1977-10-31

Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the latest disclosures of illegal activity by federal security services, and given the fact that the McDonald Commission lacks a clear mandate to inquire into the crucial matter of ministerial responsibility for those activities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That a special committee of this House be established to inquire into the exercise of ministerial responsibility for federal security operations; that the committee be chaired by a member of the opposition; that the committee have the power to subpoena testimony from all Privy Councillors who have held the portfolio of solicitor general since 1968 and from such other senior officials as the committee deems necessary; that the committee be provided with independent counsel and research assistance; and that the committee submit at least an interim report to this House by November 30 next.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONDEMNATION OF GOVERNMENT FOR FAILURE TO ACT ON ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 as well. [Translation]
In view of the revelations made in the House last Friday in connection with the RCMP's activities in Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the House condemn the failure of the government to control effectively the activities of the RCMP. One of the results of such failure was the illegal
search conducted in the offices of a democratically established political party in Quebec, that is the Parti Quebecois, on January 9, 1973; that it also condemn the government and more specifically the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his implication in the cover-up, this following unavoidably from the fact that the Prime Minister failed to ask the RCMP how it had obtained the information on the Parti Quebecois when he learned in 1974 that the RCMP was watching that party.


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.


PERMISSION FOR CERTAIN MINISTERS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT SECURITY SERVICE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It is clearly essential that in order to maintain public confidence in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that the fullest information be available to the House and to the country concerning the relationship of the former solicitor general, now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand); the former minister of justice, now the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang); and the Prime Minister's office with the security and intelligence services of the government. I believe my motion will be acceptable to everyone in the House who is interested in bringing out the whole truth. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That notwithstanding any Standing Order or ruling of Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Transport be permitted to answer questions respecting the activities of the security and intelligence services of the government during the period when these ministers were responsible as solicitor general and minister of justice respectively.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
80025-27Vi

October 31, 1977
Impeachment and Censure


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
As there is in this country a formal bill of rights; as Canada has always been recognized as a land of freedom; as facts and circumstances revealed by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) on illegal entries of the RCMP in the case of democratic individuals and organizations; and because those illegal, illegitimate and shameful acts were inspired by the government authorities in power, and also, because those same authorities, still in power, may well pursue such chauvinistic, rash and hateful acts; and also bearing in mind the fact that the Solicitor General or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did not deign to answer adequately the questions of hon. members of this House, of whom the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) wanted to get information on the files the RCMP have on some hon. members of this Parliament, and finally because every citizen in this country will now have that sword of Damocles hanging over his liberties, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That this House order the government to set up a royal commission of inquiry, both objective and impartial, into all the extraprofessional activities of the RCMP with a view to determining whether or not it has exceeded the bounds of its role, and also to denouncing who is really responsible for that trampling of citizens' rights and freedoms.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED RESTORATION OF IMPEACHMENT AND CENSURE PROCEEDINGS IN CERTAIN CASES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short motion to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, which will have immense appeal to the other side. If consent is given, I will move:
That a select parliamentary committee be established to consider proposals to restore the practice of impeachment and censure proceedings in cases of misdemeanor and offences against the public interest alleged against those in high places.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the shocking ministerial ignorance or responsibility for illegal activities of the security and intelligence services involving break-ins, theft, arson, etc, and the inability or unwillingness of the present government to either know or state what happened, or in effect clarify what activities constitute effective and proper security procedures, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the present and former solicitor general, now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, make statements on motions immediately in order that their knowledge and/or authorization of illegal break-ins, theft, arson, etc. may be fully explained to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PROPOSALS TO PROVINCES WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY ABSENCE OF PRIME MINISTER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the urgency of the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) regarding the illegal activities of the security and intelligence services of the government; and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister, as head of all security operations in the country, should be present in the House today to explain and clarify his remarks, unless matters of even greater urgency prevent him from being here; and in view of the fact the Prime Minister has described his current meetings with the provincial premiers as merely a sounding out of opinion, I moved, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House regrets the absence of the Prime Minister at this sitting and requests the Acting Prime Minister to divulge to the House immediately what, if any, concrete proposals are being made to the provincial premiers at this time to

October 31, 1977
justify the Prime Minister's absence from the House for this crucial question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. My motion relates to statements by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) condoning illegal activities by federal security forces in 1973 on the grounds of the prevailing and political atmosphere. Since the principal features of that period included a federal Liberal government trying desperately to hold on to power in a minority situation, a provincial Liberal government-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan).



SUGGESTED DELAY IN SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The government which took power in Argentina in March, 1976, imposes a regime that violates all basic human rights. Freedom of the press no longer exists there, as demonstrated by the abduction, torture and assassination of dozens of journalists and by the banning of newspapers and journals. Argentina has refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty restricting the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That Canada stop the shipment of all parts of the CANDU reactor to Argentina and refrain from selling any further nuclear reactors to Argentina until all basic human and trade union rights are restored and until Argentina signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Absence of Prime Minister ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE



PROPOSED PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF SECTION 41(2) OF FEDERAL COURT ACT TO LIMIT POWERS OF INQUIRY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a question of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Having regard to serious allegations of a cover-up by the government, and especially the Solicitor General of Canada, respecting the illegal activities of certain security and intelligence agencies, in light of the fact that the abuse of section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act has already seriously hampered the efforts of commissions of inquiry in both the provinces of Alberta and Quebec, and having regard to the gravity of the situation which is seriously undermining the confidence and the morale of our legitimate law enforcement agencies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) in connection with these inquiries:
That the government be required not to exercise their privilege under 41(2) of the Federal Court Act and to permit the justices charged with the inquiry to examine any evidence and documents in the government's possession that may be pertinent to the inquiries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the presentation of such a motion for debate at this time requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATES TO FOURTH ANNUAL CANADIAN REGIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SEMINAR

Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the oral question period I know that all hon. members will want to join me in welcoming some very distinguished visitors whom we have in the galleries this afternoon in the persons of Canadian delegates from provincial legislatures and our counterparts in the Caribbean region under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. They are all here in Canada for the Fourth Annual Canadian Regional Parliamentary Seminar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



REFERENCE TO ABSENCE OF PRIME MINISTER DURING QUESTION PERIOD-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. I sent you notice earlier of a question of privilege. I had hoped that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would change his plans, as has already been indicated by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), and be here this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Order.

October 31, 1977



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Absence of Prime Minister
John Edward Broadbent: My point of order pertains directly to the absence of the Prime Minister this afternoon, and if hon. members opposite will do us at least the courtesy to listen to the argument, I will make the point.


Mr. Alexander:: Don't hold your breath.


John Edward Broadbent: The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), in the House on Friday, revealed for the first time to members, on this side certainly, the break-in by the RCMP into the offices of a democratically constituted political party in the province of Quebec. The questions surrounding this break-in touch at the very essence of parliamentary democracy. They pertain to the rule of law. They pertain to ministerial responsibility, and they pertain to the right of citizens to organize their lives and political activity in a free way.
My point of order is that when such questions of fundamental importance are raised by a certain illegal activity, the man who is centrally responsible for his government as it is involved in these activities ought to be here in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Therefore, I say at the outset on this point of order that the acting Prime Minister, presumably the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-who has shown a complete dereliction of his responsibilities-has to explain to the House why the Prime Minister is not here, whether he has changed his plans, whether he will be here later, and if so, when.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). However, I am sure all hon. members realize, regardless of the gravity of the situation, that the presence or absence of any minister during question period, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), constitutes neither order nor privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: However, the point of order raised by the hon. member, of which I was given notice by way of a question of privilege which would have come at the end of the question period, is one of those I thought I should hear with respect to whether we ought to proceed with the question period. We have been operating under a set of rules under which 1 defer until three o'clock the taking of any points of order; however, where one relates to the progress of the question period, as this does, 1 think I have to hear it. Notwithstanding the fact that I have now had to turn it aside, I think it is only appropriate that the question period be extended by the four minutes we have used today.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General, who made announcements in the House of Commons at a time when it was difficult to reply to him, under the pressure, I believe, of knowing that the matters revealed to the House on Friday would become public in any event through the course of provincial inquiries.
The minister referred in that statement to two illegal acts other than the illegal act relating to the Parti Quebecois. I am assuming that those other illegal acts relate to the burning of a barn and the stealing of dynamite. In relation to each of these three instances I would like to know on what date the minister became aware of them, by whom he was advised and whether the information came as a result of an inquiry which was initiated by the minister, the Prime Minister or by any other minister.


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the very funny position of being reproached by the Leader of the Opposition for being in the House on Friday afternoon or Friday morning.


Francis Fox: I always thought that the House of Commons sat five days a week.


Francis Fox: I would like to point out that this government set up a royal commission of inquiry last July. If we set up a royal commission of inquiry last July, it was because we had reasons for setting it up. It should therefore come as no surprise that other possible illegal acts should come to the surface over the next couple of weeks or months.
I indicated in my speech in the House on Friday that I had already brought to the attention of the attorney general of the province of Quebec two apparent illegal acts and that I was bringing to his attention a third act which concerned the acquisition of computer tapes containing a list of members of the PQ.
Contrary to what the leader of the New Democratic Party has been saying, this did not involve a break-in at the offices or the headquarters of the Parti Quebecois.
The other illegal acts that I had already brought to the attention of the attorney general of the province of Quebec, as indicated by the Leader of the Opposition, involve a case of arson and a case of theft of dynamite.
As to the case I brought to the attention of the House on Friday, it was first brought to my attention on the previous


An hon. Member:: He wasn't here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Tell that to the Prime Minister.

October 31, 1977

Friday in a very preliminary manner, and over the weekend the director general of the security office and the Commissioner of the RCMP were able to ascertain additional facts. We discussed the matter again on Monday and on Tuesday we had the matter brought to the attention of the Attorney General of Canada. We brought it to the attention of the federal Commission of Inquiry into the Practices and Procedures of the RCMP on Thursday and to the attention of the attorney general of the province of Quebec on Friday.
NAME OF PERSON AUTHORIZING PARTI QUfiBfiCOIS BREAK-IN


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on being able to smuggle a prepared statement into the proceedings as effectively as he did the other day. I think I should point out that the unusual position the minister was in the other day was that he was introducing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the continuing coverup hon. members opposite are trying to shout down questions from this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister has indicated that he knew for a full week of these matters before he brought them to the attention of parliament and then he brought them in a way through which he would not be subject to questions. Since the minister has known of these matters for more than a week now, I can assume that being advised of these illegalities the minister undertook an inquiry into them. I should like him to tell the House now who authorized the break-in relating to the Parti Quebecois files and information and what reasons were given to the minister by whoever authorized it as to the reasons for it?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the matter was indeed brought to my attention as I indicated in a very preliminary way on the previous Friday. Of course, I think it was my duty to try to obtain more facts before making a speech. I did bring it to the attention of the House as soon as it was possible after having had an opportunity to speak to a number of people involved with the matter. I had the opportunity to review the matter with my predecessors, the two previous solicitors general, who have clearly indicated to me that they had no knowledge whatsoever of the facts in question. 1 also had the opportunity of reviewing the matter with the Commissioner of the RCMP and the director general of security services who had made a number of inquiries within the security service itself to determine that the matter had been discussed at the most senior echelons of the security service, that is at the echelon of the then director general of the security service.


Charles Joseph Clark: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has said that the matter has been discussed at the
Oral Questions
most senior levels. When was it discussed? What I am interested in is, who authorized the action? Will the minister answer that simple question?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered the question during the course of my previous reply. It is quite clear that the matter had been discussed at the highest echelons of the security service-


An hon. Member:: Who authorized it?


Francis Fox: -and before the operation had been carried out it was brought to the attention of the director general of the security service.


Mr. Hees:: Who authorized the operation?


ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are obviously going to have to look further into this question of the authority on which the director general then acted and the degree to which there was involvement or implicit or explicit direction by the government of Canada. To that end, and since there is a great deal of confusion about what is going on-the former minister said he might have been advised but he is not really sure and the minister is quoted as saying-1 say only quoted as saying-that it would be fair to conclude that he was lied to by the RCMP-since we have opened this very important question of ministerial responsibility and since the minister himself has impugned the reputation of the RCM Police, I should like to ask whether he would now be prepared to recommend to his colleagues that a special committee of this House of Commons be established with the power and mandate to look into all aspects of this question of illegal activities by the security services, including the involvement or at least knowledge of responsible ministers or officers of the Privy Council?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the premises mentioned by the hon. Leader of the Opposition go by. The present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicated to me quite clearly, in no uncertain terms this morning, that he in no way was advised or aware of the act in question concerning Parti Quebecois files. The other point is this: at no point did I ever say I was lied to by the RCMP, nor did I impugn the reputation of the force.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: If you look at the debates which have taken place here over the past few months, you can easily see who has been throwing allegations around this House in an unfair manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!

October 31, 1977
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: The Leader of the Opposition will have to make up his mind. In June of this year he was asking for a royal commission of inquiry into the practices and procedures followed by the RCMP. We now have such a commission. It is public, and it has all the requisite powers to enable it to look into those activities.


Some hon. Members:: Not true!


Francis Fox: If members of the opposition would cease listening to each other's drivel and read the terms of reference they would see that the commission clearly has all the powers necessary to follow any illegal act from person to person up to the highest levels of government.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR SECURITY SERVICES
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Believing that it is the security and intelligence services of the government and not necessarily the RCMP with regard to which we should get more information, may I ask the minister this: the Prime Minister is quoted on Friday last as saying that in 1974 or 1975-he was unsure of the year-he realized there was police surveillance of a democratic political party in this country-surveillance of the party itself and of members of that party. May I ask the Solicitor General, who is responsible to this House for security and intelligence services as well as for police services, whether he or any of his predecessors have found out what was the purpose of that investigation, on whose orders it was conducted and, finally, what investigation the government undertook at that time, and what were the modes and procedures of that surveillance?
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is not very clear in my mind. He is asking me why there was surveillance in 1974 or in 1973. He obviously refers to an answer given by the Prime Minister during a press conference and he might take advantage of the Prime Minister's return to ask him the same question. As far as I am concerned, the procedures at this time are that we are trying, within the framework of a general mandate given the RCMP security services in 1975, to keep a close watch only over those groups who may be suspected of being subversive. This mandate refers to acts of espionage, terrorism, whether on the national or international level, to subversive acts and activities of foreign groups in Canada. It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that we do not generally carry out any surveillance of political parties, as the Prime Minister has already indicated, it is also quite clear that being a member of a political party, whether Liberal or Progressive Conservative or the New Democratic party or the Parti Quebecois, does not give immunity to anyone who would tend to promote changes brought on by violent and undemocratic ways.
(Mr. Fox.]


ALLEGED ARSON AND THEFT OF DYNAMITE-NAME OF PERSON AUTHORIZING ACTIVITY
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Of course, my question to the minister was: on whose orders was this done and what investigation was initiated by the government on learning of that surveillance? As well, this morning, according to the national press, Mr. Claude Morin who is described as an executive assistant to the present Solicitor General, indicated last night that the federal government-this government- knew last September that the police in Quebec had been involved in an arson incident and the theft of dynamite. That was last September. On whose orders did that take place, and what investigation has the government made into the alleged circumstances and facts?


Francis Fox: Or the question of the facts, once again the hon. member is confused. I presume that what the newspaper article referred to was that this government, far from trying to conceal any facts, brought those facts to the attention of the attorney general of Quebec during September. On September 19, the deputy attorney general of the Department of Justice wrote a letter to the deputy attorney general of Quebec bringing these facts to his attention. That letter was delivered on September 20. As for the general allegations concerning the theft and the arson, the truth of the matter is that these questions were brought to our attention after my initial statement in the House on June 17 last. Those were, in part, the reasons the government decided to go ahead and launch a federal commission of inquiry, in order that the truth would come out and we would be able to establish once and for all the extent of any illegal break-in activities, clear the air for the RCMP and permit the RCMP security service to get on with the job which is essential to the security of this country.


ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Solicitor General. I do not use the word lightly and I use it carefully. The Solicitor General may disagree, but I think we are clearly involved in a coverup in this matter involving the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I have a quotation by the Prime Minister which seems to indicate that in the most unequivocal terms. I want to ask the Solicitor General for his interpretation of it. The Prime Minister is quoted in last Saturday's Globe, October 29, as saying the following:
When we found they-
That is with reference to the RCMP.
-were doing something illegal we told them to stop it and we told them they might have to be subject to due process of law for it.
October 31, 1977

My question to the Solicitor General about this is, if the Prime Minister was referring, and it is not clear from the context, to the time of the break-in, that seems to imply that something ought to have been done in terms of public revelation of the fact that it was done. That is one interpretation. The only other interpretation is that he was referring to the time he got the information, which was late last week, in which case he was saying we found then they were doing something illegal and we told them to stop. What did he find out late last week that they were still doing that he told them to stop?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I believe one would have to ask the Prime Minister what he had in mind when he made the statement. What I gather is that the statement referred to two different things, first the question of general surveillance of political parties. The position of the government has always been clear. No democratic political party of any stripe can be, should be or ought to be the object of systematic surveillance by the RCMP. That has been made clear time and time again in this House by the Prime Minister. We stated that in this House in 1976.
As to the other part of the question, where I think some confusion arises, the Prime Minister is obviously referring to the fact that this question concerning the computer tapes on which the lists of members of the Parti Quebecois were included was brought to his attention at the end of last week or at the beginning of last week. I think it is as simple as that and the confusion once again rests in the mind of the reader.


John Edward Broadbent: We will see about that when the Prime Minister comes back to the House.


An hon. Member:: Ask him.


John Edward Broadbent: If he were around, 1 would ask him. With reference to something else, the Prime Minister said with what I can only regard as calculated ambiguity in this case, and he is quoted in the press on the week-end, that when he found out that the surveillance was taking place, whether in 1974 or 1975 and he was not sure which, with reference to the compilation of the lists of the PQ membership that "maybe they", with reference to the RCMP "did tell me" about it at that time. Is it credible to the Solicitor General that a normally intelligent man back in 1974 or 1975, when informed of surveillance, when presumably he is not sure, that he learned about a list being in the hands of the RCMP about future membership, that he would not have asked the RCMP if they had acted by peaceful and legal means or by illegal means.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear the Prime Minister answered these questions in detail during the course of his conference. He stated that he did receive information from time to time from the RCMP security service, information which is gathered in the normal course of his duties and that in most cases the question as to where the information came from was not asked in view of the fact the RCMP always assured him the information came from reliable sources.
Oral Questions
SURVEILLANCE OF PARTI QUfiBfiCOIS-ACTION BY PRIME MINISTER


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister revealed a sort of disarming naivety on Friday when he said that this matter was brought to his attention in 1974 and 1975 and he was scandalized that they were observing a democratically constituted party. Would the Solicitor General not consider it a responsibility of the Prime Minister or indeed any minister that if he were scandalized by surveillance of a democratically constituted party, that he would have had the common sense and/or moral responsibility to go beyond that, being scandalized to find out if they were actually doing it democratically?


Francis Fox: When the Prime Minister found out that that was the case, his attitude was the proper one. It is the same one I would have today, to tell the security that any such surveillance is not proper and must cease immediately.


REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES CONNECTED WITH FLQ IN 1970
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Solicitor General. The sensational revelations he made last week have of course spread consternation even among the staunchest supporters of this government. Mr. Speaker, since the revelations made seem to have been brought out by the Keable Commission as a result of the Quebec government's action regarding the search in the offices of the Agence de presse libre du Quebec, could the minister tell the House whether he at last will fully disclose the illegal activities by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, beginning with its infiltration in the ranks of the FLQ in 1970?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, our decision to set up a royal commission of inquiry in July was precisely to clear up the operations of the RCMP in an open, accurate and unequivocal way.
It was our opinion, Mr. Speaker-and it might not be shared by our colleague-that the best way to do it was to proceed within a judicial framework with a judge and procedures, where people can be examined and cross-examined under oath and have every opportunity to make their case to explain their acts to the court and to the population of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this way of proceeding is much more preferable than the one suggested by the hon. member. Besides, since he is so impressed by the activities of the Parti Quebecois government in Quebec, I would remind him that this same government which makes such a deep impression on him is proceeding in the same way.


René Matte: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Quebec government may impress me, but the minister and the government impress us indeed greatly when we are faced with such disclosures. The minister can therefore dispense with
422

October 31, 1977
Oral Questions
make-believe explanations. Could he tell the House whether there is in RCMP files evidence of RCMP infiltration of FLQ cells in 1970, and whether the current commission will make public the relevant facts?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that if we had successfully infiltrated FLQ cells in 1970,1 for one would have nothing but praise for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

PARTI QUfeBfiCOIS BREAK-IN-DATE ON WHICH FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL INFORMED


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Solicitor General. It arises from the non-answers given to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and the Leader of the Opposition. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the former Solicitor General, stated over the weekend he did not know whether he had been told or not about the break-in of the offices of the Parti Quebecois in January, 1973. By now the former minister must have reached a threshold of recall or recovered from selective amnesia. Has the minister had a discussion with the former Solicitor General? On what date did the former Solicitor General say he was informed of the illegal break-in? I ask the minister this so that he will have the details of this ministerial coverup.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I had discussions with the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs last Thursday, I believe it was, and again this morning. He confirmed to me quite clearly that not only does he have no recollection of the events but he is quite convinced that he was never apprised of them. I have also had a report from the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Director General of the Security Service who have gone through the files in detail. I have seen parts of them up to now and they indicate to me that there is no indication whatsoever in the files, nor is there any indication from the former director general of the security service, whom they interviewed, that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was at any time either before or after the event apprised of the method used to obtain the computer tapes in question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly an unusual answer. First of all the Solicitor General says that he does not have any recollection, and then he says that he now knows that he was not apprised of the situation. Would the minister answer the question that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition as to who directed and authorized this illegal break-in, theft and arson, etc. The Solicitor General has given us evasive answers, so 1 ask him, was it authorized by General Dare or Colonel Bourne of the Security Planning and Analysis Branch? I ask this question in light of the fact that this government is attacking the RCMP of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member has not had the time to verify his facts before asking the question. He wants to go back and look at the facts, when he would see that the day that the tapes were obtained was January 9, 1973. General Dare was not head of the security service at that time. In answer to his specific question, the entry or possible offence was authorized neither by Mr. Dare, whom he mentioned, nor Mr. Bourne.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Now, we have had a negative answer, Mr. Speaker, let us have a positive answer. Who did authorize this break-in? Let us have the names of the people involved and the branch of the government, whether the ministerial branch or the Security Planning and Analysis Branch.


Francis Fox: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, hon. members enjoy repeating the same question. I responded to the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, who asked me the same question. If hon. members would care to stop their catcalls for one minute and listen to the answer, perhaps they would stop asking me redundant questions. I indicated quite clearly that the matter was authorized by the most senior level of the security service of the RCMP, and that was by the person holding the rank of director general.


ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES-POSSIBLE REPORT BY SECURITY PLANNING AND ANALYSIS BRANCH
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and it relates to the Security Planning and Analysis Branch within his department. I do not want him to confuse the House by going off into the security intelligence branch of the RCMP. Since that branch was formed in the department in 1971 to monitor and disseminate security information, and since officers of that branch were apparently aware of these activities in 1973, is the Solicitor General telling the House, in his answers to previous questions, that that branch and its director, Colonel Bourne, did not make any report whatsoever of these activities to the minister's predecessor?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I, too, read the Globe and Mail in the morning and I saw the same story. I asked the question of the head of that group and he reports to me that they were not advised, nor did they know in advance or after the fact, of the events in question.


William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In his conversation with the director of that branch within his department, did the Solicitor General examine the relevant files of the branch to determine whether or to confirm that the branch knew absolutely nothing about these activities, and that furthermore the branch did not communicate any suspicion or any knowledge whatsoever to the minister's predecessor? Is the minister absolutely convinced of that?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I should say in response to the question that any indication to this effect would be examined in detail by the royal commission of inquiry, as all those files
October 31, 1977

would be made available to them. I have not, of course, gone through all the files from that branch from the period 1970 to the present, nor do I intend to do so, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member wishes to read stories in the Globe and Mail, perhaps there is some fact in them. If there is, I would expect the people involved who wish to leave things to a newspaper would also wish to bring those matters to the attention of the royal commission of inquiry which has a mandate to look into these matters in detail.


AUTHORITY TO WHOM SECURITY INFORMATION TRANSMITTED AND BY WHOM
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General of Canada.
In a speech he gave to the House on October 28, the Solicitor General stated that the cabinet concluded that if information on the occupant of strategic position or a candidate for that position in the civil service was available and that they gave reason to believe that the said individual was a separatist or a sympathizer of the Parti Quebecois, this information was deemed to be pertinent as far as national security was concerned and it should be brought up to the attention of the authorities concerned. My question is: Can the Solicitor General tell the House who are these authorities, who is in charge of bringing this information relating to national security to their attention and whether the cabinet is aware of all that.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to indicate to the hon. member that this is a matter of security practice inside the government. Of course, if we think that certain people are openly in favour of separation or of destroying the Canada we know, we think that there are some strategic positions, I do say some strategic positions, inside the federal administration where those people should not work. We have never thought of excluding those people from the federal administration but of keeping some people outside certain strategic positions. Perhaps I can give you one example: If we are preparing a constitutional strategy, if we have positions in the ministry of state for Federal-Provincial relations or in other departments where there are negotiations with the provinces, key negotiations on the future of the country, I think that all hon. members agree that this guy should not be there because it is very difficult for him to be honest with himself and with his political beliefs which, in several cases, as the hon. member knows, are very strong.
So in such cases, Mr. Speaker, we think that these people should not be moved to strategic positions in the federal administration. Of course, Mr. Speaker, information is, like in all other cases, brought to the deputy minister concerned who is responsible for assessing the authenticity and the relevancy of the information and for ensuring whether this information should be retained considering the strategic position in question.
Oral Questions


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In his statement, the Solicitor General made a distinction between a separatist and a sympathizer. Could he explain the difference between the two and how he can tell a separatist from a sympathizer? Is it someone who voted for the PQ or intented to do so, and also-


An hon. Member:: You are out of order.


Roch La Salle: No, I am not-also, Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's remark or statement of last Friday to the effect that in connection with the 1970 crisis, he had found normal that the RCMP should lay their hands on files in PQ offices. Could the minister tell us whether he sees a difference between an FLQ member in 1970 and a PQ member in 1973? That is a crucial issue!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Prime Minister has ever said that it was permissible to commit illegal acts. What he really meant in his answer is that it is quite possible that in pursuit of its mandate for national security certain actions may be taken which cannot be accepted, which are really unacceptable. And the raid made in the building where there were magnetic tapes and a list of the PQ members is indeed an operation which the government cannot condone. Incidentally, I would like to point to the hon. member that despite his television appearance on Friday night, he very well might have mentioned, had he wanted to be perfectly honest, that the matter had been brought to the attention of the Quebec authorities by the Solicitor General of Canada, and it is no mere coincidence that it was made public, Mr. Speaker. As to his specific question, Mr. Speaker, it is obviously the duty of the deputy minister concerned to assess information. The hon. member asked what is actually a rhetorical question, namely whether a distinction was made between a member of the FLQ and a member of the Parti Quebecois. The hon. member is fully aware of the situation since he has been sitting in this House for a long time and has himself heard the right hon. Prime Minister clearly state that there was no reason for Canadian security services to make any surveillance of the Parti Quebecois which it obviously recognizes as a democratic party.


Roch La Salle: They still did it!


Francis Fox: However, Mr. Speaker, if by any chance there are people in the Parti Quebecois or any other political party with Maoist, Trotskyist or other political tendencies, it would obviously be advisable for the security services to keep an eye on such groups to serve the best interests of both the Canadian and Quebec governments.
80025-28Vi

October 31, 1977
Oral Questions


ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES-SUGGESTION RESPONSIBILITY EXTENDS TO HIGHEST LEVEL
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would prefer to address this question to the Minister of Justice; but since the Solicitor General is one of the chief law enforcement officers in the country responsible for law and order, and since the concept of due process of law has been mentioned today, 1 should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he or any of his colleagues have given attention to the legal and other responsibilities which arise from those persons at the very top, such as the director general, who are responsible for the activities of the security service? In view of the very questionable activities which have been revealed here, I should like to ask him whether he agrees that due process of law extends right to the top, and that he will assure us that there will be no arbitrary chopping off of responsibilities at lower levels?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, that is the position of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: When are you resigning, then?


POSSIBLE SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONS CONNECTED WITH LAYCRAFT COMMISSION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. 1 should like to direct another question to him. As revealing as the Quebec incidents are, involving the security services of the RCMP, I want to ask the Solicitor General about activities in another area of the country. I want him to go on record, if he will, and answer as to whether any persons connected with the Laycraft Commission of inquiry in Alberta-and this is further to the questions asked by the hon. member for New Westminster-including the attorney general of that province and his officials, have been subjected to clandestine or illegal surveillance, including bugging, wiretapping and particularly mail interception by the security services of the RCMP, or anyone under its direction? Can he give us that unequivocal assurance?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been closely examined by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The deputy commissioner of criminal operations has had a look at that. To the best of our knowledge, there is no basis in fact to any of the allegations which have come out. As I have indicated in answer to the question of the hon. member for New Westminster, the commanding officer of the force has met with the Solicitor General in order to review this matter. Also, the commanding officer made a public press release in Alberta to indicate that there was no factual basis to the allegations that the RCMP have been involved in bugging operations concerning the attorney general of the province of Alberta.
[Mr. Fox.)


OPERATION OF &quot;O&quot; BRANCH-MINISTERIAL KNOWLEDGE AND ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy with that answer as well. By way of my final supplementary I should like to ask whether the Solicitor General, in connection with the security services of the RCMP, has been fully briefed on the activities of what is sometimes called the special "O" branch which, as he may or may not know, have their own financial section and conduct activities on such an autonomous basis that even the commanding officers of divisions know little if anything about their methods, whereabouts and activities. Can he indicate whether this branch has been in fact conducting operations in various parts of the country, that he is fully aware of the circumstances and will accept his ministerial responsibility therefor?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, there is a special "O" branch within the RCMP. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the RCMP operates under a mandate given to it by the government. The Director General of Security Services is responsible to see that this mandate is carried out. The government has directed that all of its operations must be carried out within the framework of the law. Also I should like to point out to the hon. member that since early spring an operational review committee has been set up within the RCMP. It reviews all of the operational matters entered into by the RCMP in order to assure that their operations come within the mandate as given to it by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, also I should like to point out that the Director General of the Security Services has access to law officers of the Crown in cases where he has doubts as to legality of the operation. Also he has access to me, if he wishes to bring the matter to my attention, since I meet with him on a weekly basis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES-REASON FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN SEARCH WARRANT
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Solicitor General. In his speech in the House on Friday he spoke of a dilemma and urged that the House and the people of Canada not be over hasty in passing judgment in this case. I should like to ask him for a legal opinion which I know he can answer very easily. Does the law not provide for obtaining a search warrrant if any illegal activities are suspected? What was the dilemma or the emergency which prevented the use of the ordinary legal methods of search in this case?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 31, 1977


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think anyone on this side of the House, or anyone in the House, would try to excuse any illegal activity. I think the position of the government is very clear.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Except your own.


Francis Fox: The position of the government is that any illegal activity which is brought to our attention will be brought to the attention of the proper prosecutorial authority.
The basic dilemma was raised not only by the Prime Minister and myself, but also by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the security services in 1969, of which an eminent member of that party was, of course, a member. At that point it was clearly pointed out by the royal commission itself that there would be times when the security service, in pursuit of its mandate for national security-


John Edward Broadbent: What about this situation?


Francis Fox: -may have a problem either accomplishing its mandate and breaking the law or not accomplishing its mandate.


Walter David Baker: What a stupid remark!


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Francis Fox: I should like to mention one clear example. At the moment if a member of the security services needs to put his hands on a cypher code of a foreign country, for instance, or something which might be of very great interest to us-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: -it is quite clear that under the present legal framework that member could be accused of having committed an illegal act. To my mind that is a nonsensical situation in which to put members of the security services.


John Edward Broadbent: You are kidding!


Francis Fox: That is the basic dilemma 1 wish to draw to the attention of the House and to the attention of hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General if it is not, in his opinion, the duty of everyone, including the Solicitor General, not to condone a clear breach of the law by anyone, and above all by police officers, in breaking and entering into the offices of a legal political party? If that is so, why are so many of his statements- particularly the one he made on Friday-so defensive and so evasive in tone?
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of the hon. member's question, the answer of course is yes. That was stated very clearly in my statement to the House in June of this year. It was made very clear that if there were deficiencies in the law, the solution was not to break the law, but the solution was to change the law. One of the very basic tasks of the Royal Commission of Inquiry will be to direct itself to that problem, which was not addressed in its complete details or in an entirely satisfactory fashion by the Royal Commission of Inquiry of 1969, of which Mr. Coldwell was a member-


An hon. Member:: Are you going to legalize arson?


John Edward Broadbent: What a red herring!


Francis Fox: -to sign that report indicating that really this was, for any democratic country, a very basic problem which we all had to come to grips with, whether we like it or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE SURVEILLANCE OF MEMBERS OF MEDIA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. It being quite clear that under the doubtful use of security and for probably illegal methods this government and its agencies have had no compunction about making improper inquiries into political parties and politicians, can the minister now indicate the extent to which the government and intelligence agencies have made surveillances, carried on investigations and made interceptions of the media?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I have no indications whatsoever of any general surveillance of the media.


Walter David Baker: Will you ask?


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General, and it has to do with the Royal Commission on Security which he has mentioned several times.


An hon. Member:: Set up.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In light of the recent events, is the government having second thoughts about its decision not to proceed with the recommendation of that royal commission to establish a separate agency to handle national security?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is what they are after.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 31, 1977
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, this was one of the recommendations made by the royal commission in 1969. At that point that recommendation was looked at and examined in detail by the government and by the RCMP. For a variety of reasons, it was decided that it was best to leave the security services within the RCMP. I have looked at the question a number of times, and I think there are very good reasons for keeping the security services within the RCMP. There are some good reasons that can be marshalled on the other side of the argument to indicate that it ought to be a civilian agency outside of the RCMP. This is a problem we will have to examine in great depth and detail. I trust this is one of the main tasks that the new Royal Commission on Security, which was set up in July of this year, will want to examine in detail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that all of the erosion of the integrity-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the erosion of the integrity and of the good image of the RCMP is related to instances involving security and intelligence activity and have arisen since the initial establishment of the security planning and research group under the present Minister of Supply and Services, will the government consider restoring the confidence of the public in the RCMP by dismantling the civilian security planning and analysis branch of his department and re-establishing the security and intelligence operations and responsibilities under the sole control and direction of the RCMP where they were prior to the establishment of Goyer's gumshoes which have now become Fox's flatfeet?


Francis Fox: The group to which the hon. member refers is a group-as he knows because he questioned them at great length during the examination of the estimates of my department last spring-which performs a very worthwhile function within our country, and the people who are working in that group are dedicated public servants, as he well knows.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Justice, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Would the minister advise the House whether he, with his special responsibilities for the administration of justice, agrees with the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister stated that there may be technical breaches of the law which are justified in the name of national security, or does the minister agree with me that the administration of the law in a liberal democratic state has to be equitable, fair and the same for all persons, so that there is no justification for break-in and entry, for theft or arson, no matter what the rationalization or who perpetrates the breach?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, this is a question to which I have replied at least on three or four occasions this afternoon.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister cannot be here, but perhaps the Solicitor General, even though he is new to the cabinet committee on security and intelligence, could tell us why the cabinet committee on security and intelligence, which is chaired by the Prime Minister and is the top level group in the security field and includes the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, did not know about the illegal break-in, arson and thefts until a few days ago, and why this information was kept from this cabinet committee and how did this come about?


Francis Fox: The information to which the hon. member refers concerning the case was the result of an operation which everyone within the security service at that time, including the director general of the security service, did not consider to be an illegal operation. That is why from their point of view, there was no reason to report it to the government at the time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CABINET INSTRUCTION ON SURVEILLANCE OF VARIOUS SECTORS OF COMMUNITY
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In light of this further revelation, I wonder whether the Solicitor General can tell us, either during the question period or as a statement on motions, what instructions were issued by the cabinet committee on
October 31, 1977

security and intelligence on questions of surveillance of political parties, members of the mass media, trade unions, the National Farmers' Union, etc., what information they were asked to obtain, and to whom this information was made available?


Francis Fox: If the hon. member wishes to read the speech 1 made in the House on Friday, he will see that I have outlined in great detail and have made public for the first time the complete mandate of the security service of Canada. It is quite clear that there is no mandate given to the security services of the RCMP to inquire into the over-all activities of any democratic political party in our country. However, let me say once again that if within such a political party there is a group of people who are dedicated to making changes through undemocratic means, then of bourse that group would become the legitimate object of surveillance by the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIRECTOR GENERAL OF SECURITY AND CABINET COMMITTEE
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in light of the basic importance of this matter and the comments by the Prime Minister last Friday about the possibility of operating above the law, can the Solicitor General, either today or tomorrow, make a statement on motions indicating the exact nature of the relationship which exists between this cabinet committee chaired by the Prime Minister and the Director General of Security Services on whom in this matter the Solicitor General has cast all the responsibility?


Francis Fox: No, I do not intend to make a statement on motions tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. If hon. members have any questions to ask, they are free to do so, as they have done for almost an hour at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is one way to end the question period.


Francis Fox: This remains the current practice and members of the opposition have the opportunity to examine officials of the security service during the course of examination of estimates, an opportunity which they had last spring and which they have exercised on a number of occasions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: You are stonewalling, Francis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Public Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-10, to amend the Financial Administration Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Speaker:: May I just take a moment to refer the House to the practice which has been followed in the past in respect of this particular moment which calls for the introduction of some 205 individual private members' bills. The practice that has been followed in the past is the one of balloting. This leads to an agreed number of bills being put on the order paper by way of first reading, in the hope that a certain number at least will reach second reading and discussion.
It is not possible for us to take the time of the House, nor is it practical for us to introduce each bill individually. So, in keeping with past practice, may I suggest that we now give first reading to all 205 private members' individual bills at this time. However, by unanimous consent, the private members' public bills that will be listed for introduction in this way will be dealt with under one general motion, and 1 should repeat the caveat of the Chair that I have not undertaken to examine these bills with regard to their procedural regularity. That argument can always be raised at the time that the bill comes forward for further consideration, which is an exception to the practice, but is the only feasible way to do it.
Therefore, with the caveat that this is not a certification in any way by the Chair of the procedural regularity of the bills, may I put to the House the motion that some 205 bills listed on the order paper today as private members' public bills be given first reading?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-201, An Act respecting the cost of publishing public reports-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-202, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act- Mr. De Bane.
[Stage Direction]
October 31, 1977

m
Public Bills
Bill C-203, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-204, An Act to prohibit aid to foreign countries violating human rights-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-205, An Act to provide for emergency measures to deal with the inflation of prices-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).
Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation of children)-Mr. Epp.
Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography)-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-208, An Act to render Government documents and publications pertaining to senior citizens more legible and comprehensible-Mr. Goodale.
Bill C-209, An Act respecting the international airport at Ottawa-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-210, An Act to correct certain anomalies and inconsistencies in the Revised Statutes of Canada 1970 pertaining to the protection of Canadian language rights-Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).
Bill C-211, An Act to amend the House of Commons Act and the Canada Elections Act (by-elections)-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-212, An Act to provide for the establishment of the Office of Parliament Hill Curator-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-213, An Act to amend the Railway Act (definitions)-Mr. Brisco.
Bill C-214, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (living separate and apart)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (N.S.F. cheques)-Mr. Turner.
Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Bank Act, the Shipping Act, the Criminal Code, the Customs Tariff, the Customs Act, the Export and Import Permits Act, the Export Development Act, the Foreign Investment Review Act, the Canada Corporations Act, the Combines Investigation Act and other applicable statutes-Mr. Kempling.
Bill C-217, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act-Mr. McKenzie.
Bill C-218, An Act respecting senior citizens-Mr. Howie.
Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act-Mr. Joyal.
Bill C-220, An Act to provide for a National Referendum on the reinstitution of Capital Punishment-Mr. Lawrence.
Bill C-221, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)-Mr. McKinnon.
Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Railway Act (ownership of land where railway line abandoned)-Mr. Whittaker.
Bill C-223, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (certification of union)-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-224, An Act to amend the Railway Act (noise abatement)-Mr. O'Connell.

Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (party status)-Mr. Beaudoin.
Bill C-226, An Act to provide for the elimination of inactive and overlapping Federal programmes and agencies by requiring Parliamentary review every five years-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-227, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (invasion of privacy)-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-228, An Act proclaiming the Canadian Flag Day a national holiday-Mr. Haidasz.
Bill C-229, An Act to protect the Canadian environment by instituting mandatory impact assessment procedures prior to the construction of installations potentially damaging to the environment-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-230, An Act to amend the British North America Act (the constitution of the Senate of Canada)-Mr. Murta.
Bill C-231, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abduction of child)-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff (games of violence)-Mr. Schellenberger.
Bill C-233, An Act respecting the policy of financing transportation in non-metropolitan areas-Mr. Tessier.
Bill C-234, An Act respecting National Heritage Day-Mr. MacGuigan.
Bill C-235, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code to provide for the establishment of sector bargaining-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-236, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion and the unborn infant)-Mr. Roche.
Bill C-237, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (rights of persons under arrest)-Mr. Symes.
Bill C-238, An Act respecting the age of retirement-Mr. Rynard.
Bill C-239, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (obscenity)-Mr. Whiteway.
Bill C-240, An Act to amend the British North America Act, the Senate and House of Commons Act and the Canada Elections Act-Mr. Hurlburt.
Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography)-Mr. Dinsdale.
Bill C-242, An Act to amend the Harbour Commissions Act (local representation)-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-243, An Act respecting a Canadian Bill of Rights for Children-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-244, An Act respecting the preservation and surrender of constituency records-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-245, An Act to amend the Post Office Act-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (loan sharking)-Mr. Robinson
Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act (corporate objects)-Mr. Dick.
[Stage Direction]


October 31, 1977
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Railway Act (half-fare railway tickets for senior citizens)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-249, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (right of worker to refuse to work in unsafe conditions)-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (day-fines)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-251, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (pollution)-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Interest Act-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Bank Act (qualification of directors)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-254, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (young offenders)-M. Woolliams.
Bill C-255, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-256, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act- Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Indian Act (rights of Indian women)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-258, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada)-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-259, An Act respecting relief to non-smokers in transit-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-260, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (teachers voting abroad)-Mr. Epp.
Bill C-261, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (noise pollution)-Mr. Whittaker.
Bill C-262, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (air crew proxy voting)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-263, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (discrimination as to age or physical handicap or health)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-264, An Act to establish a universal emergency telephone number-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act- Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-267, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Prince George-Peace River)-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (use of contributions)-Mr. MacGuigan.
Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (culpable homicide redefined)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-270, An Act respecting the conditions under which public servants may accept employment upon leaving the public service-Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).
Public Bills
Bill C-271, An Act to provide for the establishment of a Canada Sea Coasts Conservation Authority-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-272, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (Canadian citizens)-Mr. Jones.
Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (postal vote)-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-274, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act- Mr. Rynard.
Bill C-275, An Act respecting the designation of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the Member for the Electoral District of Parliament Hill-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-276, An Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-277, An Act to amend the National Housing Act (proof of need)-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-278, An Act respecting Magna Carta Day-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)-Mr. Leggatt.
Bill C-280, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-281, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (objectionable publications and shows)-Mr. Whiteway.
Bill C-282, An Act respecting the implementation of International Labour Organization Convention 96, concerning fee charging employment agencies-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (strike or lock-out)-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-284, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (increased minimum hourly wage)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-285, An Act to provide for the establishment of a Canada-Alaska and Maine Corridors Authority-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-286, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code- Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-287, An Act respecting the National Food Week- Mr. Nystrom.
Bill C-288, An Act for the control of forms in the public service-Mr. Hnatyshyn.
Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (right of worker to appeal dismissal)-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act- Mr. Jones.
Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (notice of termination of employment)-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-292, An Act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day-Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-293, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971-Mr. Oberle.
[Stage Direction]
October 31, 1977
Public Bills
Bill C-294, An Act to provide for the establishment of an Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-296, An Act to amend the Holidays Act-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-297, An Act to establish a press council for Canada-Mr. Scott.
Bill C-298, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reporting names of accused)-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-299, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (prisoners enfranchised)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-300, An Act to amend the Canadian language law- Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).
Bill C-301, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cautionary label on alcoholic beverage container)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-302, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (alimony maintenance and custody)-Mr. Huntington.
Bill C-303, An Act respecting the disclosure of financial interests by Senators, Members of the House of Commons and certain other persons-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-304, An Act to establish a National Administration School in the National Capital Region-Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).
Bill C-305, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (tenure of Senators)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-306, An Act to establish a universal emergency telephone number-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-307, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (conscientious objectors)-Mr. Epp.
Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Export Development Act-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-309, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (right of worker to refuse to work overtime)-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-310, An Act to readjust the representation of Quebec in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Quebec-Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve).
Bill C-311, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-312, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (provision for ten general holidays with pay)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-313, An Act to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-314, An Act respecting the marketing of Prairie grains-Mr. Nystrom.
Bill C-315, An Act respecting the release of scientific information dealing with the content of any substance found in the food system-Mr. Nystrom.

Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (political affiliation)-Mr. Jones.
Bill C-317, An Act to amend the Bank Act (qualifications of directors)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-318, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography)-Mr. Epp.
Bill C-319, An Act respecting the advertising of food-Mr. Nystrom.
Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff (games of violence)-Mr. Brisco.
Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Railway Act (fences)- Mr. Collenette.
Bill C-322, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (obscenity)-Mr. Lawrence.
Bill C-323, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act to provide for the standardization of warranties and to define the minimum provisions thereof-Mr. McKenzie.
Bill C-324, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (black powder firearms)-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-325, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography and children)-Mrs. Appolloni.
Bill C-326, An Act respecting noise in factories-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act-Mr. Towers.
Bill C-328, An Act respecting the control of lobbying-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-329, An Act to protect the indexing of payments made under the Canada Pension Plan-Mr. Reid.
Bill C-330, An Act to register lobbyists-Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).
Bill C-331, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-332, An Act to repeal the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and certain related provisions of other Acts-Mr. Schumacher.
Bill C-333, An Act respecting the sale of firecrackers to minors-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-334, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Elections Expenses Act-Mr. Jones.
Bill C-335, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (benefits to adopting parent)-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-336, An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (corporate and political office prohibited)-Mr. McKenzie.
Bill C-337, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act-Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain).
Bill C-338, An Act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (time off without loss of pay for appearance in Citizenship Court)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).

October 31, 1977
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-339, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (oaths and confidential information)-Mr. Leggatt.
Bill C-340, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (appointment of Senators)-Mr. McKinnon.
Bill C-341, An Act respecting the presence of the Flags of Canada in both Houses of Parliament-Mr. Schumacher.
Bill C-342, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-343, An Act to provide for the establishment of the Office of Archeological Curator for Canada-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Statistics Act-Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands).
Bill C-345, An Act to establish the Office of Ombudsman- Mr. Reid.
Bill C-346, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-347, An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the Quorum of the House of Commons-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-348, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography)-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-349, An Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (appeals)-Mr. Reid.
Bill C-350, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (tenure of place of Senators)

Mr. McKinnon.
Bill C-351, An Act to amend the Interest Act-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-352, An Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-353, An Act to rescind the Memorandum of Understanding signed on June 28, 1976 between the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association (CATCA) and The Canadian Air Line Pilots' Association (CALPA)-Mr. Joyal.
Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code- Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-355, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-356, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (disability pension)-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-357, An Act respecting disclosure of credit rating records-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-358, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act	(Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle)-Mr. Lefebvre.
Bill C-359, An Act to amend the Federal Court Act (disclosure of documents)-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-360, An Act respecting trafficking in exotic pets- Mr. Watson.
Public Bills
Bill C-361, An Act to amend the Department of the Environment Act (fisheries)-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-362, An Act to amend the Plant Quarantine Act- Mr. Whittaker.
Bill C-363, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment)-Mr. Guay (Levis).
Bill C-364, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (opinion surveys)-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-365, An Act to provide for the establishment of an authority to conserve for public use all abandoned railway lines in Canada-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-366, An Act to encourage the growth of the reserve force of the Canadian Forces-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-367, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (obscene broadcasting)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-368, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political affiliation)-Mr. Jones.
Bill C-369, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (passive restraint crash protection devices)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-370, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (preventive detention of habitual criminals)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-371, An Act to prohibit aid to foreign countries consistently violating human rights-Mr. Brewin.
Bill C-372, An Act respecting the continental shelf-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-373, An Act to provide for emergency measures to deal with the inflation of prices-Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve).
Bill C-374, An Act respecting packaged perishable food- Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-375, An Act to amend the criminal law (punishment of certain offences)-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt).
Bill C-376, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act- Mr. Joyal.
Bill C-378, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-379, An Act to recognize indigenous peoples among the founding peoples of Canada-Mr. Philbrook.
Bill C-380, An Act respecting Crown corporations (not agents of Her Majesty)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-381, An Act to amend the Railway Act-Mr. Schumacher.
Bill C-382, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (leave of absence)-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-383, An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (independent members of the House of Commons)-Mr. Jones.
[Stage Direction]
October 31, 1977
Public Bills
Bill C-384, An Act respecting employment with the Government of Canada not covered by the Public Service Employment Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-385, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Immigration Act (handicapped persons)-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-386, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-387, An Act respecting representation in the House of Commons-Mr. Towers.
Bill C-388, An Act to provide for full employment in Canada-Mr. Broadbent.
Bill C-389, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-390, An Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).
Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (equal time to opposition parties)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-392, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)-Mr. Rondeau.
Bill C-393, An Act respecting the age of retirement-Mr. Mitges.
Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act (strike ballots)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs)-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-396, An Act respecting the holding of a national plebiscite on the separation of Quebec from Canada-Mr. Schumacher.
Bill C-397, An Act to divide the calendar year into three Parliamentary semesters-Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).
Bill C-398, An Act to amend the Narcotic Control Act- Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-399, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography)-Mrs. Appolloni.
Bill C-400, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography)-Mr. Reid.
Bill C-401, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (guidelines respecting portrayal of sex and violence)-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-402, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography)-Mr. Lawrence.
Bill C-403, An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (duration of House of Commons)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-404, An Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (aluminum wiring)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-405, An Act concerning the exportation of the growth and produce of Canada-Mr. Peters.
[Mr. Speaker.)

[Stage Direction]
MR. MacKAY-"BUGGING" OF OFFICE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is not very often that I rise in this chamber on a question of privilege, but in view of the revelations that have come today and previously, I think I have a matter which affects the privileges of all members of the House. As a matter of fact, I learned about it when I was called out to the lobby.
Because of some of the circumstances, I thought it prudent to retain the services of an electronics expert to check my office, and I have been told that there is a live recording device hidden in one of the chairs in my office, a device that is fully operative. I thought this might be of some interest to the House, particularly in view of the assurances-


An hon. Member:: How about that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member raises a matter which is of great moment and concern. The matter will be investigated forthwith by officials of the House. That is the least I can undertake at this time. Until such time as any further information may come to light with respect to this occurrence, 1 can only assure the House that I will personally undertake to investigate this matter with the fullest vigour at my command.


An hon. Member:: Fox is not surprised.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 60, I request you to designate an order of the day for consideration tomorrow of the ways and means motions tabled by the Minister of Finance on October 20 last.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

October 31, 1977


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 26, of which I gave you notice earlier. 1 ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis), the adjournment of the House under the terms of Standing Order 26 because of an unusual emergency.
That emergency relates to the revelations on Friday by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) that the security services have, in the recent past, illegally entered premises to steal information concerning a legal political party. The statement by the Solicitor General raises major questions of policy and procedure in the vital area of national security services which are of urgent importance to the people of Canada and which cannot be dealt with under the business of the House, as proposed by the government, in the immediate future. I therefore believe that this matter requires the urgent attention of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should indicate to the House that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) did give me notice in accordance with Standing Order 26, and that shortly after 1 received notice from the Leader of the Opposition I received similar notice on the same subject, and under the same Standing Order, from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).
I have referred ^to Standing Order 26 in the past, and have often referred to the difficulty the chair is placed in with respect to applications under it. Applications are often made about matters which are, in fact, very important and worthy of urgent consideration, but are continuing matters, as opposed to being matters of some critical focus. I regret whenever I have to make that kind of decision, because certainly applications pursuant to Standing Order 26 do bring with them one guarantee, and that is a guarantee that if a special debate is ordered, the matter will have a relevancy that this House ought to pursue in debates which do take place in this chamber; therefore, I am inclined to interpret, wherever I can, sympathetically the provisions of Standing Order 26.
Indeed, as I have said many times in the past, if Standing Order 26 is on our books in order to permit, from time to time, special debates on matters that require urgent consideration, and if the Chair is not going to give a favourable interpretation of that rule from time to time, then the rule might just as well be taken off the books.
There are conditions to which this Standing Order is subject. I have read them before, particularly Standing Order 26 (5) which says that regard ought to be had by the Chair for other opportunities which might reasonably present themselves for the House to deal with subject matters of this sort. The House has many times heard this Chair pronounce that reasonable opportunities did otherwise exist. In fact, just last

week I did so, because I was of the opinion that a subject which I felt in a personal way was of very crucial importance would be before the House for several days.
I cannot say that that is the circumstance which faces us now. Subparagraph (16) of the Standing Order says the following:
The right to move the adjournment of the House for the above purposes-
That is to say, the purposes of this order.
-is subject to the following conditions:
(a) The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration-
I think there is a temptation to look at the word "emergency" and apply a very strict definition to it, which would seem to imply only debates brought about by sudden and unexpected events. It seems to me in the past that the word "emergency" has been intelligently applied by the Chair in setting aside applications with regard to matters of continuing concern such as general economic conditions, matters of unemployment and even continuing strikes, to ascertain the extent which has been known and present for some time, although that poses a separate and rather more delicate problem.
In any case, it seems to me that both sudden occurrences and unexpected occurrences are "emergencies" within the meaning of the word. So, too, is the sudden and unexpected revelation of events which have taken place in the past, in that they might precipitate a course of conduct which, if allowed to continue unchecked, would certainly classify itself as an emergency and a matter of urgent consideration.
Therefore, it seems to me that, following all of the language of Standing Order 26 again, as I have said in the past, if the House is not prepared, pursuant to a reasonable interpretation of this Standing Order, to direct its attention to a matter so serious and urgent as this, then we might as well take the order off the books. I, therefore, find that the matter is an important one to be discussed within the terms of Standing Order 26.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There is one other matter about which I feel the House ought to know and to which I have addressed myself, and that is the matter of sub judice as it applies to our proceedings. There is, pursuant to the Standing Order, no opportunity for argument in these matters; therefore, neither is there any obligation on the presiding officer to give reasons. However, 1 think the House ought to know that since the House ordered an inquiry into the practices of the RCMP some time ago-that order is part of our proceedings and, in fact, the inquiry as a result of that order is now in progress- the House ought to be assured that the Chair has directed itself to the argument of sub judice.
To me, sub judice has no application here, for two reasons. In the first place, the body carrying out this work pursuant to the order is an investigatory body and not a judicial body coming to a decision. Second, in this case no decision of that body could in any way be prejudiced, surely, by a debate or discussion here. If that were the case, I would have set aside all

October 31, 1977

questions during the question period, which would have been, to me, an affront to the members of this House in pursuing their proper obligations here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I have said in the past many times-and I made it clear in the recent work of our Standing Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members in coming to a clear definition of the sub judice convention as it applies here-that any interference with discussion, questioning or debate in this chamber on the basis of matters being before the courts ought to be done only on the very strictest interpretation of that convention, and only upon the argument being carried before the Chair that some decision by a judicial body not only is about to be made but, in fact, is about to be made and might be prejudiced by the proceedings, debate or discussion in this House, which is certainly not the circumstance here.
Therefore, taking all the circumstances into consideration, again I say that the matter is proper to be discussed. The procedure which follows now is one which we have faced many times in the past. I repeat that this matter was put forward initially by the Leader of the Opposition, and shortly thereafter by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. With the consent of the House I would, therefore, want to consider that when the question is put, it ought to be shown as being put by the Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. In the circumstances, I think that would be fair.
Technically, the procedure is to ask the House whether consent exists to put the question. If consent is not forthcoming, it takes only 20 members to support the putting of the motion. In the circumstances, it seems to me that that would be forthcoming. Therefore, I might assume that consent will be forthcoming and that the motion ought to be put.
The only remaining consideration is for the Chair to decide when the debate will take place. I have two choices open to me. One is to defer a decision until tomorrow. The second is to order the debate to take place at eight o'clock tonight. I see no reason to entertain argument or discussion in using this rule. It is on the books for this purpose. The matter is urgent and worthy of immediate consideration, and I think the debate should take place at eight o'clock tonight.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to subparagraph (9) of the rule, which states as follows:
If it is determined that the member may proceed, the motion shall stand over until 8.00 o'clock p.m. on that day, provided that Mr. Speaker, at his discretion, may direct that the motion shall be set down for consideration on the following sitting day at an hour specified by him.
My question to you is this. Because it is within your discretion, and because a very key element in this whole debate is the participation of the individual, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who is not here today but could possibly be back here tomorrow by this time, for debate in this House tomorrow, would it be possible, until we can ascertain if the Prime

Minister can be back for the debate, for Your Honour to defer your ruling on when the debate should take place?
If it is possible for the Prime Minister to be back by eight o'clock tonight, perhaps we should have the debate tonight. But if it is possible that he will not be back until tomorrow afternoon, in your discretion could you rule that the debate could be held tomorrow afternoon, because it is essential that he be here?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I have heard the application and I have dealt with it. If I had been met with an application on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of his desire to participate, I might have looked at this application in a different light. I have been asked to set up a debate pursuant to Standing Order 26. I have acceded to that request, and in pursuance of the Standing Order I have ordered that it take place tonight. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro).


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to indicate that I have been endeavouring to catch your eye for some time, although I recognize why it was quite impossible in the circumstances. The government is quite prepared to go along with the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), seconded by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). That should be known when seeking the consent which you have just indicated, although I must say it is the view of the government that in the question period the Solicitor General acquitted himself superbly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The consent of the House having determined that the matter is proper to be discussed, subject to the application of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, and consent of the House having been sought and obtained, the debate on the motion moved by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby will take place at eight o'clock tonight.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Norman Augustine Cafik: that Bill C-5, to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-5 which we are now considering can be dealt with under three main headings: First, amendments respecting the registration of political parties and other election expenses provisions of the Canada Elections Act; second, amendments



October 31, 1977

to facilitate administrative procedures under the act as recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer; third, a group of amendments, also recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer, which will improve voting facilities and supplement the other administrative amendments.
Shortly after the passing, in January, 1974, of the Election Expenses Act which we all agree was a complicated piece of legislation, the Chief Electoral Officer convened a meeting of senior members from the national headquarters of the political parties represented in the House of Commons. Following that meeting, an ad hoc committee was set up, chaired by the director of election expenses of the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. This action was at the request of the parties involved, with the objective of reviewing the new election expenses provisions.
Over a period of a year or so of productive discussions by the ad hoc committee there was developed a substantial number of suggested amendments concerning the registration of political parties and the election expenses provisions of the Canada Elections Act. I understand that these proposed amendments received the unanimous support of the committee. I am pleased to add that in the main these proposals have been included in the bill. Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the members of the ad hoc committee for the open and congenial spirit in which they carried on the work of their committee.
On February 13, 1976, pursuant to subsection 59(1) of the Canada Elections Act, the Chief Electoral Officer transmitted to Mr. Speaker a substantial list of amendments, which, in the words of the act, he considered "are desirable for the better administration of this act". Those amendments were referred to and considered by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Except in respect of one or two minor points, the suggested amendments were concurred in by the committee. The standing committee also recommended that consideration be given to some further amendments stemming from a number of private members' bills which it had at the same time considered. All amendments approved by the committee are included in the proposed legislation, with the exception of the committee's recommendation respecting a shortened election period.
With regard to the third category of proposed amendments to improve voting facilities and provide further opportunities for electors to vote, the proposed amendments were developed and recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer as a result of a number of representations he received from many sources. As an example of the extension of voting facilities, provision will be made for the casting of ballots in the office of the returning officer in the two weeks or so preceding polling day, where the elector will be absent and unable to vote at an advance poll or at an ordinary poll on polling day. The Chief Electoral Officer included some further amendments of a quasi-administrative nature to supplement the ones he proposed in his February, 1976, supplementary report to Mr. Speaker.
Canada Elections Act
Taking into account the foregoing, it is evident that the bulk of the proposed amendments stem out of recommendations from the ad hoc, all-party committee chaired by the director of election expenses, and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. In respect of the other amendments as developed by the Chief Electoral Officer, as I have already indicated, they are of a nature to facilitate the opportunity for electors to vote. 1 feel confident that these amendments will be favourably received by all parties, and that the spirit of co-operation which has prevailed in the ad hoc committee will ensure the early enactment of these proposed amendments.
In light of the deliberations of the committee of the House of Commons in respect of this important matter, preceding the introduction of this bill, it is my hope and the hope of the government that the House will readily pass Bill C-5 on second reading and refer it to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, so that members of all parties may have an opportunity to review the amendments which have their basis in either the recommendations of that committee or of the Chief Electoral Officer.
In the event that there is any discussion of specific amendments, hon. members would have an opportunity to debate them in committee and bring forward their views if there are any modest disagreements about what I think is a widely supported bill to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say, on behalf of my colleagues in this party, that we are happy to have the amendments in relation to the Canada Elections Act and election law before the House. We are particularly pleased that so many of the proposals made in the all-party committee referred to by the minister have been accepted. At one time I had the privilege of serving as a member of the standing committee of this House which originally dealt with the election expenses legislation. I also had the opportunity to represent my party on the all-party committee that was designed to repair any matters which had been overlooked in the original legislation.
I think it would be entirely appropriate for me, on my own behalf and on behalf of all members of the committee, to extend our appreciation to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. J. M. Hamel, for the way in which he presided over the discussions of the all-party committee, for the guidance he gave to all members, and for the very reasonable and effective suggestions he has made from time to time regarding the way in which we can improve the election law of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should like to say, for those who are accustomed to occasional conflict between members of different parties, that a rather welcome spirit of co-operation was exhibited by members of all parties on the committee working on amendments to the Canada Elections Act. Some 40 amendments were proposed by that all-party committee. The majority of those amendments are in the bill now before the House,

Canada Elections Act
to be dealt with. Many of them are of particular importance. They will be of some help to incapacitated voters. There are references to special voters' lists, and there are changes in relation to advanced polling which will make it more possible to ensure that every individual who wants to vote, and has the right to vote, can vote. Those are all very important matters and we are delighted they have been brought forward by the minister.
I noticed that in the remarks of the minister he said the proposed amendments received the unanimous support of the committee. 1 think it should be clear that the proposed amendments of which he was speaking were those proposed by the all-party committee prior to the introduction of this legislation to the House. 1 think the minister will agree that was his intention. In other words, he was not suggesting that the amendments incorporated in Bill C-5 have the support of all members of the House of Commons. The fact is, they do not have the support of this party when it comes to one or two important particulars.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I want to make it clear that I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. I did not at any time indicate directly, nor did I intend to imply indirectly, that there was unanimous support for every single point related to this bill.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am pleased to have that point clarified. The fact is that in the movement from the all-party committee to the House of Commons, through the cabinet, or perhaps through the boardrooms where the campaign managers of the Liberal party sit, two profound changes were made in the law as against what was agreed to in the all-party committee. I make the point that they have adulterated, they have seriously changed and weakened those proposals, with grave consequences not simply for the electoral law of Canada but also for the principle of open, honest elections in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: They are departures which we in this party are not prepared to accept. The Minister of State should know that. He and his colleagues should understand that if this were a minor matter, we would be prepared to let it go. But the two changes smuggled into this bill not only profoundly change the electoral law of Canada, they betray the spirit in which the elections act was introduced.
I shall not detain the House for long on this matter, but I want to make our reservations and concern very clear. The first of these departures from the all-party agreement relates to the proposal by the government to increase the spending limits applicable to political parties by the rate of inflation since 1974. The second, which is the most ominous, the most dangerous and the most destructive to the principle of open government, is the provision which will explicitly allow anonymous contributions to be made to political parties. Someone behind me asks, "Why not go back to the old system?" Well, the all-party committee made a recommendation which I shall be commenting upon in a moment. This would have made it
(Mr. Clark.)
clear and certain that we would never in this country return to the old system.
That recommendation, which was supported in the committee by representatives of all parties, was struck down by the Liberal cabinet and does not find a place in the bill. What this bill does is take us back to the bad old days of election financing in this country when it was possible for contributions to be made under the table. We in this party want an end to that system, and in our approach to this bill we shall attempt to ensure the introduction of an amendment which would have that effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I turn, first, to the question of indexing the limits of possible expenditure so as to take account of inflation since 1974. There is some history involved here. This step was first proposed in the all-party committee by representatives of the Liberal party. It was extensively discussed and the proposal to increase the limits of expenditure was voted down. We thought the matter was dead, since it had been agreed by all parties that it would be put aside. Nevertheless, in July of this year we saw the earlier edition of the bill before us and we noticed that the proposition which had been voted down by the all-party committee had been brought back by the cabinet and that there was, indeed, a proposal to index-though only back to 1976.
That was bad enough, but apparently the political manipulators of the Liberal party got together during the summer and decided that the extra money made possible under that proposal would not be enough. What they did was introduce, in this bill, an indexing provision taking us back, not to 1976 but to 1974. I want to explain what this means to the House of Commons, to the political parties and to the public treasury. Under index ceilings, each party will have the opportunity, now, to spend in an election campaign-I am speaking of national parties here-in the neighbourhood of $5.3 million. In the absence of indexation, the limit would be in the neighbourhood of $4 million. So what we have here is a difference of $1.3 million imposed upon the electoral law by the Liberal party for their own narrow partisan reasons.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: This proposal will mean that each candidate would be able, on an average, to spend some $7,600 more than the amount set forth in the election expenses legislation. There is a further aspect. Officials in my own party headquarters inform me that on the basis of tax credits granted by the government in respect of $100 donations, and on the basis of advertising rebates from the treasury provided for in the act, government revenues would be decreased by fully $11 million. That will be the loss to the treasury if this indexing proposal is allowed to proceed. So this is not merely a change in the election law designed to benefit the sponsoring party; it will also mean a serious drain on the public treasury. That would be the cost if there were to be a general election in 1978. It might cost the public a great deal more if the election were

delayed until 1979. To a government which spends money like water, $11 million might not seem much. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that to Canadians who want to see the exercise of some restraint in federal spending, $11 million means a great deal.
I should like to make the point again that there is no mystery at all as to the reason for this measure being brought in. It is no secret at all that the party in office, simply through being in office, has a greater opportunity to raise national election funds than do parties on this side of the House. What the government party is doing here is trying to change the election law so that it can spend more money to influence the decisions of Canadian electors once an election is called. They are not prepared to rely simply on their record-we can understand that. What they are looking for now is an authorizing law that will allow them to spend more money to attempt to buy the support and the votes of the people of Canada. That, I must point out, comes from a government which took great pride two or three years ago in introducing the election expenses legislation. It argued then that it wanted to impose some sanity upon the excessive expenditures made in election campaigns in the past. Here we have the principle enunciated two or three years ago undermined and betrayed by the very government that took credit for it then.
The existing limits have been tested in by-elections in Canada and have been found satisfactory to all parties. The previous ceilings have never been tested in a general election. There is no evidence that they will be insufficient. There is every evidence that they will, in fact, have the effect of ensuring some fairness and sanity to election compaign expenditures. Despite that, the government of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, wants to use the law to raise the limit so that it can spend more money to attempt to buy the votes of the Canadian people.
That is the first matter. It is the first departure that we are not prepared to accept. We want it taken out of this bill before we are prepared to limit debate-1 say that to the minister- and have the matter approved finally by the House of Commons.
The other matter is even more dangerous. That is the matter which relates to anonymous contributions. Again, some history from the all-party committee. The all-party committee wanted written into the law of Canada an amendment that would instruct that all anonymous contributions, whether to a party, candidate or organization representing a party, would be paid over to the Receiver General of Canada. In other words, anybody who came to the committee room of a political party with a little brown bag full of money would not be able to have that little brown bag go anonymously to that party. That money, in the view of the election law, would have to be properly contributed. It would go to the public revenue of Canada.
That was the recommendation of the all-party committee. It was the recommendation of Liberal members of parliament
Canada Elections Act
serving on that committee, as well as the officers of that party. It was the recommendation that went to cabinet and which cabinet struck down. The cabinet of Canada, for reasons we hope future speakers in this debate will elaborate on, wants to have a situation where it is possible for anonymous contributions to be made.
1 want again to bring the House of Commons back to an understanding of the reasons we all supported so enthusiastically the reforms introduced some years ago to election expenses law. There were a number of aspects of that law. One was that it was going to make public party financing, which too often had been private before. Hand in hand with the principle of making party financing public and letting Canadians see what goes on in their political process. Provisions were brought in which would extend tax credits to Canadians who wanted to contribute to individual political parties, as well as provisions to provide for partial public financing of election campaigns.
What we have here is an indication that the Liberal party is quite prepared to accept public financing of election campaigns. It is quite prepared to have tax credits extended to people who contribute to political parties. However, it is not prepared to eliminate anonymous contributions, which have been the bane of our political system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I go back to some of the statements made by the then, and again, President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mac-Eachen) who piloted the original legislation through the House. On July 10, 1973, the President of the Privy Council said:
Among the major changes incorporated in the new bill are the requirement for full disclosure and the imposition of a ceiling on campaign spending by political parties.
That was one of the principles of the legislation spelled out by the man who guided it through the House of Commons. Now, that principle is being abandoned. There is not full disclosure when you have anonymous contributions. There is not full disclosure when the Liberal party brings into the Parliament of Canada a provision to allow shadowy figures carrying little brown bags of money to make those contributions to the Liberal party without their names being recorded. I want again to quote from the proposals of the then, and again, President of the Privy Council. He said:
These reform proposals-
As I recall the proposals, I believe he emphasized the word "reform".
-will remove much of the secrecy from the financial affairs of political parties-
That was one of the principles of the legislation that has now been betrayed by this government which has struck down an amendment which would end once and for all the possibility of secrecy of these party affairs. Instead of the principle of open government, this government prefers a situation of anonymous contributors who can bring their money for whatever reason and not be noted or identified. That is a blot on

October 31, 1977
Canada Elections Act
our political system. It is not one which this party is prepared to accept.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to make it very clear, particularly because the Minister of State (Mr. Cafik) made reference to it in his opening remarks, that the desire to have secrecy and to allow anonymity in contributions is not a desire of the all-party committee. It is not a desire of this party. I am sure it is not a desire of the New Democratic Party or the Social Credit party. It is simply a desire of the Liberal cabinet, who have changed the recommendation of the all-party committee for their own narrow political reasons.
We in this House of Commons decided, when the original legislation came before the House, that we wanted an open system. We want to let the sun shine in on the political process. We do not want shadowy figures and anonymous contributions. That was why we brought in the election expenses changes. We now see that the government of Canada, the Liberal party, is seizing the first opportunity to bring down the blinds, to introduce a little more secrecy into the system, to recreate a situation where contributions are made in the shadows and where suspicions arise regarding the political system. That is an unacceptable betrayal of the principles of the Election Expenses Act that were introduced and endorsed by members of all parties just a few years ago.
Clearly, that causes suspicion that there is only one reason why the government of Canada, the Liberal party, has introduced this amendment. The reason is that they are trying to find new ways to buy the next election in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to repeat three points. First, the fundamental one, is that the Progressive Conservative party believes that we must have an open political system. We want Canadians to know what their political figures and what their political parties are doing. We do not want secrecy. That is why we supported the Election Expenses Act in the first place. That is why we are so offended by this attempt to introduce secrecy, to bring back anonymous, shadowy contributors bringing their money in little brown bags in expectation of lord knows what kind of recognition by the party later. That is the first principle. We want an open system. The government party wants a system that is less open.
Second, flowing from that is the proposal of indexing which would cost the public treasury of Canada $11 million. That proposal is not acceptable to this party, just as it was not acceptable to the all-party committee. Finally, the principle of allowing anonymous contributions to the political process in Canada is also not acceptable to this party.
I make it very clear to ministers on the other side that this is a matter of very real principle to us. We take seriously the fact that over the past several years there has grown up in Canada a deep, destructive suspicion of the political process. Canadi-

ans are prepared to believe the worst about our political parties. The only way we can demonstrate that the system is open, that the system is honest, is to let the Canadian public see as much as possible of what is going on within the political system. That was the spirit in which the election expenses law was introduced. That is the spirit which the two cabinet additions to this bill today undermine and destroy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which is related to the point raised earlier today by the hon. member for Central Nova, who brought the rather alarming news to the attention of the members of this House of the existence of a bugging device in his office.
My point is as follows. This is not the first time that this issue has been raised. The hon. member for Yukon has in the past made a serious case about the possibility of wiretapping on his line. We now have confirmation by another respected member of the House that a bugging device has been found. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is as to what might transpire between now and, say, the next 24 hours.
If, indeed, the device which has been found by the hon. member for Central Nova is as he has described it-and none of us has any reason to doubt that at all-then those who are responsible for locating this device in the hon. member's office quite conceivably have put them in other members' offices, and during the next 24 hours it is quite conceivable that some attempt might be made to remove these devices from other members' offices.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I seriously suggest, on behalf of all hon. members, that through your office certain steps should be taken to-whatever word one uses

supervise or secure the offices of all members pending the time a check can be made of all members' offices to see if bugging devices are located elsewhere. I do not think it can be dismissed lightly at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I wish to point out to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby that Mr. Speaker noted this afternoon that he would take this matter under advisement and certainly look into it. Therefore, I will take the hon. member's suggestion right to the Speaker now.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to outline some concerns we have about the bill which is before the House, the amendments to the Canada Elections Act. The act under which we are now governed was passed during the minority parliament of 1972 to 1974. It is an act that was long overdue in terms of bringing about needed reforms in the financing of candidates and their parties, and the disclosure of where these funds came from. I think it was no accident that this electoral reform was carried out when the New Democratic Party held the balance of power in the twenty-ninth parliament. It has always been a very long-standing and firm commitment on the part of our party that election reform was desperately needed in Canada to restore confidence in the democratic and electoral process.
October 31, 1977

I should like to remind hon. members of the chief provisions of this act, because I think the amendments which we have before us today to a certain extent subvert the intention of the twenty-ninth parliament which passed a very important and forward-looking piece of legislation. The act has, in my opinion, three main provisions. First of all, it puts limits on the amount that political parties and candidates can spend during an election. The reasoning behind this was to prevent the electoral process from being dominated by the wealthy, by those who had funds at their disposal and, therefore, could buy media time and other kinds of advertising. An ordinary citizen would not be able to do this. So putting a limit on the amount spent during an election was an important advance; it put everybody on an equal of footing, at least in terms of the amount which could be spent.
The second major provision required public disclosure of amounts in excess of $100 contributed by a donor to a party or a candidate. This, also, is fundamental to the act because it provides for an open process. Surely, that is what democracy is all about-that we know where funds are coming from so we can make a judgment as to the vested interest of the donor of such funds. The third important provision had to do with reimbursing candidates for expenses in an election, up to the prescribed maximum. I hardly need tell the House that this is important since it prevents candidates from being discriminated against because they or their supporters do not have sufficient funds to run a worth-while and full election campaign.
Those were the chief advancements which were made in the last act. However, legislation has to meet the realities of the times. We have had some by-elections and representations have been made to the Chief Electoral Officer in regard to improvements. I should like at this time to pay tribute to the Chief Electoral Officer, his staff and those who sat on the parliamentary committee, as well as on the ad hoc committee, and proposed changes and clarifications to the act. 1 think we have before us a number of improvements, clarification of language and terms, and some improvements for which members on both sides of the House and members of the general public have asked.
There are, of course, a number of changes which cause us some concern. The first that I should like to mention is inflation indexing of election expenses. We in our party recognize that since the act was passed in 1974, expenses have risen. I do not think it was the intention of the twenty-ninth parliament to freeze for all time the expenses of a candidate in an election. We have to be realistic and must understand that as inflation continues from year to year, the original limitations which were set may not be realistic. It seems to me we have to look closely at the formula presently contained in the bill before us, so as to make sure that the inflation formula is reasonable and does not violate the spirit of the original act, that it does not impose a great burden on the taxpayers. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while we recognize the need for some kind of adjustment to the formula for determining what are to be the limits of election expenses, we are at the same time
Canada Elections Act
concerned that that formula not be more generous than is absolutely necessary.
The other very crucial point in the bill before us is an omission which is of real concern to me and my party. It is an omission which in reality strikes at one of the fundamental principles which I outlined in my earlier comments about what this bill is supposed to do. I refer to the principle of public disclosure. As the act now reads, there is a very important loophole which remains uncorrected by the bill before the House. I refer to the lack of any prohibition of anonymous contributions to a party or to a candidate. The all-party committee looked at this question very carefully. I have before me the minutes of that committee when this very issue was raised.
If we go to all the trouble to design an election reform act to limit the kinds of contributions which may be given to a candidate in a campaign, then surely we have to look at all the possible ways that intention could be subverted. One of the easiest ways in which that intention could be subverted is anonymous contributions: the idea of money coming to a candidate's headquarters anonymously, being used in the campaign, and no public disclosure of where that amount of over $100 came from.
The all-party committee minutes indicated that someone with an unmarked envelope addressed to the party or candidate would come, deliver or send by mail an amount of money. Someone making an anonymous donation will not be concerned about any rebate under the income tax system. Therefore, the rebate function under the Income Tax Act requiring that someone's name be disclosed cannot be used as an argument.
I thought the committee had made some very sensible recommendations. They wanted to make it illegal for any contributor not to supply the agent with his proper name and address. The committee indicated that an easy amendment could be incorporated in the bill before us under the beneficial ownership clause. Furthermore, to close any further loophole, the committee wanted to make it illegal for any candidate or party to use funds contributed anonymously. It suggested that any such anonymous contribution received could be deposited to the credit of the Receiver General of Canada for the purpose of the enforcement of this act.
It seems to me that those two suggestions are in line with the intent of the original act. They make sense, because they close a very important loophole which would subvert the intention of the act. This can be done by demanding that there be no anonymous contributions, that financial support given to a candidate would require a name attached to it and it would have to be public knowledge. If any such anonymous funds bypassed that system and got to the candidate, the candidate could not use such funds.
We do not see that very tight and precise prohibition in the bill before us. Surely, that has to be one of the fundamental weaknesses of the bill. It subverts, it weakens, and it destroys

October 31, 1977
Canada Elections Act
any credibility that the public can have in this government's intent to bring about electoral reform if it does not plug the obvious loophole of anonymous contributions. We in the New Democratic Party will not stand for that kind of subversion of a very good elections act. We will fight for amendments to the bill prohibiting any kind of anonymous contributions, or use thereof, in a campaign.
Another part of the entire bill and the elections act which concerns me is the weakness wich was manifested recently in a federal by-election in Ottawa-Carleton. Section 70.1 deals with incurring election expenses by individuals other than candidates or organizations which are recognized as a political party or part of a political party. I should like to read that provision into the record, because I think it is germane to the situation which occurred recently in the federal by-election to which 1 have referred. I should like to refer to the Statutes of Canada, 1973-74, at C.51 on page 26. Section 70.1(1) reads as follows:
Every one, other than
(a)	a candidate, official agent or any other person acting on behalf of a
candidate with the candidate's actual knowledge and consent, or
(b)	a registered agent of a registered party acting within the scope of his
authority as such or other person acting on behalf of a registered party with
the actual knowledge and consent of an officer thereof,
who, between the date of the issue of the writ for an election and the day immediately following polling day, incurs election expenses is guilty of an offence against this act.
The problem is this: in the by-election in Ottawa-Carleton, Mr. Donald Roach hired an aeroplane which towed a banner behind it with the following message, "OHC employees-767 CUPE Vote, but not Liberal."


Mr. Paproski:: A good message; a great message.


Reginald Cyril Symes: This is an example of a third party involved in advertising in an election campaign. The third party was not a member of any of the parties campaigning in the campaign itself. It was an outside, non-political group. They advertised a political message. The Chief Electoral Officer launched a suit, after the by-election, against Mr. Roach for violation of the current elections act. Subsequent to a trial, we find that Judge Hugh Zimmerman ruled that Donald Roach did not violate the Canada Elections Act.
The court decision raises a very serious question about the intent of the act passed by the Parliament of Canada, because if that decision is allowed to stand, it subverts the limitation of expenses provision of the act. If that court ruling is upheld, it could be possible for any third party to advertise for or against a recognized candidate or party as defined by the elections act.
Conceivably, in the next federal election we could have advertising of any sort placed by such groups as Citizens Coalition, the Trotskyites, any police association or any concerned citizens' group which may arise during a campaign, arguing their points of view with a message to vote for or against a certain candidate. If non-political party is able to do that, then what effect will it have on the provisions of the act limiting the expenses a political party can incur?

Therefore, it would be quite easy for any of the recognized political parties to say to another group, "Well, if you get together and raise some funds and advertise in such a way that it is beneficial to my party, that is all to the good; it will never come under the limitations of the Election Expenses Act". We have to look at that weakness in order to determine whether it necessitates the bringing in of a further amendment to the bill before us in order to close the loophole of non-recognized parties, groups or individuals advertising during a campaign, or whether the Chief Electoral Officer must take the court decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and ask for a very definitive ruling on it. If we do not take into account that incident in the by-election and the subsequent court decision, it seems to me we will have thrown the limitation of expenses out the window. We will have provided a major loophole that subverts one of the fundamental intentions of this act to bring about electoral reform in this country.
Those are some of my concerns and those of my party. 1 should like to acknowledge, again, and pay tribute to the work of the committee. I am gratified to see that some of the representations I have made, and I know other members have made, have been accepted. I think, for example, of the provision in the bill before us that will allow advance voting for people who, because of their work, may be out of the constituency for quite a while prior to the advance polls.
I think that provision is long overdue. But what worries me are the omissions in the bill before us which are an indication of the attitude of the Liberal government once it gets back to a majority position.
In a minority parliament we had a real, meaningful and positive reform of our election procedures in this country, as contained in the act before us. For the first time, it brought a degree of openness to the democratic process, a degree of equality in terms of fund raising and expenditure. Because of the subsequent incidents and the loopholes that have been discovered, I fear that unless we have a tightening up, more so than this bill gives us, we will regress, rather than progress, in terms of reforming the democratic process in this country.
I want, as my party has always wanted, an open and above board system of election financing. To do that, we must have limitations on expenditures, we must have full public disclosure of where the money is coming from, and we must have a measure of reimbursement from the public treasury for campaign expenses. I fear that because of some of the loopholes which are not corrected, the government has ignored the recommendations of the all-party committee, and the great act which was passed in the twenty-ninth parliament, which I think restored some confidence to the people of Canada in our political system, will suffer and that confidence will be eroded, as indeed will the act and the whole political process unless we see some tightening up and prohibition of anonymous contributions and third party campaigning under the terms of the act.
October 31, 1977

We, in committee, will be pressing very hard for these reforms. We want to see the act strengthened, not weakened, as indicated by some of the loopholes that the Liberal government has failed to close in the bill before us.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to make a few comments about the introduction of Bill C-5 following the study in committee recommended by the House. It is said in the recommendation that this bill provides for three main types of amendments. The first concerns the registration of political parties and election expenses, the second aims at simplifying the implementation of the administrative provisions contained in the act following the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer, and finally, amendments aimed at improving the material organization of the polls and completing the other administrative changes whose implementation is also recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer.
Mr. Speaker, this is the third time we have amended the famous legislation entitled the Canada Elections Act, mainly as concerns expenditures, political contributions, election expenses, the control of election expenses, and so on.
The legislation we passed in 1974 was so complex that some parties, especially the Social Credit Party of Canada, found it very difficult, first to interpret and even more to implement. At first, we went to those responsible for the legislation, that is the returning officer and the Minister of Revenue, to obtain some information and explanations about the legislation, and surprisingly, they could not give us the explanations we wanted.
Indeed, this is what it says here: Soon after passage in January 1974 of the Canada Elections Act, which, as everyone agrees, is somewhat complex, the Chief Electoral Officer called a meeting of the principal members of the national office of the various political parties represented in the House of Commons to form the committee that now exists to study a new reform. But after 1974, in order to clarify it, amendments were introduced, so that in 1975, they prevailed; but we were already victims of that so complicated, so obscure 1974 legislation; people had the impression that the Social Credit Party had benefitted from it in 1974, while we did not get any donations that year, not a cent, and our expenses were greater on account of our struggle with Revenue Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which was monitoring our offices. Our costs exceeded the $1,000 left to us. That was the impact of the 1974 legislation enacted by the parties in power and for them, and they greatly benefitted from it. Further; they benefit from it every year.
Even this year, the Liberal party collected nearly $6 million. Six million a year during four years make $24 million to start an election. Not bad!
While we, in 1974, hardly collected $200,000 and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was close on our heels right across Canada. If that is trying to do justice to all political parties, to have a bit of fairness there, I assure you, Mr. Speaker that we did not receive fair treatment. We have been continuously
Canada Elections Act
harassed to such an extent that some days, as I mentioned here in the House, 1 would call the federal National Revenue Department to obtain explanations about the record of some citizens from my riding and get the RCMP at the other end of the line. I made an intervention in the House to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you had given orders or if someone had given orders to the RCMP to answer calls made by hon. members to the Revenue Canada office. I think this is a year we are going to remember. This is why I would like to make a few suggestions to amend that famous Elections Act which was supposed to give justice to citizens, a far cry from reality. Today the Elections Act tolerates every possible injustice and allows parties with money to buy electors, to buy elections. It is for this reason that again today, before sending this bill to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, it should be referred to the committee of the House. I urge the members of that committee to add some more amendments to that legislation in order to bring some more fairness into it.
The amount of election expenses has already been set but today it is proposed to increase again those expenses because of the rising costs of living. If you go in some homes you will see that the income of people should be increased, but it is not increased for many people who are living below the poverty level. And now they want to freeze election expenses to allow big parties and not small ones because everything is done to discourage us, Mr. Speaker, to allow the big parties to get more millions; they got $24 million, now they need $50 million or even more to make elections. Mr. Speaker, if we cannot call on the intelligence of people at election time, if it is only a matter of money we shall always have to support the same consequences as today.
Now we are back to anonymous contributions. The 1974 legislation suggested that contributions would be limited at last or at the very least disclosed and that political contributions over $100 would have to be disclosed and we approved of that as well as of setting a ceiling to contributions. What happens then? It is a well known fact that the Party in power, due to its close relationship with big corporations, banks and so forth, receives big donations. Let us take a look at the past year's record, namely the 1976 report. You will find contributions for the Liberal Party amount to $75,000 given by banks, $80,000 given by multinational corporations and so on. A total of 6 million dollars means a lot of contributions, but at least we know where they come from now, but at this stage of the game they do not want to name names any more. They ask for anonymous contributions. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am against such practices. If we are going to be fooled, let us know at least who is helping the Party in power fool us. It would be some kind of consolation, but if you have anonymous contributions, it will be impossible to know who is funding the major parties. This is precisely what we do not want, Mr. Speaker.
I also feel a financial amendment should be introduced if we want to get honest elections. We have pressed for it for a long time. They claim that limited amounts are set for the sake of justice to all voters. But if we really want honest elections, there is only one way, namely a mandatory identification card.

October 31, 1977
Canada Elections Act
We have been advocating such a measure for the past ten years. It was argued some ten or fifteen years ago that this would be too costly. Everybody has cards today. It is the social insurance number that matters nowadays. Well, let us require identification with a photo and the social insurance number for voting purposes. I am sure fewer votes would be stolen if every voter were required to produce his identification card before casting his ballot. We have been pressing for that for a long time. Neither one of the old parties, Liberals or Conservatives, is willing to admit that. In my opinion, both of them are taking avantage of this situation, this is why they do not want it. The measure we propose, would bring justice to voters and prevent people from assuming somebody else's name and using it to vote. But when he has his identification card he will not be able to vote on behalf of someone else.
In my riding of Roberval, although I keep an eye open I still get robbed of 1,000 to 1,500 votes in every election. If we had that identification card that would not happen.
Second, I would like to propose an amendment in committee relating to the preparation of election lists. Those who are appointed to prepare the election lists realize that in urban ridings everything is fine because the incumbent party and the opposition are both represented-there are two people to prepare the lists. In rural ridings the returning officer appoints only one person who can prepare the list the way he wants, forget the names of those he wants to forget and add to the list the names of the people of his choice.
Since we are talking about the justice of the vote, to really give the voter justice I think we should use two people in rural ridings as we do in urban ridings to have a better supervision and thus fewer mistakes. You might tell me: In rural ridings, if a name is forgotten the person can be sworn in afterwards. But that is precisely the trick, Mr. Speaker. They even bring in people from the city to be sworn in in rural ridings in our areas because they have forgotten about the cities. That is the trick, that is where we, the little parties, do not have the money to buy people out and we get shafted.
That went even further. So much had been going on in certain polls that the returning officer even phoned me at a certain moment to tell me: There are a lot of errors going on in the poll, people voted who did not have the right to vote. Do you close the poll or do you keep it open? I said, to be fair to everybody: Keep it open, we will see later. And certain big parties were still continuing with their little trick. Some of those people are so used to it, they were brought up in it and they consider stealing votes a sport.
In my area I know elderly people almost past death-time, people 75 and over, who hit the road come every election day to have a go at that old trick, stealing votes.
When this bill is passed, I would be much pleased indeed if there was an amendment providing for compulsory identity cards for voters. We will start thinking there is some justice if we have what is needed to finance elections, and I really mean "what is needed"-of course I am not referring here to small amounts from $10 to $100, so that all sums of money over $100 are publicly disclosed. The public is entitled to know

what is going on financially, and this will ensure some degree of supervision.
As far as voting is concerned, when we have the identity cards we will be laying some solid foundation for the supervision of voting in our areas, so that we may know who is entitled to vote and who is not.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude on the hope that the committee will take good note of my remarks, that finally an end will come to camouflage legislation, legislation favouring those who win elections by spending millions and hundreds of millions, that there is at least an attempt to protect evolving parties, the only ones capable of telling what is going on in government, of telling the truth to the people.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I welcome the introduction of this bill before the House. It culminates the work of many dedicated individuals who have worked with the Chief Electoral Officer over the past three years. Representatives of the four registered parties began meeting with Mr. Hamel and his staff in February of 1974, and discussions have been held by the ad hoc committee regularly since that time. I have had the privilege of serving on this committee over the past number of months, so I have a vital interest in the bill now before us.
I cannot speak too highly of the guidance and suggestions which Mr. Hamel provided, and I look forward to further discussions in the committee. I am sure Mr. Hamel's wise counsel will be helpful in explaining aspects of this bill to hon. members of the House. Well over 200 paragraphs of amendments were proposed by the ad hoc committee, and I am pleased to be able to report that the majority of these have been included as discussed and suggested by members of the committee.
I know that hon. members of this House, as well as Canadians at large, will welcome the progressive aspect of the bill. Amendments to assist incapacitated voters have been proposed and a number of measures have been put forward to make the act more intelligible to the average voter and to encourage more Canadians to participate in our political process. As in the case of any act which amends prior legislation, a good many of the amendments which have been proposed are primarily housekeeping in nature. We are pleased to accept the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer regarding items of this nature. It is gratifying to note that the act worked well in the last ten by-elections. Our party has been happy to comply with the spirit as well as the intent of the law. We will continue to work within the spirit of this act, as I believe that the openness which it provides in many areas is in keeping with the spirit pervading Canadian life.
As has been pointed out, however, the government does not seem to share our views regarding this progressive spirit of openness. I should initially point out that there are a few minor
October 31, 1977

items in the act which we feel should be given reconsideration in order to maintain consistency throughout various sections of the bill. Of much greater concern, however, is the silence of the bill in respect to the question of anonymous contributions. Earlier in this debate the leader of this party spoke about the brown paper bags and envelopes passed around to different parties at election time. I think that question was explored very well by the committee. I certainly cannot see how it is going to give confidence to the electorate if political parties can receive donations from individuals who in the future will expect something in return. 1 think our political system must be above that.
While this matter will have to be discussed in depth in the committee, it troubles me that it has not been included as an amendment, despite the fact that such a proposal was put forth by the all-party committee. Having served on that committee,
I must point out that it was the feeling of the committee that an amendment should have been introduced instructing that all anonymous contributions received by a candidate or organization be sent to the Receiver General. It is most difficult to understand why the act is completely silent on this issue and ignores the suggestions which were agreed to by members of all four registered parties. When the minister introduced the bill today, he mentioned unanimous consent. This was part of the unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think he meant to lead the House to believe that everyone was in agreement with the all-party committee.
Another matter which demands equal consideration involves an amendment which has been included in the act but which was not, in fact, agreed to by the all-party committee. This question centres around clause 9, dealing with election expenses and adjustments which more specifically apply a cost of living index to party and candidate expense limits for elections held after 1977. The pros and cons of such an arrangement certainly will have to be considered, but I feel that it should be pointed out that this amendment was not, in fact, given unanimous support by the all-party committee. The government is ignoring the recommendations of the all-party committee.
Without trying to suggest outright improper motives, one must question the government's treatment of these two points with respect to this bill. Surely, the day has long since passed when anonymous contributions are an accepted part of the political process. I refuse to believe or to accept that Canadians want to sanction underhanded or questionable dealings with respect to the finances of a political party. The spirit of openness is pervading all areas of our life today, and certainly the political process should be in the forefront of reform. Instead, the government seems to prefer to drag its feet or, worse yet, to ignore, by silence, a shoddy practice. It has been said that silence gives consent, and the application is quite clear in this situation.
There is much more I could say regarding the specifics of this bill, but I will deal with these matters at greater length in the pending committee meetings. I am sure it is the intention of my party that the fair-minded and co-operative spirit which
Canada Elections Act
was evident in the ad hoc committee will continue during further deliberations. We will, however, oppose those aspects of this bill which we feel are not in the public interest, and I look forward to pursuing these matters vigorously in committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the election expenses legislation in Canada was a completely new departure and, I suppose, a departure that is unheralded in the free world and certainly one that is being studied in other nations of the free world. For the first time, legislation required all parties to fully and fairly disclose the source of their funding, both from the point of view of the party and from the point of view of individual candidates. It allowed, for the first time, an unusual inducement for members of the public, from all walks of life, to become involved in the political process by making contributions. In fact, it brought out of the back rooms of politics the question of party financing and the financing of candidates.
It brought, I think, a level of understanding to the political process which had never been evident before. It gave the average Canadian a legitimate chance of participating in the political process in the full glare of public scrutiny. Disclosure was the hallmark of that bill, and consideration for the full disclosure was the allowance that could be given for tax purposes. It is a statute that has been used effectively in my riding and in others. It was one which politicians were quite proud and pleased to support in every way.
When the statute was first introduced a few years ago, it required a number of amendments. They were advanced by all parties, including the government, because it was so new and so untried that no draftsman could hope to encompass all the difficulties the first time. The interesting thing about the committee process with regard to this bill was that there was a great range of mutual understanding, a sense of togetherness, by men and women of all political parties, officials and elected representatives who were prepared to band together to ensure that we had within our grasp the best possible statute.
There was an atmosphere of good faith and of consultation. Because all of us-I suppose we, more than anyone else, in the political process-are aware of the cynicism which affects that process. This series of amendments which has resulted in this rather formidable Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act which was given first reading on October 24, 1977, came about as a result of a series of further consultations. The representatives of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and, I dare say, those of the New Democratic Party also, felt that the same spirit of co-operation, the same sense of non-partisanship, the same positive approach that characterized the earlier negotiations would continue. To a great measure, this has been the case. But it is a matter of regret-and I know it is a matter of regret for the hon. member for Victoria-Halibur-ton (Mr. Scott) and his hon. friends on the committee-that the bill seems to go far beyond that which was agreed upon.

October 31, 1977
Canada Elections Act
There can be no doubt that the recommendations of the all-party committee were sound and that those of them which are incorporated in the bill before us are sound. The leader of my party has made it very clear, however, that we are concerned about the anonymous donations provision. There is a sense of deceit about it. We have doubts about the good faith of the government, and even about the propriety of the indexing provision in a time of restraint. Until I saw the bill, I did not expect that those two clauses regarding anonymous donations and indexing would find any place in the measure. Our leader made this very clear.
I should like to state emphatically, now, that as long as those clauses are in this bill we in the Official Opposition are prepared to use whatever devices can reasonably be used, whether in the House or in the committee, to ensure that the measure is not passed until it has been changed along the lines I have indicated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I say this in the course of debate so that there can be no doubt about our intentions with respect to it. I regret very much that I must take this approach. It is unfortunate that somehow, from the understanding which was developed between all parties on the committee, we have come to this. Why should this have happened? How can the government's position be justified, in face of the principle of openness, the principle of disclosure? How can one justify the importation into this legislation of an element whose effect is to permit substantial donations to be made by national companies, wealthy individuals, international corporations and a whole host of other people?
In an area of disclosure such as the seventies, this has no place whatsoever in our democratic process and we stand against it as firmly as we possibly can. It offends parliament. It offends the political process, a process which I believe was in some way renewed by the passing of the election expenses legislation.
I find it inexcusable and improper. I am not suggesting that hon. members who support the Liberal party from the back benches are responsible for this offence against propriety. I do not believe they had anything to do with it. Discussions obviously took place during the summer. The campaign committees, the bagmen, the fund-raisers of the Liberal party, obviously influenced somebody, and I suspect it was the federal cabinet which was influenced. I suspect and, frankly, 1 hope it was done without the knowledge of the Liberal party caucus.
I would be greatly shocked if I were to find otherwise-if, for example, I were to learn that the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) was in agreement with what is being done. He has been a man of principle all his political life and, as I say, I would be surprised if he or others of my colleagues over there would agree that it is proper to do indirectly what the statute, or the principle of the statute, says we cannot do directly.

I turn to the question of indexing. My leader has indicated that as a result of indexing election expenses and allowing contributions to reflect a different cost of living base than had been originally discussed, a new burden of some $12 million would be imposed on hard-pressed Canadian taxpayers. The legislation was designed to give political parties equal opportunity; if one party is given an opportunity to spend, the other is expected to match it.
So far, the arrangements have not been tested during a general election. The figure which has been given is the figure for an election called in 1978. God knows what it would be for an election called in 1979, given the rate of inflation! I think it is inappropriate that an indexing proposal of this kind should be put forward at a time of restraint. The government has talked on many occasions about limiting the practice of indexing. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) says it may be necessary to reconsider the social welfare programs and think about putting a cap on old age security benefits. He was musing in public, Mr. Speaker-philosophizing, trying to imitate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I suppose, and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) has since denied such intentions.
However, that was a view expressed by a member of the very government which is now prepared to index election expenses. Not too long ago the President of the Treasury Board, speaking of public servants, the RCMP and the armed forces, mused aloud that perhaps a cap should be placed on retirement pensions. In this case the hon. gentleman never rose to deny he ever said it.
This government which is prepared to penalize its public servants now suddenly finds itself in the position where it is going to lay upon itself a great benefit. It is going to extend indexing in a way that can only be considered inconsistent and, indeed, in terms of those who need some reflection of the cost of living in their income, reprehensible. This bill does two things that are in bad faith. This government has broken faith, not just with parliament or the opposition but with those among their number who supported a long time ago the provisions of the original Election Expenses Act.
I felt that the Election Expenses Act brought something new into our political life. It brought in the public. It brought in a new light, in the sense of the people who are involved in it. 1 am sure no member of this House of Commons, no matter where he sits, is happy to be a member of this public body, this body in particular. The Election Expenses Act has gone a long way to opening up the process to everyone, just as television in the House has opened up this chamber to the world. That sense of openness has been welcomed by all right-minded members of this House. However, the government is prepared to begin closing the doors, to begin allowing in the shadows of corruption with regard to election financing.


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would answer a question.
October 31, 1977


Walter David Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 will try.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I just want to be clear. Does the hon. member regard the two principal objections, the indexation and the question of anonymous gifts, as the totality of his objection? I wonder whether he raises a third one as well. I happen to share his view about the anonymous donation part. I wonder if he considers the indexation provisions in equal fashion, as a betrayal of the principles of the bill, or is he speaking mainly of the anonymous donation provision as being a betrayal of the principles that he feels the bill raises?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. gentleman's question. I regard the anonymous donation provision as a betrayal of the original intent and purpose of the legislation. As far as indexing is concerned, I regard that as a betrayal of the government's position with regard to restraint. The government has asked Canadians to tighten their belts and do a host of other things, yet in terms of political parties which are at the heart and centre of our political system and the system in this House of Commons, they are prepared to go outside the work of the committee and suddenly index to the cost of living the election expenses. The government betrays itself there.
To answer the minister's question fully, by adding those two provisions without consultation with the other parties, and after the considerations of the all-party committee, it has betrayed that committee and betrayed the spirit, intent and co-operation that was to have existed in the House. 1 know the minister's feelings. I am pleased with his interjection. I do not say that in any partisan way. I say that the government of which he is a member should withdraw the bill as it now stands. They should review the proceedings of the all-party committee and consult the Chief Electoral Officer to see whether this bill is in keeping with the intent of the committee. The minister and the government should satisfy themselves. They should realize there is disappointment in the community about this bill.
There is general support in the community for the Election Expenses Act which provides less opportunity for those who are not well-intentioned to misuse it. It is really in that sense that I entered the debate. I noticed the minister was listening very carefully to what I was saying, and I appreciate that very much. 1 appreciate the minister's expression of support at least for the deletion of anonymous donations provision. 1 do not presume to try to affect his thinking in terms of other matters. He, as a minister, has to examine the philosophy and approach of his government to spending by government, and see how that equates to the principle of indexing in this bill. I really do not think it does.
It would be absolutely unconscienable for any minister of the Crown to talk-and it seems to me it has been confirmed as loose talk-about freezing, changing or in any way affecting social benefits without at the same time, and almost in the same breath, certainly from the same treasury benches, talking about unfreezing political benefits. That is the essence of it. It
National Administration School was in that sense 1 raised the question of their using the President of the Treasury Board. I hope that the interest of the minister in this instance will cause him to speak to his colleagues, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Cafik), the deputy House leader, and consult with the Deputy Prime Minister, the leader of the government in the House, in whose name Bill C-5 stands and, indeed, with the Prime Minister, to see whether it is appropriate. Subject to a review of that kind by the standing committee, I would think passage of a bill containing those offending provisions would be very difficult to achieve. However, that is subject to a review by the committee, over which he and 1 have no control.
That is our general approach to the legislation. We regard it as a very significant bill, for the positive things which it does. However, we think it is a retrograde step in that it offends the original sense of openness with which we all approached this legislation, and it offends the policy of restraint which has been the preaching hallmark, certainly not the factual hallmark, of this government. May I call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing in the National Capital Region, a national administration school for its public servants, which would be a first step toward the creation of an agency responsible for everything in the field of training and development of public servants.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. We were served notice a little while ago, before orders of the day, that the motion we would be debating today was the one standing in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), motion No. 6, concerning the advisability of establishing an office of education. It was on that basis that preparations were made for today's private members' hour. That is the word which I had from the government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if 1 may explain, the motion standing in my name on the order paper is one which I presented in the last session of parliament. With the dying of the order paper in that session, my motion also died. It had been accepted unanimously by the House and referred to the miscellaneous estimates committee for study.
446

October 31, 1977
National Administration School
I ask members of all parties for their unanimous agreement to reinstate this motion in the position it was in last session, and to agree to a motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), similar to that which he moved on May 6 last, asking that the subject matter of motion No. 1 be referred to the standing committee. 1 cannot make that motion, but if the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton would consider making it, I think it would solve our problems and the motion need not be debated this evening.


Walter David Baker: Do I understand that it would be the disposition of the House to proceed with motion No. 6 following that? If that is the case, 1 think the situation in terms of the proposal for a public service institute is the same as it was then. We were prepared to agree at that time and I think we would be prepared to agree today.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: That is satisfactory to us, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, if the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) would move the motion that the subject matter of notice of motion No. 1 be referred to the appropriate committee, then I would be pleased to second it.


Walter David Baker: Then if that is in order, Mr. Speaker, I will make the motion now, and 1 will make it in the terms expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That the subject matter of Notice of Motion No. 1, as follows:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing in the national capital region, a national administration school for its public servants, which would be a first step towards the creation of an agency responsible for everything in the field of training and development of public servants.
be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. As I understand it, the original motion moved by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has been withdrawn and a new motion-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think we are a little mixed up in procedure here. The motion has in fact been withdrawn; the subject matter of the motion is to be referred to the miscellaneous estimates committee.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being here during the entire discussion, but is it my understanding that the original motion, having been withdrawn and now recast in its present form, is in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, (Mr. Gauthier) or is it in fact in the name of the House leader of the party opposite?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. To my understanding, the original motion moved by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has been withdrawn and the new motion stands in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and is seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed and so ordered. The House will now proceed to motion No. 6.



EDUCATION


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing an office of education, to conduct research in the provinces with the co-operation of the provincial governments and also in other countries, to consider the provisions of federal financial assistance for second language training in elementary and high schools and to disseminate information with a view to improving the education of Canadian youth.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion which we are considering goes back several years. It has been proposed in somewhat similar terms on previous occasions, and it orginated in 1971 at the annual general meeting of the Canadian Teachers Federation. At that meeting, the Canadian Teachers Federation advocated the establishment of a Canadian office of education. The basic concept has had the support of members of all parties.
In January of this year, in a publication issued by the Canadian Teachers Federation on policies and viewpoints on matters within federal jurisdiction, the federation stated that such an office would be responsible for the collection, organization and dissemination of information on a Canada-wide basis, as well as for the promotion and support of an adequate program of research in education. It would oversee a continuous study of the fiscal problems affecting education, and consult with provincial governments as to how these problems might be solved. Regional disparities in educational opportunity are a severe and persistent problem. The federal government has the fiscal powers, the moral responsibility and the administrative capability to reduce these disparities.
Policies of the federal government can and do have a real impact upon the quality of education offered by the schools. Federal-provincial fiscal arrangements have a decisive influence on the ability of the provinces to meet the cost of maintaining and improving the services provided by schools in their jurisdictions. Education in a democracy must foster the freedom of the mind. The essence of learning is access to information. Agencies of the federal government have the capacity for the provision of information relevant to educational planning. The federal government has both the fiscal capacity and the authority to act in the interests of all Canadian
October 31, 1977

children to alleviate interprovincial educational disparities. The federal government has a specific financial obligation to education, and to establish a system of equalization grants which will enable each province to provide an adequate and comparable standard of education for every child in this country.
A 1975 report of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development dealt at considerable length with educational policy in Canada, and the minister of education of the province of Ontario, the Hon. Tom Wells, was in general agreement with the need for national action. Section 93 of the British North America Act states that in and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education. Thus, Canada has developed a rather unplanned and until now problematical educational policy, though perhaps it could not be termed truly serious, something people are concerned about, in view of developments at the present time.
Nevertheless, it is a fact that school board expenditures per child in Ontario exceed comparable expenditures in the mari-times by almost 70 per cent. Surely, the federal government is already deeply involved. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is very much involved in education. The Department of the Secretary of State, as it applies to national libraries and museums, spends large sums on education. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion spends large sums supporting educational facilities. The Department of External Affairs is involved directly. The Department of National Defence is directly involved in education, as is the Department of National Health and Welfare and the department of manpower and immigation, now the Department of Employment and Immigration.
Presently, the federal government is spending well over $3 billion a year in support of education in various forms. Arguments concerning jurisdictional responsibility are too often politically motivated. Surely, education is too important to be treated in this fashion.
The motion makes no attempt to go beyond the present acknowledged jurisdictional responsibilities of the federal government. Federal financial assistance for second language training is already provided, although many of us are distinctly unhappy with the terms of the agreement under which this assistance is provided. Education is a national priority. The support of all parties has been given to similar previous motions. Therefore, I ask that everyone join me this afternoon in an expression of national unity by approving the motion calling upon the government to consider the establishment of an office of education.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my understanding that motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), that motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), that motion No. 4 standing in the name of the
Office of Education
hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), and notice of motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), will be stood. Is that agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too long dealing with this particular matter. I believe there are other members who may want to speak, and I look forward to their contributions to this suggestion brought forward by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).
I was disappointed in the way this motion was presented and the defence or the explanation presented by the hon. member. His last expression of opinion with respect to taking this action on behalf of national unity shows how little he understands the problems of national unity which exist in this country today.


Harold Thomas Herbert: 1 understand the situation very well.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I would appreciate it if the hon. member would extend to me the same courtesy which 1 extended to him. As one of the members of this House, I find this motion to be both contradictory and ill-considered. In its own way it represents, if I may say so, a further element of disunity with respect to something which has been basically a responsibility of the provinces since the beginning.
It is not really clear, from either the member's motion or his comments in the House this afternoon, whether he is trying to provide a resource to the provinces with respect to education, whether he is trying in a sense to take over some of the present powers or jurisdiction of the provincial governments-which seems to be implied in some way in his remarks-or whether he is trying to get at some of the present weaknesses with respect to federal funding for second language education in the provinces.
I would like to think there are some areas where the hon. member and I agree, and particularly I am thinking of his expression of dissatisfaction with respect to the effectiveness of provincial action in second language education. I am sure there are members on both sides of this House who are very much concerned about the manner in which hundreds of millions of dollars of federal money has been expended or made available to the provinces without any satisfactory development, in a number of instances and in a number of provinces, of an effective and helpful second language education program.
When the hon. member suggests that the federal government has the power to make a further intervention with respect to education in the provinces, that may well be the case, as has been exhibited by this government in other instances in terms of intervention. Whether it has the power is not really the question. The question is whether it has the right or whether it would be wise. When the hon. member talks about the need for national action, if I may say so, he confuses the real concern that all the provinces share with respect to their own educational resources, that is, the amount of co-
8002 5-29)4

October 31, 1977
Office of Education
operation which takes place among the provinces in order to effect standards and upgrade educational programs, and the heavy-handed action which might be taken by a central government.
When the hon. member indicated that education is too important to be concerned about jurisdictional responsibility, he identified very clearly his lack of understanding as to how a federal-provincial system can work effectively in this country. Perhaps he reflects inadvertently some of the attitudes of his own political masters which have made life increasingly difficult for there to be, in real terms, both a federal government and provincial governments that can work together. The suggestions put forward by the hon. member in his motion and in his comments this afternoon would even further exacerbate present relations among the federal government and the provinces.
While I might identify with his concerns about the quality and the standard of education in this country, the action he proposes would not be effective in the final analysis. The hon. member did not refer to the fact that there is no way to be assured that the results he hopes to achieve would, in effect, occur. We should be concerned about the process of education as it operates in this country, not just for young people but in general terms, because education is a large component of our society.
I do not think the answer is in the establishment of a federal office of education. It might be better if we were able to understand some of the real problems being confronted today by the provincial governments. When the hon. member suggests that we should think about this as a tool for alleviating regional disparity, I think of some of the situations which have existed in my part of the world where the federal government, for reasons best known to itself, has made plans and introduced programs which were not related to the existing needs.
I hope this process of discussion during private members' hour will provide the members of this House the opportunity to realize that it is a federal system we have in this country, and it will not function effectively as long as we have the kind of recourse to unwarranted intrusions and the kind of waiving aside of provincial jurisdictions that are part of the basic fabric of this country. This is the only way we can effectively understand the various viewpoints of the regions and the various ways in which the disparate views and disparate approaches which exist in Canada can possibly be reconciled together into a workable Canadian federation. We have to be grateful to the hon. member for the opportunity of discussing those questions once again, but I cannot support in any way, shape or form the motion as it is presented.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I participate in the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). I am quite sympathetic with the basic thrust of the motion, although I would prefer it to be worded in a somewhat different manner. 1 will in due course explain my reasons for saying that. As Your Honour will remember, I rose second in the debate and you recognized a Conservative speaker. But I am glad to have had

the benefits of the arguments of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), because he did not address himself to the substance of the motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil as it appears before us. He gave us what is now a very traditional Conservative lecture on federal-provincial relations and told us how this terrible government is breaking up the country by virtue of the fact that it is stealing power from the provinces. Having served with the hon. member for Egmont on a number of delegations, and having worked with him in the House, I expected better from him this afternoon on what I consider to be a very significant motion.
One hundred years ago I believe that the Fathers of Confederation made a terrible mistake when they gave, in section 91 or 92 of the BN A Act, jurisdiction over education to the provinces. Of course, one should not second-guess the reasons of the Fathers of Confederation, and it is pretty easy to apply hindsight in such matters. But in those days they were probably justified, and 1 think they wrote a pretty good document anyway, so we can excuse them this one mistake. Nevertheless, it was a terrible mistake, for a couple of reasons. The first one has to do with the hon. member's motion, and it is that by virtue of the fact that each province was allowed to pursue its own path in education, we see variable approaches to second language teaching in the provinces.
Second, the fact that the provinces have power in matters of education has resulted in ten different sets of educational standards and has had, I believe, an adverse impact upon the labour needs of the twentieth century. 1 will go into that argument in a few moments. It is only with the election of the PQ last November that we have suddenly really concerned ourselves with minority language rights. I was a product of the Ontario school system. The second language training that I got in that system was very poor. In fact, the government of Ontario has perhaps one of the most abysmal records with respect to second language teaching, and it is abysmal for a significant reason.
The province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, Upper and Lower Canada-or Canada east and Canada west, as they were 100 years ago-were the two linchpins that formed this country. Yet successive governments in Ontario-the Liberal government was in power there for many years under Oliver Mowat, there was a farmers' government, and in the last 35 years since 1943 the PC party has been in government in that province, the same party as that of my friend, the hon. member for Egmont-have behaved like ostriches with respect to language rights in this country.
About ten years ago we had the national unity debate, we had the B and B commission and we had great discussions on the problems of Quebec and the feelings of Francophones that they were not being properly fulfilled within the Canadian confederation. In 1967, the Conservative premier of Ontario received a lot of publicity when he initiated the Confederation for Tomorrow Conference. In those ten years you would have thought the Conservative administration in Ontario would
October 31, 1977

have recognized its weakness in second language education and would have done something about it. Not only did they do nothing, they actually changed the education system, so that the second language teaching offered in Ontario at present is of a much poorer quality than when I went to school in the early 1960s.
It used to be that most students going to university required a second language. I think you had to have two papers in English and two papers in French or Latin, or three in mathematics. This was changed with the so-called new educational policy brought in by the then minister of education who happens to be the current Premier of Ontario, Mr. Davis. As a result, we find that kids going to universities in Ontario have not bothered learning a second language, whether it is French, German or Latin. In my view, learning a second language is a good thing from the Canadian perspective of national unity. It is also a good intellectual discipline to learn to speak two languages. But the Conservative government in Ontario has allowed second language teaching to almost die out. So when we consider the remarks of the hon. member for Egmont, we must wonder if the provinces have done such a good job with respect to education.
I made a proposal to the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) with respect to second language education. 1 believe that we, as the federal government, should establish this kind of office, this kind of liaison, with the provinces. I believe that we should require the provinces-and perhaps use our financial levers to do so through the aids to post-secondary education-to set linguistic standards for people going to university, so that anyone who is admitted to university in any province has a certain standard of knowledge in two languages, one of them being the official language. This would in no way discriminate against third language groups, or the so-called ethnocultural groups in this country; in fact, it would give them a boost. In Toronto there have been immigrants, in the last 10 or 15 years, from Italy, Greece and a host of countries.
I do not think it unreasonable that we should encourage the teaching of those languages and make it possible for students who have a knowledge of the language to gain a university entrance credit; indeed, it is part of the multicultural policy of the government. But this kind of system will have another positive effect, that is, to encourage both French and Englishspeaking parents to help their children study, not German, Latin or Italian but the other official language.
It is quite evident from what has been going on in Toronto in the last few years that there are more students willing to study French than the province of Ontario has provided schools for. It is my contention that English-speaking parents in the Toronto area would love to see a second language entrance requirement made for universities, and I am sure that those parents would encourage their children to learn French because it is one of the two official languages of Canada and it is the language of the federal government. That is the proposal I have made to the Secretary of State. It is one that I think should be considered.
Office of Education
The other aspect of provincial control in education vis-a-vis national control, or the establishment of a national education office as envisaged in the motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil, is the fact that 100 years ago we did not have to worry too much about the mobility of Canadians. At that time, if you grew up in one province, by and large you spent the rest of your life in that province. Of course, it was basically a rural society, an agrarian society and there was no need for governments to be concerned with the impact of their education policy on the labour market.
Here we are, in 1977, with a very mobile population and with multinational and all kinds of national corporations, and I believe Canadians are hampered severely because of the disparity of education standards in this country. If you are an official with a national company living in Toronto, and you are transferred to New Brunswick, British Columbia, or to any of the other provinces, under the present system there may be a significant difference in the type of education in each province; therefore, your children, who are being dislocated anyway- they are being uprooted from one community and put into another-are going to be even more disrupted by the fact that there is no continuity in the educational system.
1 suppose 1 am one of the "baby boomers", one of those who came on to the labour market in the last few years. I am one of the fortunate ones; I have a job, at least for the foreseeable future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For another few months.


David Michael Collenette: However, it is very unusual for political science graduates such as 1 to be able to secure positions which are adapted to their education. We have created a whole generation of people who are not really suited to the labour needs of this country. I am going off the topic somewhat, but when we look at unemployment statistics and at the people who are unemployed or dissatisfied with their lot, we zero in on post-war children who are now adults, people born after 1945. We are the products of parents who went through two world wars and a depression. They worked hard and suffered the deprivations of the depression years. They have said to their children that they should not suffer the same kinds of hardship, that they should stay at school, get as much education as they can and not go in for blue collar work because it is grubby and not socially productive. Almost a class distinction between white collar work and blue collar work has been built up.
So a great many people have completed high school and university. 1 do not know why I went to university, except that my parents encouraged me. That was the thing to do in the sixties. It was only when I was in my second year that I realized what a university education was all about. But many of my contemporaries could not adjust. They could not come to terms with why they were in university. Some resorted to drugs, some to alcohol, and others dropped out. Some went

October 31, 1977
Office of Education
back to the land. We have heard about a back to the land movement.
I go through all this because 1 think our generation is symptomatic of the problem the motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil seeks to correct. We need a national perspective on education. The hon. member's motion refers principally to linguistic rights-and as I said earlier, I am in absolute agreement with him-but I think there is a second and equally important matter, and that is the impact of education upon the labour market. Only now the provinces are starting to talk about upgrading of apprenticeship training schemes and upgrading vocational schools.
In recent years, in Ontario, we seem to have developed a very successful system of community colleges which teach various trades besides straight academic subjects. More and more students are going into these fields, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, if we had a national office of education, we could encourage people to think of blue collar work as very socially productive and fulfilling.
Last week in this House we heard about the INCO lay-offs, but how many of the people who were laid off really wanted to do the job they were doing? How many were not channelled, in the first place, into a career of their choice? The same question can be asked about people in the public service. There is an old adage: those who can, do; those who can't teach. When the baby boom dropped off, there were fewer teachers, and many graduates who were friends of mine started to come into the public service. I am sure many public servants are unhappy with their jobs because they never wanted to go into the public service in the first place. They never wanted to push paper or make administrative decisions. Perhaps they would be happier welding or doing certain work in a factory.
There is no national system of standards. There is no national education policy which can direct the energies and aspirations of Canadians. I am not suggesting, as the hon. member for Egmont suggested, that the federal government take over education. Goodness knows, we are probably into more areas than we should be already. We should probably be phasing ourselves out of some areas. Education systems should still be run by the provincial governments, but the federal government could establish broad national policies for both the labour market and for second language education.
I have gone on at length and I apologize to hon. members for my rather hodge-podge speech. I had notice of this debate only a little while ago. However, this motion underlines the whole constitutional debate in this country. I see that the hon. member for Egmont agrees with me. I think it was a week ago Friday, when I was speaking during the throne speech debate, that I said within five years we in this chamber would have to come to terms with restructuring, not just the House of Commons or the Senate but our entire system. We need to rearrange our entire constitution.
I welcome this opportunity to put forward some of my views on what I consider to be a fundamental question. The hon. member for Vaudreuil evoked cries of national unity, and it is quite obvious from the way members of the opposition react

every time we talk about national unity that they are scared. They try to castigate our very honourable motives in talking about national unity. But the hon. member for Vaudreuil was dead on; he was absolutely right, that national unity is not just second language education. It is also the strength of the economy and the satisfaction and fulfilment each individual within the Canadian society can get, at whatever vocation he chooses.
In conclusion, I fully support the substance of the motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil. I would like it to be expanded somewhat in order to put special emphasis on a national educational policy which would be adapted to the labour needs of the country. I urge the hon. member for Egmont and his colleagues opposite to reconsider this very sensible motion.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak but when I heard what the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) said earlier today, I felt I had to add a few comments on his speech. He said that the Fathers of Confederation made a mistake when they made the provinces responsible for education. I think he never did refer to 1887 when the Fathers of Confederation lived in Upper and in Lower Canada. I want to mention that during that time the English element represented the large majority and that Upper Canada led the struggle to ensure the right to education in order to avoid being integrated by French Canadians.
This is a little remark I want to make casually, and I think that the Fathers of Confederation have been very wise since these developments; as Canada grew larger we note that the English element was becoming stronger than the French element. Later the French element had a little advantage. The fact that education was exclusively under provincial jurisdiction was a kind of safety valve for the French element. And that is why sections 92 and 93 of the BNA Act have been well thought out for the two great peoples who live in Canada.
The hon. member was wondering whether the provinces had properly discharged their duties in the field of education. If one carefully studies Canadian history, one will find that one of the provinces which showed proper respect for minorities is still Quebec which has properly treated its minorities for the past 110 years and which will continue to do so. If the second language which is made official today by government action has not been respected, it was in the other provinces. If it has not and still is not treated as it should be, it was in the other provinces. So I invite the hon. member for York East to take a look at what is going on in his own riding and to refrain from trying to push the federal government in those sectors which were essentially entrusted to the provinces.
I believe all provinces are anxious to keep the areas they have decided to keep because back in 1887 the provinces themselves decided to keep such and such an area and to leave certain priorities to the federal government. They all decided to leave these sectors to the federal government so that it may rule on behalf of and with the consent of all provinces. I suggest to the hon. member that he reread the beginning of Canadian history, which will enable him to give a sounder
October 31, 1977

interpretation of the BN A Act because today many young people believe that it was the federal government which created the provinces. That is not so. The provinces created the federal government and they unanimously decided to keep those sectors they claimed were under their jurisdiction. That is why today if we want national unity each and everyone of us should have the freedom to act freely within his own province. That, 1 suggest, is the first prerequisite to national unity. He must also be given the necessary means to administer his province. When you wonder whether the provincial governments have been able to fulfill their responsibilities, I think the main problem arose especially from the time when the federal government, sometime in the 40's began to take over direct taxation areas which they had left untouched since 1887.
That is when the provinces were faced with some hardship for the first time, were in need of money, and even today this lack of funds prevents them from providing the necessary services to their citizens in education as well as in all other areas under the provinces' jurisdiction. I feel that as long as we do not give the provinces the financial means to administer those areas which come under their jurisdiction like education, what they need is not the equalization formula but tax points. Let us give them tax points and you will see there will be no more regional disparities because 1 am sure provincial governments are as clever as the central government; they are just as clever and able to administer themselves but let us give them back the rights they enjoyed and the taxation fields they had before the 40's, and I think that as a result we shall no longer say that the provinces are unable to administer such or such an area. Let us give them back their taxation field and then we shall see that the provinces are as progressive as the central government and that they are able to live in Canada while keeping their own identity and being free to act within their own jurisdiction to build a united and free country, through the freedom of the provinces.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot help reacting to the comments made by the previous speakers about educational resources. 1 think that we cannot apply to Canada the thesis according to which when you are rich you can deal with your problems. Among the richest provinces, Ontario in particular has not been more generous with its minorities than New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Quebec. So 1 think that we are off on the wrong track when we say; let us put tax points at the disposal of provinces to solve the education problem.
The motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) reads as follows: "-consider the advisability of establishing an office of education, to conduct research in the provinces with the cooperation of the provincial governments and also in other countries, to consider the provisions of federal financial assistance for second language training in elementary and high schools and to disseminate information with a view to improving the education of Canadian youth." We cannot reject a motion asking the federal government to
Office of Education
coordinate action in the education field. As the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) said, that is done at the economic level as concerns manpower. It has been said this afternoon that $3 billion had been spent for manpower, for reeducation and for readaptation of manpower to modern needs. The federal government did it to spur the economy and all the hon. member for Vaudreuil is asking for today is a better co-ordination. There is no province that can do it alone. There is no province which feels strong enough to say to the other: listen, we should work together to improve the lot of all Canadians. I think this motion from the hon. member for Vaudreuil must be considered seriously to meet the objective which was aimed at in St. Andrews last August.
I believe the education ministers met to discuss minorities' rights. And they tried bargaining. "If you can-Mr. Levesque is speaking-give us Quebecers the guarantee that in your English-speaking provinces you will accept our French-speaking Canadians in duly constituted French schools, we from the province of Quebec will accept your Canadian immigrants." This is the worst kind of bargaining! And I cannot accept that premiers, whether they are independent or not, begin to bargain about my rights as a Canadian. As concerns language rights we are all equal, Francophones and Anglophones. I have the right to be at home in the west like in the east and I shall be at home in Ontario. I shall speak French in Ontario and I should like to see what government will prevent me from doing so!

I think the motion calls for further research, co-ordination of research and distribution of that research in the field of education. It is no secret that in this country we have ten different systems of education in the ten provinces. All boards do not accept that all Canadians equally have access to that system of education, because in eight provinces, if you are Francophone you cannot have access to post-secondary or secondary education. There is need for a co-ordinating body.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) mentioned- and I think it is a strong point-that there should be better co-ordination to allow people in Alberta who speak French to go to school in Ontario for secondary or post-secondary education, so that they can continue in the language of their choice, just as is done in Quebec and in Ontario. It is only in the last ten years that Francophones in Ontario have been able to go to the secondary and post-secondary level. That is a great help. It was not done by money, however; it was done by political people who had the will to do it.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Justice.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is right, justice. The present system of education in Ontario, which has been in place for some years, provides that if you take 20 minutes of French for 8 years, say, or 13 years, you will become proficient in the language. That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. They have been doing that for the last 15 or 20 years, but they cannot speak French at the end of 13 years. We may ask if we have wasted the money or have not motivated the children? I say,

October 31, 1977
Office of Education
let us look elsewhere. In England, for instance a study done over ten years showed that children who were exposed to 20 minutes of language training each day did not do as well as children exposed to two-hour sessions from the age of 14. The theory was that if you give enough of it, it will get into their heads; but it does not work that way.
The primary obligation of any school is to teach the maternal language first and then the second language. A lot of research has been done in Ottawa, and two years ago a program was funded by the federal government, to the tune of $2 million, to help local boards of education to experiment. The research showed that total immersion was possibly a good measure.
In England, as I have said, they made a study which showed that for children of 14 years and over it was just as good if they received two hours a week of language training as if they received 20 minutes every day. That is what my hon. friend from Vaudreuil was talking about. That is why I think his proposition is good. There should be a federal co-ordinator. Call it a bureau, call it a co-ordinator, call it what you like- somebody must take the initiative to show that in this country there there is a will and a consensus to make a concerted effort to gather from each other's experience, be it in New Brunswick, where they have bilingual education, be it in Alberta, where they have some form of it, or be it in British Columbia, where it does not exist.
Let all of us get together, and when the ministers of education report to their governments following the St. Andrew's conference in six months' time about the status of the minority groups in their provinces, let them sit down and say; "Let's put our heads together. We have a problem. Let's try and solve it on the basis of understanding, justice and equity."

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to speak too long because I know this motion can be subject to a long debate. We have heard about official languages, about the federal government's power to intervene in official languages. During the last decade, I believe the federal government made payments to the provinces in support of their second language teaching programs. In Ontario, we received about $20 million a year. I believe the total for the whole country is about $100 million a year, supposedly to help provinces teach the second language. However we must admit that this assistance has not always been spent the way it should have been. It is being admitted today that often alleged bilingual parking lots and bilingual gyms were built instead of using that money in support of second language courses.
The federal government has often asked the provinces for a report of expenditures, how and where the money is spent, and according to what formula. There is a federal formula which says that for each school boy or girl taking a second language, the federal grant will be 5 per cent and Wz per cent for

administration purposes. For minorities, the grant is 9 per cent and 1 'h per cent for administration purposes.
I would be surprised if such formula was applied by the provinces for the benefit of the people to which it could be useful. We have had to discuss how the provinces have used that money. I think that the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) must negotiate or renegotiate those federal-provincial agreements on the second language. He will have to tell the House how the provinces spent those rather substantial sums. After that answer is provided, we will see if the funds were well spent or if they were adequate.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil dealt with a motion which I felt acceptable since it suggests coordinating provincial and interprovincial resources. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the motion should be passed, that we should proceed through existing organizations, either through the Minister of Education or the Council of the Ministers of Education in Toronto whose secretariat has performed excellent work. By introducing this motion today the member for Vaudreuil has shown a new aspect of the language issue, by asking that agency, either an office or a cooperating agent, to consider seriously the possibility of coordinating, studying more carefully and applying more thoroughly that experience.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, in the short time remaining to me I would like to thank the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for bringing this matter once again before the House and affording to us the opportunity of putting forward the various points of view which exist among members.
I compliment the member for having done that. I agree with him to some extent in terms of the question as it relates to national unity, and I associate myself with the arguments which were put forward by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) when he pointed out that this was, in fact, a national unity question. I do not believe it is the only question, and perhaps it is only symptomatic of a larger question. I think it was unfortunate that the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) should take the position that this was an old party line and it was something which was not true. As speakers have indicated today, we started from a position where the federal government had little or no jurisdiction over education, and today we still work from documents which seem to show that the provinces have total jurisdiction in this matter. But when we look at the question historically, we find that the federal government has acted, not by way of interference, not by way of imposing itself upon the provinces but, rather, in terms of filling vacuums where the provincial jurisdictions have, for one reason or another, be it economic, as the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) said, or be it purely from lack of motivation, failed to take measurers within their jurisdiction.
A cry has been raised by the people of this country that they want something done. That cry has been heard by the federal jurisdiction and responded to. We need not go far to find that such a response was made when we started training war
October 31, 1977

veterans, when we started providing training in military institutions, when we started providing funding for second language training.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil pointed out, quite correctly, that we have reached a stage where we are spending close to $3 billion in funding language training, co-ordination and assistance. 1 would add that initially and ultimately the initiative still remains with the provinces, and we should point out to the provinces that they are not doing enough. 1 think we can be satisfied, from arguments made by representatives of all the parties today, that the provinces have left something to be desired and that they should be co-ordinating themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m., at which time the House will consider a motion to be moved by the Leader of the Opposition, pursuant to Standing Order 26.
At 6.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. By application earlier this day by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and later in the day by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent), as a result of which leave having been granted to the hon. Leader of the Opposition to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the revelations on Friday, October 28, 1977, by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), that the RCMP has in the recent past illegally entered premises to steal information concerning a legal political party, which raises major questions of policy and procedure in the vital area of national security, accordingly the motion is as follows: It is moved by Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Broadbent:
That this House do now adjourn.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is not a happy occasion for the House of Commons or for the country that it is necessary for us to meet in a special debate tonight to deal with the matters which have given rise to this debate.

On at least four occasions we now know that the security service of the RCMP broke the law of Canada in the name of national security. Incidents that we know about involve the raid on L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec, the burning of a barn near Montreal, the theft of dynamite, and an illegal activity resulting in information about the membership lists and the financial affairs of the Parti Quebecois. There may be more.
This evening an Ottawa television station reported that in 1971 security officers infiltrated the so-called Common Front established during that period by the three labour unions in the province of Quebec and, among other things, stole from those organizations documents dealing with their bargaining position and their strategy vis-a-vis the Bourassa government.
I hope that the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) will deal with this report when he speaks in the debate later tonight. I hope too that he will tell us whether he was correctly quoted as saying that the probability of more incidents coming is quite high and, if that is the case, he will advise us now, tonight, of the nature and the extent of other illegal acts of which he has knowledge.
Those are the illegal acts that we know about, acts in the name of national security. However, it is important for this House and the country to remember that this same phrase has been invoked to prevent the Laycraft inquiry in Alberta from learning more details of a bugging operation, and invoked also to prevent the Laycraft inquiry from investigating the use of an agreement between the Department of National Revenue and the RCMP, an agreement still in effect, which violates the confidentiality of income tax files. It was for related reasons that the government consistently refused to answer questions placed by my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), concerning the activities of various security committees of the Government of Canada.


Mr. Allmand:: Nonsense.


Charles Joseph Clark: The former Solicitor General says nonsense. There is no question at all that that kind of conduct by the government is nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Everyone accepts that, in the modern world, governments have to authorize and follow some secret activities. But we must be alarmed about the apparent pattern of breaking the law which has emerged in the last few months, and we must be alarmed about the use of "national security" as an excuse to hide a multitude of sins. Why not tell parliament about the activities of General Dare and Colonel Bourne? Why not let the Laycraft inquiry carry out the investigation it was established by the Attorney General of Alberta to carry out? Why not do those things?
We are also alarmed about the fundamental although separate question of who authorizes and controls the security apparatus of the Government of Canada.
454



Attention has focused recently, unfortunately, on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Naturally, if the RCMP breaks the law, it must bear the consequences. However, many of the activities that have come to light have not been performed by rank and file members of the RCMP, but rather by the special security service.
It is important to dwell a moment on the relationship of the security service to the RCMP. Theoretically, it exists under the Commissioner of the RCMP. In practice, it is directed by a director general who, whatever his relation to the Commissioner, also reports directly to the Solicitor General, and, on occasion, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). There is a very real question as to whether the activities of the security service are activities which the Commissioner of the RCMP is authorized to control.
That raises the basic question: who sets the policy of the security apparatus in Canada? Who polices that apparatus?
We know who should set the policy and police the activities. In our system, cabinet should set the policy, control the security service, and bear the responsibility for any excesses by the security service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It appears that the cabinet is not carrying out that responsibility. I say "appears", Mr. Speaker, because there are at least two interpretations of those facts which have become public since the spring of this year. One interpretation is that ministers are not meeting their responsibility to oversee and control the security service. The other interpretation is that the cabinet is setting policy, whether through Colonel Bourne or General Dare or the cabinet committee on security and intelligence chaired by the Prime Minister, but will not accept responsibility when things go wrong.
There is a lot of evidence that we have to consider when looking at the question of who is in charge, in fact, of security policy in this country. We have to bear in mind that a former solicitor general, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), as debate in this House earlier this year indicated, deliberately chose not to ask questions it was his duty to ask.
We have to consider the behaviour of the next solicitor general, the current Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand). He was solicitor general for almost four years from 1972 to 1976, the period in which virtually all of these activities took place. On the weekend, as reported by the news media, this minister said that he did not think that he has been told about the theft of the PQ computer list, but he was not sure.


William Warren Allmand: I did not.


Charles Joseph Clark: He now says the news reports were wrong. This afternoon, through the mouth of the current Solicitor General, we are told that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is now absolutely certain that he knew nothing about any illegal activity. If we are to believe the government's story,

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was told in March, 1976, while he was still Solicitor General, of the 1972 illegal break-in at the APLQ office. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that even with this specific information before him he made any real effort to find out what other incidents of that kind might have occurred while he was the minister responsible to this parliament.
We have heard the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs heckling across the aisle tonight. I would hope that he would enter into the debate tonight-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and that he will tell the House of Commons of Canada in detail precisely how he exercised his responsibility in each of the cases which have already been made public here.


William Warren Allmand: This has already been told.


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to the present Solicitor General who has held that position since September, 1976. He must have known shortly after he took office about the details of the APLQ break-in. Even the government admits that it knew those details in March, 1976. Yet it was not until January of this year, nine months after he became Solicitor General, that the present minister bothered to tell parliament and the people of Canada anything about that affair.
On June 17, you will remember, Sir, he told this House that the APLQ break-in was, and I quote his words, "exceptional and isolated". He was at some pains to assure us that he had no evidence whatsoever to suggest that other illegal acts had been committed by federal security services. Now, barely five months later, he has come back before parliament to admit more such incidents-we do not know how many more.
According to the minister, he found out about these latest incidents a week ago. This time it took him a full week to get around to notifying parliament and the people of Canada, and then he chose the last day of the throne speech debate, on the last day of the week, so that he could be free of immediate questioning.
1 think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, for us to point out on the record that the Solicitor General of Canada made these announcements last week because he knew that if he did not "come clean" before the House of Commons, the evidence of break-ins would become known to the Parliament of Canada through provincial inquiries or other means. In other words, he did not tell parliament because he wanted to; he told parliament because he was forced to.
I was interested in the question period this afternoon to note that the Solicitor General, in answer to a question of mine, ascribed to the director general of the security services the authority for discussing, and I believe he said approving, the break-in at the Parti Quebecois offices relating to-


Francis Fox: You called it a break-in; I did not.


Mr. Gillies:: What do you call it then, a cover-up?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now relax, take it easy.


October 31, 1977


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is worried about the word. He knows more about this incident than the House of Commons does.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: He told us today that it was the director general who was involved in discussions and who authorized-he will interrupt me if i am incorrect-whatever action led the security services to be in possession of membership lists and financial information regarding the Parti Quebecois. He said today that the authority rested with the director general. The question for the House of Commons and for the minister is: who gave the director general that authority? To whom does he report? With whom did he have the responsibility to clear that action? Where was the Solicitor General? Who is the responsible minister in this House?
Throughout all this, Mr. Speaker, the government has not been particularly forthcoming with information which the House of Commons and the country requires so that we can know exactly what went on in this case. Indeed, there have been attempts as recently as the question period this afternoon to try dramatically to put down questions from this side of the House so as little as possible would be known about these events.
There are a number of specific questions which I want to put on the record tonight in the hope that the Solicitor General and others who might speak will address their minds to them. But there is one other matter which relates to the possibility of having a full inquiry into the question of the responsibility of ministers of the Crown for the activities of the security apparatus of the Government of Canada and the authority on which security forces in this country are acting. We would prefer to have a special committee of this parliament struck with the full powers to carry out the investigation, to gather the evidence, to subpoena the witnesses, which would result in a clear picture being painted for all the people of Canada as to what exactly is going on here. That is what we would prefer.
The minister instead says that we have this already. We have it in the McDonald royal commission. If that is to be the minister's response he knows that we at least, and many others in this country, have very serious reservations as to whether or not the terms of reference of the McDonald inquiry are broad enough to allow that inquiry to look at the central question, which is: what was the role of the minister in all of these affairs? What is the responsibility of the cabinet in all this business?
I suggested in July of this year that if the minister wanted to continue to hide behind the royal commission the least he could do would be to write into the terms of reference of that royal commission a provision which would make it absolutely clear that it had the responsibility to report upon the role of ministers of the Crown. Once again 1 should like to suggest to the minister, if he intends to continue to hide behind the royal commission, that he add to the terms of reference of that commission another term of reference, which I would be pleased to read, namely:

To investigate and report on the manner in which Solicitors General and the Prime Minister have exercised their constitutional obligation to supervise fully the activities of the security service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and report thereon to the Parliament of Canada.
I would hope that this debate tonight will begin the procedure of spelling out the relation between the security officers of the Government of Canada and the ministers of the government, and will begin to ensure that we can have some accountability to the House of Commons, through ministers, for the activities of the security services.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I know my time is running out in this debate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -but I should like to add for the record a number of questions which I hope the Solicitor General will answer tonight when he enters this debate.
First, we want to know whether there are other incidents of illegal activity by federal security forces of which the Solicitor General now has knowledge. If so, we want the minister to tell the House what they are, when they happened, and specifically, under whose authority they were carried out.
Second, we note that the Prime Minister said that in 1973 or 1974-he is not sure-he ordered the security forces to stop systematic surveillance of the Parti Quebecois. We want to know what information the Prime Minister had at that time about the existing surveillance of the Parti Quebecois, and in what form did he order it stopped. Was it done in writing? If so, to whom, and with what provisions for enforcement?
By its own version of events, the government-at least the then solicitor general and the Prime Minister-learned in March of 1976 of the illegal break-in at the APLQ office. We want to know what specific steps they initiated at that time to ensure that this was, in fact, as they claim, "an exceptional and isolated" incident. Why, again by the minister's version, did it take until September of 1977 for information on three further incidents of illegal activity to come to the attention of the government?
According to the minister, it has been standard practice for some time for the Solicitor General of Canada to meet on a weekly basis with the director general of security services. In all frankness, 1 have to ask the minister the following: is it the contention of the government that the question of illegal activities by security services was not raised during those meetings? Those meetings would have numbered well over 100 during this period. Is the Solicitor General trying to tell us that he did not raise questions with the director general about these matters? Is he telling us that he raised those questions and received false information? We want to know what went on in those meetings. We want to know the state of knowledge of the minister or his predecessors.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
8002 5 -30V4

October 31, 1977


Charles Joseph Clark: In light of the most recent allegations made tonight, we want to know whether federal security officers infiltrated the so-called Common Front of Quebec labour unions in 1971 and stole documents on that organization's bargaining position and strategy, documents which were subsequently turned over to the government of Quebec. If that was the case, we want to know on whose authority, and if ministers claim they did not know, we want to know why they did not know.
We want to know if security officers stole dynamite from a Montreal contractor in the hope that blame for the theft would be placed on some separatist group and, if so, we want to know who authorized that theft, when and how was the Solicitor Genera] informed of it.
We want to know whether any internal disciplinary action has been taken against the officials which the Solicitor General alleges were responsible for those illegal activities. We want to know whether those files have been referred under federal statute to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford).
We have heard about information contained on computer tapes relating to the Parti Quebecois. We want to know whether that information was turned over to the Solicitor General or any other member of the federal government. We want to know whether the government now has any of that information in its possession in any form.
It is important to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada to know what has been the role of the cabinet committee on security and intelligence, a committee chaired by the Prime Minister of Canada. Was information on any of these illegal activities brought to the attention of the committee or its secretary, Mr. Pitfield? We want to know what instructions or directives have been issued by that committee to federal security forces in regard to possible surveillance of political parties, in particular.
Finally, we want to know what assurances, if any, the Solicitor General has given to the McDonald commission in terms of its access to federal documents free of the use of section 42(2) of the Federal Court Act, and its right to inquire into the particular role and responsibility of ministers, including the Prime Minister, in federal security operations.
Those are some of the questions which exist in relation to the responsibility of this government for security activities which we now know have resulted in at least four illegal acts that have come to be known publicly in the last four months. There has been an attempt made at suggesting that the authority for these matters rests solely with the director general, a public servant. We want to know where the Government of Canada was throughout all of these matters, the government that is responsible to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We want to know why there has been an attempt to stonewall legitimate questioning by this side of the House.


An hon. Member:: Even when we tell you, you do not listen.


Charles Joseph Clark: We want to know this in order to determine all of the evidence and all of the information concerning these matters. We want to know these matters as soon as possible.


Walter David Baker: Right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the basic facts relating to the debate tonight are as follows: as a result of information provided in the last 72 hours, we now know that there was a break-in at the Parti Quebecois office on January 9, 1973.


Mr. Lalonde:: No.


John Edward Broadbent: And, no doubt, it was an illegal break-in.


Marc Lalonde: You are wrong on the place.


John Edward Broadbent: We also know that the Parti Quebecois has alleged-and there is no doubt in anyone's mind-an illegal theft of dynamite and the illegal burning of a barn. These are the crude facts; but what is involved is something well beyond the crude facts. First, there is the principle of the rule of law, and that is, the principle that all citizens, including politicians and policemen, must act in accordance with the law established by the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Second is the very important notion of ministerial responsibility, including that of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). This notion, ancient in the history of parliament, entails the obligation of ministers to ensure that on matters of policy and in the implementation of law they obtain the compliance of all the people within their departments, all the people for whom they are responsible. It also entails the moral obligation to inform the people of Canada in the House of Commons if and when there has been a clear breach of the law within their departments, and the obligation to ensure that all such activity is stopped forthwith once it is discovered.
What is the recent record on these two important democratic principles as administered by the current government? I will not be concerned in my comments this evening with the illegal break-in in the fall of 1972. There has been much said about that, particularly during the closing days of the session last spring. 1 will not be concerned about the allegations of the RCMP burning private property and stealing dynamite. I want to concentrate on the break-in at the offices of the Parti Quebecois on January 9, 1973, the implications of such actions, and most particularly, the government's responsibility in this sad affair.
There can be no serious doubt now about who authorized this break-in. It was the director general of the security services at the time, Mr. John Starnes. This has been asserted by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), although he refused to name the individual. He named the position, he did it on the telephone with me last Friday and he did it in his statement in
October 31, 1977

the Elouse in general terms the other day. He asserted it directly today, without naming the individual, in answers in the House today.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right on.


John Edward Broadbent: What has to take place-and this is the unfortunate, serious aspect of that illegal activity, presumably by that individual-is the laying of criminal charges against all those involved. Historically-and I regret very much to have to say this-this means another sad chapter in the otherwise noble history of the RCMP in Canada.
The implications for Canada at this time are, of course, unfortunate in the extreme. The Parti Quebecois is currently waging a battle, perhaps the most serious battle in the history of our country, for the hearts and minds of the people of the province of Quebec. The Parti Quebecois is claiming that the only way that Quebecers can legitimately pursue their own best interests is in an independent state. In the context of this effort by the Parti Quebecois we must keep in mind that that party is not only organized democratically but has obeyed fundamentally all the democratic norms of our country, and although we may fundamentally disagree with its objectives, as all of us in the House do, none of us has disagreed with the democratic procedures that it is using.
Among the arguments that they are making is that the federal Government of Canada has frequently and arbitrarily imposed its wishes and programs on the people of Quebec. My point in this circumstance is obvious. What could be more arbitrary, more wrong, and more unjust than a calculated, illegal break-in on their premises, not in the heat of crisis in 1973, as the minister and the Prime Minister would like to have us believe, but in the relatively calculated calm of 1973? What could be more injurious to the arguments put forward by federalists in the province of Quebec than to have a federal police force, the RCMP, doing such a calculated, evil act? What could give the Parti Quebecois more legitimate concern that it was done under the federal political direction than the fact that at this time the RCMP acted alone, they were not accompanied, as they were in 1972 in another break-in, by the Montreal police or by the provincial police of Quebec?
In that particular instance it was a break-in into the Parti Quebecois office, a legitimate party in that province. The RCMP, a federal force, acted completely alone, unaccompanied, I repeat, by police forces from the province of Quebec. What kind of a weapon has the federal government now given to the Parti Quebecois? This is a truly sad episode in the history of our country. This is truly an act of potentially tragic consequences for our people, and as such, whatever illegal course of action was taken by the RCMP on their own authority, the Liberal cabinet cannot escape its responsibility in this matter.


John Edward Broadbent: It is central to the whole history of the notion of ministerial responsibility that the politicians who hold the ultimate power also assume the ultimate responsibility-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I say in this context that no spurious argument put up by the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General can obscure this important, democratic reality which, up to the present time, all of us in Canada have taken for granted. I want to say through, you Mr. Speaker, to the Solicitor General that this particular line of responsibility will be pursued in the House tomorrow, the next day, and the day after that, until we get some important matters clarified.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Now I want to turn directly to the Prime Minister's responsibility in this matter. I say that it is the Prime Minister and no one else who is responsible for the ultimate integrity of the cabinet. It is in him, whoever he may be at the time, that all the people of Canada must, in the crunch, have moral confidence. I regret to say that the grounds for that trust in the present Prime Minister have now been, in my view, completely shattered, and I will explain why.
First, during the judges' affair about two years ago, and then last spring during the first round of debates on the illegal activities of the RCMP, the Prime Minister indicated a willingness to condone moral slackness in his ministers, and to accept it even in his own behaviour. In both those situations there were unequivocally clear examples in which ministers of the Crown either committed a wrongdoing themselves, or, by simply refusing to ask the relevant question-known, I suggest, by any adolescent viewing the circumstances of the time-they ensured that they would not obtain personally implicating information.
Many Canadians were evidently prepared to accept this moral sloppiness last spring, and before that two years ago in the judges' affair. However, I ask you today, how many can accept the Prime Minister's performance in this sad affair? According to his own words, he learned of the 1973 break-in at least nine or ten days ago for the first time. Accepting this, at least for the moment for the argument, I want to ask the following question: did he then proceed to check out and verify what apparently was brought to his attention, and then immediately inform the House of Commons? Of course he did neither of these.
Quite deliberately, and there is no doubt at all about this in my mind, the information was withheld from all the members of parliament for all of last week. Then it was casually and cynically released on Friday in a routine speech by the Solicitor General in an otherwise routine debate. Carefully it was calculated that opposition members would not be able under the circumstances to assume their responsibilities in this system in which we live, by posing the relevant questions. The Prime Minister was not even present at the time, and I assume that he knew that he could convince at least his own col-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 31, 1977

leagues, if no one else in the House of Commons or outside of it, that he had a splendid excuse for not being in the House today or tomorrow because he could claim that he had a previously arranged meeting with two premiers in western Canada. By the time he gets back to the House of Commons on Wednesday, the Prime Minister-and I mean this-no doubt calculated that the whole thing would be brushed aside with two days of skirmishing in the House of Commons, and he would escape scot-free.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Absolutely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I ask, is this a man concerned with parliamentary tradition, not the spurious traditions but the traditions connected with the rule of law and with ministerial responsibility? Is this a man who has accepted the onerous moral responsibilities of being Prime Minister in this country? To ask the question under these circumstances is to answer it. It is clearly the situation that he has failed to accept the most elementary of moral responsibilities in these circumstances.
Additionally, I cannot in any way accept at face value the ingenious and imaginative answers the Prime Minister gave to journalists who questioned him on this matter last Friday afternoon. The Prime Minister said, when he first learned of the RCMP surveillance of the Parti Quebecois, and 1 quote the following gem, "Gee, we've got to stop this. We can't go on exercising surveillance on a democratic party". Well, gee whiz-


Mrs. Holt:: Read the whole quote.


John Edward Broadbent: You will get your chance in a minute.


William Warren Allmand: There is more dishonesty in this House tonight than there has been in a whole year.


John Edward Broadbent: This alleged shock of the Prime Minister should convince no one on either side of the House. Why do 1 say that? I say it because of related statements concerning the same issue, and I ask the former solicitor general to read the record carefully himself and see if in all candor he can accept this bundle of contradictions.
What else did the Prime Minister say as reported in the Globe and Mail last Saturday? He said he could not recall whether it was in 1974 or 1975 that he first learned of this surveillance of a democratically constituted and democratically functioning political party in Canada, yet he was amazed and shocked. He also said he could not recall whether he was told at the time whether the RCMP had obtained a list of PQ memberships. The specific words attributed to the Prime Minister are as follows: "Maybe they," the RCMP, "did tel! me". Well, maybe indeed they did, Mr. Speaker.
I simply cannot accept the contradictions implied in this series of assertions by the Prime Minister last Friday. If the Prime Minister was shocked and said, "Gee whiz, what is

going on, this must stop", then surely he must remember the year. Surely he can remember whether he was told if the RCMP had a list of PQ members. If the shock is there, how could his memory suddenly disappear from related facts that are inextricably connected to such an alleged expression of shock?
If anyone can accept these contradictions-and 1 have my doubts if any impartial person could-1 have another question, if we accept the contradictions there have been so far, how can we at the same time accept the next claim made by the Prime Minister that he did not under the circumstances ask the RCMP if its surveillance was all done within the framework of law? I find that an impossible situation.
Does the Prime Minister think that the RCMP got the list of members by telephoning the PQ and having the PQ voluntarily send it out? Does he think that the list of financial contributors was voluntarily provided by the PQ? Speaking for myself, 1 do not accept an affirmative answer to those questions in any sense. I say that only a man who did not want to know the answers would not have asked the questions under those circumstances, and only a Prime Minister who has failed in his moral obligations to the people of Canada would have failed to ask them. The same man is the Prime Minister who failed in his obligation to be here today to answer questions and to take part in the debate.
This situation is a sad one. It is a sad day for parliament and for Canada, and 1 hope that the historical results which may occur from it will not be as negative in the long run in the history of our country as they could possibly be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, when the opposition moved for an emergency debate this evening, we on this side did not object to having that debate.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What do you mean object? You had no choice whatsoever.


Francis Fox: We hoped we would have an opportunity this evening to have a constructive debate. However, it seems quite clear from the type of remarks which have been made on the other side of the House that we can expect neither constructive debate nor respect for the facts as they actually exist and as they have been given to the House of Commons over the past few days. 1 say "constructive debate" because the matters we are talking about are matters which really go beyond partisan politics. They are matters which affect the national security of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Not one word was mentioned this evening about the type of mandate which has been given to the security service of this country, and since hon. members seem to have overlooked it, I would like to mention it quite briefly. The security service of our country is involved with affairs regard-
October 31, 1977

ing essentially matters of sabotage, espionage from outside the country-


An hon. Member:: Burning barns.


Francis Fox: -matters of subversion, and matters of terrorism. Hon. members opposite can say what they want, but the question of terrorism, either national or international, as recent events around the world have shown, is a real concern to all democratic countries. There is, of course, the whole matter of foreign intelligence operations in and against this country. There are the essential elements of the mandate the government has given to the security service of Canada. It is an extremely important mandate: the continued well-being of this Confederation and of our Canadian society depends on it.
However, since hon. members opposite wish to home in on some of the unfortunate events which have happened within the security service over the past years-incidents which cannot be condoned in any way whatsoever-I would like also to remind hon. members of the thousands of operations which have been carried on on a day-to-day basis by members of the security service of this country.
Why is it that we can only speak about the things which do not work out? Why is it that we can never speak of the magnificent job done by-


An hon. Member:: Come off it, Fox.


Francis Fox: The opposition does not like to hear me speak of the good work done by the security service. The opposition does not want me to talk about the magnificent job the security service, and the RCMP in general, did during the course of the Olympics in Montreal. The opposition does not want to hear what other security services around the world had to say about the magnificent security requirements which were fulfilled by the RCMP during the course of those Olympics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre:: We liked the musical ride, too. Get to the point.


Francis Fox: Nor do they mention the work of the security service as far as foreign intelligence operations are concerned. We have not heard them mention the incident in which certain Cubans were sent out of this country as a result of the work of the security service.
Nor have we heard them mention the case of the Japanese Red Army agent deported from this country last year because of the excellent work of the security service.


John Edward Broadbent: That has nothing to do with the debate.


Francis Fox: Let us get back to some of the basic facts in this matter. It is far too serious a matter for me to indulge in the kind of childish play in which the opposition is indulging.

Last July the Government of Canada set up a royal commission of inquiry into the practices and procedures of the RCMP. Why, Mr. Speaker? The answer is quite clear.


John Edward Broadbent: You had no choice.


Francis Fox: The reason the commission was appointed at that time was clearly because a number of complaints were made to me as Solicitor General following an initial statement made in the House on June 17 concerning the APLQ incident. At that time these complaints were examined. Some had the appearance of being founded in fact, and the government thought it absolutely essential, as the Commissioner of the RCMP also thought it essential, for the reputation of the RCMP, that these matters be brought to light and examined by an independent and impartial outside body.
Hon. members opposite suggest that every complaint that has come in since that time-and there have been many complaints come in since that time concerning the criminal investigations side of the RCMP, concerning the security services side of the RCMP-what the opposition is suggesting tonight is that I try these people on the Boor of the House of Commons. They suggest I divulge names here and that I reveal to the House every complaint. That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) suggested, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: We called for an inquiry.


Francis Fox: He suggested I reveal tonight the totality of complaints made against the RCMP since the month of July. That would amount to trying people on the floor of the House of Commons, without the opportunity to defend themselves completely.
The opposition suggested during the course of debate that we should set up the commission of inquiry. It was eventually set up so that these matters could be looked into and examined by an outside, impartial body. If the RCMP had examined the complaints themselves we would have heard the cry from the other side of the room that it would not be an independent or impartial examination. Now we have established a royal commission, with a judge and two commissioners, to take evidence under oath and cross-examine.
It has escaped the attention of members opposite that the commission also can do something that is extremely important, and that is to give the individuals in question the right to a full defence, the right to explain their actions, and let it be known exactly why they acted in the manner they did.
It has also been made quite clear that in the event any evidence came forward to the commission of an illegal act, those matters would be brought to the attention of the relevant prosecutorial authorities. That matter is very clear.
The opposition says that the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry are not wide enough. If they would only read the terms of reference of the inquiry they would see that those terms are extremely wide.

October 31, 1977


An hon. Member:: It is not the RCMP that is on trial, it is you people.


Francis Fox: Term (b) of the terms of reference refers to the right and duty of the commission to report the facts relating to any investigative action or other activity involving persons who are members of the RCMP. That gives the commission of inquiry the right to examine any illegal activity, and follow it wherever it leads. If it should lead to a minister of the Crown, it is the right and the duty of the commission to do so.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not clear.


Francis Fox: That is very clear in the terms of reference.


An hon. Member:: Read them again.


Francis Fox: 1 have read them time and time again, and I am satisfied that is the case. We have set up a commission of inquiry and we have referred to that commission all the complaints we have received to date. These complaints will be examined by that impartial, independent body.
Tonight the opposition asks us to tell whether there will be any other cases of illegal acts committed by the force. Mr. Speaker, it is quite possible that in the course of investigation by the commission, while it goes through the files of the force, or in the course of examining witnesses under oath, other cases of illegal activities may come forth. It is an indication of the fundamental position of the government, and of the fundamental position of the Commissioner of the force, that if there have been any illegal acts they ought to come out in the light of day and any individuals involved in those acts should face the due process of law, as would any other Canadian.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about the ministers?


James McPhail Gillies: Does it include ministers of the Crown?


William Warren Allmand: Yes.


Francis Fox: It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that there have been some illegal acts. It is also clear that the RCMP, in the overwhelming majority of cases, has always acted within the limits of its mandate and within the rule of law. That is part of the clear directives given to the director general of the security services by the government and also by the Commissioner of the RCMP.


Mr. Forrestall:: Most of the time, but not all of the time.


Francis Fox: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to go over some of the procedures adopted by the government and by the security service in order to ensure that there is indeed greater accountability procedures within the force. This has been a source of constant concern and preoccupation for the government. It dates back to the 1969 royal commission when the government asked a royal commission, made up of a number of eminent Canadians, to examine the problem. It produced a number of recommendations, some of which were accepted by the government and some of which were not. The

government also went even further than some of the recommendations.
In 1971 the government set up the police and security planning group which has received a great deal of criticism in this House. That group was designed to help provide a more sophisticated analysis and to process information coming in. In 1974 we had the Official Secrets Act in which parliament defined for the first time the term "subversion." Within that act, an obligation was put on the RCMP security services to obtain the authorization of the Solicitor General of the day in any matters requiring wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping. While this was only adopted in 1974, previous solicitors general applied the rules of the 1974 legislation within the ministry of the solicitor general before the act was actually adopted by parliament.
In 1975 the government gave a new and clear mandate to the RCMP, which was followed by cabinet directives in 1976, as I mentioned in my speech in the House on Friday.
In 1976 the Marin commission was established and the report will be implemented in the course of the present session. In the spring of 1977 within the security service there was established an operations review committee with the function of examining the operations of the force on a current basis to ensure operations would come within the mandate given to the force by the government, and also to ensure that the operations are carried out within a legal framework. This operations review committee and the director general have access to senior justice officials.
In 1977 we have the new royal commission of inquiry which will be looking at some of the fundamental problems that face the security services. In that regard 1 would very much have appreciated receiving some constructive comments from the opposition this evening about the fundamental dilemma that faces any security service in any country. This is a dilemma that was identified by the royal commission in 1969. Obviously, however, members of the opposition have decided they would prefer to criticize and downgrade our institutions rather than make constructive comments on how we can improve the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: This fundamental dilemma is one which I intend to see is brought to the attention of the royal commission on security.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite a dilemma, because after all what we say and what the royal commission observed back in 1969 is that a security service is expected to carry out its operations strictly within the law. I totally agree that it is essential that a security service should carry out its operations within the law.
Mr. Speaker, it is also obvious that under the present provisions of the Criminal Code, some situations are completely nonsensical. For instance, as I said in the House this afternoon, a security officer who would try to secure a code

October 31, 1977

from a foreign country might be accused of burglary. It seems to me that it is a totally preposterous situation which must be corrected at all costs. As for me, 1 intend to make representations in this connection to the McDonald Commission.
Mr. Speaker, I hoped that on such a fundamental matter, the opposition might also consider some responsible ways of amending our legislation so as to prevent such situations in the future.
| English]
It seems to me that all of us in this House have a responsibility to ensure that the security services of our country are effective. Everyone here says publicly that the security service is essential to the continued existence and survival of our democratic country but we do not seem ready, in all corners of the House, to give the service the necessary powers or the necessary mandate. Perhaps there are areas in which additional powers ought to be given to the security service as long as additional safeguards are also provided.
It seems to me that if we are talking about a security policy we would do well to progress a little more toward a non-partisan approach because this is a matter which goes beyond the realm of party politics, beyond being a member of the Liberal party, or of the Tory party or of the New Democratic Party, it affects the very survival of this country and one would expect that, when there is a debate on an issue of such fundamental importance, we might be able to count on the opposition making construcive rather than destructive speeches.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, while listening to the reply of the Solicitor General to the Leader of the Official Opposition or the leader of the New Democratic Party, it was quite obvious that he felt a little lost and that he tried to deviate from the specific purpose of this debate, because we have not discussed this evening the extent to which the legislation should be amended to avoid a repetition of what has happened. We will have to clear up the matter so that Canadians will know what were the true reasons and the intentions of the authorities when they directly or indirectly authorized illegal acts, acts of vandalism or burglaries.
Mr. Speaker, it is about time that our citizens realize that even in this country there are shameless abuses of power. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that even in our western democracies, we have not yet learned to differentiate between power and authority, so that those who are entrusted with power think that they have the necessary authority and they put those two different things together to do as they like.
Mr. Speaker, I am a little ashamed today of being a Canadian. For years, we have been making fun of some South American countries because the authorities there rule the roost using their police for political purposes. We see that regularly in the news and we think that it is happening a thousand miles from here. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we have had for many years in our own country a dictatorship like those which exist in banana republics and which are using their law enforcing agencies to achieve their own ends.

That is a very serious abuse which we must denounce. People must know whom they are dealing with. People must realize that for the past few years we have witnessed a parody of democracy in this country. Mr. Speaker, when a government has reached the point where it makes use of law enforcing agencies to achieve its own political ends and, which makes things even worse, condones accordingly their illegal activities, the least we can do is wonder where we will end up this way. On the other hand, the government should stop pleading the security of the state over and over again, for the only real agents provocateurs are the very people who are in power now. Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot help comparing this situation with those 1 denounced in 1970, 1971 and 1972. I remember taking part in Montreal in a radio program during which the Minister of Supply and Services spent his time denying what I was saying.
As a member of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, 1 was present at a meeting where the authorities of the City of Montreal appeared, and I heard the Montreal mayor, Mr. Lucien Saulnier, the then Director of the City of Montreal, and Mr. Cote, the head of the Legal Services Branch, explain how the FLQ operated, what went on within the various cells, and the Montreal mayor stated that on many occasions he had advised the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General of what was going on. This took place more than a year before the so-called October 1970 crisis.
Mr. Speaker, a police force that sets fire to a barn, breaks into a press agency, steals lists of members of a democratically elected party, a police force that allows itself to do things like that also allowed itself to infiltrate FLQ cells in 1969 and thereby bringing about the crisis we had in 1970. 1 know this is a very serious charge I am making, Mr. Speaker, but I maintain it because it is time that once and for all the Canadian population know that there are in this country people who have lost their reason, people who cannot accept the changes that are taking place in Quebec, people who only a few months or at most a year ago thought Quebec emancipation and free development were only velleities, people who spend days and nights trying to find a way of crushing people who only want to be free and happy.
When people have such an erroneous idea of the collective "vouloir etre" of a whole nation, of a whole people, they try by all means to justify a radical and unreasonable action against these people and, as these people do not take such actions, they are the first ones to provoke them to justify before the whole country their efforts to crush down this emancipating movement which is originally a very sound one.
They will say yes to destroy the country. Let us stop those idiocies. How many Quebecers are there now in power in Quebec as here in this House? Since when did they suggest they wanted to destroy the country when all they want is to reorganize it, to restructure it so its fundamental entities could really be free and equal? Why call all those who want to free themselves and their minds, why call them terrorists, why

October 31, 1977

accuse them of threatening state security? No, Mr. Speaker, that game has just been unveiled.
Mr. Speaker, those who have been using negativism for years to try and destroy the basic aspirations of a whole nation are getting back smack in the face today the result of that boomerang they dared throw. It is not surprising that today if we know certain very specific facts and very specific circumstances it is because the government objectively decided to reveal those facts and circumstances. Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker! The only reason that forced the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) to make the statements he made Friday was that he knew quite well that in any case following the line of action taken by the government of Quebec the Keable Commission was there, and those things were going to come out. They decided in favour of a policy of lesser evil and to disclose themselves what they knew was going to come out in a couple of weeks or months. And even the minister says there could be more. Mr. Speaker, it is too bad, we have gone beyond that stage where we could be made to believe stories by individuals more concerned with partisan struggles than anything else. 1 talked today of the stupefaction that gripped a lot of Canadians when 1 pointed out that that revelation had astounded several people. Well, today I received by special delivery a letter from a citizen who is not happy with what is going on. This will become generalized and those who will have provoked Canadian citizens will have to suffer the consequences. I would like to quote from this letter dated October 28, 1977. I shall not mention the name of the man concerned to avoid the possibility that the RCMP will break into his premises, but this Friday, since this letter is dated October 28, 1977, from Ville LaSalle, when this man heard on television what was happening, he sat down at his desk and took his pen to write me a letter. Why? Because he was greatly indignant. Here are a few passages from this letter:
Sir, I maintain that it is inconceivable for such a thing to have happened. Is all this not a follow-up on the October 1970 crisis, for which, in passing, the war measures are still in force? Is this action aimed at suppressing the right of anyone to belong to the political party of his choice? There is every reason to believe that certain people want and look for provocation. There are indications that certain people try to hide the truth. If certain present and past members of Parliament and ministers of this government have acted and are still acting hypocritically, the public is entitled to know.
As a citizen of Quebec and a Canadian-
-and he says in brackets-
-(for the moment) and as a member of the Parti Quebecois and a federal government employee, I demand that the actions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police come to light and that the present government, the Prime Minister, the ministers and the Solicitor General be asked to reply to certain questions. I have known for a long time, sir, that we are being watched, but I refuse to be used as a political tool and for the political purposes of the Liberal party.	.
As a French-speaking member of parliament from Quebec, you must urgently ask these questions in the House. If certain people wanted to bring together the present Quebec government and the federal government, theirs is definitely a lost cause in view of these developments. If we must now come back to a "Believe or die" attitude, I would prefer to die. It is only through a public inquiry and with impartial people (not Liberals)-
(Mr. Matte.]
-this is between brackets-
-that we will be able to get to the truth as far back as October 1970.
What has just come to light, Sir, is the straw that broke the camel's back. Small wonder then that we should have witnessed so much commotion on the part of this government since November 15, 1976 in an effort to do as much harm to the present Quebec government through all sorts of statements and commissions.
Mr. Speaker, I read the spontaneous reaction of a Canadian citizen who is a member of the Parti Quebecois, which he chose freely and who, 1 hope, enjoys that freedom; and now this fellow learns that this list was in the hands of my friends across the way. If one stops to think of it even briefly, it is absolutely awful. The former speakers asked a lot of questions, which of course were not answered: but how did that ever happen? How come we learn in 1977 what was known to be illegal and irregular in 1975, as the right hon. Prime Minister said himself, and even in 1975? How did that happen? Does that mean that, had it not been for special circumstances, no one would have known those actions were taken? No, we cannot accept such things. How many other similar activities may have taken place, and what, if we go back further than 1973? As far as I know, in 1973 nothing special could justify such actions; so, if that is the case, if we let those who are in power also have the authority to decide whether or not they can do this or that, then democracy is done for.
Mr. Speaker, the worst has happened to democracy, it is done for. Anyone can be a suspect, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), or any member of this House. Under the pretext of the security of the state, electronic devices are put in offices, homes are being searched and documents are taken from files. It is frightening, Mr. Speaker, and 1 do not believe the leaders of a country should be allowed to behave in this way because of an unfortunate incident that happened in 1970. And as I said earlier, I believe it has been brought on by these same individuals. When a situation of this kind arises, serious questions are being asked and we must have answers. It is said, and the minister repeated it, the McDonald inquiry now in progress will reveal a number of things.
Mr. Speaker, once more I agree with the previous speakers who say that the terms of reference of this inquiry do not confer all the authority, all the power to bring out the whole truth. Such an inquiry should go back to the years 1970, 1969, 1963. Such an inquiry must go back to the time of the Maison du Pecheur in Perce, when RCMP officers were members of FLQ cells. That inquiry must go back to every incident that happened through the years, the blame for which was put on Quebecers in order to tarnish their ideology.
Mr. Speaker, those times are over. We must have the truth so the people can judge the actions of their leaders. Mr. Speaker, there have been too many serious incidents, the ramifications of which could have been more disastrous still than has been experienced. There have been too many tragic incidents indeed for their causes and reasons to remain untold.
I therefore ask that the light be made not only on the break-in that secured a list of members of a political party, but also that an inquiry be made into what extent the RCMP infiltrated the FLQ and are therefore responsible for certain acts that have
October 31, 1977

been perpetrated during that difficult period we went through. It should need to be explained, for instance, how come RCMP officers were tenants in the apartment above that in which James Cross was held prisoner.
Mr. Speaker, all those questions will have to be answered. All these circumstances must be brought into light under which the government lost their heads. Because this is the kind of nonsense that happens when one loses one's head. And when on November 15 we heard the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other ministers come one after the other to utter the most horrendous stupidities, they proved once more they were losing their heads. It is a dangerous thing to be governed by people who lose their heads. This is why the people must be informed. Hypocrisy must be exposed. We must know exactly who we are dealing with, what kind of people we have as a government, because in my view they are getting less and less worthy of it.
So, and I would conclude on this, let not the Solicitor General think that we do not want to be constructive. We do want to be constructive to the extent we want the government to get out of there. After abusing their powers, after tampering directly with individual freedoms, they have no right to be there any more. This is being constructive. When the people find that some government went contrary to the bill of rights itself it is in my view a very constructive step to get rid of individuals that are now trampling on liberty and democracy in this country.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of my hon. friend, the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox). 1 agree with the previous speaker, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), that the Solicitor General did not really come to grips with the substance of what we are discussing here tonight.
1 must say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that the Solicitor General is wrong when he suggests that we are trying to try the RCMP in the House of Commons. What we are seeking to do is to get information about this incompetent government. The Solicitor General has said, in effect, that we have not dealt so far with matters of substance. Well, he is a fine one to say that under the circumstances, but I want to assure him that I and members of my party do in fact have matters of substance and policy which we have worked on, and which we are prepared to put forward at any time. But 1 think it is asking a bit much tonight, under the circumstances, for me personally to make the type of speech I intended to make, in which 1 intended to bring up, among other things, some of the background of the RCMP, as this force has evolved from a territorial force into our national police force, with constitutional complications in the process.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there are, as it is becoming more and more evident, complications between Section 92(14) of the BNA Act, which gives exclusive jurisdiction over the administration of justice to the provinces, and some other sections,

such as perhaps Section 91(7), which do not, in my opinion, necessarily give the RCMP the kind of mandate which it has had to assume because of the neglect of this government in implementing some of the recommendations of the Mackenzie commission, which were made ten years ago.
1 intended to deal, Mr. Speaker, with a lot of other matters of substance; to put forward my thoughts on why the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Quebec Marc-Andre Bedard, has found it necessary apparently to threaten to put the RCMP under the Quebec police commission; as to why the Solicitor General of Alberta, Mr. Foster, has had to complain publicly at the highest levels of the RCMP about the kind of intrusion into provincial jurisdiction which the force and federal authorities have found it necessary for their purposes to perpetrate. I had intended to do a lot of these things, Mr. Speaker, but under the circumstances, in view of some of the relations which have come forward, I want to say a few things tonight about my own experiences in the House, and about the lack of frankness and the lack of facts which I have encountered.
1 want to say to the Solicitor General that when he deals with facts I will stake my record in this House against his.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The former solicitor general seems to have something to say about that; I hope he will say it later on. 1 think it would be useful to remind the House, as we are now considering a time frame extending back to the 1970's, that the solicitors general, some of whom are sitting opposite, have had ample opportunity in the House to respond truthfully to specific questions from this side of the House. In fact I want to cite now an example where 1 was given false information, but being a good natured type, as every member of this House knows, I did not want to make an issue out of it.
I refer to an incident which took place on February 2, 1976, where I questioned the basis on which the security services were dealing with a man named Mitchell Bronfman, and where indeed circumstances were such that Mr. Bronfman contemplated suing the force, the security services, for their activities. The parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general of that day said to me-I will not repeat all of his remarks because they are in Hansard. Some of them suggest that I should have my head examined for even bringing this up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I see some members opposite agree. If 1 should have my head examined, Mr. Speaker, then I leave it to the Canadian public to say what should be done with members opposite. The parliamentary secretary to the then solicitor general told me, as reported at page 10562 of Hansard:
With respect to the earlier matter of whether Mr. Bronfman was persuaded to drop legal proceedings for defamation .. . against certain RCMP personnel, the Solicitor General has received no information on this.

October 31, 1977

He then went on to say I should not make such innuendoes and that I should be prepared to sustain innuendoes with facts.
Well, Mr. Speaker, as soon as the hon. member had finished this diatribe, 1 proceeded over to his seat and showed him a copy of a security services report labelled "Top Secret", in which Chief Superintendent J. L. Forest stated, among other things: "The only reason 1 met Mr. Bronfman was because of his threatened legal action against Inspector Robichaud and I think I have dissuaded him from taking such action or lodging a complaint with the minister".
I then said to the hon. member that it was regrettable that the minister did not know what he was talking about, or at least would not be honest with one of his peers in the House of Commons. In other words, Mr. Speaker, I have documentary proof that the solicitor general of that day and his parliamentary secretary, through whom he presumably spoke, were unable or unwilling to be honest with me as a member of the House on this matter.
It is also useful to point out that on June 5, 1976, I said quite directly to the Solicitor General that he had those responsible for the illegal break-in at the APLQ investigating their own break-in, and that at that time he had the opportunity to set the record straight but did not do so.
It is also fair to remind the House that on December 2, 1976, in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, I said to the minister of industry, trade and commerce, with respect to a matter involving Statistics Canada with which I was concerned, that I was happy that the RCMP were looking into the matter, but that I was rather amazed to find out that they were concerned not with the failings of anything which Statistics Canada were doing but were investigating myself in regard to where I was getting my information. Nothing was said later on about the Solicitor General's comment to this, either.
Tonight I am prepared to put forward another bit of startling information I have received. I must say I have some confidence in my source. 1 have learned that the government is no longer prepared, apparently, to trust the RCMP with the sweeping and other counter measures that are normal for government communications, but instead have turned this over to the military. This has been going on for some time. The military is now doing in this respect what the RCMP used to do. I will want to question the Solicitor General about this later.


An hon. Member:: And others.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Where are we going in this country? Where are we going in this country when there is no trust between our national police force and our national government?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: As Your Honour is aware, there was a transmitting device planted by someone in the lining of a chair
[Mr. MacKay.)
in my office. I do not have the slightest idea who is responsible for it being planted there. I hope the Solicitor General will do his best to find out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I think this is only a symptom of what is going on in this country and in this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Personally, I do not get too excited if some thwarted mind puts a bug in my premises. I have very little to hide. It is interesting to consider that people like me, members of parliament and ordinary citizens, are being followed and spied upon and, more likely than not, the Solicitor General, who has a responsibility for overseeing the complete works of the RCMP. In fact the statutes indicate that it is under his direction. In my opinion, rightly or wrongly, he has a responsibility for what those under his guidance and direction are doing.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Nor does he try to find out.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Because a succession of solicitors general have been so incompetent or so lazy and have operated on the need not to know, this force has not been kept under the type of surveillance by government as to what it is doing that the people of Canada have the right to expect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Examples are rife in other countries which indicate that where ministers have unfortunately been caught in situations similar to the situations in which some of the ministers opposite have been caught, they resigned out of a matter of long standing tradition in parliament, a matter of parliamentary responsibility.


An hon. Member:: Such as Nixon.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: For example, the justice minister in one of the German states resigned within 24 hours after the tragic events in the jail at Stuttgart. Surely that minister is a better example of parliamentary procedure than any conduct I have seen here so far.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: This government will not be responsible for very much. It is not responsible for the events in Quebec. It blames that on Mr. Levesque. It is not responsible for inflation. That is economic forces outside the country.


An hon. Member:: It is the weather.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The government is not responsible for unemployment. That is caused by the general economic slump in the west. Certainly it is becoming more and more evident that this government is not responsible for anything. In fact it is irresponsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 31, 1977


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Elave we reached the stage where the police make their own decisions without telling their political masters? Have we reached the stage where the political masters do not care to find out or do not want to find out?


An hon. Member:: Maybe they know already.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Who is running this country? Is it the police? Is it the bureaucrats?


An hon. Member:: Certainly we know it is not you.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It is certainly not me, but I would suggest to the hon. member opposite that I have done more to shed light on what is happening in this country than he has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It is pretty obvious that members opposite are rather discomfited and disconcerted by some of the revelations which are coming out tonight. I will be particularly anxious to find out more about the background of the withdrawal of responsibility from the RCMP and turning it over to the military. As well, I will be interested in finding out if the Solicitor General really has a handle on the operations of the special "O" branch which he mentioned today. I would be interested in finding out if the Solicitor General has a handle on what is going on, because it is becoming obvious that his predecessors certainly did not. If they did, they have managed to conceal it with the kind of cunning one would hardly expect on the basis of their ostensible performance.


An hon. Member:: How about some facts?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Members opposite want facts. I have given facts already. When I listened to the Solicitor General groping around and asking the opposition to supply policies and facts, as we have done on so many occasions with respect to taxation, economics, and other things, then I say to myself: if this government does not have the resources, the integrity or the ability to run this country, why do they not simply pack up and go home?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are just a bunch of phonies.


An hon. Member:: There is no replacement at all.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The hon. member opposite indicates that there is no replacement. Any replacement would be an improvement over what we have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: This government is so incompetent that it is not confronted with insurmountable obstacles. They are confronted with insurmountable opportunities. That is how bad they are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Did you get that one, Hughie?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It is pretty obvious that we require some sort of an inquiry that is far more sweeping and far more-


Mr. Poulin:: Like Hamilton Harbour?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am glad the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) has referred to the Hamilton Harbour matter.


An hon. Member:: Try another one, Hughie.


James McPhail Gillies: How many guys are in jail on that one?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I remember when we had that famous meeting with the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where the two solicitors general sat there like two owls, with the RCMP Commissioner in the middle. For two hours they proceeded to dance around and not give us any information. I remember quite well what the then commissioner, Mr. Nadon, admitted. He admitted that it was quite possible in the Hamilton situation that there were activities, in the files, by the SS of which he was not aware. 1 remember that very well.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: You did not answer the question.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I hope the hon. member opposite will get up and say something constructive. We would all be very interested in hearing what the hon. member for Ottawa Centre has to say.


Mr. Muir:: He sits on his brains.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) says, "He sits on his brains". That may well be true. 1 never examined his anatomy that closely, because frankly it did not interest me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is where he is bugged.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I wonder if he were bugged whether he would know it.


Walter David Baker: Try again, Hughie.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: As the Solicitor General has said, we must address ourselves to ironing out a situation where two royal commissions in this country are being obstructed by the Solicitor General and other members of cabinet in getting information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: We have to find out why the Solicitor General was not able to give me an unequivocal answer today, that there was no problem with surveillance, bugging or mail interception, with any member of the Laycraft Commission of Inquiry. I put that question to him, and he never answered it. He could not give me that kind of unequivocal assurance.

October 31, 1977

l would like to know why it is necessary to have the provisions of Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act invoked under circumstances best described by Mr. Justice Deschene of the Quebec Superior Court when he dealt at some length with a situation where this particular regressive statute was involved. It was the case of two young girls who were discharged from their employment at the Olympics. It would be interesting for all members to read the scathing remarks by Mr. Justice Deschene regarding the appropriateness of the invocation of that regressive statute in a case which had been taken up by the Quebec Civil Rights Association. That is the kind of cover-up and the kind of abuse of statutory authority of which this government is guilty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: There are many other members who wish to speak tonight, but 1 should like to say in closing that I understand the reason why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could not be here. I make nothing of that, because I assume he will come as soon as he has the opportunity. Perhaps he will be able to shed some light on some of these things. But I wonder, the way things are going, if we will see the incredible situation here in the House of Commons when the Prime Minister will stand up and say, "I am no crook".


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, we witnessed today an incredible performance on the part of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) in answering a most serious charge. The charge is that the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country do not understand what is at issue in this debate. What is at issue is whether the rule of law will prevail for this government, for the police forces of Canada, and for all the people of Canada. Not once did the Solicitor General answer that particular proposition.
We are in real danger in this country. We sit in the House and we rant and rave about young people breaking the law. We are concerned with labour unions which do not abide by the law, but the law begins at home. It begins with this government, and it begins with the police forces of the country. They must honour the law of the country if we are to have respect for law at every level, and the government has failed to provide that kind of leadership.
Tonight we witnessed the Solicitor General wrapping himself in the flag and saying, "Oh you fellows over there are just carping about the RCMP. Why don't you talk about all the wonderful things the RCMP has been doing?" I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am proud of the RCMP. I have always supported the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: They are one of the finest police forces in the world. I want to say one other thing. It is the opposition that is protecting the reputation of the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is the opposition that is trying to protect the RCMP from being destroyed by an incompetent government and an incompetent minister. That is what is happening.
We cannot start this debate without trying to distinguish between political dissent and subversion, and this government has failed to understand the difference. The record shows it over and over again. In fact 1 will provide a memorandum to the Solicitor General. I hope he is paying attention because this is a further piece of evidence. I want the Solicitor General to read this memo, because I want him to establish its validity. It is one further reason why this government fails to understand that it is all right to attack a government but it is not all right to plant bombs. But, you see, they have been in power so long that they cannot understand the difference. "L'etat c'est moi, l'etat c'est nous." This is their philosophy. To be a Liberal is to have the divine right to run things in this country. That is what we have seen ever since I came to the House in 1972. They have never understood the difference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The story was told earlier in the House about activities whereby the common bargaining position of the Common Front in the province of Quebec was illicitly obtained. That information subsequently found its way into the hands of the Liberal provincial government in Quebec. Those people have a right to have a common bargaining position, they have a right not to be wiretapped, spied on and broken into, and, yes, the PQ has the same right in the province of Quebec as does any other legal political party in Canada. But that distinction is not understood by the government. In fact the PQ has made a fetish of running around the province of Quebec and saying, "We are the legal government". They have done it consciously and deliberately so that they could gain support, and they have been successful in doing it. Surely this is one party that would bend over backwards not to engage in subversion if it could possibly avoid it because it would destroy its credibility in the province of Quebec.
Now I want to turn to the province of British Columbia where we had a recent ferry strike. In that province the chairman of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board is a man called Paul Weiler, the head of the B.C. Federation of Labour is a man called Len Guy, and the head of the B.C. Government Employees' Union is a man called John Fryer. I have never heard a scintilla of suspicion raised against any one of those three people in terms of subversion. However, we have been through a crisis in the province of British Columbia, we have been through an abrasive ferry strike which fortunately is over now. But I will give the Solicitor General this memo and I want him to check it out because I am worried that it might be a valid memo. It is a memo to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) from the Hon. Allan Williams, from his special adviser, Col. Robin Bourne of security planning and analysis. I will read it into the record. It reads as follows:
Our investigation of Mr. Paul Weiler, chairman of B.C. Labour Relations Board, has now been concluded. We will forward our report to you under separate cover in the next few days. Your requests pertaining to Messrs. L. Guy


October 31, 1977

and J. Fryer are being processed at this moment and will also be forwarded to your office as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Political surveillance.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: 1 hope that the Solicitor General will be able to tell me that the source of this memo is false or that the person who provided this memorandum to me and to several other people is operating under something that is wrong or false. But 1 have to rely on this memorandum and, when 1 look at it, it appears to be legitimate. We have tried to check it out and we find it looks legitimate.
What is happening in this country? These are legitimate trade union leaders acting in a legal and constitutional way.
The government should try to distinguish between subversion and political dissent. Please, I urge it to do that or we will not survive as a nation, and its members will be the authors of disunity as a result of this kind of attack on legal organizations, because the same is true of the break-in at the PQ.
What else is there in the background that we do not know about? It is the failure to distinguish between legal political dissent and subversion. The Solicitor General spoke about terrorism all over the world. God knows we are against terrorism wherever it occurs, but it is interesting that West Germany, which has faced more terrorism than we have, did not need a War Measures Act because they have a government that has some understanding of the rule of law and of civil liberties.


An hon. Member:: What about the recent prison murders there?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: 1 do not know where the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) gets her information. I was told they were suicides, and I rely on the information I received that they were suicides in that instance.


An hon. Member:: She talks to Mackenzie King.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I do not want to reduce the level of this debate to the facetious. 1 think it is too important in terms of the liberties of the people of Canada. The most incredible statement of all was when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) referred to the climate of the times in 1973 in terms of the PQ. We were both in the House together at that time. We both sat in committees together. We knew what the climate of the times was in 1973. We knew that a Liberal government in the province of Quebec was in trouble. We knew that this federal government was anticipating a very important election. We knew about Watergate. That was the climate of the times in 1973.
What the people need is a new weather map because hon. members opposite do not understand the climate now. They do not understand the traditions upon which this country was

built. I have sat with the Solicitor General in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs from time to time. From time to time we are given private briefings about subversive groups in Canada. I appreciate the briefings that are given, and we all keep them private, yet what do 1 find when I pick up a newspaper?
In Saturday's Globe and Mail we read that the Bourne Group passed on lists of groups of people deemed potentially subversive or violence prone. These groups were CUPE-the Canadian Union of Public Employees-the National Farmers Union, and the Indian Association of Alberta. Those are three of the groups that were named.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, they are dangerous!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I have sat through those private briefings- and 1 know many other hon. members have-and never once were those "subversive" organizations named to ordinary members of parliament. Are they being named to the Solicitor General as subversive elements in this country? 1 have to say that I have a strong suspicion that they are and that the Solicitor General may be acting upon that kind of information. The whole question of determining what is subversion and what is political dissent is one to which the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister must direct their attention, and they have not done it.
According to the government, there may have been some technical violations of the law, but the information was returned to the PQ. I have been through almost every maximum security institution in Canada, and there are many people in them who would love to return the goods they have taken, and get out. That is not an excuse. By God, we have to show leadership, and the leadership begins here at this level, honouring and obeying the letter of the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Did you read the guidelines of 1975?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Today we heard the opposition criticized. There has been the suggestion that this is a destructive debate and that all we do is carp and criticize. We do have a role to play.


William Warren Allmand: You said nothing was done.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I will review the 1975 guidelines, but the government should review the whole record of its administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We are suffering the legacy of an unnecessary War Measures Act, and the destruction of the law since that event took place has continued to this day. This government provided the opening and the opportunity for the PQ to become the government of Quebec, and this government is the architect of Canadian disunity.

October 31, 1977

However, there are some things we can all do together. The question of severing the security and intelligence branch from the RCMP is one which must be seriously considered. The Solicitor General referred to this. The use of a Supreme Court judge should be considered so that warrants can be obtained in camera, if publicity would destroy particular investigations. A civilian commissioner for the RCMP must be given serious consideration, given what we have seen. These recommendations were made by our former leader, M. J. Coldwell, and his fellow royal commissioners. There has been ample information to indicate to the government the kinds of problems it has been getting into, and it has failed to act. It is either negligent, naive, stupid, or a combination of all three. Or perhaps it is remarkably venal.


John Edward Broadbent: Or a combination of all four.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Or a bit of all four, but the rule of law is for you, Mr. Speaker, for me, and for everyone.


William Warren Allmand: We all agree with that.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: You may agree with it, but act on it. That is the message the government must get through its Liberal arrogance.


William Warren Allmand: The Solicitor General referred all the cases to the attorneys general of the provinces.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has the floor.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In terms of sensitivity to the question of civil liberties even the Nixon administration in the United States finally knew it was doing wrong. It finally conceded that it was not the whole state and that an attack on the Nixon government was not an attack on the United States itself. I do not believe this government quite understands that yet.
This government does not quite understand that we can attack a Liberal government without being subversive. It is still living under the illusion that it has the devine right to run the affairs of Canada, but the Canadian people are fed up. The days of this government are numbered. It has had it!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this evening, despite the importance of the debate, one realizes with regret that discussions are inspired more by political considerations than the will to find a sound solution to the problem. When one hears hon. members of the opposition speak of the PQ, when one realizes to what extent they are outraged by the possibility that the offices of a legal political party may have been broken into illegally, well, first of all as a Quebecer 1 really feel embarrassed to see that the police force of the federal government, as well as some provincial police forces such as the Quebec Police, or that the police of the city of Montreal should be implicated in certain events which, to say

the least, leave us perplexed. But when people talk of the climate in 1973, and members of the opposition speak of the climate in 1975, a few years are being overlooked, Mr. Speaker.
In Quebec and Canada but more particularly Quebec since this matter deals with a Quebec political party, we tend to forget that back in 1964 a few bombs exploded here and there and that acts of terrorism, alien to our way of life, took place in subsequent years. One can argue about violations of individual and collective liberties but it must be admitted that most unusual events happened including the murder of a provincial minister. These are things, Mr. Speaker, that we should remember. A peculiar phenomenon took place. This may be the kind of phenomenon that happens in a country in the midst of an evolution, Mr. Speaker, but a few months ago Premier Rene Levesque himself, in a radio broadcast, on the CBC network stated that during a newsmen labour conflict he felt rather uncomfortable because some of the strikers who wanted to be associated, on this occasion at least, with members of the Parti Quebecois in a protest march had asked him to join them in the street. But, in his capacity of leader of a responsible party he felt he could not have anything to do with fanatics. And he explained on the CBC how sorry he was to have to turn down the offer of people sympathetic to his cause but he felt that in this crowd several thousands strong there were a few fanatics that the PQ could not afford to identify itself with.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we should refine our thinking when entering this debate. I think that too much of an attempt has been made to single out the RCMP for what has been referred to as illegal break-ins. Our various police forces in Canada, at the three levels of government, had to face new situations. 1 do not think I am in any way blaming or criticizing them when I say that these police forces, within the North American context, may not have been trained to deal with an unexpected state of affairs. That is why those people had to adopt new strategies and new procedures. I think this debate tonight would be most positive if all hon. members would recognize that our police forces may have been excessive in some operations and should redefine their operation procedures, but if it is true that the office of the Parti Quebecois was broken into the way some opposition members suggested, I think that the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Fox) was very clear on that point.
He is asking the Quebec attorney general to bring the facts to light and let him investigate and if the judiciary system of the province of Quebec concludes that there was indeed illegal action, I think that we should not be partisan and should help the police force for which we are responsible-the RCMP-to adopt a new rule to ensure individual and collective liberties.
Mr. Speaker, I will always be opposed at any time in this country to a police force restricting opinions, ideas and spoken words and restricting also the right of individual action if such actions are legal and non-violent. As my friend from New
October 31, 1977

Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) mentioned it earlier, it is possible, even desirable, that all Canadians be free to criticize, disagree completely with the government but, Mr. Speaker, 1 believe there is a way to do it, a non-violent way, by democratic ways, and we have the responsibility to protect them.
Mr. Speaker, it is not only because of opposition pressures that the government instituted the McDonald Commission. When this commission was established, it was given a very comprehensive mandate and we would very much like to hear the opposition parties, for instance, my colleague from Joliette (Mr. La Salle), make recommendations to this commission so as to develop precise rules which will meet the new aspirations of Canadian citizens and which will ensure the basic freedoms that Canadians have always enjoyed and must be preserved for always.
1 believe that such proposals should be made and that we should now be able to ask ourselves some questions. This should be the purpose of this evening's sitting, to ask ourselves some questions to know how our security services can, first of all truly ensure the security of the state and its citizens, and secondly, not become a politically controlled institution. It is difficult to strike a happy medium. Our colleagues opposite ask that the government see to it that the police does not exceed certain limits, but in some other debate or at another time, the same people tell us that the government controls the police and uses it for political purposes. They should tell us clearly and once and for all if they want us to leave the police to its own devices or if they want us to give instructions to the police and to the security council.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the debate concerns one of the most basic issues of the history of this country and I wish the members of the House would quickly pass over their pet subject and make truly positive recommendations. If they are not ready to make them tonight, 1 hope they will at least make them eventually and as soon as possible to the proper institution which is the McDonald Commission. It is a matter of proposing standards, procedures that will allow our security service to be efficient and serve Canadians without infringing on the rights and freedom of its citizens.
I think that having established the McDonald Commission and having agreed to be involved in the commission set up by the province of Quebec our government demonstrated its good faith and its leadership.
Second, we should not think that the political power or the government attempted to hide facts. Officers of the RCMP have been called as witnesses and told: if you have been involved in illegal action you shall answer for it, like any citizen, before the courts of justice of this country. However, 1 think it is most difficult, particularly in the present context, which is very different from that of 15 or 20 years ago, it is difficult for our police corps to know and establish, even in good faith, the exact limits of their action and to make the distinction between what is illegal and what is not.
I think it is up to this Parliament and not the government to define the will of Canadians as concerns security and to say to our police corps, our security service: this is what we expect

from you. 1 also think that if the House could reflect and make serious and concrete proposals on that subject, Mr. Speaker, it would be better for the freedom of Canadian citizens and the well being of our people.


Erik Nielsen: The RCMP, Mr. Speaker, are suffering from probably the lowest morale they have ever suffered in their entire existence. The integrity of the force is eroded, the image of the force which has heretofore enjoyed an international reputation, the highest of any in the world, is eroded, and all because of the actions of this government and of successive incompetent solicitors general.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: 1 want to discuss some facts tonight and I want to preface what I have to say by assuring the House that I am not disclosing any facts which were not in my possession prior to some of the in camera briefings we had in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I am glad to see that the two former solicitors general are in their places tonight, Mr. Speaker-Tweedledum and Tweed-ledee, the Bobsey Twins.


An hon. Member:: Or fuddle and duddle.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps they would better be described as Messrs. Fuddle and Duddle, Mr. Speaker.


William Warren Allmand: That is another original thought.


Erik Nielsen: They certainly fuddled and duddled enough while they held the post of solicitor general.


William Warren Allmand: You must have been writing in the Yukon. We have not seen you for a while.


Erik Nielsen: Instead of listening to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) interjecting from his seat, 1 would expect him and his seatmate, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), to do something this House has been waiting for, namely, get up and explain their actions while they held that office.


William Warren Allmand: We are waiting for you to say something.


Erik Nielsen: If the minister would just listen I will get to the facts in a moment. One thing I very much remember is that a very good friend and champion of the force, a former member for Ottawa West, now in the other place, who held the post of solicitor general immediately prior to the Minister of Supply and Services, resisted the setting up of this civilian state police agency within the cabinet. But after his removal, the Minister of Supply and Services came to office and we got "Goyer's gumshoes."
1 was concerned at the reaction on many of the faces opposite to the subject matter of this debate-

October 31, 1977


Mr.   Coyer@: Be accurate!


Erik Nielsen: I will accept a question from the minister if he wishes to stand up and ask it.


Mr. Goyer:: I said, "Be accurate."


Erik Nielsen: 1 will try to be accurate but it is very difficult to be accurate having regard to the paucity of the information from the other side.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Why don't you ask questions?


Erik Nielsen: We ask questions here and we ask questions in the committee, but we come away with about as much information as we got today, namely, zilch-nothing. The obsession with secrecy shown by the government does nothing to enhance our confidence in it.
There were reasons for the setting up of the security, planning and research group, as it was then known-the sham of "research" soon disappeared. But the reasons were not those given by the present Solicitor General (Mr. Fox). They go back to 1963 when the Spence inquiry was under way, when the Munsinger inquiry was under way, and when other questions of national security were being discussed in the House. That report was the reason for the creation of the Royal Commission on Security, a report which, incidentally, the Prime Minister promised would be debated in the House. But he reneged on that promise as he did on so many others.
That group of civilians was set up for four purposes. They were these: first, to infiltrate and instal agents for the purpose of gaining intelligence from the educational system. Without going into great detail I call the attention of the House to the surveillance conducted on university campuses.
Second was the infiltration and surveillance of the public service itself-the "extra-parliamentary opposition" with which operation the former solicitor general is familiar since the famous blacklist was prepared under the leadership of the Minister of Supply and Services.
The third reason was that of infiltrating and obtaining intelligence from the mass media, and the fourth was for the same purpose with respect to the labour movement. Those were the four objectives in setting up what is referred to as this non-operational group of civilians originally known as SPARG and subsequently as SPAG and SPA. The group had regional desks in all these areas with civilian representatives as well as RCMP.
It all stemmed from the preparation of a paper on "The Management of Crisis" by General Dare, who was subsequently smuggled into the RCMP, probably being the first non-member of the force to be appointed to the post of officer in the RCMP, with one exception, that of General Bourne. It is traditional in the force that the post of commissioner is filled from within its ranks. That tradition has been followed throughout the entire existence of the RCMP. Today there is some fear that the commissioner might be drawn from outside the force, a very sad development should it occur.

When the debate arose in this House on the setting up of that special agency in 1969 we resisted its formation on the basis that there was a real danger of it being subverted into being a political state police force. We predicted in that debate in 1969 that if such an agency were set up precisely what has happened now would happen. And it has come to pass. What has taken place is this: the RCMP, having previously enjoyed a standard of integrity unmatched in the world, has now been eroded to a point at which the public of Canada is justified in presuming-and I state this as my conviction-that there is an unwarranted interference with the operations of a previously independent police force in the performance of its functions. This has been done while assuring the country that there is a real need for this civilian agency in order to protect national security. That is only a guise.
The quickest way of restoring the confidence of the public in the integrity of the force is to abolish that agency and place the responsibility for security and intelligence back under the sole control of the force where it has rested for a hundred years.
With regard to the four objectives of this agency let me inform hon. members that there were 14 groups which the agency was charged with infiltrating and gathering intelligence from. The Globe and Mail apparently has made public the name of one of these groups. I want to put the whole 14 on the record. One was the FLQ, a natural group to warrant the investigation of any security-minded country. Another was the National Farmers' Union.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Erik Nielsen: The western branch was in opposition to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Another was the Native Alliance for Red Power in British Columbia. I have a paper in my file, among my mementos on this subject which I collected from 1969 to 1973, an internal memorandum written by an employee of SPAG to another employee of SPAG entitled "Social Attitudes and the Indians." This is a lengthy memorandum describing how a Saskatchewan native organization was to be infiltrated, spied upon, and neutralized by this civilian agency set up by the government.
The Saskatchewan Metis Association was one of the objectives of the group, and the memorandum to which 1 have referred was directed to that very group. It is dated August 25, 1972, and directed to W. J. Dabros, if the Solicitor General wants to check the memorandum and verify the facts I am putting on record.
The next is a most interesting group which the civilian agency was charged with infiltrating for the purpose of gathering intelligence, in 1969 I remind hon. members having regard for the events that transpired earlier this year. It was to get into the extra parliamentary opposition and alter the structure of the existing government. There are some very interesting names which 1 will not put on the record with regard to the activity of this civilian agency.


October 31, 1977

One of the names which came up as a result of conversation 1 had in order to glean this information was the name of Bernard Ostry, who, I am sure, is familiar to a good many members on the other side. It is very interesting that the information which came to me with these facts, and this really surprised me, was that the then minister, now the Ambassador to France, Mr. Pelletier, vigorously opposed any security clearance for Mr. Ostry on the basis of a security report prepared by the Security and Intelligence service of the RCMP at the time.
There is a very interesting name here in connection with the next organization that was to come under the surveillance of this agency. The New Left, a philosophical movement. Another one was The New Morning, a maritime group oriented toward guerilla warfare. On October 16, 1971, this group demonstrated against Canadian Forces Headquarters in the maritimes. Molotov cocktails were thrown.
Another group was the Black United Front, headquartered in Halifax. The Local Initiatives Program and National Health and Welfare came under the scrutiny of the early SPARG. The agency was charged with consulting Liberal cabinet aides with regard to any LIP grant that came under investigation to see whether the investigation should continue or be dropped.
The next group that came under the scrutiny of this civilian police agency was the Acadians, again based in the maritimes, Moncton. The next was The Red Morning, another new left organization based in Toronto. They commenced in 1970 with rifle and guerilla training and had links with the Black Panthers and Weathermen.
I might interject that another of the responsibilities of the group was to recruit agents wherever they could get them for the purpose not only of infiltrating these groups whose names I am putting on the record, but also for the purpose of infiltrating university campuses, the media, labour, and national political organizations as well as government. I might interject as well that on unimpeachable authority it came to me that this agency had two sources of information in the office of the then Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), who just stepped down from leadership of this party.
Next was the Communist Party of Canada, the Marxist-Leninist movement, very heavy in Vancouver. The smoke bombing of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation headquarters in Toronto was one of the matters which gave rise to the attention of this agency and this group.
Not unsurprisingly, Praxis was the name of another group which occupied the focused attention of SPARG, now SPAG. Not surprising too was the Edmund Burke Society.
Those people who come from the province of Quebec will be interested to learn that the agency was specifically charged to speak about guidelines and speak about a cabinet committee on security and the control which the politicians exercised over this group. There was a list of subversive organizations. These were three that were listed as subversive to occupy the atten-

tion of this agency in the province of Quebec: the Quebec Teachers' Corporation, the CNTU, and the Quebec Federation of Labour.
The Praxis group in Toronto was linked to "Our Generation," a publication edited by a gentleman named Rousopolis. There the agency was charged to infiltrate three sections of government with the intention of using government resources and contracts to overthrow itself. They called it the microbe concept.
It will surprise hon. members, but possibly not some of those opposite and certainly not the Solicitor General and his predecessors, that all of this activity was funded without benefit of approval of any estimates by parliament. It was funded by taking funds from Defence estimates. In addition, it was funded by, and this will interest the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), taking funds from those which were intended for the federal penitentiary system in the country, amongst others. That is where the money was gleaned from so that we parliamentarians would not be able to put our fingers on the operations of this agency.
It has gained some respectability since General Dare was smuggled into the RCMP, and the S and I responsibility of that force has been swept into his control rather than remaining where it should be.
In Montreal another organization that came in for scrutiny was The Parallel Institute, an organization roughly similar to that of Praxis. They got a $200,000 grant. I do not know whether it was for making wooden ducks or what. The Commercial Association was the name of the applicant that got the LIP grant for the purpose of operating this organization. As one gentleman in the press gallery put it-


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


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, that unexpectedly low-key speech by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), which at least was based on a considerable amount of research, draws to our attention that our colleagues in the opposition have been operating tonight considerably below their capacity.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) treated us to a red herring the size of a whale, reading us a lecture on the difference between subversion and dissent. It could hardly have failed to come to his notice that it was the police who sought subversion in scrutinizing the Parti Quebe-cois and it was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who told the police this was dissent and to cease and desist.


Mr. Orlikow:: Why did he promote-


Mark R. MacGuigan: Do you think the Prime Minister is responsible for all the promotions in the public service?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You better believe it.


Mark R. MacGuigan: These interjections merely show the depth to which the opposition is willing to bring the debate.

October 31, 1977

The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) was here a moment ago. He, 1 am sorry to say, ended his speech on a note of tastelessness which I have seldom heard in this House. It was far below the usual standard we expect from that esteemed gentleman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Come on!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Perhaps the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), who likes to interject from time to time, will be able to restore the opposition's honour with his remarks, which 1 believe are scheduled to follow mine.
The facts have been sufficiently well stated at this point. I do not think they need any further elucidation.
I would like to take my principles from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). 1 have no fear to fight this battle on his ground. He stated two principles, I think he called them two great principles of democracy. I am more than happy to discuss this issue on the basis of those principles. The first was the rule of law. The second was ministerial responsibility.
Let us look first at the rule of law. I believe he said it was the principle that all citizens must act in accordance with the laws established by this parliament. In other words, the same law applies equally to all citizens, rich or poor, weak or strong, police or not, members of parliament or not. That is not in question here. There is no one in this House, certainly not on this side, who doubts that justice according to law must be done. Justice according to law must be sought by the government at all times and for all citizens of the country.


An hon. Member:: Justice must also appear to be done.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Certainly, it must also appear to be done.


David Orlikow: So the police can break in, that is OK?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am not saying it is OK, but let me remind the hon. member that it was the hon. member for New Westminster who said that you were protecting the reputations of the police. They were the ones who broke in, so why are you protecting their reputation? Why are you inverting facts and values? Why are you attacking the government, which is upholding the law, and protecting the police, who have broken the law?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Check into the Prime Minister in 1968.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. member will have a chance to make his speech later.
The administration of justice is also part of the rule of law. The administration of justice must be free from all external direction, especially political direction. This is what the rule of law is about too, Mr. Speaker. Not only must everybody obey the law, but there must be no interference in the administration of law, especially no political interference. This is the

reason why it is so unfortunate that opposition members have chosen to drag in the Watergate affair.


James McPhail Gillies: It is the same thing.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) says it is the same thing.


James McPhail Gillies: That is the issue.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen should not need elementary lectures, but let me spell out the elements of this in as elementary a fashion as I can so that they can understand. In the Watergate affair there were two elements: there was the break-in and the cover-up. The break-in at Watergate was carried out as a matter of private entrepreneurship.


David Orlikow: Not by the police.


Mark R. MacGuigan: No, not by the police.


David Orlikow: It was worse with the police.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I agree. That is precisely my point. The hon. member is helping me to make my speech.


David Orlikow: Let us have discipline then.


Mark R. MacGuigan: We are having an investigation in order to discipline the police; it is precisely for that reason.
The break-in in the Watergate case was a question of private entrepreneurship, political entrepreneurship, by people motivated by partisan political objectives. Even if you extend Watergate to apply to all of the other evidences of break-ins which occurred during the Nixon regime, they were all either of this kind or perhaps, in some cases, at the very most, police operations which were directed by political parties for political purposes.
We have a lot of speeches going on here, Mr. Speaker. 1 wonder if I could ask you to-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yours is not very good, Mark.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 think the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) has quite appropriately brought to my attention that there are many speeches going on. I wish to remind hon. members that if they want to take part in the debate, if they want to stand in their place I will recognize them. Presently the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville has the floor.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I do not mind, Mr. Speaker, whether they hear me or not, but I should like to hear myself when I am talking.
As I was saying, the break-in at Watergate was entirely a question of political interference; it was directed by a political party. In the present case we have incidents which occurred wholly on police initiative and direction.


James McPhail Gillies: How do we know?

October 31, 1977


Mark R. MacGuigan: We will find out. There is no evidence of any kind to suggest anything beyond that, and if there is any evidence of that kind it will come out. But it is too soon to suggest that it is there. 1 do not think members of this House should be trying individuals who are not here before us.
The second element of the Watergate affair was the cover-up. This involved, first of all, a denial of the facts, secondly a denial of a forum in which the facts could be discussed. Here we have had a complete frankness with the House by the government. We have also had a royal commission of inquiry, to establish the forum. So again, we have no government participation in the break-in, it was a police affair; we have no government participation in the cover-up.


James McPhail Gillies: But we do not know.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. member says they do not know. A moment ago he was making allegations based on knowledge which he now says he does not have. This is exactly my point: they do not know. Not knowing, it is their obligation to the rule of law in this country, which they say is important and which we also say is important, to be quiet and not make innuendoes about a Watergate in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: In other words, if the rule of law was infringed-and it probably was, it appears that it was-then it was infringed by the police, not by the government. If there is government responsibility, it cannot be found under the principle of the rule of law; it must be found under the principle of ministerial responsibility.
1 should like to turn now to a consideration of that other principle, the great democratic principle, as the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby called it. Here the meaning is that responsibility must be commensurate with authority. To the extent that the executive has authority, it must be responsible for how the authority is executed. If a politician enjoys the benefits, then he must accept the blame which results from the exercise of the powers directly under his control.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, when we speak of government and of ministerial responsibility we are dealing with what philosophers would call an analogous concept. We are dealing with something which is different in a lot of respects and in a lot of instances, because not all the instances are the same. I will not go into an analysis of all the organs of government tonight, but I would certainly argue that when we are dealing with an independent agency, such as the police or the RCMP, the application of the principle of ministerial responsibility has to be almost wholly different from the application of that principle to an ordinary department of government.
The principle can be applied to the police only in a very limited sense in order to avoid political interference. The accountability of the ministry in a case of this kind is only to ensure that, when there is fault, change takes place in the agency. My argument is based on the principles of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby himself, who put the rule of law

in the first place, gave it priority of place with respect to democratic principles, putting in second place the principle of ministerial responsibility. If there is a conflict, the principle of the rule of law governs.
In this case, since the rule of law insists that there be absolute impartiality in the administration of justice free from external direction, especially political direction, this could not be achieved if the minister were to assume total responsibility for all the actions of the agency.
We have a government which has assumed its responsibility. It has stopped the surveillance of the PQ which was taking place, as soon as it found out about the-


David Orlikow: After the fact.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes, of course after the fact, because the police hid the facts. The government took its responsibility. That is the difference between the police and other agencies of government, and it is time that members of the opposition understood that.
In addition to stopping the surveillance of the PQ, the government consulted regularly with top officers in the RCMP in an attempt to find out the facts. In many cases it seemed that the top officers themselves did not know the facts. There seems to have been a persistent policy in the force in recent years to deny even the top officers in the force knowledge of what was being done lower down, and sometimes not that much lower down either.
The government also gave a full account to the government of Quebec, which was the concerned government in charge of the administration of justice in the area where the offences took place, so that it could lay charges according to the normal juridical process. Finally it set up a royal commission with very broad terms. In addition to those terms, the government promised with complete co-operation.
My interpretation of that is that the government will change the terms of reference of that royal commission, if the royal commission should request additional powers to enable them to fulfil their mandate, and that the ministers will co-operate completely with the royal commission in appearing before it as witnesses if they are summoned. I see one of the former solicitors general is nodding his head in assent.


An hon. Member:: He is asleep.


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1 have no doubt that will be the policy which will be followed. The government's position is one in which it has given complete information concerning its own activities and all the police activities of which it was aware to parliament, to the people, and to the relevant authorities of the Quebec government.
Sometimes Canadians ask if Watergate could happen here.


An hon. Member:: It has happened here.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: At least two or three times.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Now we know the answer: Watergate can happen here, but not with the political motivation.


James McPhail Gillies: Why not?


An hon. Member:: We need a Judge Sirica. That is what we need.


Mark R. MacGuigan: We have a Justice McDonald whom I am willing to put up against Judge Sirica or any American judge any day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: We talked about the rule of law. We want the rule of law. We do not want a police state. We do not want a country which is subject to the dictates of the police.


An hon. Member:: We do not want your government.


Mark R. MacGuigan: We want a government prepared to respect the police but also prepared to clamp down on them if they exceed their mandate. That is exactly what this government is doing. The opposition is attempting to pillory the government because it is honest and is telling the people what it is about.


An hon. Member:: Honest?


James McPhail Gillies: Do you really think they are honest?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), 1 feel 1 should try to get us back on the track. Even with the scholastic and academic standing that he has, he has overlooked what the debate is all about. He has overlooked the fact that the RCMP is the police force. Any police force in this nation is administering the law in a civil way across the country. That is one form of the administration of justice. When people of authority in any type of police force are asked to look into the security of the nation, that falls directly under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and a special cabinet committee. That is where the hon. member's entire argument falls apart.
If it were just a matter of the administration of justice when dealing with civil and criminal matters, any interference by any government would be entirely wrong.


Mark R. MacGuigan: It would have been worse here.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know how naive the government thinks we are to suggest for one moment that the minister or the Prime Minister did not give instructions to the security planning analysis branch, which in turn used the police and got the RCMP into some difficulty. I could blame this government for eroding the image of a great force.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Over the years I have been in the House, I think the record will indicate that I have made many speeches
[Mr. Leggatt.)
and have asked many questions. I have always defended the RCMP, and I shall continue to do so. Everyone on this side of the House has taken the same position: it is the government which has put the RCMP into the difficulty of eroding their image by mixing the question of security with the ordinary administration of law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When we consider the rule of law, I do not think it takes a great mind or a dean of a university to indicate that it gives protection to every individual in Canada. We are all equal under the law and we are protected. We are not protected by the Prime Minister, any premier or any minister. Our protection and liberty flow from the rule of law.
When we consider that principle, we must consider also the fact that everyone is equal before the law, no matter what position they hold. If they hold a position in the government as a minister, if they hold a job in the security planning and analysis branch, or if they hold a job in any police force in Canada, they are protected by the law. If they break the law, or they are instructed to break the law, then they must face the same kinds of remedies, procedures, and charges as any other individual in Canada. If that is not a fundamental basis and the foundation of the administration of justice, then there is no foundation.
Is this not a Canadian Watergate? For one hour we have questioned and interrogated the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), and he came out of it very beautifully because he was evasive and refused to answer one question in the House of Commons today. Why did he refuse? He refused because he wanted to have a complete cover-up. What was he covering up? No one could be so naive as to believe that the present Solicitor General or the former solicitor general, now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), did not have some knowledge in reference to this affair. I am referring to the break-in at the offices of a legal political party in Canada.
When the Solicitor General refused to answer those questions, in a very psychological way he was refusing because he wanted to cover up the sins of the government. For example, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) asked twice who authorized this break-in. Twice the question was evaded by the Solicitor General. Twice I asked who authorized this break-in, and after the second time I received an answer: it was the director general of security, John Starnes. Why did he not answer deliberately in the first place?


Mark R. MacGuigan: He did.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why did he not answer when the Leader of the Opposition asked that question? The hon. member opposite is indicating that he did. 1 have checked the blues. The record will be out tomorrow, and if it is read by the hon. member opposite he will see that the first time the Solicitor General answered that question was after he had been interrogated four or five times on the point. In fact the CBC referred to that in the news tonight.


Mark R. MacGuigan: His answer was not understood.
October 31, 1977


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have heard a lot about the rule of law. 1 am concerned about the fact that the office of a political party can be raided and names can be obtained not only of the supporters of the party but of those who made financial contributions. What are we leading up to?
1 think we are leading up to getting a list for another War Measures Act. I should like to refer to an article in the Globe and Mail of Wednesday, May 12, 1971, which referred to October 16, 1970, when the War Measures Act was implemented.


Simma Holt: The Globe and Mail is not a good paper to quote.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 1 hope the hon. member will bear with me. Actually 1 know she will listen because she is always so fair. The article reads as follows:
The federal government will resort again to the War Measures Act if violence like that of the October crisis in Quebec breaks out and parliament gets bogged down in considering special anti-terrorist laws. This was promised recently by the Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, on two occasions, one in a letter dated May 7 of that year to premier Robert Bourassa of Quebec, and secondly, in a lengthy interview the same day with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television crew.
When 1 listened to the debate tonight I was reminded of that long debate on that tragic occasion when the government implemented the War Measures Act. Ministers could have used any other legal means provided under the Criminal Code. They know now it was a mistake.


An hon. Member:: You voted for it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 1 wonder if hon. members opposite could control themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Say it, you voted for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will answer that question right now, and I was coming to it. 1 will tell you what we said. We said to the government, "You have the facts, we do not, and if those facts are true, then we have to put the security of the nation ahead of anything else". But then we found out that the government lied to us. We knew we had been deceived in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me quote now a man who is at present a director of more corporations than 1 can name, the former minister of justice. I call as my witness, Mr. Turner, minister of justice at that time. That is what he said on October 16, 1970, as reported at page 215 of Hansard of that day:
It is my hope that some day the full details of the intelligence upon which the government acted can be made public, because until that day comes the people

of Canada will not be able fully to appraise the course of action which has been taken by the government.
If you read the newspapers at that time you must have realized that he came close to resigning because he knew the government deceived the Canadian people in implementing the War Measures Act, as it deceived the people today.
They had their lists. How many people were arrested under the War Measures Act? I hold in my hand a copy of Macleans magazine of that time. The caption on the front page reads, "Get Your Clothes On, Pauline Julien, You're Coming with Us". Four hundred and fifty people were arrested, held without bail for a considerable length of time, and 62 charges were laid, but only two cases were tried, and 1 do not think they had one conviction. That was the situation. If there was a revolution or subversive activity in the province of Quebec at that time, then surely somebody would have been charged and found guilty and a penalty would have been handed out by the courts. I repeat, we were deceived by the answers given by the Solicitor General, as we were deceived by the former minister of justice on October 16, 1970. The Canadian people will not accept that kind of drivel any longer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Liberals have done this before. They have said there were spies afoot in the civil service. They passed an order in council in the middle of the night, and that is the party that stands for civil rights.
People were arrested, held without charges, without bail, with lights on in the cells all night. You would have thought somebody would have stood up for the rule of law.
Let me quote the Hon. C. G. Power, a former Liberal member, who said the following in a speech in the House:
As for me, brought up in an atmosphere wherein a framed photograph of Magna Carta was on almost every wall, accompanied with a warrant for the execution of Charles I, and steeped through my reading in the traditions of the martyrs of liberty and freedom, I cannot wish to turn back the pages of history 700 years and repeal Magna Carta. I cannot by my silence appear to approve even tacitly what I believe to have been a great mistake on the part of the government. If this is to be the funeral of liberalism I do not desire to be even an honorary pall-bearer at the funeral, and 1 do not wish by not taking part in this debate to give silent approval to the procedure which has taken place.
That is exactly what is going on. You would have thought that one Liberal in this large government would have stood up and said, "We stand for the rule of law". You would have thought one Liberal would have said what the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) said. As soon as you ask them a question, whom do they blame? They say, "The RCMP did this". Surely when it is a question of security, the Solicitor General, the Prime Minister or the cabinet committee gives instructions to that planning and security group, and in turn they give instructions to the RCMP. They should be the ones who are blamed for the sins and tragedies of this government which does not lead and which does not govern. But they do not stand up for the rule of law or the protection of the civil rights of this land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 31, 1977


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us hope that tomorrow this debate will be put on the right track and that when we ask the question, who authorized this raid, the government will give us an answer. I noticed that the former solicitor general was not very well tonight and I am sorry to see that. Whether it is anxiety or something else that has caused this, 1 do not know, but when we asked him what he talked about, can you believe, the solicitor general, one of the highest officers administering the law in this country, did not know that the office of a political party was raided.


J. Michael Forrestall: Nobody mentioned it tonight. It is incredible.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When we asked them, they said, "We don't know anything about it, the police run the country". I do not accept that. I say that is a lie, and I will go that far. I say the government runs the country, or is supposed to. It gave the instructions, but when it is caught tampering with the civil rights of this country, it blames it on the RCMP. I am convinced that the government planned and plotted for a long time to get rid of the traditional force from western Canada which became the national force, that is, the RCMP. It planned and plotted to do it this way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Again hon. members opposite are speaking from their seats. Somebody spoke about brains, but 1 would not be that complimentary at the moment. I say to them that tomorrow we expect answers to our questions, and if we do not get them tomorrow, we will ask them the next day, and we will ask the Prime Minister to measure up to his responsibilities as the chief minister in this country and head of security. I hope he is here tomorrow so that we can hear his answers.
He had knowledge of it for almost a year without telling any of the solicitors general, if you can believe them. Unfortunately, I do not accept the excuses that have been given in this cover-up.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I hope to be able to reach a common ground with all members of the House of Commons. 1 think we all believe that there is one law for all Canadians and that the rule of law must not be different for those in authority and those in ordinary walks of life, and that when the rule of law is broken, no matter by whom and in what position, they should bear the full brunt of the law.
If the law is broken, prosecution should follow the ordinary course. If the evidence is there, it should be brought before a judge and jury. No matter who has broken the law, they must face the consequences of their act.
It should not take more than the first year in Sunday school or the first year in catechism class, let alone the first year in law school, to know that it is wrong to break and enter or to steal.
These are fundamental things, but I become sickened when I hear hon. members opposite, in pious righteousness, continue to condemn the RCMP. They condemn them time after time, speaker after speaker, saying that they have not been doing the right things in this country.
Usually the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt) is one of the most sane and sensible members of this House, but tonight he said it is the opposition which is protecting the RCMP. The truth is anything but that. Every hon. member opposite who has spoken has condemned the RCMP and its operations, if not directly then indeed by the innuendo drifting from their mouths in every statement they make. It is shameful.
We on this side of the House have said that the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) continually makes innuendoes without having the guts to make any direct allegation against the RCMP. He referred to the Bronfman case a little while ago. In the Bronfman case, the Statistics Canada case, the Hamilton Harbour case, and in the dredging case, the hon. member has taken to himself credit for bringing these things to the public. The Commissioner of the RCMP has said, time and again, that the hon. member has not furthered these cases but that he has impeded them by bringing out six months' premature disclosures while the investigations were under way.
In the Bronfman case I replied to the hon. member as the parliamentary secretary in the way the hon. member indicated, but he came across the floor to me afterwards and showed me documents he had. They were indeed marked "Secret," but the documents stated something which was very ambiguous. They did not indicate that the RCMP was coercing Mr. Bronfman into not laying charges or into not going ahead. What really happened was that Mr. Bronfman took his case to the Federal Court of Canada. He decided to withdraw his case. He felt he did not have enough goods to go on, but this is the kind of allegation the hon. member for Central Nova continually makes. Hit and run, hit and run. He does not come across with any facts because he just does not have any.
The hon. member is not here now. Somebody said his office was bugged. I do not know what might be obtained from his office other than perhaps an allegation he might make against somebody, without any facts to back it up. He has never backed anything up in anything he has done.
One of the investigations the hon. member prompted with his questions in this House involved the Hamilton Harbour matter. The former solicitor general and the solicitor general at the time of this matter were questioned in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The hon. member ran out of questions, as did all the members of the opposition. As a matter of fact the solicitors general exonerated themselves completely and totally with respect to any allegations made at that time. They did so with respect to Statistics Canada, with respect to Mitchell Bronfman, and with respect to all the others. Hon. members opposite who make allegations should have the courage to present facts upon which those



October 31, 1977

allegations are based. It is great to come in with carloads of suspicion, but they come in with not even a wheelbarrow-full of truth, yet they build these things up far out of proportion.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) spoke about the performance of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) today. I was elected in 1972, five years ago yesterday, and today was the first time 1 have seen a question period in this House in which all the questions from the great minds and intelligence of the opposition were directed to one minister alone. That happened today. The Solicitor General of Canada, a fine young man, was able to answer every question with fairness and candor. Once again the opposition ran out of questions. The hon. member for Calgary North said this evening that the Solicitor General avoided and dodged the questions asked of him, but I say he answered the questions directly and factually.
Let it not be forgotten that the revelations which caused this special debate tonight were not brought forward by the opposition parties. Not one member of the opposition brought forward these facts, which are now known to the Canadian people. Each one of these facts was presented by the Solicitor General or through his offices to the people of Canada. It was he who last Friday disclosed in this House the matters which came to his attention very shortly before that. There was no attempt to hide anything. In the last few days I have heard the question: "Is this a Canadian Watergate?" Watergate was a cover-up.


Francis Andrew Brewin: So is this.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: It is anything but a cover-up; it is complete disclosure. I believe that in the last few days and weeks the government has disclosed more about the operations of the national security force than has heretofore been heard in this country. Perhaps it is a good wind that is blowing. It is a good thing that we have more of this kind of thing, but let it not be forgotten that it was this government and this Solicitor General who brought these facts out. These facts were not brought out by any probing, any investigation or any initiative by hon. members opposite.


Walter David Baker: Come off it!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: This should be remembered by hon. members opposite, yet they take advantage of the fact that there are some members of the RCMP who are deeply concerned about the future of their force and about their leadership. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said that the morale of the RCMP has never been as low as it is now. I think it would be good for the members of the RCMP to know that during this debate tonight their Commissioner has been in this House listening to this debate. He has done so because of a real concern for himself and his force. I do not see him now. Perhaps he has left in the last few minutes.


Walter David Baker: That was when you started to speak.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: The unfair, unnecessary, and unwarranted attacks on the RCMP by hon. members opposite will take a long time for the RCMP to overcome. It is too bad that hon. members opposite do not realize the damage they are doing to one of the most respected police forces in the world. The president of Interpol is a former commissioner of the RCMP. Commissioner Higgitt's police force was recognized as the most efficient, honest, and honourable in the world. It is not we on this side who have been attacking this force and criticizing its operations. It has been members of the opposition, such as the hon. member for Central Nova and others who do not have the guts to come across with the facts they say they have. They really have no facts. They have only a hope and a desire to further their political careers by blackening and damaging one of the finest police forces in this world.
The hon. member for Central Nova has still not come forward with any facts with respect to Statistics Canada, the Mitchell Bronfman case, the dredging charges, or the Hamilton Harbour matter, but he throws irresponsible allegations around this House with careless abandon because he is not answerable.
This government has been answerable in this House for the actions of the RCMP. It is prepared to take it on the chin when the RCMP, through over-exuberance, moves across the line, as it has done in this case. Maybe it has committed an illegal act. 1 would rather have it that way than have the government in control of each and every operation of the police force in this country, or in the provinces of this country.
If we, as members of parliament, are going to insist that members of cabinet be in day-to-day charge of the operation of police forces, then I think we should take the criticism of those things they do wrong, and I think we should take accolades for those things they do right. If we begin to take charge of their operations this parliament will investigate a police state. I am not prepared to see that happen in this Canada that I love so well.
What is the alternative, Mr. Speaker? It is to have trust, faith and confidence in these officers who have made a career of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and of the municipal and provincial police forces of this country. The other alternative, according to the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Yukon, and the hon. member for Central Nova, would be to have the Solicitor General and other members of the cabinet direct the operations of this police force in criminal investigations, national security, customs and excise, and all such matters. This is not the role of parliament and it is not the role of a minister. A mandate must be given unequivocally, however, to the police department on what they should or should not do to carry out their functions within this country.
I believe that this parliament, especially in the field of criminal law, attempts to pass laws without reference to partisan political stances. I also believe that the police forces of this land should carry out their functions in the same way,
478

October 31, 1977

and I think they have done so. I think it is unfair for the opposition to harangue the RCMP continually, particularly because they cannot defend themselves. At the present time their favourite target is the security and intelligence division of the RCMP, which is being accused of illegal activities.
The Solicitor General in his speech today, and in answer to questions today, indicated that the actions taken in 1973 in the break-in at the Parti Quebecois offices was honestly believed, by those who did it, to be in the national interest. I think we will have to wait, and I am prepared to wait, for a legal process, a judge and jury, to determine whether there is guilt or innocence in the matter. When the Solicitor General cautioned us on Friday not to be too hasty in making judgments in this matter, I believe he was right.
I think it is time that members of the opposition began to conduct themselves with some forebearance, and gathered the facts before making reckless and careless accusations which are doing great harm to a great and highly respected police force in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) that my target is not the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. My target is this government which, through incompetence and worse than incompetence, has brought about the situation which precipitated this debate. The hon. member and others in the backbenches of the Liberal party share that responsibility with those in the frontbenches.
We have had some interesting comments in this debate. 1 listened to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) with great wonderment as he laid down the criteria, and indisputably so, indicating what was political vetting of certain organizations in the past with respect to their capability to participate in public affairs and their probable danger to the state. Mr. Speaker, if that criteria had existed in 1963, '64 or '65, the man who went on to become the hon. member for Mount Royal and subsequently the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country, would never have got into parliament.
I also heard the hon. member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Poulin) and the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) labouring the question of Watergate. Obviously they are affected by Watergate and its similarity to the situation which exists here. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre said that the principles of Watergate do not apply to Canada because this government disclosed the facts. It only disclosed the facts and the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) only disclosed his facts because he and members of the government knew that those facts were coming out in the inquiry in Montreal under Commissioner Keable. Knowing that, he cut his losses and made admissions about what is going on.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that as and when the commission in Montreal, and possibly the Laycraft commission in Edmonton, come to the point where they will be disclosing facts, such disclosures will be preceded by a statement in this House by the Solicitor General. It is only because
[Mr. Poulin.J
of that, and because of the fact that documents were made known, that public inquiries and/or prosecutions were undertaken in that long, sordid calendar of deception, corruption, and lying which surrounded the skirts of this government for the last five or six years.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville laboured the point about this not being Watergate.
If the government wants to come clean, let it do so. The leader of this party (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and other members of the party have requested a parliamentary committee. It is before a parliamentary committee that we should bring to judgment those ministers who might, under conditions and facts which are known, be tried for what I suggest are very serious political delinquencies. Let us establish a committee. Let it take from those ministers the powers of Crown privilege which they can exercise in debate and questioning. Let those members of government, from the Prime Minister down, be sworn and heard. Let the former commissioners, other officials attached, and the directors of the intelligence branch be brought before that committee. Let us find out how much was told, what information was given to members of government, from the Prime Minister down, at the pertinent times.
The government should set up such a committee with unrestricted terms of reference so that there is a fair and reasonable opportunity for questioning and challenging the truthfulness of statements made on the other side of this House. Only then can we say the government is coming clean by letting there be an investigation before a proper forum under terms of reference. This is essential if this issue is to be brought out in the open.
It was a pretty sad day for this House, after the Solicitor General had finished almost an hour of questions and answers this afternoon, when there was a spontaneous burst of applause from his colleagues. It was a considerable performance by the minister-subtle, brittle, evading the issues and not answering directly. Not one answer did the Solicitor General give today of facts not previously known. He did not, in one single answer, give us information we had sought. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that parliament was dragged to a very low level by that performance this afternoon. If this House is going to survive, question period must be more than entertainment. At the present time, because of the advent of television in the House, the tendency of the government and ministers to oscillate, to evade issues, to refuse to answer, to give incorrect answers to questions, is fortunately becoming more apparent to the public. The public of Canada is now having a chance to see what we have seen for many years, now-a government without the answers, without the capacity, and without the competence to do the job for which it was elected.
I say to the Solicitor General that it is not enough for him to do what he did this afternoon. There is a principle known to law, particularly to lawyers involved in insurance law, that it is not enough just not to tell lies; there must be no material
October 31, 1977

concealment; there must be full disclosure of the facts. This did not happen today. It rarely happens in this Chamber as far as ministers are concerned. That is a principle which I suggest ministers of the Crown should adopt so that the people might be able to feel greater confidence in those who govern their affairs.
I am a member of the opposition, but I say that the lack of confidence which exists all over the country in the government is a sad story. The government has addressed itself to various measures in an attempt to alleviate economic conditions. To my mind, the one element which is requisite if these measures are to take effect is confidence among the people in their government and in its proposals. Such confidence does not exist today and, until it does, we shall not make progress in overcoming the problems which face us.
Far from criticizing the RCMP, I pay tribute to them. I practised law for many years in a rural, frontier area, where it was not unknown for two-constable detachments to patrol thousands of square miles. They kept the faith, maintained the vigil, and had the support of the public. It was a great force, and I believe it still is. Basically, I believe it is still a sound force and one of the greatest in the world. Unfortunately, the treatment the government has meted out to it is such that, as my hon. friend from the Yukon said, it has lost its morale. There is anxiety.
I do not suggest the government has instigated some of the incidents to which we have been directing our attention, but I remember the play about Becket in which the King said, "Will no one rid me of this man?" And I suggest some of the things which were done by the RCMP or by this intelligence unit were performed in the expectation that they would be pleasing to the government.
Morale in the force will not be restored until the government makes some substantial changes. The fault really lies across the floor. The Prime Minister is alleged to have said in his press conference that police may break the law, sometimes. I challenge that assertion. There are no circumstances in which the police may break the law. The Solicitor General has suggested that if the law is not effective enough to give the police the weapons they need to combat organized crime, subversion, alleged terrorism, apprehended insurrection and so on, we should change the law. Well, if the government has facts upon which it can base this proposition that the law be changed, let us have those facts.
Others, beside myself, have spoken of the government's obsession with secrecy. Out of secrecy come corruption and incompetence-this government's record ever since it embraced secrecy as its watchword.
I shall not keep the House much longer. This has been a good debate. I suggest it will be useful and that it would probably obviate situations of the kind which have arisen so many times in the past if we had a reasonable law with regard to the freedom of information. I shall not pursue the issue, now, but there is no question in my mind but that the government has said "No" on three occasions. My sources tell me that before the last Speech from the Throne the govern-

ment said no, that it said no again just before the green paper was issued, and that it again said no just before the Speech from the Throne which we have recently finished discussing. Some of the younger cabinet ministers may have been in favour of it but the older members of the cabinet, those who have been there long enough to know what secrets are rattling around like skeletons in the closet, said no because they feared that a freedom of information law would make known things they do not wish to be made known to the public.
Other reasons have been advanced, of course. They have said that judges should not over-rule decisions of ministers. Mr. Speaker, I am told that in one department of the United States government, the Department of Justice, there are 55,000 people who have the right to put the stamp "Confidential" on a document, 18,000 with the right to put "Secret" on a document and 3,000 who have the right to mark documents "Top Secret". I do not know how many people have similar authority in this country, but I suggest that if civil servants are entitled to say a document should be marked confidential, an objective, independent judge should surely be entitled to say that, in his opinion, a certain document is one which should be made available to the public on request.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we would not today be facing the situation which has developed if government, police forces, intelligence units, and senior civil servants knew that the things they did today might be made public tomorrow or the week afterward. Knowledge that what they did one day might be made public the next would encourage those concerned to make sure that their actions would bear the light of public scrutiny. Such a situation does not prevail at the present time.
In my view we cannot tolerate the continuation of the situation we have observed over the last months and years. It is for parliament, acting on behalf of the people of Canada, to lay down the rules and circumstances under which the police force must function. I realize that day-to-day implementation is a matter for the government, but it is a question of the conflict between various public interests. The widest possible public interest of the people of Canada lies in having a government and a police force which are subject to the laws of the land, and this must be maintained as against the narrower public interests of those who use the term "security" in order to engage in activities of the kind of which we have heard. I am afraid that all too often as far as the term "security" is concerned the government equates that word with the preservation of the Liberal party. It means something more than that.
Some method should be designed whereby this House, in the final analysis, has the right to maintain some watch over the public's money. We do not know how much money is spent or where it is spent. A committee of this House should be established under conditions which are susceptible to the security interests so that the public interest will be subject to the scrutiny and challenge by members of this House which it needs. If that is not done, this debate will have been fruitless.
80025 -31 'h

October 31, 1977

Out of this debate must come some ideas for a settlement of the very difficult problems which have been raised. I know they are difficult. I realize some of the problems of the government. Elowever, power must come back to this House where it belongs. It is not for the opposition to govern, but it is for the opposition to exercise scrutiny over the government which it so far has managed to escape. That scrutiny must be restored if this problem is ever going to be settled in a reasonable way.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, throughout my previous career and my present career, 1 have worked with the RCMP-it goes back almost a third of a century. I looked up in the gallery tonight, as did my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin). We saw the Commissioner sitting there facing this type of thing. I have known Commissioner Simmonds for more than 15 years. He is a dedicated policeman.
As much as I respect many of you over there, I felt saddened that he had to listen to this kind of talk, cruelty, partisan politics, and the destruction that you have spewed out tonight.
I felt saddened that former Commissioner Nadon-equally dedicated-is left with a stigma you placed on him. I dedicated the biggest work of my life to those officers. I researched back to the era of the Northwest Mounted Police. Their record is flawless.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), whom I admire very much, said that the RCMP was not his target, but rather it is the government. Exactly. But you use the RCMP to try and get the government. You play politics-that is the shame of this place. You are ready to destroy the RCMP to win an election.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must invite the hon. member to address herself to the Chair, otherwise it confuses the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Stick to the rules.


Simma Holt: The rules have all been made by lawyers. I regret I am just an ordinary citizen, a common person elected to serve common people. I am not sure whether I have displeased you, Mr. Speaker, but you have corrected me properly.
I wonder what would have happened if, during the period when the RCMP were working to end the terror by the Sons of Freedom in the Kootenays, members opposite had been working then as they are now toward an election? Would the police have had to stop what they had to do? At that time, every citizen's car underwent four, six, eight searches for dynamite, within 24 miles. We accepted that because we wanted to be safe. There is no security and freedom if you are dead.
There were bombings and burnings. Dams were blown up, people were killed. This happened in the Kootenays in Canada

for years and years. The RCMP ended the terror there. They did a great job. However, if this group opposite had been able to play with their right to investigate, to check and even break the law perhaps, I do not know-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: They had to do many, many things in order to stop the bombings. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) can say oh, oh!


Mr. Friesen:: I do.


Simma Holt: That hon. member can say the safety of people is less important than the police doing their job. Is that what he is saying? I venture to say that if this group had been working toward votes instead of the safety of this nation, we would still see bridges and power dams being blown up. People would be locked into flooded mines because the power system had been bombed and blown out. All of these tragedies still would be happening, if those opposite had their way. Also, organized crime would be invited to work freely in our society. Terrorists and kidnappers would be allowed freedom of operation in this country.
Members opposite talk about the War Measures Act. They are very righteous in retrospect. They say the government acted wrongly because nothing happened. Nothing happened because there was strong action taken in an emergency situation. It is easy to say in retrospect that it did not happen, but it could have happened.
The citizens of this country have a right to be protected by police who have been hired to do the job. Members opposite talk out of both sides of their mouths. They like to say they defend the police, that some of their best friends are policemen, but they tear them apart in this place.


An hon. Member:: It was the Liberal government.


Simma Holt: The Liberal government has done a good job. It is a good country because of the Liberals.


Mr. Epp:: It is not synonymous, and you know it.


Simma Holt: My goodness, Mr. Speaker, would they like an aspirin over there or something to help them? The opposition are having a problem with dyspepsia.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) was concerned about the difference between subversion and dissent. It is very difficult to separate the two. We have reached the stage where we consider that nothing can be subversion. We are so permissive, we will not allow the police to investigate subversion. Watch how soon our freedom will be destroyed! We have a right to expect our police force to look into subversion.
We have had private meetings with the security forces. We have had public meetings where they have said they dare not even touch certain problems which they know are the work of subversives that could wreck our country. But because we inhibit their actions by this very political gerrymandering, we
October 31, 1977

may see our long cherished freedom slowly disappear. I feel it disappearing every time the police become the target in this House.


Mr. Whiteway:: It is your government that is under attack.


Simma Holt: This is a strange club. Little boys yell, "It's your government". Partisan politics have no place in the freedom and security of this nation.
One member opposite said he did not know how it was possible to break the law when you are a policeman. He is very naive about police work.
How do members opposite think they solve crime? Do they think they play like boy scouts, use the Marquess of Queens-berry rules and say, "by your leave, we have found you are ready to kill and murder." Would they do that with A1 Capone? No, they go underground and live in the underworld.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) tonight said something very interesting. He was very selective in quoting the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He tried to say it was a cover-up. However, he only read two sentences. The Prime Minister did use the word "gee". That got him very excited. The Leader of the Opposition actually said that when he heard about the surveillance the Prime minister said, "gee, we have got to stop this. We cannot go on exercising surveillance on a democratic party. It is a legal party and it has a right." It was too good a statement for him to distort in this House. I will put it on the record.
The Prime Minister said, in his statement on October 28:
It (referring to the PQ) is a legal party and it has a right to exist and I stated in the House that our policy henceforth was not to have this kind of surveillance. So in the sense that 1 was informed at the time that this was done I was not informed nor were the Solicitors General so they tell me that in order to exercise this surveillance there was some action which might be described as illegal which will be brought before the courts if the attorney general of the province feels that should be the case. In other words, the precise action which Mr. Fox and I learned about, I believe, at the end of last week about taking tapes from an office I believe-this I do not know about. Of course I knew when they told me that they were looking at the Parti Quebecois. I said don't do that. It's a democratic party.
In this area I may even disagree with my Prime Minister and project what the police might have been thinking. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, separatists are not exactly my idea of people who are building a country. During the period of the War Measures Act invocation and subsequently, separatists were feared in this country. The police were assigned, by us, to do the job of protecting the security, safety, and unity of this country. At that time separatism and Rene Levesque did not have the respectability they seem to have today. I am not sure they have all that respectability with me, Mr. Speaker, but the Prime Minister did say that it was at least a democratic party. That is what he said on October 28. We are discussing what happened at a different time.


John Edward Broadbent: Who said it is a democratic party?


Simma Holt: The leader of the NDP did not ask that when he put in his little contribution. The Prime Minister went on to say that it was a legal party.
In court, Mr. Speaker, it is said that it is not truth unless it is the whole truth. The oath a person takes in court is to tell the whole truth. I notice that in this House some members selectively tell only half truths to win their point and seemingly to campaign for votes. I hear the Leader of the Opposition burbling, and perhaps the people of Canada will get more sense out of his burbling than they do out of his words. The Prime Minister went on to say:
You can't exercise surveillance on it systematically any more than you can on the Liberal or NDP or Conservative party, or Social Credit.
He then went on to discuss the illegality question. If you know someone is going to blow up a city you may not have time to get a search warrant, or to go into some place and say, "By your leave, I hear you have an atom bomb in your safe and we would like to get it". It does not matter that while the police are getting all the legalities sorted out to please the lawyers, the city might be blown up. Hon. members say we must always be right and legal, and to me that is naivete. It is expecting the impossible of the police in crisis or energency situations where life and public safety may be in jeopardy.
Whenever possible, Mr. Speaker, they must do their job. The security of the country must come first. The people of this country must be safe and free. As crime grows in this country,
I venture to say and dare to predict that we will see terrorism here soon, and the brand of kidnapping occurring almost daily in Italy. The Leader of the Opposition is not very informed, which is why he burbles. I mean the leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is rising on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to interrupt the hon. lady's speech but she makes continual reference to the Leader of the Opposition and I just want to keep the record straight. The member who is doing all the burbling right now is the leader of the New Democratic Party and I hope that in the future she refers to him rather than to the Leader of the Opposition, who has done his bit in this debate and has done it very well.


Simma Holt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the people of Canada should know that when the leader of the NDP heckles he can only burble.
I should like to refer briefly to terrorism. I know a great deal about terrorism, having spent seven years of my life researching terrorism and recently talking to terrorists who are in Israeli prisons. Terrorism is the kind of crime where anything that they do is right, so long as it satisfies their own imagined goals of justified violence. They do not rely on the rule of law. Neither is there rule of law in organized crime. With all the sophisticated methods used by those in organized

October 31, 1977

crime and the hundreds of millions of dollars which international terrorists have at their disposal, how naive to think that our police force should work like boy scouts in dealing with crime. The police would not be able to use the sophisticated devices which are available to the most dangerous of criminals if hon. members opposite had their way. They would have to obey all of the rules, the legal niceties, and play nice games under the Marquess of Queensberry rules, rather than matching their skills, knowledge, wisdom and powers.
They must have some powers to counter organized crime and international terrorists, to protect the people of Canada. I expect the leader of the NDP will burble at that. He likes to use extreme phrases, like "evil act". He sanctimoniously uses religious and spiritual words. He talks about a calculated evil act. Perhaps the police believe it is evil they are fighting when the security of the country is threatened. I think my constituents and constituents across Canada as a whole want their peace, freedom and security, their right to walk the streets in safety.
1 am not sure that the opposition has any kind of case, Mr. Speaker. They will keep on questioning because they think they have a Watergate here. None of them has studied Watergate.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight more in sorrow than in anger, disappointed in this institution as such. I must indicate that even at the end of a long day like this which drains one of any passion or emotion, especially on a subject about which we could get very passionate and emotional, 1 am disappointed in this institution and in what has gone on here today. Like a lot of other members, I came to parliament today expecting explanations and expecting information. I got neither. The people of this country got neither, nor did the members of this House.
This is a terribly important subject, or it should be, to members on both sides, and certainly to the people of Canada. During question period today we were given, by an aggressively evasive single minister-I emphasize single minister, a fact which I deprecate as well-absolutely nothing that was new, even though evidence is piling up outside the House, and perhaps inside as well. This evidence indicates that there have been a whole series of acts which, if they had been committed by non-police groups, would have landed the performers of those acts, those who counselled those acts, those who directed those acts, and perhaps even those who permitted those acts, in jail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: We have had the strange spectacle of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last Friday merely saying that these actions were "misguided". He left the very clear intimation in my mind that what was done was illegal. I am sure anyone who reads the press conference or who has heard the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) this evening, which was echoed last night on

national television and again in this House today by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), will realize if what was done was illegal, then we really have only two alternatives because of the high motives of the people involved. Either we let the law enforcement agencies of this country continue to break the law themselves, in the belief that the national interest is a higher priority and more important than the mere imposition of those standards of legal observance that we have for everyone else, or the law should be changed. We have just heard an intimation of that as well from the previous speaker. In other words, there would be one standard of legal observance and lawful behaviour for those engaged in so-called national security, and a far higher one for ordinary citizens. As far as I am concerned, that is a double standard of behaviour.
The other alternative emanating from the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General is that perhaps the law should be changed to recognize this problem, and instead of merely tolerating the double standard I have indicated, we should recognize it and enshrine it in the law. According to the Prime Minister, these are the only two alternatives. Of course that is just simply not so.
There is another choice, and that is to make sure that the proven, experienced, just, and traditional criminal law of this land and country, and the common law which we follow, are enforced equally against everyone. There should be no exceptions, no interference, no double standards. In law enforcement, in my experienced opinion, there can be no fighting fire with fire. You do not rape to find a rapist. You do not use drugs to find those who are abusing our drug rules and laws. You do not blackmail to catch a blackmailer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You can speak about terrorism, but you do not bomb to trap a bomber. Certainly you do not burgle to convict a burglar. It does not matter whether it is a major crime or a minor misdemeanour. It does not matter whether the allegation is the bugging of a member of parliament's office or whether it is a question of national security. The law is the law. It is open, known, fair, and impartial. The high and mighty, as well as the low and miserable, are equally bound. If they cannot fairly obey the law, then they cannot fairly enforce the law. This applies to the police, to security groups, and to governments.
Primarily what are we talking about in this debate? We are concerned about the incident in January of 1973 when a flagrantly lawless act occurred that cannot, on any grounds, be justified. What should have happened? The hon. member who preceded me poked fun at it in one way, and attempted to pour scorn on the legal procedures which should have been followed.
If the security officers had any sort of reasonable ground for believing that a crime had been committed, and that evidence of it could be found in a political party's office, then the security officers involved could have easily obtained from a justice of the peace a proper and legal search warrant. I do not care if it was a Parti Quebecois office, a Liberal office, a Conservative office, a Social Credit office or an NDP office.
October 31, 1977

I know a search warrant is just a scrap of paper in the eyes of some of the members. I know that the case in the eyes of some police officers, because I have had experience with them, is that it is merely a token, sometimes antiquated, certainly routine and, in many cases, a bothersome procedure. It is certainly a very irksome procedure to a police group in a hurry, and impatient to get a job done which they have been ordered to complete by their superiors. It may be irksome, but it is necessary because it is the law. The law in some instances may be an ass, but it is not up to a security group or the police to change it, or apply it to others and not themselves.
In this case the police did not follow the law. They broke in during the dead of night, which suggests in itself that they knew they were acting illegally. They put themselves above the law. To indicate that what they stole, copied, and then put back, was not a theft is simply ludicrous for anybody with any legal training and anybody with any responsibility, such as our Prime Minister has, especially in view of his training and in view of his past experience as the minister of justice.
The ameliorating thing in the eyes of some members opposite is the motive, that they were moved by a high ideal of national security. Motive simply does not enter into it. Whether it is dealing with national security or not, should any group be permitted to break the law which it has been sworn to enforce? There is little to suggest in this particular case that national unity was at stake. Should any group of security advisers-and that is what the security and intelligence service is-be permitted to go beyond the limits of the authority given to them, not by this government but by this parliament? This government is duty bound to enforce and to supervise, as trustees of this parliament and of our people as a whole, this security and intelligence service.
Can we afford the superciliousness and the callousness of the head of this government who indicated that if such a group breaks the law then they are not to blame, but somehow in this twisted and warped mental process he intimates that we are to blame because obviously the law should be changed? Obviously the people in charge should be changed, and not the law.
Since 1969 there have been serious problems that have not been resolved. I do not think there is a single member in the House who would stand up in his place tonight, no matter how forgiving he may be and no matter how much a lackey of the government he may be, who would indicate that since 1969 there have not been serious problems, or who would intimate that they were solved. There are serious problems that have not been resolved. In the final result there has to be political control, political supervision, political knowledge, and known limits and restrictions, accountability and responsibility. Since 1969 there has been none.
Who revamped the security services and laid on the control and supervision mechanisms which have failed? It is this government. Who picked the people and put them in charge? It is this government. Who set up the communication, the reporting and liaison procedures? What was done in the name

of the government was supposedly controlled by the government, who else? Who now comes, unbelievingly and unbelievably, and suggests a weird mixture of responses ranging from, "We didn't know" to "We didn't want to know" and finally "If they did it, they were right"? No one else but this government.
The Prime Minister intimates that he said, as an hon. member reiterated a few moments ago, "Stop the political surveillance". Let us make no mistake about it, we are not talking about national security surveillance, we are talking about political surveillance. That is what it is, pure and simple. We are not dealing with national security matters. We are dealing with internal, domestic, political matters. When the Prime Minister said "Stop the political surveillance," he indicated, with a gallic shrug, that it is not his job to find out what has been going on. It is his job, however, to stop what has been going on. He indicated that it is not his job to ascertain what was involved in that surveillance, that it is not his job to determine what had been going on. 1 simply ask, whose job is it if not the Prime Minister's? Of course it has to be his and that of his ministers. They show an infuriating indifference to their own responsibility.
There is simply no excuse for the leader of the Canadian government, in a matter that is as important as this, to be absent from the House of Commons, and it is simply unthinkable that he should not be back here tonight for this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: This is the attitude we have to put up with. This is the attitude on many matters, not just on security matters but on many matters that touch on integrity and on the morality of the government. So long as the right question is not asked by those who should ask it, so long as the correct guideline on conduct is not issued by those who should issue it, and so long as the proper person is not held responsible for what he does or does not do by those who have a duty to hold others responsible to them so that they in turn are responsible to this parliament and to the people, we will continue to wallow in these re-occurring waves of non-accountability and irresponsibility that are becoming the hallmarks of this administration. This country deserves better than what we are getting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, in my understanding, the duty of police forces is to prevent offences against the laws of Canada and, I think we can say fairly at the present time, especially acts of terrorism and sabotage. We do not question their responsibility in this field, nor do we question that society must be protected against these critical problems. But the first and most important protection we have is the respect that we must all have for the law itself. How can law and order prevail if the guardians of the law themselves spurn and infringe the clear precepts of the law?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated the following in 1976-I am indebted to the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) for

October 31, 1977

the reference which is at page 13389 of Hansard of that year, and also the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) referred to the same quotation:
It is my view and the view of the government that if the party is legal, it should not be under surveillance systematically by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or any other police.
I could not agree more, and I hope that members of parliament agree with this remark. But it now appears that the RCMP broke into the premises of the Parti Quebecois in Montreal in January of 1973, and removed computer tapes and certain other financial material which belonged to that organization. This was all authorized, according to the Solicitor General himself, by senior officers of the security services. Later the information was destroyed by the RCMP in the spring of 1975.
I want to say to the members of the government, who have been accusing us of attacking the RCMP, that we have not attacked the RCMP. What we have attacked and what we have criticized, and what is our duty to criticize is clear, open infringement of the law by certain people connected with the RCMP. We are just as concerned with the good reputation of the RCMP as are other members of the House. To pretend that the opposition as a whole is attacking the RCMP when they are only doing their clear and obvious duty of pointing out these serious occurrences is a complete perversion of the facts and an abuse of the debate in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General keeps talking about a dilemma. What dilemma existed in 1973? He has not begun to explain that in any way. The Prime Minister suggested that there might be conditions of emergency when the law has to be temporarily overlooked. What emergency existed in 1973? We have not had a word on either of these two things. The FLQ activities, which were certainly criminal and very much deplored by Canadians generally, were shown, not only in the number of arrests which have been cited in the House but in the number of weapons that were seized after careful search by the army and the police in Montreal, to have been infinitesimally small. But be that as it may, they were not an active force in 1973, and no one can pretend that they were. So then what was the emergency which justified this defence of acts of illegality?
It is indeed of the utmost gravity that senior police and security officers, apparently without seeking or obtaining the advice or consent of their political superiors, authorized the break-in into the premises of a legal political party. In my opinion police, under our system of democracy, must never be above the law. They must be subject to over-all supervision by the political government of the day. Some of us who have looked outside this country know what happens to people who have ignored this salutary rule. Those people have lost their freedom, and we have to be very careful that we do not start on the slippery path that leads precisely to that result.

In this whole affair what I find most disturbing is the casual attitude of the Prime Minister and of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) which they have taken in certain statements they have made. Indeed, they have both used expressions which can be interpreted only as seeking to excuse, to some measure at least, the irresponsibility for this criminal conduct which is perfectly apparent.
The Prime Minister referred to the mood of the time. What was the mood at the time? He has not said a word about that. How could any mood possibly justify such blatant political acts as those which were carried out? The Prime Minister is a distinguished lawyer; how could he possibly overlook the fact that of all the crimes in the Criminal Code the one best known even to our children is breaking and entering? Is he going to say that that is something which should be excused because of some alleged motive or some theoretical need for security measures?


John Edward Broadbent: Exactly what Nixon said.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The leader of my party says that is exactly what Mr. Nixon said. We are seeing a repetition of precisely the same line of thought.
The Solicitor General is one of the law officers of the Crown. He holds a special responsibility for maintaining law and order, but what is his attitude? He quotes the royal commission on security as indicating that there might hypothetically be a conflict between respect for the law and the effective protection of national security. Of course that is a theoretical possibility. The royal commission did not condone or approve of breaking the law, and I challenge the Solicitor General to find anything in its report which indicates for a moment that it did. But in this actual case where was the dilemma? Was a search warrant not obtainable if there was evidence incriminating the Parti Quebecois? Of course no such evidence existed, so they relied on totally illegal methods.
The dilemma is a figment of the imagination of the Solicitor General, and as he puts so much of his case on that, it breaks down to absolutely nothing but specious reasoning. Was it an emergency? What was the emergency? We never heard a word to explain what the emergency was. Nervertheless, the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General exculpate those who were responsible for a very serious crime and for gross interference with the rights and property of a lawful political party.
I am not asking the Solicitor General to convict those responsible. That is not his job. I do not think we can convict them without hearing evidence, but neither is it the job of the Solicitor General to bring up phony excuses for those who are responsible for what clearly was an illegal and utterly improper act. I have no doubt that the Solicitor General feels a duty or obligation to support the morale and integrity of the police force under his general surpervision, and for which he answers to this House. I think we would all feel that.
We all want to be able to respect and assist the integrity and morale of the RCMP, but the effect of the Solicitor General's words, rather than his general statements, is to palliate inexcusable conduct in high places. How can he, with such an

attitude, typify to Canadians the guardian of law and order? In my opinion he has let us down and the people of Canada down. I think if there is no superior official of the government who will tell him so, his own conscience should dictate to him that the time has come for him to resign.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the rhetoric, the emotionalism and the outbursts which have taken place this evening for some four hours and 15 minutes, following 45 minutes of question period earlier today, my mind goes back to some of the basic elements and, I think, to some of the foundation issues on which a debate like this is based.
My mind is taken back to some of the incidents of terrorism and subversion which have unfortunately become the ever-increasing experience of many countries in recent years. My mind is taken to the question of how to deal with them, for these are relatively new experiences in our history. How do we contain them? How do we put an end to them? No country has any particular or extensive background to go on because the modus operandi of dissidents, radicals and terrorists has tended to shift from day to day. They know no moral bounds. The unthinkable has become the commonplace.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), so well said, for terrorists and subversives there are no Marquess of Queensberry rules. There are no rules of war.
Fifteen years ago when jet travel was becoming popular, who would have given thought to political hijacking? Who would have thought of bombings when planning a vacation? Who would have envisaged political kidnappings and murder? Who would have envisaged disruption and death at a world athletic event such as that which occurred at the Munich Olympics in 1972? I mention these things in passing because, contrary to what the opposition has said tonight, this is a debate concerning a subject which is conditioned by the distemper of our times. This is a debate concerning the efficiency and efficacy of security services. Does anyone in this House seriously question the need for their existence? I think not.
The essence of the debate is, and should be, what mandate is it that our security forces should have? How are they to carry out that mandate? To whom are they responsible and to whom should they report? It seems that after some five hours of debate in this House there is an obvious disagreement on the part of some hon. members opposite.
If we listen to this debate and if we go back to past debates it seems that if any government of the day assumes control, total direction, and intimate responsibility for all of the actions of its surveillance forces, the opposition is heard to scream and shout that that is only a political surveillance and security force.
The suggestion is made that there should be a hands-off approach to allow a measure of independence in the day-today security and surveillance reports.

On the other hand, if there is no reporting of all the immediate and intimate details, then the argument is put forward by the opposition that the government has lost control, has abandoned responsibility. The opposition cannot have it both ways at the same time, Mr. Speaker. You cannot suck and whistle at the same time; you cannot sit on the fence all the time; you cannot blow with the wind and shift as it does, from hour to hour. In this House and in this debate you cannot be a mugwump. If I may be so bold at this time of the evening,
I seem to see the spectacle of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) playing the role of mug on the one hand, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) playing the role of wump on the other.


Walter David Baker: Who writes your stuff?


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) disagrees, I do not mind if he changes his mug for their wump at any time.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was just commenting on the writing. If the hon. member is paying for it, he is being taken for a ride.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, I always write my own speeches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is no time to boast.


Roger Carl Young: I am glad to see I stuck them with that one, Mr. Speaker.
There has been talk in the debate this evening about the rule of law. I do not think anyone would question the general principle of the rule of law-that we are all accountable to the law and no one stands above the law. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said that no one, not even a policeman, has the right to break a law.
Would any one of us question the right of a police officer giving chase to a speeder, to a bank robber, to a murderer, to go over the speed limit in order to apprehend such a person? The hon. member argues that there is one hard and fast rule and that is all.
The hon. member for Nurthumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) is a former attorney general of the province of Ontario. Did he never prosecute a case where one of his police officers acted as an agent provocateur? I doubt it.
Those are examples in simple form, Mr. Speaker, but I think they destroy the simplistic arguments of hon. members opposite.
What is important is that we go further and ask ourselves what happens when the question concerns the essence or existence of the nation? That is a very difficult question. What are the guidelines for an officer when he suspects that an activity may go to the heart of the freedom and democracy under which he and the rest of us live? What happens when the decision is a matter of split-second judgment? How does that officer approach such a situation when the "enemy"
486

October 31, 1977

knows no moral bounds, no bounds to the activities which he or it undertakes?
It has been suggested that there is never a point when security becomes so paramount that the law is broken. I suggest to hon. members that they check the history of some people who did go beyond the bounds of the law at the time. They need go no further than one of the best selling novels popular at the moment, entitled "A Man Called Intrepid". Were it not for the fact that Intrepid and many of his colleagues in their minds stood somewhat above the law at the time in England, there might not be an England at this moment.
Those are the essential questions, Mr. Speaker, but what constructive suggestions has the opposition put forward this evening? The Leader of the Official Opposition wants to know all the wrongdoings that took place. Seemingly he expects that those who might have broken the law went back to their offices and wrote memos acknowledging their transgressions and filing daily reports on themselves. Nobody would claim that there had never been an immoral law enforcement officer. From time to time cases come to light in forces around the world, but in every one that I know of the offenders have been dealt with severely. They are not a daily occurrence and it takes a great deal of investigation and patience to bring them to light.
The Leader of the Official Opposition seems to expect the Solicitor General to know the actions of every single officer at every moment of every day. I should like to ask the opposition House leader whether the Leader of the Official Opposition knows what actions are taken by every member of his party every day. I think he does not know, and it is a much smaller group than the RCMP.
I will give the opposition House leader a couple of instances. He does not know, and his leader does not seem to know, what the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is going to say at any given time during any one day. He certainly does not seem to know what the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) is going to say on any given day, or what a lot of his backbenchers are going to say on any given day.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could tell us if he knows what he is doing at any time of day.


Roger Carl Young: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
The opposition has tried to smuggle in the idea of a Watergate and a cover-up. I think it is apparent to anyone who listened to the debate this evening that the revelations made today, last week, in July and in June by the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister, are an illustration of the government's frankness. While the standard of conduct in certain of these questionable incidents may be embarrassing and the revelations discouraging, the government has not shrunk from bringing these matters into the light of day even at the cost of its own discomfort.

I return to the essence of this debate, which is to discuss the mandate of the security and surveillance forces, the lines of responsibility and the question of accountability. I think that, aside from all the rhetoric, we would do well to address our minds to these points rather than wander through some of the scurrilous meanderings of hon. members opposite.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that this is the second time this year when, at 12.30 in the evening, I have risen to speak in a debate of this kind, a debate brought on by an emergency situation in response to a motion by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). We have discovered that something is out of control in our country, but we have not yet determined whether it is the police or the government.
Today, or on Friday, the climate was obviously right for the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) to tell us of yet another occasion on which a law enforcement or security agency had broken the law. The latest report concerned an incident which occurred in 1973. It was in that year that a former prime minister, the late Mr. Pearson, said that if our security policy did not take into account the basic rights of an individual, it would operate not to defend but to destroy the liberties which are our first concern. A year later, our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) addressed himself to the same question and he said, referring to the security service, that it was the custodian of a part of the independence which every citizen yields so that the state may act with the necessary authority for the common good.
As reported by the Globe and Mail of October 29, the Prime Minister added to this profound statement on Saturday. He said it was sometimes permissible for the police to break the law technically. All of us here are very much concerned about what was said by the Solicitor General and by the Prime Minister on Friday. We really do not know where the buck stops. The government has a great capacity for passing on responsibility for its actions to anybody in sight. Our economic difficulties are the fault of large corporations and of the unions, or of foreign countries. Our legal problems are the fault of the RCMP.
There is no one in charge.
I asked the Solicitor General on June 21 if, at that time, there were any other indications of illegal acts-if, having searched his files, he had found evidence of other illegal actions by law enforcement agencies. He replied there was no indication of any of the law enforcement agencies having committed any illegal act. He called us muck-rakers; he had us inventing Machiavellian schemes to undermine the integrity of the RCMP.
The climate today is obviously different from that of 1973, because in 1973 there was a Liberal government in trouble in the province of Quebec and a Liberal government in trouble in Ottawa as well. The need was felt to wipe out the "extra-parliamentary opposition". It was for this reason certain of the law enforcement agencies had to keep an eye on terrorists,


*f - *
October 31, 1977

people engaged in sabotaging our society, and organized criminals. And the organization which was being investigated and which was under suspicion of committing acts of this kind was the National Farmers' Union, along with the Quebec and British Columbia teacher's organizations. The United Appeal, you will recall, was one of the agencies which had to be watched, as well as the Department of National Health and Welfare because of its involvement with Local Initiatives Program grants.
Let us for a moment consider what is meant by the term security forces. Take a look at some of them. We must be specific. Apart from the RCMP law enforcement agency, the federal agency, there is, of course, what we know as the security service which is responsible to the Commissioner of the RCMP but which has a very special task, that of reacting to subversives, terrorists and so on. This is an intelligence agency within the RCMP.
Then there are other law enforcement agencies in this country, and many Canadians do not know this. There is, for instance, the cabinet committee on security and intelligence which gives direction to all the security services in the country. The Prime Minister is chairman of that committee and, incidentally, he is the only person in the House today who has had direct responsibility since 1970 and is still in the same portfolio. We have had three Solicitors General since then and three Attorneys General. The cabinet committee is an advisory committee and, in turn, 16 persons are advising that committee on matters relating to security in this country.
Then there is another security force which is called the security analysis group and which operates under the auspices of the Solicitor General. Perhaps I may quote a former solicitor general, the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), explaining its functions on September 21, 1971. He said the purpose was to study the nature, origin, and causes of subversive and revolutionary action, its objectives and techniques, as well as measures necessary to protect Canadians from internal threats.


Mr. Blackburn:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 apologize to the hon. member who is speaking but I should like it to go on record that, during this very important debate, there are only two members in the House on the government side at this hour.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: No ministers!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 1 suggest to the hon. member that that is not a point of order.


Frank Oberle: Though it may not be a point of order, 1 am glad the hon. member raised it. Furthermore, the task of this particular security force is to compile and analyze information on subversive and revolutionary groups and other activities, to investigate the nature and scope of the internal threat to Canadians, and to plan measures to counteract those threats. 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.
Now that we have an idea as to the kind of security forces which are operating in this country I ask the question: why is it necessary sometimes, as the Prime Minister says, for these agencies to break the law?
The reason why they so seldom act against one of the legitimate agencies, including political parties, is that they have no clear evidence on which to ask a judge for a warrant to break into a place. If a police officer, or an officer of one of these secret agencies, told a judge that he wanted to break into the offices of the National Farmers' Union to see what they have in their files, without any evidence to substantiate the claim, the judge would tell him where to go.
I want to speak a little about the term subversive. It has never been clearly defined. There is no doubt in anyone's mind as to what the Liberal government understands the term subversive to mean. A subversive is simply someone who does not agree with the government.
Extraparliamentary opposition is a group of individuals who, in a legal and legitimate fashion, demonstrate against the government and make their opinions known about the government's performance. That is a subversive, in the view of the Prime Minister. How else if that were not so? Why would the offices of Praxis Corporation in Toronto be raided? Why else would they break into the offices of the Parti Quebecois in Montreal? Why would an officer of the RCMP and other security agents break into the offices of a publishing agency in Montreal known as L'Agence de Presse Libre?
The Solicitor General has ripened with the season since June 21. He now admits there will probably be a revelation of a whole number of these kinds of illegal acts during the session of the McDonald royal commission. Indeed, I can assure the Solicitor General there will be a revelation of a whole series of illegal acts. I have a number to reveal. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) will have a number to reveal. 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 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.
The Solicitor General was very much concerned tonight that the accused might be tried in the highest court of the land, the House of Commons, without a chance to defend themselves. I, too, am concerned about that. Hon. members will recall the case I made when my friend, Walter Rudnicki, was indeed tried and convicted without a chance to defend himself. A
80025-32'A

October 31, 1977

brilliant civil service career was destroyed. His family life was interrupted by this government simply because he was identified as a subversive. He was fired from the public service. There is a long list of people on whose behalf members have spoken in the House of Commons.
The Solicitor General now wants the sun to shine. He wants it all to hang out. He wants it all known. In order to accomplish that, he said that he established a judicial inquiry, a royal commission. We may have lost faith in the RCMP and the security agencies, but we must have respect for the judiciary and the courts.
I want to say tonight that I very much question the government's respect for the judiciary. There is a section of the Federal Court Act, Section 41(2), which gives the cabinet an executive privilege. That privilege is not available to any other Canadian, nor is it available to any minister in any free country in the world.
Under that section, a minister may swear an affidavit stating that certain evidence or certain documents that the courts may require to bring a case to conclusion are injurious for a variety of reasons. Section 14(2) of the Federal Court Act, which the minister often hides behind, reads as follows:
When a Minister of the Crown certifies to any court by affidavit that the production or discovery of a document or its contents would be injurious to international relations, national defence or security, or to federal-provincial relations, or that it would disclose a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, discovery and production shall be refused without any examination of the document by the court.
Hon. members will recall on several occasions I asked the Solicitor General whether, in the case of this inquiry, he would forgo Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act. Hon. members will also recall the minister has said he is not prepared to do that. Indeed, he has already withheld information, documentation, and evidence from the inquiry officer in the province of Quebec.
We have a government that puts itself above the law. It is a law unto itself. This government does not trust the judiciary. The minister will not show the judge the document that will be required to get to the bottom of this because the judge may be subversive, even though he has been appointed by the Liberal government. They do not even trust their own troops anymore. The buck has to stop somewhere. This government is out of control.
Justice Deschenes in the province of Quebec had some choice words, as the hon. member for Central Nova said earlier today, when this particular section of the Federal Court Act was exercised in the case of the dismissal of a couple of young ladies who were employed by the Olympics committee in the province of Quebec. The remarks of Judge David Mullan on the general tenure of that section are also worth repeating. I quote him:
Indeed, it is one of the strange contradictions of the Federal Court Act that an act which generally gives the courts greater authority over the executive branch of government, should at the same time show a lack of faith in the integrity of the courts to responsibly adjudicate in all cases on claims of Crown privilege and protect the genuine security interests of the State.

Only the Prime Minister knows what is injurious to cabinet secrecy, federal-provincial relations, national security, foreign relations and a whole variety of things. If President Nixon of the United States had had such a choice little phrase in his federal court act, there is no way anyone would have ever listened to his tapes.
I suggest there is no way anyone will get to the bottom of the matter we are discussing here tonight. As soon as a document or piece of evidence is required by the McDonald commission, one of the ministers will swear an affidavit stating it will break the confidence of the Queen's Privy Council.
I suggest the break-in in 1973 had a reference to the cabinet committee on security and intelligence at that time. I suggest that the EPO break-in in 1971 at the Praxis Institute, and several other break-ins that I will be revealing to the House in short order, had reference to the cabinet committee on security and intelligence. Unless the judge of an inquiry, or unless a committee of this House has power to subpoena-


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


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multicuituralism: Mr. Speaker, I am not happy to be here tonight to take part in this debate but I feel it my responsibility to do so. At this hour I am usually well tucked under the blankets with my eyes closed, resting well for the next day, as all hon. members should be.
This afternoon and this evening I have heard hon. members opposite challenging the integrity of the security force of the RCMP, the pride of the nation. They charged the RCMP with burglary-


Mr. Kempling:: We are charging ministers.


Mr. Andres:: They have been charged with stealing and with arson. As the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) said, it is a sad day. It is a sad night for me, Mr. Speaker, to see this kind of attitude taken by the opposition.
What is the purpose? It is to try to discredit someone, and, by trying to discredit someone, they seem to be erecting a halo around themselves. This is what I have witnessed tonight and it is a sorry state of affairs. They then charge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with being absent from the House today. Each and every one of them knows where he is.


John Carnell Crosbie: He should be right here.


William Andres: The Prime Minister is on important business for the state today. Certainly this muckraking by members on the other side of the House is no cause for him to be here, but I could not resist staying here to tell hon. members opposite how I feel.
I have sat in this House for many hours and days and, even though I do not speak often, what I have witnessed tonight makes me almost ashamed to associate in the same House with
1 ' I


f:
October 31, 1977

these members. They still call themselves Canadians, and I am surprised. They have used every opportunity to try to discredit someone. It is about time they took their responsibilities as members of the opposition.
They talk in platitudes and say, "Wait till the next election". Let them just wait for the next election, Mr. Speaker. 1 was in my riding this past weekend and 1 know what the people in my riding are thinking and saying. They will not go for this kind of muckraking and for the negative attitude displayed tonight by the opposition.


Frank Oberle: They certainly will not send you back here.


William Andres: The people of Canada will decide who will be back here. They are the judges and they will judge what hon. members' responsibilities are and how they accept them.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Liberalism is on its way out.


William Andres: The hon. member says that liberalism is on its way out. 1 cannot accept that kind of statement from that kind of member at this early hour of the morning, because the hon. member has not slept for a while, obviously.


Benno Friesen: Your members will all be going to the Senate.


William Andres: That is where all good members should be at this time of day, but some members across the way are trying to build up their reputations, not on rocks but on rot. The opposition seem to thrive on rot. They challenge the pride of the nation, as I said earlier.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) on a point of order.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I appreciate the fact that the hon. member who is now on his feet is very emotionally worked up, but I hope he keeps in mind that certain members of the RCM Police have already admitted to breaking the law, and in fact have been convicted of breaking the law. So when he talks about the pride and joy of the RCM Police, 1 hope he keeps the real facts in mind.


William Andres: If the hon. member wants to speak 1 am sure he will be given the opportunity. He can stay here until any hour he wants. I am a little surprised he intervenes in my time while I am on my feet.
Just a few weeks ago 1 saw 120 members of the RCMP here in Ottawa when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second opened parliament, and I was proud of them. Now a few weeks later members are demeaning the force and the integrity of the force. That is the point I am making. Hon. members can talk about one or two members of the force, or whatever it may be, but they are including the whole force, and this is a blot on our RCMP.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


William Andres: The hon. member does not have a point of order.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Then I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for Brant is rising on a point of order.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I am not demeaning the entire RCM Police. I simply made the statement that certain members of the RCM Police had admitted to and been convicted of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I suggest the hon. member for Brant does not have a point of order but a point for debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) has the floor.


William Andres: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If hon. members opposite want to keep digging up this kind of smut and rot, then I will give them that opportunity. I am sure the people of this country will be the judges, and I will leave it with them. I, for one, stand for law and order.


Mr. Mazankowski:: What about your leader?


William Andres: My leader stands for law and order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: But whose law and order?


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


William Andres: Hon. members opposite can shout all they want; 1 will continue to talk until 1 am finished. When national security is at stake, I believe the RCMP act in an expedient manner for all Canadians. Yet hon. members are running them down, and I am surprised at them. I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. I will let the people of Canada be the judge. I am sure many members on the other side of the House will be looking for a job after the next election.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I know it will come as a considerable surprise to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Andres) that we are fighting tonight for the integrity of the finest police force in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: We are trying to protect them from the machinations and manipulations of a vested interest within the Liberal government to use them for private interests within that government. That police force has been manipulated by this government in order to shore up and create a scaffolding for a doddering, decadent Bourassa government.
The hon. member for Lincoln has had the audacity to say that we are impugning the RCMP.


William Andres: You sure are.

October 31, 1977


Benno Friesen: We are examining the government and seeing the scurrilous way we are using the finest police force in the world.


Simma Holt: So righteous!


An hon. Member:: You are the righteous one.


Benno Friesen: For generations Canadians have had the right to demand respect from the RCMP across Canada. RCMP officers have been delighted to give them that respect. Because of the secrecy of this government and its refusal to have the books opened, it means that Canadians across Canada look at an RCMP officer and wonder how that person is performing his duties and, more fundamentally, for whom he is performing those duties.
I should like to draw attention to the dilemma faced by every RCMP officer in Canada today. When a directive comes out from someone representing the government-we do not know who it is because the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) will not tell us-indicating that the RCMP should break into an office without warrant, or they are supposed to burn down a barn, every officer has a choice to make. On the one hand, an officer can obey the order and break the law. On the other hand, the officer can quit. Lastly, the officer can disobey that order and be sacked by the government. Those are the choices every RCMP officer has to make in the face of the kind of evidence we are being presented with now.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 wonder if the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) would permit a question. He has made an accusation that the RCMP has been manipulated deliberately by the government to perform certain acts. 1 ask the hon. member to set forth before this House one iota of evidence that that statement is correct. There is nothing on the record whatsoever which the hon. member can offer to support that scandalous statement.


An hon. Member:: Try any border in the country.


Benno Friesen: The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) rises to make that kind of a statement because he knows the way the Solicitor General has been behaving in the House. It is difficult to bring all the matters before the House, but I would like to point out the Solicitor General's consistent and deliberate attempts to point to the events of 1973.


Simma Holt: Answer the question.


Benno Friesen: The Solicitor General has attempted to refer to the atmosphere or the air which was in the country at that time, as though it was the Pequiste attitude to overthrow the Government of Canada and as though we were facing an insurrection. He overlooked the fact that we were in a minority government situation here and the government was interested in looking for re-election. He also overlooked the fact that the Bourassa government was facing a credibility crisis. Somehow those facts seem to be left out.
[Mr. Andres.J
My second point is related to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) statements on Friday and Saturday.


Simma Holt: You did not answer the question.


Benno Friesen: 1 think the hon. member for Lincoln should listen to my comments in particular.


William Andres: Why do you not answer the question?


Simma Holt: He cannot answer it.


Benno Friesen: The hon. member for Lincoln always tells me that he believes in absolutes, that there are some things which are right and some things which are wrong. On the weekend the Prime Minister indicated that sometimes the police can break the law technically-


An hon. Member:: When are you going to bed, Bill?


Benno Friesen: It seems to me that the Prime Minister is saying that in extreme circumstances the police are justified in breaking the law. In so doing, he has provided people all across Canada with a justification for breaking the law, as long as it is in extreme circumstances.
I think the hon. member for Lincoln will identify with the term "situational ethics", which is exactly what the Prime Minister has been spouting. In certain situations things, which would normally be wrong, are right as long as the situation is right. The hon. member for Lincoln told me that he believes in absolutes. I wonder if he does.


William Andres: When did I tell you that?


Benno Friesen: One million Canadians are already unemployed and will be facing very extreme economic deprivation this winter. Depending on how extreme their deprivations are, will they be justified in breaking the law to relieve their pressures? Those are questions which each Canadian will ask himself. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has provided for all young people across Canada a whole new code of morality-it all depends on the circumstances.


Walter David Baker: It is called "situational ethics".


William Andres: Explain, explain!


Walter David Baker: The hon. member would not understand at this hour.


An hon. Member:: The circumstances explain it.


Benno Friesen: If those who are providing the standards of morality for our country hold a standard of morality which is open to question, what are the so-called common people supposed to do? If gold will rust, what will iron do?
I should like to refer to the statement made by the Solicitor General in the House on Friday. I listened to him make that speech. At page 394 of Hansard for October 28, 1977, he is reported as saying the following:
October 31, 1977

... the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated the positions of the government in the Commons in 1976 when he indicated clearly that a legally constituted political party should not be systematically monitored by the RCMP.
What does that mean? Is it OK to do it once in a while? Is it OK as the occasion demands, just as long as it is not done systematically?


Walter David Baker: What do you think of that, Andras?


Robert Knight Andras: That is not correct.


Benno Friesen: The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) said, "That is not correct". I should like to indicate to him that this can be found on page 394 of Hansard. How often can it be done and still be within the bounds of the law? How often is it OK?


An hon. Member:: Never on Sunday.


William Andres: Seven times seventy is OK.


Benno Friesen: Now it is total forgiveness for the government. Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): Come on, Bill.


Benno Friesen: Whom are we protecting?


William Andres: The Canadian public.


Benno Friesen: Every RCMP officer faces a delemma when he is given an order which he knows is a violation of the law. What should he do? Should he quit? Should he disobey it and be sacked? Should he obey it and break the law?
What should we do with the evaluation of the Prime Minister's new standard of morality? How often can we do things wrong and still be right?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started off his speech with a clear accusation that the government had deliberately manipulated the RCMP to its own end. I suggest to the hon. member that he should either substantiate that in this House or withdraw that scurrilous remark.


Walter David Baker: That is not a question of privilege.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to check the blues and, if I have misrepresented the facts, I will gladly withdraw it. 1 would like to check the blues before I make any concession on that.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, for some members of this House, who have watched the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) on earlier occasions and have had a great deal of respect for him and the manner in which he is trying to perform his duties, his speech tonight was, to say the least, disappointing. Indeed it was amazing. He ignored the facts, the questions, the charges, and wrapped himself in a flag. He

warned all members of the House about the dangers of subversion. He tried to cloak the improprieties that have taken place by warning us not to rock the boat, not to give our enemies information which would be harmful to the state.
No member of parliament wants to attack the RCMP. Every member of parliament knows the role which the RCMP has played in this country. We respect the RCMP for the good things which it has done, but some of us expect the RCMP to obey the law, as we expect every citizen to preserve the law. If they break the law, in our opinion they must be criticized and they must be disciplined. That is why we are having this debate tonight and that is what the government obviously does not want to discuss.
While the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was speaking, the Solicitor General interjected several times. He challenged the description of the APLQ or the PQ break-in and challenged the suggestion that these were in fact break-ins. I am not a lawyer, but if it was not breaking and entering, I would like to know what it was.
Let me quote from an article in the Globe and Mail of Saturday, October 29. One of the main stories there is headed, "RCMP Broke Into PQ Office Without Warrant, Fox Says". The article begins:
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police entered a Montreal office of the Parti Quebecois without a warrant on January 9, 1973, and removed, copied, and returned PQ membership lists, Solicitor General Francis Fox said yesterday.
If that is not breaking and entering, I wonder what it is. Later the same story reads:
Asked if he felt an illegal act had been committed, Mr. Fox replied that a judge must decide.
Surely nobody in this country has the right to break into premises. Surely people are entitled to the protection of the law from anybody who takes upon themselves the right to break into their premises. Does the Solicitor General believe that any police, including the RCMP, should have the power to enter the premises of organizations or individuals, to take documents or records, whenever they believe it is necessary or useful, without authorization from the appropriate ministers of the Crown, without the authorization of judges?
If the RCMP believe that the Parti Quebecois was somehow subversive, why did they not apply for a search warrant? The Solicitor General and the Prime Minister have talked about the climate of the times. This break-in did not occur in 1970. It did not occur at the time of the kidnappings in October of 1970. We were not faced, as the minister at that time, who has now gone to his reward in the Senate, said, with thousands, literally thousands of revolutionaries who were going to destroy this country. We are talking about 1973, and we are talking about a party which every member of this parliament, regardless of party, disagrees with, a party which believes in the separation of the province of Quebec from Canada. But surely that is their right. Surely in a democratic system they have the right to advocate separation of their province. The Prime Minister said as much on Saturday.

October 31, 1977


He said that he told the RCMP to cease and desist when he found out they were doing it. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), the one-term member, contradicted the Prime Minister when she suggested that she did not mind if the RCMP were to keep tabs on the Parti Quebecois. Of course she does not mind, that is typical Liberalism. If you disagree with Liberals, you are a subversive.
Is the Parti Quebecois subversive? If it is not, why did the RCMP feel that it had the right to steal the membership list of the PQ? Is it illegal for people in Quebec or anywhere else to make contributions of money to the PQ? If not, why did the RCMP feel that they had the right to steal the lists of contributors of money to the PQ?
My colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), revealed tonight that labour leaders in B.C. were being investigated by the RCMP. Labour leaders in B.C. and in other provinces disagree with the government's anti-inflation program. Is that illegal? Is that subversive?
The hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) referred to the investigation by the security forces of the Indian Association of Alberta. Is it illegal or subversive for the Indian Association of Alberta to feel that the Indians in this country have been mistreated? I find it hard to understand why one arm of the government, the security forces, would be investigating the Indian Association of Alberta, while another arm of the government, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, appoints the president of the Indian Association of Alberta to be their director of its department in charge of the spending of all the money that goes from the federal government to the native people of Alberta, to make him the director of the department for the whole province of Alberta.
The government does not know the difference between dissent which is permissible in a democratic society, and subversion. It is not surprising. Members of the Liberal party have formed the government of this country for 50 of the last 60 years and they think that anybody who disagrees with them is subversive. Some of us believe that democracy means that people who disagree with us have a right to express their views and to believe that the police will not interfere with their rights.
The Solicitor General and other members of the Liberal party who have spoken tonight have tried to create the impression that, as soon as the government found out about the improprieties, the break-ins, the arson, the burning and the stealing of dynamite in which the RCMP was apparently involved, they came to parliament and they told the people of Canada all about it and that they disapproved of it and would stop it. The facts are entirely different. The government did not voluntarily tell the people of Canada that the representatives of the three police forces, the RCMP, the Quebec Provincial Police and the Montreal Police, had broken into the APLQ offices. No, that information came out when an RCMP officer, who was involved in a bombing which had nothing to do with politics, bungled the job, wound up in hospital and, when arrested and tried for the bombing, blurted out that he and other officers had been involved in that break-in. That is

when the government decided it had to tell the people of Canada, not until then.
When the representatives of the three police forces were charged and brought to court, and when they pleaded guilty, what did the government say about that? Did the government say to the officer concerned, "You should not have done that, you broke the law, you were involved in an illegal act. We are going to discipline you"? Oh, no, it did not do that at all. It let him keep the promotion which he had received. What did the people of Canada believe? What can they believe? They can only believe that the government approved of what he did. Otherwise hoe could it have permitted him to get a promotion and keep it?
We are told now that the government is giving the public information about RCMP involvement in burning a barn and in the theft of dynamite. I wish that, instead of the nonsense that we heard from the parliamentary secretary, he had addressed himself to the actual cases and he had the guts to defend those actions of the RCMP if he really believed that they were proper or necessary. However, he did not do that. He talked in vague generalities because he did not have the courage to say what he really believed; either that, or he did not know what he was talking about.
Did the government come forward voluntarily to tell the people of Canada about these illegal acts committed by RCMP officers? No, it did not do that. Why are we getting the information now? Because the government knows that the commission appointed by the government of Quebec has the power of subpoena, it has access to the files of the ministry of justice of Quebec and has access to the files of the Quebec Provincial Police. The government knows that many of the illegal actions in which police were involved will undoubtedly become public, as will some of the illegal actions of the police in the province of Alberta which will come out during the Laycraft Inquiry, despite everything the Solicitor General is doing to try to choke that inquiry off.
It is because this information is going to become public that the government has moved to tell the people of Canada about illegal acts. I do not know whether the government ordered them, but its silence until now makes it clear to anybody who wants to look at the records that the government at least condoned those illegal acts.
The minister regretted the fact that opposition members, according to him, were not being constructive. Of course any time one criticizes a Liberal government, the least he is accused of is that he is not being constructive. The most the government will accuse a person of, if it can, is that he is being subversive.
I think that there are several fundamental principles we can recommend to the Solicitor General, if he really wants advice, and it seems to me that they are very simple. First, all Canadians must observe and obey the laws of Canada. I ask the Solicitor General to consider this question sometimes. How can he expect the people of Canada to observe the law and live

October 31, 1977

by the law if the police, who have the responsibility of enforcing the law, are permitted to break the law, as some police officers have done? If the police who break the law are not disciplined and, indeed, rewarded, what happens to the rule of law?
It is not good enough for the Solicitor General to say he will wait for the royal commission to make its findings. The royal commission has the job of finding out how many times this happened, how it happened and why it happened, but the Solicitor General does not have to wait until the royal commission makes its report before he disciplines people in the police force who have broken the law.
If the security services find that the present laws do not give them the power or authority to do their job-this was a suggestion made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to protect the citizens because he thinks the law as it is now written restricts the activities of these security services too closely-surely the proper procedure is not to say that the police have to break the law. Surely this government, which may know or may think that the police do not have the authority they need, should have come to parliament, told parliament that the police do not have the authority they need, and proposed changes in the laws. That is the way a democratic government should operate. Did we get that kind of action from the government? Of course not. When the illegal acts of the police become known we get this stupid belated rewriting of the facts we have had here tonight and in the last few days.
The second concrete suggestion I make to the government is that it rethink its concept of democracy. It should realize that even though the Liberal party has been in power for 50 of the last 60 years, we still live in a democratic society. People have a right to disagree with governments, even Liberal governments.
People have a right to express their views and to publicize their position and to do this freely, without secret investigation by the police and security forces of this country. If the Solicitor General and the government would keep those two basic principles in mind and live by them, we would not have the distasteful task we have had the last few days, and the one we are doing tonight, of criticizing a few members of a police force which has had a wonderful record in this country.
The police have a job to do. Their job is one which the government should outline for them. The basic principles they should follow should be made clear by the government. We have had enough cover-ups by the government and acts which ought not to have taken place. I hope-although I did not get much of the impression that the government really understands how things have gone wrong-that the government will take the time to rethink what has happened, to re-evaluate what has happened and to take steps to change the law, if that is necessary, and to see that the laws of this country and their administration are handled in a way which will bring pride to people in a democratic society rather than the way we have seen revealed in the last few days.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is my first late night debate in this hallowed Chamber. When 1 was a member of the Newfoundland House, there were several night sittings. There is one difference between the Newfoundland House and this Chamber. In the Newfoundland House when we were having an all-night sitting, the minister or ministers involved in our discussions were present in the Chamber, and they stayed in the Chamber every minute the debates were going on. They might have gone out into the hall for a cigarette, but they did not bail out and abandon the Chamber and run off somewhere while the debate was still going on about something for which they were responsible.
Of course the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) may not be responsible for anything, but I am surprised that he is not here in the Chamber tonight at 1.28 a.m. doing speakers the courtesy of listening to them.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Especially on your anniversary.


John Carnell Crosbie: Today is one year since 1 was brought up to the bar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It has been an interesting debate for me, and I have listened to most of the speakers. One or two speakers could not possibly have been listened to unless one were screwed down in one's chair, but most speakers were quite interesting. I suppose most hon. gentlemen opposite are intelligent and honourable men. How where you sit in this House dictates what you say is really quite amazing. I suppose that is the way the system works. However, it is a pity and a weakness in the system. How a former law dean for whom I have a great deal of respect, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), and another former law dean, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), can countenance these kinds of shenanigans is beyond me. The remarks of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville were specious nonsense. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) had the gall to challenge the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Fries-en) because the hon. member said that the government was involved in a cover-up.


Robert Knight Andras: Manipulating.


John Carnell Crosbie: I say that the government was manipulating the RCMP, because I have heard nothing to persuade me otherwise.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Lay a specific charge.


John Carnell Crosbie: Just listen to me. 1 have only 18 minutes left. You will hear a few charges.
I just finished reading a book about the Nixon years in the United States entitled "The Time of Illusion", by Jonathan Schell. 1 recommend hon. members to get this book because much of the paranoia in evidence in the United States during those years, which is analyzed in this book, is present now in

October 31, 1977

Canada with this government, and hon. gentlemen opposite should start getting wise to themselves.
My position on the whole business of the RCMP and illegal break-ins can be summed up with a quotation from pages 379 and 380 near the end of this book. The author says:
On the other hand, it is not the purpose of these remarks to in any way excuse the political actors of the period-some of whom were also key strategists-from responsibility on the ground that they did what they did in the cause of human survival.
There is a lot of similarity between what this government is saying and the situation described here. This government wants to intimate that it is the question of human survival that causes it to do these things in the name of security.
He continues:
All governments have their burdens to bear and their decisions to make, and if the heaviness of the responsibilities were to be considered justification for repressive action, no country would remain free. A free country does not place responsibilities in one of the scales and the liberties of the people in the other. It holds to the faith that only in an atmosphere of freedom can the responsibilities be squarely met.
It applies directly to this situation when he says:
A free country does not place responsibilities in one of the scales and the liberties of the people in the other.
That is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is doing. That is what the Solicitor General is doing in the argument he presented to the House. He says this is in the cause of national security.
At this press conference the Prime Minister showed his disdain for the intelligence of the Canadian people and for this House. He shows nothing but ennui, and disdain for members of the House and the people of Canada. When it came out at the press conference that the RCMP security branch had illegally entered premises and taken the membership lists of a democratically formed political party in Quebec, copied them and put them back again-well, Mr. Speaker, that is break and entry. It is theft.
Then we found out they burned down a barn. That is arson. What did the Prime Minister say about that? He started talking about a city. What would you do if somebody was smuggling an atom bomb and you discovered it? Would you break into his place before he set it off? That is the Prime Minister's example. We are supposed to equate that with the RCMP breaking into the offices of the Parti Quebecois and taking the membership lists. What are we supposed to be? What are members of cabinet and of the Liberal caucus supposed to be if they are to listen to that kind of nonsense from the Prime Minister? He is so contemptuous of us that he thinks he can get away with anything.
I have a transcript of the press conference here, but the Prime Minister is not present to defend his actions or the actions of his ministers. He does not want to meet us face to face and argue with us; he just argues with the press. There he has the upper hand because he can say the press conference is over. On page four of the transcript he says:
[Mr. Crosbie.J
I think if in circumstances like that the law has to be broken technically in order to save a city, then I think either it should be broken technically or the law should be changed ...
I am sure I agree that if somebody had an atom bomb and is about to set it off, I would approve the RCMP rushing in illegally to stop him, and so would everybody else. But, Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with breaking into the premises of a political party and the kind of activity that has apparently been going on.
There are three issues here. First is the dissembling of the government, its lack of concern about the administration of justice. The ministers who are responsible for the administration of justice have nothing but contempt for it. As I watched the Solicitor General today I thought the fetish of the fox must be the stonewall. He was not at all concerned about the reputation of the RCMP, the reputation of security agencies, or the reputation of the government. That is shocking, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), who is sworn to uphold the law, is not in his place, and the Prime Minister, the big culprit, is out talking with Premier Lougheed when he should be in this House giving us an explanation. This shows a lack of concern about the administration of justice and a lack of care about the RCMP. Then they have the gall to accuse the opposition of attacking the RCMP. They show a lack of care about parliamentary government and democratic liberties. The Prime Minister was the author of articles in Cite Libre-now it is Cuba Libre. Where is he when we are talking about our democratic liberties in this House?
The second issue, Mr. Speaker, is the effect of being too long in power. This is government by disdain. The Prime Minister's statement reeks of disdain-"You are going to put up with me, Emperor Trudeau, no matter what I say or do." This shows arrogance and cynicism. On television you can see the cynical boredom of it all-the boredom of having to answer these questions, having to deal with these fools of reporters, these incompetent fools in the opposition. He does not mind the fools in his own caucus because he finds them even easier to deal with. He is like the Roman emperor who made his horse a Senator. He does not care who he has in the cabinet, how wooden headed they are, how incompetent, how lazy, how stupid-he does not care about that.
The third issue is the cover-up. This is Trudeaugate, not Watergate. It is a cover-up in this House in interfering with royal commissions. Is nobody shocked when they pick up the newspaper and read a heading "Ottawa Blocks Alberta Probe Into RCMP, Tax Activities" in the Globe and Maill It refers to the solicitors general and a former minister of revenue firing off affidavits to stop a provincial royal commission from finding out whether the RCMP was involved with certain Winnipeg policemen and what happened in a secret agreement between the RCMP and the Department of National Revenue.
The article alleges that a civil servant admittedly lied. One Edmund Swatzack, a federal tax investigator, lied about the fact that wiretaps were given to the Department of National Revenue when he was first questioned about them. An RCMP
October 31, 1977

inspector, Graham George, overseer of the probe admitted under questioning:
... When the RCMP knows they can't wiretap under the tax act, they look for a Criminal Code violation and then the information gathered is used for income tax ...
This is in Canada where the government is supposed to be responsible to parliament. Our system has gone completely off the rails. We do not have the checks and balances of the United States constitution. We do not have congressional committees-in this House we have eunuchs, not committees. They have no power and can do nothing when there is a majority government.
Not one government backbencher got up tonight and showed concern or alarm about this. Not even one who is a former law dean expressed any disquiet about it.
What is happening about this RCMP inspector and this federal tax investigator who has admitted lying? How is it that a Corporal Williams of the RCMP made a statement in March that on one occasion he had searched rooms under instructions from another constable and then, when testifying before an inquiry in June, he could no longer remember whether he had made a sweep? Is the royal commission to be allowed to get to the bottom of this, or is the stonewalling going to extend to that as well? What can anyone reading this newspaper think of our system of justice, Mr. Speaker? Why should we assume that anyone is going to observe the law if he can get away with not observing it?
These things are scandalous. Twenty years ago each incident would have made the headlines, but today nobody seems to care. The one who cares least is the Solicitor General who had the gall to stonewall all day and give these false arguments tonight, but no information.
The Prime Minister does not care. He only has disdain for the House and for us. What are they doing about John C. Doyle, one of the contributors to the Liberal party, who owes $3.5 million in income tax for 20 years and still does not pay. One case was heard last week when the judges threw out a spurious appeal, but there is another case to go. For 20 years income tax and interest have not been collected from John C. Doyle, a fugitive from justice whom the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his latest book shows was heavily involved in certain peculiar events surrounding this House in 1963 and 1965. That is the kind of justice we have in Canada.
If you are on medium income or are poor, they put the old justice right to you, but if you are in the security forces, or if you are John C. Doyle, you are treated with kid gloves. If the people of Canada do not want to correct that, I suppose we can only shrug our shoulders and say we all have to get along.
The next thing is, they will be bugging us. They have already bugged the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). Lo and behold, they are bugging poor old Central Nova.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I say they are bugging. I cannot say it is the government bugging him. I don't know who else is being bugged. I am afraid I haven't been bugged, but I hope they find a bug when I ask them to look for one.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the Globe and Mail of October 29 we read: "Fox Reveals Break-in." The fearful Fox, or fretful Fox, only revealed that break-in when he knew it would be revealed in any event. Asked if the mounties had broken into the headquarters of other political parties, such as the New Democratic Party, Mr. Fox said, and I quote: "We have made inquiries about headquarters of other parties and the answer is no. That is, to the best of our knowledge."
He is pretty careful. He cannot even guarantee that the RCMP had not broken into the headquarters of the New Democratic Party much less the Progressive Conservative headquarters, or the United News in Agony from Unemployment Headquarters, or whatever headquarters they are going to break into next. No the Solicitor General cannot guarantee that the RCMP have not broken into the New Democratic Party headquarters. That is what that statement in quotation marks tells me. "Not to the best of our knowledge". He should have said, "No, they've never broken into the New Democratic Party headquarters, and they never will break into the headquarters of the New Democratic Party as long as I am Solicitor General. I will protect the right of the New Democratic Party members to be wrong." But he did not say that.
Mr. Speaker, is it not peculiar that these events all happened in the province of Quebec? Is it because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is just mesmerized by the province of Quebec? Anything goes in Quebec. It is like a foreign country. In the United States they can do anything outside the U.S., but they are not supposed to operate in the U.S. In Canada they can do anything they like in Quebec because the Prime Minister is obsessed with the Parti Quebecois. He is afraid he cannot meet them on their own terms. He says they can separate and there won't be violence used to stop them. He says there won't be force if they can persuade a majority to support them. The Prime Minister has conceded that, but then he turns around and apparently permits every kind of action to be taken to thwart them behind the scenes. It is because he is absolutely mesmerized by Quebec that all he can see is the problem in Quebec. He is afraid he cannot deal with it in a normal democratic way or on the hustings. That is why the Prime Minister is using all these other tactics. All those incidents we know most about-the arson, the break and enter, the theft, have all taken place in Quebec. There was one in Toronto, but most of them have occurred in Quebec because of this preoccupation of the Prime Minister.
I do not care what happens. If this House and if the government and the people agree that the Parti Quebecois are free to organize in the proper manner and to use reason-not to use force-to try to persuade their people to separate, then illegal means should not be used to try to prevent this. The Solicitor General himself in his speech last Friday was discussing what the security force can do. I refer to page four of his speech. He said that they can ascertain and assess the nature



of the separatist threat in Canada with a view to identifying individual groups and organizations whose real or apparent purpose was to subvert or destroy by force, by violence or by threats of force or violence, Canada as a united country. No one has brought forward any evidence that the Parti Quebecois has, as an objective or purpose, the destruction of Canada as a united country by force or by violence or by threats of force or violence. That is just not the case.
There is no excuse. These are directives given to the RCMP. They are the same as those given on March 27, 1975 for the same purpose when describing what the security service can do. It had to be clear to the security branch and the RCMP that they cannot and there is no justification for them breaking the law in connection with the Parti Quebecois.
At least President Nixon taped himself, not just the opposition. One can only hope that there will be a few tapes in the future from which we might be able to get the truth, tapes of the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister not just tapes of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and a few others.
As far as the RCMP is concerned, everyone has been careful to say that they are not attacking the RCMP. Well, nor am 1, Mr. Speaker. The RCMP is a fine police force, but I look at all police forces with a healthy scepticism and I am not afraid to say it. 1 have no fetish about the RCMP, and if members of the RCMP are going about Canada committing illegal acts in the manner we have evidence they have done in three or four instances, then 1 say the RCMP have to be brought to heel. They have to be brought to heel, and their political masters who encouraged them, or who are hiding them, or who directed them or who condoned those acts, have to be brought to heel also.
I believe this has been a valuable debate but it will be all to no purpose unless it helps change the government at the next election or unless some of the members opposite, when they go to caucus, do something to bring this lot to heel. If they are not prepared to do it here in the House then it must be done in caucus. Something has got to be done to shake them up. They are the only ones who can do it since everyone here knows that the government can do what it likes so long as it has a majority here. It is only some of its own members in caucus who can put a stop to it.
I suppose some may think that what we are doing here is a waste of time, Mr. Speaker. We are just putting our case on the record. But I am sure that there must be many members on the government side who must be just as dissatisfied with the kind of leadership they are getting and the kind of incidents that are going on. It has not yet reached the point reached in the Nixon affair, but that started out by people breaking the law in small ways, realizing that they had enemies and looking into tax files and all the rest. Look where it finally got them, Mr. Speaker. The same thing can happen with this government. The more it gets away with the worse it will get.
It is time the government came to its senses and gave us the whole story. Otherwise it is time for Liberal members to do

something about it in caucus or for the people of Canada to terminate the regime of the members opposite. It is tired, disdainful, arrogant, worn out, and uncaring.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the debate which has been going on all evening has now lasted well into the morning hours, it now being about 11 minutes to two. However, I think it has been a very worth-while debate and I hope that the members of the press will draw to the attention of the people of this country the seriousness of what we are discussing tonight.
For a number of years I was a schoolteacher. For several years in the riding 1 represent the incidence of breaking and entering on the part of teenagers has been on the increase. A lot of people in the community are becoming very concerned about this serious criminal activity. Yet the matter we are now considering involves, among other things, the conviction of three members of the RCMP, I believe, on charges of breaking and entering. In this case, though, for some reason or other, they were given a discharge or a conditional discharge-I do not know what the exact term is. Even though they were convicted, they were exonerated under the law. 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?
I am starting out on a very personal note this evening because I think we have to talk in terms of people. We have to talk in terms of how the law is applied to individuals. It is not so much how we philosophize on general principles and how those laws are applied to the people as a whole.
When I go home tomorrow, I may find a young man or young woman coming into my office and saying, "Why were those three RCMP officers given virtually carte blanche to break the law? When I stole a bicycle on November 12, 1975, I got a criminal record. I had to pay a fine or go to jail for a certain length of time." I will find that very difficult.
What we are talking about tonight goes beyond the individual, although I have the utmost respect for, and indeed our democratic system in this country must depend on, individual freedom and liberty. What we are talking about is essentially a conflict between how we define a security system under the law and how we protect people from that system.
I am quite convinced, although some of my colleagues might not agree with me on this point, that unfortunately we are living in an age where violence, terrorism, hijacking, spiriting people away and hiding them for 60, 80 or 90 days, and kidnapping, are commonplace. We do not know exactly how to cope with the situation.
October 31, 1977

I submit that we need to have a security system in a democracy, but where does the responsibility lie in this kind of arrangement? 1 charge the government with not really knowing where the responsibility lies. We have the RCMP and certain other security organizations within the government and the office of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox). However, members on both sides of this House, and I presume 1 speak on behalf of the people of Canada, do not know where the responsibility lies.
You can talk about MI-5, the Security Intelligence Service, the Deuxieme Bureau, all the security agencies in England, France, Italy, Germany and so on. We also have to address ourselves to the reality that we live in a world where there is espionage, terrorism, and covert activity. This country so far has been reasonably blessed with very few outbreaks of terrorism, hijackings, skyjackings and so on.
Where do we, as legislators in a democracy, draw the line? It is my opinion that the government by default tries to pass the blame whenever something happens such as the PQ office break-in in Montreal. Whenever the RCMP security and intelligence branch breaks into an office and somebody feeds the information to the press or a member of parliament, the government backtracks and says it is not its responsibility. Ministers say they knew nothing about it until it came to their attention last night, or somebody telephoned at eleven o'clock that morning.
The government puts the blame on the security system within the RCMP. However, if, and I say this hypothetically, some subversive element in this country were to be caught in the act, I am quite sure that those people opposite who are condemning the RCMP would take the credit for stopping that illegal activity. This puts the RCMP in a very embarrassing position.
I think we have the best police forces in the world at all levels of law enforcement in this country. Some may disagree. When talking about the township, county, regional, provincial or federal level, you find that in spite of our criminal justices system, which is lacking terribly in the due process, we have outstanding members in our police forces. That is why I find it difficult to condemn the RCMP out of hand. That is not what I am doing. That is why I stood up earlier on a point of order. I was not criticizing the RCMP per se. I was simply pointing out that three officers had in fact admitted to a criminal offence and had been convicted of that offence.
It is not easy today in our society to maintain law and order. We are the civil authority in this country as far as the Criminal Code is concerned. That goes for both sides of this House. I often have the impression that for some reason or other members opposite, specifically those on the Treasury Benches, members of the cabinet, have the idea that they are the only lawmakers in this country.
We are the lawmakers of this country. We have the right to stand up and speak our mind. That is exactly what I am doing tonight. However, how far does it go? For example, I see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) sitting opposite at this late hour. As a cabinet minister, I congratulate him for

being here at this late hour, and I say that in all honesty and integrity. But not too long ago the minister was minister of "unemployment", I think it was in those days, and of manpower, and we did have a problem.


Robert Knight Andras: Don't tell me we are going to hear all about Tran Van Quang.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yes, we are going to hear about Dang Van Quang again. 1 understand he has changed his name, is alive and well, and living somewhere in Montreal.
I will deal briefly with this because it relates to the RCM Police. At that time the minister was responsible, not for the RCM Police but for the Department of Manpower and Immigration. As a member of the House of Commons I could get no official information about what the RCM Police had done with respect to this former South Vietnamese general who was obviously implicated in the narcotics industry of Southeast Asia.
I am not blaming the minister specifically for this. 1 do not know whether he himself could find out; I have an idea he could not. I have an idea that the RCM Police did not have that information. If they had, they may not have given it to him anyway. This leads me to the argument I am making now, that the RCM Police will give certain ministers of the Crown certain information that the RCM Police think they should have.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, who runs the country? Is it those of us who are democratically elected, or those of us who are members on the government side, or more specifically those of us who are members of cabinet? We on this side, and I dare say the press, do not know whether or not cabinet ministers can dial a certain number at the RCM Police and say, "I want the facts and I want them fast. I want all the facts".
If we on this side of the House do not know this, Mr. Speaker, then how in heaven's name do the backbenchers of the Liberal party know, and how do the public of Canada know, what in hell is going on in this country, whether something is subversive, whether something is above board, whether something is level or not level, whether a mistake has been made-in the case in point, the mistake being the former general from South Vietnam-whether it was simply a mistake that he came into the country or whether he came in by design, whether in fact certain people were paid to allow him to come in, whether certain members of the immigration department have since been removed from their positions? We do not know this.
The minister may stand up and say that this is innuendo. I agree, it is innuendo.


Robert Knight Andras: That is what it is.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Fine. But can he assure me he is absolutely correct, and that the one mistake made was in allowing Tran Van Quang into this country?


Robert Knight Andras: One very bad one was made; he was allowed in.

October 31, 1977


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The minister has never told me who the person was who allowed that mistake to occur. He has never told me in the past three or three and a half years if he knew who made that mistake and whether any action was taken against that person. It is very easy for the minister to say that an error was made, but he has not given me any written evidence to the effect that a thorough investigation was made. There is nothing in print, either in Hansard or in the committee reports, indicating that a thorough investigation was made.
1 still have great respect for this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I think I speak for members on both sides of the House when I say that if we are to continue to have the same respect for the Chamber, then as the representatives of the people of Canada, from one coast to another and from the United States boundary to the northland, we will have to establish a much stronger and more effective committee system where we can, as committee members, subpoena witnesses, whether the government likes it or not. Somehow we have to maintain the great tradition of parliamentary democracy and at the same time adopt in part the congressional system under which committees have the right to subpoena witnesses and bring them before committees so they can be interrogated and asked questions.
If we are ever to resolve the questions surrounding the break-ins by the RCM Police-and the break-in at the premises of a duly constituted political party in Quebec is, in my opinion, even worse than Watergate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but 1 must inform him that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker-


Benno Friesen: We will applaud you since you have no one over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: That is the best news I have had today, Mr. Speaker. I am getting a little tired at this hour of the morning, so I hope my contribution will meet the hon. member's standards.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have had a long day, have we not?


Roderick Blaker: It has been a long day, as the hon. member indicates. Some of us started in the early hours on a television program with the same debate this morning, and we are still at it late this evening.
1 had hoped to acquire some insight into the subject matter of the national security service and the dilemma, as it has been properly called today, between, on the one hand, the need for security provisions and for an effective counterforce to deal with such matters as terrorism, and, on the other hand, the individual liberties of the citizen. 1 expected some attention to be paid to the matter of ministerial responsibility.

Part of my problem this evening is that I have jotted down a list of what looks to me to be about 20 items which might incur the wrath of the opposition parties in their view that the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) or previous solicitors general, or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the cabinet, or any one or combination of those, could be held responsible for the break-in or for any other acts, whether legal or not.
The impression I have from the various arguments put forward by the opposition parties is that it does not seem to make too much difference whether or not an act committed by one or more members of the national security force or RCMP was committed at any particular time. It seemed to me that some of the comments indicated that responsibility went back as far as 1867. I could not understand whether or not it was sufficient that a member of the RCMP was accused, or whether it was necessary that he be found guilty of a criminal act, before we could conclude that there was any ministerial responsibility involved.
I was not too clear whether or not all members of the opposition, particularly the Conservative members, were of the opinion that knowledge of every specific operation undertaken by the security forces of Canada was required on the part of the Solicitor General, or whether, as others in the opposition seemed to indicate, the political forces of this country, specifically the Solicitor General, the cabinet and the Prime Minister, were altogether too aware of the activities carried out by the national police force and the security service. Therefore, I have not got very far in my understanding of what the contribution of the opposition parties is in regard to a better relationship between the elected government and the police force of this country.
I learned a little bit about some of the thinking of the various members of parliament. I am a bit disappointed that the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) found it desirable to walk into the House of Commons at three o'clock after the question period this afternoon and indicate that he had found an electronic bug in a chair in his office. Obviously I accept that as the truth, but I found it rather disappointing that he immediately went before the television cameras and suggested that this constituted evidence of an illegal act by the RCMP or by the police and security analysis planning branch.


Walter David Baker: He did not say that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He did not say that.


Roderick Blaker: I am prepared to be interrupted and I am prepared to be corrected. I was watching the eleven o'clock television news in the lobby, and when the hon. member for Central Nova was asked who he thought was responsible for the placing of an electronic bug, he said that he did not like to make accusations but it was his guess that it would be the RCMP or Colonel Robin Bourne. Those were his words, to the best of my recollection. If it becomes an issue, I will rely on my memory. I would be prepared to have a transcript of that television news program verified.

.

October 31, 1977


Walter David Baker: Which channel was it on?


Roderick Blaker: 1 am sorry I have to indicate to the Official Opposition House leader that I did not notice what particular channel the television was on. 1 am reasonably sure of that. In good faith, I would certainly pay attention to a demand on the part of the hon. member for Central Nova for a withdrawal of those remarks, if 1 am wrong. 1 do not think I am wrong. In any event, that does not please me. It has been brought up on the floor of the House this evening. Members of the force are not able to appear in the House to answer the charges which have been made. It is distressing that a particular member would see fit to make an accusation when he is unable to give any particular reason for believing they would be responsible. It could have been me just as well, or it might have been another member of this House.


David Orlikow: A gremlin did it.


Roderick Blaker: The hon. member opposite said that a gremlin did it. The last time it was brought to the attention of the House it was done by the news media in the presence of CTV, if I recall correctly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They did it to us.


Roderick Blaker: Yes, it was done to the New Democratic Party. If I were in the position of finding such a situation, I would not rush directly to an accusation of the RCMP. I would say that at least there is a possibility that it may be someone else. I am a little hesitant. I wonder whether we have contributed to an understanding of this problem of security across Canada when we just drop those accusations without any proof.
Another problem which I ran across during the course of the evening was that a number of members indicated that previous solicitors general, one of whom is now the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), and the other of whom is now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), in fact knew that certain legal acts had taken place by the RCMP, either during the tenure of their offices as solicitors general or subsequently thereto.
My understanding is that the Minister of Supply and Services and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have clearly and absolutely denied any knowledge on their part with respect to the references to break-ins and the various illegal acts which have been attributed to the RCMP, and either proven in the case of the APLQ incident or other cases which have not been proven. It seems to me that comes very close to one of the traditional rules of the House of Commons, that we do not accuse people of lying unless there is very serious reason to believe that it is so. If there is an accusation by a member to the effect that a Minister is lying, normally it is brought before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. In the calm of the early hours of the morning, 1 hope members, who left the impression unwittingly that the ministers are lying, would give some consideration overnight to that proposition.

I understand the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) has raised already a matter of privilege, wherein the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) indicated that the RCMP has been deliberately manipulated by certain elements of the Liberal party. I hope I am not too inaccurate in my reference.


Walter David Baker: I think you are, on that one.


Robert Knight Andras: A vested interest within the government.


Roderick Blaker: I have just been corrected, and I understand that it is vested interests of the Liberal party, of deliberately manipulating the RCMP. It is the privilege of the hon. member to bring up such an accusation, but it is also a privilege of the hon. members on this side to invite the gentleman to go before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections or to withdraw his remarks.


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


Roderick Blaker: Not only is it an accusation against government ministers, it is also an accusation against the national police force of this country. It is a serious accusation if the public is permitted to go on believing, whoever the vested interests of the party are, that they can in fact manipulate the national police force.


An hon. Member:: They certainly can.


Roderick Blaker: There is another accusation regarding a cover-up. In July the Solicitor General announced to the House that he had been misinformed, if I am correct in my wording, to this effect, whereas in the previous month he had been told that the APLQ incident was an isolated incident, that he had been informed subsequently by the RCMP that there were further allegations and it was not an isolated incident. In the view of the RCMP, he indicated that it would be desirable to have a commission of inquiry, whereupon the Solicitor General moved to institute a commission of inquiry led by Mr. Justice McDonald. He turned over certain documentation to Mr. Justice McDonald, which included the references which were made in the House today and Friday relating to what is now referred to as the barn burning incident and the theft of dynamite.


An hon. Member:: Who burned the barn?


Roderick Blaker: I fail to see the comprehension of a cover-up when several months ago the Solicitor General, at the behest of the RCMP, created a commission of inquiry to investigate those charges. An hon. member opposite asks: who burned the barn? That brings us back to another kind of accusation. Members of the RCMP are being accused on the floor of the House of being guilty of barn burning and the theft of dynamite. I am sure the Official Opposition House leader will agree with what I am saying. We ought not leave before the public an understanding that there is right now guilt on the part of certain officers of the RCMP.

October 31, 1977


David Orlikow: Is it not true?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not true?


Roderick Blaker: The people in our society who determine whether those allegations are true are the courts and the judges. It is not up to members of parliament to assess whether or not members of the RCMP are guilty of a criminal act. You have to hear the other person's side of the story before you find him guilty. Members of the RCMP are not being given the basic courtesy of presenting their side of the story. At the time that these acts took place, there was not strict law prohibiting the use of electronic surveillance and many other actions of the RCMP. In 1975 a law was enacted, and that is still in existence now. In order to determine the guilt of an officer of the RCMP, you have to establish, as you do in other courts, that under the Criminal Code there is mens rea-a guilty mind. It is very open to question whether or not officers of the RCMP had the necessary degree of mens rea in order to qualify for an accusation of criminal offence. That will come up again and again. This not the first time that members of parliament are going to hear that.


Mr. Peters:: You mean they do not know the difference between right and wrong?


Roderick Blaker: That was nothing to do with the question of mens rea before a criminal charge.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the APLQ break in.


Roderick Blaker: I am doing precisely that when I say that the proper way of handling such accusations is to have them heard before a judge in a court. That was done in the case of the APLQ. What is not done in the present case is to give members of the force the same opportunity to prove their innocence. Members of the House are left with the impression that members of the force are guilty of criminal offences for which they have not been tried and obviously not convicted. It goes a bit far when we stand here, with all our references to the rule of law and our approval of the RCMP, and take it upon ourselves to run individual men and women down without having heard proof of their guilt.


An hon. Member:: We do not have their names.


Roderick Blaker: All the more reason not to make accusations of such a general nature because it smears hundreds of people in the RCMP rather than specific individuals.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who has been busy commenting with me-and incidentally I am enjoying the debate-is responsible for another remarkable criticism or accusation. He says the only reason these facts are coming out now is that the government, specifically the Solicitor General, is afraid that these facts will come out before the Keable Commission in Montreal set up by the PQ in Quebec. I thought it was perfectly clear to all members that it is the Solicitor General of Canada and the RCMP who forwarded
(Mr. Blaker.]
documents to the government of Quebec which in turn gave documents to the Keable Commission, and which is the entire origin of all the details which are now available to the public.


David Orlikow: How many documents have they classified as secret?


Roderick Blaker: I will answer that, but we should stay on one argument at a time.
How does the hon. member for Winnipeg North justify the accusation against the Solicitor General that he is afraid he must dribble forth this information at this time because of what the commission might say, when in fact it is the Solicitor General himself who, on September 19, better than a month ago, wrote to the minister of justice of Quebec and provided him with all that information? I think that if the arguments of partisan politics are to be accepted, a lot of leeway is left for members to argue as they see fit. Many interpretations can be put, but a direct contradiction with fact is more than we can afford, especially on this issue. If we are careless about facts, then the people of Canada will misunderstand our basic concerns.
We have in this country individuals and groups who will not accept the rule of the law and who are prepared to use methods to gain their ends that are extremely dangerous to the rest of society. Against that we have the rights of individuals, rights and liberties. The dilemma which was referred to in the House today is how to balance the one against the other. Instead of having a debate on the dilemma between the rights of society and the rights of individuals, about the function of a police force and the function of a security service, what we have are accusations against individual ministers, politicians, the cabinet, and the Prime Minister, which are obviously intended to score partisan points.
I warn hon. members opposite who have been on the worst end of it that, in the long run, obviously it will lessen the effectiveness of the national security force if it is possible to come on the floor of the House and make accusations which are unfounded, to accuse members of the force when no guilt has yet been proven, and generally to smear the activities of the force of which, at the same time, members themselves unanimously approve.
The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) put forward arguments which I had some difficulty in following. I had the impression that he was suggesting that the Prime Minister had actually encouraged the RCMP to investigate the PQ.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes.


Roderick Blaker: That is an interesting statement.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is what I suspect.


Roderick Blaker: Then I am not misquoting the hon. member; that is what he suspects. The Prime Minister went before a press conference on Friday and said that he learned of the investigation of the PQ which was in 1974 or 1975, he had
October 31, 1977

forgotten precisely which. The hon. member for St. John's West suspects the Prime Minister was responsible for ordering that investigation. 1 think we are agreed on the terminology, that he suspects the Prime Minister actively encouraged the RCMP to carry out that investigation. That is totally and flatly in contradiction of what the Prime Minister said. I hope the hon. member will take his responsibilities-since he is accusing the Prime Minister of being a liar and there is a time in our House of Commons when any member can stand on his feet and make such an accusation-and will give some thought to standing up and saying so publicly tomorrow at three o'clock, and take the consequences that go with it. This is a fairly serious business.
Now I turn with considerable respect to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). What concerns me, and I hope to hear some views about that, is the subject of ministerial responsibility and parliamentary responsibility for the national police force of Canada and for national security. The hon. member for Peace River came very close to making the suggestion that what we need is a committee of parliamentarians who would oversee the national security service. I am puzzled about that. I have heard up and down the halls of the House of Commons members indicating that under the British system there is a committee of members of parliament who oversee national security service in Britain. That is MI-5 and MI-6. That is not true. There is no committee of members in Britain which oversees the national security service of Britain.


An hon. Member:: The SIS.


Roderick Blaker: The SIS is one of the functions of the MI-5 and MI-6. Not only is there no committee of parliamentarians in Britain which oversees the activities of the security service, what is more, unlike Canada, there is interference in the right of editors to print what they see fit to print. In the British House of Commons the attorney general does not respond to questions related to the security service. It is unheard of in their tradition to have a debate of the nature we are having in the House of Commons today. It is completely out of the question, out of bounds, not done. To go further than that, in Britain, under a specific order of the government a D notice can be issued which prevents an editor from printing certain facts related to a particular issue of national security that is under consideration. We do not have any such control here.
I find that the issue of ministerial responsibility as it seems to be seen by the opposition puzzles me. If the opposition really and truly believe that the Solicitor General should be aware of every single operation undertaken by the RCMP or by the security service of Canada throughout the year, he would have to be personally aware of anywhere between 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 operations undertaken by the police force in a year.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are about to rise to tell me that my time is up. I accept that, and I apologize to members for keeping them so late.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the parliamentary secretary has left. I just listened to him a few moments ago. He talked about the British system, and I would like to deal with his points one by one.
The hon. member is quite correct that, with respect to a matter of national security, questions would be asked and they would not be answered, but I hope the parliamentary secretary is not falling into the same line as that of the leader of the Liberal party, that this matter is one of national security, and that somehow the Parti Quebecois, if this is what he is saying, a duly constituted political party-a party I abhor in terms of its objects, but it is duly constituted-was suddenly involved in upsetting national security. I think the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) was absolutely right that the government cannot distinguish the issues, and the parliamentary secretary illustrated that. It is too bad, because he was summing up for the government.
The issue here in that one case is purely and simply political surveillance, and I dare say that in the U.K. House, the New Zealand House, the Australian House, or in the Canadian House, if a member of parliament did not ask a question about such a questionable practice as this or the government failed to answer if that question was asked, the people involved would be in equally bad odour, and they ought to be.
The parliamentary secretary seeks the floor. He had his moment. In fact he ran three minutes over his time.
The parliamentary secretary then commented on the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) indicating that he had said that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had ordered the investigations which give rise to all this. I do not know whether the hon. member said that or not-


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 didn't.


Walter David Baker: -but the record will clear that up, and the two hon. gentlemen can go at it in the usual parliamentary way.
What I am saying to the parliamentary secretary is that the Prime Minister certainly did not act like a vigilant Prime Minister. He said, "Gee whiz, boys, you've got to stop that". Then we heard nothing else until he suddenly erupted in surprise about the fact that something was happening. The narrow issue in terms of the Prime Minister is what he did. What did he do besides say "Gee whiz"?


An hon. Member:: He didn't want to know.


Walter David Baker: Did he turn his back? My friend is the parliamentary secretary to a law officer of the Crown. There is a concept in law that you cannot do indirectly what it would be improper for you to do directly. I suggest the parliamentary secretary look to this lack of vigilance in the Prime Minister with respect to that, because when the issues of this time are sorted out that is one of the questions which must be answered.

October 31, 1977

Then the parliamentary secretary talked about the openness of the government. 1 think I am quoting him reasonably correctly. 1 think he said that the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) moved very quickly. We have no evidence to prove that. All we know is that there appeared to be a certain reluctance on the part of the Solicitor General when he refused, knowing what was in his heart last Friday, to come into the House and to make a statement on motions, but instead bootlegged his statement into the throne speech debate so that he could not be asked any questions. It was shabby parliamentary practice. I have called it that before, and will say it now.
It was shabby parliamentary practice. They would not do that in Newfoundland, and they would not likely do that in the U.K. parliament. The parliamentary secretary holds that behaviour up as an example. That would not be allowed, and a minister would not even try to do that, in the U.K. parliament, but it was tried here so that the statement could get on the floor on a Friday afternoon. That was done so that when the Thibault Commission meets this week there will at least be a semblance of disclosure.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Blaker) tried to say that it has been an accusation of the opposition that wrongdoing was committed by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Well, I was down in Room 130-S on Friday and heard the Solicitor General himself condemn the RCMP when asked whether the acts were illegal. When asked whether those actions had been legalized by the issue of a warrant he said, "Well, I wouldn't be here if that were the case". In other words, there would have been no reason for the Solicitor General to come before parliament unless he was prepared-as he was here on Friday and as he did downstairs before national television-to make the first accusations against the RCMP. The parliamentary secretary is shaking his head. He is entitled to do that. I think he should take a look at the transcript. I was there, and I saw that story being made.
Given that situation, the other matter with respect to the Parliament of Canada is the parliamentary secretary saying in this place, which we call the highest court in the country when it is convenient, that somehow it is improper or wrong for a member of parliament from any side of this House to stand up and ask a question about the activities of any Canadian employed in the Public Service of Canada.


Roderick Blaker: I never suggested that.


Walter David Baker: The parliamentary secretary came awfully close to it. He talked about the damage to reputation either through debate or through questions in this House. He just finished doing that, and surely he cannot hold to that view. If he does-and I do not believe he does; I think in that sense he was defending the indefensible-then surely he is wrong and he must admit that.
The parliamentary secretary is right that the word "cover-up" has been used in the course of this debate. Cover-up is a word which has acquired its own particular meaning because of certain things which occurred in the southern part of North
(Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).]
America to which this matter has been likened, rightly or wrongly, and 1 am not impressed with the pedantic arguments about whether it should be compared with Watergate. It really does not matter with what label it is painted; the fact is that a question has been raised in this House about the breadth of the terms of reference and whether they should be broadened to drive out of the mind of the most suspicious-not just in this House but outside as well-the thought that perhaps the terms of reference of the McDonald Commission are so narrow that they could reasonably be construed by the commissioners to apply only to the activities of the RCMP.
Incidentally, I say to the parliamentary secretary that that in itself could be an implied accusation by the government against the RCMP. I do not think it is fair that in the circumstances of this case there should be any doubt or even a difference of opinion between the government and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) on the breadth of the terms of reference. I think the government should move immediately to broaden them. In his speech today the Leader of the Opposition indicated how far he thought they should be broadened. If we are to err in this House in terms of that investigation, we ought to err in giving the broadest possible powers. That is not an unreasonable request, and when there is this question, when there is this doubt, and when there are reputations at stake I cannot understand why there is not the broadest possible opportunity to look into the question of ministerial responsibility.
What passed between the ministers and the security service and the security service and the RCMP? If anything passed, what was it? Surely the ministers have a responsibility.
The interesting thing about all this is that the two former ministers who could perhaps cast the best light on what went on in this debate did not step forward. Those two ministers have been sitting together as seat mates and, I suppose, soul mates. They sat listening to the debate but did not leap to their feet saying, "This is my position-this is what I knew, not about l'Agence de Presse Libre, about which statements were made on former occasions, but about the things said in this debate tonight." But they said nothing, Mr. Speaker. What is anybody to think about such silence? That is where the cover-up comes in, because the government has not come clean.
The minister didn't come completely clean in his statement to the House today, even though he was on his feet for an hour and subjected to questions. If he had the issue would not still be in the news at eleven o'clock tonight. There it stands, and the government has the answer. As long as that is unanswered an accusation is implied-and perhaps more strongly than that-against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
One of the problems with this government is that while things are going well ministers take the credit, but when things start to go to hell they suddenly become innocent bystanders. I think we have to consider the position of the government then.
October 31, 1977

The hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) asked in a humorous fashion whether the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) should have knowledge of any matter undertaken by any agent or agency under his control. He expected me to answer yes to that question, but we know that is physically impossible. The minister cannot have such knowledge but, Mr. Speaker, he must have responsibility, and that is the issue in this case.
It has always been the tradition in our parliamentary system and in all parliaments in the Commonwealth, that a minister has responsibility for what happens in his department, even though he may not have knowledge. That applies here. Of course the minister cannot have knowledge, but he has ultimate responsibility. Of all the things in which the government is involved, it is inevitable that security activities will be primarily the responsibility of the executive branch and that, no matter what devices we think of, parliament can never have any great control over those security services. These things are given to a government willingly, on trust, but when that trust is violated, when a bug is found in a member's office-whether a government agency put it there God only knows-but when there are questions of agencies of government being involved in illegal acts, then that trust must be said to be violated. The government then owes this House and the people of Canada an explanation.
Thus far in this debate and during the question period today we have not been given an explanation. I say to them and to the parliamentary secretary who did his best to defend the indefensible, that the government's perspective in this matter is not in keeping with what I like to think are the traditions and demands of a democratic society.
What has happened, unfortunately, is that this defensive government, this secretive government, this arrogant government has somehow equated its interest with the national interest, and that is wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is the dilemma the government faces, not the dilemma put by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. The government violated the most sacred trust given to it by a trusting people- to keep control of the security services of the country. There is

no other way they can be controlled, Mr. Speaker. The government violated that trust, and I say with respect to the Solicitor General, his predecessors and any ministers involved, even to the highest minister, that being the case, they are not fit for office. They are nice men and good to their families I suppose, but they are not fit for office. That is the issue we have to address.
The parliamentary secretary spoke of the need for security balanced against individual rights. I regard it as one of my individual rights that the security service will never overstep itself. I am not satisfied that this will not happen. I am not satisfied with the defence put up by the government.
The issue is simply ministerial responsibility. Either ministers knew and are part of the cover-up, or did not know and are incapable of supervising the most sensitive part of their departmental operations. In either event the ministry is wrong and the ministry should be ashamed of itself. It has let itself down, it has let this parliament down, and it has let the people of this country down. It will be answerable to those people for what has occurred.
I do not blame the RCMP, but they, like everybody else, are subject to the rule of law. The ministers have the ultimate responsibility for what must be done in this regard, however, and they will have to bear the ultimate burden for their failure to exercise it.
Before I go, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of the House I should like to express to you and to the staff who have served us well and long this evening and morning, our grateful thanks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my name and everyone's, may I say we were very happy to be here to listen to this important debate.
Pursuant to Standing Order 26(13) I am satisfied that the debate has been concluded. I therefore declare the motion carried.
The House stands adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 2.50 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 1, 1977