the following points: first, the government has already established a commission of inquiry concerning the activities of the RCMP. The opposition frequently demanded this. It seems to me advisable to await the report and advice of the commission. The commission can call before it whoever it wishes. In his letter to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister also pointed out that the government is prepared to discuss questions and issues related to the security service in in-camera sessions of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Such in-camera sessions were held in 1973, 1974 and 1975, and offers for such sessions were extended in 1976 and 1977, but as yet those offers have not been taken up, undoubtedly for valid reasons, by members of that committee.
November 15, 1977

The Prime Minister also offered to the Leader of the Opposition briefings on the state of security in this country. However, the procedure in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs provided an opportunity to members from both sides of the House to raise questions about the general application of security policy. I am, of course, always amazed to see the questions asked by members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, particularly on the police and security side, administered by the Solicitor General, come back up in the House without reference to the fact that questions have been asked systematically by people in this organization and very detailed answers have been furnished in the past, as they will be this year if it is the wish of the parliamentary committee to so examine the estimates of my department in connection with the police and security analysis group.
I should also point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the royal commission of 1966 came to the conclusion that detailed scrutiny of the policies and operations of security agencies was the responsibility of the executive and should not be entrusted to a parliamentary committee. That is not to say that we are not willing to have a look at the over-all policy within the confines of the in-camera examination by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that all the measures that have been taken, there were almost 15 of them, show to what extent the government has seriously taken its responsibilities to ensure control over a mandate given to the security services of Canada. I believe, Mr. Speaker, and I am convinced that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) will agree with me, that nobody in Canada would wish that a government, be it this one or any other, have control over the day to day operations of the Canadian police forces. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that if such were the case, we would have in fact a political force and a political police in Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: That has never been suggested.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that nobody ever suggested that. None the less, Mr. Speaker, I suggest hon. members on the other side should look over the statements they have made over the past few months. On a number of occasions, they accused us of having a political police which is supposed to prepare lists of enemies of the system; yet, Mr. Speaker, they are accusing us today of not having the police forces in Canada under control. Either we have them under full control, or we do not have them under control at all.
I am saying to the House today that we do not intend to watch over the day to day operations of the Canadian police forces. No government in this country, whether federal or provincial, need control the day to day operations of our police forces; the function of any elected representative is to define a clear mandate for the police forces and see to it that this
Security
mandate is carried out. Through the setting up of some 14 or 15 elements of solution, of control, since 1963, I have demonstrated to what extent the government is aware of this problem, and it goes without saying that there is room for improvement in any human organization. If the control mechanisms and the legislation must be improved, we will improve them.
I would like to stress one thing because hon: members opposite have too often insisted on the fact that we want to amend the legislation and legalize what was illegal, but basically, Mr. Speaker, we have always very clearly established that a security service, a police force generally must act in accordance with the law, the Criminal Code and other federal and provincial statutes.
We have stated, however, that it was clear today that there are some gaps in that legislation. We have reached a point where it would be necessary in an airport such as Mirabel to put up signs which would read as follows: Would terrorists please report to such or such counter. Surely that situation would be quite ridiculous. We think it is necessary to have a security service in spite of the fine words we heard from the leader of the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, the issue at stake is not to take away any civil liberties but to allow people such as the leader of the New Democratic Party to continue exercising that very right. He who belongs to a socialist party should know thoroughly the history of European socialist parties; he should know how often European socialist parties have seen their freedom taken away because governments had set up security services to take that freedom away.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian security services are absolutely unique. It is a shame to compare them to those of countries behind the Iron Curtain. That kind of comparison is made by the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party, yet he knows full well that it is not valid. Indeed, the only reason for the existence of security services in Canada is to prevent subversive and terrorist groups from denying to people such as the leader of the New Democratic Party the right to exercise their democratic liberties in a country as free as Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on a question that to me is of paramount importance. I intend to deal with just two or three phases of it and shall endeavour to arrive at a conclusion as to why this government has set out, apparently, to smear the greatest police force-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That is what they have done, and they have done it continually.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to questions, even from the least intelligent. I find it tremendously interesting that this group across the way, the Liberal party, again this afternoon have shown their contempt for parliament

November 15, 1977
Security
by endeavouring to howl down any person with whom they do not agree. If I have to identify someone from now on, they will only have themselves to blame. I must say, to begin with, Mr. Speaker, that the speech delivered by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Clark) was in every way an outstanding one, worthy of the traditions of parliament and the preservation and assurance of freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman opposite will stand up, if he has the backbone to do it, I will be glad to have his questions. These subterranean objections and interferences may lead to self-edification of those who participate, but they add nothing to a discussion of serious moment that we are now engaged in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) on a point of order.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman said he would accept questions. I have a question. Will he accept it?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the intelligence of the hon. member has now been fully revealed. We all know that he does not know what we are talking about. I listened to the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox)-


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, the hon. member is seeking permission to ask a question. It is the right of the right hon. member to accept a question, of course, but from his remarks the Chair has come to the conclusion that he does not wish to do so.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, he just said he would accept questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is the decision of the hon. member who has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this kind of intervention. I have been away for ten days through indisposition. I have heard people ask if it is the usual course of conduct of the Liberal party of Canada in this place to drown out the opposition when there is any argument. They are certainly getting a name across Canada, and parliament is being smeared accordingly. As far as the minister is concerned, I followed him in the House and through listening to what he had to say on television. I must compliment him on his capacity to speak at length but convey no information. That is something worthy of the finest traditions of his two predecessors.
Today the Solicitor General set out what has been done. He says, "We have been doing things." Apparently what has been done has not been very effective. Going back to the earliest days of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country, he left the House this afternoon with such speed that he might have been mounted on a motorcycle again. This is one occasion

when he who is responsible for the security of Canada should be in the House, even to listen to that which he does not fully appreciate, understand or is willing to hear. It just amazes me.
Now, sir, what do we have? We have a continual endeavour on the part of this government to smear the Mounted Police. As far as I am concerned, I will have none of it. I have known the Mounted Police since the days of the territories when they went west to what had been Fort Carlton in 1903, when the force was called the Northwest Mounted Police. Later on it became the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, I think in 1904, and finally in 1919 it assumed its present name. Let not any member think that people on the prairies will ever countenance in the slightest the contemptuous innuendoes which have been directed at the Mounted Police. If there has been wrongdoing, then, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the responsibility is with the government of this country, and nowhere else.
I mentioned the Mounted Police because I saw the force in those days as a boy. We were living 17 miles from the nearest village on the old Edmonton-Carlton-Winnipeg trail. The Mounted Police had come there, proud of their traditions. When there was crime committed, they sought out the alleged wrongdoer. When he was brought to trial, he was prosecuted by a member of the Mounted Police, generally a sergeant. He was often tried before an inspector of the Mounted Police. In all the years during those early days of the settlement of western Canada, no one-except in one or two isolated cases- ever denied that justice was being done. The Mounted Police endeavoured to ensure justice and to maintain it.
From the time I became a member of the bar in 1919-I was a member of the bar in all three western provinces-until 1957 I had many cases. With the exception of two individuals, the Mounted Police believed in their slogan "Maintain the right". But today, in consequence of the actions of this government in endeavouring to bring about the suspicion that what has been done is wrong and was due to the Mounted Police, I need only point out that none of these things happened until the government of Canada decided to place security under certain civilians. Since then some things have been done which cannot be justified.
Why was security removed from RCMP? I am beginning to wonder whether this was part of a plan to put an end to the Mounted Police. I have already said that going back to the 1940s the Prime Minister has had a disregard for the Mounted Police which I am not going to detail in his absence, though he will immediately recollect what I have in mind.
What is the situation today, Mr. Speaker? The Solicitor General has given the House an explanation. Where are the other former solicitors general? Where is "Go-go Goyer"? He is in Africa endeavouring to establish some kind of Francophone combine. Why is he not here? There was not such a rush that he should leave at this time. The hon. gentleman opposite will disqualify himself for cabinet rank unless he watches out.
November 15, 1977


Mr. Olivier:: Identify him.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman will speak up, I will identify him correctly.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is the hon. member for Longueuil.


John George Diefenbaker: Why is not the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) here? All during his period of time when the PQ-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the right hon. member of the opposition has no respect for your decision. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is customary for all hon. members not to be called by their name in the House. In two or three instances, the right hon. member has called the Minister "Mr. Go, Mr. Go, Mr. Goyer". That's a shame, for he is a minister of the Crown; the right hon. member should show the respect owed to him as a minister of the Crown.


An hon. Member:: He should set the example.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is obvious that the point raised by the hon. member is correct and conforms with the standing orders of the House.

It is true that the point raised by the hon. member conforms with the Standing Orders of the House. But it also happens that in speeches here and in general conversations an hon. member may go beyond the rules. 1 know the right hon. member for Prince Albert did not do this purposely, since he has been following the rules of the House all during his lifetime as a parliamentarian.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, your ruling is correct, but it is hard to identify hon. members opposite, with the musical chairs game that is played over there, and to keep oneself up to date. Although it is difficult to identify one or two members opposite, the hon. member has been fully identified now. I presume that the Minister of Supply and Services is over in Africa supplying intelligence and services to the people of the various countries. I say his place is in the House of Commons to answer for the fact that the PQ, a legitimate political party which was not undermining the state but operating with constitutional right, was investigated during his regime in a way that cannot be justified. Does anyone think it was the Mounted Police which decided to pick on the PQ? What possible reason would they have? But the hon. gentleman who is in Africa would have a reason. We remember him as the "twenty million dollar kid". As for that, I will go no further at this moment. He is the one who should be here.
In the last few days evidence has been given in the city of Montreal that indicates, according to the press, that he knew what was going on. We ought to have the minister here. As far as I am concerned, suspicion does not fall upon the Mounted
Security
Police for getting a list of the names of the members of the PQ, their funds or any other information; that suspicion rests on the Liberal party, which is afraid that it is going to be defeated. Where is this minister? Why is he not here? Why, during the days of the debates that have gone on here, has he not made clear his position?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: As far as I am concerned, the smear on the Mounted Police is a direct result of instructions that must have been given by him to the Mounted Police to act in search of something in which there was no crime or suggestion of a crime.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad for the silence now. I go on from there. Where is his successor, to pass a law as Solicitor General-


An hon. Member:: He is up in the gallery.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, he is now in consumer and corporate affairs.


An hon. Member:: Some affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: He has sat in the House day after day- silent, unspeaking.


An hon. Member:: Yes, sir.


John George Diefenbaker: Was he afraid that if he spoke he would say something unspeakable? There he sat. I have watched him engrossed in writing backwards, trying to pretend he was busy. Why did he not stand up and have something to say? The suggestion can only be one thing: he knew what was going on. As far as his predecessor is concerned, 1 would like him to answer under oath the suggestions that are being made today, that he was fully briefed by the officers of security. What is the constituency of the Minister of Supply and Services?


Some hon. Members:: Dollard.


John George Diefenbaker: Dollard. Nobody seems to know what the hon. member represents. Where is he? Dollard is named after a great hero in French Canada, one of the greatest in Canada. That is the only reason I can speak highly of Dollard in so far as it is represented by the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He is in Africa. Where is the minister-


An hon. Member:: In the Sioux.


John George Diefenbaker: Where is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand).


An hon. Member:: Say something.

November 15, 1977
Security


John George Diefenbaker: He is in seclusion; he has disappeared Why?


An hon. Member:: He is in the Sioux.


John George Diefenbaker: Why is he not here? The answer is very clear: he does not want to be around on this occasion. Why does he not stand in his place and tell the story of what happened during his period of office? Certainly, this is not a government which is noted for its lack of loquacity; they talk on every subject. Why is he not here today? That is the reason I feel a sense of deep concern for the Solicitor General-"The boy stood on the burning deck, when all but he had fled."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: There he is, endeavouring to answer something of which he has no personal knowledge, and the two who know are silent or are absent in Africa or elsewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The very fact that they are not here is evidence that they have reason not to be here, and the conclusion that follows that is simply this: they do not want to answer questions concerning the most unjustifiable claim of misconduct against a legitimate party. The only party that could benefit from that would not be the Mounted Police; it would be the Liberal party. I point that circumstance. I have nothing more to say in that regard.
Sir, as long as I am in this House-


An hon. Member:: Too long.


John George Diefenbaker: -I will not tolerate the kind of attacks that have been made surreptitiously, subtly, against the Mounted Police to blame them for the shortcomings of this government and the failure of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I said I have seen the Mounted Police in action-I presume in a couple of hundred cases, on one side or the other-and except for one or two instances the truth was told. There they are today, sitting ducks, subjected to the attacks of a government that has decided to make the Mounted Police goats for their failure to carry out their ministerial responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Now the minister says they are going to turn this whole question over to the McDonald commission. Do you know what that means? It simply means that the commission has been sitting since July. How much consideration has been given to these problems? Little or nothing. What the government hopes, by placing this matter generally in the possession of the commission, is that there will be no findings until the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That is the reason exactly for turning over to the McDonald commission matters that should be decided here in parliament. Furthermore, under the terms of the commission the only special mandate that they do not receive specifically is authority to question ministerial responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: My time is up. I simply want to say that the government is not going to get away with it.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, those two people waved their hands the way they did in the Reichstag just before 1939. I say to the government, "Come clean. Give us the facts. Do not hide these things in the way you are hiding almost everything else. Restore to parliament its rights and let us clear this matter up." The Mounted Police shall not be the scapegoat of the ministers of this government who are looking for any cover to protect themselves.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the motion for debate today deals with a most important matter of course, but we have been debating it for over two weeks now. The motion reads, and I quote:
That this House... deeply regrets its (the government's) unwillingness to allow a committee of this House to study the role of ministers in security operations.
I feel that we should know the truth about the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and every other police corps in Canada, about its methods of inquiry and procedures in enforcing law and order in Canada. All police forces must operate according to the law and order of the land, within well defined guidelines. Their task is very tricky in that they must enforce law and order while respecting the freedoms of every individual.
Mr. Speaker, I remember when I was very young how we used to read in the newspapers that, for instance, the RCMP or the Mounted Police, as we used to call them in those days, were above reproach and always got their man. We were proud of that police force and rightly so, I would think, in those days; but today and especially more recently, every attempt has been made to belittle that police force; I sometimes wonder just how successful those attempts have been.
However, Mr. Speaker, in their operations to fight against organized crime in Canada, the police must not abuse their rights, and the government must see to it that they do not. Over seven centuries ago, Bracton expressed this principle-it is true that in those days he spoke of the king, but today we could speak of government. Here is Bracton's principle:
The King himself must not be answerable to Man, but to God and the Law, because the Law makes the King. In consequence, let the King give the Law what the Law gives him, that is authority and power, for where the will and not the Law constitutes authority there is no King.
November 15, 1977

It could be said today that if the will takes precedence over the law, democracy is in jeopardy. Closer to us, the then Speaker of the House of Commons, Dr. Gaspard Fauteux, said: "In the Canadian democracy, the state is the servant of the individual and in all other forms of government, the individual is the servant of the state." However, we can avoid lapsing into these other forms of government where individual rights are relinquished to the almighty state. According to Ralph W. Page, democracy promises liberty to all and to everyone an opportunity to manage his own self improvement. It is based on the principle that man is not a machine and that his destiny is not based upon the accumulation of material goods but on his understanding of moral and spiritual values and on his self-improvement in this field. This is the kind of democracy we want to safeguard.
We do not want to lapse into that kind of regime where one half of the population watches the other half. In a well governed democratic society, the law abiding citizen has nothing to fear. He may eat, sleep, work and entertain himself in peace. He may have his conscience at rest, secure in the conviction that he and his family are safe, provided they all abide by the law. He may even expect certain things from society such as those he is entitled to under the law. He does not have to fear the torture chamber, the concentration camp, the execution squad, the confiscation of his property or the loss of his citizenship, but in all other societies one must be ready for the worst.
The Canadian citizen must be able to address himself to his provincial or federal representative to express to him his desires, make representations or voice his complaints without feeling that he is being spied upon. Civic study circles must be able to reach the same ends by making known the opinions of more important groups without being spied upon. This is what I am asking from this government and at last the Solicitor General seems to have understood that it is necessary to monitor more closely the actions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to prevent that police force from turning into an SS corps devoted to the service of a tyrant. In a free country such as Canada, the existence of laws and their implementation imply as a necessary corollary the existence of order. In the absence of any kinds of laws or when the existing laws are not observed, then the law of the jungle will prevail. When order does not exist, nothing will prevent attacks against the freedom of the majority of the citizens. This is why law and order have become almost synonymous. This expression conveys a single identical concept.
Mr. Speaker, parliament must have the right to inquire and have its say in the ways laws have to be applied; this right must not be surrendered exclusively to the government's discretion. As history shows, every time men have neglected to restrict the powers of their rulers, their powers have been increased at the expenses of the people governed. Every time governments have acquired unlimited powers, they have turned into tyrannies. The duty of Parliament is to preserve democracy and no police force whatsoever should have the right to commit illegal actions to further its ends. We have instituted
Security
an inquiry commission, the McDonald Commission, to throw the light on all aspects of the issues raised by the actions of the RCMP.
The RCMP is not blameless and efforts are being made to destroy it piece by piece. In certain sectors, this police force has been nearly completely depreciated. Honest Canadians feel that they need an authority to enforce the law and what should this authority be if not a respected police force? We are not faultless. There is much work to be done. The police must deal with organized crime. There are underground organizations for drug distribution, people who smuggle liquor and other goods, betting syndicates, prostitution chains, gangs of murderers; there is also bribery and corruption since without it very few illegal organizations can survive. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is very busy.
Drug trafficking is prohibited by law, but when we see how easy it is for young people even in high schools to obtain all sorts of drugs, we wonder what the RCMP is doing. Those who are not used to smoking pot and who try to sit down in certain movies houses cannot resist very long the atmosphere in those places.
Mr. Speaker, I have some reservations about supporting this motion. I would certainly be in favour of establishing a committee to study the role of ministers in security operations, but this committee should have all the powers of a royal inquiry commission to call on all the witnesses that the committee will deem necessary to hear and these witnesses should testify under oath. This is very serious. But we already have a royal commission. If this commission is not empowered to investigate the role of ministers in security operations, we should extend the mandate of the McDonald Commission.
The House of Commons has many other matters to deal with. We are aware of the problems of unemployment, inflation, energy and housing. We must ensure a guaranteed minimum income for all Canadians. We must pass as soon as possible some legislation to improve the lot of small and medium businesses in Canada. We have urgent economic problems to solve in Canada. We should not let the government be sidetracked to minor issues.
Since the beginning of the present session, we have not really dealt with concrete matters; we have talked at length of the future of the Canadian constitution, of the problems caused by the Parti Quebecois. It is all very well to be preoccupied with Quebec's or Canada's future, but words, patriotic speeches or thinly veiled threats will accomplish little in the way of settling these problems. We need social and economic laws to restore the confidence of the Canadian people in their institutions. Instead of trying to find solutions to our problems, we apply ourselves to exposing all kinds of scandals. I do not know if this situation should be blamed on the television broadcasting of our debates and the fact that some believe that we must keep up with the tradition of crime and violence that television conveys in far too great a number of its everyday programs.
Mr. Speaker, a year ago today the people of Quebec passed a harsh judgement on the Bourassa government for neglecting

November 15, 1977
Security
the province's economic problems. Other provincial governments have also been judged on this. The same thing will happen to the federal government if it does not take strong measures to counter the breakdown of our economy.
Any opposition party will be judged the same way if it always criticizes without ever proposing any real answer. Mr. Speaker, this motion proposes to give a mandate to a standing committee or a special committee-it does not say which-to study the role of ministers in security operations. It is not enough to be efficient. If we have no confidence in the McDonald Commission why not give it more power? Why not ask it to accelerate its hearings and file a report as soon as possible? We shall reach the same ends.
Mr. Speaker, why should we have two organizations doing the same studies for the same purposes? Yet this is the second motion on that same subject in the last two weeks. We have heard many questions of privilege. The question periods have been almost completely monopolized by this problem, the RCMP. Yet I think it is time to make a decision, to act and work together to deal with problems that are waiting for an answer. The Canadian public is anxious and might be more strict with members who do not realize the seriousness of the situation, they might be more strict with those members than towards the members of the RCMP.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we witnessed an extraordinary performance in the House this afternoon. What we have seen is a transparent attempt by the official opposition to manipulate public opinion. That is the whole purpose of the exercise this afternoon and of the motion put down by the official opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: We heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) say the RCMP was being blamed because of the actions of the government. We know that the official opposition has created a climate of suspicion and contempt for the RCMP in this country, and that they are now hoist on their own petard and are desperately trying to manipulate public opinion in order to get out of a predicament of their own making. It has been such an extraordinary afternoon that we have witnessed the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) coming into the House in support of his leader. The party opposite must be desperate. We have all heard the right hon. member for Prince Albert express his admiration for the RCMP and his confidence in the force. Yet his party does not have sufficient confidence in the RCMP to ask them to investigate a simple bugging device in an office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, it was the Speaker of the House who made the choice of the Ottawa city police to investigate that bugging incident.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Perhaps members on the other side will let me finish my statement. I hasten to point out that it was their own member, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin), who suggested to the Speaker that the Ottawa police be called in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that the point he has raised is not a point of order but a matter for debate.


Stanley Ronald Basford: My colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), in his speech this afternoon drew attention to the need in this country for police and security services. It is clear that, unfortunately, we live in a country where there are people engaged in criminal activity and people engaged in planning and preparing for terrorist activity, people who believe they should engage in espionage and people who think they should operate by violence rather than by democratic means. It is, therefore, evident that we need police protection for our society and our people. The people of Canada, as well as this government, respect the members of the RCMP who have historically provided them with police services of this kind, and we do so today. The RCMP is entitled to respect from the people of this country and is entitled to it from members of the official opposition. Second, we listened to a transparent speech-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, I would hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) who holds a position which is supposed to be non-partisan would not make statements which are totally untrue with reference to the position we take with respect to the RCMP. I hope I shall not hear such statements from him again today. I intend to answer those charges.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that the Minister of Justice is entitled to his opinion.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I hope all of these unfounded points of order, heckling and noise from the other side, are being taken out of the time of hon. members in the opposition, rather than mine. Secondly, we listened to the transparent speech of the leader of the New Democratic Party in which he tried to suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), myself and other members of the government had somehow supported the concept that people were entitled to break the law. He raised that as a question of privilege this afternoon, and even when I challenged him in the course of his speech to do so, he did not put on the record one piece of documentation supporting that proposition.
I read into the record the position of this government, which has been repeated by the Solicitor General, the Prime Minister and others, that it is fundamental to the operation of the rule of law and the protection of our civil liberties that all people in a country, whether they hold public office or not, whether they be civilians or policemen, operate under and within the law. If
November 15, 1977

there are any changes needed in the law to accomplish this purpose of effective police protection of our society and ourselves, they should only be undertaken after the most careful and deliberate discussion and debate in parliament, and only after the most careful and deliberate designing of the proper safeguards and checks to assure that our individual liberties and freedoms are in fact protected. That is the position of this government, and any attempt by the NDP and others to say we have some other purpose or some other policy other than that the people must, and should, obey the law is an attempt to mislead the public, and again, as in this debate by the opposition, to manipulate the public and public opinion.
The resolution talks of the responsibility of ministers and the whole concept of ministerial responsibilities. I suggest that the position of the official opposition, if implemented, would mean that members of the government would be interfering in the day to day operations and investigations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) rising on a question of privilege?


John Allen Fraser: I wonder if the minister, on the very point he was raising, would permit a question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. I have had so many interruptions I will do that at the end of my time, if I have any time left.


Walter David Baker: Your time is coming quickly.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and under the policies of the government we have given the RCMP, particularly the security service, a very carefully spelled-out mandate, including the direction to operate under and within the law. This afternoon my colleague, the Solicitor General, outlined a whole series of steps that had been taken over the years to assure that that was done in terms of ministerial responsibility. It is surely the responsibility of ministers and of government to set out or to provide a policy framework for the operation of police forces; but it is to leave, however, the actual day to day operation of the force- and that is of any police force-to the head of the police force itself.
We have had some quotations on ministerial responsibility in this House, many of them learned. Surely it is fundamental to the British system, the Canadian system and all other systems in the Commonwealth that those ministers responsible to parliament for police forces do not interfere in the day to day-


An hon. Member:: Nobody ever asked them to. You are misleading.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -that they do not intervene in the day to day investigations.
Security


John Allen Fraser: Point to a single place where we have advocated that.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The right hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Prince Albert, has come from his province and said that people are watching television and are saying we are not allowing people to speak properly in this House and are not allowing members opposite to ask questions. I have been out in my own province, and people there are equally angry at the opposition for never allowing ministers to make any sort of statement without heckling, yelling and caterwauling from the opposite side. Let me read, for example, from a judgment of the Master of the Rolls, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex parte Blackburn, as follows:
No minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone.
That is in reference to the constable. If we were to follow the suggestions of the official opposition or their policies, we would have the government and government ministers interfering in the day to day operations of a police force-


John Allen Fraser: You are not telling the truth.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is a policy that President Nixon seemed to believe in, but it is not a policy in which we believe.


An hon. Member:: You and Nixon would run well in harness.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we had allegations, through evidence in a court case, of some wrongdoing by a member of the RCMP. Recognizing our responsibilities which were set out by the Solicitor General, in late May and late June of this year officers of the Solicitor General's Department and mine interviewed people both here in Ottawa and in Montreal and it came to light, through those interviews, that there were two incidents of alleged illegality in Montreal, namely, the arson incident and the incident involving dynamite.
As a result of those disclosures, officers of the Minister of Justice and of the Solicitor General inquired of the then commissioner regarding an explanation. The then commissioner could not receive explanations that were satisfactory to him, and at that point he requested the government to appoint a royal commission into the investigative procedures of the RCMP. That kind of action has been described on the other side as a cover-up. It seems to me it is the exact opposite of cover-up to send officers of the government from here to Montreal to investigate and take statements from witnesses, returning them to Ottawa, and, when not having satisfactory explanations of the statements, setting up a royal commission to investigate.
Surely that is ministerial responsibility, and there is not a textbook in this country or in the British Commonwealth that would suggest that is not acting in accordance with ministerial responsibility. The ministers and the governement did what they were responsible for doing-setting out a mandate to the security service and the police force. When there were allega-
894

November 15, 1977
Security
tions, some of which were discovered by ourselves and brought to light by ourselves, we set in place the proper machinery to get to the bottom of them and to get the answers.
If we pass this motion, we would apparently have going on, and relating to the same incidents, a royal commission inquiry under Mr. Justice McDonald, a police investigation in the province of Quebec, a royal commission taking place in the province of Quebec, and a House of Commons special committee with apparently the same powers. This whole situation is serious, as are some of the allegations and suggestions that have been made. They have caused all of us grave concern and they are now causing grave concern all across this country, including grave concern on the part of the commissioner, officers and the men of the RCMP.
Surely, the proper way to get to the bottom of these allegations and suggestions is through the instrumentality of an impartial, non-partisan forum in the form of a royal commission. That is what we have provided, and that is what is going on. We, as a government, will co-operate-contrary to the suggestions of the Leader of the Opposition-to the fullest possible extent with the royal commission. That has been said by the Prime Minister and other ministers in the House, and for the hon. member to suggest in his speech today to the contrary simply reinforces my thesis that today's debate and this resolution are nothing more than a crass, transparent device to manipulate public opinion.
I would suggest if members of the opposition have the regard and respect for the officers and men of the RCMP which they profess, it seems to me in a system of law, wherein the rule of law provides that the most heinous of criminals is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing, that surely members of the RCMP and of the security service, who have served this country well, are entitled to a fair, full, impartial, and non-partisan hearing in the form of a royal commission. Mr. Speaker, that is what we have provided.
Instead, we have the suggestion that we should now have a standing committee or a special committee of the House of Commons headed by a member of the opposition, possibly the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek). He made an address in this House not too long ago. At the present time any such committee in this House could in no way provide a fair and impartial hearing on the very serious matters which are at stake here.
Apparently the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley has not been disowned by his leader, even though he referred to Harvard University as being a spawning ground of leftist intellectuals, and that apparently the University of Montreal has become a pro Castro stronghold.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) is not quoting directly from the comments of the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek). He is quoting from what the hon.

member for High Park-Humber Valley read into the record, which was authored by someone else other than himself.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the hon. member has raised that point of order. That was precisely what I was doing. I can only take it that the interest of the hon. member opposite, and of some of his colleagues, is to introduce into the record of this House things that are utter nonsense.


William Herbert Jarvis: Get serious.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Actually I am looking for a word which is parliamentary to describe their interest. That indicates the tactics which would occur in a special committee. They would introduce into the record all sorts of utter nonsense, and when they are challenged on it, they try to disown it, and run away from it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: For a number of weeks last May and June hon. members opposite called for a royal commission of inquiry into all that was going on. That commission has been established by the government at the request of the Commissioner of the RCMP. It has backfired on hon. members opposite. Now they are trying to find a device to get out of the political hole they have dug for themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: We on this side of the House do not intend to assist them, and obviously we intend to vote against this motion, which is a crass, transparent attempt to manipulate public opinion.
The real reason came to light from the speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert when he started talking about an election campaign. It is obvious hon. members opposite want to get this committee going before an election, want to have some hearings, and want to fill those hearings with various partisan, political innuendoes. They want it set up so that it would be in full operation before the next election. That is their object. They are not interested in ministerial responsibility. They are not interested in the civilian control of security forces, which is a matter that is being examined by the royal commission. By means of this committee in the very short term, they are trying to get their house in order for the next election. That is their object, and we will not participate in that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) that the allotted time of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has expired.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in following the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) in this
November 15, 1977

important debate, during the course of my remarks I should like to deal with some of the historic and perhaps constitutional questions involved in the evolution of security and of the RCMP in this country.
It has become obvious to all of us over the years that in examining principles of ministerial responsibility, or the lack of it, with particular reference to security, which is covered in this motion, how unnecessary the growth of undesirable or misguided security methods were, had the government acted conscientiously and efficiently on the report of the Mackenzie Royal Commission on Security tabled approximately ten years ago. Also, it is obvious how stubborn and perverse this government has been over a long period of time in refusing to be frank with parliament, even when it became evident to some of us that something in security matters was going terribly wrong.
Responsible ministers, which include not only solicitors general, were either curiously anxious not to know what was going on, or they lacked any desire to correct the situation. Therefore the present conditions are caused, in a large part, by the negligence and shortsightedness of ministers of the Crown and are exacerbated by the indiscriminate use of section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, which has roused the ire of the chief law enforcement officers of the provinces who resent the withholding of information which is rightfully, in their opinion, within their jurisdiction.
Another element has been the complacency of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who said on February 7, 1977, when I questioned him about government files on millions of Canadians and the necessity of providing Canadians with access to their files and more freedom of information, the following:
I for one as a Canadian would not admit we have lesser rights than the Americans. They may have more abuses there and that is why, perhaps, they have to have corrective measures.
It appears the Prime Minister's conclusions were wrong. Since that day we have seen that we need corrective measures as well. It was obvious to many of us, apparently before it was obvious to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Security matters in this country, besides being in a state of disarray because of poor judgment and lack of attention on the part of the government, are also complicated by very real constitutional problems. 1 am sure the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) and the Minister of Justice are very aware of that.
Both the Attorney General of Canada and the Solicitor General of Canada are concerned with the operations of security. While 1 would not attempt to specify all of the powers possessed by these ministries, there is a doubt as to whether their powers extend into the administration of justice given to the provinces by section 92(14) of the British North America Act.
If such powers do not extend into this widely defined provincial prerogative, serious difficulties arise; one must look at the Official Secrets Act, for example, before prosecution can be entered, the authority of the Attorney General of Canada is required. An examination of this act clearly reveals that it comes within the meaning of the administration of
Security
justice. Furthermore, certain offences contained therein are duplicated in the Criminal Code, which is the responsibility of the provinces. In the latter instance, no such authority for prosecution is required. I wonder precisely where the Attorney General of Canada legally derives his power to override provincial jurisdiction. Also this act provides authority to appoint persons with the powers of peace officers, with no jurisdictional limitations imposed by order of the governor in council. I am not satisfied where it is clearly specified in the law that the governor in council can override the exclusive powers of the provinces in the field of the administration of justice.
We should consider as well another very important statute as far as civil rights in this country are concerned, which is the Protection of Privacy Act. The definition of subversive activity in that statute is very interesting. I seem to recall, when the term itself was put forward, that it was met with opposition. I suspect it was returned to the authorities to come up with some more acceptable forms of definition which finally found its way into the act. If we examine the definition of this term and translate the actions into offences, practically every one will be contained in the Criminal Code. This means that subversive activity also comes within provincial jurisdiction, yet it is the Solicitor General who is responsible for issuing warrants.
This matter requires some explanation. It has been suggested over the years that an assumption has grown up without challenge that the RCMP is constitutionally responsible for national security or internal security, although both terms have no real meaning in law. The only term I can find is "peace and order", and certainly the RCMP is not by definition responsible for that, although they have been its foremost defenders over the years. The assumption has wormed its way into this act as it has into the Official Secrets Act, and if it cannot be substantiated by constitutional law, it can be establishing a very dangerous precedent.
One must take a very hard look at whether the role of a security service should include an enforcement function. Perhaps to be consistent, if it is to be a federal responsibility, it should not have this power, which brings it back into an even more apparent conflict on jurisdictional grounds.
I believe that parliament should seriously consider that the term "defence", set out in section 91(7) of the British North America Act, should be defined to include the term "security intelligence" which should also be defined. This would place the matter firmly at the federal level and overcome the jurisdictional problems which are inherent at this time.
I think it is obvious as well at this point that military intelligence activities, by virtue of section 91(7), have a far clearer and more legitimate function than the security activities of the RCMP, and this to my mind is an unfortunate situation. If section 91(7) were amended in this way, the Solicitor General would be on firm legal ground for the issuance of warrants under the Protection of Privacy Act.
While parliament may legislate laws for peace and order, I submit that it has constitutionally no power to administer
8002 5 -57 lh

November 15, 1977
Security
justice in the provinces. Logically it seemed a bit irregular, I suggest, for parliament to have a statutory police act in these circumstances, but years ago it did just that when it enacted the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, which provides authority for members of the RCMP to be appointed peace officers in every part of Canada, thereby allowing unlimited jurisdiction, which again provides the provinces with a good constitutional argument.
It is now very apparent that this is being interpreted as a licence for the RCMP independently to enforce laws which may be the sole enforcement responsibility of the provinces. It is not difficult under the circumstances to envisage a growing concern, police rivalry, and federal-provincial conflicts. In fact we seem to be in precisely that kind of scenario at the present time.
Recently the Quebec Minister of Justice stated in the national assembly that the RCMP was invading the provincial field in the administration of justice. He charged that this behaviour was unacceptable, and demanded that the force report to provincial authority. In Ontario we find the RCMP under similar circumstances, while in Alberta, which is a contract province, there is a clash between the attorney general, the RCMP, and the Department of National Revenue.
Who is responsible for these dilemmas? Is it the RCMP? I suggest that it cannot be, and that over the years parliament has been derelict in allowing this kind of situation which is now surfacing at a very inopportune time to develop.
Let us remember that in 1871 there was an addition made to the BNA Act providing parliament with the power to administer peace, order and good government in any territory not for the time being included in any province. In 1873 the Northwest Mounted Police, now the RCMP, was established, with its headquarters in Regina. The parliamentary authority to so administer was obviously the authority to form a police force.
As the provinces came into being and the area of the territories was accordingly reduced, parliament could no longer administer peace and order within these new boundaries. It follows that the Northwest Mounted Police similarly lost its territorial jurisdiction and, facing some pressure, the force moved its headquarters to Ottawa, simultaneously changing its name to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. One of its functions was to assist certain federal departments in the enforcement of their governing federal statutes, notably the customs and excise acts. Obviously a decision was made that in order to enforce these statutes the executive powers of a peace officer were required, hence the provisions in the RCMP Act. This is the crux of the federal-provincial conflicts which are now surfacing.
In those provinces where the RCMP is on contract to enforce laws on behalf of the provinces, for all intents and purposes that force is the provincial police force, following in the footsteps of the original provincial forces which had been appointed under the police acts of the individual provinces. In this role those members of the RCMP engaged under these contracts should rightly be qualified under the relevant police acts of the provinces for the duration of the contracts.

Those federal statutes outside the meaning of the administration of justice and enforced by the RCMP are another matter. The appointment of the RCMP for such enforcement duties should be by way of the individual statute, and any powers required limited to the provisions of the act; all operating costs being paid out of federal funds, which again would go a long way to assuaging the problems in Quebec.
I note that the presidents of Bell Telephone Company and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have both recently commented, and with apparent alarm, on the invasion by the present federal government into the exclusive affairs of the provinces. I suggest that this situation applies equally to the federal police force, and the prescription for this is to amend the RCMP Act and other specific statutes to produce the cure for the jurisdictional disease which is causing problems in the administration of justice in this country.
By modifying the course now being undertaken by the RCMP a partial vacuum will be created. This, however, could readily be filled, in my submission, by giving that force a prime function-and I underline that prime function-in the criminal intelligence field against organized crime and a more clearly defined security and intelligence capability.
I sense that the Solicitor General himself is far from pleased with the efforts in this field and does not fail to make mention of police rivalry. In this sense I believe the term "rivalry" should be interpreted as jurisdictional resentment, and that can be eliminated only by jurisdictional corrections.
I would now like to turn to another matter, which I consider perhaps of most importance. I refer to the security service. In doing so I am prepared to suggest some changes, but as a preliminary I would like to point out that parliament has been very remiss in failing to take any positive interest in this specialized field. This obvious lack is no less than a sin of omission. It was the RCMP, acting on its own initiative, which first became interested in certain political threats against Canada, and over the years-and continuing largely on its own initiative-it has increased and expanded its function, but for want of direction produced its own ground rules.
The function of the security service has been accepted as a police role, which in turn means that it is an enforcement function. Acting under this impression we are once again confronted with jurisdictional problems from which there is no escape. Or is there? I quote from the Mackenzie Royal Commission Report on Security of 1969 as follows:
Defence against threats to security is a duty and responsibility of a state comparable in meaning and relevance with defence against armed attack and insurrection.
Enforcement actually is only a by-product of the security role, and a very minor one at that. Further, the offences become, within the meaning of the administration of justice, a provincial responsibility. The police in the provinces, I am certain, are quite capable of providing enforcement, but only when they are given information.
Of fundamental importance is the following quote from the Mackenzie royal commission when reporting on the RCMP:
There is, however, no explicit statutory authority for the security role.

With these thoughts in mind I am convinced that the role of the security service should be one of defence. Therefore I suggest that the term "defence" as contained in section 91(7) of the BNA Act be defined to include the term "security intelligence" and the latter term be defined tentatively along these lines, much in keeping with the Official Secrets Act:
Security intelligence is that information relating to the activities of persons, organizations and foreign powers which may be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state.
Assuming we can have these two terms defined by law, the stage is then set for parliament to enact a statute relating to the security service, thus establishing the type of service it requires and its governing provisions.
An organization involved in such sensitive and important work should have a clear charter issued by parliament. The charter, which should not be so restrictive as to render the security service impotent, must be in the statute. The function of that service should be the acquisition of security intelligence as defined, which in turn is a role of defence. Thus, not only do we achieve constitutional authority not envisaged by the authors of the BNA Act, but also parliamentary control by way of statute and the elimination of the existing jurisdictional problem, which is perhaps the most important of all. Finally, continuity is established.
The security service must be raised in status comparable to its function and made sufficiently attractive to induce the professionals required, something which a military or paramilitary type of organization finds difficult to offer.
The British learned long ago that when they gave the responsibility for security intelligence to the police, the police in turn engaged specialists. A classic or conventional police service could not cope with the problem.
Freedom of movement and flexibility of mind are two fundamental terms in the intelligence world. Military and para-military organizations find it difficult to achieve the flexibility of mind required of a security service for the very reason that the whole concept is the rule by rank.
The military rank structure, even at officer level in the military orbit, militates against the operational levels functions and initiatives required of a security service. While it is always possible to operate at a lower level in a military format, it is next to impossible to do so at a higher level than status permits. Excepting support staff, this should warrant attention.
The size of the security service largely depends upon its targets, but a service that is not held in check by expert senior administrators can potentially load itself to the point of saturation, saturating both itself and its targets.
It is very tempting for some to avoid, at all costs, the taking of a calculated risk, but such a risk must be taken. It is obviously far better to have a small competent service than one which is unable to determine what is important and that which is not important and divide the two. The laws of Parkinson must be kept in mind.
Security
There is one area which, quite frankly, baffles me. The Solicitor General has a group known as the Security Planning and Analysis Branch, SPAB, which has undergone a metamorphosis of name changes since its conception a few years ago. If its title reflects its function, it can only imply the present government lacks confidence in the capability of our national police force.
In no other federal organization can be found such an invoked barrier between a department and its minister. One has to ask, in assessing Colonel Bourne's organization, what are its standards of qualifications? How are they set, and by whom? What are its objectives, its terms of reference, and have these objectives been met? Unless positive answers are forthcoming, and its role justified, there seems no alternative than to get rid of it. Certainly since it has been established I know of no particular service it has achieved with distinction. A series of solicitors general and other ministers of the Crown do not appear to have been particularly well briefed or served by this organization.
It is quite interesting to note, by checking as far as I have been able, the type of people who have been seconded. To be specific, there was a very highly qualified, in the technical sense, employee of Bell Canada. What would his function be ? There are other specialists whose role is unclear to me. Mr. Speaker, the very existence of SPAB, under its present circumstances, to my mind is nothing less than an affront to the RCMP and, to my mind, it should be eliminated. I suspect that many-


Mr. Blaker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I most sincerely regret interrupting the hon. member whose comments I generally find worth attention. May I repeat to him, however, what the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) said this afternoon, and what I believe the hon. member himself has said on previous occasions, that the very information he is asking for has been made available to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs by briefings of that section of the Secretariat to the Solicitor General. Those briefings will again be available in forthcoming weeks when the estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General will be before that committee. It seems to me inappropriate to persist in arguing that they are not available when they have been offered no later than this afternoon by the Solicitor General.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by my friend. All I can say in response is that while we have been assured on different occasions that information is available about this and other groups, it has been apparent in recent months that not even the ministers concerned with these people have been fully aware of the extent of what they are doing and have done. I think the hon. member would concede that.
I think it is quite fair for me to comment that this particular group, in my opinion-and all members are entitled to their opinion in this House-has not particularly fulfilled any notable or any effective function. Is it a channelling group? Is it an organizational group? We have been told it is, yet

Security
nowhere have I ever seen any evidence that this group has provided any particular meritorious service either in channelling or analysing information. I do know, as I think the hon. parliamentary secretary knows, that it has caused a considerable amount of resentment and disquiet in the RCMP. I do not believe that it has that type of security competence that I have suggested might be considered for the security service. It seems to be-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that very much. I would appreciate being informed if I am wrong, but I do not see in the service being presently performed by SPAB any particular justification for keeping this organization. I do not believe it has the capacity or the qualifications that would bring it within the definition of the role of intelligence services performed in other countries. Obviously it has not the type of background or organization that is found in the RCMP. I do not use this word disrespectfully, but in the Anglo-Saxon term it seems to me to be sort of a bastard organization. I mean no disrespect in that. It has some people seconded from the RCMP-career officers-it has a technical input and it has a military input, and yet-this may be my own deficiency-but I am not clear on its function, in terms of either helping the country's security, assisting the work of the RCMP or military intelligence, or whatever. It may be, if it is purely non-operational and analytical, that it is superfluous.
I am quite prepared to concede that I may be wrong. I would suggest, however, under the circumstances, with the greatest respect, that it is nothing less than an affront to our existing security organizations. If it were up to me I would strongly urge that it be disbanded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, now that it is just a few seconds to six o'clock, might I call it six o'clock?


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the next speaker when we resume at eight o'clock will be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I had been recognized, had I not?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I would suggest to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that he was recognized on a point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) will be the next speaker.

DEBATES______________________November 15, 1977


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I answer that, Mr. Speaker? I am not making anything of it, but I did misunderstand. It is not always easy to hear down here. I appreciate Your Honour raising the question. I did not want to be difficult about it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal briefly with a question I raised with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) with respect to the confidentiality of the income tax forms of ordinary Canadians.
I am not at this time suggesting that there should not be, if it is clearly set out by parliament, some arrangement to attack tax information that can clearly be identified as emanating from or concerned with organized crime. In regard to the questions that I asked of the minister, I must say I am not satisfied that he has demonstrated he has sufficient concern or indeed sufficient knowledge of the situation with respect to the interface or relationship between RCMP security and National Revenue. It concerns me very much, and I should like to read a couple of things into the record which I believe will be of some assistance to the House.
Perhaps hon. members have not had an opportunity yet to be aware of testimony being taken at the commission of inquiry before Mr. Justice Laycraft. Inspector Graham George gave evidence on November 14, yesterday, and I should like to put a brief excerpt of his testimony on the record. He said:
There were many, many investigations where the income tax and the police forces acted together.
Mr. Jenkins, lawyer for Royal American Shows, asked:
If they (the tax department) wish to breach the Income Tax Act, in co-operation with your officers, that is fine with you?
The witness answered:
If you want to put it that way.
Then there was this question by Jack Major, another counsel:
There was a wide scope of investigations (involving both tax men and RCMP) that operated outside that (1972) agreement entirely?
The answer was, "Yes, sir".
Some years ago I was concerned, as were many other members, at the situation which occurred when William Buchanan, the then chairman of the anti-dumping tribunal, ran into some abuse of National Revenue authority. Members will
November 15, 1977

recall that evidence was received that National Revenue had sent in a tax investigator on the pretext of doing a routine audit, when in fact the investigator appropriated evidence to support conflict of interest allegations. The justice in this case who rendered the final decision was none other than Bora Laskin of the Supreme Court of Canada. In dealing pretty harshly with the then minister of justice, 1 might add, he had this to say:
I resist the temptation to expatiate on the way in which records were obtained from Buchanan and on the attempted use of the appellants' documents against Buchanan, although obtained on a confidential basis for the purposes of the Combines Investigation Act... or of the Income Tax Act. I say only that unjustified tactics were employed.
I repeat the words "unjustified tactics". So we have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada saying in his judgment these things, which were extremely relevant and very harsh at the time, and which have been shown with the passing years to be very much apropos.
1 am not one of those who are paranoid, and I recognize that in some areas we have to have extraordinary powers given to the police. But I resist strongly the suggestion that the police ought to be able surreptitiously, without a clear definition being given of the purposes for which they do it, to get access to the income tax files of millions of ordinary Canadians who have operated through the years in the sure and certain belief that if there is anything that was as inviolate as the mails- before we found out how opposite to inviolate are the mails-it was the income tax returns, which they sent in.
I think it is incumbent at this time, in view of the information which has been provided to the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), and which is coming from the Laycraft commission of inquiry, that the Minister of National Revenue at the earliest possible opportunity demonstrate his mastery of his portfolio, that he demonstrate that he understands the trust that he has, that he demonstrate that he knows what is going on, and that he stand up on motions and assure us as parliamentarians and as Canadians that, if there are encroachments upon this principle of confidentiality, they are very narrow. He should assure us what their scope really is, what are the circumstances under which the police do these things, and, most of all, that he knows about it and approves of it.
So far as National Revenue is concerned, 1 am afraid that, unless this is done, the people of Canada will be justified in drawing the conclusion they have drawn so far as solicitors general in recent years are concerned, that what has been going on certainly has not been within the knowledge of the minister concerned or, that if it was within the knowledge of the minister, that it was not with his approval.
This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. The income tax reforms which we are talking about mean nothing if it turns out that the very basis upon which these returns are sent in is unclear and suspicions are left in the minds of Canadians that their returns are subject to arbitrary use by the police authorities, those returns having absolutely no reason to be included within any definition remotely resembling organized crime.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Yves Demers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with any remarks on alleged infractions of the privacy or secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act, for the benefit of the hon. member I would like to make clear just what these provisions are. They are set out in great detail in section 241 of the Income Tax Act, and they are quite exacting.
Except as authorized by the act, "no official or authorized person" may give out information collected for the purposes of the act or permit others to have access to records obtained for those purposes. However, the law does say that these officials and authorized persons may communicate the information to other officials and authorized persons for purposes of the administration and enforcement of the tax law.
The act also makes it very clear that official and authorized persons need not in all cases be employees of the Department of National Revenue. To quote the act in part, an "official" is defined as:
Any person employed in or occupying a position of responsibility in the service of Her Majesty.
An "authorized person" means:
Any person engaged or employed to assist in carrying out the purposes of this act.
With one of the main points of the hon. member's question in mind, the Department of National Revenue is therefore clearly allowed to give tax information to the RCMP when we have asked them to assist us in a tax matter, since RCMP officers are very obviously "officials", as defined by the Income Tax Act. I might emphasize, however, that by the same token RCMP officers, as "officials" when they are in receipt of tax information, are bound by the same secrecy provisions of the act as are the employees of the department itself.
There are other items dealt with in the privacy provisions of the act in question concerning restrictions on the supplied information required in connection with legal proceedings, when it may and when it may not be supplied. I emphasize again, for the benefit of the hon. member, that these are not new provisions. They go back, with minor adjustments, for many years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but his allotted time has expired.


HEALTH-INSULIN-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON POSSIBLE PRODUCTION CUTS AND PRICE INCREASES
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to pursue my recent question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) requesting an investigation of disturbing news of possible insulin shortages in Canada in the near future. Also the cost of insulin to diabetics has increased significantly, especially in the Toronto pharmacies.

Adjournment Debate
This was disturbing news to many people, as insulin was discovered in 1921 by Toronto medical researchers, Frederick Banting and Charles Best. As we all know, Dr. Banting and Dr. MacLeod both received in 1923 the Nobel prize in medicine for this great work. What is also disturbing is that the Connaught Laboratories of the University of Toronto, now a subsidiary of the Canada Development Corporation, is virtually the sole Canadian manufacturer of insulin. In the past it has kept down the price of insulin.
In 1922 the cost of insulin was $ 10 per 100 units, but was reduced to 25 cents per 100 units in 1941, and remained at about that level until approximately 1960. Since 1961, and especially since 1967, the cost of insulin has increased dramatically. Today the Ontario Parcost Comparative Drug Index quotes the price of $6.70 for 100 international units of pork Toronto insulin. Of course, the price is much higher in certain private pharmacies in Toronto and neighbourhood.
What is also disturbing is we hear that the current feeding methods of livestock will result in lower yields of insulin from pancreas glands. More disturbing from the speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on October 26 in this House is that Canada will be a net importer of pork this year because there is a reduced production of pork by 46 per cent in Canada. We are not self-sufficient in pork in our country. Therefore we will have to import pork. With the level of the Canadian dollar as it is, the price of pork pancreas will increase, as will the price of insulin.
This brings me to a disturbing question which many people are asking, not only diabetics but also diabetologists. Since we are going to see an increase in the price of insulin and specialty insulin preparations, we would like to know what Canada is preparing to do about this eventuality.
The United States is already making contingency plans to make sure they will not be caught with a shortage of pancreas glands. From some manufacturers we learn that it takes about 16 head of cattle plus 16 pigs to provide enough insulin for one diabetic for one year. As more and more diabetics are being diagnosed and require insulin, it looks as if demand for the pancreas glands will keep the prices up.
In view of the analysis of the situation that there is very little hope that prices will be controlled, especially from rising too high, and as we are not self-sufficient in pork, every effort should be made to find new ways to improve the production methods of insulin.
The government should investigate this disturbing news that we will probably be short of pork insulin in the future and that the cost of developing pork insulin and specialty insulin preparations will be high. That is why I hope the parliamentary secretary or the representative of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Robinson) will give us some assurance that the government is doing something about the problem of insulin production and insulin prices in Canada today and in the near future.

DEBATES__________________________November 15, 1977


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very curious to learn the source of the information placed before the House by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), as I am sure would be the Department of National Health and Welfare and possibly the Ministry of Agriculture, with regard to his statement that we are going to have a shortage of pork.
From time to time over the last two years, questions have been raised in the House and by the press relating to the availability and supply of materials for the production of the essential drug product insulin, needed by persons suffering from diabetes. Insulin, a naturally occurring hormone, is prepared from the pancreas glands of cattle and pigs, obtained at the packing plant level.
Let me first address the question of availability of animal pancreas. Until 1973, despite a ban on exports of beef pancreas, Canada was partially dependent on imports of pancreas glands and insulin to meet Canadian needs for insulin. Selfsufficiency was attained when collection procedures in packing plants were made more efficient and prices rose to world levels, thus encouraging more efficient collection.
Generally speaking, Canadian prices for pancreas glands are at par with U.S. prices which are decisive in determining the world price. Until 1973, Canadian insulin manufacturers paid less than the world price, and since then prices have increased up to the world market price. For the information of hon. members, the pancreas of beef and calves offer the most efficient yield of insulin; pork pancreas are one half to two thirds as efficient. The latter are not subject to export controls.
At the present time, I am informed, the total poundage of pancreas in storage is at historically high levels.
Questions have also been raised about the cost of insulin and its availability and reserve in Canada. Mr. Alun Davies, Executive Vice President of Connaught Laboratories Limited, the domestic producer of insulin, was contacted to determine if there was any potential for insulin shortage in Canada. He advised officers of the health protection branch of the department that current reserves of insulin are at an all time high and Connaught Laboratories Limited have an inventory which would supply all Canadian needs for a period of one to one and a half years, even if there was no more production of insulin at all.
As a result of increased production costs, the price of insulin rose some 10 to 12 per cent in each of the years 1975 and 1976. Increases in the price of pancreas and increased production costs necessitate a further 20 per cent increase in 1977. These increases in the price of insulin are not tied to any decrease in production or linked with the export of pancreas. I have just said that supplies of both pancreas and insulin are at levels ample to supply Canadian needs.
Permit me to remind hon. members that pork pancreas, which are not subject to export controls, are subject to wide price fluctuations on the world market and are less efficient
November 15, 1977

for insulin production, and hence the insulin produced from these is more costly than that produced from beef.
In this light, I think that Canada is fortunate indeed-


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


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-ALLEGED FAILURE OF DEPARTMENTAL PROGRAMS-POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE OF POLICY FOR ATLANTIC REGION
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to pursue a little further with the government and its representative the question of the role of DREE, particularly as it affects the Atlantic area in the light of the desperate situation in which that area now finds itself.
When I raised this question on November 8 I drew attention to the work and studies done by the Economic Council of Canada and urged that these efforts be recognized by the minister. The Economic Council in its report "Living Together", indicated clearly that in the Atlantic region, at least, if not in all the disparate regions of Canada there was a surplus potential which could be exploited without over-exciting or agitating the inflationary pressures which exist in Canada today. I asked the minister whether it was not now time to take heed of the advice given by the council and apply what it termed innovative fiscal policies to the Atlantic region particularly, as well as to other disparate regions. I asked the minister whether or not consideration was being given to the application of new procedures, new incentives, to help balance out economic opportunities in various parts of this country.
The subject has become a lively one in recent days. The minister, in a well orchestrated effort yesterday, found an opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) suggesting-this was the inference-not only that the department would carry on but that there had been no discussion whatever with respect to the future of DREE. This was in spite of the admission a few weeks ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) and the minister once responsible for the department, that it had failed in terms of its objectives.
In any event, the question of the department's future is not the one which I am raising. The question is whether or not the minister and the government have any proposals before them which might correct the disparate position in which the Atlantic area finds itself. Any such proposals must centre upon the development of new and innovative approaches to means of achieving economic expansion. Quite simply, we have to put an end to the "leakage" which has been occurring with regard to all forms of government aid going into these incentive plans and other ad hoc programs. It now runs as high as 70 or 75 per cent.
Adjournment Debate
For every dollar that goes into the Atlantic region in the form of these grants, 70 cents or 75 cents of it goes back to central Canada, Quebec and Ontario, to purchase machinery, building supplies, electrical cable and so on. The Maritimes do not get to keep the money. Of the $155 million we have had under the Regional Development Incentives Act, the Atlantic region has retained less than $30 million. This has to be turned around.
When will the government recognize the surplus potential which exists in Atlantic Canada? When will it recognize that this surplus can be developed without fanning inflation? When will it use DREE in a way which will rid the Atlantic region of disparity?
There is room for the application of innovative ideas. Now is the time. There is need for greater tax cuts and the entire question of job development incentive in the tax area. As the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) has said on a number of occasions in this chamber over the last eight or ten years, we have to look for methods of developing and changing trading patterns. Failure to do these things will result in the continuing situation that faces us.
When the economy of Canada is high and going along well, we enjoy the benefits. When it turns soft, the Atlantic provinces go down much more rapidly than the rest of the economy. When the economy goes back up, we are so much further down and so much slower at recovery that the gap tends to widen. That is the nub of our problem. I can argue that the application of DREE has done more to bring pressure to bear on provincial and municipal social welfare programs-


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


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting upon economic development in the Atlantic region of Canada, I wish to restate that the government has such a policy and that programs to give effect to that policy are being implemented.
Once again I must explain to the House that the DREE policy aims at strengthening the medium to long term economic base of the Atlantic region, and that it cannot be measured against short term job creation objectives. Also I must repeat that all of the North American continent, and indeed the world, has been experiencing an economic decline in the past three years. It is not realistic to expect that the Atlantic region of Canada can be exempt from that economic situation.
Criticism of the department has been aimed almost entirely at incentive programs which comprise scarcely more than 10 per cent of the DREE budget in Atlantic Canada. However, that 10 per cent can be demonstrated to be successful in terms of job creation. The remainder of the budget is directed to longer term developing strategies which, with the full concurrence of the provincial governments of the four Atlantic provinces, are being put into effect. The Economic Council of
902

November 15, 1977
Security
Canada has not criticized these strategies. The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council supports these strategies.
The philosophy and policies of development for the Atlantic region were formulated with the governments of the Atlantic provinces in 1974 at the beginning of the world turn-down. These policies, however, which range over the more productive and efficient use of resources, the enhancement of more value added and industrial development in the region, necessary infrastructure for economic development, and the reinforcement of urban centres of strength, remain valid and will pay off. At the present time over 35 action pacts under these strategies are under way across the region and will produce measurable results in the coming years. I know that the Atlantic provincial governments support DREE. I am firmly convinced that the people of the region also support and understand what DREE is doing in Atlantic Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
Motion withdrawn.
At 6.28 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Clark:
That this House has no confidence in the competence or desire of this government to follow the principle of ministerial responsibility, particularly as it applies to the direction of and methods used by the government security forces, and deeply regrets its unwillingness to allow a committee of this House to study the role of ministers in security operations.
d2)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if we are to judge by the mealy-mouthed and monotonous comments of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), whose full and specific meaning eluded us because he read a little too fast an overly lengthy text, which is in contrast with his enthusiasm of the last two weeks in this matter, there is no doubt now, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition has been called to

order by an alert public opinion fully aware of the priceless value of the RCMP. It is now beating a retreat and avoiding any disparaging comment against an organization which after all deserves the respect and admiration of all Canadians.
Faced with the double standard of behaviour suggested by the opposition, namely our unwarranted intervention for which we are blamed in the inquiry about the Sky Shops affair or the lack of it in the case involved in this debate, it is important, Mr. Speaker, to point out among significant facts one that deserves attention and seems to be deliberately overlooked by the opposition, that is the creation by the government on last July 6 of a royal commission of inquiry, the McDonald Commission. Therefore, it is important to review the facts in the true context of an institution democratically and legally constituted to shed light on the whole matter. So, on July 6, 1977, the government acknowledged several facts, and I quote,
... the government acknowledges the fact that 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;
The government acknowledges the fact that 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;
The government acknowledges the fact that, 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;
The government recognized, on July 6, 1977, and I quote:
Since 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;
Finally, Mr. Speaker, on July 6, 1977, the government acknowledged the following:
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-be Commissioners under Part I of the Inquiries Act.
Members of the opposition who have been complaining that the commission of inquiry does not have the necessary powers to investigate all details of the incidents referred to these last few weeks should read sections 4 and 5, Part I of the Inquiries Act. Section 4 clearly stipulates the following:
The commissioners have the power of summoning before them any witnesses-
Including ministers.
-and of requiring them to give evidence on oath, or on solemn affirmation if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters, and orally or in writing, and
November 15, 1977

to produce such documents and things as the commissioners deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which they are appointed to examine.
Section 5 of the act which applies and to which the order in council establishing the McDonald Commission refers, stipulates the following:
The commissioners have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to give evidence as is vested in any court of record in civil cases.
Mr. Speaker, I read the preamble of the decision of the Privy Council to establish a royal commission of inquiry on last July 6 and I restated the facts it acknowledges and the provisions of the Inquiries Act to show that opposition members were wrong when they said the commission did not have all the powers it needs to clear up the incidents for which a branch of the RCMP has been blamed. I wanted to set the record straight because the situation must be analyzed in its proper perspective.
In a fable about a mountain that gave birth to a mouse, La Fontaine said, and I quote:
Une montagne en mal d'enfant Jetait une clameur si haute Que chacun au bruit accourant Crut qu'clle accoucherait sans faute D'une cite plus grosse que Paris Elle accoucha d'une souris.
When scandals are not what some would like them to be, they make up their own! Thanks to the tremendous means of communication and amplification offered by modern media, a mountain is made out of a molehill. That is how after enough time has gone by history will undoubtedly interpret the explosion of righteous indignation we are witnessing with regard to the alleged "RCMP scandal" which I sense as a camouflage for a display of lowly demagogy and political partisanship.
The real RCMP scandal is not so much the incidents of which it has been accused, however wrong they may seem, as the frantic manner in which they are used not only to embarrass the government but to debase and tarnish an institution which, despite its errors, remains one of the most worthy of our society's confidence.
Mr. Speaker, the words I have just cited were written by an ordinary citizen and published in an eastern townships newspaper on November 10, 1977.
The Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, are now shocked by the way this debate raised by the opposition parties is evolving. Certain procedures of this House allow the opposition to make its point and I do not mind if it uses them completely. It is within the rules of parliament. However, there has been an abuse of procedure because in two weeks and a half they have used almost every single question period and almost every single motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 to attack systematically the credibility of the RCMP. The opposition found it necessary to ask for an emergency debate as it did on October 31 to attack systematically and discredit the RCMP, and the opposition used its own leader, which is unusual, to participate in a late show at six o'clock pursuant to
Security
a special order of this House for the month of November and this once more to denigrate the RCMP.
And today, Mr. Speaker, this opposition day is again used to blame and attack systematically the RCMP, but had the opposition been more objective and more sensitive to the needs of the people it would have used that time today to discuss economic matters or, as this is November 15, to discuss Canadian unity.


Mr.   La Salle@: We will get around to the economy!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) shouting. He knows very well that today is November 15 and this is a good opportunity to speak about Canadian unity but his party forces him to denigrate the RCMP.


Mr.   La Salle@: We do not criticize the RCMP, but the government. Read the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council has the floor.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the opposition had a very good opportunity recently to demonstrate its good faith in this whole issue. The opposition had the best opportunity to demonstrate the great confidence it claims to have now in the RCMP.
Mr. Speaker, it will be remembered that not very long ago, all of a sudden two pieces of equipment reportedly meant to be used for wire-tapping were found in the offices of two members of the opposition, namely the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark). How is it, Mr. Speaker, that at that time it was deemed proper to request the services of a little known company of private detectives from Toronto to handle, analyze and report in the first instance on that so-called wire-tapping equipment, when it would have been easy to call in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Why did the opposition not take the opportunity to prove its trust in-


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Yvon Pinard: -when the RCMP was better equipped and
could easily have found that equipment, analysed it and made a report to the House early in the game, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: They wanted a private firm!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I say that calling in a private firm rather than the RCMP is strange indeed. That private firm found so-called wire-tapping equipment only in the offices of two members of the opposition. Later on, this House launched an inquiry; almost one hundred offices were visited, not by that private firm from Toronto, but by the House security services. Mr. Speaker, no one has heard of wire-tapping equipment being found in any office other than those of the hon. member for Central Nova and the Leader of the Opposition. I understand the suspicions of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) when he mentioned again yesterday
8002 5-5 854

November 15, 1977
Security
that he had doubts about where those gadgets came from. I understand him very well, Mr. Speaker, but what strikes me most in this whole story is the obvious lack of respect and confidence that opposition members have shown for the RCMP. And it was reflected not only-


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Yvon Pinard: -it was reflected not only in the situation I have just described but also in the remarks they have made for the past two and a half weeks during which they used all the procedures and tactics conceivable in this House to criticize and systematically discredit the RCMP regarding some isolated incidents into which a royal commission, an institution that was set up in a democratic way, will inquire and report.
Mr. Speaker, I blame the opposition for overlooking our institutions. This royal commission is set up in a legal and democratic manner. It has a mandate and I wonder why the opposition has been ignoring it for the past two weeks and a half. Apparently they want to take its place, make a judgment and consider facts one after the other in an attempt to discredit the RCMP and put the blame on the Solicitor General of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: It takes cry babies! Unbelievable!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. Prime Minister says that opposition members specifically are behaving as cry babies, he is right. These people would have been better advised to use these two weeks and a half of the time of the House of Commons to discuss the real problems of our society. Our economy needs some practical advice and a constructive opposition in the House. Our country's economy needs the co-operation of members on all sides of the House.


An hon. Member:: That is too much to expect from the opposition.


Yvon Pinard: National unity is at stake and they manage to criticize those who try to help us maintain a peaceful and healthy social climate. If there were any illegal acts, if there were any isolated cases among the thousands which the RCMP are investigating, the federal government is not ignoring them. As soon as it became aware of them it has referred those cases to an existing royal commission one after the other. We can only wait for the McDonald commission to do its work and report to us later on. The federal government has always insisted that the rule of law should be respected. It will not oppose, if necessary, the proceedings which might be instituted against those who may have been at fault. In the meantime, however, I am all for applying the most equitable principle known in our society and to grant the benefit of the doubt; a person must be presumed innocent as long as he has not been found guilty in a court of law. I suggest it is the duty of this commission to examine the evidence and decide whether a number of RCMP members should be prosecuted.


Mr.   La Salle@: How about a number of ministers!
(Mr. Pinard.]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) is again voicing his customary innuendoes. He will have the opportunity to speak again tonight-I assume and hope so-and to cast aspersions upon the RCMP just as his colleagues have been doing for the past fifteen days and a half. Tonight, I want to say this: What the opposition should have done today, what opposition parties should have done today is not to move a non-confidence motion against a governement which has assumed its responsibilities and respects its police force as well as the Canadian public; what the opposition should have done is move a motion of full confidence in, support and admiration for the man who, in all this, has been receiving the full support and esteem of all his colleagues on this side of the House as well as the larger majority of the Canadian public, I mean the most esteemed Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Fox).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in the debate tonight I would say that of any debate I have been engaged in in this House, this is the most important debate to parliament and the Canadian people.
In my few words of introduction I would like to return to the motion which reads:
That this House has no confidence in the competence or desire of this government to follow the principle of ministerial responsibility, particularly as it applies to the direction of and methods used by the government security forces, and deeply regrets its unwillingness to allow a committee of this House to study the role of Ministers in security operations.
These two points are what this debate concerns. We say that the country and parliament has lost confidence in this government because of its failure to discharge ministerial responsibility, and secondly, its failure to allow parliament, by committee, to examine what has been going on in reference to the security of this nation.
It seems to be the parliamentary secretary has exaggerated in the sense that he said, "We have been engaged for two and a half weeks in this matter." During the question period we have been asking questions and receiving no answers.
The point I want to make at the beginning is this: I believe the parliamentary secretary should appreciate that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is the chief minister in Canada, and it is his responsibility to look after security matters. That responsibility cannot be passed on to any planning security branch, nor can that responsibility be passed on to any police force. That responsibility is on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and on the shoulders of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) and of the Attorney General (Mr. Basford).
I want to turn to two charges that were made by the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice, speaking in Vancouver, as reported by the Canadian Press and repeated again this afternoon in the House, attacked opposition demands for greater ministerial accountability for the activities of the force. "Day to day political control of the police by

the Attorney General is contrary to the Canadian practice and leads directly to a police state. We are not going to have political manipulation of the police force, and we are not going to be pushed into this sort of a thing, by the opposition, by anyone."
The minister's same statement is reported in the Citizen and I do not need to repeat it again.
The charges we are faced with tonight are these: First of all, it is alleged we have suggested that the government, either the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General, the Attorney General or any minister concerned with security must monitor the different duties and responsibilities of the police force day to day. Nowhere in the pages of Hansard, nowhere in the media or in the press generally has there been any foundation for such a charge.
I ask the Minister of Justice to stand up and show us anywhere in Hansard or the parliamentary debates that we have suggested to them monitoring the police work from day to day. In fact what we have said, and as my leader so ably pointed out this afternoon, is that the responsibility for security is under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister and the two ministers I have mentioned. What we are saying is this, that surely there would be no accountability at all if we are to believe the ministers, which I do not accept. They have never had any accountability. It is not a day-to-day job. They have not done it from week to week or month to month or year to year for eight years. There has been an absence of any accountability, or any responsibility.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is not ministerial responsibility we should be talking about tonight, it is ministerial irresponsibility and culpability as far as this matter is concerned. It is a serious matter, because the unity of this country is at stake tonight on security matters, when you realize it is being governed by a group of men and women who have done nothing to make sure the security service of this nation was accountable to the government, and that they take or discharge their responsibilities in that regard.


An hon. Member:: Take it seriously.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: So I say, nowhere has the Progressive Conservative party taken a position that the government must necessarily monitor the activities of the RCMP and it is nowhere in the evidence.
Now I turn to the second charge, for which 1 need to make no apology. It is this red herring. I would say it is a plot by the Prime Minister and those responsible for security in this country to say, "How can we get this onus and responsibility off our shoulders? Because the opposition are interrogating us, and we are covering up and we are not going to give the answers, we will come out with a red herring," and that red herring is the plot set up by the government to say that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is standing and
Security
criticizing, and is opposed to one of the great police forces of this world, namely, the RCMP.


Maurice James Harquail: That is what you did for two weeks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not intend to answer my friend and will not name his constituency. I do not want to embarrass him back home. He is embarrassed enough by the policies of this government.


Maurice James Harquail: You will not embarrass me. Go ahead.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I repeat, nowhere can you find that we have offered any criticism of police officers. We say that responsibility should have been that of the Prime Minister and the other ministers. So that when the Minister of Justice makes the charge that we suggested they should monitor the police work from day to day, that is utter nonsense. That is untruthful. When he made that charge in Vancouver, he said he had 400 or 500 clapping Liberals from British Columbia stand up.
I can understand why he got a pumpkin pie in the face. It is too bad those seeds were not as hard as rocks.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Shocking!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear the lady minister talking. Does she want to make a speech? The Minister of Justice, because of the position he holds, because of the traditions of this parliament and our due process of law and democracy in this country, has always been accepted as a man like Lapointe, Fulton, and others who stood above politics because their job was to administer the law of Canada and to make sure that law and order were applied to everyone equally. They made sure we were governed by the rule of law, not the rule of people.
I say without hesitation these accusations made by the Minister of Justice are absolutely without parallel in the history of the Canadian parliament. It was scurrilous and unprincipled and, coming from the Minister of Justice, a supposedly non-political figure, it makes it much worse.
Such an attack might be expected from the former solicitor general, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand). As the head of the justice caucus of my party, I say it is unworthy of the Attorney General of Canada to make such a political attack based on facts that are not correct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us analyse his attack as far as the police are concerned. Like the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), many, many times I have stood in my place to defend citizens in this country in cases in which police officers of that great force, the RCMP, have given evidence. It has been our job to cross-examine them in cases of murder and other serious crimes. Over the years I have found them to be very honest and sincere. Probably only 1 or 2 per cent are involved in security.

November 15, 1977
Security
The change in security came about when this government set up the planning security branch composed of civilians, which interferes with the good work and traditions of the RCMP, which we on this side of the House supported. Like the right hon. member for Prince Albert and our former leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), I have supported them over the years.


Maurice James Harquail: Apologize to the RCMP.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friend should apologize to the Canadian people. The parliamentary secretary should restrain himself. I rose on a point of order this afternoon. I did not yell from my seat. I try to keep my brains in a little higher area of my anatomy.
The Minister of Justice attacked the official opposition over the weekend on the basis of what he would like our position to be. He would like to pretend that we on this side do not believe in a strong and effective police force who want to achieve their aims by legal means, not by terrorism, kidnapping and assassination. He would like to pretend that the Conservative party is not proud of the job done by the RCMP at the Olympics and that the RCMP will not get our support and respect.
He would love to be able to show the opposition as unrealistic, naive, and unwittingly supportive of subversive elements in the country. In fact he wants this to be our position so badly that he assures his gullible Liberal friends that it is our position, and then he attacks it mercilessly. This is known as knocking down a straw man.
However, he made a slip in his presentation. He said it is fundamental to the rule of the law and the protection of civil liberties that they, the police, operate under the law. Presto- the minister repeated the essence of the opposition case. Obedience to the law by the security forces is not just nice or sometimes convenient, but fundamental. Is the minister about to cross the floor? Is he going to take the opposite position that he is against the police? That is what he is suggesting, and he is accusing us of being against the RCMP. I say to him that all the evidence is the opposite. The responsibility is on the government. This is merely a plot to take the responsibility and the heat off their own shoulders because of their irresponsibility and culpability in this matter.


Maurice James Harquail: So says the opposition.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The government would also have everyone believe that we are advocating political interference with the course of sensitive investigations, and that we are in favour of giving politicians access, willy-nilly, to whatever is turned up. An ingenious perversion of the truth!
The minister said we are not going to have political manipulation of the police force. Nobody ever suggested that. Not even the Liberals suggested that. We only want some accountability. The minister said they are not going to be pushed into that sort of thing by the opposition, or by anyone. The brave Minister of Justice! Will there be a single straw man left standing when his courageous purge of heresies is completed?

He knows full well that the question at issue is the responsibility of ministers for defining in general terms the ends and means of their departments, to set the tone. No one has suggested that a Solicitor General should interfere in day-today police work, or demand access to security and criminal files as the whim takes him. Can the minister not tell the difference between ministerial responsibility and ministerial interference?
However, we must show some sympathy for the dilemma the minister faced. He could not have gathered a standing ovation from his audience by telling the truth. The one thing he did accomplish is to get a pie in the face.


Iona Campagnolo: Do you think he is lying?


Maurice James Harquail: Are you calling him a liar?


John Allen Fraser: Yes, he is. Nowhere did we ever say what he alleged was said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has the floor for the purpose of making a speech, and I suggest we all listen.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps when I am asked about whether he is lying, I can sum it up in the words of Francis Bacon, "Nothing does more hurt in a state than that a cunning man pass for wise." That may be the answer to the question.


Maurice James Harquail: That is not Bacon; it is yourself, ham and eggs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: According to Dicey, all ministers, whether they be in or outside the cabinet, are responsible for their personal acts, the general conduct of their departments, and acts done in their name by the departmental officials. If a minister is personally blameworthy, he ought to make a public admission of his responsibility. That is all we are asking.
Dicey said, unless the Prime Minister is unwilling to stand by the minister under attack, a minister may choose, and has not infrequently chosen in recent years, to brazen out appalling indiscretions. That is what this government has done on this issue. It has brazened out appalling indiscretions of its own responsibility which it has shelved and put on the shoulders of the RCMP.
Only a short time ago this government was removing words from RCMP cars across this nation. They took off words from various police stations in this country. We stood and defended the RCMP. They were against them. Now they want to move it across to the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: Diefenbaker wants to apologize; why don't you join him?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Dicey said, and I quote:
The point, however, which should never be forgotten is this: it is now well established law that the Crown can act only through ministers and according to certain prescribed forms which absolutely require the co-operation of some
November 15, 1977

minister, such as a Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor, who thereby becomes not only morally but equally responsible for the legality of the act in which he takes part.
When we asked these questions, why did the minister not say it was his responsibility and that he would look into it?
If there has been an indiscretion in the planning security group, which is a civilian group, it really changed the whole image of the RCMP. It got them into the situation today where they are not able to defend themselves and where they are being blackmailed by this government right across this land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: That is the kind of language they like. Your friends are happy now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friends are always happy, but I understand why you are not. Paranoid people are never happy. Dicey continued:
Hence, indirectly but surely, the action of every servant of the Crown, is therefore in effect of the Crown itself, is brought under the supremacy of the law of the land.


Maurice James Harquail: They'll get you!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this hon. member wants to speak at the same time as I do. If he wants the floor I will sit down and let him get it off his chest. He is the man who is destroying the image of this parliament across the nation because of the shouting and yelling.


Maurice James Harquail: I am delighted to have been invited by the hon. member to say a few words. It is one of the few courtesies we have been shown by the opposition in recent weeks. I feel that my privileges have been trampled on in the House in the last few weeks because of the attitude taken and the language used in this chamber, and I want to say-


An hon. Member:: Who's crying now?


Maurice James Harquail: Do you understand me?


James McPhail Gillies: We all understand you are the stupidest man in the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I should like to point out to the parliamentary secretary that he ought to raise a question of privilege when it affects him, not now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry to see the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) in this light, because his constituents must know, now, because I have smoked him out, who has been making all the noise in parliament which has been seen over TV across the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Bye-bye!


Maurice James Harquail: Go ahead, you have the floor, now.
Security


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Hence, indirectly but surely, the action of every servant of the Crown and thereby, in effect, the Crown itself, is brought under the supremacy of the law of the land.
The acts of ministers no less than the acts of subordinate officials are made subject to the risk of law. In other words, every public servant in whatever department comes directly under the responsibility of a minister. That is the issue of the debate today and that is the reason we moved our motion. We did so because we have found that hon. members sitting on the treasury benches opposite are not prepared, as a democratic government, to accept their constitutional responsibility to be accountable to parliament.


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


Mr. Young:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not wish to interrupt the learned justice critic for the official opposition while he was in full flight, but there are two points he made which I should like him to clarify.


An hon. Member:: His time is up!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I am prepared to listen to the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, at one point in his speech the hon. member for Calgary North said it was a pity that someone threw only a pie at the learned Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) over the week end. I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I believe he said it was too bad it was not rocks that were thrown. I am sure he would wish to withdraw that remark.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I am sorry. That is not a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, nowhere in my speech did I say they should throw rocks. I said that when they threw pumpkin pie I hoped the seeds of the pumpkin would be as hard as rocks so that the minister would realize that when he made this, in my view, untruthful attack on the opposition, he was being opposed by public opinion across the land even though they did take a pie to do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the hon. member that that is not a question of privilege but a matter of dispute.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been understandably distressed to learn that police forces entered premises in Montreal without a warrant and removed records in October, 1972, and that police burnt down a barn in Quebec in the same year to prevent a meeting between members of the FLQ and the Black Panthers.

November 15, 1977
Security
Canada's police have enjoyed an excellent reputation for maintaining peace and good order, and they have earned the confidence of Canadians. Recent publicity raised the possibility that this confidence may have been misplaced and that the judgment of our police forces, especially in the complex area of national security, may not always be dependable. The opposition response to that concern would be to require tight political control, including an accounting by officers of the RCMP of their methods of information gathering.
Obviously the law applies to everyone, including the police. Indeed, one might say that police in a civilized society have a particular obligation to uphold the rule of law. I think it is fair to say that most Canadian police personnel pride themselves on operating in a disciplined way within the limits society considers acceptable. However, we have before us some evidence of what, at best, may be regarded as over-zealousness and, at worst, can be described in harsher terms.
If one accepts that the government does need to tighten effective control over the RCMP, one is left with the question of how this is to be done without the government then being open to accusations of political interference. There are some very broad questions involving the rule of law and the proper limits of national security activity which need to be addressed.
While media attention has focused on the RCMP in its over-all mandate, it is clear that the motion before us deals with the security functions of the RCMP and this, indeed, is where matters have changed so much in recent years. The RCMP, in its capacity as the federal police force, has long had prime responsibility for security investigations and operations. Section 18 of the act which came into force in 1969 gave the RCMP broad responsibilities for crime prevention and for intelligence and security services. Common law tradition also gives a peace officer broad discretion to do whatever is necessary to maintain public peace and order.
Until recent times, the question of exercising any of these broad powers would not have arisen because the provocation was not there. In 1963 Canadians encountered for the first time terrorist activities involving bombings and personal injuries resulting in death. In 1970 came the events in Quebec which resulted in the proclamation of the War Measures Act.
In Quebec at that time, police cast a very wide net. Some
5,000	raids were conducted which netted 465 suspects, of whom only 62 were charged with any crime and only 30 were convicted. The criticism was made that because of weak police intelligence-gathering earlier, this wide net was cast after the event and innocent people were subjected to grave inconvenience and interference with their lives. It was also said then that, in at least some cases, addresses of known and previously-arrested radicals were not available at police headquarters. Hence, thousands of searches absorbed the regular police forces to the point where they could not perform other essential functions and where they had to ask that troops be brought in to perform them.

The presence of troops in Quebec streets was distressing to all Canadians, and particularly to Quebecois. Many people said then, if in peaceful times the police knew more about the potentially violent, when those people did strike, that the police would be prepared and would be able to take efficient and economical measures to deal with them, without infringing so broadly on the rest of society. As John Gellner put it in his "Bayonets in the Streets", "there would not be as much hitting of air as there so often is when a liberal democracy moves reluctantly and uncertainly to defend itself against assault from within." At that time public opinion demanded and required that the police improve their intelligence gathering about potential urban guerillas.
However, Canadians were concerned also that security and intelligence gathering forces be able to differentiate clearly between peaceful dissent and potential for violent acts, between noisy students with a fondness for rhetoric as an end in itself and those who were likely move from loud words to violent deeds.
Canadians have traditionally had high requirements for our security forces. We expect they will protect us and enable us to live in peace and security under the law. The average law-abiding citizen considers that since he or she fulfils obligations in society, he or she is entitled to demand that the state fulfd its obligations by maintaining its ability to ensure security and to take adequate preventive measures. On the other hand, we have a proud tradition of respecting civil liberties and wanting to have the rights of the majority protected in ways that are civilized, reasonable, and fair to dissenters.
That sense of fairness has been less evident of recent weeks. We have heard calls for charges to be laid against RCMP officers who are thought to have acted extra-legally. Many of these requests were made without evidence of a case that would be sustainable in court. The question also arises as to whether an officer in these situations may, in fact, be able to defend himself adequately in public court, or whether, in the interest of national security, he would have to remain silent about matters which might assist his defence.
Questions of intent have to be considered. Is the police officer who enters premises without a warrant in search of information, which he believes vital to safety and security, to be charged under precisely the same "break and enter" provisions as the criminal who breaks in to steal for personal gain; or should the security officer be required to be accountable for his actions in some other fashion?
Are we limiting the protective and preventive functions of our security officers by requiring that they always have warrants? Conversely, is it a myth that security information needs to be gathered secretly, and should we challenge this myth and insist that warrants be obtained in all cases?
These are matters on which we have heard a lot from the media in recent weeks; but we need to hear from ordinary thoughtful Canadians whose interest in having a sane, secure,
November 15, 1977

and civilized society is of a different order from the media interest in sensationalism.
We have encountered new threats to safety in recent years, such as the activities of the Japanese Red Army, one of whom was found in Toronto last year and was got out of the country without incident, thanks to the RCMP intelligence. Also there have been the activities of the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany, and terrorist groups in the Middle East. We have seen a massacre in Germany at the time of their Olympic Games, and we have seen our Olympic Games in Montreal conducted in peace because of our security forces.
Recently we had to send diplomats back to their own countries because of unacceptable activities in Canada. That information came from the RCMP security forces. On each occasion when a consular or an embassy official is required to leave Canada, the media asked for reasons and full disclosure. I do not detect much general support for that position. The average citizen does not consider that security intelligence needs to be printed in every newspaper, as long as the threat to our internal safety has been removed, and most important, as long as people have the confidence that our security officers have acted reasonably and responsibly.
Canadians want information when it is useful and practical. They want to know in general that our police and security forces act in a way which is consonant with our moral values. That may mean, in order to restore confidence at this time, it may be desirable to have a broader publication of such things as cabinet directives. On October 28 the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), when speaking in this House, summarized the cabinet directive of March 27, 1975, which defined the mandate of the security service of the RCMP, and that of May 27, 1976, which dealt with security screening of public servants.
Public perception of security requirements changes in response to changing times. The broad general powers of the 1959 act are clearly not specific enough to be acceptable in our times.
The Royal Commission on Security statement in 1969 that "A security service is unavoidably involved in activities which run counter to the spirit, if not the letter of the law, and in illegal or other activities which seem to infringe upon individual rights", stated a position which had support in 1969 but which concerns many people today. Granted that security work involves undercover work and the use of informants, but one must ask if that should include illegal or extra-legal activities.
In 1974 the Protection of Privacy Act included a new definition of "subversive activities". The cabinet directive of 1975-1976 further attempted to bring more precision to a field where security officers were operating to a large extent on the basis of personal judgment.
The Royal Commission of Inquiry under Mr. Justice McDonald has broad powers to inquire into the national security service. I look forward to seeing their recommendations, which will assist us in defining precisely the parameters of effective and acceptable security procedures.
Security
Particularly I hope that the RCMP, who up to this point have been excluded from participation in media coverage, will have an input to the commission proceedings. If experienced people who have a well developed evaluative bent have recommendations to make, those recommendations would surely be a very important ingredient, an ingredient which has been missing from the current debate and which is an essential part of the dialogue if procedures are to be brought about which are sensible and effective and are to be seen as such by all Canadians.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, the issue in this court is clearly ministerial responsibility, and let no one doubt that we are in a court. However, in this court it is not the RCMP which is on trial. I believe the government realizes that, despite the red herrings, the gymnastics, the gyrations, the figure skating and the repetition time and again from government benches, "RCMP, RCMP, RCMP". We heard that 24 times yesterday. Despite that it is the government and its ministers who are on trial, as they are on trial every day in our system of government. So let us forget the red herrings, the figure skating, and the gymnastics.
What is ministerial responsibility? There are many textbooks. I had five, I think, sent over from the parliamentary library tonight. There are many scholastic papers and academic dissertations. There is no shortage of material describing ministerial responsibility, but one definition which is a common sense definition is simply that ministerial responsibility is synonomous with ministerial competence. An irresponsible minister is an incompetent minister. That is the issue. A minister who is incompetent and so judged in this court, the House of Commons, ought to be returned to the back benches or sent back to private life. It is as simple as that.
The second aspect of ministerial responsibility is, responsible to what and for what? The "responsible to" is easy. A minister is responsible in a collective sense to the cabinet but ultimately to the House of Commons. Responsible for what? In my view, there are three categories of responsibility. First, the administrative lapses or errors for which an official is to blame and which could not possibly have been within the range of knowledge of the minister: in this case the minister owes an assurance that corrections have been made to prevent a recurrence.
Second, policy errors leading to departmental problems for which the entire cabinet takes responsibility: this having happened they are perfectly entitled to say, "If you don't like it, you can defeat us at the next election". That is a second form of responsibility.
There is a third one which the government, for some reason, fails to acknowledge. It has tried to throw all the illegal and unusual activity into one or other of those first categories. The third one is administrative lapses or errors in operational policy which should have been within the range of knowledge of a reasonably intelligent and energetic minister who, in accepting office, accepted the responsibility of supervising the operating procedures of his department to ensure they were

November 15, 1977
Security
consistent with community standards of efficiency, justice, and decency. That is ministerial competence.
I am very reluctant to refer to that definition because it contains the word "operational", and I say this as an aside. Today as he stood in his place the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) went on at great length using that word and discussing the difficulty with his department interfering with the day-to-day operations of any security force. I agree, but he went on at such great length that I am now very concerned. We put questions earlier this week and last week with respect to whether the police security planning and analysis branch within his department was operational, and I am very nervous about the answers we now have because, according to the minister's definition, operational goes far beyond what I would have thought would have been the meaning of that word in the ordinary sense, and I believe we should ask those questions again. However, this third function is the test of a responsible minister in the sense of ministerial competence, and this House-not a royal commission, not an administrative tribunal, and not our law courts-will judge that competence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: If we are to judge the responsibility and the competence of a government or the ministers within that government we must do so, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, in the context of the times, but I would put that context much more honestly than the right hon. gentleman did. He was talking about 1972 and 1973, and the real context, as has been pointed out in this House, at that time was not murders and kidnapping. It was a minority Liberal government here in Ottawa and a Liberal government in Quebec getting ready for an election. It was a spill-over from Watergate. However, let us put this in the proper context of the times.
Let us go back to June of 1969 when the Prime Minister tabled the edited version of the Mackenzie royal commission report and rejected the recommendation of that commission, rightly or wrongly, for a security service separate from the RCMP. As reported at page 10637 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
The security service, under the Commissioner of the RCMP, will be increasingly separate in structure and civilian in nature.
The Prime Minister said the security service would be under the Commissioner of the RCMP, but subsequent events give very serious doubts indeed as to whether it was under direct supervision of the Commissioner of the RCMP. However, leaving that aside, the important aspects in that statement by the Prime Minister in tabling the report were that the security service would be separate in structure and civilian in nature. What should that mean to a competent, responsible minister? It should mean a possible lack of policy direction from the minister and that this group would have none of the discipline or tradition of the RCMP. Therefore the minister responsible for that group should be doubly diligent.
On that very same day the then leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), who I am sure takes

no satisfaction whatsoever in his prophecy, had this to say, and I quote from page 10639 of Hansard:
I am sure that members of parliament accept the necessity that much of the security operation is conducted outside our purview. What would be cause for grave concern would be any thought that much of the operation is beyond the ken of the ministry or the Prime Minister; that there are not ministers, elective and responsible members of government, to whom the entire security operation is an open book, who have continuing access to everything that is going on in that area, and who give proper, responsible, political, civilian direction to the operation on a continuing basis. None of us would want to see a security operation in this country running under its own steam and answerable only to itself-a government, so to speak, within the government. The very decision as to what affects security and what does not, what must be secret and what public, is finally a matter of political decision and judgment. The effective supremacy of the civilian authority must never be compromised in this matter.
This was the clearest possible warning to be vigilant, to be competent, to be responsible. All of this in June 1969, yet two years and three months later the then solicitor general, now the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), in a statement on motions described the operations of a group in his department called the Security Planning and Research Group. Any pretense of research soon disappeared. This is now known as the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Branch, under Colonel Bourne.
In giving that statement the then solicitor general clearly adopted the principles enunciated by the hon. member for Halifax, then Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. He clearly adopted those principles, clearly acknowledged the need for vigilance, competence and responsibility in this area of security. Along the way there was created a security secretariat in the Privy Council, and also some group or other in the Prime Minister's office. There was as well a cabinet committee on security chaired by the Prime Minister.
All of these-the security and intelligence group, the Solicitor General's group, the Privy Council secretariat, and the Prime Minister's group, were not composed of lowly civil servants but rather, highly placed men and women with direct access to ministers and the Prime Minister. Despite all of this, or perhaps because of the web the government created for itself, there has been no vigilance, no competence, and no responsibility.
The government must stand convicted in this court of one of two crimes. First, if the cabinet or some of its members knew of the illegalities and irregularities, they are guilty; if they did not know, they are equally guilty. We have to give the ministers and the government the benefit of the doubt, which is very hard in light of the revelations. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt we must ask ourselves whether they were careful to remain ignorant. For example, the Solicitor General said in so many words, "I cannot go through six years of files." Mr. Speaker, his time would have been better spent going through six years of files than engaging in the figure skating we have seen during the question period. I might excuse him if I knew he had been going through those files.
The Prime Minister says that to ask repeated questions would invite the accusation of having undue political influence on law enforcement agencies. What nonsense that is, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
Speaker, saying that to ask questions would invite accusations of having undue political influence. That is sheer garbage, a complete desertion of ministerial responsibility. Certainly they have to ask questions. I presume that every week in his briefing sessions the Solicitor General is asking questions. If he is not, he should be asked why. And what about his predecessors, why were they not asking questions?
All the red herrings and all the figure skating we have seen over the last two weeks are consistent with only one thing- they are consistent with a government and its ministers who have rejected their responsibilities. They are consistent with nothing else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: Some of the responsibilities are difficult, Mr. Speaker. It is trite to say what a difference there is between political dissent and subversion. That is a difficult problem and no one on this side, or in any party in this House, is denying that. But surely that difficulty is no excuse or reason for a minister or ministers to be careful to remain ignorant of facts. It cannot be thus in our system in terms of ministerial competence or ministerial responsibility.
The Solicitor General unhappily insists on the easy way out-change the law, not break it. That is a trite answer. He asks Canadians not to be too harsh in judging some of the people involved. People are not harsh in judging the people involved, Mr. Speaker-the people are harsh in judging, as is their right through their elected representatives, the competence and responsibility of ministers.
The minister stood in his place today and said that he wanted people not to be too harsh in judging people. That is garbage. It is our job to judge them. That is the reason for the existence of this House-to judge them.
The Solicitor General said that people are demanding that heads roll. He also objects to the term "government security forces." Good heavens, if we cannot use that term without the Solicitor General objecting, what term shall we use? The Solicitor General says we create the impression that it is a state police. Nonsense!
Finally, the Solicitor General says that everything goes to the royal commission. When he runs out of answers everything is a matter for the royal commission. The McDonald commission has been overtaken by events in the context of times through no fault of its own-an avalanche of events, as one editorial put it.
That commission was established on the basis of one alleged illegal event-the hon. parliamentary secretary shakes his head-with assurances in this House that there would not by any more. The hon. member would do well to check the record and I hope he will rise to correct me at the end of my remarks if I am wrong. I would welcome his interjection.
We were not talking about revelation after revelation, daily, every time we turned on the television or read a newspaper. I have no satisfaction, no member of this party and I am sure not even the parliamentary secretary know any satisfaction in
Security
that at all. My point is that taken in the context of its time, the time of the appointment of the McDonald Commission, events have overtaken it and left it far behind. I am not saying the commission should be disbanded. Not at all. Let it continue, but let us be clear: the sequence of events that have overtaken the McDonald commission now involve the rule of law, the limits on national security activity, the political supervision of the police function, and the quality of ministerial judgment. The McDonald commission is not and cannot be charged with the political half of this problem. There is no indication that the terms of reference are broad enough. Forgetting that, what inclination would the commission have to assume that responsibility? None at all, Mr. Speaker. Events have overtaken that commission.
For the sake of the integrity of the RCMP, if for no other reason, do not wait for the ponderous deliberations of the royal commission. The commission is not charged with the responsibility of restoring public confidence. What exists today, November 15, in Canada is an attack on the integrity not only of the administration of law enforcement agencies, which is serious enough, but on the political system itself.
It is this House of Commons and no other forum that should and must meet the attack. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to reconsider its rejection of an all-party committee of this House of Commons because it is our view, and surely must be the view of Canadians everywhere, that it is only this House and its members through this committee that can take the First step to meet that attack.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, what I have found thoroughly depressing about the last week or two is not the activities of the RCMP although I must say I think in some cases the police have deserved criticism, but it has been the complete insensitivity of the Government of Canada to its responsibilities and to the whole basic human right which depends upon the maintenance of law and order.
We have seen contempt for the principle of law and order on the part of representatives of the government, and I propose to try to document that statement to some extent. This is what I think has been the most distressing feature of this whole situation, and it is so unnecessary. If you want my opinion, Mr. Speaker, I think it is plain stupid.
I think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in her little discussions at Carleton University spoke more sense than all the ministers of the government who have spoken on this matter when she said there was no emergency, that the proper thing to do-and I underline this- was for government representatives to say, "Something has happened which is serious, which is wrong, and we intend to investigate. We intend where necessary to prosecute. We intend to appoint a commission to see whether there are further ramifications".

November 15, 1977
Security
Instead of doing that, Mr. Speaker, the government erected a wall of indifference in this House. I think "concealment" is not too strong a word. I say that is totally unnecessary. If the government had come forward in a straightforward manner and said, "Some things have gone wrong which we did not know about but now we are prepared to act", then I think this House and the public of Canada would have gladly accepted that. But that is not the way the government chose to act. Among all of the principal ministers concerned there has been evasion. There has been failure to face the facts which were clearly put before them.
I want particularly to refer to something which was reported just today which the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), who, I remind the House, is one of the law officers of the Crown, said. He is reported as saying that the RCMP felt nothing was unusual or wrong in operations, and that is why they did not report anything. That is why they kept the matter concealed from the minister himself. Surely no more gratuitous insult has ever been paid to the RCMP.
Does the Solicitor General really believe that the RCMP are so lacking in moral understanding that they do not understand the meaning of theft, or breaking or entering, or arson, taping other people's telephone conversations, or tampering with their mail? Does he really think the RCMP do not know that is wrong? If he does think that, Mr. Speaker, then he is totally and utterly perverse. To imagine that the RCMP do not know better than that is, as I say, a gratuitous insult. That some of them erred is obvious. Their errors are serious and should be dealt with seriously; I am not arguing that. But to suggest that you can excuse them, as the Solicitor General tries to do by saying that they really did not know that they were breaking in, or that they were diverting the mail and that they did not know that it was wrong for them to do this, is ridiculous. Of course they knew it was wrong. Any child would know that breaking and entering or arson is wrong. Any child with half a brain would know that burning down barns is wrong.
I have been quoting the Solicitor General from an interview which he gave to the Globe and Mail, reported in its issue for November 15. The Solicitor General is a lawyer learned in the law-at least I presume he is-and in addition is one of the chief law officers of the Crown in this country. I say we have come to a pretty pass when a law officer comes up with a statement like that.
I should like to quote another statement made by the Solicitor General which appeared in the Ottawa Today newspaper for November 10. The headline reads: "Mounties Lied But Fox Defends Them Anyway". Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I ask what sort of Solicitor General do we have? If his employees are lying to him, why does he not take some action? Why does he defend them when they have lied to him? How can he expect any discipline or respect when he gets up in public and says that although the RCMP lied he is going to defend them in any event? I will not go into the text of the quotation but it can be found in Ottawa Today for Thursday, November 10.
The minister has constantly played down the seriousness of this matter. He has constantly taken a defensive view of some

matters which are clearly in no way defensible, least of all defensible by an employer who is responsible for maintaining law and order in Canada.
I now want to turn to the next scene in the act, and this concerns an even more distinguished individual. I refer to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). The Prime Minister has constantly played down this matter. According to another headline, the Prime Minister "was not prepared to condemn those in raid." He then went on to use one of the most crazy analogies I have ever heard. He said the situation was as if someone had an atom bomb and was about to blow up a city, so that you had to take immediate action. What nonsense, Mr. Speaker! Did anybody in this whole story have any atom bombs ready to blow up anything at all? That analogy is utterly false. I cannot imagine what sort of reasoning would have allowed the Prime Minister to put those words into his mouth, yet that is what he said; I have the full text of his press conference.
The Prime Minister then went on to say something else which I found very remarkable. He said that the royal commission on security had said "Well, you know, you've got to stretch the law to its limits; sometimes it might even be stretched beyond its limits." Well, Mr. Speaker, I have looked through the report of the royal commission. I know personally two of the royal commissioners, one the late Mr. Coldwell who is not with us any more, and the other Mr. Max Mackenzie, and I cannot imagine either saying any such thing. Therefore I looked through the record to find out what they did say, and I can confirm they never said any such thing. This is not the Mackenzie doctrine or the security commission doctrine; that you stretch the law if you find it convenient to do so is the Trudeau doctrine. So much for the Prime Minister.
I do not want to forget, because he is my favourite bete noire, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). I hesitate to trust myself to describe the stand which he took. He went to Vancouver and spoke to a cheering crowd of people.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Liberals.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Liberals. He lashed out at the opposition parties for pillorying the RCMP with innuendo and allegations. I say this is an absolute falsehood. We have not pilloried the RCMP. We have not used innuendo. We have not used mere allegation. We have used almost entirely the admissions made by the government itself, and by the Solicitor General on behalf of the government. Yet he lashes us for trying to do our duty in this House.
I hope that nothing will ever persuade me to listen to a Minister of Justice telling me that I should not dare attack something which I know is clearly wrong merely because someone is going to be critical about me for doing that. I think that members of the opposition have a clear duty to say what we did say on this matter, and I think we have done so honestly.

I know the heat of debate sometimes overcomes us a little bit, but nevertheless, by and large, the opposition has fulfilled its responsibility, and it ill behooves the Minister of Justice, of all people, to get up in front of a partisan audience and say he is going to lash out because we dare to do our duty.
As far as I am concerned, the situation of the Minister of Justice is the most pitiable of all of these cases. I find the Solicitor General's explanations unsatisfactory. 1 find the Prime Minister, to put it mildly, casuistic, but I find the Minister of Justice absolutely intolerably hypocritical in the way he dealt with this situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have said enough to indicate my feelings on this matter. It is a highly serious matter. It is not a matter to be laughed at, or pushed aside, or shouted down. We earnestly desire to see the RCMP treated with the credit they deserve.
I want to say the failure of the government to handle this issue has been a great boon to those who believe in terrorism and subversion. If you adopt the general doctrine that you can do anything as a terrorist or as a subversive, what happens is that by not enforcing the law you have contempt for the law. This is precisely what the performance of this government has been in the last couple of weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate on this particular motion with some trepidation. Being a layman and not trained in the law, I realize full well that I am not qualified to make all the nice interpretations and qualifications of the law that are made from time to time by others. However, I and everybody else here represent people, the majority of whom are in the same position as I am, and I hope to try to speak from the point of view of the layman.
In such capacity I recognize the necessity in today's society for a security force. In fact if we look into the history of security forces over the past three or four decades we will see that security forces have been absolutely essential to the survival of the whole democratic system. Indeed, had the security forces of Great Britain and, to a lesser extent, the security forces of the United States and Canada, not been very active during the late 1930's and early 1940's we would in all probability be under nazi domination today. Therefore no one can argue that it is unnecessary to have security forces.
It is absolutely essential in these days of violence, terror, and anarchy that we be able to know who are the terrorists, who are the violent, who are the anarchists, and that we be able to control them.
It is also essential that the police forces of this country have the tools at their disposal to be able to act at least as efficiently as organized crime, so that organized crime does not spread and become a cancer in the Canadian society. But what have
Security
we had during the last few weeks, Mr. Speaker? Despite their denials today and in the last few days, the opposition have been witchhunting, with broken brooms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: They have professed today to have the utmost admiration for the RCMP. However, they did not have enough admiration for the RCMP to call in the RCMP detachment on the Hill to sweep their offices for the bugs they suspected. Instead of doing that they went out and hired some private "gum shoes". Even after they allegedly discovered them, they did not call in the RCMP. How is that for confidence in the RCMP?


An hon. Member:: Or the Ottawa police.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: And even the Ottawa police, as my hon. colleague says.


An hon. Member:: The Ontario Provincial Police.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is another possibility.
I would like to quote from today's issue of the Daily Gleaner. It reads:
York-Sunbury MP Robert Howie says the Royal Canadian Mounted Police 'is a great police force' which 'has done what the government told it to do'
Well, Mr. Speaker, how is that for talking out of both sides of your mouth? In one breath he says they are a great police force, and in the next breath he says they have been intimidated by a political party; by the government of this country. That is, of course, a total about-face in the same sentence. That comes from an MP who is a very close friend to the government of New Brunswick, which has been accused of interfering with the activities of the RCMP, and which at the moment has appointed a commission of inquiry with very limited terms of reference, that preclude the possibility of that commission of inquiry looking into the charges of political kick-backs in New Brunswick, rather than the broad terms of reference this government has put forth. Then they dare to say this government manipulates the RCMP.
To top it all off, as if that was not enough, at least we might say the NDP have been consistent in condemning the RCMP. The official opposition started off condemning the RCMP; they were out to get somebody, they did not really care whom. They would, of course, prefer to get ministers, but if they could not get ministers it would do to get the RCMP. They found out that that did not wash with the public, so today they brought in the right hon. apologist from Prince Albert to turn things around. He is good at that, but it did not work. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had dug himself into such a deep hole that there was no possibility of extricating himself.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) goes on to say, as reported in the Daily Gleaner.

November 15, 1977
Security
Howie says he doesn't condone any illegality and he isn't advocating suppression of "any legitimate allegations of wrongdoing against the RCMP or any federal agency."
That is nice.
The article goes on to read:
But it's the federal government's responsibility to defend the reputation of the force and bring in whatever "corrective measures" may be required, he says, and he blames the Trudeau government for giving the force "a very broad mandate in both domestic and national security matters without the necessary guidelines, supporting legal authority and economic resources to fulfil it".
It is a well known fact in this House that the opposition has had made available to it three briefings on national security, and members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs can, at their request, whenever they wish, have briefings with the chief overseers of security in the public service. I refer to Mr. Robin Bourne and Major General Dare. Such briefings were held on at least three dates that I know of, May 24, 1973; May 2, 1974; and May 7, 1975. To my knowledge, and from the research I have been able to do in the past few days, they have not taken advantage of any security briefings since that day. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) extended to the Leader of the Opposition the courtesy of being briefed on national security matters, a courtesy which has not been accepted. The Leader of the Opposition has seen fit to make at least two major speeches in this House in the past few weeks on the irresponsibility of the government and the RCMP on national security matters when he does not know what he is talking about.
We have heard repeatedly today there is no effort on the part of the opposition to condemn the RCMP. They say they support the RCMP. Let us look at the record. I refer to a speech made on October 31 by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He said as reported at page 496 of Hansard:
-I say the RCMP have to be brought to heel.
That is not a condemnation by the RCMP in their terms! They will bring in another apologist to try to eradicate that statement.
The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) said:
How do we address ourselves to the young people of this country when, on one hand, three law enforcement officers, presumably instructed by officials senior to them to break the law, are exonerated, when a 14 or 17 year old who breaks and enters a public or private residence is given two days, two weeks, two months, or whatever the sentence may be?
No one on this side of the House advocates breaking the law. There is a principle in the criminal law called the principle of hot pursuit. It permits police officers in active pursuit of criminals to continue their pursuit, even if it means breaking into a residence or building, or going outside of their limited jurisdiction.
In New Brunswick, for example, town police are now authorized in hot pursuit to go beyond the boundaries of the town in which they are the police officers in order to make an apprehension. Perhaps it is time that theory applied to the

security force of this nation. However, that is a matter for those more capable of interpreting the law than I.
Let us look at some of the other statements made by hon. members opposite. On October 31 the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) said:
The Solicitor General told us repeatedly that this particular group was not an operational group. We know better. As my hon. friend from the Yukon has clearly shown, this group is indeed an operational police force. It recruits and trains agents to provoke actions within unions and on university campuses, to infiltrate right wing and left wing societies, to encourage them to demonstrate on the streets, and to promote acts which are normally illegal.
Those are very serious charges. They were made by members of the opposition who have gone to pains today to claim that they support the RCMP. They challenged us today to indicate any instance when they condemned the RCMP. I say that is a condemnation.
He went on to say:
Now that we have an idea as to the kind of security forces which are operating in this country 1 ask the question: why is it necessary sometimes, as the Prime Minister says, for these agencies to break the law?
That is a legitimate question, one to which the government addressed itself. Later in his speech he said:
During the debate tonight, a number of my colleagues in the House stated they will have submissions to make to the royal commission, revealing some of the Machiavellian schemes.
They say our police force and our security force are Machiavellian.
They were not conceived by the opposition, but by the government and by some of the sick paranoid minds that operate within the security analysis group of the Solicitor General's office.
A lot of charges have been hurled about this place today. As I said before, the opposition has gone to great pains to try to paint themselves as lily white. However, their paintbrushes have had many of the bristles removed and they are leaving obvious streaks.
The Leader of the Opposition, in his contribution to this debate today, prejudged the results of the McDonald commission into the activities of the RCMP and the security service. He said the Prime Minister has already made a statement that the government would be guided by advice from the law officers of the Crown. I admit that the Prime Minister made that statement. It is an entirely legitimate statement. In fact if any minister of this government were to act in any legal matter without the advice of the law officers of the Crown, the opposition would raise outraged howls of indignation.
When the Prime Minister says that he is going to consult the law officers of the Crown, the Leader of the Opposition is upset. Apparently the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) are to make legal judgments without the benefit of law officers of the Crown.
The sinister aspect he applied to it was that the Prime Minister was building a cover for the Solicitor General previous to appearing before the McDonald commission. A few days ago the opposition was very indignant because the Prime Minister suggested they may be involved in a few shady deals.

It is O.K. for them to make specious charges, but the minute a charge is made from this side of the House, there is a great uproar from members opposite. They become very indignant.
When I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence, the opposition were after the heads of several officers in the department over the negotiations with the Lockheed Aircraft Company. They thought they smelled a scandal. Because there had been payoffs in other countries, they were sure they would be able to find such things in this country. They now say it was completely the fault of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) who tried to place the blame on the public servants. However, it was members opposite who named public servants early in that debate in the House.
Later today we had the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) make an astounding statement in this House, after we listened for about three weeks to continuous opposition charges that the RCMP was out of control, that it had no respect for the government, and that the government was not aware of what the RCMP was doing.
We had the astonishing statement today by the right hon. apologist from Prince Albert that the government is trying to smear the RCMP. He compounded that ludicrous statement by saying that the government was making contemptuous innuendoes against the RCMP, and referred to the musical chairs of the Solicitor General's department. What about the musical chairs game in the opposition, particularly in the leadership of that party? That charge is, of course, completely unfounded. And as I said earlier, it is obvious that the opposition brought in the right hon. member for Prince Albert today to try to turn the argument around, a facility he has in abundance, I must admit, but which failed today. So he became rather personal and attacked ministers who were absent from the House today on government business, another point the opposition likes continually to make, despite the fact that their attendance is no better than that of government members.
It was a shallow and hypocritical attempt to cover their tracks. It was they who smeared the RCMP. It was they who laid the original charges against the force. It might well have been that their aim all along was to try to get the minister, and if they destroyed the police force-


Mr. McKenzie:: On a point of order, the hon. member has been giving us a number of direct quotations, something which I appreciate, but he is now making charges that we have smeared the reputation of the RCMP, and I should like to hear some direct quotations in justification of those charges.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. If points of order are raised, they should be valid points of order and not merely points of argument.
Security


Maurice Adrian Dionne: At least I am not reading a speech made by one of my colleagues seven months ago.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: When did he make it then?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I read from Hansard the references to support what I said. Two weeks ago the opposition wanted the government to know everything the RCMP was doing. However, they tell us now this was never the suggestion. They only wanted the government to be in control.


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


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this is a significant day on which to be debating such a serious issue as the one now before us. Since the election of the Parti Quebecois one year ago today we have heard many speeches and statements about the concept of Canada, about what it is we want for this country, and those speeches and statements have all reflected the fundamental values which we hold in common as Canadians.
It is presumed by all who are concerned with keeping this country together that there are certain basic principles, including adherence to the rule of law and respect for individual freedom, which are shared by all of us, and which justify our people in believing in a united Canada. For many years I have listened to views about national unity, and have taken part in many discussions about the future of our country. Never in all that time did I doubt that the values and beliefs which made Canada what she is were shared by all Canadians. I took it for granted they were there as an underpinning of our society, a foundation upon which we could build the Canada of the future.
However, the evidence of the last two weeks, the revelations of illegal activities which went unquestioned by ministers of the Crown, the abrogation of ministerial responsibility, and the callous neglect of our civil liberties have made me pause and reflect about these basic shared values which I took so much for granted.
I now have to say that there is an even more fundamental question to be asked than how to hold this country together. The evidence of the past few weeks forces one to ask why we would wish to hold the country together. Why should we care about a united country if that united country is to be one in which the values we have cherished throughout our history are to be denied? Will it help us to have a geographical whole a mari usque ad mare if within that whole the freedoms and rights of individuals have been shattered? Is it enough to strive for unity without ensuring that democratic principles are guaranteed?
Fundamental to the democratic principles of this country is the belief in ministerial responsibility. Things are changing in this country. The Globe and Mail put it very well in a recent

November 15, 1977
Security
editorial: "The Prime Minister and his colleagues either don't know or won't admit what cabinet responsibility means."
When revelations about illegal security operations first began to surface it appeared to this side of the House that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues simply were not admitting to their responsibility in these matters. That, Mr. Speaker, is bad enough. But after two weeks of questioning by the opposition, during which time the government has attempted to shift the blame on to the RCMP, it is becoming more and more obvious that the government does not know what cabinet responsibility means. Further, it is becoming obvious that it does not know what "illegal" means.
The events and revelations which have been disclosed over the last few weeks should make us all tremble with rage! What have we found? A prime minister who shrugs with indifference at the idea of the police breaking the law, or who glibly suggests that if the law gets in the way then it ought to be changed; a Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) who refuses to accept responsibility for what has gone on in his department and to whom the illegal acts appear, in his own words, mere "unfortunate events"; a Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) who is not even aware that mail is being opened by the RCMP, contrary to the provisions of the Post Office Act.
The news reports of the past few weeks are astounding to ordinary Canadians. Just as disturbing is the fact that the serious events about which we have heard have become almost routine happenings. Even worse than the allegations which are coming forth every day, is the reaction of the government when pressed by the opposition to account for them. Ministers evade questions and avoid giving answers. They try to cloud the issue by suggesting that opposition parties are undermining the integrity of the RCMP. They accuse the opposition of neglecting the greater problems of the economy and of national unity.
What the government is seeking to do by these diversionary tactics is to distract the attention of Canadians from the very real danger which threatens them, a danger which outranks in importance and gravity both the economic issues and the threat to national unity. It is a danger which derives from a government which has placed itself above the rule of law and which, in so doing, has created a real and imminent threat to the political processes which we have taken for granted throughout our history.
Of course it is to the government's advantage to manipulate the views of the public by downgrading the attempts of the opposition to get to the bottom of these serious allegations. However, the attitudes of the Prime Minister and of some of his colleagues notwithstanding, surely there must be some members on the other side of the House who still understand that even more fundamental than any economic or constitutional concern is the maintenance of parliamentary democracy in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Opposition questioning about these serious allegations is an attempt, if ministers opposite will try to understand, to make the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues accept the responsibility for what goes on in their departments. Opposition questioning is an attempt to make the Prime Minister and his cabinet aware, since they so easily forget, that they are accountable to the people of Canada through parliament. It is an attempt to bring home to the people of this country the fact that their freedoms and their civil liberties are being eroded before their eyes by a government which no longer knows the difference between national security and the security of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What is at issue here is not the actions of the RCMP. The real essence of this issue is the lack of government responsibility and the erosion of civil liberties.
The government, in its answers to questions in this House during the last two weeks, has been vacillating between two positions: that of denying responsibility for any illegal actions that may have taken place, and that of excusing them in the name of national security. Both of these positions are reprehensible; but I want to concentrate on the last one, excusing them in the name of national security.
I am very much bothered by this term national security, which has been bandied about so freely in the past few weeks. What does that phrase mean? Is it a threat to national security to disagree with the Prime Minister and his colleagues? Is it a threat to national security to express that disagreement through legitimate political channels and actions? Who in the government is setting the parameters of national security, and who is defining what constitutes a threat to it?
I have always believed that we in Canada lived in a democratic society. I have always believed that in that democratic society there existed certain inviolable rights: the right to freedom of speech; the right to join any group in order to express that freedom, be it political, social or religious; the right to privacy; the right to a fair trial; and the right to presumption of innocence.
I have always believed that the law applied to everyone, but here in parliament we have been repeatedly told in recent days that the law does not apply to everyone, that some people cannot be presumed innocent, that privacy of individuals can be invaded, that certain organizations can operate less freely than others, and that the freedom of expression of some individuals may be intercepted or monitored, all in the interests of national security.
We in the opposition are being told that we should not make a fuss about this, that we should be reasonable and allow that some people are freer than others, and that occasionally the rule of reason must take precedence over the rule of law. The law is written down and is applied and interpreted within the strict confines of the traditions of precedents and of the judicial system. Reason is rather nebulous and is often inter-

preted and applied by the most unreasonable of agents, and I cannot accept that the rather suspect rationality of this government should have precedence over the rule of law and the law of the land.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a very pertinent question at this point, and I wonder if the hon. member-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I will take the question when I have finished my speech, Mr. Speaker.
The people of this country have lived all their lives trusting in the basic tenets of their democracy. They have waved few banners about their rights, and I suppose if pressed to enumerate them they would probably have trouble doing so. They simply take them for granted, and assume that their elected representatives do so as well. Well, it is obvious that such complacency about our civil rights is no longer justified.
The citizens of this country can no longer assume that their government will protect their basic freedoms. That trust which they placed in their leaders is no longer respected. The government has been misusing the trust of the nation. It has been manipulating that trust to condition Canadians to accept, on the one hand, the fact that a certain amount of law breaking by those in power is essential and, on the other hand, that such law breaking will never touch them or their rights. The most dangerous aspect of this whole issue is the notion that these infringements of basic freedoms can touch some of us and not touch all of us.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the revelations of wrongdoing which have emerged recently affect every single Canadian; that the freedoms of every single Canadian are threatened by the attitude of this government; and that the trust and complacency about our freedoms are no longer justified.
It is time for every Canadian to re-think the basic civil rights which he or she has taken for granted for so long, to recognize the fragile nature of those rights and to demand that the government respect them. We must all realize that by allowing the negation of civil rights in some "special" cases we have created an apparatus which can eventually infringe upon all of us, and we need to be aware of the progression of that infringement.
In the past we have been faced with the temporary suppression of our freedoms during times of war, through the War Measures Act. Many injustices were carried out under the umbrella of that act which were excused because the "national security" was threatened by war. More recently, during peacetime, the government invoked the War Measures Act during the October crisis of 1970. Again injustices were carried out against innocent people, and the government excused it all because the "national security" was threatened, not by war, but by subversion, terrorism or by an apprehended insurrection.
Now we discover that the freedoms of some individuals and groups are being eroded every day in peacetime, without even
Security
the pretense of a War Measures Act, and that it is all taking place because the "national security" is being threatened, not by war, subversion or terrorism, but by the democratically expressed dissent of some groups or even by the suspected beliefs of some others.
I suggest that both the concept of national security and what constitutes a threat to it have undergone a considerable revision in recent years, a revision not conducive to civil liberties, and I am terrified to think how much further that progression might go. These fears are not exaggerated when we are faced with a government which confuses the national good with its own good.
It is the responsibility of all Canadians to uphold their civil rights in every area of their lives. But it is the special responsibility of the members of parliament to uphold the system of law and of parliamentary democracy. That applies particularly to cabinet ministers. Those who have governed us in the past have always taken that responsibility seriously and, by so doing, have encouraged the belief of all citizens in their political system. But the cynical attitude of this government toward parliamentary traditions has thwarted the expectations of Canadians and encouraged a cynical attitude in the public perception of values. If the people of this country can no longer look to their government for confirmation of their basic freedoms, then where can they turn? If the government cannot be counted upon to uphold the law, who can?
What the events of these past few weeks have pointed up is that we must all reflect on what the rule of law means. It is a fundamental tenet of our democracy and we must not take it for granted, lest it slip away from us. As expressed by the British jurist, Dicey, in "The Law of the Constitution", the rule of law means not only that with us no man is above the law, but that here every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.
That ordinary citizens do not rise above the law is assured by the efforts of the police and the security forces. That the police and security forces do not rise above the law can only be assured by the efforts of the ministers who are supposed to be responsible to this House.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 10:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the debate and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings now before the House, in accordance with Standing Order 58(9).
The question is on the motion by Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain) and the amendment thereof by Mr. Broadbent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 15, 1977
Division


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.
Before the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to the point raised earlier this day, I shall now table the exchange of correspondence and documents between the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and myself a few days ago.
The question is upon the amendment in the name of Mr. Broadbent.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost. Amendment (Mr. Broadbent) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is therefore upon the motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


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


Mr. Speaker:: It being after 10.30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At 10.50 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

November 15, 1971


APPENDIX &quot;A
[Stage Direction]
November 3, 1977 Hon. James Jerome, M.P.
Speaker of the House Room 222-N House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Following disclosure of an intrusion device in the office of the Member for Central Nova, authorization was given for an examination of my Office by a professional counter-measures firm.
Enclosed is a copy of the report which the firm has submitted on the basis of their examination of my Office on October 31st and November 1st.
I will leave to you, as the responsible officer for the security of these buildings, any further action which you might deem necessary or appropriate.
Sincerely,
Joe Clark
November 3, 1977 Mr. William H. Neville,
Chief of Staff,
Office of the Leader of the Opposition,
Room 409S,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Neville:
Pursuant to the authorization given to us by you, we have examined the Office of the Leader of the Opposition in accordance with established professional counter-measures practices and wish to report the following:
1.	In examining the telephone installed in your Boardroom with Dektor DTA, it was disclosed by the ohm meter and oscilloscope that a reverse bias diode appeared within the hook switch network.
2.	Upon opening the phone, it was observed that a dilapidated top hat diode was connected to the hold circuits through a wire that was not current to the manufacture of the phone.
3.	Upon inspection of the hook switch and comparing with other similar phones in the building, it was noted the finger leaf of the hook switch was bent in such a manner that the "closes second contact" was not opening.
4.	Upon further inspection, it was noted by the crammed recircuited wires that this phone had been tampered or opened and dismantled in times past.
5.	Upon examination of the hook switch cover, it was noted that the fastening clip was broken on the cover.
Attached are our professional opinions and conclusions based on the above findings.
Report Submitted by:
W. M. Sandiford,	Dan McGarry,
General Manager,	President,
Uniserv Sound & Signal Inc. Uniserv Sound & Signal Inc.
Conclusions
1.	The boardroom telephone indicated that its manufacture was around the 1966 period.
2.	In checking, it was disclosed and consequently verified that this style of top hat diode had not been used by the manufacture for 10-15 years.
3.	The diode was not installed in a recognized common practised manner, as would have been by the manufacturer.
4.	The diode connecting wires were cloth covered wires and all other wires within the phone are vinyl covered wires.
5.	With the hook switch bent as it was, it is possible that, although the receiver would disengage from the phone, the transmitter would not.
6.	With the Dektor DTA indicating a reversed bias diode, it is quite possible that a remote listening device could be placed on the telephone as long as one of the five lines coming into the Leader's Office boardroom was depressed.
7.	It is further noted that, with the technology of this type of phone set, the hook switch only disconnects the ring but not the tip of the incoming line, and, thus, the addition of different types of listening devices could be more conveniently added at the set end.
8.	Therefore, a potential intruder's only problem is to ensure that one of the five lines in the telephone is depressed in order to activate it.
Submitted Opinions
1.	The conference room telephone was capable of being used as an eavesdropping device and, in fact, still was capable of being an eavesdropping device until 8:10 p.m. on Monday, October 31, 1977, at which time effective counter measures were taken.
2.	Installation of foreign equipment and modifications of this type would not have been done by any regular telephone company personnel.
November 15, 1977
[Stage Direction]
3.	The modifications made to the telephone were highly professional and covert. Sophisticated equipment would be used at the listening post in order to decrease detection from the user and the telephone company.
4.	All phones should be scanned and proper safeguards taken against illegal intrusion devices.
5.	The following characteristics would apply to the kind of listening device which could be operated with these modifications to the boardroom telephone:
Life span: until removed from the phone;
Installation time: 5-10 minutes;
Listening capabilities: whatever was said in the boardroom;
Detection: does not affect normal operation of phone, only detected by use of electronic equipment and hard physical inspection;
Listening post: within telephone network, with harmonica or infinity transmitter, ultimately receivable virtually anywhere in the world (with exception of Germany);
Popularity: Utilized by professionals in the intelligence gathering field.
W. M. Sandiford	Dan McGarry
General Manager	President
Uniserv Sound & Signal Inc. Uniserv Sound & Signal Inc.
[Stage Direction]
November 15, 1977

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons,
Col. D. C. Currie, V.C.
Sergeant at Arms,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Colonel Currie,
As instructed by your office, I took possession of telephone apparatus identified as Station K associated with telephone number 996-5084 at mid afternoon on Tuesday, November 8 1977.
We are informed that:
This telephone apparatus had been installed in the Conference Room associated with the office of the Leader of the Opposition prior to November 7, 1977.
The telephone was identified at 8:10 p.m. on October 31st by Uniserv Sound and Signal Incorporated as capable of being used as an eavesdropping device.
The device and wiring causing the alleged condition were removed from the telephone by Uniserv Sound on October 31st, 1977, without Bell Canada's permission or presence.
On November 8th, 1977, W. Sandiford of Uniserv Sound in my presence attempted to restore the telephone set to the condition he had found it in at 8:10 p.m. on 31st October, using the components that he said were those removed from that set. On completion, Mr. Sandiford stated that he had restored the telephone to the condition in which he found it except for the following:
(a)	a broken lead on the diode prevented him from making one termination, and
(b)	he could not restore the bent contacts in the switch hook as found for fear that he would cause additional problems.
As requested by you, we have assessed the telephone apparatus in the condition in which it was given to us to determine (a) whether it could be used as a covert listening device and (b) whether the top-hat diode and connecting wires
installed in the telephone set were foreign to telephone company use for such installations. Bell-Northern Research Laboratories, Ottawa, upon request of the Telephone Company have analyzed and conducted extensive tests on the telephone apparatus and conclude the following:
1.	"It is our view based on our tests that any telephone accessing this telephone through the switched network could not use this telephone as an eavesdropping device. However, the subject telephone was in a condition that if accessed in a sophisticated way directly from cables associated with that telephone it could have acted as an eavesdropping device."
2.	All materials found inside the telephone were of types commonly used by Bell Canada."
On receipt by us of this telephone set the hook switch contacts were in operating condition. It was stated to us that at the time Uniserv first inspected the set, one hook switch contact was bent. We cannot now know what bending had been imposed on the hook switch contact.
We would observe however, that if the hook switch contact had been bent as claimed, the telephone set would have been found by the user to be in a defective condition. A Bell craftsman who worked on the set on 27 October 1977 did not find the set to be defective as to service.
In addition to our examination of the set and apparatus, we have also carried out a thorough physical inspection of all associated cable and wiring to the station, and have uncovered no irregularities.
Our report with respect to this set is limited to the capabilities of the set in the condition in which it was presented to us. A more definitive view could have been given prior to the set being altered.
If I can be of further assistance to you please do not hesitate to contact me.
J. P. Grenier Security Supervisor
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 16, 1977