1977-06-21

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 20, consideration of Bill C-27, to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has the floor; but before proceeding I should carry on with the preliminary review I have made of the report stage motions. The House is now considering motion No. 4 and, as 1 mentioned yesterday, motions Nos. 5 and 6 can be grouped together for debate but voted on separately. It would be my intention to group motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 22, 29 and 30 together with motion No. 32 which seems to be a consequential amendment.
[DOT] (mo)
The question being put on motion No. 7 standing in the name of the minister would dispose of the group of motions except for motions Nos. 8 and 10. The question should be put separately on motion No. 8 standing in the name of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) and, if required, a division on motion No. 8 will also dispose of motion No. 10. Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt could be debated and voted upon separately.
When we come to motion No. 12 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, I think we should have a discussion on its procedural acceptability, because I have some difficulty regarding the relevance of the motion to clause 38 of the bill which it seeks to amend. I think reference should be made to the citation found in May's at page 521 in respect of going beyond the scope of the clause which the motion seeks to amend.
Motions Nos. 13, 14, 16, and 17 and 18 could be grouped for the purpose of debate, but the question should be put
separately on motions Nos. 13, 14 and 18. Then the question will be put on motion No. 17, and an affirmative vote will also dispose of motion No. 16. On the other hand, if motion No. 17 is negatived, it will be necessary to put the question on motion No. 16.
Motions Nos. 19, 27, 28 and 33 standing in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) also cause me some difficulty from a procedural point of view in that they appear to be beyond the scope of Bill C-27. Indeed, the object of those motions is to amend sections 40, 114, and 132 of the parent act which are not mentioned in Bill C-27, as well as sections 7 and 8 of the Adult Occupational Training Act, which are also absent from Bill C-27. There may be some disposition to deal with those motions. But in the interim, in any case, I am prepared to hear arguments on the procedural regularity between now and the calling of those motions.
Motions Nos. 20 and 21 could be debated separately and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 23 and 24 could be grouped for the purpose of debate, but would require separate votes. The remaining motions, Nos. 25, 26 and 31, will be debated separately and voted on separately.
If, of course, as is the usual course, as we progress from motion to motion there are comments that hon. members wish to make in respect of this review, I will be glad to hear them or, if there are any that should be made at this moment, I will hear them. Otherwise, I will recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt who will continue the debate.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have several comments related to separate motions. Would it be possible for the document which you read to be photostated and distributed so we can determine how we should proceed?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. There are my own notes and I have followed them very closely in the announcement which I just made. I would be more than happy to have them duplicated and distributed to as many hon. members as want them.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were discussing motion No. 4, which states in part:
"(3) Where for any purposes, the use of rate of unemployment produced by Statistics Canada is required under this act or the regulations, the rates used by the commission shall be those most recently produced at the time it is appropriate or necessary for the commission to make a final determination in respect of or involving the use of those rates."
I expressed the opinion yesterday that basically we had no objection to that at all. We welcome it. I wondered what the UIC had used in the past. I suspect that probably they used outmoded statistics or their own in-house studies. That moved me on to comment on the fact that it is too bad the minister did not widen the scope of his amendment to include that any

June 21, 1977
Employment and Immigration
decisions or proposed decisions, or any policies set within the Unemployment Insurance Commission, would use Statistics Canada figures, or figures from studies which would then be available to persons outside the commission, that is, groups of persons or individuals who have business with the Unemployment Insurance Commission or who wish to take a look at the way in which the commission's policies are administered, particularly members of parliament.
I said that with good reason, with good justification, because in effect the basis for the changes we are now debating to Bill C-27 was in the comprehensive review of the unemployment insurance program which was done in 1973-74. One has to realize that there are some important proposals in Bill C-27. The proposals range from changing the minor attachment period from eight to ten weeks, and after three years it becomes 14 weeks. It also includes some important changes with respect to the length of the benefit period in effect. It was always based on the comprehensive review of the unemployment insurance program which was done in 1973-74, and the only reference to the source of the information on which the comprehensive review was based is listed as the administrative data of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
So here we have a commission which does its own in-house studies, its own so-called narrative reports which are available only to the commission. We were told that this information was for the commission, that they put it through the process, strained it, and came out with these proposals. Here we have very important changes being contemplated and debated by parliament, yet the source and the basis for these changes are not available to members of parliament and we have no way of examining the veracity of the statements made.
As a matter of fact, I raised this question in committee when we discussed the bill. I wanted to know the basis for the comprehensive review. I read from the proceedings on the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration of April 20, 1977, at which the minister was present with officials from his department. The following statement was made by Mr. Manion:
Madam Chairman, there have been other studies done in addition to the comprehensive review. I believe Mr. Cullen or Mr. Hodder mentioned the very recent study done on the industrial patterns in the high unemployment areas to see whether there were employers who offered only eight weeks of work, and the result of that study is that there were very, very few such employers. There may be individuals who worked only eight weeks at a stretch, but generally there was employment of longer duration available for them, except in very scattered, isolated instances.
I asked if they had any figures, and Mr. Manion replied:
No. I believe Mr. Hodder indicated that that was based on a review done recently by our own staff. It is not a statistical review. It is one in which the report is on a narrative basis.
He went on to say:
That report consists of a narrative report from our own officers. It is not a statistical report and it is not available in a form that is suitable for publication.
That is the point we are making, that we have a review of a very important bureaucracy in the federal government, and we are debating very extensive changes. These changes will have an impact on the lives of many people in this country. The

impact will be greater in some parts than it will in others. In particular, Atlantic Canada will be greatly affected by the impact of Bill C-27 which is based on in-house studies and narrative reports. I have in my hand an example of a narrative report which we squeezed out of the bureucracy at the committee hearing. Great insights are found in this. It is called "Employment Patterns in the Atlantic Provinces". This was done by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in May of 1977, and it is entitled "A report on the impact of increasing unemployment insurance minimum entrance requirements in the Atlantic provinces to ten weeks of insured employment". This statement came from a senior assistant deputy minister, Mr. Manion. It reads:
In the light of the observed employment patterns of most industries in the Atlantic provinces, the majority of workers should have little or no difficulty in meeting the higher minimum entrance requirements-
Here are some of the conclusions in that report:
1.	Generally speaking, it would appear that there are few industries or firms which are limited to less than ten weeks of operation in any 12-month period. Those which are so constrained, employ few workers.
2.	Although individual components of the fishing industry may be of very short duration (e.g. lobster, herring) most fishermen have little difficulty in operating for more than ten weeks since they typically engage in more than one component of the industry.
I go to conclusion No. 6:
6. Canada Manpower centres have reported instances of potential claimants quitting their jobs at the peak of the season-


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


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the hon. member given unanimous consent to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues. Conclusion No. 6 continues as follows:
-so that they will qualify with the highest average insured earnings possible-
That is the kind of value judgment which is being made- potential claimants quitting their jobs at the peak of the season so they will qualify with the highest average insurance possible. In addition, this document goes on to say the following:
-there are indications that a number of workers arrange to be laid off once qualified for U1 so that someone else may obtain eight weeks of insured employment.
Someone should point out that that is called sharing work. Obviously, according to the commission, people were stuck on the concept of sharing work a long time before the minister put this provision into the bill. People do share work and, obviously, the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act. However, we would be happy if the department and the minister would extend that amendment to provide that any contemplated changes in policy or in legislation ought to be based on verifiable facts supplied by an agency which is recognized as
June 21, 1977

having some independence, Statistics Canada, and not on in-house studies because, in effect, we are calling on the commission to evaluate its own rules and then to change the rules. The commission is judging its own operations. I think that is very unfair, because in situations I have experienced the commission has set its policies, it has bad examples which could be used to defend those policies, and those who have had cases before the commission have found themselves having to prove that they were not guilty of infractions of policies which were set. That is pretty difficult. Here, in this in-house study, there is a rather enlightening statement about Newfoundland. It says:
The seasonal inshore fishing, (e.g., lobster fishermen) may have some difficulty in operating for ten weeks in the Stephenville labour market area.
It goes on to say:
There is an indication that some employers in small or isolated communities deliberately hire seasonal workers in such a way as to provide at least the minimum number of insured weeks to as many persons as possible and thereby ensure an adequate work force at their doorstep when needed.
That is one of the criticisms we have made. This narrative reports on an in-house study of the Unemployment Insurance Commission which really does not serve the needs of those people who have to use the services of the commission. Criticism of this was made in the committee. We were not the only ones to criticize this procedure of the commission. It was criticized in an excellent brief from the Quebec Federation of Labour. That federation appeared before the standing committee in connection with this bill. I would like to quote from that brief. On page 7 of its brief, the Quebec Federation of Labour deals with the comprehensive review. That comprehensive review tells us what an avenue for cheating the minor attachment period is. The review tells us it was so generous that it was a disincentive to work and was abused. That conclusion was arrived at as a result of individual interviews.
We were told in the committee that as a result of interviewing people on an individual basis, the commission came to the conclusion that this was a disincentive. Is it not wonderful that with a million people unemployed in this country, the commission tells us that the minimum attachment period is a disincentive to work? With respect to the way in which the commission gathered the data on which it made suggestions, and based on which we have legislation to change the minimum attachment period, the Quebec Federation of Labour had this to say:
However, the UIC fails to specify that many illegal dismissals are included among or rather disguised as voluntary departures. We wish to stress the fact that the UIC does not recognize alcoholism as a disease, that the employer has the right to dismiss a worker for wanting to join a union, and that the UIC does not consider industrial allergies, nervous breakdowns or discrimination valid reasons for departure and that is why they are included among voluntary departures.
Hence, these people become subject to a six-week penalty of no benefits. These people are included in the data which resulted in this legislation. It is worthy to mention that the QFL went on to say the following:
Moreover, the vast majority of statistics quoted in this comprehensive report are based on administrative data of the UIC which is the only reference mentioned. As far as we know, all unemployment insurance statistics should be
Employment and Immigration
drawn from the monthly "Statistical Report on the Operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act", Statistics Canada catalogue no. 73-001.
That is, basically, our argument. On the one hand, we say that it is fine to use the most up to date figures of Statistics Canada with respect to setting the rate of unemployment for unemployment insurance purposes, but on the other hand it seems to us that it would have been much more helpful if the minister had extended that and proposed that all policies or proposed legislation would be drawn from what is recognized as being an independent source of statistical data. It seemed to us that we have left this act completely in the hands of the Unemployment Insurance Commission which set up the policy, administered it, looked after setting up the appeal process and then reviewed the appeals to see whether they should go forward. Our simple argument is that it seemed the minister should have at least gone all the way and put this whole operation on a more independent basis.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on motion No. 4 and suggest to the minister that we find nothing particularly objectionable about the fact that the Unemployment Insurance Commission would use up to date information provided by Statistics Canada. That would seem only natural. I have two caveats, however, and 1 hope the minister will respond to them. The first is that I think when the ministry is using the information provided by Statistics Canada they should attempt to make sure there is some kind of projection of people who are unemployed but are not currently seeking work because they have been seeking it for many months and have finally given up reporting to the Canada Manpower office. I think this would change the statistics. There are many who would like to have work, but after six months or more have given up hunting for a job or reporting at the Manpower offices. If we have seasonally adjusted unemployment, surely we should have an adjustment for those people.
I should particularly like the minister to respond to my second point. In this Canadian democracy in 1977, surely it is a shame that native Indians are not included in the labour force data. I know the minister might argue with that because there is a separate department that looks after Indians-the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. But that argument does not hold up, Mr. Speaker. We have a bilingual policy in this country, for instance, but we do not keep separate data for French-speaking people and Englishspeaking people who are unemployed. There is also a multicul-turalism policy, but separate data is not kept on people of German, Ukrainian or Swedish descent. Yet our Indian people are accounted for by another department.
It is commendable, of course, that the commission will use the most up-to-date information available from Statistics Canada, but it is inexcusable that native Indians, who often have the highest rate of unemployment in winter months- sometimes as much as 95 per cent-are not included in the total unemployment figures just because they are Indians. This is a sham and an act of bigotry, Mr. Speaker. The argument

June 21, 1977
Employment and Immigration
that Indians are taken care of by another department simply means they are not being treated as fully-fledged Canadians. We would not dare do that with any other ethnic group, and we should not do it with the Indians. But the implication is there in motion No. 4.
If we are to use the most up-to-date information issued by Statistics Canada, it must involve all Canadians. I believe the only reason the government is not including the data from native Indian communities in the labour force data is in order to keep the unemployment rata a little lower than it really is. If Indians were included, as in all good conscience they ought to be, the statistics would be considerably higher.
We have these two points, Mr. Speaker. There is the unacceptable, unjustifiable, biased and bigoted information that leads a government to say there is a race of people who will not be counted in the labour force for no other reason than that there is a separate department to look after them. It is high time we stopped having a cover-up and attempting to make the unemployment situation look a little better by not including certain groups.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the amendment of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Cullen) agreed to.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if it would be in order at this time for me to revert to motion No. 1 on the order paper which I believe was not completely dealt with before. His Honour, Mr. Speaker, had some reservations in terms of the amendment introduced in my name being beyond the scope of the act. The motion calls for provincial consultation. The minister rose at that time and indicated that he found the first part of the amendment unacceptable but was disposed to accept the second part of it. I think Your Honour will find there is all-party agreement at this time, subject to procedural acceptability, that I should move motion No. 1 again, with the unanimous consent of the House. I would, therefore, move:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the department of employment and immigration et al as amended, be amended by adding immediately after line 42 in clause 5, page 2 thereof, the following subclause:
"(3) The minister, with the approval of the governor in council, may enter into an agreement with any province or group of provinces for the purpose of facilitating the formulation, co-ordination and implementation of unemployment insurance and manpower policies and programs".
For the information of hon. members, Mr. Speaker, this refers to the first motion on the order paper and to the second paragraph only. I understand it is agreeable not only to the minister but to all members of the House. Mr. Speaker, if the

Chair needs time to consider the matter, perhaps I could introduce the motion later if necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we do not object to the motion proposed now by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), but I think he is right in anticipating certain procedural difficulties. First, Mr. Speaker ruled motion No. 1 out of order yesterday. Therefore, it is not before the House and the hon. member is now moving a new motion without having given notice. He can only do this with unanimous consent. We are prepared to give that consent.
Second, Mr. Speaker ruled yesterday that it was beyond the scope of the bill, and to get around that point the hon. member would need unanimous consent as well. We are prepared to give him unanimous consent to do this. I think the hon. member's last statement is correct; perhaps the Chair should be given time to sort it out. Even my good friend for Hamilton West should not be allowed to bring forward a motion any time the spirit moves him merely because the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) happens to agree with him. We still have the rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Mr. Speaker ruled motion No. 1 out of order yesterday. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has not asked for unanimous consent to place it before the House. Therefore, unless the hon. member has unanimous consent, the motion is not before the House. I am willing to hear argument on the point.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the NDP House leader put the matter in its proper sequence. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker held the motion as being beyond the scope of the bill and it can be presented again only with the unanimous consent of the House. I would need unanimous consent to move the second portion of the motion. When I introduced the motion, I was seeking the unanimous consent of the House. Since the minister has indicated an interest in my motion, perhaps the comments I have made at this time could be considered as notice of my intention to introduce the motion. 1 seek unanimous consent to do something the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) is prepared to accept. I ask Your Honour to treat my comments as notice, and perhaps after you have had an opportunity to consult, to tell me when I can move the motion.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, we agreed to accept it yesterday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Has the hon. member unanimous consent to present his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 21, 1977


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Are there any objections? There are no objections.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Alexander) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Motions 5 and 6 have been grouped for debate. The House will now consider them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: motion No. 5:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 27 by striking out lines 30 to 32 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(g) any employment provided under clause 41, section 38 thereof'.


John R. Rodriguez: motion No. 6:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended by deleting clause 27.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It strikes me that motion No. 5 is consequential to motion No. 16, and motion No. 6 to No. 17. 1 note that Mr. Speaker grouped Nos. 5 and 6 separately and then grouped Nos. 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 for debate. Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider Nos. 16 and 17 at this stage. That would be an appropriate grouping. Perhaps we could consider those motions together.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Mr. Speaker grouped those motions as a suggestion. If the House wants to change that suggested grouping, the Chair would be willing to go along with it. Do hon. members agree?


Stanley Howard Knowles: To what?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the House could consider motions 5 and 6, already put, with motion 16 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), and 17 in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that we debate together motions 5, 6, 16 and 17?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I know we are trying to be expeditious. Motions 5 and 6 relate to job-creation and worksharing. Motion 16 concerns work-sharing, and 17 concerns training, job-creation and work sharing. We could deal with those motions at the same time, although they need to be resolved by separate votes. If the House agrees, perhaps we could consider together motions Nos. 5, 6, 16 and 17.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are becoming confused. Motions 5 and 6 deal with clause 27 of the bill. Motions 16 and 17 deal with clause 41. Perhaps it would be best to agree, tentatively, to consider 5 and 6, and when we reach the other group later we can decide if 16 and 17 have been covered as well. I agree with the hon. member for
Employment and Immigration
Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) that they require separate votes. Cannot we go ahead with 5 and 6, as Mr. Speaker suggested yesterday, and decide later if 16 and 17 were covered in the debate?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty with that argument, although it seems to me next to impossible to debate Nos. 5 and 6 without referring to the subject matter of the other clauses.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion just placed before the House is certainly acceptable to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that we move on to motions Nos. 5 and 6 for the purpose of debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This may be a technicality which we will have to deal with at this time. When I look at motion No. 27, I know what the intent is, but it seems there has been an error in drafting. It becomes very, very confusing. Clause 27 reads as follows:
Subsection 4(3) of the said act-
Right off the bat there is something wrong. I know what they want to refer to. Unless I am wrong, that should read, "Section 4(3) of the said act". The minister, in clause 27, is referring to job-creation and work-sharing in terms of making that employment subject to unemployment insurance. Therefore, it needs to be tidied up in that regard. We cannot pass that clause as it presently stands. I just notice this and, therefore, was unable to give the minister notice. I think it should read, "Section 4(3) of the said act is amended".
At line 30 it also becomes very confusing. What the minister is referring to in clause 27 is actually clause 41 of the bill under discussion. Under clause 41 you have subclauses 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38. The minister's motion under clause 27 really refers to subclauses 37 and 38 under clause 41. I respectfully submit that before we go any further with this matter we should amend the minister's motion so that we will be on target in terms of correctness. 1 do not have an amendment before me. I want to hear the minister and my friend, the House leader of the New Democratic Party. It should read as follows:
Section 4(3) of the said act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (e) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (/) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph-
Here is where we run into problems. I think it should read this way:
(g) any employment provided under clause 41, subsection 38, or under regulations made under subsection 37 thereof.
I think that would clarify the matter. At the present time that is not clear. We can debate this clause. I know what the minister wants to do. However, if we pass it, we would certainly be in error by going along without the necessary amendments at this time. Perhaps the minister would like to

June 21, 1977
Employment and Immigration
clarify his position and make comments on my comments. 1 hope that my good friend, the House leader for the NDP, and the Social Credit party, perhaps, will add something to this very limited point of order.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have not received notice of this from the hon. member. As he indicated, it occurred to him just now. J thank him for it. What we are referring to under that section is section 38 under No. 41, and similarly under No. 37. However, I have another difficulty with it. Mr. Speaker has indicated that motion No. 27, which stands in my name as Minister of Manpower and Immigration, from a procedural point of view seems to go beyond the scope of Bill C-27.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are all lost. Let's have the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall we stand the clause, or continue with the debate?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, this is very complicated. 1 do not mind going on with the debate, but I think we have to address ourselves to this particular matter. If the clause is beyond the competence of the minister to introduce, I am trying to figure out where we are with regard to job training and work sharing as the minister wants the employment thereunder to become involved with unemployment insurance; in other words, employment under job-creation and work-sharing. We are in a sort of mind-boggling mess right now. There is not much point in debating something if we are out of order in terms of the clause upon which the debate ensues.


Mr. Paproski:: There are 1 1 bureaucrats up there; maybe they can can help us.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not want to talk about the bureaucrats.
1 know how hard they work. Many of us work hard with them. As a result of the minister and the bureaucrats bringing forth suggestions, we now have a much better bill. Of course, I do not want to take too much credit regarding the flexibility of it in terms of the 10 to 14 weeks.
I think the clause should be stood. There is no point in our discussing a clause which Mr. Speaker has ruled out of order. This places the minister in a very peculiar situation. If he does not get this clause, the employment which will ensue as a result of job-creation and work-sharing will not be able to be involved in unemployment insurance benefits. I know the minister would be very concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the hon. member that the confusion is being compounded. Perhaps I will add more to it. We are having reference made to Bill C-27, clause 27, and to motion No. 27. We are so mixed up that maybe we had better move on to something else. The hon. member talks about something being wrong in the bill because it refers to the wrong section. That, of course, gives us a reference, not to the bill but back to the act itself. I hope I am proving my point that we are so mixed up on the point that we had better move on to something else.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: As 1 said, Mr. Speaker, I had not received notice. I do not blame the hon. member for that. 1 realize that he is endeavouring to help in this regard. We are not talking about motion No. 27, but clause 27. As I understand it, there is nothing wrong with clause 27 of the bill. Sections 37 and 38 of clause 41 will become sections 37 and 38 in the bill.


John R. Rodriguez: That's clear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That may be a fact, Mr. Speaker, but I wish the minister would direct his attention to the very first word in clause 27 of Bill C-27. Clause 27 refers to subsection 4(3)-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of the act.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Of the act. I say there is no such thing as subsection 4(3) of the act in terms of what the minister wants to do. I say that it is section 4(3) of the act. That is how it should read.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Section 4, subsection 3.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right. Section 4 of the act does spell out in detail subsection 1 and subsection 2, and then you have subsection 3 and that is under section 4 of the act. That is the amendment that is required.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I like these fine points, Mr. Speaker, and I like clearly to spell out these things. But if we do it in this clause, we shall have to do it in a dozen other places. Right below we find 29(1), "paragraph 16(l)(a) of the said act." Are we to change that to some subparagraph of the section? There is a certain drafting style which has been employed in the drafting of this bill, and if the hon. member wants to change it at one point we shall have to change it at other points as well. I still think we should move on to something else and let the officials look at it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that we allow motions 5 and 6 to stand and let the table officials go over the amendments?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Then we move on to motions 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 22, 29 and 30, together with motion 32 which seems to be a consequential amendment. It is my understanding this whole group is now before the House. 1 will put motion No. 7 in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen).
Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration)
moves motion No. 7:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 29 by striking out lines 8 to 10 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
June 21, 1977

"means a claimant who, subject to subsections 17(3) and (4), has been employed in insurable employment for fourteen or more weeks but less than"


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing now with the first part of Bill C-27 which attempts to change the minor attachment period. We are opposed to this concept of changing the minor attachment period from eight weeks, eventually in three years' time, to 14 weeks. Members tend to forget that after three years the minor attachment period will be 14 weeks of insured employment. We in the NDP object to this tampering with the minor attachment period.
1 have been here only a relatively short period of time compared with others who have a history tied up to the Unemployment Insurance Act going back to the year when it was first put into law; there are still members here who were present when the act came into being in 1971. As I said, I have been here only a relatively short space of time and I must express what concerns me.
What concerns me very much came into focus with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act and the way in which the unemployed in Canada are used as a means of setting up a scapegoat or strawman within which the public can vent its spleen with respect to their frustrations with a government which does not address itself to the problem of unemployment. So we need a scapegoat in much the same way as we needed a scapegoat with respect to rising inflation. The workers' wages were the reason for rising inflation; so the government, which is very adept at whipping up a scapegoat from time to time, whipping up a spectre and laying it out before the people of Canada and then riding to the rescue as a Sir Galahad to save the people of Canada from inflation, lo and behold presented an anti-inflation program under that guise. In much the same way I have seen those who have been unfortunate enough to become unemployed, and there are more than a million of them across the country.
The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) said recently, "Now it is becoming blase". Ministers troop across the country, are proud and trumpet to the people that they should expect rising unemployment and rising food prices. The idea is to inure the people to the concept that they have to live with high unemployment and rising food prices.
In my short span of time in this House I have observed amendments which were brought in to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I saw the changes brought in with Bill C-69 a year or so ago. I observed, in effect, how the former minister of manpower and immigration, now President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), defended the minor attachment period of eight weeks at that time. He kept saying, "This is a red herring which the official opposition, the Conservative party, represented by the hon. member for Hamilton West, keeps dragging across the committee. What we have to do is tighten the eight weeks qualifying period, move it to 12 weeks or possibly to 20". There were many to my right who suggested moving it to 20 weeks before unemployment insurance payments could be collected. I saw the former minister of manpower defending
Employment and Immigration
that concept and this led me to suspect, and I have since confirmed it in my mind, though I have no empirical evidence, that there must be two groups of bureaucrats warring within the breast of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), one arguing that we have to tighten up the act, and the other saying, "Look, this is a red herring. The problem does not lie with the minor attachment period".
I listened to a great defence of the minor attachment period of eight weeks in 1975. I heard it also in 1974 when the estimates were before the committee. I heard a great defence put up by the former minister of manpower and immigration against the suggestions of the Conservative party members sitting on the committee and pushing at that time for a longer minimum attachment period. Mr. Speaker, it is not very often I see eye to eye with the Canadian Association of Mining Companies. Still, this group of associated companies is, 1 suppose, very conscious of its need to maximize profits and minimize costs. I find this statement in their brief with respect to Bill C-27. It says at page 5:
The association condemns the abuses which some unemployment claimants have made of the eight weeks' qualifying period. It is also aware that this period is shorter than that found in all other foreign jurisdictions, while the maximum level of benefits and the time during which they can be drawn are in excess of those found elsewhere.
Then this is the important statement.
Nevertheless, with close to one million Canadians unemployed, and with most projections, including those issued by the government and its agencies, indicating the situation may worsen, the time is simply inappropriate from almost every perspective to seek a substantial qualifying period.
No one could ever accuse the Canadian Mining Association of being left-wing. Certainly, no one could accuse them of wanting to protect malingerers or of supporting disincentives to the work force of this country. We also discovered that the Manpower department has done some projections on the unemployment rate in this country and on what will be the number of unemployed a few years from now. When we asked for this information in committee, we were told-and maybe there is some justification for this-"We can't tell you this because it might be misinterpreted. We can't give you the background because we might end up with all sorts of problems".
We are experiencing very serious unemployment indeed at the present time. People far more qualified than I project that the present trend of high unemployment will continue possibly into the early 1980s. This government is making changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which will cause problems. When they first brought in changes they had to do with minor attachment to the work force of eight weeks to 12 weeks, with 20 weeks being major attachment to the work force. If that change was so well thought out, why is the government now coming along with a regional approach to the minor attachment period?
The answer is that the government is responding to the political realities which were trumpeted from the back benches. In effect, the backbench Liberals in Atlantic Canada

June 21, 1977
Employment and Immigration
put pressure on the minister and indicated that they would stall the bill or vote against it if he did not retreat from the position he had taken. In the same way the official opposition was split. There were many Conservatives from eastern Canada, although we did not see much of them in committee.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) rehashing the same old nonsense that 1 have been hearing since 1971, but at that time the NDP opposed an amendment that we moved raising the qualifying period from eight to 12 weeks. I do not mind this old hash about my right-wing philosophy, but what I do mind is when he refers to the activities of members of the standing committee. He most unfairly directs his attention to members who in one way or another have raised their concerns about this whole bill. The hon. member himself did not play such a great role in committee; he was absent many times and 1 had to bail him out on several occasions. He has no business referring to the activities of members of committees. 1 hope the hon. member sticks to his usual useless rhetoric and-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's comment could have been made in seeking the floor in due time. The Chair cannot prevent the hon. member who has the floor referring to debates or to procedures in committee after the committee has reported to the House. That is his privilege, as it is the privilege of other members. At the same time, if the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has a different opinion, he can speak after the hon. member has spoken and express his own view.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 will continue where 1 left off. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) trumpeted what a great thing he had done in getting the minimum attachment period increased. He is so busy patting himself on the back that he will break his wrist. He did a great job. But when the trade unions were before the committee, was he ever quiet on the subject of the minimum attachment period! The UAW took a very firm stand in opposition to it, and so did the CLC. 1 did not hear great arguments put forward by the critic from the official opposition party on the Manpower committee. 1 did not hear him saying that it was a disincentive. I did not hear the Conservative party support the tightening up of the qualifying period.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You were not there that day; or if you were, you did not hear.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for Edmonton West-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Edmonton Centre.


John R. Rodriguez: Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski)-is playing right end. I did not see him in committee. When this question of changing or tampering with the minimum attachment period came before the committee, the government received a great deal of flak from backbench Liberals from Atlantic Canada. Those in the official opposition from Atlantic Canada, with one or two exceptions, were absent from

committee when this matter was dealt with. The Conservatives were split, as well.
The witnesses who appeared before the committee, especially the trade unions, time and again suggested that the government ought to focus its attention on unemployment in Canada instead of tampering with the minimum attachment period. Just to show the House how the resultant political decision was made, the minister trotted in a regional breakdown. There were to be 54 regions across the country, and then there were to be rates of unemployment with participating weeks of employment attached to those rates in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. It is a bureaucrat's dream. They all have jobs now. This scheme was trotted into the committee ill-prepared, ill-defined, and when we started asking questions as to how it would work we found that they had very little idea how it would operate.
Certainly, the minister cannot stand in this House and tell us that this program is well thought-out. The information on which it was claimed that the minimum attachment period was a disincentive was based on the comprehensive review of the unemployment insurance program in Canada. We had one such example of narrative reports which went into the comprehensive review of unemployment insurance in Canada. That one referred to employment patterns in the Atlantic provinces. The studies, the reports and the data collected were all done by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and a few consultants that they retained for that purpose. They were probably paid excellent salaries to do that. I do not know why they feel they have to undertake solving the unemployment problem in this country themselves.
They referred to personal interviews. The whole study was an internal study done by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. On the basis of that study, a proposal was brought forward indicating a change from eight to 12 weeks which was to reflect the regional rate of unemployment. We have disagreed with that method of establishing the minor attachment period within the Unemployment Insurance Act. If that is what is going to be done, then the premiums paid by people participating in the unemployment insurance program ought to reflect the risk of their becoming unemployed. At that point the entire thing becomes a jungle. In Calgary, where the unemployment rate is low, the rate someone pays in premiums ought to reflect the risk of his becoming unemployed and collecting from the program. If you accept the premise of going to a regional rate of unemployment, persons in areas of high unemployment will participate at a lower rate in terms of number of weeks to collect benefits, and it ought to work the other way with respect to premiums.
I should like to read into this debate some of the comments from the groups who appeared before the committee. For example, I am referring to the United Auto Workers who appeared and said the following:
We want jobs; we need jobs; the right to a job should be as basic as any civil rights (if not more so). The failure of the government and our social system to guarantee this right forces us to depend on unemployment insurance. The

government, in Bill C-27, is attempting to further erode even this secondary right to unemployment insurance, and it offers as compensation for this certain reorganizational changes in the Manpower programs. Below we present our position and comments on both the changes in unemployment insurance and the changes in Manpower policy. We oppose extending the qualifying period for benefits from the present eight weeks of insurable earnings to the proposed 12 weeks.
We in this party have always maintained that we do not support those who take from a program unjustly or illegally or use the program as a rip-off. We have never supported that. We have said the act provides the tools for the commission to enforce the legislation. Therefore, with the tools they have, they are able to select groups if they suspect certain groups are ripping-off the unemployment insurance program. They have the tools, and they certainly have the authority under the act to enforce the legislation. To turn around and say that this is a disincentive, without providing the proof, is certainly a disservice to the unemployed in this country.
There have been suggestions from the government and from the official opposition that the eight to 11-weekers-that is, the eight to 11-week wonders-is the area where there is a disincentive to work. It leaves itself open to cheating by those who are lazy and do not want to work. As recently as May 28, 1975, the former minister of manpower and immigration had this to say:
If you examine where those short-term attachment people are, you will find that they coincide with areas of this country that have the more chronic conditions of high unemployment.
. .. they occur in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to a higher degree because the conditions of disparity there are such that people get marginal jobs, which are almost coincidental with short-term attachment jobs ... So I think we have to be extremely careful before we tamper with this (qualifying period).
At that meeting, on the same day, the minister had this to
say:
The incidence of disentitlement or disqualification, as an effect of failure to meet one's obligations under the act, is lower amongst the group with a minor attachment to the work force as their proportion of the total claims load than those with a long term attachment to the work force.
As I said before, one wonders what goes on over on the government side of this House. Less than two years ago the former minister said that there was no hanky-panky in the area of minor attachment, and that in effect minor attachment is highly correlated to the areas of seasonal unemployment in Canada. Yet the minister has now come in, armed with a comprehensive review done on in-house studies and reports. That was laid on the people of Canada and it confirms what they have been thinking. They were thinking that these people were collecting unemployment insurance and ripping off the system. That is the conclusion and that is the inference.
We could never accept that in a bill in which the minister talks about work-sharing, job opportunities and job training. How can we take the government seriously in terms of their commitment to eliminate unemployment in this country when it knows, at this particular time in our history, that unemployment is running at about 8 per cent and is talking about cutting back the minor attachment period?
I mentioned the in-house studies on which this proposal was based. I have to be very leery and very suspicious when the
Employment and Immigration
Department of Manpower and Immigration does a narrative report on the various areas of Atlantic Canada and refers to Christmas tree harvesting in Nova Scotia. The report reads:
Christmas tree harvesting lasts for about eight to 12 weeks and employs only a few hundred, mostly in the Bridgewater area. The labour force is about 50 per cent men.
Off-Season Employment: In the Bridgewater area Christmas tree harvesting industry, the men would have a fair chance of finding additional work with highways, the town or the municipality.
That is all speculation; there is no statistical information. When one asks for the figures, you find they do not have them. We only have the opinions of our local Manpower officers in these areas. From Nova Scotia they slip over to New Brunswick, and this is what they have to say about agriculture:
In New Brunswick, only a few of the agricultural industries have employment lasting less than ten weeks and relatively small numbers of workers are affected.
Again, we have no statistical information as to how many farms there are, how extensive agriculture is in New Brunswick, and how many people are employed in the industry. We have no idea of the rate of drop or rise in farming in that province. They go on to say:
Food processing firms generally have employment of long duration and only those additional employees required for harvesting may not obtain 12 weeks of employment.
This is really the question. These are the kinds of studies on which this very basic change is being made to the act, tampering with the minor attachment period at a time of high unemployment based on these kinds of narrative reports. This is ridiculous. Here is one that is even more atrocious. It is an overview of Atlantic Canada through the eyes of Manpower officers in that area. It reads:
Canada Manpower centres have reported instances of potential claimants quitting their jobs at the peak of the season so that they will qualify with the highest average insured earnings possible.
Who determines that they are potential claimants quitting their jobs early? Do they give us numbers? Do they give us locations? Do they give us facts on whether they have a legitimate claim or whether, in effect, they were cut off? We have none of these figures, yet the minister says, "Take my word for it; this is a fair thing we are doing". The minister said that this has proven to be a disincentive. How is it a disincentive? He points to the fact that they found out, as stated in the comprehensive review, that young people are moving in and out of jobs. The ILO discovered that it is the nature of young people to have a short attachment period to the work force and that this is a factor with respect to that group of workers until they attach themselves to the work force when a different pattern develops. This report, entitled "Highlights of an Examination of Employment Patterns in Atlantic Canada", states:
Generally speaking, it would appear there are few industries or firms which are limited to less than ten weeks of operation in any 12 months' period. Those which are so constrained employ few workers.
I do not think that bureaucrats at the top have been to Newfoundland and to some of the outports there where you

June 21, 1977
Employment and Immigration
cannot get eight weeks of work, much less ten weeks, and in three years time 14 weeks. You are rising, Mr. Speaker, and I think you are trying to tell me something.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, I have to tell the hon. member that his time has expired. I have already allowed him to take advantage of the 30-minute allotted time to the mover of a motion. Perhaps the House will permit me at this time to propose to the House motions Nos. 8 and 10 appearing in the name of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). They were enumerated in the list. Motion No. 7 is in the name of the minister. To proceed in an orderly fashion, motions Nos. 8 and 9 should be put to the House.


John R. Rodriguez: motion No. 8:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 29 by striking out line 10 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"eight or more weeks but less than".


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: motion No. 9:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended
(a)	by renumbering clause 30 as subclause 30( I);
(b)	by striking out line 21 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor: "(a) has, subject to subsections (3) and (4), had fourteen or more weeks of';
(c)	by adding immediately after line 23 at page 12, the following new subclause:
"(2) Section 17 of the said act is further amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
"(3) During the period of thirty-six months that begins on the day that this subsection comes into force, the number of weeks of insurable employment that a claimant shall have in order to qualify to receive benefit shall be the number of weeks shown in table 3 of schedule A, based on the regional rate of unemployment that applies to him.
(4) The commission may, with the approval of the governor in council and subject to affirmative resolution of parliament, extend the period of thirty-six months mentioned in subsection (3)."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This also brings motion No. 10 before the House.


John R. Rodriguez: motion No. 10:
That Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 30 by striking out line 21 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) has had eight or more weeks of'


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to supplement some of the comments made by my colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), on the amend-

ments that are before us to the Unemployment Insurance Act, specifically the one that raises the minor attachment period from the existing 8 weeks to a new formula varying between 10 and 14 weeks. I want to say at the outset that 1 think the intent of the amendment moved by the government is based on the wrong premise. It is based on the assumption that somehow people are taking advantage of the unemployment insurance program, especially young people and women, by getting eight weeks' employment and then collecting unemployment insurance benefits.
The reasoning behind the various amendments we have before us seems to be to end this abuse by designating the minimum qualifying period of work according to the unemployment rate in the region; but the total effect is to raise the minimum number of weeks of work required before one is eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. When we look at the figures and the nature of those who are minor claimants- those who in the past have worked a minimum of eight weeks-we find that the greatest proportion of these people come from areas in the country where unemployment is very severe.
I recall going to Newfoundland and Cape Breton, together with the leader of our party and some of my colleagues, on a fact-finding mission about unemployment and what the federal government agencies, the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission, were doing to meet the problem. There we saw the severe unemployment and learned from officials in the federal departments, as well as from employers and people in the labour movement, that for many Newfoundlanders-indeed, it seems to be the case more and more with Cape Bretoners-it is difficult in many cases to find work for periods of eight or ten weeks at a time because much of the work is seasonal.
We were told, for example, that young people and women often sought employment in fish plants, but it was the exception if they could find eight or ten weeks steady employment at a time at the fish plants, because it was a seasonal kind of employment with up and down cycles, so they could probably get work in the fish plant for five or six weeks and then be laid off. There was a built-in disincentive to going to work. If someone was receiving benefits and the job was open at the fish plant, but it was only for six or seven weeks, if that person took the job it would disqualify him, after he was laid off, from getting unemployment insurance because of the lack of qualifying work weeks. So there really was a disincentive to work in that situation.
Raising the minimum work requirement to anywhere from 10 to 14 weeks is not really going to be an incentive for people in high unemployment areas to stay on the job or not to move from one job to another. The plain fact is that job opportunities are just not there. Let us consider, for example, what these changes will do to the Newfoundland economy. It will disqualify people from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Millions of dollars of funds which would otherwise be in
June 21, 1977

the hands of families and consumers would not be available. That money could work its way through the Newfoundland economy. However, if this bill passes, it will not be available. I am surprised and somewhat appalled that some of the Newfoundland Liberal members are not making a case for their constituents, for the businessmen or for the economy of Newfoundland which will feel a tremendously negative impact once the bill is passed.
The amendments are based on the false premise that somehow people are not looking for work in economically depressed areas. The fact is that permanent work is not available. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) says that most of the people claiming unemployment insurance after working only eight weeks are young people, students and housewives, people whose attachment to the work force is not on any long-term basis. The minister says that these people only work to earn an income supplement, and that if we disqualify them or make it harder for them to collect unemployment insurance there will not be any real suffering because they are not serious workers in the first place.
Besides the fact that that statement is chauvinistic, I do not think statistics bear the minister out. For example, changes in the act even before this bill was brought in assumed an average unemployment rate of 7 per cent, which is lower than we have now. The change to increase the qualifying period of work will mean that some 330,000 workers in Canada who become unemployed will not be able to receive benefits. The minister says the number will be roughly 50,000 because there are only 50,000 affected at any given time. But I look at the total picture. When we have one million unemployed already, it seems a backward approach to throw another 300,000 on to the unemployment rolls and not at the same time provide benefits, because we all know that if people are disqualified from receiving benefits, somebody has to pick up the tab. Unless we have become such a callous society that we throw people out on to the street because they have no income with which to pay rent, unless we let families starve because they have no income, disqualifying them from unemployment insurance benefits only means we move them on to municipal welfare rolls, which means the taxpayers will bear the burden.
At least in the unemployment insurance scheme, workers, employers and the government contribute to the funding of that scheme. When we move people from unemployment insurance to welfare, the burden is borne entirely by the Canadian taxpayer.


Mr. Epp:: Who pays for it now?


Reginald Cyril Symes: I said that unemployment insurance is funded by workers and employers.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Who are they?


Reginald Cyril Symes: They are taxpayers.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Right.
Employment and Immigration


Reginald Cyril Symes: And that is based on their earnings. It is based on a formula. If we take people off unemployment insurance benefits and put them on welfare benefits, there is a different tax formula which applies to Canadian taxpayers.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: But it is still the taxpayer who pays.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I do not disagree, but 1 am talking about fairness in the way the income and property tax system works.
It is that system which funds municipal welfare. I think the unemployment insurance method of raising funds to help the unemployed is far superior to the direct taxation system which pays for municipal or provincial welfare. City welfare budgets will have to be increased to handle this. This means that funds will be taken from other municipal projects to pay welfare payments to unemployed people. 1 think that will be discouraging for any municipal council to have to face in this time of increasing costs.
The minister tries to make out that young people and housewives will be the only ones affected by these changes. However, if we look at those who have been disentitled because of the 8-week to 11-week period, and if we use figures for the first five months of 1976, the latest I have, we find that of those receiving unemployment insurance benefits the people who work between 8 weeks and 11 weeks make up only 15 per cent of all beneficiaries. Let us think for a moment about that proportion. The minister and his officials try to leave the impression that a great proportion of the unemployed work only 8 weeks to 11 weeks and that they are the ones making claims. The figure is only about 15 per cent. If we look again at the first months of 1976, we find that 63.8 per cent of all 8-weekers to 11-weekers were in Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces. It is in those areas that we find the lowest job vacancy levels and histories of seasonal work.
This reinforces my argument that the number of people with minor attachment to the work force is quite small compared with the total number receiving benefits. Second, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, with their high unemployment and seasonal work, are hardest hit. The minister argues that many women have a minor attachment to the labour force, but this change will affect some 214,000 men and 116,000 women. In other words, more men will be affected by this change than women, contrary to the impression the minister tries to leave with us. In the construction industry, where there is already severe unemployment, this change will make it worse for construction workers. We have to emphasize the fallacy of the argument that young people and women will be mainly affected by these changes. All segments of the work force will be affected, Mr. Speaker.
Throughout the past year I have met weekly with constituents on a variety of problems. Each time I hold constituency office hours, invariably a young person comes to me with the problem of finding work. They range from high school students looking for summer work to finance higher education, to university and community college students looking for summer

June 21, 1977
Employment and Immigration
work to finance their further education, but more despondent are the young graduates of community colleges and universities who come looking for job leads. They want to work at anything rather than being on unemployment insurance. I have to be honest and tell them that I am afraid the situation will only get worse.
The government is not serious about restructuring the economy so that there will be job-creation in any meaningful and permanent sense. Rather than getting busy and attacking unemployment, they find it easier to tinker with the unemployment insurance system. When young people are so desperately looking for work, it is wrong for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) to try to give the impression that they are not serious about working but prefer to flit from one job to another and work only the minimum number of weeks required before collecting unemployment insurance.
Various witnesses who appeared before the committee stressed that the amendments to create areas of differing qualifying periods would mean a bureaucratic nightmare. The unemployment insurance system is difficult enough to administer. It makes no sense to have a regional formula whereby a person living in a high unemployment area may need a shorter qualifying period, and a person who lives in a low unemployment area would need a higher qualifying period. This will create all kinds of injustices.
How is it to be administered? Are we to build a sort of Berlin wall between the various regions of Canada in order to restrict workers who move from one area to another in an effort to find jobs because the bureaucrats claim they are trying to circumvent the regulations this way? I do not think this system is workable, Mr. Speaker, and it will not alleviate the needs of the people, which is what the act was designed to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. The time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to speak as one from an area of low unemployment, namely, Saskatchewan, and support my two colleagues from northern Ontario who have just spoken. The amendment proposed by the government will cause hardship in my area as well because it will probably end up as one where people will have to work 14 weeks in order to qualify for unemployment insurance.


An hon. Member:: You never worked 14 weeks in your life.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In spite of the fact that it is an area of low unemployment, some people are in a similar position to those in other areas. There are seven Indian reservations in my constituency, and there are a lot of Indian people living in Yorkton. The city of Regina is now 15 or 20 per cent Metis or Indian. Indians who live on the reservations are not included in unemployment statistics, while those who live in urban areas often need retraining. An increase in the attachment period from eight weeks to 14 weeks will put more of the Indian and Metis people who live in the cities of Regina, Yorkton and
{Mr. Symes.J
Saskatoon on the welfare rolls. This is a cold, bureaucratic way of tackling the problem, and it is one of the things that angers me about the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Another thing that angers me about the act is that it discriminates against many rural people who are disqualified from benefit because they are not available for work. Indeed, some people who come to my office admit they had lied to the Unemployment Insurance Commission in order to receive benefits, and other people who told the truth did not receive benefits. Often, women in a rural area who do not have a car to drive to the city UIC office are cut off benefits, but those who live in the city and can use public transportation to visit the office or to seek work are not cut off. If the rural people lied and said they were looking for work, they would not be cut off either.
Perhaps I should call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, one that even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) might find acceptable being fresh back from the United Kingdom. At a time when the disappearance of democratic governments is more often noted than their reappearance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this parliament join in congratulating the people of Spain on the restoration of parliamentary democracy in that country underlining as it does the role of a constitutional monarchy in facilitating the development and retention of parliamentary democracy in a land with great traditions and deep differences.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 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.

June 21, 1977


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter arising out of a statement attributed to the former Minister of Justice for the province of Quebec and quoted in the press yesterday in which Mr. Choquette maintained that he made the statement which he made on October 12, 1972, namely that no policemen were involved in the raid that took place in Montreal, in light of the fact we now know that at the time Mr. Choquette made that statement, RCMP headquarters in Ottawa was well aware that an RCMP officer as well as others were involved, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the Solicitor General to order an investigation into the sources of information which led the former head of the Quebec Provincial Police to inform the former minister of justice of the province of Quebec, Mr. Choquette, that no police officers took part in the break-in at L'Agence de Presse Libre on October 6 and 7, 1972.


Mr. Speaker:: The 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.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an urgent and important matter.
Considering that Canada, as a member of the Commonwealth, supplied Mozambique with powdered milk intended for the children of that country, and the fact that this powdered milk never reached the people in need who were dying of hunger, but was distributed instead to the members of Fidel Castro communist guerrillas stationed in Mozambique, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That a committee of the House be requested to study once again Canada's external aid so that we may feed the needy instead of those who want the revolution and our destruction.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the whole matter which will be the subject of a debate later this week, namely that of illegal break-ins by certain police agencies, and has regard to a whole range of unanswered questions with respect to the break-in and arson at the office of the Praxis Corporation in Toronto, particularly in light of the fact that the loot which resulted from the theft ended up in the custody of the RCMP and, subsequently, in the Solicitor General's office. Meeting with the Solicitor General yesterday, I informed him of evidence which came into my possession over the weekend with respect to names, places and events in connection with this break-in. Is the Solicitor General prepared to inform the House today what action he has undertaken, or is undertaking, to have this information verified and the persons I have named investigated?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: I wish to thank the hon. member for meeting with me yesterday afternoon and leaving information with me. I thought at the end of our meeting that he would wait some time before bringing the matter up in the House so that I might have had an opportunity to determine whether some of the allegations contained in the hon. member's information were founded or not founded. I have examined the matter with the RCMP and instructed my officials to bring all the information which the hon. member brought to my attention directly to the attorney general of Ontario because the information he did bring to me, while it related to the possible participation of members of other forces in a possible break-in at the Praxis Institute, did not in any way refer to a break-in in which the RCMP would have participated.
1 should recall to the hon. member that all documents in the possession of the RCMP were turned over to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department a few months ago for examination and the matter was inquired into by the Metropolitan Police Department. Also, it was brought to the attention of the Crown attorney under the jurisdiction of the attorney general of Ontario and he concluded that no criminal offence had been committed by any member of the force in connection with the possession of stolen documents.
As to the break-in itself, the information the hon. member passed on to me indicated that it would have been perpetrated by members of another police force and 1 am getting in touch immediately with the attorney general of Ontario to ensure that this information is brought to his attention in view of the fact, as has been many times stated in the House, that the enforcement of the Criminal Code under the present constitutional set-up, which hon. members on the other side have always said was too centralized in the hands of the federal

June 21, 1977
Oral Questions
government, is in the hands of provincial attorneys general. I have brought the information to the attention of the proper law enforcement authorities.


BREAK-IN AT PRAXIS CORPORATION-REASON ALLEGEDLY GUILTY PERSON NOT PROSECUTED
Frank Oberle: 1 am
encouraged by the minister's answer. It is not my intention to release or make public in the House today the names of the persons 1 discussed at the meeting yesterday. But it is widely reported that Inspector Venner of the RCMP who, on behalf of the force, communicated with officials of Praxis after the exposure of the EPO list, could not reveal the source of the evidence which was used by the former solicitor general as the basis for his EPO letter for the reason that the life of the agent through whom the RCMP obtained the evidence was in danger. Since there is sufficient evidence that this agent was also the thief and arsonist, does the minister intend to investigate this aspect of the case and establish for the public record on what basis this person or group of persons was, and still is, granted total immunity from the law?


Francis Fox: My recollection of the matter, subject to verification, is that the identity of the person who handed over the material to the RCMP and whose life at that point was judged to have been in danger should his name have been publicly revealed was, indeed, brought to the attention of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department in order to enable them to fulfil their investigation in accordance with the normal course of enforcing the Criminal Code in this country.


ALLEGED BREAK-INS BY MEMBERS OF FORCE-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INVESTIGATION
Frank Oberle: A final supplementary question. It is important to the House to know today that the minister is not merely using the information I gave him yesterday to stonewall this matter further. 1 should like to ask him whether, in light of what he has learned now and the events that have occurred in Montreal, he is reconsidering or recommending to the Prime Minister to reconsider their previous stand as to the initiation of a judicial or federal inquiry into this whole matter.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, 1 think one thing which seems to have escaped the attention of the hon. member and of other hon. members on that side of the House is that, whether there is a judicial inquiry at the federal level, there is nothing to prevent a province fulfilling its responsibilities so far as the administration of justice is concerned and holding its own judicial inquiry.
So far as the break-in in the Toronto area is concerned, I really wonder whether the opposition is now taking the position that the federal government, as a new matter of policy, should pre-empt the provinces in the field of administration and enforcement of the Criminal Code. If this is a new
proposition which is being advanced by the opposition in the course of debate, it is an interesting one but one that ought to be rejected. The administration of justice in this country has always been the prerogative of the provincial attorneys general, and it is indeed an outstanding proposition to hear members on the other side say that is ought not to be so.


ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF FILES-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ONLY NARCOTICS DESTROYED
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question with respect to the information that I brought to the Solicitor General's attention yesterday. Now it appears that indeed there were materials incinerated, which I understand are now alleged to have been narcotics only. Can the Solicitor General indicate to me whether he has actually seen the documentation authorizing, or the manifest dealing with, this material that was destroyed and whether he is satisfied now that there was nothing else but drugs incinerated in the very impressive looking furnace that we saw last night.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, delighted to hear the hon. member now qualifying and protecting his position, following the very serious allegations that he made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Remember he still has a supplementary; you had better be careful.


Francis Fox: To answer to the hon. member's question, I think he would wish to join me in commending the force on their very successful operations in the drug field. 1 wish to report that there were indeed two cases of incineration during the course of the month of June. The hon. member referred to one yesterday. There was a case of incineration on June 2 when 800,000 grams of hashish and two pounds of other drugs were destroyed in the Westmount incinerator in the presence of inspectors from national health and welfare. 1 understand that the market value of those drugs was somewhere in the vicinity of $12 million, which is surely another indication of the high quality of work which the force does offer Canadians right across this land, including the province of Quebec.
I had the matter of the destruction of files investigated and it is reported to me that on June 3, 1977 there was 20 linear feet of files incinerated, also in the Westmount incinerator. All of these files were from the specialized sector of the force.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member raised a very serious question and I would appreciate it if I were given the opportunity to reply to it. The material which was destroyed was strictly on the criminal investigations side. It was destroyed following a report which had been made on May 23 of this year by the divisional audit officer of the RCMP who, having gone through "C" Division in Montreal, made a number of recommendations to the commanding offi-

June 21, 1977

cer of "C" Division. One of the recommendations made was that certain files, which had no value and were no longer active files, be destroyed. That is the policy of all government departments-to destroy material which is no longer relevant.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF FILES DESTROYED
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, 1 am grateful to the minister for his comprehensive answer. By way of supplementary, I should like to ask him whether any of these documents that were incinerated, or all of them for that matter, were the subject of proper orders? Is there a manifest or a record available of what they contained? Has there been any microfilming done? Have any of these things been preserved? What was the currency of this material? Did it involve any material which has been the subject of investigation since 1971 or 1972? Was there any 1974 material, for example?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the files were incinerated in accordance with the normal policy of the force. This type of destruction of irrelevant material is applied right across the country in the various regions where the force operates. As 1 indicated before, it was done in the same manner as within government departments. These files dated back to the year 1966. However, I am informed that any information which was pertinent was transferred to the national criminal investigations unit of the RCMP. No information of current value was destroyed.
Since the hon. member raised the question yesterday, I should add that no material was destroyed, which was in the possession of the security service, and no material pertaining to any inquiry presently under way in the province of Quebec was destroyed during the course of that incineration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-DATE MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES GAVE INFORMATION TO SOLICITOR GENERAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services which pertains to a statement made by the Solicitor General in the House on Friday, based in part on information given to him by the Minister of Supply and Services. The question I have for the minister is: could he tell the House at what time he provided information to the present Solicitor General concerning the meeting which took place between himself, former Commissioner Higgitt and certain other officials on November 6? When did the present Minister of Supply and Services provide that information to the present Solicitor General; and second, does he recall, according to the report made to the House by the present minister, that he at any time during the past year said something which flatly contradicts information provided by the minister in his statement to the House on Friday?
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as I gave notice to the Chair, I intend to rise on a question of privilege at the end of the question period and at that time I shall make the statement I prepared if the Chair accepts my question of privilege. I also want, again if the Chair agrees and if the House gives its unanimous consent, to answer all questions which will be put to me concerning my statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For the sake of clarity, what the minister has told the House is what he already told the Chair, that is, he has the intention of seeking the floor on a question of privilege. If it meets with the wish of the House, he would be prepared to answer questions relating to the statement he makes on the question of privilege. Of course I cannot prejudge the matter until we come to that point. I thought the minister wanted to put that on the record; but it does not alter the basic rule which governs and restricts the question period in respect to responsibilities of ministers.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the announcement made by the minister. I will withhold any questions I have until he makes his statement on privilege.

[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Considering that the majority of life insurance agents vigourously object to the new budget measures of last March 31 concerning the taxation of the death benefits of life insurance policies, and considering also the impact that legislation will have on life insurance, could the minister tell the House whether he intends to take into consideration the representations of life insurance agents and, if so, how?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not quite accept the preamble of the hon. member's question, but I must point out that we have proposed changes in the taxation of life insurance policies in the bill we introduced a week ago, which I believe will lessen the impact of such taxation on low income earners.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister. Another point on which I want to draw his attention is the following: considering that the budgetary propositions of last March 31 seem very discriminatory towards medium income earners, and considering that people buying life insurance policies do so to provide their families with a protection, could the minister tell the House whether he is considering withdrawing the propositions concerning those groups which he himself announced when he tabled his budget?

June 21, 1977
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we proposed this change in the budget to avoid discrimination as regards life insurance. The insurance companies themselves suggested that we change our taxation procedure. Thus we believe that since that change was made last week, the situation will be fairer for those who save money through life insurance policies or other similar means.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister been consulted by his colleagues, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Supply and Services, as to their legal position in respect of several libel actions registered against them in the courts, and is he still of the same opinion as was stated by him in the House last week in respect of this matter that the persons named in the Solicitor General's extra parliamentary opposition letter have not been harmed or injured in any way by this incident? Is it still his opinion, and has he been consulted by his two colleagues in their official capacity?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether 1 have read of the summons in the newspapers, and whether the writs in fact have been served I have not been advised. Obviously, when and if they are served, there will be communications either between my colleagues and myself or between my colleagues and my officials.


PROPOSED TRIBUNAL TO ALLOW PUBLIC SERVANTS NAMED ON BLACKLIST TO CLEAR THEIR NAMES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Walter David Baker: In view of the fact that writs of summons do reflect on public servants, has the Minister of Justice caused some investigation to be carried out in respect of this? I hope he would have done this at least as Attorney General. Is the minister now prepared to reconsider his refusal to consider a tribunal in which the persons who were named in connection with the extra parliamentary opposition can find access to redress and restitution so that the duty that the government has to all its public servants, but particularly in this case to those who have commenced legal proceedings, can be fulfilled without the necessity of an expensive and long legal process?
[DOT] (M30)


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, 1 would prefer that the writ or writs which have been issued be served before we deal with them.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT ON RESTRAINT WHEN CONTROLS END
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Following yesterday's talks with 15 business, labour and public interest groups would the Prime Minister indicate if he is more confident today of securing a binding agreement among economic decision-makers for voluntary restraint when controls end, or, if he is less confident there will be such an agreement, does he still hold to his belief that it would be folly to terminate controls without such an agreement?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I am somewhat more confident, Mr. Speaker.


ANTI-INFLATION ACT DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS CONCERNING PAY AGREEMENTS-EFFORTS TO PERSUADE PEOPLE CONTROLS SHOULD BE REMOVED
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Finance. Last Thursday during the debate on the controls question the minister indicated that, and 1 quote: "The government has decided to propose amendments to the Anti-Inflation Act to deem pay agreements to be amended to be in line with AIB decisions or those of the administrator". Would the minister indicate when he intends to introduce such amendments, and bearing in mind that it is likely the minister would want amendments passed before decontrol begins, would he also indicate the deadline he intends to suggest for the passage of those amendments?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the amendments would be introduced when the House reconvenes in the autumn. As to whether they will have received full parliamentary approval before the process of decontrol starts, that is something over which 1 do not have control. However, as I indicated in my statement last week, it would be the intention to introduce the amendments and, as with a budget document, they would have the same effectiveness from the introduction date as they would when the bill is ultimately passed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the minister also said last Thursday that, and 1 quote: "Widespread acceptance and support of controls are something of an embarrassment. The political problem is not to take them off but rather to persuade constituents that it is in their interests in the long run that they be removed". Would the minister indicate what steps he has taken or intends to take to persuade such constituents that it is in their interests to remove controls?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that was very much the tenor of discussions between myself and my colleagues and the groups we met yesterday. What was interest-

June 21, 1977

ing was that the employer groups from British Columbia and Quebec both supported the continuation of controls for some time but indicated that they should be removed by the phased method. I think that is some indication on their part that they expect to see further protection from the controls for some months yet, but they are welcoming the phased decontrol method, which has been the government's preferred option.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. In view of the announcement in Nova Scotia that a two-week fisheries trade mission has laid the groundwork for the establishment of co-operative fishing arrangements with several European fishing nations, both for the short-term and on an on-going basis for several years, would the minister indicate if he has agreed to the establishment of these joint ventures with the Europeans and Soviet bloc countries within Canada's 200-mile economic zone and the number of joint ventures approved? Would he also indicate whether the quotas to be caught will be from the countries involved in the joint ventures, or will they be taken from allocations to Canadian fishermen?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question creates a difficulty because I have seen no details of the proposals which are being discussed. As I have indicated, this has been a matter of at least one year's record. I can see joint arrangements, but I do not see joint ventures because I do not see the need for foreign capital in processing facilities. The need for joint arrangements is to be looked at on an ad hoc basis very carefully, and the principle that where fish can be caught by Canadian fishermen they should not be caught by foreign fishermen should be maintained.


DATE WHEN EXPANSION OF FLEET CAN BE ANNOUNCED
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, since it is obvious that joint fishing ventures can only be considered as stop-gap measures until we develop our own fishing capability-and this was endorsed by the minister's answer-I would like to ask him when we can expect an announcement of proposals which will enable Canadian fishermen and the Canadian shipbuilding industry to expand Canada's deep sea and inshore fishing fleet?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member is not advocating that we undertake construction of more vessels. That is what we have done in the past, and it has created a very large over-capacity. Our policy is to allow the stocks to recover. Those stocks which we have traditionally been inter-
Oral Questions
ested in are rather seriously depleted, and recovering those stocks will take some time. Meanwhile, we are looking at the fleet and the need for replacement. However, I am sure the hon. member shares my view, because of his knowledge of the matter, that because we have the economic zone drawn on the map does not automatically multiply the number of fish, which seems to be an attitude which is developing in the Atlantic provinces now.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. It has to do with the non-action on the part of the CBC regarding radio and television programming in northern New Brunswick in the area of the Bay of Chaleur. In addition to the problems with the radio side of it, I am wondering if the minister would inquire as to why the program "New Brunswick Today" refuses to give appropriate and adequate coverage to that part of the province.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have received some representations from the hon. member in relation to the broadcasting system in the past, and I am exploring those with the CBC. 1 am sorry to hear about these latest difficulties. I am glad the hon. member has brought them to my attention, and 1 shall certainly make representation in an effort to try to have the hon. member's representations dealt with adequately and as quickly as possible.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, and it concerns the Montreal break-in. The three police officers charged in that case were charged under section 115 of the Criminal Code, which is a catch-all section to catch any violations of any federal statute. The result is that it was possible for them to get unconditional discharges; whereas if they had been charged with breaking and entering, that disposition would not have been available to the judge.
Has the Solicitor General been able to determine whether the RCMP officer in question made an agreement or a deal with the prosecuting attorney to have a lesser charge than breaking and entering laid in exchange for a plea of guilty?


Francis Fox: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to ascertain that. I must say once again that the matter of the break-in was inquired into very extensively by the department of the attorney general of the prov-

June 21, 1977
Oral Questions
ince of Quebec. That department received the full co-operation of the RCMP in that respect. As I indicated in my statement, the Commissioner of the RCMP met with the investigators from the Quebec government in August of 1976. I assume that following the completion of their investigation the attorney general of the province of Quebec decided-which is his sole prerogative-to charge the member of the RCMP, the member of the Surete du Quebec and the member of the Montreal Urban Community Police under section 115 of the Criminal Code.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF PRAXIS FILES
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is of course aware of the many allegations which have been made surrounding the Praxis break-in in Toronto. I am sure he is also aware that Assistant Commissioner Vermeer, who is in charge of the Ontario region for the RCMP, has indicated that some files were destroyed. Has the Solicitor General determined who is responsible for the destruction of Praxis files, if that occurred? Can he advise the House why it was necessary to destroy any of those files, and has he determined whether the destruction of private property in that particular instance constituted an offence under the Criminal Code?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. 1 must point out, however, that I have answered that question a number of times in this House. Following the disclosure of the fact that the RCMP still had documents in its possession, the documents were turned over to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department. An investigation was carried out by that department, and the files were then turned over to a Crown attorney in Ontario. It was the Crown attorney's determination that no subsequent action of a criminal nature against the RCMP was justified.


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-RESPONSIBILITY FOR INFORMING MINISTER-POLICE NOT INVOLVED
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the telegram sent by the minister of justice of the province of Quebec to the then solicitor general indicating that no illegal activity had taken place involving any police force in the Montreal break-in, has the Solicitor General now determined whether the involvement of the RCMP in that case led to that particular telegram? In other words, did the RCMP mislead or lie to the minister of justice of Quebec, which inspired the telegram which was received by the previous solicitor general indicating that there had been no police involvement in the break-in?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member was not in the House on Friday and he obviously has not had time to read my statement very carefully. I think if he does he will find the answer to his question there.


AIRPORTS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the recent communications from the Canadian Air Transport Administration to Eastern Provincial Airlines and Air Canada operating in the Atlantic provinces about the significant increase in rental fees for the use of the Department of Transport terminal building, and in particular the unbelievable increase being considered for Charlottetown. This amounts to an increase of more than 750 per cent, using the same square footage but simply increasing it in terms of the new terminal to be provided. In light of the fact that the Prime Minister indicated earlier that guidelines were generally available to various departments keeping in mind regional disparities, can he indicate what kind of agreement exists between his office and the Department of Transport on these unbelievable and unacceptable increases for the provision of new terminal facilities in Charlottetown?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this particular case but I will be glad to take note of the question on behalf of the Minister of Transport. I can assure the hon. member that he will get an answer.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: While the Prime Minister is investigating the general application of his guidelines perhaps I could ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether he was advised or consulted about this 750 per cent increase from an $8,000 rental for Eastern Provincial Airlines this year to $90,000 in future years, with new terminal facilities, and whether his department has analyzed the impact that this kind of increase will have on intraregional transportation and the fastest growing industry in Prince Edward Island, tourism?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot give a detailed answer to the hon. member for the moment. This is a very important point and I will check again what were the consultations between our department officials in Prince Edward Island and Department of Transport officials, and 1 will then be able to give certain details to the hon. member.

June 21, 1977


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs or in his absence to his parliamentary secretary. Notice has been given of the question. Would he agree that no final decision should be made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which reports to this body, regarding the request by the province of Nova Scotia to locate a dump on CMHC owned lands until residents of the future town of Bedford backed by the residents of a future city of Sackville, both in my constituency, have had their day in court and that right has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, without prejudice to the matter in the courts, the minister has written to the minister of provincial affairs in Nova Scotia and told him that, although there would appear to be no impediment to CMHC getting involved in such a project as the land fill project at Jack's Lake, he has reservations about the possibility of CMHC going ahead because of the strong sentiments voiced by the people in the area and also because of the decision that was taken by the provincial government to change the original plans for the dump. We think the Beaver-brook change was the decision of the province and therefore it is up to them to bite the bullet.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may 1 put a question to the Prime Minister and remind him that in his absence the Premier of Manitoba, Edward Schreyer voiced his concern about job creation and said there would probably be a federal program regarding jobs and called for a meeting of first ministers. Now that the Prime Minister has returned, in order to deal with this very serious matter, has such a meeting been requested by the Premier of Manitoba for this fall and if so, has the Prime Minister indicated his intention in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the premier wrote to me suggesting a meeting of first ministers on the economic situation in general and the employment situation in particular. I do not recall having answered that letter while 1 was away in London but I will check if an answer has been sent on my behalf in my absence.
Oral Questions


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Prime Minister has made sure that in his absence a reply was sent to this very important letter.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-REPORT OF ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is obviously concerned as well so I will direct a supplementary question to him. On May 31 the hon. member for Halifax asked the minister whether he registered his concern about a recent report by the Economic Council of Canada entitled "Living Together" in which it was indicated a much greater jump takes place in the rate of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces than the rest of Canada during a national recession. He also wanted to know if the minister would study the report and discuss it with the premiers of the Atlantic provinces. Has the minister had an opportunity to look into this report, and in light of the very keen and sincere interest registered by the hon. member for Halifax, is it his intention to meet with his colleagues in the Atlantic provinces to deal with this very serious matter of jobs which is adversely affecting the economic life of the area?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I recently sent a response to the hon. member for Halifax on this particular matter which was prepared by my officials after examining the report. The response is the usual stunning complexity of the Department of Finance. I would be glad to send a copy to the hon. member so that he can study it, however. It would indicate some disagreement with some of the assumptions made by the Economic Council of Canada.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the minister's reply. I think he completely ignored the second part of my question. In light of the serious unemployment situation faced by the Atlantic provinces, and given the fact that the Prime Minister will likely get in touch with the Premier of Manitoba to arrange a first ministers' conference, would the minister without hesitation contact his counterparts in the Atlantic provinces so that a meeting can be arranged to deal with this very serious situation. Can the minister answer that question without giving me all this gobbledygook?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked if I had replied to the question of the hon. member for Halifax. I said yes, and I will be glad to send him a copy of it. I do not know what can be more direct than that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Are you going to have a meeting or not?


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
6908

June 21, 1977
Oral Questions
On April 29, 1977, the CRTC rendered a decision allowing the purchase by the CBC of Station CJBR-TV in Rimouski. As this decision fully meets the wishes of the people of Gaspe and northwestern New Brunswick, and was endorsed publicly by the hon. members for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, Gaspe and Madawaska-Victoria, would the minister be in a position to tell the House why the allotment of the credits which are necesary for the concretization of this important project seem to be delayed?
[ English I


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, there have been representations on this matter from both sides of the House on both sides of the question. There seems to be a great deal of controversy about whether this should or should not be proceeded with. There is also of course the question of the government's concern about financial restraint and as a result the matter is still under consideration. I am not sure when we will come to a decision about it.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Transport. Could the minister tell the House whether the government is monitoring the very, very critical stages of negotiations between the United States and Great Britain with respect to the possible suspension of air services between those two countries and if so could he bring us up-to-date on where they stand, particularly in light of the fact that should negotiations break down and air services be suspended, there could be a need to use Canadian airports to facilitate movement by air between those two countries?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that the Department of Transport is following very closely the representations mentioned by the hon. member and that we will provide for special measures to this effect if necessary.


CONTINGENCY PLANS IF TRAVELLERS FROM UNITED KINGDOM TO UNITED STATES DIVERTED TO CANADA
J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the impact which the daily diversion of between 2,000 and 3,000 passengers bound from the United Kingdom to the United States will have on the Canadian air system, is the government considering allowing pre-customs clearance at Halifax on a contingency basis? Also, is the government considering easing, at Mira-

bel and not just Dorval, restrictions on travel between Canada and the United States and, because Malton will be precluded from use, easing such restrictions at airports such as Halifax?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that I shall convey his representations to the minister. Furthermore, I thank him for his suggestions.


IMMIGRATION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerns the Ronal Rae case, about which I have given him notice. Since the Raes entered Canada some ten days after the amnesty program came into force, Mr. Rae having been accepted for entry as a landed immigrant shortly after World War II-and I know the minister has received many representations on the Rae case-would the minister now consider granting a minister's permit to the Rae family on humanitarian grounds, especially since 21,000 such landings were granted in 1975?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think that would be a rather loose use of a ministerial permit. It would not be allowed on that particular basis alone. Mr. Rae is a British citizen who claims originally that he applied to come to Canada in 1947. He lived in Brazil until 1971. He claimed that he always intended to come to Canada but was unavoidably detained for 23 years.


Mr. McKenzie:: Don't try to be funny.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am just giving you the facts, Danny baby. A special inquiry was held and he was ordered deported on April 10 of 1975, almost three years ago, on grounds that he had violated his non-immigrant status. He appealed to the Immigration Appeal Board, the federal court and the supreme court, and all his appeals were dismissed. The supreme court decision was handed down as recently as May 18, 1977. Our Winnipeg office is presently determining the appropriate date for the family's departure from Canada.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand from the minister's answer that, despite the representations of responsible people in the Manitoba community, he does not intend to intervene?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
June 21, 1977


FISHERIES
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.
1 understand that on Friday, June 17, or on Monday, June 20, the government of Canada by order in council closed the west coast shrimp grounds to United States fishermen, in retaliation for the unilateral closure of United States waters to Canadian trawlers. Has the minister entered into discussions with the commerce department of the United States government regarding the cutting off of Canadian fishermen in United States waters, and does the minister know when the United States Senate will consider the Canada-U.S. agreement covering fishing on the east and west coasts?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the order to close the shrimp fishery applies both to Canadian and United States fishermen. In the case of Canadians, it was made in conformity with the representation they made us. They prefer to fish later in the season. We will now have some time to sort out the difficulties we have encountered with the United States in relation to their interpretation of the interim agreement, an interpretation with which we do not agree. The following two months will give us time to sort out the problem. 1 am afraid I do not remember the third point the hon. member raised.


TOURISM
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister is aware that the seasonally adjusted deficit on tourism trade increased to $410 million in the first quarter of this year, a quarterly deficit greater than any annual deficit prior to 1975. Considering that the United States economy has recovered and that that country's bi-centennial celebrations have concluded, can the minister explain to the House what factors are causing the current alarming deterioration of our tourism trade position and, noting that his department has reduced the staff for its tourism program, can he say if his department is taking steps to reverse the trend to higher tourism trade deficits?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is an important problem. Of course, the legislation that the American government has passed, which imposes a limit on the number of conventions that can be held outside the United States and particularly on the amount of expenses allowed for income tax exemptions, has considerably affected our tourist industry in Canada. We
Oral Questions
have made representations to the Americans to that effect and we hope that changes will be made next fall. My department is working in cooperation with every provincial department of tourism so as to improve the situation here in Canada and I hope we will come up with some results. But again I have been told that the main problem is that too many Canadians take their holidays abroad rather than visiting our country.


CUSTOMS
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue? In view of the seriousness of our deficit position in tourism trade, can the minister explain to the House why her department's excise tax officers seem to have embarked upon a witch hunt against United States tourists, particularly with regard to the assessment of duties and taxes on American groceries purchased by United States citizens for use in Canada, on U.S. manufactured boats used by Americans in Canada and on U.S. registered automobiles leased by Americans for use in Canada? Will she ascertain from her colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, whether such punitive tax enforcement tactics are likely to assist our declining tourism trade?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the question is a bit strange, but I do not know what electors the hon. member represents. Customs duties are unpleasant for everyone because, in a sense, they represent an economic police. As I do not know the specific details of the cases to which the hon. member seems to be referring, I should like to know the details instead of generalities, after which I shall be pleased to look into the matter.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. No doubt he is aware that the Prime Minister yesterday, speaking on what he said was an important and serious question, namely, if there was some conspiracy against the administration of justice in connection with the break-in by officers of the federal force, said he would discuss it with the present Solicitor General. As a result of that discussion, has the Solicitor General a statement to make about what action is to follow with respect to these officers, apparently officers of the RCMP, and what on the
800 18-3 5 'h

June 21, 1977
Oral Questions
face of it looks like a criminal conspiracy against the administration of justice?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I think I also said in my statement concerning the police officers that RCMP headquarters staunchly believed an inquiry was being conducted at that time by the Montreal urban community police. I note that the Quebec inquiry, appointed by the Attorney General of Quebec, is seeking to determine specifically why that formal inquiry came to an end. As for the hon. member's specific question, I am still pursuing discussions with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Solicitor General assure the House that as soon as he has come to a conclusion following these discussions with the Prime Minister, he will tell the House what the result is?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it has always been my custom and habit, as it has of all members of the government, to inform the House of all pertinent and relevant matters. When the question is raised again, I will do that.


ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE MEDICAL DEVICES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is not often that the minister publicly outlines the inadequacy of the policies of his own department. In a speech dealing with medical devices, he did that a few days ago. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare confirm what he is reported to have said, that he finds the high proportion of defects in medical devices being used in Canada frightening. If so, can he explain to the House why he, as the minister responsible for public health in this country, has allowed such a deplorable situation to develop?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am Minister of National Health and Welfare precisely to ensure that the citizens of Canada will have not only medication, but also medical instruments of all kinds, whose safety is guaranteed. Now, I should like to remind the hon. member that Canada was the first country in the world to adopt rules requiring the Department of Health to check all medical instruments and devices used in treating patients in Canada. Under those regulations, we received hundreds of thousands of applications for approval of various equipment. We started to check that equipment and found out that quite a number of them were defective. I must say to the hon. member that, in that field, Canada leads the way, ahead of most countries in the world. I am very proud of the fact that my officials have done an excellent job in that regard.


Paul Yewchuk: The minister has indicated that the number of hazardous products or products of this kind recalled because of defects was as high as 35 per cent in 1976. In his own words, he indicated that we have just barely scratched the surface. Will he now tell us whether we can now look forward to a continuing increase in the number of faulty devices marketed in this country or whether he will now take his responsibility to protect the public interest in this area a little more seriously and take immediate steps to correct this very high proportion of inadequate medical devices.


Marc Lalonde: As I said before, Mr. Speaker, Canada is a world leader in this regard. We have now received applications for over 100,000 different products manufactured by some 1,500 concerns. We are speeding up the consideration of these various products, but there is no way 100,000 products are going to be verified during the course of this year or even next year. We are concentrating on areas where we are most likely to find deficiencies in order to ensure the protection of the public. Once again, Canada is a leader in this regard and we are proud of it.


PRIVILEGE
Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Fox) made a statement to the House concerning the illegal search of the premises occupied by L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec, le Mouvement pour la defense des prisonniers politiques du Quebec and la Cooperative des demenageurs du 1" mai. The Solicitor General's statement was very detailed, clear and precise and as far as I am concerned, I fully agree with its content. Personally, 1 would have preferred that the House would let it go at that.
Nevertheless, it happens that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) expressed some doubts inside and outside the House about the credibility of my explanations on the role 1 played in this incident. Therefore, 1 want to reply to him. The leader of the opposition should take note that I consider this statement as being made under oath, the oath I have taken as a member of parliament and as minister of the Crown. I also add that 1 am prepared to stake my seat in support of my statement and I trust that if a member questions it, he will have the courage to make precise charges and also stake his own seat.

Let me first address myself to the question of whether or not 1 had any prior knowledge of the October 6-7, 1972, break-in at the APLQ. My answer to that question is a flat no. The Solicitor General's statement in the House made it clear that neither the RCMP headquarters in Ottawa nor the command-
June 21, 1977

ing officer of "C" Division in Montreal had been told of the search and seizure of documents on the premises occupied by the APLQ prior to the operation being carried out.
I had been briefed several times about certain activities of the APLQ and its alleged links with well known terrorists and convicted criminals. But nothing could have justified illegal acts being carried out by the RCMP or by any Canadian citizen for that matter. Had I had prior knowledge of the operation, I would have intervened to prevent it from happening. The rule of the law is paramount and the police cannot be above the law. No doubt had the former Commissioner or the former Director of Security Services been aware of the plan to illegally break in at the APLQ, they also would have forbidden it. Not once, in my 23 months as Solicitor General, did any RCMP official suggest to me that the RCMP engage in illegal activities in the pursuit of its duties.
About the APLQ letter dated October 9, 1972 and addressed to me; first of all, the letter did not intend to inform me of RCMP involvement in the break-in but rather implied and I quote:

... if their respective organizations were responsible for that action ...
Of course they had in mind the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Surete du Quebec and the Montreal police.
I continue to quote:
... As Solicitor General, we ask you to act as soon as possible to give a clear and precise answer to our question.

The letter, received October 11, 1972 was not immediately brought to my attention but was referred to the RCMP. This was standard practice. All letters pertaining to the RCMP were immediately referred to them to enable them to proceed forthwith with an investigation themselves and, if the matter was of provincial jurisdiction, to ensure that the provincial authorities were also notified and would investigate. Of course, this method of dealing with complaints about the RCMP was not ideal, but those were the tools available to me at the time. That is why, in the early fall of 1972, I had recommended to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that a commission be instituted to look into disciplinary questions and the manner in which to deal with complaints about RCMP behaviour. The recommendation was not immediately acted upon, but the Prime Minister did establish the commission when my successor was appointed.
On October 26, 1972, the RCMP wrote to my assistant, Colonel Cameron, recommending that no acknowledgment of the letter be sent, without providing the reason for their recommendation. My agenda indicates that I would have raised the matter with the Commissioner and the Director of Security Services of the RCMP on November 6, 1972. Was I then informed of RCMP involvement in the break-in? My answer is unequivocal and categorical: no I was not. I was advised not to acknowledge the letter because the theft of
Privilege-Mr. Goyer
documents referred to in the APLQ letter fell under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities and I was informed that the Montreal police were investigating the incident.
Neither the Commissioner nor the Director of Security Services of the RCMP remember actually telling me about RCMP involvement in the incident. They do say they would be surprised if they had not done so verbally but both state very clearly that they do not remember doing so. Given that the APLQ incident was an unusual and very serious incident, it is likely that if RCMP involvement had been discussed at least one of them would recall the discussion. It is not as if we discussed such issues every day. Moreover, the RCMP's standard way of dealing with important information was to convey it to me in writing. If I may rapidly outline the procedure, important questions were referred to me in written documents, either directly or via the Deputy Solicitor General or the then Director, Security Planning and Research Group, now the Assistant Deputy Solicitor General (Police and Security), on a regular basis, oftentimes as many as five or six such documents per day. Decisions and policy directives were recorded in writing and such documents were initialled by me.
In other words, the RCMP is very efficient and meticulous in keeping its records of discussions and decisions. The Solicitor General Department's files and those of the RCMP contain no written report to me on the APLQ break-in. Although the RCMP officials claim they would be surprised if they had not told me about RCMP involvement, they specifically state they do not remember doing so and they state that such matters would normally have been dealt with in writing.
As to my asking whether or not the RCMP had actually been involved in the break-in, again the answer is no and I will explain the circumstances. Firstly, given the RCMP's distinguished reputation and past record, I found it hard to believe that the RCMP could have participated in an illegal break-in. Secondly, before my discussions with the RCMP on November 6, 1972, the Quebec justice minister had already stated publicly that no police force-not the RCMP, not La Surete Provin-ciale du Quebec, not la Police de Montreal-had been involved in the alleged break-in at the APLQ. I had heard about this in the press. The matter fell under provincial jurisdiction, the minister of justice of Quebec had investigated the APLQ allegations and his conclusions were unequivocal. I had no reason to doubt his conclusions. Thus, when I discussed the APLQ letter with the RCMP it had already been publicly stated by the Quebec justice minister directly responsible for investigating this matter that the RCMP was not involved. There was no apparent reason for me to ask if in fact the RCMP was involved.
It has been alleged that it would have been my duty to put the question directly to the RCMP. But remember, the question had already been answered publicly by the responsible authorities. Bearing in mind my respect for the RCMP, given the Quebec minister of justice's statement, I, as any other member, had no reason to ask the question. When the RCMP told me the whole matter was being further investigated by the Montreal Urban Police, I concluded that the matter raised in

June 21, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Goyer the letter had been dealt with. Given the above facts, it is easily understood why I did not ask whether or not the RCMP was involved in the break-in. Any other member would have acted in the same way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The Quebec justice minister's statement denying that any of the three police forces were involved in the theft of documents was never brought to my attention as false. On November 27, 1972, I was appointed Minister of Supply and Services and the very first time 1 learned of RCMP involvement in the break-in was in March 1976.
I would like to remind the House that neither the deputy solicitor general nor the then Director, Security Planning and Research Group, were made aware of RCMP participation in this operation before March 16, 1976. The established practice called for their being informed of important questions pertaining to the RCMP's activities to allow them to assist me in following up on such matters. Normally, at least one of them attended my meetings with the police. Neither one remembers even hearing about RCMP involvement in the break-in at the APLQ.
I know that I was not informed of the incident. There can be no doubt in the minds of hon. members that I was not informed and moreover that I had no reason to suspect that the RCMP could have participated in the break-in.
There should be no doubt also in the minds of hon. members that this illegal break-in is an isolated incident and is far from reflecting force policy. The RCMP and the security services have an outstanding record in carrying out their duties. They may have made mistakes but on the whole the RCMP deserves the recognition that it has earned both within and outside Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the fact which we must underline at the beginning of our response is that the Minister of Supply and Services declined the opportunity which was available to him on this question of privilege to move a reference of this matter to a committee of the House of Commons for consideration so that he, and others who might be concerned, would have an opportunity to investigate it further, and so that questions might be asked. He had the opportunity, as the matter stands under the rules of the House, to move a motion which would have referred the question of privilege which caused him to rise in the House to a standing committee of the House. This would have given the opportunity for a full investigation. He declined to do that. That is not acceptable to us on this side of the House.
He also declined, Mr. Speaker, to seek an opportunity which again would have allowed some questions in the House; he could have sought permission of the House to make a statement on motions. I make it clear that had that permission been sought from this party in the House-and 1 am sure I speak

for the others-it would have been granted, so that there would have been an opportunity to pose questions directly to the Minister of Supply and Services.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has, I take it, given an undertaking to answer questions if they are put to him here. There is now no question about resolving the matter by way of a question of privilege. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, there was no motion attached. I simply want to make sure that we know where we are heading from a procedural point of view. I am sure there will be a desire to ask questions of the minister and I think members ought to avail themselves of that opportunity; but I do not know that we ought to avail ourselves of the opportunity both to discuss privilege and to question the minister. I think we should do one or the other and probably the more effective procedure would be to question the minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the portion of the minister's remarks in which he undertook to answer questions and 1 apologize to him for that. I appreciate having the opportunity to pose questions. I should say on the question of privilege generally that we on this side of the House are very troubled, as I would hope members on the other side of the House would be troubled, by the abandonment here of the tradition and principle of ministerial responsibility on the part of the minister, in effect passing the responsibility for his actions to his officials.


Walter David Baker: Again.


Charles Joseph Clark: My colleague says "again", and that is quite correct. The minister has said that he was briefed about this investigation before the break-in. Can he tell the House of Commons what instructions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister say that he had been briefed by the RCM Police or by any of the security forces, on any matter relating to any of the organizations into whose premises the break-in occurred, before the break-in?
[ Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am nevertheless surprised to see that after insisting so much to have me make a statement under oath today, the Leader of the Opposition is not satisfied and wants to go further and further! He will have to make up his mind one day on what he wants to say and express it.
In answer to his question, I said, and I quote:

I had been briefed several times about certain activities of the APLQ and its alleged links with well known terrorists and convicted criminals. But nothing could have justified illegal acts being carried out by the RCMP or by any Canadian citizen for that matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the minister was: When did the briefings begin? Did his briefings begin before the alleged break-in?
June 21, 1977


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not remember the dates, but that was certainly before the criminal action took place. I had the opportunity several times to receive documents from the RCMP on the activities of that organization, but not on plans to seize documents illegally.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, now that we have established that the minister was briefed and engaged himself in briefings relative to these organizations prior to the break-in, would the minister tell us, without going into detail but without omitting any central direction, what kind of direction he gave to the security forces, to any of the security forces, relative to the means they should follow and the evidence they should seek to secure concerning any of these organizations?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, directing police operations is not the function of the Solicitor General but that of the police commissioner. Indeed, the responsibility of the police includes briefing the Solicitor General on all matters related to national security and, in this respect, the police has fulfilled its duties.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to keep having to come back to this question. What instructions did the former solicitor general give to the security forces of the RCM Police prior to the break-in?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have never given illegal instructions to the police force as to the means to secure information. The means have always been legal and in line with what is allowed under the Official Secrets Act.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to impose longer upon the time of the House, but would the minister commit to writing or deposit in the House of Commons, since this is a matter which is now closed, a matter that is no longer under current investigation, or would he make a formal deposition outlining all of the instructions that he gave relative to the organizations whose offices were broken into, what instructions he gave to the RCM Police or other security forces prior to the break-in? He has now admitted that he was briefed before the break-in. We want to know what he told the police forces before they broke into the premises.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I truly believed that the Leader of the Opposition was a responsible man. He certainly does not have the makings of a prime minister. Just the same, I certify to the House that the only instructions which have ever been issued to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are legal ones. 1 shall certainly act in a responsible fashion and look into the files of the RCMP to ascertain whether I can supply additional information. 1 have no memory of whatever instruction may have been issued. Although I have no memory of that, I
Privilege-Mr. Goyer
certainly remember that there has been nothing illegal, no matter what the Leader of the Opposition may say. If he has information to the contrary, he should level specific accusations and put his seat on the line.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the minister's question of privilege I too should like a minute to respond, being one of those who raised serious questions and concerns. I want to deal with three important points in the minister's statement. One concerns knowledge, the second concerns ministerial responsibility and the third concerns the very grave implications of the RCMP's behaviour which have been deeply confirmed by the minister's statement today.
Firstly, the minister claims to have had no foreknowledge of the break-in. I think no one at any point, that 1 am aware of anyway, has questioned his contention on that. I must now confess openly to not having the second question unequivocally resolved. 1 will give the minister and the House reasons for that. The Solicitor General's statement made in the House concerning the meeting of November 6 indicates that the minister was not informed about the break-in at that meeting, and the former minister has repeated this afternoon that he was not informed. I am still left with some doubt on the issue, and I should like to indicate to the minister why.
In a Vancouver Sun article on December 7, 1976 the minister is quoted. I have ascertained the accuracy from the reporter's point of view-the accuracy of his notes of direct quotations attributed to the minister at that time and printed in the Vancouver Sun. With reference to the minister's knowledge of the break-in after it occurred, presumably arising from discussions he had with Mr. Higgitt and others, he did not know accurately what he recalled. The article quotes the minister as saying the following:
This was four years ago and I don't remember in precise terms what happened in this particular case.
I knew about this association (the APLQ) and I know it was of interest to us because of its activities. But this is as far as I can remember.
The question the minister was responding to was: was he informed after the event about the RCMP's role in the break-in? As reported here, the minister said last December that he could not remember because it was some four years ago. He could not remember whether he was told after the event or not. Now it appears, both from the Solicitor General's statement and the minister's statement today, that since last December his memory has tightened up and now recalls with clear and unequivocal precision-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Under hypnosis.


John Edward Broadbent: -that at the meeting of November 6 with Mr. Starnes and Mr. Higgitt he was told of the break-in. I want to be fair to everyone concerned, including the minister, and I would like also to have the truth; but it seems to me there is a pretty clear contradiction between these two asser-

June 21, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Goyer
tions. On the one hand, the minister said last December that he could not recall if he learned of the break-in after and today in the House-


Mr. MacFarlane:: That is what the article says.


John Edward Broadbent: That is perfectly true, that is what the article says. The reporter, with whom I have checked, said that he has checked his notes.


Walter David Baker: You are not the minister, Gus.


John Edward Broadbent: I am being serious about the event, and I hope hon. members opposite are being equally serious. I am just putting that on the record-


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Put the truth on the record, then.


John Edward Broadbent: 1 have a concern about the truth of the matter. The second point raised by the minister concerns his own responsibility. There is no question of veracity of statement here, but there is a very basic question of exercising his responsibility as a minister at the time. With reference to that meeting of November 6, he said that he did not put the explicit question to Mr. Higgitt or Mr. Starnes-were the RCMP, or were they not, involved in the break-in? He gave two reasons, as I recall. One was that the question had already been dealt with publicly by the former minister of justice, Mr. Choquette, and Mr. Choquette had already denied that there was police involvement. That is not very persuasive, because Mr. Choquette has to get his information from the police force and the police were passing on testimony about their own behaviour. That was not sufficient grounds for not posing the question. Second, he referred to the general respect he had for the RCMP which led him not to pose that question directly. In terms of his exercising his ministerial responsibilities-


Mr. MacEachen:: How about some questions, instead of long speeches?


Charles Joseph Clark: You cannot take the heat, Allan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I brought the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) somewhat to order at the initial stage of this to indicate that we are here on a rather extraordinary procedure. We have a situation where the minister has raised this matter by way of a question of privilege and has agreed to answer some questions. There is no argument about the question of privilege because there is no motion attached to it. I can only allow to a limited extent, as I have tried to do, the hon. Leader of the Opposition to expose very briefly the line of questioning he might follow. I am attempting to do the same thing with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).
I do not think we are into a situation where contributions can be made by both sides of the House on the alleged matter of privilege, because there is no matter of privilege. There are questions available, and 1 should extend to each party what I have extended-an opportunity to make a very brief statement

and then get on to the questioning. That is how it should be governed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I respect that, but I am sure you recognize that the minister has made a statement on this important matter and the rest of us made accusations either directly or indirectly and want to deal directly with the matter now. I do not find the minister's explanation acceptable. I am referring to his explanation for not putting the question directly to Mr. Higgitt and Mr. Starnes at the time. We know from the press at the time that he knew the RCMP was monitoring this group and was watching their activities. In the same newspaper article he is quoted as saying: "We were watching this group". Once the serious accusation had been made by the group, that the police had been involved in the break-in, or queries were put to the minister implying that they were, there was an elementary responsibility on his part to put the question at that meeting before he replied to the letter-did you or did you not take part in the break-in? I conclude that point with that observation. He was negligent in his responsibility.
Finally, my third point is that there was indeed a conspiracy involved in this operation on the side of the RCMP. 1 do not hesitate in saying that. Mr. Starnes and Mr. Higgitt met with the former minister to discuss a letter which asked questions about RCMP involvement, and they did not have the courtesy or integrity to bring to the minister's attention what they knew at the time. That was a clear neglect of their responsibilities. Any meaning of the word "conspiracy" in this activity applies directly to the top level of the RCMP. That has been confirmed here today in the minister's statement.
[ Translation]


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I am never very happy to take part in discussions which could create some doubt among the public about the sincerity of a minister or a member of parliament. This is always truly disagreeable, but when you have to do your duty, you must do so with courage and try to throw some light on the matter and give justice to those who deserve it. I recognize that it is impossible from a human point of view to do so because God is the only judge since He knows everything.
In any case, the minister said earlier in his statement that he agreed with the statement made by the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Fox) on Friday, June 17, 1977. He even went further and stated that he was willing to put his seat on the line, which is a formidable challenge to the accuser who provoked him more directly.
Mr. Speaker, I have often witnessed such challenges, but not in the House of Commons. I have seen challenges of this type during the Taschereau administration in the province of Quebec. This was during the debates on public accounts, and three, four or five times a day, someone made this challenge: Put your seat on the line if you want to prove such or such a thing! No member ever lost his seat because of this and no one ever followed up these charges.
I seriously believe that this will not solve the problem. 1 am greatly concerned about this, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to
June 21, 1977

ask two questions of the minister following his question of privilege. I am especially concerned by the fact that this whole question should come to the surface after five years. Is justice in Canada so slow? Must such convoluted procedures be used to establish the innocence or the guilt of someone? Is this Canadian justice? No wonder so many ordinary citizens in our society do not believe in it anymore. They know where justice courts are located but they are often looking for justice. It is not the same thing.
I was surprised last week when I read in a newspaper that the accused who had pleaded guilty were nonetheless discharged by the judge presiding over the court. I do not intend to comment on the decision of that court but, Mr. Speaker, I can ponder over the content of this report which indicates that these individuals who pleaded guilty ended up by being discharged. Something is not clear in this case or at least in my mind. If it is clear, it has to be clarified to me and I will do my best to understand.
My first question to the minister who just made a statement is the following: could he tell the House what happened to all the documents which were seized by the RCMP and their friends at L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec? What happened to them?
My second question is the following: In view of the very clear statement made by the minister to satisfy both Parliament and the public at large, will the minister tell the House whether he would be prepared to recommend to the cabinet the setting up of an inquiry, given the fact that the RCMP is involved and that this body is placed under federal responsibility?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have no authority to recommend anything to the cabinet. It is up to the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice to make such recommendations. As for me, as Minister of Supply and Services, I do not feel at all entitled to do it.
If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would just reply very briefly to an allegation made by the leader of the New Democratic Party regarding an article published in the Vancouver press. I remember quite vividly the event. There was then a public sale by the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and I was also about to announce the introduction of a new coin to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the rule of Her Majesty the Queen. At that time, I did say repeatedly to newsmen that that was the purpose of my visit to Vancouver- Vancouver Island in fact. What happened is that the newsman insisted that we talk about that matter and other issues with respect to the time when I was the Solicitor General. I told him I did not want to make any comments on that subject. As he insisted and was asking if I knew the L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec, I told him that 1 did know of the activities of that agency and that in so far as I was concerned, it constituted a threat to the security of the state. This was as far as I went because at that time I had neither the desire nor the necessary preparation to discuss this issue. If today my words
Privilege-Mr. Goyer
are interpreted in a different manner, as I do not doubt the good faith of the leader of the New Democratic Party, in those circumstances, I am therefore led to question either the good faith or the accuracy of the recollection of the newsman.


Mr. Fraser:: I wonder if I could put a couple of questions to the minister. As I understand the story from the statement of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) and from the minister today, the position the minister takes is that when the letter of October 9, 1972 came to his attention, it was not so much in the form of a letter informing or assuming that the RCMP, the provincial police of Quebec and the municipal police were involved, but a letter inquiring about it-1 think that is the word the minister used. I see him nodding in agreement. At that stage, when the letter was discussed with officials of the RCMP, can the minister remember, to the best of his ability, whether in anything they did or said the RCMP officials who were with him indicated a denial that the break-in about which the letter inquired took place? Was there any suggestion that the minister can remember from any of the RCMP with whom he discussed that letter of denial or was there any implied denial of the suggestion that there had been a break-in by the RCMP?
[ Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this is going very far into details. I recall very well what I had in mind. First of all, the provincial attorney general had denied any involvement of the police of Montreal, Quebec or Canada; second, I found it unlikely that the RCMP could have been involved in any illegal activity and, third, police officers had repeated to me that night, at the meeting, that anyhow the Attorney General was responsible for the inquiry conducted by the Montreal police. Let us wait for the results of that inquiry. That is very simply what happened.


John Allen Fraser: I accept what the minister says. The question which I think is concerning a great many people is why, in the absence of some denial on the part of the RCMP officials, did the minister not, of his own volition ask point blank of the RCMP-despite whatever the minister had heard from the minister of justice or other press reports-the simple question as to whether there was any truth in this allegation. Why was that question not asked?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, of course, all kinds of scenarios may be imagined after the fact. Some may wonder why I did not call the Quebec Minister of Justice to ask him whether he had told the truth when he said that the police were in no way involved. Of course, I could have called the director of security services and told him that the letter from the APLQ was still an important letter from a respectable organization and asked him whether the contents of that letter were true, and so on. But these are scenarios which are easy to imagine after the fact. The fact remains that considering the circumstances prevailing at that time, I think it was simply showing one's
6916

June 21, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Goyer
good faith and confidence in the police and in the Quebec Minister of Justice to take their word. If a minister should act otherwise, I think there would have to be inquiry after inquiry on all the briefs he receives from government officials. We cannot operate in this manner.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be in the least facetious on this matter. I want to thank the minister for being here to be questioned, but I suggest that he probably now wishes he had asked that question.
I have one further question. Following the letter and after the discussion with the RCMP officials, was there any further discussion between the minister and any other RCMP officials? Between the time he looked at the letter of October 9, 1972 and the time he left his post as solicitor general was there any further discussion with any officials of the RCMP concerning this particular event, or was the discussion we have heard about concerning the letter the last discussion that the minister, as the then solicitor general, had with officials of the RCMP?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: In view of the minister's answer I wonder if I might be permitted to ask another question. Could the minister advise of what further discussions there were? What was the purport of those discussions, what was the effect of those discussions and were any further questions raised between the minister and the RCMP as to whether the RCMP was involved in the break-in? Can the minister help us in that regard?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, from the time when I discussed the matter with the RCMP, on November 6, until I was appointed Minister of Supply and Services at the end of the same month, I did not have occasion to bring up the matter with the RCMP, nor did they take the opportunity of our meetings to discuss it.
[ English ]


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is almost impossible to get the true facts with this system of questioning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: It is easy to raise alibis while pretending to praise the RCMP. As a result of the statements made-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman will rise and make his observations, I will listen to him, but his observations

indicate that the hon. gentleman does not want to be identified with the nonsense he is expressing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Olivier:: Go back home this time.


John George Diefenbaker: I listened to the minister, and it surprises me that what he expressed today he did not express when he was leaving for Africa to give the French republics there an idea of true democratic government and how it operates. When he was asked on that occasion, why did he refuse to give any answer? I am sure he will have an alibi for that too, but in order to enable him so to have, I feel that this whole matter should be dealt with by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Make an accusation.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the only way in which the views of all parties directly or indirectly involved can be secured and a decision arrived at in justice to the minister and also to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who, unless such an investigation takes place, will be in the position of having been subject to a selective presentation by the minister. While praising the mounted police the minister was actually leaving the impression, strongly worded, that the mounted police are seriously subject to criticism. I am not speaking about the break-in as such. I think serious mistakes were made in connection with the acceptance of the decision of the court that certain wrongdoers should be in a position-whatever their position and however high it may be-of not being subject to the penalties that the average Canadian would be subject to on a plea of guilty.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the matter of the involvement of the Minister of Supply and Services before and after the break-in into L'Agence de Presse Libre be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members will anticipate that the Chair would have some grave reservations about the procedural regularity of such a motion. Motions tabled are upon notice. Notice has been given to the Chair of a question of privilege by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), but he has not, in connection with that notice, given the Chair notice of any motion. The right of any other hon. member to move a motion either upon privilege or upon any other subject at any time is described in our Standing Orders. I believe that any other motion tabled at this time would be subject to the same restrictions and requirements as it would be under any other circumstances, that is, that the Chair would first have to have been given notice.
I suppose a question would now arise as to whether notice by the Minister of Supply and Services of his intention to raise a question of privilege constitutes notice that any other hon. member might now move a motion. That is something on
June 21, 1977

which I am prepared to hear discussion, if there is any, and I will withhold my decision until after I have heard some discussion. 1 noted that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) was seeking the floor. I do not know whether it was for that purpose or not.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as usual, I think your observations are correct inasmuch as normally if a question of privilege is to be raised and if a motion is to be moved, notice would have to be given in advance of the sitting. We find now that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) brings himself before this House allegedly on a question of privilege with the idea of giving his version of the situation to this House. When he came before the House on a question of privilege we would have expected that if he were intending to rise on a question of privilege and if he were legitimately concerned about clearing his name and the reputation of the RCMP, he would accompany that statement with a motion to have the matter referred to the appropriate committee. Not having done that, he has abused the procedures of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He has abused the procedures of this House by not bringing that forward, and that only shows the speciousness with which he attends this House to make a statement based on his own selective memory. So I think it is very appropriate, in view of the fact that we would have expected a motion to follow a question of privilege which was legitimate, if it was legitimate, for the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) to move his motion on a fresh item of privilege at the first opportunity which arose during the course of debate.
Linder those circumstances 1 think it is quite proper for an hon. member to do so. It is only where a matter is to be brought up at a subsequent sitting and after the event that the requirement is that notice be given with respect to a matter which took place on a preceding day. However, this happened just now. We now find after the minister has spoken that he does not intend to make a reference to a committee, to allow hon. members of this House to investigate any documentation or to examine in the course of committee hearings any people who were involved either as officials or senior officials of the RCMP in order to get a complete story and a proper perspective and, indeed, to have the benefit of the information, advice or testimony of any person who may be able to shed light on this particular matter.
With all due respect, I would think the motion is most appropriate at this time. It highlights and underlines the fact that the Minister of Supply and Services is not the least bit interested in shedding light on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I think, in the interests of more enlightened discussion, I can expose one or two other problems about the matter. I am afraid it is not just a simple matter of procedure of notice of the motion. 1 do not think there has been a
Privilege-Mr. Goyer
previous occasion when one member has moved that the conduct of another member be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. What is involved here is procedure, but we have a more detailed and deeper problem than that, namely, whether the matter is one of privilege or one that has to be argued.
Traditionally, when a member of this House seeks to have his own conduct reviewed by a standing committee of the House, obviously the standard of the question of privilege is relaxed somewhat because any member who seeks that is generally granted it. To extend that to a situation in which one member seeks to have the conduct of another member investigated by a committee, however, means that a number of severe standards come into play. It will not fall simply on a matter of notice, but becomes a substantive matter of whether it qualifies as a question of privilege. It would be curious to find that no member could have moved the motion yesterday or a week ago to refer the conduct of the Minister of Supply and Services to the committee on the question of privilege, but that it could be done now after the minister has made a statement. I am not sure about that, but I am prepared to listen to argument.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I find the turn of events rather surprising. Yesterday the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) was almost bullied by members of the opposition who were asking him to get up in the House and clear his name. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), both in the House and outside the House, called upon the minister to make a statement and to subject himself to questioning. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) inferred in their comments yesterday-


John Edward Broadbent: Implied.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that there was a matter of privilege at stake and that the minister ought to take advantage of it, in the words of the deputy House leader on the other side, "to clear his name."


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As a minimum.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Then, the minister having risen and having made a statement-


John George Diefenbaker: And having not cleared his name.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) says, "Having not cleared his name". 1 will return to that a little later. The Minister of Supply and Services made his statement and then opened himself to questions by hon. members opposite. The Leader of the Opposition came to bat, and what happened? He struck out!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: One after the other, all members of the opposition were given the opportunity to question the minister, and he answered their questions. The right hon. member for
80018-36 'h
June 21, 1977

Privilege-Mr. Goyer
Prince Albert, realizing that the situation was going so badly and that the minister was doing so well, said, "Let's stop this. Let's go to a standing committee."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Come on, Allan.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We have just begun the battle.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Obviously, he had no questions to ask the minister. None occurred to him, so in order to put if off for some days he said, "Let's send it to a standing committee."
I find it extraordinary, this development having taken place, that it should be urged that the Minister of Supply and Services, having risen on a question of privilege to clear his name, to defend himself, should then be asked to grant a motion to send his conduct to a parliamentary committee for investigation. If that is the case-when I say this, I do not infer for a moment that the hon. member was not fully entitled to clear his name-but when a member gets up in the House in reply to some charge to clear his name and give an explanation, is he then obliged to send his conduct to a committee for examination? If so, why did the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe (Mr. Wagner) not feel obliged to do it? Why did the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) not feel obliged to do it?


An hon. Member:: They are going to court.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They took the honourable course and explained themselves. Their explanation was accepted, certainly on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Their explanation was accepted, their word was accepted, but if any hon. member on this side of the House had not accepted the word of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe there was a course open to him. Clearly, he could have risen and said, "I do not accept what the hon. member has said. I think he has been guilty and the smear is justified." An hon. member could have done that and, of course, Mr. Speaker would then find a question of privilege because the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe would have been charged with misconduct by a member on this side of the House.
That is the situation we find ourselves in today. Hon. members have heard the minister; they heard him answer the questions. It is open to them to rise on privilege, to make a motion and to define the charge. That is open to them.


An hon. Member:: No.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They can do it tomorrow. Any hon. member can do it tomorrow. Mr. Speaker Michener laid out

the ground rules. If hon. members opposite do not want to do the library work on that, I will send the reference to the right hon. gentleman opposite and then he is free to make the charge. But as Mr. Speaker Michener said, no hon. member can be investigated by a motion of this House unless there is a charge and an accusation.
The Minister of Supply and Services is confident of his position. He is confident of the truth of what he says. He is not relying on any rule when he says, "I am prepared to put my seat on the line in support of my statement." If a parliamentary committee investigated his conduct and found that he had told a lie, then he would forfeit his seat. Is any hon. gentleman on the other side ready to take the same responsibility?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I shall call on the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and then the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates).


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, one would think we had the period 1972 to 1974 all over again. We have heard the master of persuasive, synthetic argument at it again. The government House leader will note the reference, I am sure. If the matter we are dealing with were simply of procedural concern, then the kind of rhetorical response that the minister, with his rhetorical statement, has generated would be appropriate. He always manages to shift a matter of substance, by clever argument, to one of procedure and leave the House with the impression that that is what the issue is all about.
Let me say, at the outset, that I agree with the substance of the government House leader's response. I, for one, appreciated the fact that the Minister of Supply and Services came into the House, submitted himself in the normal course to a question of privilege, went beyond that and subjected himself to questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is why I disagree with the suggestion put forward by the official opposition. I think what the government House leader has said about the way of dealing with the question of privilege is appropriate, and the minister has dealt with that. That is not to conclude, however, as the government House leader implied in his statement, that somehow when the minister got to his feet he did so well with his explanation that the whole world was persuaded of the legitimacy of his case. The fact is quite to the contrary. Certain questions have been raised, following what the minister said, about the appropriateness of his actions as minister and whether he fulfilled his obligations. Indeed, the question of the accuracy of his memory has been raised.
If I may refer back to the earlier question of privilege, the minister suggested that the newspaper article I was quoting
June 21, 1977
was written by a journalist on the west coast when the minister was out there on another matter. I suggest his memory is failing him. That article was written after a long, detailed interview with the minister here, in his Ottawa office, an interview exclusively dealing with the break-in. 1 remind the minister of that slight misremembering of a fact.
On procedure, I agree with the substance of the government House leader's argument. This matter should not be referred to a special committee of the House unless a change is made. I categorically disagree, however, with his statement that the minister, in making his statement today, resolved the issue. As we said some days ago, we need a public inquiry. We still need it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) has not satisfied members of the House with his statement concerning the events of that unfortunate period in 1972. There is a great deal to be said in support of a public inquiry for which members of my party have repeatedly called. But the matter of the inquiry rests in the hands of the government of Canada, which so far has engaged in stonewalling tactics. The leader of the New Democratic Party does not think the committee on privileges and elections would be an appropriate forum in which to examine this question.


John Edward Broadbent: Make a charge.


Walter David Baker: Let me say, sir, that an examination by that committee, which would treat this matter with the fairness with which it has traditionally treated other matters, would be better than not having any inquiry at all. That is the position in which we are left.


John Edward Broadbent: Make a charge.


Walter David Baker: Some questions must still be answered-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Make a charge, Walter.


Walter David Baker: -with respect to the matter.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Make a charge, Walter.


Walter David Baker: 1 will make a charge. 1 think the minister is absolutely incompetent, and he demonstrated that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, someone said that I should lay a charge, and I will lay a charge.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: You are stupid.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Is it reasonable, sir-
Privilege-Mr. Goyer


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Walter, that is quite a charge.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to be provoked.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) may continue in a moment. We have at present a combination of procedural difficulties confronting us. Before proceeding further we must decide whether it is in order for the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) to move the motion he has proposed. Obviously, we must clear up that procedural difficulty. Perhaps other hon. members wish to contribute to that narrow procedural point which 1 can dispose of without further argument. Perhaps 1 could hear the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) on that point. Is the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton continuing on that point?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am continuing with my statement, I hope with the same latitude as you granted the leader of the NDP.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is still open to the House to question the minister on his question of privilege. He has made that offer and it is still open. However, I have a motion before me and I must decide, on a point of order, whether that motion can, in fact, be moved; that is to say, whether it is in order. The decision on that does not affect the continuation of the argument or discussion on which we were embarked previously concerning the minister's statement, but I must decide whether the motion just handed to me which comes from the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), can be moved. Is it in order? If there is further argument on that point, I will hear it, after which I shall return to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and hear him on the minister's statement.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have been in this House-


An hon. Member:: Too long.


Robert Carman Coates: It may be too long for you, my friend, but any time you want to run against me we shall see who will win that battle. We are in a most difficult position because we ignored the rules of the House. A member of this House rose on what was to be a question of privilege; it ended up, apparently, as a statement on motions. I have never, in my 20 years as a member, seen another member rise in this House on a question of privilege and end up answering questions about his responsibilities as solicitor general at a previous time under a previous administration. But that is the situation at present. I can appreciate why the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) tried to bring sanity to what has become an insane situation in this House.
The minister rose and made a statement, supposedly on a question of privilege. Then he began answering them. 1 suggest this should properly be done in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections where members would have the opportunity not only to examine his words but the words of others



June 21, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Goyer
who were also involved in decisions concerning the illegal break-in. The committee would learn what advice the minister received, from whom he received it, and so on. For instance, 1 should like to see the minister's executive assistant take the oath and tell members whether or not the minister was informed, when he was informed, and other such matters concerning the letter in question.
I did not particularly care for the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) standing up and trotting out that old position, "If you want a member to appear before a committee, make a charge." We have heard the government say this time and again when it stonewalls and refuses to answer our legitimate questions on legitimate matters. The President of the Privy Council tried to cast aspersions on the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). I say to the President of the Privy Council, if the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe had been solicitor general at the pertinent time there would not have been any problem with RCMP, illegal break-ins-and we all know why.
The President of the Privy Council tried to leave the impression that if the Committee on Privileges and Elections dealt with all the charges and countercharges which members level at each other in this House, it would be busy indeed. But this is a different case because we are asking for an accounting. We want the former solicitor general to tell us how the RCMP operated in this country when he was solicitor general. That is not just a simple charge made between members of this House; it is a specific matter. As I say, we want to know how the former solicitor general operated when he was responsible for that portfolio. We cannot deal with the matter in this House. The former solicitor general cannot stand in this House on a question of privilege and think he can clear the matter simply by answering questions, because many of the people involved in the case cannot corroborate the evidence the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) is endeavouring to give this House. That is the crux of the matter.
I support the motion the right hon. member for Prince Albert proposes to move. Though it may seem strange in the circumstances, it would, if accepted, let the people of this country know what the former solicitor general actually did and what activities the RCMP were engaged in. We and the people of the country have a right to know how all this came about. We have not been presented with the facts. No wonder the President of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) are smiling. They are stonewalling, because the statement on the question of privilege resolved itself into a statement on motions.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to reserve the right you gave me with respect to the broader aspects of this matter. However, I must say that what the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) has said makes eminent good sense from the point of view of this parliament getting at the facts. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) ought to be

commended for having raised this matter. I have looked at the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and I see nothing that prohibits a member of this House moving a matter of privilege. I hope the general rule will apply, if there is no prohibition against moving anything in this House of Commons, that a member has the right to move something in this House of Commons.
The one technicality, and I underscore it, against the motion which will put this matter where it belongs, before a body of examination, not an ersatz court such as this, has turned out to be Standing Order 17 which reads:
Unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 42-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I interrupt the hon. member to make that clear. That is not the problem. The problem is much more serious than that. The motion proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is one which seeks to have referred to a committee of the House, for examination by that committee, the conduct of another member.
The practices of this House have been described very clearly in the past. When such a motion is offered, whether it is done on proper notice or not-and for the moment we can set that to one side because if it is not proper notice today, it can be done on proper notice tomorrow-the question still remains, fundamentally, when one member seeks to have a committee of the House examine the conduct of another member, that it requires some very rigid restrictions from a procedural point of view. They have been described in the precedent clearly set out by Mr. Speaker Michener when he occupied this chair. For the benefit of hon. members, that reference is to be found at page 582 of Journals of June 19, 1959.
In that ruling the Speaker of the day-and I think we can set this point aside for a moment-clearly sets out that no member is required to have his conduct examined by any committee of this House except upon a motion which has contained in it a substantive charge of misconduct on the part of the member. While the notice provision can be altered today, I can waive the notice or we can wait until tomorrow, 1 am still stuck with the precedent that any motion which seeks to require the examination of, not the member moving the motion but another member, must be made under very rigid procedural restrictions. They set out that such a motion must contain a specific charge.
Frequently in the past motions of this nature which say, "Resolved that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization examine into the conduct of another member," have been turned down unless they contain a charge of wrongdoing that is to be examined specifically by the committee. It is not a question of notice or of semantics. It is a question of substance. Traditionally, what we have gone through this afternoon is not just a wrinkle in our procedures. Traditionally, as we did with the four members recently who stood in their place under the umbrella of privilege, the courtesy has always been extended to a member who in these situations has been publicly accused, scorned or attacked, to make a personal statement in the House. That is not technically privilege. It
June 21, 1977

never has been, but it has always been a courtesy extended to members of the Elouse.
The only additional thing that has happened here is that in the circumstances the minister has said, "1 will open myself to questions if that is what the House wants." Obviously, that is what the House wanted, and now we have questions. I think we should keep our eye exactly on the way the procedure has unfolded. For the moment, 1 do no injustice to anyone, I am sure, to follow the very clear and precise Michener precedent and rule that in the circumstances the motion of the right hon. member for Prince Albert is not in order. That, I think, works no prejudice or injustice to anyone, it leaves us in the position we were in a few minutes ago when the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was putting a question, to be followed by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to put a question. I did not realize there was a situation that required me to put a question. However, as a member of this House of Commons and as a person who is interested in the proper operation of the parliamentary system and the question of ministerial responsibility, I will have something to say about that. Surely this procedure, which I have described as an ersatz procedure, does not bar me from my right to make a statement on a matter which is so important that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) decided to make the statement which he did. That is the position 1 am going to take, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: In fact, that is exactly what the situation is. There really is no provision for a debate. There is no provision for statements by opposition members. At the moment, if the House withdraws its consent to go along with this arrangement of questions to the minister, I am prepared to close down the procedure. If members want to continue to question the minister, that is fine. If they do not, we are left in a situation where we are back to orders of the day and the rest of routine proceedings.
I should also add that I said yesterday that pursuant to Standing Order 26, the application by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I would order a debate. As soon as I can get to that, which I said 1 would do at three o'clock today, and which I would have done except for the raising of the question of privilege, I will have to set a time for the commencement of that debate which will give every hon. member of the House an opportunity to make a full statement within the time limits set out in the Standing Orders. That will commence later this day. If there are questions to be put now to the minister, I hope they will be brief and precise and that we can then get on and order the debate under Standing Order 26, which will allow the kind of statements that are sought.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. I do not know if he has had time to have his office check the record with regard to the interview he gave to a reporter of the Vancouver Sun. If not, I hope he will do so. He will find it was a comprehensive
Privilege-Mr. Goyer
interview given here in Ottawa on the subject of what is described as an RCMP cover-up.
My question pertains directly to the meeting he held with Mr. Higgitt on November 6, at which time, according to what has been said in the House both today and on Friday, the subject under discussion was the RCMP recommendation to the minister not to reply to a letter sent to him on inquiring whether the RCMP and other police forces were involved in the break-in of October 6, 1972. The minister obviously accepted that advice and did not reply to the letter asking about RCMP participation in a break-in.
How did the minister reach the conclusion not to send a reply without putting the question very explicitly to the RCMP: Were you, or were you not, involved? If he did not put that question to them, and he says he did not, why did he reach the decision not to reply to that serious letter when it is obvious that if the answer had been negative it would have been in his interest and that of the RCMP to have the whole matter clarified so that he could reply to such a group and say, "No, there was no RCMP participation"?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am going to repeat myself, but that seems to be necessary. First of all, it was not the commissioner himself. I said in my statement that the RCMP recommended that I do not answer the letter, without giving explanations, and it was following the reception of that memorandum sent to my executive assistant that on the first opportunity I raised the issue with the commissioner and the director general of the security service and asked them why they were recommending that the letter not be answered ? 1 gave the reasons for that earlier, namely that the Minister of Justice had made a statement that he was responsible for that matter, that it came necessarily under his jurisdiction in the province of Quebec and second, there was an investigation under way by the Montreal police. So that was not the only issue we had to discuss. Once again, this case is being considered separately, but it was one among other matters we had to discuss, and those circumstances have to be taken into consideration. That is why at that time since there was an investigation under way I said I was satisfied.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Supply and Services, who was Solicitor General at that time, say to this House whether or not the commissioner of the RCMP told him that one of his men was supposed to carry out a search without warrant in any place for one reason or another?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: No, Mr. Speaker.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the following supplementary. We know that the minister was not informed. Whom did he have conversations with from the RCMP around November 7? Could we have his name? If so,

June 21, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Goyer
did he say whether one of his men had made a search without warrant?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, it was a meeting with the commissioner of the RCMP and the director general of the security service, and my answer is "no".


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the minister. Throughout his contribution to the discussion of this question of privilege, and throughout the statement on Friday by the Solicitor General, this situation has been referred to as an isolated incident. However, the House knows that I, myself, along with the hon. member for Central Nova have drawn attention to a number of similar situations.
I am asking the minister whether he is claiming the same innocent ignorance in relation to the break-in at Praxis Corporation, since following that incident the minister, under his own signature, sent out a letter which contained some of the information found in the stolen material. Also, in that case the minister was bound to know the material was stolen since the incident was widely reported in the media at the time. This would make the hon. gentleman at least suspect of taking part in a conspiracy to repress the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: Can the minister relate to that situation?
[ Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, first I do not think it has been demonstrated that the RCMP made an illegal break-in in the Praxis case and, second, the whole Praxis case happened when 1 was not Solicitor General of Canada. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the object matter of the question refers to my responsibilities as Solicitor General but only on that part of my responsibilities concerning the APLQ case.


Frank Oberle: With all respect, it has not been proven that the RCMP had no part in that break-in. However, it has been proven that there was a break-in, and it has been proven that the former solicitor general sent out a letter over his signature accusing 21 innocent Canadians of conspiring to overthrow the government and replace it with a radical alternative. The minister must have known, when he sent that letter, that the evidence upon which it was based was stolen evidence. Did he ask the people who had provided that information where they obtained that evidence? Did he order an investigation as to who the thieves were, regardless of what we know today? What was the nature of his discussions with those persons who gave him the evidence on the basis of which he signed and sent around a letter to the various departments and agencies of government?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member tells us a nice story which might satisfy him but which is not consistent

with the facts and, second, I do not think that we are now dealing with that matter is the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to allow the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River to ask a further question. Then I think the hon. member for Central Nova should conclude the questioning. After that we should get on with other business.


Frank Oberle: I must ask the minister this: Is he telling the House that he did not write the letter of June 15, 1971, and that he was not solicitor general at the time of the break-in at Praxis? That is what he has just said. I am suggesting he makes himself suspect to taking part in a conspiracy to obstruct justice and repress the truth.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have two points to make briefly, and a couple of questions to ask. I think we should remember that the most serious difficulties concerning this matter were raised, not just by opposition parties in this House but by a former commissioner of the RCMP and a former director of police security services. 1 would also submit that there is a distinct difference between fault and responsibility. The minister's exculpatory statement would have gone down much better in this chamber if he had been prepared to say, in effect, "It was not entirely my fault, but I accept some responsibility for it". That is exactly what any lawyer would do for a law clerk before a colleague. I should like to ask the minister whether it was the usual practice for the RCMP to recommend to him that he not answer letters. Was this something which was done regularly; or was this a particular occasion?
[ Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can say all the nonsense he wants on the matter of ministerial responsibilities,
I do not care. I am ready to assume my responsibilities each time I am involved in a decision. However I cannot take any responsibility for something I do not know. Ministerial responsibility as the responsibilities of lawyer are as simple as that. Maybe the hon. member did not learn this in law school. Now I shall answer his question. Mr. Speaker, I do not remember if the RCMP told me not to answer a letter, but as I said, it should be checked. I remember very well that some people asked to meet me and after discussing the matter with the RCMP I met none of its members for obvious reasons that I do not have to explain but I think I acted in a responsible way.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I thank the minister for his answer and would remind him that whatever his contentions, he was at the time the man responsible for seeing that the federal police force of this country did not break the law. This did not happen, and he will not take any responsibility; that is obvious. I ask the minister this: Has he ever investigated any complaints made against the force over which he had responsibility? Is he telling us he has never done anything personally to verify any complaints made against the force?
June 21, 1977


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, 1 never had any other body than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to check into complaints about its members. 1 have always relied upon and trusted the RCMP. I indicated in my statement that this was not an ideal system, that I had suggested myself to the Prime Minister that a commission of inquiry should be set up, first, on the issue of discipline within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, because that was and still is in my view a major issue, and second, on how to channel and investigate complaints against the force as the federal police force. The Prime Minister later acted on that suggestion when my predecessor the Hon. Warren Allmand became Solicitor General.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister's successors were coming under question as a result of this matter, did he at any time, either then or before, brief his successor, the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or indeed the present incumbent, and tell them fully what was going on? Did he, also, recently take the opportunity to meet with former commissioner Higgitt and police director Starnes in order to check the validity of their two impressions, as opposed to his nonrecollection, that possibly there was some reason for believing that he had been briefed? How much effort did the minister make to verify his contention that he could never have been briefed, despite the fact that these two eminent gentlemen said they would be surprised if he had not been?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, although a lawyer the hon. member is being quite naive. I shall draw a parallel. When some member leaves his office, he necessarily hands over his files. If he were to give a briefing on every case he is leaving behind, this would become an unending communication. When a minister leaves his portfolio, he must necessarily rely on his departmental officials to keep his successor informed on the files still pending. That is normal. Of course, I discussed with my successor matters of a general nature involving the orientation of the department. But there was no question that I discussed individual cases, and this includes the one referred to by the hon. member.
Indeed, I met the former RCMP Commissioner, I met the former Director General of Security Services and the current Commissioner of the RCMP, the future Commissioner of the RCMP, the current Director General of Security Services, the assistant Solicitor General and the Solicitor General. This was less than a month ago, and, of course, there was an exchange of views on this whole issue. I understand the statement made June 17 last by the Solicitor General of Canada resulted, in part at least, from that meeting.
Business of the House


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, 1 should like, for the convenience of the House, to designate tomorrow, June 22, as an allotted day and to request the House, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 58(5), to agree that June 22 shall be the final allotted day for the business of supply for the period ending June 30, 1977.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable to us and in accordance with some discussions that my colleague and I have had. Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, may I make an observation with respect to the procedure today, though not in any way to question the Chair. We have had a very interesting two days regarding the right of members to question. Yesterday the Chair ruled that under no circumstances could a minister be questioned as to his responsibilities in a former position. Today, in answer to a statement made by the Minister of Supply and Services who indicated that he would be willing to be questioned, the minister was questioned in extenso with respect to his former duties as a minister of the Crown.
I reread Your Honour's statement of yesterday and I must say that your statement was extremely strong. I would hope that the activities which have occurred today have broken new ground in the House of Commons and that we will now be able to question ministers of the Crown during the course of the regular question period with respect to their former capacities, at least while they are ministers, and perhaps beyond. We would have to explore that. But I would hope we have broken new ground, because there does seem to be some conflict between the two points of view.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has raised an important point. He may recall that yesterday when the point of order was debated I recognized the difficulty which the opposition had, under the rules, to question the Minister of Supply and Services. I said that I hoped a way could be found to overcome this rule which, despite what happened today, is still in effect. It was because of the desire to accommodate the House that the Minister of Supply and Services, when he began his statement on privilege, said that he was ready, if the House wished, and with the consent of the House, to open himself to questions and to give members an opportunity to question him.
Despite what has been said by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, 1 do not believe that the ruling made yesterday has in any way been affected by an arrangement that was entered into, first of all by the consent of the minister and of all hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suppose it provides fascinating consideration, but I did guard that ground, I thought, today when during the question period, in response to the question put by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, the minister indicated that he would make a statement. I believe I said then

June 21, 1977
Business of the House
that if the minister was prepared to come before the House and make the statement, and intended to permit questions, if that was with the unanimous consent of the House it could be done. But I do not think that in any way altered the basic requirement respecting ministerial responsibility in our question period. However, I am sure that the next time one of these situations arises there will be an argument, and the incumbent of the chair, who I hope will be a successor, will perhaps be able to resolve the problem with a little more lucidity than has been the case over the last couple of days.
Also, in attempting to sort out proceedings for the rest of the day I should indicate now that there is a statement on motions to be made by the Secretary of State. We have not yet launched into routine proceedings. We are facing a statutory order, and when we do get to orders of the day we are compelled to continue until at least ten o'clock the debate on the anti-inflation program.
1 indicated to the House that I would announce the time for commencement of the debate under Standing Order 26. I will return to the House after some deliberation on that point, but my intention would be to order that if the debate on the anti-inflation board goes until ten o'clock, the debate under Standing Order 26 will begin at ten o'clock. If, however, there is some disposition during the next hour or so to attempt to resolve the matter in some other way, if members come to some agreement on the possibility of starting the debate under Standing Order 26 earlier, then that is one suggestion that could be made. I will return to the chair perhaps at about five minutes to six to make a definitive announcement. If, in the meantime, there are any discussions which might produce some understanding about starting the debate at eight or nine o'clock, I can hear them in the interim and make some decision at six o'clock.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, if I understood your last observation correctly, you would be willing to listen to some discussion about how we may best proceed procedurally. I should like to indicate, on behalf of our party, our willingness to work out an arrangement, by unanimous consent, since the topic is of such importance, not to have a debate commencing at ten o'clock at night but, if agreeable to the official opposition, for example, to consider this particular topic as their topic, in which case we would be quite happy to abandon the motion which happens to be in my name and to put it in the name of a member of the official opposition. We could then have a full discussion on the topic tomorrow and obviate the need for a late night debate today.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, these are matters that could be looked into.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, is it understood that my proposal respecting an allotted day tomorrow is that it be the final allotted day? I know that agreement was indicated by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, but I should like it made clear that it has been accepted and ordered by the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that was agreed to this morning, and we stand by it.


Mr. Speaker:: Then that is agreed and so ordered.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eleventh and twelfth reports of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cafik.
Third report of Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services-Mr. Coates.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, in both official languages, the documents entitled "A National Understanding: The Official Languages of Canada" and "Un choix national: Les langues officielles au Canada."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement concerning a document that is being made public today setting forth the government's views about language policy for Canada. The document draws from a review of government experience to date with the official languages policy. As the background of the review is already known to members of this House, I will limit my remarks to mentioning some of the results of the review to which the government attaches importance.
The emphasis of language policy thus far has been on recognition of the equality of status of English and French as the official languages of Canada, both as approved by all parties in parliament, and as used in all the institutions of parliament and the government of Canada. The most important result of our review, as the statement tabled today makes clear, is the conclusion that the federal government cannot by itself ensure that the policy succeeds. The policy must also have the fullest support of the provincial governments.
What the government is saying in this statement is that recognition of the equality of English and .-French as the official languages of Canada must extend from the federal to the provincial level of government if this country is going to continue to exist as a single and unified country.
June 21, 1977



To say this will be interpreted by some as trying to tell the provincial governments what to do. But what is really being said is simply that this is one of the major facts evident in our experience with the policy thus far. One of the principles the government advocates, again as the statement makes clear, is that Canadians have a right to have their children educated in the official language of their choice, and the necessary facilities should be provided wherever numbers warrant. In other words, the federal government has concluded from its review of language policy experience thus far that Canadians must have freedom of choice to have their children educated in either of the official languages anywhere in this country, in future, if this country is to survive as a unified Canada.
But the statement also recognizes that there is only one province in Canada at this moment in our history where that freedom of choice can be fully exercised, and that is the province of Quebec. The government is saying in this policy statement that the freedom of choice that the education system of Quebec has always provided, as far as education in either official language is concerned, must now be extended across the other provinces. Our statement recognizes that this cannot be achieved over night, and this is why this principle has the qualifying phrase that the implementation of the principle is subject to circumstances which may make a deferment of application necessary. Bill No. 1, now under debate in Quebec, is a reflection of a twofold apprehension: apprehension about the future security of the French language and culture of Quebec, and apprehension also about the way the rest of Canada will, in future, be prepared to treat the French language.
There would be little ground for the extreme concern over the French culture and linguistic base in Quebec if there was confidence that French would, in fact and not just in law or formal statement, be treated with equality as a language and with respect as both language and culture throughout this country.
The federal government is convinced that this confidence is a vital factor in preserving the unity of Canada. The principle that Canadians have a right to have their children educated in the official language of their choice also recognizes that the people of Quebec might decide that circumstances there could require a determination that full freedom of choice should be deferred until present elements of insecurity for the French language and culture are removed or reduced.

In view of the considerable insecurity at the moment in Quebec concerning the preservation of French in that province, it is the responsibility of Canadians from all provinces to make the status of the French language more secure in Canada. But as long as the present insecurity persists, the government agrees that the deferment of this principle may be necessary. In the same manner, it is to be hoped that other provinces will strive toward the application of this principle. But practical circumstances of a financial nature, for instance, may some-
Official Languages
times force a deferment of application. In other words, this principle is an objective toward which we should strive.
May I emphasize that this statement on language policy is not intended in any way to be a substitute for discussion of constitutional issues which provincial governments may wish to raise and which the federal government recognizes remain important in relation to all of our problems.
As the statement tabled today points out, the government has never thought of the official languages policy as a cure-all for every problem of national unity. The government recognizes that we have serious economic problems. We must continue to resist inflation. We must improve the employment situation. The feeling of alienation in western Canada, problems of regional disparities, the need to find new sources of energy, to improve our transportation systems-all of these, and many other problems, must also be dealt with. But underlying and overshadowing all of these problems are the continuing problems of national unity, and at the heart of the national unity problem is the problem of languages and the need for the wider application of all that equality of our official languages implies.
As the languages statement points out, the rights provided by the official languages policy are not of benefit to Canadians of British and French origin alone. The acceptance and enjoyment of diversity that is encouraged by the policy is gradually spreading to more and more Canadians. This is steadily improving the climate of understanding in which Canadians of other cultural backgrounds can enjoy their own cultural heritage. The statement goes to some lengths to point out that there is a very important difference between the state's involvement in languages policy and the state's involvement, or attempt to be involved, in cultural policy.
This government believes that attempts to mould people who speak the same language into a homogeneous cultural pattern endanger their very freedom. Canada has two official languages, but is has no official culture, and government efforts to advance the cultural life of English and French speaking Canadians are intended only to promote the cultures of Canadians as individuals, not any culture of the state. The official languages policy, as the statement makes very plain, is intended to be the basis for an everwidening personal freedom in a society that cares profoundly for protection and strengthening of distinctive minority groups that determine the richly varied character of this country. The statement tabled today does not deal with possible changes in the application of the languages policy within the federal public service, as 1 indicated last week. This will be dealt with in a later statement.
I recommend that all members of this House read the statement with care. May I also emphasize that all references to provincial responsibilities in the statement are intended as statements of belief derived from our experience with the policy to date and its potential for helping to solve some of our current unity problems. These references constitute a plea to the provinces for understanding and support of the official languages policy to a greater extent than ever before.

June 21, 1977
Official Languages
1 would also urge that leaders of business and labour and other community leaders and, indeed, all interested Canadians, read and study this statement so that they all may make a contribution to the solution of our national unity problems, which 1 personally prefer still to look upon not as problems but as challenges to go on using this policy to widen the dimension of diversity in Canadian democracy which it advocates.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau)-National Defence-Alleged use of Gander airport to transport Cuban troops to Angola; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-Preservation of confidentiality of doctor-patient relationship-Government action; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)- Social Security-Negotiations for reciprocal agreements with other countries-Date agreements effective.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see tabled today the document entitled "A National Understanding" which spells out some of the basic principles and objectives of the national languages policy followed by the Government of Canada. I would say that not only do we welcome the document but we find it an unusually well written document, and I want to extend that compliment to its authors.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: One of the major problems which we find with this document is that in effect it is ten years late. This is the kind of statement of principle, statement of directions, that we should have had when the whole program of official languages began in this country. Unfortunately, because of the absence of such a statement of direction at the beginning, we have had, on the language policy of this country, a decade of national misunderstanding regarding the goals of the government and

the application of the national languages policy. I want to make clear that that was not the fault of parliament, and not the fault of members of parliament, because all the parties in the House approved the Official Languages Act when it came in.
The fault lies inescapably with the way in which this government has interpreted and implemented the mandate given it under the Official Languages Act by the House of Commons. That has caused particular concern in the Public Service of Canada. Those are concerns which the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) said he will be addressing later on, and I say to him that we look forward not only to hearing that statement of policy and statement of direction, but we also look forward to substantial reforms being made in the way that the Official Languages Act applies to the public service of the country.
One fundamental weakness that exists in this document-it is a weakness that I think the Secretary of State anticipated when he indicated that as regards the provinces this should be seen only as a statement of belief by the government-is that despite the heavy and direct interest of the provinces in the subject matter of this statement and of this document, there has been no evidence of any consultation with any of the provincial governments of Canada. In fact, if the information available to us is correct, copies of this paper were delivered to the premiers of the various provinces only within the last few days by federal officials who were following not any particular agenda of the government or of the provinces, but who simply dropped in where Air Canada schedules happened to allow them to drop in, and dropped in the laps of the provincial premiers what was, in effect, a fait accompli, and then moved on to some other capital.
It has been a striking fact that since the election of November 15 in the province of Quebec which reawakened the concern in the country about the question of national unity and renewed the concern in the country about our ability to co-operate together, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) has not once called together the premiers of the ten provinces, his principal partners in confederation, to discuss with them and to take them into his confidence as to the directions in which he wants this country to move so that we might better achieve national unity. Clearly, he should have done that. There should have been consultation with the premiers on this document before it came to them as a fait accompli. There should have been consultation with the premiers, and in fact with the parliament of this country, on the question of national unity well before this time.
Instead of coming to parliament-that is being done later this month as a result of pressure brought by this party and others-instead of going to the premiers, and instead of going to the people and seeking solutions on some of the problems that face us, the Prime Minister has been relying, on the whole, broad question of national unity, on establishing little bureaucracies tucked away here in Ottawa and on writing a new national languages policy and sending it out as a fait accompli to the provinces.
June 21, 1977

That is not simple discourtesy, because I think it is clear that had there been broader consultation in the preparation of this document or the preparation of plans to bring Canadians together again, the Prime Minister and the government which he dominates, on this question would have moved beyond the dangerously simple faith that is expressed in the words of the Secretary of State that "at the heart of the national unity problem is the problem of languages". I note that both in the statement of the Secretary of State and in the preface by the Prime Minister there was reference to the effect that the official languages policy is not, and never was intended to be, a cure-all for the problems of national unity. I think we have to regard that as a ritual disclaimer. The fact remains that in the interpretation of the Prime Minister of this country the central instrument of national unity is the national languages policy, and the central problems relate exclusively to questions relating to language. That is made clear most markedly in paragraph-

-it was read in French by the minister, but I do not have the French copy in hand. The English version was as follows, and I quote:

There would be little ground for the extreme concern over the French culture and linguistic base in Quebec if there was confidence that French would, in fact and not just in law or formal statement, be treated with equality as a language and with respect as both language and culture throughout this country.
That expresses the Prime Minister's and the government's understanding of the problems in the province of Quebec, and that is the simple premise of this policy. 1 think, to say the least, it is a highly questionable premise as to whether that kind of confidence will alone diminish the extreme concern regarding the French culture and the Quebecois culture in the province of Quebec.
The document sets forth some very interesting principles. Some of them are not particularly challenging. The first is that every citizen in his or her private capacity has the right to speak any language. That is a relief to all of us and, I think, a self-evident principle. But one of the proposed principles troubles me very much and troubles my colleagues on this side of the House. That is the proposed principle that reads, and it is very carefully phrased, by the way:
Subject to circumstances which may make a deferment of application necessary, Canadians have a right to have their children educated in the official language of their choice, and the necessary facilities should be provided wherever numbers warrant.
Speaking personally, 1 want my child to be educated in the official language of her choice, and I would imagine that most members of the House, and indeed most people in the country, would want their children educated in the official language of their choice. But that is a desire. This draft principle would make it a right, and since education is in the jurisdiction of the provinces, this draft principle would have parliament declaring a right which we have no authority to guarantee. It would amount, despite the denials of the Secretary of State, to parliament telling the provinces what to do. It may be that the provinces might choose to declare this principle as a right-I
Official Languages
emphasize this-which they and they alone have the power now to do. If they accept the concept, the constitution of Canada might be changed. But let us understand that parliament cannot guarantee the proposed right, to use the language of the minister, without amending the constitution.
That being the case, the unilateral declaration of a right we cannot enforce could inflame conflict among the provinces from whom we should be seeking co-operation. For parliament unilaterally to declare this right without consultation with or approval of the provinces, and then to expect the provinces to enforce what they did not agree to, could at the very least invite the interpretation that change was being shoved down the throats of the provinces of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I need not remind members of the House that one of the major problems with the acceptance and application of the Official Languages Act in Canada was the sense that it had been shoved down people's throats, and I say to the government that if they are serious about this change, they will not make that mistake again. There is one final matter which is relevant to this whole question to which I would like to refer in concluding my remarks. It is a matter which falls very directly within the responsibilities of this government; that is the question of a successor to the retiring Commissioner of Official Languages. It is now almost five months since Mr. Keith Spicer submitted his resignation to the Prime Minister and requested an early appointment of his successor in order to provide for a reasonable period of transition, yet there has been to our knowledge absolutely no sign of any action by the government on this appointment. It is an appointment which all hon. members know requires the concurrence of this House.
I think hon. members on both sides of the House still retain the hope that we are going to rise for the summer recess within two or three weeks. It would be unfair to Mr. Spicer, who has other obligations, and a setback in the cause of language equity if we were to rise for the summer without having placed before us a recommendation by the Prime Minister for a new commissioner of official languages. That is a matter of positive action within federal jurisdiction which can contribute to national unity, and I urge the Secretary of State to counsel his Prime Minister to act with some sense of responsibility and urgency on this matter which falls clearly within the domain of this government. This government should not restrict itself to giving advice to the provinces as to actions they should take in areas that lie simply within their jurisdiction.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we welcome most of the substance of what the minister said today concerning the government's language rights paper and most of the details that I discovered in that paper after looking through it rather quickly. In particular, I want to emphasize three points of agreement. The first is the explanation offered to English-speaking Canadians of the reasons French-speaking Canada has felt threatened by assimilation throughout our

June 21, 1977
Official Languages
history, as it indeed it still does. 1 think in the main the explanation is sound, cogent and acceptable to anyone with an impartial mind.
The second point of agreement is the reiteration of the importance of protecting minority language rights both in English Canada and in French Canada and the explanation of how the federal government's policy of bilingualism, in principle at least, is intended to protect those rights. We agree in principle. As has been made clear on this side of the House very often, we criticize the application of the principle, but it has been a matter of detail and not one of intent.
The third point I want to make is that we appreciate what I see as the new stress on the need for action in areas outside federal jurisdiction and within the purview of the provinces, such as the language used in our courts and in the legislatures where it is important to extend recognition and protection to minority rights. 1 think that is a new emphasis and one which is indeed very important to the country.

Our main criticism against this paper is that the government should have moved in that direction ten years ago. They have done very little to explain the importance of bilingualism to the Canadian people since the Official Languages Act was implemented. After the failure of the Victoria conference, the federal government no longer took an interest in the rights of minorities outside federal institutions.

What concerns me very much about the minister's statement today and the document itself is the "wait and see" attitude which runs through them. I repeat that this is a serious concern. The government, it is indicated, is willing to do this or willing to consider that, but the document, unless I misssed something on first reading it, is completely lacking in a firm commitment to do anything. Apart from some overdue housecleaning measures related to the federal bilingualism program, we have very little indication-in fact, virtually none at all-of a firm course of action in the future. The government is willing to support, for example, funding for education of minority language groups where the numbers might otherwise not justify such facilities in the provinces. The government is willing to support language training costs for provincial civil servants. But where is there an indication that the government is committed-not simply willing to consider something, or willing to co-operate-to going out to the provinces and saying that it has "X" number of dollars for a certain purpose which ought to be spent in "Y" area?
The federal government should be asking the provinces what they think. We would welcome that initiative. We say that in terms of the old motion of co-operative federalism, the federal government should not be hesitating to go to the provinces of Canada, regardless of their governments-and there have been New Democratic governments as well as Liberal and Conservative governments-and telling them that up to the present time they have not done everything they should have been doing within their jurisdiction in dealing with majority and

minority language rights. I think it is time we got explicit about it. It is time for the federal government, particularly, to get explicit about it. It is time it went to the provinces suggesting courses of action. It is time the federal government was willing to provide financial assistance, and not simply in principle. It is time the federal government set aside money to be spent in particular provinces if they co-operate in this area. That is my most serious concern about what the minister said today.
We have an indication of some good intentions. There is an indication of recognition of a failure to protect linguistic rights, particularly for minorities, depending on which province we are talking about. However, we did not get what I was hoping we would, and that is a very explicit commitment to act and a very explicit recognition that in a federal state like Canada, with many cultures but two principal official languages, what is required is national leadership. National leadership does not mean simple imposition of detailed programs worked out here in Ottawa. It does require that the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State go to the provinces on issues of national concern suggesting that action should be taken not only at the federal level but also at the provincial level. The Prime Minister and the minister should welcome provincial co-operation in spending in this area, and the federal government should be making specific dollar allocations. I am disappointed that we do not have an indication of greater initiative coming directly from the federal government in this respect.
As important as this issue is, I do not believe that majority and minority language rights are central to the issue of national unity at this time. I think we are kidding ourselves if that is still a central belief, and I say with serious concern to the government of the day and indirectly-because he is not here, for very good reasons, I am sure-to the Prime Minister that if they believed that in 1968, in 1972 and in 1974, I hope they have got over the illusion. The language rights issue is important for its own sake, and all of us who want to show political leadership, and all of our political parties-and I use "leadership" in the broadest sense, meaning every member of parliament showing leadership in his community-must stand 100 per cent behind the principles of the Official Languages Act and behind the thrust of this document.
I believe in the document that much, but I want to stress that if it is seen as a cure for the separatist forces in Quebec, as I read the studies which have been done-and I do not want to appear arrogant and all-knowledgeable as an outsider-and as I speak to my friends and my political opponents in the province of Quebec, the language issue, as a concern now for Quebeckers in dealing with the independence movement, is not an issue. It is important for Francophone Canadians outside Quebec that we do everything we can on that issue. But, Mr. Speaker, we delude ourselves seriously if we think that the thrust indicated in this paper, as desirable and important as it is, will be significant in the national unity debate that has to be fought and won in the province of Quebec.
June 21, 1977


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the statement made this afternoon by the minister when he tabled his paper on the official languages of Canada. I can assure you that while listening to him, hundreds of questions occurred to me. As French Canadians, whenever we hear this kind of statement made by an English-speaking minister, we should like to go back to 1867, because that is when statements should have been made. Therefore, we are 110 years late.
The minister said, and I quote:
What the government is saying in this statement is that recognition of the equality of English and French as the official languages of Canada must extend from the federal to the provincial level of government if this country is going to continue to exist as a single and unified country.
As previous speakers said, one wonders whether before preparing this paper the minister or his officials consulted those directly concerned or really responsible, the representatives of every province of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this government completely disregards the basis of Confederation, namely the respect for the provinces' authority. I feel this is a further terrible encroachment upon provincial jurisdiction without even asking for permission, and we have become used to it because ever since I came to this House, I have seen the government interfere by all possible means in areas under provincial jurisdiction without asking their permission.
I am in favour of the official languages, in particular when the minister says:
One of the principles the government advocates, again as the statement makes clear, is that Canadians have a right to have their children educated in the official language of their choice . ..
I believe, and indeed the minister states that we have nothing to reproach Quebec with in this instance. But shall we be able to convince, Mr. Minister, the nine English provinces to implement what has just been stated? They have been rejecting the teaching of French and forcing French Canadians to learn English for 110 years. That is the point and let us be realistic. We must stop deceiving ourselves. We must stop making fine speeches and trying to make Quebec believe certain things while patting it on the back. We have been telling Quebec for 110 years: The time will come. Because of what happened on November 15, some people are now afraid. I am also afraid, and I do not say this lightly, but because I ask myself the following question: Shall we finally be able to convince the nine other provinces to do their share? And now I would like to make the following invitation. We are all Canadians, and it therefore seems to me that we should put aside all our old theories and assert that we want a united Canada and that we must work together. We have been waiting for this for 110 years. In the early days of Confederation, French was taught in all the English provinces. It was French Canadians who opened up the western provinces. When the governments of the English provinces simply abolished the right to teach French, the federal government did
Official Languages
nothing. Let us be realistic my Anglophone friends! You did nothing to protect our minorities in your English provinces. Let us be honest! I would not want either to treat the Anglophones of my province like you treated Francophones in your provinces. I do not want that. It is essential to co-operate at this time. We are sensible people. It is essential to get together and put an end to our old ideologies and stop saying as some still do today, and as I have heard myself in British Columbia: Speak white! I will never tell an English-speaking Quebecer: Speak French! When he is in Quebec, he is entitled to speak either French or English; he is entitled to go to an English school or a French school. Have no fear, he is happy.
Some people are anxious today and they say: Let us not speak about the future, let us not speak of what happened for 110 years. We do not know what the future will be. I hope progress will continue in Quebec. But I hope also that western provinces will wake up once for all. That is where we find the secret for Canadian unity on the language issue. There is an economic issue but the great issue is language. We should never forget that. We will not have Canadian unity as long as we reject our minorities outside Quebec. It is clear. And I say so as a French Canadian. That is the question. Canadian unity would be impossible if we do not change our minds, if we do not try to do what Quebec did for 110 years, and certainly that is what we have to do. I should think the lesson has been long enough. We took time to learn, 110 years! You must not think 1 am malicious. I said that because 1 would like people to think as we do, to recognize the minorities' rights in other provinces, as 1 always pleaded for the minority's rights in Quebec.
I have good English-speaking friends in Quebec whom I respect as I have in all the other provinces, and I know that if, in each province-and I am talking about the nine other provinces-the members of parliament go out and start convincing the provincial governments to come to their senses and become more humanitarian and actually feel what Canadian unity means, it is then that we will have really started working towards unity. You will see then that we can respect each other. I bear no hard feelings toward English-speaking Canadians nor toward any other ethnic group, but 1 think that they have been educated in a certain pattern and we have been raised in a different one.
To be more practical, 1 would like the members of this House to agree on something once and for all: That from now on, as members of this House, we will defend the rights of the minorities and that we recognize that there are two founding people in Canada and that there are two official languages. This has just been reiterated, and I would ask all members, if they want to be honest, if they want to be sincere, if they love their country and if they care for its unity to make this understood by the other governments. And 1 tell you that if we do not succeed, then 1 will question the meaning of Canadian unity to which I aspire so wholeheartedly.
That is the appeal which I wanted to make this afternoon. If I have the opportunity of dealing once again with this issue, I will talk about the subject of economic agreements. I recently read a study on all the federal-provincial conferences that have

June 21, 1977
Official Languages
been held since 1867, and all that ever was debated in those meetings boils down to money, and the question to know who would tax whom and who would tax the most? This type of situation has prevailed for the past 110 years. We are going to have to come back to sense, at the grass-roots of our Confederation, and let the provinces have what belongs to them and let the federal government administer in those areas in which it should exercise its authority. When this is done, then, we will start living in a true Confederation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). There is one reference in his statement, and I am reading from page 2 of the English language copy, in which the government agrees to something. That is so rare in this House that I want to know precisely to what it is agreeing. The sentence to which I refer on page 2 reads:
But as long as the present insecurity persists, the government agrees that the deferment of this principle may be necessary.
I am not clear, from the language of this draft, precisely where the government thinks the deferment of that principle may be necessary. Could the Secretary of State elaborate? Is he talking about the deferment of the application of that principle in the province of Quebec, or about the deferment of the application of that principle in other provinces?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. I was a bit surprised-and I say this kindly and not contentiously because 1 am anxious for all parties in the House, to the degree they can, to accept the document-I was a bit surprised at the hon. member's assertion that this should have been done ten years ago and, at the same time, at the indication that he was unhappy, that he doubted or was uncertain about the essential proposition the paper puts forward, which is this: it is essential for the provinces to accept certain responsibilities which fall within provincial jurisdiction and to concentrate particularly on education, that is to say, the provinces should step forward solidly and accept the burden which we think the facts have shown it is essential for them to shoulder, that of accepting the official languages policy in the areas of their jurisdiction.
If I understood the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) correctly, he regards this as an invasion of provincial jurisdiction. Let me make it clear that the government does not consider this document in that light. It considers it, rather, as an invitation to assist in this effort, an invitation to which we will respond if the provinces bring forward proposals as to how they might better do this.
That same point refers to the question of consultation, which the hon. member raised. The paper was not delivered to provincial governments en passant, by a civil servant who happened to be passing through via Air Canada. I, as Secretary of State, made a special effort to see as many provincial governments as I could to discuss with them the contents of

the paper. I do not wish to indicate that they were consulted as to its final form, but there was discussion with them.
I point out to the Leader of the Opposition, as I indicated in the House and in the committee of the House, that there has been consultation with the provincial governments in the whole area of education. They date back at least to last January, when I presented the initial propositions on behalf of the government to the council of ministers of education. Those propositions have been discussed with the provincial governments, and I understand that the provincial governments are preparing a response to them, which I expect will be presented to us some time in September. There have been continuing conversations in that area which most concerns the hon. member, if I may judge from his remarks made today. I am not using his words; the hon. member seemed to be concerned about a possible invasion of provincial jurisdiction. On the contrary, we hope, firmly and strongly, that the provinces will welcome this initiative and will see too, as we now do, the necessity of shouldering these burdens in their jurisdiction.
I am tempted to say that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) regarded the problem somewhat differently. He was asking for greater intervention in the provincial area, while the Leader of the Opposition feared we would interve in that area. I point out to both hon. members that we are involved in this area substantially now, and when the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby complains that so little has been done, the fact is that in this decade alone, that is to say since 1970, over $650 million of federal funds has been directed to these purposes. Virtually two thirds of a billion dollars of federal funds have been directed to these purposes in the area of education.


Mr. Fairweather:: This is all very nice, but you are not answering the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member is quite right. The minister should try to answer the question. I do not want to preclude him from giving an answer, but 1 would not want him to make another statement. If hon. members agree, I think we should end this question period at about ten to six. We should end routine proceedings before six o'clock, after which we can proceed with the adjournment debate. Perhaps the minister will answer the question quickly, after which I shall recognize four or five other hon. members.


John (Moody) Roberts: 1 apologize, Mr. Speaker. I was carried away, let me answer the question the hon. member asked. The explicit answer is this: the principle of free choice, both outside the province of Quebec and within the province of Quebec, we accept. It may not be possible to implement it outside Quebec because of lack of facilities, financial constraints, and so on.
As for applying the principle within the province of Quebec, let me say that we understand and sympathize with the public's perception of the insecurity of the French language and French culture. We understand therefore that in that context it may be regrettably necessary not to persist now with the immediate implementation of that principle of free choice
June 21, 1977

for the education of one's children in either official language. We have described that hoice as an essential principle which we hope will be adopted, if not in the immediate future, over the longer term in the Canadian context.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that makes the situation much clearer. My concern is this, and I hope it is clear, that there seems to be an attempt in this document to declare a right for the federal parliament to declare a right which only the provinces can bring into force. That would cause me, and I think the premiers, great concern. May I, while on that point, ask the minister to assure us that no attempt will be made by the Government of Canada to act in a way which would assume that that right exists, unless the provinces agree.


John (Moody) Roberts: No, Mr. Speaker. We are asking the provinces themselves to accept that right. However, on page 70 of the document we raise this question: if events crystallize and provinces do not wish to assume that burden, would it be desirable to give the federal government a greater role in this area than it has been given heretofore? But we emphasize it in terms of what the provinces may consider it desirable to do. There is no suggestion by the government that we should act in that matter unilaterally. Indeed it is our strong hope that the provinces will, within the areas falling under their own jurisdiction, accept the principles of the Official Languages Act, principles which they would implement within their own areas of jursidiction.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, 1 recognize I could use some other way to put this question to the Secretary of State, but I chose to ask it publicly for everybody to understand the nature of my question. 1 want to congratulate him for the scope of his statement, but I would like to know if, in his paper, he should not have included some provision which would ensure a certain quality of French, especially of French as a written, spoken and even sung language. There is a vacuum in this area, at least in the province of Quebec.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to comment about that possible vacuum in Quebec. There is no reference to that question within the paper I tabled today. Perhaps there should be some such reference, and I will be happy to discuss with the hon. member questions about which he is concerned.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not have a copy of the statement the minister tabled today. I do not have a party leader, thank goodness, but I wish to make some comments on this subject.
I am a bit concerned that the minister has spoken about freedom of choice of a parent to educate a child in the language of the parents' choice. I would like to know whether the minister is prepared to carry this freedom a bit further so that a parent can have the freedom of choice to have the child
Official Languages
educated in both official languages. That would be true bilingualism.
I am afraid that what the minister has suggested today is going to continue to operate as separatism. 1 fear the government is encouraging separatism by some of the suggestions that have been made, and we will continue to have ghettos of French and ghettos of English. It is obvious that the government did not want to use the word "language" in the Human Rights Act when it came before the House.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the minister, and his colleagues at the federal level should meet with their counterparts at the provincial level to endeavour to have a uniform, national, integrated, non-separate education system where all youngsters, regardless of their religion, colour, language or ethnic background, can be educated in both languages together. We would then have national unity. We would then have language unity. Is the minister prepared to go that far to indicate freedom of choice in both languages, not just one?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I exactly understood the nature of the question. It would be the ultimate hope one would be able to choose either official language. Presumably one could alternate them from year to year if one so desired. I do not see how one can be educated in two languages at the same time, unless the hon. member is speaking about the kinds of programs we already have, that is, to give second language courses as well as majority language instruction, which happens in many places in the country at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not want the hon. member to think that he is not entitled to make a comment. If he wants to clarify a question, I will allow it.


Leonard C. Jones: The simplicity of the question is obvious. The Official Languages Act declared two official languages. Is the government prepared to encourage the education of students in this country in both official languages of this country, and not just one, so that we do not have some children being educated in English schools and some being educated in French?
I will give an example in my home town. My youngster at one time asked me what door he would go into at school, the English door, the French door, or the Catholic door. We have straightened out the religious situation. Surely the government can straighten out the language situation. Is the minister prepared to encourage the provinces to go along with that type of situation rather than separate schools?


John (Moody) Roberts: If I understood the question correctly, the answer is yes.
[ Translation]


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how interesting is the minister's statement. He has emphasized the fact that it was more than an invitation to the provinces, it is a federal government's decision. That rather takes me back to wishful thinking concerning the provinces. I deeply regret, Mr. Speaker, that we were not assured that

June 21, 1977
Official Languages
there would be a genuine consultation with the provinces. 1 regret that nobody can tell us how many provinces or if all provinces agree on such an objective.
Of course, 1 would like to be sure the provinces will accept and, taking into account the institutions and the staff training which will be necessary if this objective is ever put forward, 1 cannot keep from seriously doubting the validity or the efficiency of the statement made today. But I would like to ask the minister if he could provide this House with the assurance that the nine provinces agree completely on this principle which is an ideal, without any doubt, and if it would not be easier with that assurance to see a more positive and more encouraging attitude from Quebec and even see the possibility of amending Bill No. 1 which is presently being debated in Quebec.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, 1 of course hope that Bill 1 might be modified to be in accordance with the principles which we have described in the paper. In so far as the other part of the question is concerned, in relation to consultation, there have been consultations with all ten provinces in relation to these programs, at least since January, in terms of educational problems in relation to language.
I would be a bit dismayed at the suggestion that the consultation we should undertake should be undertaken only confidentially between the federal government and the provinces. It is preferable for the federal position to be made public so that discussion of the provincial position can take place as well in public.
Obviously the process of consultation is not simply a consultation between governments, but also involves the citizens of the provinces. They should be aware of the position the federal government is taking and also of the position their provincial governments take. They should be aware of how these positions might accord one with the other. That kind of consultation or exchange is most usefully undertaken within the forum of public awareness. That is why we have presented the federal government's position as clearly as we can today.
I believe, after the very short discussions which I had with the various provincial leaders, that they will be prepared to welcome the document, at least for purposes of discussion and study. We look forward very much to receiving their replies so that we may deal publicly with an issue that is of fundamental importance to this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize three more members, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos), the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), and the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), and then we will try to complete Routine Proceedings.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister advise the House whether he feels the linguistic equality principle which underlies his policy statement would be as faithfully adhered to if, as regards the language of

teaching, all English-speaking provinces agreed to treat their French-speaking minorities just as well as Quebec will treat its English-speaking minority following the adoption of Bill One which, as the Minister very well knows, guarantees access to English schools to all children of English-speaking parents who have received their education in Quebec and which may hopefully be amended in a way that will allow children of English-speaking parents coming from outside Quebec also to attend English schools.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a great step forward if Bill 1 were changed or altered in that direction. It would certainly be a great step forward if the other provinces moved to a system to provide the same opportunity which now exists within the province of Quebec and would indeed exist after the passage of Bill 1 in its present form. As I indicated, it would seem desirable that amendments to it take place.
The difficulty I personally have in relation to Bill 1 is that it accepts a limitation on freedom of choice not simply as a short-term regrettable necessity but as a permanent thread in the fabric of Quebec life. If the provincial government were able, as I hope it would, to say that while it might in the short-term be regrettably necessary to have such limitation on language freedom, it would not be necessary in the longer run, that would be an admirable step forward in the present situation.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I realize the time constraint and I have just a couple of questions. One of them at least will need an answer later. The minister might like to take it under advisement.
The first question concerns the role of which the minister speaks on page 70. Is it the expectation that the government will promote the federal role by a transfer of tax points or direct cash grants? It is ironic that we have just passed the Fiscal Arrangements Act whereby the government transfers tax points and winds down to some extent the federal role, yet here we are happily winding it up. It is a paradox.
Second, my leader spoke of the replacement of the languages commissioner. Surely we are entitled to a date or an expectation in connection with a new appointment. If we leave here early in July, will we know who it is to be before we leave?
Last, would the minister reconsider what I believe to be an unfortunate omission of a reference to my own province of New Brunswick which will celebrate Canada's birthday by proclaiming the last parts of the Official Languages Act, parts which have come into play only with difficulty because of the nature of the arrangements. The minister, in his statement, omitted any mention of New Brunswick though he referred specifically to what is happening in Quebec. I have no anxiety about that, but I do take exception to New Brunswick being omitted. Effective July 1 of this year it will be the only officially bilingual province in Canada.
June 21, 1977


John (Moody) Roberts: 1 must be hesitant in relation to the hon. member's first question. I would be reluctant to say anything which might be interpreted as providing a blank cheque to the provinces in connection with funding. We are anxious, as the paper indicates, to receive proposals for discussion and, indeed, we have been discussing with the provinces, as I indicated earlier possible changes in the present payment system.
In relation to the appointment of a languages commissioner I know there are a number of names under consideration, but the hon. member's question is one which should be directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The appointment is one which he should announce to the House rather than myself.
Finally, 1 understand the minister's concern that I did not, in my statement, refer to New Brunswick. If he looks at page 70 of the paper, however, he will find there a full and strong statement of recognition of the important steps the province of New Brunswick has taken.


Mr. Haidasz:: In thanking the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) for this statement on language policy and deploring the restrictive provisions of Bill 22 and of proposed Bill 1 in the Quebec Legislature, I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether in the formulation of this policy and in discussion with the provinces any consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism in relation to federal support for the teaching of non-official languages in Canada.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member I would point out that my colleague, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Guay), this past week end made a statement in Vancouver, a copy of which I am sure he will send to the hon. member, indicating that the federal government is prepared to fund under certain formulae, as a supplement to the ordinary school system, special classes for the maintenance of a variety of languages in the country, as I say, not through funds directed to the normal school system, but to voluntary agencies and other groups who have organized special classes in their language, supplementary to the normal educational system. For further details I would suggest the hon. member read the speech made by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism this past weekend.


CRIMINAL CODE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: for leave to introduce Bill C-425, to amend the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation of children).
He said: Mr. Speaker, members of the House of Commons and Canadians in general are appalled at the rapidly rising incidence of children performing sexual acts for those in society producing pornographic materials.
Order Paper Questions
The purpose of this bill is to protect children under the age of 15 from sexual exploitation in general and in particular, from sexual exploitation in "adult" magazines and films. At the same time the bill would widen the scope of section 166 of the Criminal Code, which presently is limited to parental responsibility for certain acts or omissions in relation to their female children. The bill extends the same prohibitions as provided for female children to male children.
Section 166 of the Criminal Code will be further amended which would outlaw child pornography and allow the courts to dispose of the offensive material.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,565, 2,334 and 2,407.


Mr. Marshall: Under the Mineral Development Agreement signed on December 17, 1976 between the government and Newfoundland, what areas are designated for mineral evaluation in the Constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe under (a) regional mineral potential evaluation (b) mineral resource management (c) mineral development strategies?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: To date, management committee approval for projects under the Regional Mineral Potential Evaluation component of the agreement will result in detailed geological mapping in areas of the Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe Constituency as outlined in Figure I, following. Specifically, this will include the major part of Sector 1 (a further description of sub-project 1.11 Daniel's Harbour is contained in Figure 2, following) and a smaller portion of Sector 2. It is anticipated that this component of the agreement will account for approximately 70 per cent of the total agreement funds. Work on this project will commence in the coming field season. The Mineral Resource Management Project will be concerned with the province as a whole and not any specific region. The Mineral Development Strategies Project has a number of components, some of which will be province wide and some of which will be concerned with certain areas. The general concepts of the project have been outlined, but the specific work has not yet been decided. Joint public announcements will be made regularly by DREE and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador regarding progress on the implementation of the Agreement.


[Stage Direction]
1.19	BURIN BONAVISTA
A.	MERASHEEN AREA
B.	BURIN AREA
[Stage Direction]
 Region boundaries
[Stage Direction]
Project area boundaries
Mapping completed
Mapping proposed
...t:-11
in/
I______47°
[Stage Direction]
June 21, 1977
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
Fig. 2
Daniels Harbour Project Area
[Stage Direction]
June 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, how many federal employees were charged with policy-making, or interpretation of policies, regulating the exploration, production and distribution of energy?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: (a) 25; (b).215.
National Energy Board reports as follows: (a) 62; (b) 153.
Note: These figures include administrative support staff.


QUESTIONS PLACED ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Roy (Laval): 1.	Since the opening of the 30th Parliament, how many questions have been placed on the Order Paper?
2.	What is the breakdown of these questions by political parties?
3.	What Members of Parliament have placed over 300 questions on the Order Paper?
4.	What is the number of questions which entailed the (a) greatest (b) least cost?
5.	What is the average cost per question answered?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (ff).
2.	See part 1.
3.	See part 1.
4.	This information is not available.
5.	The government's best estimate of the average cost involved in answering a relatively straight-forward ministerial inquiry would be at least $60 per question.
Note: A shared question requiring a reply from all departments, agencies and Crown corporations would therefore cost at least $2,760 (46-the number of replies X $60). The latest survey of the estimated cost of answering Order Paper Questions was undertaken in March 1975 (See reply to question No. 1,837 answered May 15, 1975).


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN
Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2,365 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


IMPORT AND EXPORT OF OIL
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	Did Canada export oil and natural gas in (a) 1970-71 (b) 1971-72 (c) 1972-73 (d) 1973-74 (e) 1974-75 (f) 1975-76 (g) 1976-77 and, if so, in each case (i) what quantity (ii) to what countries (iii) at what price?
2.	Did Canada import oil during those same years and, if so (a) from what countries (b) at what price?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) made an application pursuant to Standing Order 26 to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, and stated the subject to be a clear possibility of a conspiracy concerning the concealment of evidence and the failure to take appropriate action pertaining to the illegal break-in by three police officers at L'Agence de Presse Libre on the night of October 6-7, 1972. I decided, pursuant to Standing Order 26(4), that I was satisfied it was a proper matter to be discussed, and I indicated to the House then that pursuant to the other provisions of the Standing Order I assumed,, as I have often done in the past, that the hon. member then had the leave of the House, as was obvious, to move the motion.
That being the case, I have properly assumed that the hon. member does in fact have leave and therefore, leave having been granted, the motion shall stand over until the completion of the debate under the statutory order dated May 30, but in any event no earlier than eight o'clock this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

["1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.\nAt 6.25 p.m. the House took recess."]
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to notice given earlier this day and to revised proceedings during this month, the matters to be raised at this hour are as follows: the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau)-National Defence; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-Social Security.
Perhaps to keep our proceedings in order I should call orders of the day before proceeding, and indicate that I have already recognized the hon. member for Shefford.
June 21, 1977

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.



Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge, especially in the last few years, that the Cuban government has taken upon itself a special mission throughout the world. It seems to have become the promoter or the instigator of guerilla warfare in several countries. It is a known fact, among other things, that Castro's troops are in Angola to do the job we suspect and to overthrow the ruling government there. At the present time, Mr. Fidel Castro's troops are also in Mozambique, in Rhodesia and in Tanzania.
A few years ago, the Salazar government in Portugal refused access to the airports in Portugal to the troops of Fidel Castro's government in Cuba for fuelling up on their way to Angola and Mozambique, there to take part in the revolution. I was particularly shocked to learn the other day, through an American television program, that Canada had given Castro's troops authorization to use the military airport in Gander, Newfoundland, and thereby enable Castro and his troops to reach Angola and participate in guerilla warfare.
Now, according to my information, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave Fidel Castro that authorization; I found it absolutely shocking. So, under the circumstances, I would like to know whether national defence authorities were consulted before the Prime Minister authorized Fidel Castro's troops to use the airport in Gander, Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to know whether the Prime Minister can give such authorizations to a government such as Fidel Castro's without consulting beforehand our national defence authorities, or whether it is the policy of National Defence to cooperate with any revolutionary government that wants to engage in guerilla warfare in certain countries of the world.
So, Mr. Speaker, that is why I brought up the matter in the House of Commons. I would like to know whether the authorization given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was government policy or whether it was an error on the part of the Prime Minister, or again an authorization that does not reflect government policy. I should very much like the spokesman for National Defence to give me a clear and specific explanation, and more particularly tell me whether the Canadian government is willing to cooperate with any army or group whose special mission is guerilla warfare and revolution in foreign countries.


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, further to the minister's reply of June 16, the Canada-Cuba air transport agreement, signed in September, 1975, grants to the Cuban airline overflights of and technical stops in Canada. Therefore no special or prior consultations
Adjournment Debate
are required for each flight. Nonetheless, the government has investigated all alleged incidences of this type, and there is no evidence that a Cuban airline has used Gander for troop movements. Furthermore, Cuba operates direct scheduled services between Havana and Luanda, Angola, via Conakry and Freetown. Charter flights receive prior diplomatic clearance through the Department of External Affairs. Each Cuban charter receives a prescribed route from the Department of National Defence. Since January, 1975, there have been only two charter flights into Canada, one to Vancouver for Habitat in June, 1976, and one to Ottawa for an official Cuban state visit in September, 1975.


HEALTH-PRESERVATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY OF DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) a question on June 7 having to do with the growth of socialized medicine requiring identification of the patient and his treatment, information which was inviolate before the introduction of state medicine but which can be and has been used by communist countries against patients in those countries. I asked the minister what protection had been provided to preserve this confidentiality for Canadian patients.
In answering that question the minister went on to say that the civil servants were fully protected. As far as the health of civil servants is concerned, quite specific rules compel medical officers to maintain the confidentiality of the medical information they obtain from their patients. He continued by pointing out a defect, which is the very thing I am pointing out, when he said as follows:
... I think the hon. member is concerned about a form which the Ontario department of transport is using to request those who are seeking a driver's permit to have their physicians complete a detailed form to be forwarded later to the Ontario department of transport.
Now he says that they have nothing to do with that. That is correct, but that is not what I was referring to, Mr. Speaker. What I was referring to was the article contained in the Medical Post dated May 24, 1977, which reads as follows:
Dr. Jack Saunders, OMA director of health services, said the federal government has been collecting data from the provinces for "about two years" now on admissions to psychiatric units in general hospitals, as well as psychiatric hospitals.
"It just came to our attention a couple of months ago," he said, during a news conference at the OMA annual meeting here.
That is something they did not know we were doing here in Ottawa. The article continues:
"When we looked into it, we found they were asking for patients' names, social insurance numbers and a lot of private information. Yet they (government) are just supposed to be asking for statistics."
I want an answer to that. This is apparently the second such case involving a question of patient confidentiality and the federal government on which the OMA has taken action.
The article continues:
Dr. Saunders said that last year it had asked the province to stop giving social insurance numbers and locations to the federal government on therapeutic

June 21, 1977
Adjournment Debate
abortion cases. In that instance, the province agreed to withhold the information from Ottawa.
Then they tell me they do not know anything about this. There is something very radically wrong there. This is very interesting because Ontario is the one cow they are milking. Quebec is a little bit smarter than that because it will not give them that information.
It continues:
.. . the hospitals from other provinces have never provided names or social insurance or hospital insurance numbers. They have scrambled the numbers to provide anonymity, though the scrambled letters are used for the same person. Only Quebec has devised a good method of keeping record reporting confidential outside of the province ...
This is what I want the federal government to look into. I will not go on at length with that except to say that I should like to give the authority of a man who spoke to committees of both the Senate and the House of Commons. I am referring to Dr. W. G. McClure. At that time he was the Dean of Medicine at the University of Vancouver. He is now the Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Vancouver. Dr. McClure said the following:
Governments across the country are carelessly passing legislation requiring doctors to report confidential medical information to clerks in various departments and corporations run by the government. We must all protest this to our respective governments.
You get more and more state control, and then you get the state pulling someone into court. They go back and use that information and have lawyers on the other side, as we have seen on so many occasions. As so many legal people have seen, they will take the case on one side and then will get the information which was supposed to be confidential. This may be used by unscrupulous personnel. It may be enough to convict the person involved. That is completely wrong. It is exactly what I asked the minister about. What has he done to stop this nonsense? What has he done to protect this confidentiality? What has he done to keep us from finding ourselves in the same situation as people are in the U.S.S.R. where the state controls the people? Does he want that in Canada?


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am replying to my hon. friend for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. McRae). On June 10 the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) raised a question in the House concerning the possibility of identification of psychiatric patients and their treatment on forms sent to the federal government by the province of Ontario. I wish to provide some additional detail in response to that question, to emphasize our respect for the privacy of the individual, and to offer assurance as to security provisions in the handling of confidential information by federal agencies.
Each year, for purposes of statistics on the health status of Canadians, Statistics Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare receive extracts from provincial admission and separation forms for patients in general and allied special hospitals, including psychiatric patients in those facilities.

These reports from the provinces contain health insurance numbers, but do not include the names of individuals. Withoui a complete list of numbers and names, which only the provincial government has, it thus becomes virtually impossible for any federal agency to identify anyone by name.


Philip Bernard Rynard: That is absolutely wrong.


William Ross Milne: I am quoting the minister.
In addition, however, it has now been agreed that, in future, health insurance numbers will be scrambled to provide greater protection to the individual. Under a second system of mental health statistics operated by Statistics Canada, copies are received of reporting forms for patients who are admitted to or separated from psychiatric institutions and psychiatric units of general hospitals. Similar forms have been in use since 1931. The Statistics Canada instruction manual requires only the first three letters of the surname and the initial letter of the given name, as an alphabetic identifier.
I am advised that the essential reason for the use of numeric or alphabetic identifiers for patients in compiling statistics is to distinguish between events and cases. For example, six separate hospital admissions could relate to one person or to as many as six persons.
Co-operation between the professions and federal and provincial agencies in maintaining mental health records and statistics has been carried on for many years. The question of confidentiality of information and provincial statutes and regulations with respect to this is a subject of an ongoing review at the federal-provincial level. I have no doubt that co-operation in the development of these statistics will continue, as it has in the past, with full respect for the dignity and privacy of the individual, whether he be ill or healthy.


SOCIAL SECURITY-NEGOTIATIONS FOR RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES-DATE AGREEMENTS EFFECTIVE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my reason for speaking in this adjournment debate was the very disappointing answer 1 received from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) on June 10 concerning the commencement of reciprocal arrangements having to do with old age pensions between Canada and some other countries.
To understand my disappointment I wish to point out the difference between the statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he was promising this, partly in order to get Bill C-35 through, and his statements up to the present day. Now that the bill has passed, things have become more difficult. You will recall that the bill was in two parts, one dealing with reciprocal pensions and the other dealing with partial pensions, and it should be noted that partial pensions are a money saving device by the government and a piece of legislation which will bring untold trouble to the administration, and guarantee perpetual poverty to the recipients.
June 21, 1977

On April 14, 1976, as reported at pages 12816 and 12817 of Hansard, the minister, speaking of bringing in this bill, said:
Parliament will be asked to adopt measures... to build into our program the possibility of this inclusion in international reciprocal arrangements with other countries, such as Italy, the United States, and the United Kingdom, so that our residents who have earned social, security rights in foreign countries can receive them in Canada.
Later in the same debate on the same day he said:
Mr. Speaker, the countries which have been most persistent and pressing in terms of reaching an agreement are the three countries I have mentioned.
Those countries were Italy, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
After much prodding by hon. members from all opposition parties the minister finally did bring in the bill on March 9. At page 3812 of Hansard for that day the minister is reported to have said:
... the provisions of the bill are important for all residents of Canada, especially for those who have earned social security credits in other countries but who are deprived of foreign benefits in the absence of international agreements. Now that a general consensus has been reached concerning these provisions, 1 trust that hon. members will want to give the bill speedy passage.
He also said:
The primary objectives of Bill C-35 are to permit international agreements ...
Then he said:
... I would urge upon all hon. members the bill's speedy passage.
In reply to that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said:
As I understand it, we do not need this bill to start negotiating with countries such as Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Bermuda, Jamaica, etc., but it is the expressed intention of the minister to start, if not continue, discussions with the various countries so that we can be in a position to execute the documents as soon as this bill is proclaimed.
At that same time the minister put out an expensive package of explanatory notes regarding the bill, and I would like to quote to the House from page 5 of the questions and answers as follows:
Q. Have some countries indicated an interest in having reciprocal social security agreements with Canada?
A. Italy, the United States and the United Kingdom have been pressing for an agreement with us. Others-Belgium, Bermuda, Guyana, Jamaica, Malta, Norway, France and Turkey have also expressed such an interest.
Very well. The opposition co-operated. We passed the bill in very short order, nearly as quickly as any 1 have seen passed through the House. I feel, however, that we did not give sufficient attention to two parts of it. One part was the famouse spouse's regulation, and another part the partial pension which, as I said before, is going to cause us considerable trouble in the future.
However, the bill is now passed, and the minister is authorized to start paying partial pensions instead of full pensions effective July 1. But what about reciprocal arrangements? I would like to quote now from page 5712 of Hansard of May 17. The minister was replying to a question by the hon. member for Hamilton West with regard to when these reciprocal arrangements would be in effect. He said:
Adjournment Debate
Meetings with British officials are scheduled for the week of July 11 and we are to have meetings with French officials in early fall.. . With regard to the British situation, their minister has indicated interest in reaching an agreement but he pointed out that there might he some financial difficulty in Britain in meeting the commitment that could be made under such an agreement. We are going to explore the matter further.
On June 10 1 asked the minister if he was making any progress, and at page 6529 of Hansard he is reported to have answered, in effect: "The United Kingdom has informed us that preliminary discussions amongst officials resulted in proposals". He went on further to say that there would be meetings of senior officials in the coming months. He said that he spoke with his British opposite number and obtained an agreement in principle from his British colleague.
However, his British colleague indicated his concern about the availability of funds in England for that purpose. It seems to me that this is an absolutely despicable betrayal of many senior citizens in this country, whom the minister deluded by claiming that other nations were pressing us for an agreement. This pressing for an agreement has somehow now turned into "there will be a meeting of senior officials in the coming months". This is a totally different picture than the one the minister presented to us when he was trying to get speedy passage of the bill through the House. I feel that that is not good enough.
If the minister was pressed to sign agreements before the bill was passed, why is he not able to produce those agreements now or give us an answer which would give us some encouragement? Instead, we hear that his officials are talking.
What particularly concerns me is that a part of the bill which will save the government money, the partial pensions part, has gone forward and will be in effect from July 1. It will be a money-saving device for the government. The thing we were all hoping for, the convertibility of pensions, is going to wait until some far distant-


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


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, I reply once again on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. McRae).
When he raised this question in the House on June 10 the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) phrased it in three parts: will reciprocal social security agreements with France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States be effective on the date of entry into force of Bill C-35; if not, why not; and when will the agreements be effective?
The answer to the first part of the question is negative. The minister has already described his recent meetings with the ministers of the countries concerned. The present situation with respect to each of these countries, taking them in the same order, is as follows: a first meeting with French officials is tentatively scheduled for this fall. Technical discussions with Italian experts, which have just been concluded, will be fol-
6940

June 21, 1977
Adjournment Debate
lowed by a first round of negotiations at the official level in July. In the same month a first round of negotiations with British officials will also take place. Technical discussions with U.S. officials were held in May of this year and will be followed up this autumn on dates which have not yet been determined.
Turning to the second part of my hon. friend's question, 1 would remind hon. members of the minister's statement during the debate on Bill C-35 to the effect that it takes two to negotiate. All countries concerned have insisted on the inclusion of the old age security program in an eventual agreement with them. The Canadian side has only recently been in a position to say with certainty that it could in fact include that program.
As we move into the negotiating phase, and bearing in mind the government's commitment to enter into agreements when these are in the interests of Canada and of residents of Canada, it cannot be assumed that the terms which we presently envisage will be immediately acceptable-financially or policy-wise-to each of the other countries concerned, and vice-versa. Furthermore, once common ground has been reached, agreements will in many instances need to be ratified by the legislature of the other contracting party before they can begin to take effect. In the case of the United States, for example, even if we were to sign today, the agreement could not be ratified by the other side until such time as proposed legislation presently before Congress has been passed.
In the light of the foregoing, my answer to the third part of my hon. friend's question must be that it is hoped such agreements will be signed and enter into force at the earliest possible date. It goes without saying that the minister and his officials will spare no effort in attempting to bring this about and, in so doing, will seek those terms which will be most equitable to all concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6.25 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens:
That the Anti-Inflation Act, being chapter 75, Statutes of Canada 1974-7576, as amended by chapter 98, Statutes of Canada 1974-75-76, shall expire on the 30th June, 1977.
[ Translation]
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, the motion now under consideration deals with inflation, the Anti-Inflation Board and the abolition of controls anticipated by the Anti-Inflation Board.
The matter which we are discussing today is not a new one but is rather stale. However the solutions to the problem of inflation are not stale, because this government has apparently not yet found them. Yet, the Anti-Inflation Board was set up by the government specifically to jugulate inflation once and for all. But, Mr. Speaker, try to convince of the AIB's efficiency the housekeeper who goes shopping every week, when the notices that prices go up constantly by 5 to 10 per cent, on an average, every week. Often, all she has to do is lift the price sticker to see last week's and realize the price has gone up by 20 cents on a $2 article. Try to talk to her about the value of the AIB and you will soon hear what she thinks of that bureaucracy which floats in the clouds, putters around with papers and has no clue what is going on in the real world, where things happen.
Before going into the essence of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote an article that goes back to December 14, 1974 and appeared in the newspaper Le Soleil, of Quebec City; it shows just how crazy our economic system is. With supporting figures, we are shown how, with an inflation rate of 10 per cent, which we have known for several years already, a bus ticket worth 40 cents in 1974 will cost $1.15 in 1985, $2.95 in 1995 and $4.70 in the year 2000. It is almost inconceivable, Mr. Speaker, just how savings will be gobbled up, will disappear or depreciate over such a short period of time.
Groceries worth $50 in 1974 will cost $142.65 in 1985. Even now, in 1977, we can readily imagine, if nothing changes, that it will cost $142.65 in 1985. And in the year 2000, it will cost $595.95. A house costing $32,000 in 1974 will cost $85,593 in 1985, and $357,545 in the year 2000. Last night, I heard the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) say that a house now worth $30,000, at a 12 per cent rate of interest, will cost, 12 years later, only in interest, the small amount of $152,000. That is, $152,000 for service charges and interest and $50,000 for the purchase of a house of his choice, that is a $30,000 home.
Mr. Speaker, one of the first measures passed by this government when it was first elected in 1968, has been one to

June 21, 1977

raise the ceiling on interest rates. In 1968, the ceiling was 6Vt to 6'/2 per cent, an average rate in Canada; now, the rate on ordinary loans is 12 per cent. That is why a $30,000 home in 1977 paid off over 30 years will produce an interest of $152,000. To reward financial interests in 1968, we raised the ceiling of interest rates and today, financiers are getting twice as much interest as in 1968. We created inflation, Parliament is responsible and not the provinces, or municipalities or school boards or individuals or unions.
The trade unions fought back because they wanted to survive in that crazy system which was set up by the present government when it suppressed the ceiling on interest rates. Inflation in Canada has been a boon for the present government. Why? Because when a worker earns $200 a week, like we saw last year during the Olympic Games, and when interest rates jump following all those increases in interest rates, to afford a house of his own and all the commodities of life, that worker has to demand twice what he got during the Olympic Games. The federal government, without raising the taxation tables, like the former government of Mr. Bourassa, without raising the taxation tables, increased its budget in ten years from $12 billion to a national budget of almost $50 billion.
That means that inflation has served the present government, because it has worked to its advantage. Without raising taxes, the government has collected more money and taxpayers have paid more tax to the federal and provincial governments. Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Inflation Board was created nearly 24 months ago. During the next few minutes, I should like to emphasize that, firstly, this board has cost a lot of money, secondly, it has hired a great many civil servants and, thirdly, it resulted in a waste of ink and paper by the tons. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, those are the true results of the board's actions. It has spent a lot of money. Some $5,428,000 in 1975-76. Some $12,530,000 in 1976-77. From April to October 1977, it will cost another $7 million. For a grand total of $25 million over a 24-month period, which represents an average of over $1 million a month. Mr. Speaker, the board hired a great many people. In December 1975, it hired 342 employees. In March 1976 and June 1976, it hired 447 and 889 employees respectively.
Between March and June 1976, the Anti-Inflation Board has seen an inflation in the number of its employees which has more than doubled. The number of Anti-Inflation Board employees has reached the imposing figure of 914; but this number does not include the people hired by separate contract. Furthermore, the Anti-Inflation Board has travelled around, since it had to make its presence felt since it could not make its effects felt. That is why it has held hearings in the most expensive hotels in this country while Canadians were faced with prohibitive goods and services costs in Canada because of inflation. My third point, Mr. Speaker, is that the Anti-Inflation Board has produced tons of paper, one of the more concrete results on its part.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on for hours reading releases from the Anti-Inflation Board congratulating itself on its excellent job. In addition to having used a lot of paper, the Anti-Infla-
Anti-Inflation Act
tion Board achieved the following results: It controlled the wages of small wage earners, who were the first victims of inflation, but it did not control the prices paid by the small wage earners. Moreover, it frightened the investors because when they always have a sword over their head they do not invest, and rightly so, because they do not want to risk their capital to produce goods and services when the interest on capital is more productive on bonds which escape or used to escape the controls, than the interest on production capital which can eventually be subject to controls.
Because the investors were afraid, the Anti-Inflation Board has been one of the main causes of the present unemployment. All these results had been forecast by the Social Crediters because we predicted these economic results while the economists hired by the government were showing off the blown-out lantern of the Anti-Inflation Board, following the warnings given by the Social Crediters to the government before the board was established. Others also warned the government about the future inevitable disaster it would encounter with its miracle answer, the establishment of an Anti-Inflation Board. This experience had been tried in the United States when certain price controls were imposed, and it had ended in disaster. The government wanted Canada to repeat this American disaster. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Canada has become an expert in imported American mechanisms which have already failed and which are expected to do miracles in Canada. I well remember as I was in the House in 1962 and 1963, the American nuclear warheads of 1962-63, which are another example of disasters such as the Anti-Inflation Board of 1975.
The Canada Labour Council has published a yellow pamphlet entitled Why met to show that it is the weak who suffer from inflation. It seems that wage controls were established to protect us against inflation. In fact this is a measure which will be detrimental to those who are most affected by inflation: Canadian workers and consumers. Why us? We spend almost all our income for housing, mortgages and food. Those spendings went up by 65, 32 and 49 per cent respectively between 1971 and 1974. We had to face increased obligations whereas our wages averaged 25 per cent more during the same period. Meanwhile higher prices yielded corporate profits exceeding by 111 per cent those of 1971, before the crisis. Why are we the only ones to be blamed? What makes us believe that the government can or wants to control those who are benefiting from inflation?
The guidelines set out in the legislation are full of loopholes allowing accountants to get round such guidelines. Real profits will keep soaring and so will prices. All analysts recognize this fact. Professional fees, land speculation and interest rates are only some of the areas neglected by the legislation. Government spokesmen admitted themselves that inflation would pursue its ravages. Wages are conspicuous and easy to restrict. Therefore the government is going to go for us. Our salaries are going to be restricted but our expenses will go on increasing, not to mention those of the low-income people, of those on fixed wages, of retired people and of those on welfare. They
6942

June 21, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
are going to be most affected by the government safety measures. We ignored the anti-inflation plan submitted by the Canadian Labour Congress. We substituted to it a program which is both unfair and unworkable. We, as Canadian workers and consumers, are opposed to measures which are directed against us as if we were the source of inflation. Why should we have to pay? Why would we be the only ones to pay the price of inflation?
It was a booklet published by the Labour Council of Canada which demonstrates that, after two years of operation, we were right about the Anti-Inflation Board.
Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Inflation Board has done more harm or bothered more people than it has helped. I wish to give you some examples. In La Presse of January 25, 1977 we can read:


&quot;QUOT1DIEN&quot; REPORTERS PROTEST AGAINST ANTI-INFLATION BOARD
[Stage Direction]
The 25 reporters of the Quotidien of Chicoutimi and Progres-Dimanche have been slowing down their work during the last week to protest against the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board to reduce their salaries negotiated with the employer.
The collective agreement had been accepted by both parties in November 75. It provided weekly salaries of $320 with an increase of $16 on January 1, 1977. The decision of the board freezes the wages at $292 a week.
The situation is the same at Le Nouvelliste of Trois-Rivieres where reporters' salaries have been reduced by $10 to $15 a week and those of publicists by $30 a week.
Mr. Speaker, I have myself known a company in my riding which had reached an agreement with its employees' union but which is still waiting, Mr. Speaker, for a decision by the Anti-Inflation Board allowing the employer to pay the salaries provided in that collective agreement. The employees are still receiving the salaries paid before the collective agreement because the officials of the Anti-Inflation Board have not had time to ratify or study the file of the collective agreement signed by the employer and accepted by the union. That socialist scheme has then been nothing but an impediment to the economic activities in Canada; some press releases of the Anti-Inflation Board were quite ludicrous. On that matter, I wish to refer to the committee sitting of February 8, 1977 when the board announced that 124 Canadian companies had exceeded by $13,055,000 the limit set by the program of the Anti-Inflation Board.
Mr. Speaker, at the time when those 124 companies were blamed for having made a profit of $13 million, they made a big fuss about that discovery, that so-called control. It represents $100,000 per company but if you take into account their gross revenue, their invested capital and their investment needs, an average amount of $100,000 is a real joke.
I will mention only a few of these enterprises which were accused of making profits exceeding $100,000. These are: Alcan Aluminum from Montreal, Canada Cement Lafarge, Quebec Iron and Titanium from Sorel, Avon Products from Dorval, Domtar from Montreal, Northern Telecom from Montreal, Robin Hood Multi-Foods from Montreal, and so on. While 124 Canadian companies had made $13,055,000 in excess profit, 11 Canadian bank institutions were allowed to boost their assets by $30 billion over the last 12 months. If you

review the balance sheets of the banks, you will find that the assets of Canadian banks have shot up by $30 billion in the last twelve months, when the gross national product averages $200 billion in Canada.
That means, Mr. Speaker, that the 11 chartered banks in Canada increased their assets by 15 per cent of the value of the GNP. What did the Anti-Inflation Board do against that outrageous situation? Zilch. It did not get involved with the banks because it is afraid of the sovereign power exercised by the banks now, for the banks have power over the governments they are financing, that power being that of creating money, which was conferred by this federal government, as was the case with previous governments. Small enterprises make a few millions in profit which they have to invest so as to keep their facilities and the economy operating. The Anti-Inflation Board did nothing but bother them with its bureaucracy while the banks were not asked any questions, for they have a sovereign power.
In the monetary field, which they were entrusted with by the federal government, they are allowed to lend 16 times their assets for each dollar deposited in a bank bearing 8 per cent interest to the depositor; in other words, the law permits the banks to extend a credit of $16 at 12 per cent interest, which works out to a gross benefit of 184 per cent of their assets. That explains the $30 billion more in banking assets during the last 12 months in a country whose gross national product is only $200 billion.
One the one hand, Mr. Speaker, businesses are being penalized while on the other they are being asked with the help of Department of Regional Economic Expansion subsidies to invest to create more employment and reduce unemployment and to implement new industries or modernize their operations. Benefits coming out of healthy competition are always reinvested and do automatically create employment because they favour production one way or the other. It is economic madness to penalize their benefits on the one hand while asking them on the other to expand and develop our economy and grant them money to encourage them to invest.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would rather trust statements of experienced businessmen which help out Canada's economic expansion than those of bureaucrat economists who have never run a business. In February 1977, the Chamber of Commerce of London, Ontario, provided the government with an interesting brief based on the following considerations and 1 quote:
We consider the chief causes of inflation to be:
Governments at three levels spending increasing percentages of our gross national product. Their spending in total should not exceed 37'/>
per cent, as stated in our January 1975 statement. Their programs whether statutory (or non-controllable) are not, nor should they be considered to be sacrosanct. They must be limited to come within the 3716 per cent guideline. An individual who spends beyond his or her means enventually goes broke. Likewise our governments, after decades of overspending, are fast going broke.
June 21, 1977
[Stage Direction]


Mr. Speaker, 1 would only want to point out that in my own riding as well as in others, because it must be the same policy, the federal government raised the cost of certain services in the post office by 66% per cent in January. The rental of post office boxes has gone up by 66% per cent in the towns of Granby and Waterloo. The federal government is asking private businesses to limit their increases between 6 and 10 per cent but with respect to its own spendings, its own rates are going up by 66% per cent. I therefore wrote a letter to the Anti-Inflation Board to bring this fact to their attention and I quote:
The following is to bring to your attention an increase of 66Vi per cent that has been put into effect regarding the rental cost of the post office boxes-
-in the riding of Shefford.
Private business must limit the increase in its costs, but the federal government should at least set an example. Such a large increase on the part of a governmental service surely does not help the cause of the fight against inflation.
I then received a letter from one of the civil servants, Mr. Harold A. Renouf, from the Anti-Inflation Board, dated June 16, 1977, and I quote:
1 regret to have to inform you that the charges levied by government services do not come under the Anti-Inflation Board.
Everybody has been put under control, but the government has been exempted!
Nevertheless, I share your opinion that the government should set a good example when it comes to price restraints and it should at least try to explain in details to the public the reasons for those increases when they eventually become necessary.
Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for those explanations. 1 would like to go on quoting the paper of the Chamber of Commerce of London, Ontario. The second point is as follows: [English]
Money supply increases. Money supply growth must be kept within the inflation rate and productivity increases initially, and gradually reduced to the level of productivity increases.
Wage and salary increases beyond the rate of inflation and productivity growth. Total remuneration packages must not exceed the inflation rate and productivity improvements.
Prices that are undisciplined by competition. We must ensure wherever possible that a healthy level of competition is effective throughout our economy.
[Stage Direction]
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is an extremely important point and the Chamber of Commerce of London, Ontario, states on several occasions that when we have healthy competition in business, we automatically have normal prices on the market. We now have an economy where small people are stifled through the Anti-Inflation Board, whereas the big multinationals are left free to operate on an independent basis, as we have seen during the last months and during the last few years. We have only to consider the Canadian situation regarding oil and gas. When, for example, we were paying 50 cents for a gallon of gasoline, the federal government was collecting a much lower sales tax on this gallon than it is doing now on a gallon for which we must pay $1. The main responsibility for inflation rests on the federal government, since it is in its interest to have prices rise to be able to collect
Anti-Inflation Act higher taxes, to increase its expenses and also to have more money to meet its obligations, with the help of inflation.
When the Anti-Inflation Board was set up the Social Credit-ers said that is was going to be a fiasco, that it was going to be a joke, that it would only control little people, that it would not control banks, that it would not control multinational companies. We now know the result of the experiment. In a few days we will be paying at least $1 for a gallon of gas all across Canada. What did the Anti-Inflation Board do? It is all very nice to blame foreign countries, the Arabs, or Canada's oil product suppliers but it is the same thing in all other areas, even products manufactured in Canada because it is in the interest of the government to see salaries rise to produce increased taxes, higher revenues with the deficit budgets that we have had for the past several years.
Mr. Speaker, there would be other extremely interesting remarks to be made about inflation, but as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain suggested earlier, we are relying on the recommendations of economists who propose solutions that were obsolete before they were born. We are still applying solutions, theories that date back over a hundred years. On the one part, we advocate full employment and, on the other hand, we want to increase productivity through modern technology and science, while at the same time seeking to achieve full employment. Those are two contradictory principles in political economy, and there are ministers sitting on the government side who still rely on theories that have been proven to be fiascos. The inflation now was created altogether by an economic system, and particularly a monetary system controlled by multinationals, banks that forced this government and previous governments to give them the exclusive power to control the monetary and financial power in Canada. Wanting to correct inflation in Canada is like flogging a dead horse, unless we deal first with the monetary area, which is the prime cause, particularly since 1968, when this government lifted the interest ceiling on money rates in Canada.
William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate. I am one member who has expressed some very strong opinions on wage and price guidelines. I was one of those members who campaigned most vigorously against the freeze proposed by the Conservatives in the election campaign of 1974. I also supported the introduction of the wage and price guidelines program in 1975. Tonight I take the position that the program should be continued for some time yet. I will be one member who later this evening will vote against the rather superfluous motion put forward by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).
I opposed introduction of the wage and price freeze as proposed by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) and the Conservative party in 1974, and I thought for good reason. If the same set of conditions prevailed today I would be just as vigorous in my opposition. If you remember, Mr. Speaker, in

June 21, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
1974 economic conditions were substantially different from the present day. The economy was short of goods, it was short of manpower, and it was short of money.


Mr. Gillies:: Not true.


William Ross Milne: In terms of wanting to increase supply you had to produce more. If the hon. member for Halifax and the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), who I understand was the author of that program, had had their way certainly it would have been the most devastating thing that could have happened not only to the economy but to the small business community.


James McPhail Gillies: How could we be worse off than we are today with one million unemployed?


William Ross Milne: At that time world food prices were rising. The world price for oil was going up by four. Industrial materials were increasing substantially in price. At that point in time a freeze would, in my opinion, have been very wrong. The problem was supply, with too many dollars chasing too few goods.
In 1975 conditions changed. I think hon. members on the other side should open their eyes. If they were in a situation where they went to a doctor with some kind of health problem one year and the doctor prescribed some kind of remedy and they went back a year or so later with a different problem, surely they would expect the doctor to view it differently. Hon. members opposite seem to have a one track mind on this thing; they wanted a solution that would answer all types of situations in the economy. In spite of the reputation of the hon. member for Don Valley as an economist, they are surely not being very realistic.
I supported the program that was introduced in 1975 for a number of reasons. There had been a downturn in the economy of many industrial countries in the world. We were experiencing, as the minister and a number of members on this side have said strongly, a period of inflation resulting from a psychological base where people expected and wanted more in anticipation of the future. But the fundamental reason I supported the program in 1975, and why I am going to vote to continue it tonight, is simply that the country cannot afford to lose its relativity in the export market, particularly the United States.
1 think that is extremely important. Many members on both sides of the House have said we need to take a serious look at the structure of our economy, but in my opinion there has not been any meaningful or significant dialogue in that area. Therefore I think controls should remain until we have had the opportunity to do so.
As I have said, I will be voting against the motion. Prior to doing that may I say I have spent a fair amount of time surveying my constituents. The whole purpose of the government's publishing the book "The Way Ahead" was to initiate dialogue, and I chose to use it with various groups in my constituency. I want to put on the public record of this place that the business community, as represented in the city of

Brampton by the Board of Trade, took my invitation seriously and held discussions on its contents. They surveyed their entire membership and reported back to me. I met with them to review the results of their survey amongst their membership, and fully two thirds of the business community of Brampton are opposed to the lifting of wage and price guidelines at this time.
As a matter of fact, a good half of the remaining one third said that they were in favour of lifting the program, but they qualified their answers. They said they would be in favour of removing the program at this time if there were a follow up agency which essentially had the same type of power; or that they would be in favour of lifting the program if they could be sure that inflation would not return or if they were satisfied that labour rates would remain more or less constant. If you interpret that as a qualified answer, you could certainly say that well over three quarters of the respondents in the business community of my city want me to stand here and say that they are opposed to the removal of this program at this point in time.
I represent a riding with a high percentage of secondary industry. Many industries in my riding are in the secondary manufacturing sector and rely heavily on exports of their manufactured products, mostly to the United States. Many people charged with the management of these plants have been to see me to express the deep concern they have as to how competitive they are. They realize that some of their customers are not buying as much as they traditionally have but, more important, they are really concerned as to whether or not they can compete in the market.
If we decided to be opportunists like the hon. member for York-Simcoe would like the House to be, and lift the controls immediately perhaps there would be some short term applause. But I will wager a fair amount that members on the opposite side would be on their feet in the question period within a week or two demanding that something be done to improve exports. 1 cannot think of anything more constructive that we could do in the long term than continue the anti-inflation program.
1 have all kinds of representations from the business community I represent. On one hand they indicate we should have a higher tariff structure so that more products are not coming in, and on the other we should be financing and subsidizing industry a good deal more for them to be able to compete in the export market. That is just the same as a dog going around biting its own tail. There is no way to win in a situation like that. While it may be rather unpalatable in the short term, will cause some dislocation and will cause some levelled off expec-tions, to give up our position in the export market is disastrous for the industrial sector of this country and therefore the employment sector. There are certain groups in our society who want us to terminate the program as of now, or very soon.
I think it is worth toughing it a bit longer so that we will have that long term gain.

June 21, 1977

1 represent a riding in which there is a high degree of construction. There are few other ridings in Canada where residential construction is as high as it is in the city of Brampton, or indeed, that there is as much commercial and industrial construction as there is in that area. One of the real causes of our inflation two or three years ago was the very high wage settlements that were obtained in the construction industry. The result of this was that in the short construction season builders were almost willing to pay any kind of settlement in order to have some labour peace during the construction season and to get on with their building.
One of the problems we are faced with in this country is the fact that companies are starting to say that they can build their plants in the States rather than in Canada, because they can get lower labour rates down there than they can in Canada. That is of concern because we are already giving up two of the greatest advantages this country has had, a labour rate that has been marginally lower than the United States and the fact that we have had a large quantity of low cost natural resources. Both of those points are not as much in our favour as they used to be.
You cannot expect some person in the labour force to be as happy with the same wage level here in Canada as he might be on the States side. Elis personal cost of living is higher in this country. One thing which makes it higher is the high cost of housing. It is impossible to buy any type of shelter in Brampton for under $50,000. It is not difficult to have a very modest home and pay $70,000. On the other side of the border, perhaps housing costs are not much more than half or two thirds of that. There is a lot of vested interest in terms of trying to get some of our construction costs down by playing it cool, and doing that by the continuation of the program.
I accepted an invitation from a large labour organization in my riding to go and discuss the whole anti-inflation program with them. It was a most interesting evening. They presented me with a very substantial brief. The content of that brief was similar to that which Mr. Morris presented to the government on behalf of the entire labour movement. Essentially they were making the point in that brief that there were three things they felt were fundamental to improving the economy of the country at this time.
They felt the number one problem we are dealing with is unemployment. The most significant way to deal with unemployment would be to remove the controls immediately. Their second point was that it was of vital concern to them that the housing program should be more vigorous than it is at the present time. Their third point was, rather than the budget giving some assistance to the business community to invest and expand, that those dollars should have gone into direct tax cuts and should have been accompanied by a substantial cut in personal taxes, as well as a government subsidy from the federal level to the municipal and provincial levels so that they in turn could reduce their taxes.
I think that is the fundamental problem facing the country. On the one hand we have the business community saying that the controls should remain. They are concerned about an
Anti-Inflation Act
upsurge in inflation, labour rates, and our role in the export market. The leadership of the labour community feel very strongly that the controls program should be removed immediately to address the problem of unemployment. Certainly the polls and surveys do not indicate that all the people who belong to the labour movement necessarily feel the same. Until we get some kind of a resolution or a meeting of minds, we have no other alternative but to continue the program for a period of time.
I am not sure either group would appreciate me saying this, but in some ways both groups were taking their positions for the wrong reasons. Some of the business community want the controls program to continue for a period of time so that they can have a lever on the labour rates they are obliged to pay. The labour group want the controls program to end, although they were very careful to say they wanted it to continue on the price side and not on the wage side. They wanted that so that they can tackle their unemployment situation and try to gain back those wage gains which they were obligated to give up because of the guidelines set up by the AIB and that part of the increase more particularly that was rolled back by the Anti-Inflation Board.
Yesterday, and a few times previous to that, the leaders of the business community and the leaders of the labour movement met with government, which puts us in an encouraging position. While there has been no meeting of minds on any real, firm commitments, by virtue of the answer given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today, the dialogue is coming closer and both sides are starting to see they have a mutual interest in solving this problem rather than taking diametrically opposed positions.
I met with the labour organization in Brampton. Obviously all of them did not agree, but I attempted to put the thesis to them that I thought controlling inflation was probably the most effective thing we could do to improve the employment situation. If we were to get out of the program in the short term and ignore inflation, in a year or so there would probably be a substantial lift in the economy; but perhaps four or five years down the road this would not work in their best interests and would not be in the best interests of the labour movement. We cannot continue to price ourselves out of the export market and out of our own domestic market, because one of the difficulties we have in this country is trying to compete for the domestic market against countries which can produce and come in over the top of our rather substantial tariff walls and still compete more than successfully in our domestic markets.
I want to say as sincerely as I can to the people in my constituency who belong to the labour movement that 1 do not in any way, shape or form downgrade or not take seriously the level of unemployment. Generally speaking, I represent one of the richer areas of Canada. When parliament, the newspapers and others were talking about unemployment, they were generally not talking about the city of Brampton and that part of the Golden Horseshoe surrounding the city of Toronto. This unemployment was generally in the maritimes, part of Quebec, northern Ontario and so on.

June 21, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
At the present time the unemployment rate in Brampton is as high or higher than it has ever been because secondary manufacturing is an area which has been hit. Before it was always a big paper plant that was shut down, but this time it is smaller plants that have difficulties exporting. That is why I make the point that it is very important that we continue the program so that we can solve the problem.


James McPhail Gillies: The best solution would be to get rid of the controls.


William Ross Milne: I argue on the opposite side. I presume the hon. member for Don Valley has his name on Mr. Speaker's list. I will listen to his argument in support of lifting the controls, but I sincerely say to him and to the House that I take the opposite point of view because, without them, we would go back to high inflation in short term, and that would be in the worst interests of the people whom we try to help.
In terms of unemployment, we should take a careful look at the situation. It has been announced recently that unemployment is in the order of 8 per cent. That seems very high, and it is high, but when you analyse it further you find that there are some significant facts and figures within that statistic which should go on the record.
First of all, the last Statistics Canada figures indicate that the unemployment rate is now 7.9 per cent, down from 8.3 per cent, a substantial drop of some .6 per cent. 1 do not hear any members in the House, particularly on the opposition front bench, or the hon. member for York Simcoe, commenting on that. When unemployment goes up .5 per cent he is on his feet shouting what a disaster that is, but when it drops .6 per cent it seems to escape his notice.
When you look at the employment situation you find that the number of households that have no wage earner at all is less than one in four of those listing unemployment. In other words, when there is someone in the household who is unemployed, only one in four of those households does not have at least one or more wage earners earning income for that home. This has helped to soften the situation, making it less drastic than the 8 per cent would indicate.
There has been a very high entry into the work force, in spite of the fact that our economy has increased to provide a substantial increase in the number of job establishments. The problem really is the high entry rate. The high entry rate has been extremely high among females between the ages of 25 and 44. I certainly understand why so many of them are entering the work force. They are simply doing it because the cost of housing, the cost of food, and the cost of so many things that families buy these days has gone up so much that they need more than one income in the home to be able to maintain the standard of living they have, or indeed to begin to approach the standard of living they would like. 1 cannot think of anything that would help correct that situation any more than to control inflation the best we can.

I want to conclude by making a couple of other points. The point I was trying to make is that while unemployment is high and while, I am sure, every member of the House is concerned about it-I am particularly sensitive to it as it applies to my constituents-we now belong to a society where there is a multiple pay cheque in many households, and three out of four of the households where someone is unemployed do have someone in the labour force, and almost one in three have two or more people in the work force, in spite of the fact they may have one or more who are unemployed.
One of the comments that has been made very often by people discussing the AIB program-certainly to me in letters and conversation-is that the program is not fair on the basis that the cost of many of the things on which money is spent is not controlled. They speak about electrical energy, energy of all types, municipal taxation, and food. 1 would like to make a few comments on the food industry.
I think it is fair to say-as a matter of fact the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has said it on one or more occasions-that the results of the program have been materially assisted by the fact that last year the price of food came down. One of the reasons that our performance under the AIB is not as good this year as it was last year has been the resurgence in the price of food. I support that resurgence because I have many constituents, friends and acquaintances, who are primary producers, and there are many farmers across this country who have lost thousands and thousands of dollars in the beef business. Unless they have some kind of relief by having the consumer pay a higher price for that product-and we hope there is a flow through to the farmer-we will be in a situation of having many producers out of business and, I venture to say, the price will double in a year or two because there will be a scarcity of beef. The same is true with pork.
I appeal to Canadians to accept the fact that, while they read in the paper of the excess profits that many of the food processors are making, there are substantial number of primary producers, particularly in the beef sector, who have suffered badly.
I want to congratulate the government on some moves it has made in the last little while that have been beneficial to the farm community. I think one of them has been the exemption of family farms from capital gains tax. Along with the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) I petitioned the Minister of Finance prior to the present budget to have the proceeds from the sale of land that is reinvested in land escape capital gains tax. This view was shared by most members who represent the farming community.
There is one more step that the Minister of Finance should take in this area, that is, that when a farm is incorporated for a variety of reasons, that it be allowed to roll over taxes on the same basis as an a non-incorporated farm. I have argued a number of times that only the land portion of the incorporation should have that advantage-I do not think the associated businesses should have it. Nevertheless, I want to make a couple of comments and to congratulate the government again
June 21, 1977

on publishing a statement on food policy, as it did a few days ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Ross Milne: Hon. members can take it lightly, as does the hon. member for Don Valley, who probably does not have many cows in his region or who has not cleaned many stables.
A proper food policy-1 am convinced that the document sets out the basic strategy for it-is in the best interests of both the producer and the consumer. Somehow most hon. members on the other side, and many other people, cannot seem to understand that a good food policy is in the best interests of both producer and consumer. Many people take the point of view that it is either to the advantage of the producer or it is a cheap food policy for the consumer, but in fact it is not. And I endorse the basic principles that are set out that we should support marketing boards, that we should have a good program of income stability, that we need to be sensitive on a short term basis in our tariff policy, and that farmers, because they deal with unpredictable situations such as weather, should have a good program of crop insurance available to them at rates they can afford.
As to marketing boards, they have drawn a lot of comments from many people. There are hon. members on the other side who take the position they want nothing to do with marketing boards, but that the government should be there.


An hon. Member:: Talk to your Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner) about that.


William Ross Milne: I was on a platform with our new minister last Saturday, and 1 should point out to the hon. member opposite who is interjecting that the minister stood up and explained this policy. As a matter of fact he enunciated it very well indeed.
Hon. members opposite talk about how bad marketing boards are, but I do not see them standing up and introducing motions saying we should do away with the Canadian Wheat Board.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Don't lecture me. Lecture the Minister without Portfolio.


William Ross Milne: There is a good deal of concern among farmers at the present time as to the future of marketing boards. This is reflected by many of the discussions in this House and in our committees. Whether the government is committed to marketing boards or not is being discussed. I want to tell hon. members that years ago I worked in the agricultural industry. 1 had a lot to do with the poultry business. 1 worked with farmers who had very large flocks of laying hens, and with farmers who were involved in the production of meat birds. 1 have seen some of the best farms in Ontario, which had been owned for two and three generations, turned over to feed companies.
Anti-Inflation Act
One of the most humiliating things 1 ever witnessed in my life was to see a once proud farmer working for a feed company on a salaried basis, operating the farm he and his father previously operated.


James McPhail Gillies: Look at some of your ministers and you will feel more humiliated.


Mr. Lumley:: It's not as bad as looking over there.


William Ross Milne: That was a silly comment coming from a person who is supposed to be one of Canada's outstanding parliamentarians.


Alastair William Gillespie: Who said that?


William Ross Milne: That is his opinion of himself.


James McPhail Gillies: Would you give me the citation for that, please?


William Ross Milne: Read Hansard tomorrow.
At one time farmers had high volumes of product and extremely low prices. That drove producers out of business. When there was a scarcity prices were high, and it was always the small, genuine farmer who got hurt in that situation. The thing marketing boards have done, particularly in the poultry industry which is easy to get into on a short-term has been to bring stability. As a matter of fundamental policy 1 think the government should do everything it can to make us as self sufficient in energy, housing and food production as possible, and certainly one of the fundamental-


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


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker,
1 rise to speak in the controls debate this evening without any apology for the position of the Conservative party in 1974, and to remind hon. members present that had this party won that election the controls would have ended more than two and a half years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Earl Johnston: This debate would have been history. During that election campaign hon. members opposite tried to make 90 days seem like forever, but 90 days is a far shorter time than the time we have lived through this controls program already. I suppose one of the main reasons 1 rose tonight is that I was prodded by the remarks of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) the other evening, and again by the remarks made this evening by the hon. member for Peel-Duff-erin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne). Both those hon. members are marvellous revisionists. They are re-writers of history, but I remind them that it takes at least three decades for a revisionist to write with any credibility at all. To try to revise history after less than three years is an exercise, while carried out with a straight face by the hon. members opposite, that is not going to fool the opposition nor the public.
6948

June 21, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
For the hon. member for Davenport to suggest, as he did the other evening, that during that campaign the difference between the Tories and the Liberals was a matter of judgment as to when to bring in controls and as to when they were necessary, is absolutely laughable. When one remembers the ridicule and the scorn which were poured on the policy presented by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), then the leader of this party, on platform after platform across this country, it is difficult to believe that anybody could present such a picture of what it was all about three years ago in this House after such a short time, and claim to have any credibility at all. I remind the hon. member for Davenport that a week and a half ago he was pleading in this House for hon. members to have some faith in what he said and to believe him. For him a week later to make a statement with no shred of truth in it, 1 find it an amazing thing.
We know that the Liberal opposition to controls at the time of the 1974 election campaign was total. The candidate who ran for the Liberal party against me said that the whole idea of any kind of controls was foreign to his party, that its members could never bring themselves to it and that it was against every principle they upheld. It is astonishing to hear the speeches and the thread of thought of the two hon. members I mentioned, and of many more in the course of this debate.
It was interesting too that we were told in 1974 that any attempt at control, either in Britain or in the United States, had failed. I was sharply reminded of that a few months ago when a constituent sent to me an essay by Robert Lekachman entitled "The Specter of Full Employment", found in Harper's Magazine which described the American attempt at controls. Part of the essay reads as follows:
Nixon preached the wickedness of interference with private markets, but nevertheless suddenly froze prices August 15, 1971, and followed the ninety-day freeze with a year or so of more flexible but astonishingly successful wage- and price-hike limitations.
Nowhere in 1974 could one find a quote like that in any literature. Oh, to have found that one during that 1974 campaign! It would have been worth a couple of thousand votes to have found somebody with the courage to have made that assessment of a 90-day freeze and then a gradual withdrawal and a phasing out of controls.
We must remember too the embarrassment of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) as he struggles with this method of controlling which has been imposed by the Liberal government. It was not too long ago that the former minister of finance, the former member for Ottawa-Carleton, left this House because he could not bear the thought of having to try to explain away and pilot through a controls program in this House.
The former member for Ottawa-Carleton always wanted to look good, but there is no way to make the government and the Minister of Finance look good in their endeavour to make the controls program work. It does not matter how sweetly they sing the tune. I am reminded of an old folk song that the balladeers sing. Sometimes they do it seriously, and sometimes

they do it as a burlesque. I think we have been hearing the burlesque part of it. That old song has in it lines about a cherry that had no stone, a chicken that had no bone, and a story that had no end. That line about the cherry that had no stone is pretty appropriate. I am not really implying that the government is rotten to the core, but 1 am certainly suggesting that the controls program was not firm at the core and that it ailed from its foundation. The public was very swiftly aware of that. The problem was the exception: the Crown corporations, the Post Office, companies with limited employment, and commercial rents.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The government has excepted.


Howard Earl Johnston: Food prices did not seem to matter at all. I am sure hon. members opposite had constituents, as 1 did, who did a marvellous job of watch-dogging prices. Some constituents sent me itemized day by day accounts of price increases after the imposition of the controls program. That information was passed on to the AIB. Phone calls were made. These constituents received phone calls, were thanked for their effort, and that was about it. They quickly realized that it did not make any sense to monitor prices like that because there was no way that the Anti-Inflation Board was going to tackle prices with anything like the same vigour it tackled some aspects of wages.
As far as the chicken that had no bone is concerned, the program is firm in all the wrong places and predictably soft in other places. It is an example of gross inequities. In my constituency those inequities were felt very sharply. About a year ago there was a strike by coal miners in the east part of Okanagan-Kootenay against the Anti-Inflation Board because of a settlement that had been mutually worked out with the company. Fortunately the company was in a profitable position because it had renegotiated its prices with Japan. The workers were aware of the change, yet their settlement was rolled back. They sent a delegation to Ottawa. They went on strike. They stayed out far too long, it seems to me, particularly when the jurisdiction of the board was being reconsidered. The board stood firm, however. I will get back to that company, Mr. Speaker, because of another matter which came up recently.
Then we had the example of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Compulsory abitration, binding on both sides, had been imposed by law many years ago. Those arbitration boards met in the fall of 1975 and there was nothing in the provincial law at all to direct them to the Anti-Inflation Board. There was no clear indication of whether it had jurisdiction over them and their activities proscribed originally by law, so they brought down a legally binding settlement that had to be accepted by the school boards and teachers. Those settlements were eventually referred to the Anti-Inflation Board by the Minister of Education in the province.
I wrote to that minister and advised him that he should not lightly overturn the principle of arbitration under which teach-
June 21, 1977

ers' salaries had been settled in British Columbia for years and years. However, he did turn them over to the Anti-Inflation Board. At the same time representatives from the government of British Columbia were here in Ottawa arguing against the jurisdiction being extended to the province of British Columbia. The cases in the court are not settled yet.
I do not know why the Anti-Inflation Board, when it received that reference, did not simply quote British Columbia law and say the jurisdiction had not been settled and that it had no power. Instead, it got involved in the game of rollback and again it became fearfully complicated. It is not finished yet. It defies the imagination, Mr. Speaker.
When the minister was asked the question raised so eloquently in the House last week by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) about the very large increases given to company executives, the Minister of Finance, replying on behalf of the AIB and the controls program, said that some of those increases concerned contracts which had been entered into prior to the program. That goes a long way back but increases are only becoming apparent now. One would wonder why the same reasoning has not been applied to the B.C. Teachers' Federation when their increases were rolled back.
An interesting thing about the executive pay increases is that they involve an executive of the coal company which had made a joint presentation with the miners to the Anti-Inflation Board. It would be very difficult now for me to go back to those miners and try to persuade them that this program had worked well and had been equitable. They could hardly see it as anything but the roughest kind of justice. There was no backbone at all in the fight against prices, so the second line of the song is true.
1 think one of the lines that should concern us most is "a story that had no end." After listening to the Minister of Finance and hon. members opposite who have had such a change of heart since 1974, it seems that the controls program will "have no end" as long as they are in power.
We must give credit to the hon. member for Qu'Appel le-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who saw all this so clearly during the original debate on the controls program and voted against the bill on second reading to make the point that he feared the tendency of the government to extend power to the bureaucracy. As we listen to the debate we are reminded of his comments and how accurate they were.
The program has not really worked, Mr. Speaker. It is building in perpetual inflation. It sets limits that are accepted too readily by companies, and probably accepted too readily by workers who joined in this business of destroying the competitive position of industry.
The hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe apologized for the lack of competition in Canada. It is just the result of Liberal policies over the last 20 years, Mr. Speaker,-an astonishing display of crocodile tears as he spoke of how badly the competitive position of Canadian industry has been eroded in recent years.
Anti-Inflation Act
The governement is still absolutely rapacious in taxation. We have as evidence the new taxes on the life insurance industry. By and large the public is not even aware of what is about to be taken away from them, and still hope to cash in policies they have held for a long time. There is an appalling shift of policy here, Mr. Speaker.
The government has not shown restraint itself. Through a variety of programs it has shown there is almost a limitless fund of money which it has moved around programs like the Local Initiatives Program, Canada Works, Young Canada Works-the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) apparently can always come up with another $100 million for another program.
A year ago we could not even afford a party on July 1. There was such restraint that there was not $500,000-not $100,000-not even ten cents to let off a firecracker. One wonders why suddenly this year there is $3'/' million to celebrate Dominion Day, although they do not want to call it that. Most of the $3Vi million is not going into fireworks but is going into brainwashing the Canadian people so that the name can be changed to Canada Day. This campaign has been launched under the guise of making a truly great celebration this year. If ever there was need of a celebration it was a year ago, but the government's timing is just as bad on this as on other issues.
The government is faced with an enormous credibility problem. Who can believe it? Who can accept its promises? I know there are some voices in the public saying that controls should remain; that is to be expected. It is a sort of "Prisoner of Chillon" syndrome that eventually the chains and walls become attractive. It means passing the load to the government or the AIB rather than fighting it out at the local level.
There is some fear around, because nobody knows what the government will do next after what it did when the 1974 election was over. Of course the program was ailing from the beginning because there was no mandate. If the Minister of Finance had reported to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that the situation was out of control and the government's methods for combating inflation ineffective, the prime Minister should have announced his resignation and that of his government, because it had no mandate to do what it did on October 15, 1975. By imposing controls, contrary to what it had said in the election campaign, the government betrayed the Canadian people. Every time the hon. member for Halifax rises to speak in this House it reminds me of that day of infamy.
One suspects that the controls program is being maintained because the government is not yet ready to announce that it has made some kind of agreement with the Canadian Labour Congress. Mr. Speaker, the $10 million the government made available in that regard shocked some elements of the business community who know they were treated over the years as a source of revenue and were not considered for subsidies. One need not tell them to what use that fund will be put.
6950

June 21, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act
Remember, the Canadian Labour Congress passed a resolution calling for a one day national protest strike. That strike did not give a clear answer, for it neither worked well enough nor failed badly enough. Since that day of protest gave no clear-cut answers, the negotiations continued. At present the government wants to involve labour and business in a tripartite system or council which will advise in the running of the country. The government, or the bureaucracy, prefers that system to returning to the freer exchange of ideas to which we were accustomed before the controls program began, or to adopting what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) proposed the other day in his speech on controls.
If the controls program extends to next spring, some 70 per cent of corporations will be locked into agreements, and some 50 per cent of all pay contracts will also be locked into agreements, and we shall see a period of relative peace between labour and industry. That will enable the government to campaign on the issue of national unity and ignore wage and price controls; for it is the great fear of the government that, if the people remember what happened in the 1974 election campaign, it may have to sell them the controls program. One knows the government would not dare go to the people and attempt to sell this program, not after the way it has worked these many months. Therefore the government will pretend that it has worked out some formula which will buy labour peace, at the price of democracy, particularly parliamentary democracy, and it will proclaim and advertise that program all over the country.
Suddenly those members who rose in their place to defend controls will not find anything good to say about the controls program, will claim it had to end on such and such a date, and will announce in its place the great, shining dream of industrial peace, security and safety. The government will campaign on national unity, and the Prime Minister will conduct a phony compaign along lines developed by himself against the premier of the province of Quebec. When 1 say this 1 think of the Prime Minister addressing that audience on the prairies and telling the people they are being "conned" by the premier of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: If the premier of Quebec conned anybody in Canada, he learned from that consummate master, the Prime Minister.
Therefore I willingly stand up to say it is time controls ended, that unemployment is grim indeed, that business increasingly lacks confidence in the economy, that unemployment is rising ever higher and inflation is far from defeated, as anyone who goes shopping knows. The security the controls program promised is not the security on which one should rely. The government's program is different indeed from the program the Conservatives advocated in 1974.
I know the controls program in force since 1975 is not the program we presented. Ours would have finished by the time this one started, and conditions in this country in terms of inflation and unemployment would have been better than the sorry picture we now see.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, other members have said many of the things I wanted to say,

perhaps better than I could have said them. I am pleased to participate briefly in the present debate, which is timely and on a subject which has affected each and every Canadian for the past 20 months, and for some time before that.
Having listened to the financial critic of the opposition, 1 felt he did not make his case in support of the motion before the House which calls for controls to end at the end of this month. Certainly the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) and other hon. members opposite and on my side of the House made good contributions in a timely debate, conducted at a high level.
I submit the controls program this government introduced some 20 months ago has worked well, and that fact has disturbed hon. members opposite deeply.


Arnold John Malone: Tell us, how did it work well?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The government's program is considerably different-and hon. members are still confused on the point- from the freeze program the Conservative party advocated in the 1974 election campaign. The Canadian electorate, incidentally, rejected their program. The program this government implemented, reluctantly, in October, 1975, was of a different kind and embodied an approach different from that embodied in the program to which the electorate said no in July, 1974.


Mr. Ellis:: It is devastatingly different.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: That is right, it is devastatingly different. It has succeeded, which disturbs hon. members opposite. Experience has shown that the government's controls program was timely and basically different in concept from the proposal put forward by the Conservatives in the last election campaign.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, it was different, just as the metric system is different.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on behalf of the many people in my province and constituency who are unorganized and, in essence, unprotected from the ravages of inflation. By those two terms I do not mean only the pensioners and those on fixed incomes, what we might call the poor class of society. I certainly include in the unprotected and the unorganized both the small businessman and the farmer. Often they are not necessarily poor. However, they would like to see this control program remain for a period of time until there is greater evidence of responsibility by labour and big business that we will not again be looking at the same kind of inflation balloon.
During this debate someone said that this program legislates inflation by setting out limits, guidelines, and so on. It is true in that sense. The limits become the minimum on one hand and the maximum on the other. In essence we are legislating inflation at a regulated level. Surely that is a good deal better than what we had before the introduction of the program.
June 21, 1977

The hon. member for Okanagan Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) made a fairly good case, pointing out the many inequities that have come about as a result of the application of this program. The fact is that it did interfere with what had come to be accepted bargaining processes, not only in British Columbia in teacher collective bargaining but in other areas of collective bargaining. Certainly there were rollbacks. In many cases there should have been rollbacks.
There is no doubt that there have been injustices in the application of the program. However, there were greater injustices before the program was introduced. Certainly there are far fewer injustices since the inception of the program than if the government had stood back and done nothing in that period of time. Injustices were rampant before the program was introduced.
I want to review briefly Canada's position in so far as other countries are concerned with regard to its fight against inflation. When you look at the figures for the 24 OECD nations you see that Canada has the eighth lowest rate of inflation. Some members say we should be doing better than that. Our economy is perhaps more sensitive to external fluctuation than most others. Therefore it is indeed a remarkable achievement to be eighth among the 24 member countries.
I do not believe there is any other country similarly tied to world trade that can boast of an inflation rate that is near our present rate of 7.6 per cent. Indeed were it not for price rises in imported goods, mainly food products such as coffee, tea, and vegetables, our rate would be below 7 per cent. The estimate is 6.7 per cent. 1 am sure hon. members will agree that 6.7 per cent is not very far off the government's second year goal for this program of getting inflation down to about 6 per cent.
There is still a challenge on the part of the government and all Canadians to try to bring the consumer price down further. Leaving the controls on for a longer period will allow this country to realize more quickly our goal, than by throwing out controls at the beginning of next month. The fact that we still face a rising cost of living index is sufficient to warrant a continuation of wage and price controls. There are other reasons for continuing this program for some period of time.
I hope members opposite will realize during the course of this debate that to adopt their approach and throw out controls at this time would be to give up some of the ground that has been gained. I say that not so much in terms of reducing price increases and a levelling of profits and wage increases, but in terms of the realization that seems to be developing, albeit too slowly to suit many of us, that we are getting a more responsible kind of attitude on the part of labour and big business. We have a further distance to go before most Canadians in my part of the country will agree they have learned their lesson and are prepared to follow it as far as open season is concerned for the average Canadian.
One of the major problems that forced the government to implement guidelines was a very rapid rate of inflation fueled by many areas within our economy. Labour costs and prices were running in circles. Prices were rising. There were settle-
Anti-Inflation Act
ments of 25 and 30 per cent, and demands for a great deal more. Obviously that kind of situation could not continue.
A further indication of the benefit of controls is apparent when one compares the rise in wages to contract settlements over the past couple of years. In 1975 the average settlement by contract was around 20 per cent. Hon. members realize that kind of average level of increase could not continue without repercussions, not only here in Canada but internationally, in so far as trade is such an important part of Canadian life. Already we are paying the price for some of those increases.
Following the introduction of price and wage guidelines in 1975, the situation began to change for the better. By the end of the first quarter of 1976, contract settlements dropped to the area of 15 per cent. As I say, it appears that we are making some progress in that sense.
Canadians deserve some congratulations. Without the support of the great majority of working people and small businessmen in this country over the past year and a half, we would not have had any success with this program. The achievement of bringing down the rate of increase of profits and wages was not secured without considerable restraint on the part of a great number of Canadians.
The achievements of this restraint psychology are also shown in the tremendous improvement in Canada's strike record. A couple of years ago none of us were proud of the number of manhours lost in this country due to strikes. In the first quarter of this year British Columbia was down by about 87 per cent in terms of the number of manhours lost by strikes compared with a couple of years ago.
The advantage of having the country's economy subject to fewer slowdowns and walkouts is obvious to everyone. These important figures indicate that the atmosphere in which labour negotiating is occurring today is a good deal healthier than it was a year ago. I say again that we need to improve that atmosphere considerably before we can afford to let go the wage and price controls.
Members opposite still accuse the government of failing to protect citizens from massive increases in prices. That is not true either, because the Anti-Inflation Board through its recent figures indicates it has forced some 461 firms to return almost $100 million in excess revenues to their customers or clients. In that sense the argument we hear so often from the NDP that business has not been forced to comply with the guidelines and principles is not borne out by the figures. The A1B has made 44 food processing firms give 30 days notice of selected price increases. This requirement to notify of price increases has been another positive feature of the program.
I do not think the country is yet ready for the lifting of controls. I would, of course, like to see us get out of this particular program, as far as that goes. But we did not have any pattern of policies for dealing with a high level of inflation and a high level of unemployment. The construction industry-

June 21, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act


John Raymond Ellis: The construction industry wants controls lifted right away.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I have no doubt about that. In that industry, instead of three or four year contracts for which they were bargaining before controls, they are now down to bargaining on a one-year basis, so they will be ready when controls come off to jump in and look for a larger increase. It is very debatable. The hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) can argue the case if he likes, but suppose controls were to come off tomorrow, how much more activity would take place within that industry? I believe that before we saw an increase in construction we would see a major increase in inflation.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: How did you campaign in 1974?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I campaigned in 1974 in opposition to the freeze policy advanced by the former leader of the opposition. I supported wholeheartedly the government's stand in opposing the freeze advocated by the hon. member for Halifax. We were unable at that time to learn of any plans the Conservative party had beyond the 90-day freeze. I have listened to hon. members speak in this debate, as I have listened to them for the past year and a half, and I have yet to hear any concrete suggestion which goes beyond that 90-day freeze. Surely, the experience of the western cattle raisers with respect to the freeze on beef prices is a sufficient lesson. They do not need to be reminded of the effects of a 90-day freeze with no follow-up.
I do not think there is any region in Canada which is more vulnerable to inflation than is western Canada, or, to be more specific, the province of Saskatchewan with its economy based on agriculture. The prices we get for our products are determined primarily by international markets, yet our cost of production is directly affected by the rate of inflation both domestically and outside this country. The people of Saskatchewan want no part of another round of inflation. Indeed they are not happy about the present level of inflation.
The business community does not want controls thrown out of the window, yet that is what the opposition is really proposing today. It is true that some union leaders continue to oppose the program and I am sure they do so sincerely, even though selfishly in my view. They have even convinced the premier of Saskatchewan to reverse his position. The government of Saskatchewan, along with others, was advocating some kind of controls program; it was only a year or so later that the premier of the province, along with the premier of Manitoba, who had urged the federal government to act, reversed their stand on controls. It is my feeling that if you spoke to the premier of Saskatchewan privately he would say, despite the difficulties in his own party, that his first reaction was the right one and that controls ought to be left in place for some time yet.
The great majority of the people of Saskatchewan, regardless of their status in life, do not want controls lifted. Sure, they would like to make changes; they would like to see the economy operating in such a way as to make controls unneces-

sary. But all working Canadians have pretty well demonstrated their feelings on the issue as can be gathered from the kind of support they have given the program. Without the support of a whole host of people the program would not have worked. Hon. members opposite seem to forget that the Canadian people support controls.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said not long ago in Montreal that although he would scrap the AIB he would give almost identical power to the cabinet or to some agency or department such as the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Well, it is hard, while calling for an end to the Board, to argue in favour of the program in another form. I am not sure whether the hon. gentleman has really thought that one out.
The people in my constituency are not yet convinced that either big business or big labour is really ready to show a more responsible approach to bargaining or to price setting, an approach which balances their own objectives against a measure of public responsibility. Certainly we need changes. We need changes in bargaining legislation. We need changes in the operation of the competition legislation. I was pleased to read the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) in the debate yesterday spelling out some of the changes which are necessary in these areas.
When we can convince the public that there is a will on the part of organized labour to curb its tendencies to self-interest-some will call it greed-and procedures to accompany it, we shall be in a position to move fairly fast to phase out controls. Parliament itself should be convinced that it will not mean another expensive round of inflation and that the poor and unprotected will not once again be, as it were, in open season for big business and big labour. Further evidence is yet required that there is an adequate change of heart or attitude on the part of those involved. For these reasons I urge the minister to plan the phasing out of controls, but to do so slowly, bearing in mind the considerations I have mentioned.
There has been discussion about a consultative forum involving labour, business, and government. Those discussions have gone on for many years in different forms, with different variations in the concept. I hope that they are successful. I think that the chance of their being successful today is perhaps a bit greater than it has been over the last number of years.
The question then arises as to what kind of authority or what kind of power such a group should have, if any. I would just suggest to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour and others who are working on that kind of an approach, that in all cases the final decisions relative to the Canadian economy should be made by the members of this House of Commons. This parliament should ratify the authority that is being considered for that consultative forum. I hope that when the Minister of Finance does decide to set a definite date to phase out controls he will be in a position to assure Canadians that he does have some measures in place to try to prevent a repetition of the kind of situation we were in as a nation, along

with others, in the summer and fall of 1975 when we implemented this program. I, along with many others who have spoken, would be happy to see the end of controls just as soon as possible. However, 1 do not believe we have arrived at that point yet.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) stated the clear case for the need for this debate when he very succinctly pointed out, as reported at page 6807 of Hansard:
There is no good time for removing controls, but this may be the best opportunity we shall have for a long time. As others have said, our production is at 80 per cent of potential, one million are unemployed, but many forces at work in the economy militate against another wage and price explosion.
In addition, it is now clear that controls, far from being the solution, are part of the problem. The government's recent paper "Agenda for Co-operation" acknowledges this situation with its somewhat vague comments on decontrol and post-controls.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in his remarks in this debate made this specific reference to food prices:
Aided by reductions in food prices at first, and the food price reduction was important and significant, the rate of price increase has come down.
He added:
It is fair to point out in connection with food prices that 60 per cent of the cost of the food going through to the consumer, at the retail level, is made up of the cost of processing, packaging, transporting and retailing, and the anti-inflation program was effective in restraining those cost increases so that the real cuts in prices were passed along to consumers.
I wish to deal specifically with those "real cuts in prices", or that other 40 per cent, that the minister suggests is the farmer-producer share of food costs. The minister and his colleagues in cabinet are suggesting the Anti-Inflation Board and the controls policy have been successful in holding down food price increases without the necessity of applying controls to primary agricultural products, which of course were excluded from the first. I suggest, however, that many farm commodity prices were effectively kept down by other means. Cattle and beef are a good example, and are the best indication that if food, notably beef, prices were indeed restrained in 1976 this restraint was at the direct expense of Canada's beef cattle industry. You might say that we, the beef producers of Canada-only about 2 per cent of the total population-gave the party. Today, half way through 1977, our total food cost is the lowest ever in terms of per capita disposable income, and you may be sure beef made a major contribution to the validity of that statement.
Let us examine some 1976 cattle and beef background facts. We reached our Canadian peak cattle population in September, 1975, and then the big cow sell down started, and extended right through all of 1976 and through the first quarter of 1977. This number reduction still continues, but at a reduced rate. It continues due to earlier severe drought conditions and general unprofitability in our cattle industry.
During the first quarter of 1976 there had been clear signs of a modest recovery in our Canadian cattle markets, with price rises of $5 to $7 per hundredweight. But for the remain-
Anti-Inflation Act
ing three quarters of 1976 disaster was allowed by this government to strike, not by action but by inaction, when a 60 per cent increase in offshore beef imports was allowed over the previous year, for a total of 188.5 million pounds. That is the equivalent of 535,000 live Canadian cows. By comparison we only marketed 600,000 Canadian cows in 1973 and 1974.
But here is the significant fact: that 60 per cent increase in offshore imports was allowed to come on to our markets on top of the largest domestic supply of beef in Canada's history. Furthermore, these imports were allowed to enter Canada at prices discounted 25 cents to 31 cents per pound below similar offshore shipments to the United States. This situation finally resulted in the infamous "six cent under rule" agreed to by industry, trade and commerce, and agriculture. That was a disgraceful sellout by the government of our beef trading rights.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ALLEGED COVER-UP OF BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Leave having been granted to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) 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 clear possibility of a conspiracy concerning the concealment of evidence or the failure to take appropriate action pertaining to the

illegal break-in by three police officers at l'Agence de Presse Libre on the night of October 6-7, 1972, accordingly the motion is as follows: It is moved by Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That this House do now adjourn.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating at this late hour 1 consider to be, in terms of its subject matter, one of the most serious that has ever been before the House of Commons in the history of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Already we are getting howls from the other side, presumably from those who are quite indifferent to the principle of the rule of law. We will see if, after my comments and those of other hon. members on this side of the House, their arrogant dismissal of that concern remains as firmly established as it is now.
The matter has two important aspects directly concerning the illegal break-in that took place at l'Agence de Presse Libre on the night of October 6-7, 1972. First it refers to "the clear possibility of a conspiracy concerning the concealment of evidence" pertaining to that break-in by three police officers. Second, it refers to "the failure to take appropriate action" concerning the same break-in. Each of these is important; each is serious.
A normal break-in in our country, that is, one by ordinary citizens of the land, is serious enough.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there are hon. members who wish to converse with each other they may want to do so behind the curtain in order to allow the hon. member to be heard.


John Edward Broadbent: When the break-in is the result of deliberate planning and organization by Canada's police forces at every level, however-federal, provincial and municipal-it should cause every Canadian deep concern precisely because it involves the very people we hire to enforce the law, the very people who are there allegedly to protect our persons and property. Therefore my accusation about conspiracy, which was not made lightly, to conceal evidence or to fail to take appropriate action in such a serious situation, is also a matter that ought to be of deep concern to all Canadians devoted to liberty and to the principle of the rule of law in our country.
1 regret to say that the statement made today by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) did nothing to cast doubt on the accuracy of the two-part motion which I submitted yesterday. Indeed this afternoon's statement confirmed and underlined its essential truth. I want to deal with that, Mr. Speaker.
The matter refers to the deliberate concealment of information at relevant times by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the failure to take appropriate action when it was required by the Minister of Supply and Services at the time of the break-in in Montreal when he was solicitor general, by his
June 21, 1977

successor, and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself. If anything is certain from the minister's speech this afternoon, it is that he has confirmed those conclusions which I originally drew from the statement the present Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) made in this House last Friday. I now want to say precisely why I feel as strongly tonight in reasserting the accuracy of the contents of that motion as I did when 1 made the motion itself.
First let me deal with the issue of concealment of evidence by the RCMP. Let me outline the scenario of events which make this conclusion inescapable.
We had the break-in on October 6-7, 1972, by three police forces in Canada; a disgraceful act. On October 10, 1972, RCMP headquarters in Ottawa were informed by the RCMP in Montreal that the RCMP had participated in this illegal break-in. Mr. Speaker, it is at this point that we get the first act of irresponsible concealment by the RCMP in Ottawa. Surely when they heard from their own office in Montreal about the violation of the Criminal Code of Canada by the RCMP it should have been brought to the attention of the minister immediately; it was not.
On October 12, 1972, the then minister of justice in Quebec, Mr. Choquette, denied in public that there was any police involvement in the break-in. He categorically said that the three policemen representing the city of Montreal, the province of Quebec and all the people of Canada in the RCMP, were not involved in that break-in. At the very time Mr. Choquette was making that public declaration, RCMP officials in Ottawa knew it was false.
It is therefore at this point that we get the second clear illustration of concealment of relevant information by the RCMP headquarters in Ottawa. They did not inform the then minister of justice of the province of Quebec that what he was saying to the people of our country was false. They did not say that the minister of justice in one of our provinces was misinforming Canadians from coast to coast about the behaviour of three of their police forces. They remained silent. Mr. Speaker, that can only be described as a conspiracy of silence. I say that seriously and, 1 think, accurately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Then, when a registered letter from the groups affected by the illegal break-in arrived at the office of the then solicitor general on October 11, it was sent off to the RCMP to be answered. After two weeks, on October 26, the RCMP sent a letter to the then executive assistant of the solicitor general recommending what can only be described as an extraordinarily irresponsible course of action: The recommendation that came to the then Solicitor General of Canada from the RCMP was that an accusation made about illegal involvement, illegal activity of the RCMP, should not even be acknowledged. Surely this is a clear dereliction of responsibility on the part of RCMP headquarters in Ottawa.
Finally at a meeting on November 6, 1972, with the minister, held to discuss the "no acknowledgement" recommendation, if I understand the purpose of that meeting, it appears
Montreal Break-In
that once again the RCMP neglected its duty. According to the then minister, and this is not refuted by the RCMP, the past commissioner of the RCMP did not even in the discussion of the letter making the accusation, tell the minister that the RCMP itself had taken part in the break-in and had indeed broken the law. That, surely, is perhaps the most shocking and disturbing culmination of a series of acts of irresponsibility.
There was a meeting with the minister to discuss a recommendation, an irresponsible recommendation which the minister did not even acknowledge. There was a letter sent by innocent Canadians making allegations about a break-in. There was in that meeting no acknowledgement by the minister himself that the RCMP was involved and had broken the law. The only qualification one can make to this last, sad statement is the claim made by Mr. Higgitt and Mr. Starnes, that they "Would be surprised if they had not verbally" advised the then solicitor general of the break-in. In passing, 1 must say 1 find it strange that neither Mr. Starnes no Mr. Higgitt can recall with greater precision whether a verbal briefing was made on this point.


Mr. Woolliams:: It is a case of bad memories.


John Edward Broadbent: Clearly, there is more than one person around with a bad memory. It seems strange to me that the statement provided by the present Solicitor General should link the two men together with an assertion that they seem to recall that it would have been normal practice for them to have briefed the minister verbally, but neither one of them remembers with a greater degree of precision whether the briefing actually took place. Surely the matter needs further investigation.
In any case, the general picture of RCMP headquarters irresponsibility concerning this break-in ought to be abundantly clear by now. They tried all along the way, from October 10 to November 2-I beg your pardon, I should have said November 6-to conceal the criminal act in which their own members were involved.
1 come now to ministerial responsibility, the second part of the matter now before the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You mean ministerial irresponsibility.


John Edward Broadbent: I want, in discussing this point, to refer not only to the present Minister of Supply and Services, the former solicitor general, and to the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) his successor, but also to the Prime Minister. Both the Prime Minister and the present successor of the Minister of Supply and Services have been neglected in this catalogue of failure up to this point, and something needs to be said about both.
Let me begin with this point. The procedure for dealing with complaints about the RCMP is shockingly disgraceful, as was described by the present minister and his predecessors and documented in the case of the break-in at l'Agence de Presse Libre in October, 1972. The procedure illustrates in the clear-

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In
est possible way that, when dealing with complaints about the RCMP, we are dealing with a situation in which a person is asked to be judge of his own case, and I want to show precisely what I mean by that. The letter which arrived in the then minister's office in which an allegation was made, even if it was in the form of a question, in October, 1972, was not referred to the senior civil servants of the minister's department to be dealt with, or some other body apart from the RCMP, to be dealt with. No. As soon as the letter arrived it was shuffled off by the minister's executive assistant to the RCMP.
The letter, which was alleging the most serious kind of wrongdoing on the part of the RCMP, was sent off to the RCMP; they were to draft the reply to it. That is the procedure which existed in the then solicitor general's department for dealing with complaints about the RCMP. Surely such a procedure is basically, fundamentally wrong. That, at least, has since been admitted.
Second, I want to say something about the letter dated October 26 and sent to the then minister's executive assistant recommending, incredibly, that the solicitor general should not even acknowledge the letter sent to him by those innocent Canadians inquiring if the RCMP was involved in the break-in. Mr. Speaker, the letter of October 26 sent to the executive assistant of the then solicitor general was discussed at the meeting of November 6; and at that meeting, taking part in the discussion, was the former commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Higgitt, and Mr. John Starnes, head of security services. Mr. Speaker, outsiders may still have reasonable grounds for doubting if the minister was told by the RCMP of their own involvement.
Unfortunately, there are still reasonable grounds for doubt, and I say this for this reason: Last December, as I said earlier today, during a long interview with a responsible reporter working for a Vancouver newspaper, the minister said he could not remember at all with precision whether he had been told. Since then his memory has sharpened and he now says clearly he remembers that he was not told. And there is some reason for fair-minded persons having doubt. However, both Mr. Starnes and Mr. Higgitt imply that there was a verbal briefing.
Indeed the current issue of Maclean's magazine which went on sale in the streets today contains a statement reportedly made by Mr. Higgitt, in which he refuses to comment on the honesty of the then solicitor general's statement. Mr. Higgitt is quoted in the issue of Maclean's magazine which went on sale in the streets today as saying, "1 don't want to deal with that," the "that" referring to the honesty of the former solicitor general's statement that he was not informed at the November 6 meeting of the break-in. I say in all seriousness that there is reason for saying that Canadians, whether in the opposition, on the government side of the House, or outside politics entirely, still have reason to doubt the statement the former solicitor general made in the House this afternoon. In any case what is beyond all doubt, in my view, is that the minister's behaviour at the time was totally inadequate in that he did not

ask the perfectly relevant, perfectly sensible question of Mr. Starnes and Mr. Higgitt at the time, namely, "Did you or did you not"-with reference to the RCMP-"take part in the raid in Montreal on the night of October 6-7, 1972?"


Jean-Pierre Goyer: It is so easy to say.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it is an important matter of judgment, and in politics we all make judgments. The minister says it is so easy to say. I am not sure it is easy to say. It is certainly a judgment which I reached. I like to think that if 1 had been in that position it would have been the most elementary, straightforward question which would have occurred to me.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Tough luck.


John Edward Broadbent: I say this particularly since the minister said this afternoon that when the RCMP recommended that he should not reply to a letter which arrived in his office concerning the break-in, it was the first time he had received such a recommendation from the RCMP. If I heard his answer correctly in the House this afternoon, that is indeed what the minister said. Never before had the RCMP recommended to him that he not reply to a letter. If I got such a recommendation, particularly for the first time, it would occur to me to ask why ought 1 not to reply to the serious allegations. If nothing else prompted me to ask the question, that would have done it.
I want to go further and talk about other examples of inappropriate action or no action at all. On March 16 of last year as a result of RCMP Constable Samson's testimony, the then solicitor general, the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, learned, he said, of the break-in for the first time. Also, the Minister of Supply and Services learned of the break-in for the first time.
What did the minister of last year do when he heard that the RCMP were involved in an illegal break-in? When he heard on the basis of testimony given by an RCMP constable in court that there was illegal activity by the RCMP, what steps did the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development take?
What the minister did was offer the full co-operation of the RCMP with the Quebec inquiry which was under way into this situation. Second, he spoke to the Prime Minister and informed him of this illegal break-in. Regretfully, neither the minister nor the Prime Minister did anything else at that time of any significance. More specifically, they did not initiate a serious internal inquiry into the whole sorry situation which, as 1 have shown, reveals at best shocking neglect by the then solicitor general and cover-up action by the RCMP at the highest levels.
A year ago when the Prime Minister and the immediate past solicitor general learned of the illegal activity, they sat down with the present Minister of Supply and Services and had a chat. I am not sure what each said to the other.
June 21, 1977


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The rule states 20 minutes for all speakers. Is it agreed that the hon. member have extra time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


John Edward Broadbent: I appreciate the consideration of hon. members and I shall do my best not to abuse it.
At some point we learned that they had a meeting with each other and with senior officials from the RCMP. However, they did not set up the kind of internal inquiry I would have thought would have been self-evident as being necessary for those who were concerned with the principle that the RCMP should not only enforce the law of Canada but obey the law like everyone else.
Surely the former solicitor general should have made such a proposal at that time to the Prime Minister. If he did not, the Prime Minister on his own initiative last March should have started such an internal inquiry into the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister told me yesterday in the question period that, following the Samson revelations last March, what he did was meet with the present and former Solicitors General and did nothing else. That was as recent as yesterday's question period. Nothing that the present Solicitor General said in his presentation in the House last Friday, or in the statement this afternoon by the Minister of Supply and Services, suggests that the Prime Minister and the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development did anything more than this.
Just in case someone makes an irrelevant point that they considered a public inquiry at that time and dismissed it, I want to say that is not what I am talking about. That would have been necessary and desirable. They should have proceeded with that public inquiry. If they rejected the public inquiry for the spurious reasons given here in the last couple of days, they should have at least had an internal inquiry to find out what was wrong. They should have found out if it was at the level of former Commissioner Higgitt that a cover-up was taking place. Instead they sat out the whole process.
We have here a sad mess indeed. We have law breaking and concealment by the RCMP, an institution which Canadians from coast to coast and of every age have grown up to admire, an institution composed in the main by men and women overwhelmingly committed to honesty and decency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Unfortunately there is this serious blotch on their record. At the same time we have a government that has
Montreal Break-In
at best been incompetent. The minister of the time failed to ask the relevant question. When his successor learned of the criminal activity, he did not initiate an internal inquiry. When the Prime Minister learned last March that something was wrong involving criminal activity in the RCMP, he did nothing about it. It is clear that what we need at this point in the proceedings following the Solicitor General's speech last Friday and the former solicitor general's question of privilege today is a public inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We need a public inquiry to determine the exact degree of wrongdoing by the RCMP. I am reluctant to have to emphasize this point, but we have had brought before this House, most notably by members in the Conservative party, a number of cases, involving many cities and provinces in this country, of RCMP involvement which clearly suggests the possibility of wrongdoing.
We do not know if the case of the break-in in Montreal is an isolated incident. We need an inquiry to clear up this situation so that Canadians will know whether it is an isolated incident or a general pattern. We need an inquiry to look at the political responsibility at the time to clear up in an unequivocal fashion whether the former solicitor general knew only what he says he knew or if, because of statements made by Mr. Higgitt, Mr. Starnes and others, he knew more and has forgotten in the period that has since elapsed.
On behalf of my party I have called for this inquiry for some time. I regret to say after listening to the ministers that the strong desire of all Canadians to maintain the principles of liberty, and particularly the principle of the rule of law, still makes it absolutely essential that the call for the public inquiry be agreed to by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is well known to this House that there is not a wide range of questions upon which the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and I are in complete agreement, or on which both parties are in complete agreement. But we are in complete agreement now with regard to the need for a full public inquiry to remove the stain of suspicion which is creeping over the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a force which throughout its long history has earned the respect of Canadians, and the stain of self-perpetuating suspicion which spreads over the government not only in this case but in too many cases of this kind where its conduct has been called into question and where the response has been to seek to avoid inquiries and instead settle matters by intimate conversations within the cabinet in an attempt to keep from public view information which the public has a right to know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In


Charles Joseph Clark: I would hope there would be some members on the government side who care enough about the reputation of the police forces of this country, who care enough about the principle of ministerial responsibility, who care enough about the rule of law and about the reputations of their own colleagues, individually and collectively, that they too will put aside partisanship and join us in the demand for a public inquiry which will let the facts of this case be known.
I have to say that one of the most offensive aspects of the statement on privilege made today by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) was the cloying tribute he paid to the RCMP when he said, in effect, that he did not ask the questions he should have asked because he could not believe the RCMP would ever do such a thing. In effect the minister was saying he would speak no evil of the RCMP. He went on, being entirely consistent: he would speak no evil, his actions showed he would hear no evil, and that he would see no evil. He has brought to the House of Commons today, unfortunately supported by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), an entirely new, meaningless, and unacceptable concept of ministerial responsibility. In effect he told the House he is responsible only for what he knows, that he will go to any length at all to know as little as possible. That, Mr. Speaker, flies in the face of the principle of ministerial responsibility. It is unacceptable to the House, and it should be unacceptable to ministers and to members generally of the party opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The leader of the New Democratic Party has reviewed most of the chronology of events but I want to address myself to some of the questions which remain to be asked.
We want to know why the minister was not advised. Was it, and this is a legitimate question, because he arranged not to be advised? Was it because the RCMP did not trust him sufficiently to advise him? Would it be the case that if we had a chance to hear the testimony of Mr. Higgitt and Mr. Starnes we would learn that he was in fact advised to a greater degree than he claims to have been advised? We do not know. We have the word of the minister. But we do not have the word of the others involved and, if the government has its way, we shall be denied the right to hear from the others who were involved and they, in turn, will be denied the right to defend themselves, to defend their reputations, to tell their part of a story which goes to the root of responsible government in this country.
The government House leader is in the Chamber and I want to pay him the tribute of making at least a passing reference to the spurious argument he raised again today, as he does so often with such great vigour whenever the government is in trouble, by suggesting that the only way in which there could be an investigation was if some member of parliament were to lay a charge. The minister well knows that the problem here is precisely that we do not have evidence on which we can lay charges. What we do have here is a situation which, on the face of it, raises questions which any responsible government would wish to be answered privately and publicly.

This matter, as the House knows, was first raised a year or more ago by my friend, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). The government has tried consistently to cover it up, to push it aside, to avoid inquiries, to put forward its own versions by way of statements by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), or statements such as we heard today as to what happened. But inconvenient facts still stand out and demand explanation; sometimes taken together and sometimes singly they cry out for an inquiry.
I want to go over some of the problems which remain for all of us who are serious about the reputation of the police, about the reputation of government, about the reputation of our institutions. One of them relates to the remaining contradictions arising from just what was said at that meeting on November 6, 1972, between the then minister of supply and services, Commissioner Higgitt, and Security Services Director Starnes. Today the minister simply repeated the statements made by the Solicitor General on Friday. He categorically- that was his word-denies being told about the illegal break-in at that meeting. Neither Mr. Higgitt nor Mr. Starnes remembers telling the minister about it but, as was made clear by the Solicitor General, they do say they would be surprised if they had not done so verbally. I think it would be very difficult to conceive of a more direct way, in the circumstances, by which these two gentlemen could call into question the testimony of the then solicitor general than to use the language which was quoted by his successor in his statement on Friday.
This was, and still is, centrally, an issue of credibility. Who is right? Is it the minister who flatly denies being told, or two senior public officials who say they would be surprised if they had not told him? 1 believe this becomes more urgent in the light of the comment by Mr. Higgitt in today's Maclean's magazine that he will not deal with a question related to the veracity of the Minister of Supply and Services. We in the House of Commons, and the people generally, should be in a position to judge these questions, to judge the actions of the police. But we have no way in which to judge even the relative weight we should attach to these contradictory positions. There are no depositions, no sworn statements, no evidence under oath.
What we have is a direct statement from the Minister of Supply and Services which, it is true, is a step forward from the Solicitor General simply reporting what the Minister of Supply and Services told him. But as to Mr. Starnes' and Mr. Higgitt's version of that meeting we still have only the Solicitor General's report of what they had to say.
The Minister of Supply and Services insists, of course, that we accept his version although he and his colleagues seem determined to ensure that we shall have no opportunity to hear directly from Mr. Higgitt or from Mr. Starnes-the only way in which we can hear directly from them is through a public inquiry. By insisting that we accept his version of what took place the minister is, in effect, making very serious charges against Mr. Higgitt and Mr. Starnes. He is casting doubt upon their assertion that they would be surprised if they had not told him and, more seriously, is accusing them of a serious
June 21, 1977

dereliction of duty by failing to tell him about the break-in. They deserve the right to reply so that the whole story of what went on in that conversation and in that relationship might be heard. That is one of the inconsistencies between the positions of Mr. Higgitt and Mr. Starnes and the then solicitor general.
Another very important question which remains wide open has to do with the holes in the explanation of the Minister of Supply and Services as to why he never asked whether the RCMP had in fact engaged in an illegal break-in. By his own statements the Minister of Supply and Services admits he had had several briefings-not one, not a rare briefing, but several briefings-in regard to RCMP surveillance of the APLQ, and that he had had those briefings before the break-in. Therefore he was well aware of the interest of the force in this organization.
He also had a letter from the APLQ asking specifically whether the RCMP had been involved. Despite all that, despite his knowledge that there had been surveillance, and despite the receipt of a letter alleging involvement by the RCMP, he tells us that he never asked the most obvious question of Messrs. Higgitt and Starnes. He never even asked: "Were you gentlemen in fact involved?"
What were his reasons? He said his first reason was: "I found it hard to believe the RCMP could have participated in an illegal break-in". That is one of the most gentle ways of asking the police, of asking the public service, to carry the can for something a minister should have done.
The second reason of this minister interested in evidence was that he had seen in the press the statement by the then minister of justice of the province of Quebec, Mr. Choquette, denying any police involvement. On those very slim grounds the minister now asks us to believe that he was justified in not even asking what the RCMP, whom he knew to be investigating the APLQ, knew about the break-in.
This explanation begs another question. If the minister was so sure that the RCMP were not involved, that he did not feel any need to raise the question, why did he not respond to the letter? Surely, with all the certainty that he felt in the matter, he should have been eager to lift any suspicion from the force by giving the APLQ a flat and inequivocal answer to their inquiry. But he did not do that. What the minister is saying, then, is that he was so sure of the situation that he did not even ask. But he was not sure enough to answer a simple and direct question from the agency whose premises had been broken into.
The other matter brought out under questioning by my colleague from Central Nova this afternoon has to do with the extraordinary fact that the minister himself admitted today that this was the only occasion on which he had received instructions from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not to answer a letter, not to act in that way. If this was such an extraordinary action, why did he not ask the simple question: "Why are you suggesting that 1 act in this way?" That is a question which is wide open and which the minister has not
Montreal Break-In
addressed. Any minister who honoured his responsibility to the people of Canada would have said: "Gentlemen, you are asking me to deviate from procedure. Why? What is going on here?" But this curiously uncurious minister did not even ask that question.
We have here as well a whole new concept of ministerial responsibility. We witnessed again this week both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Supply and Services asserting a concept of ministerial responsibility which runs completely counter to established practice under our parliamentary system. Put in its simplest form, this Goyer-Trudeau doctrine is that a minister is responsible only for those matters with which he was directly involved or had direct knowledge of. It also appears to be an implicit part of this doctrine that, on potentially embarrassing problems, ministers should go to extraordinary lengths to avoid any direct knowledge.


Walter David Baker: Bystanders.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is right. They do not want to be responsible ministers; they want to be bystanders so they can get out of the way when the flak comes. That makes a mockery of our parliamentary system. Only this week, in ruling that members could not direct questions on this subject to the Minister of Supply and Services, Mr. Speaker set forth as established practice the doctrine that a minister is answerable for all matters that fall under this portfolio, whether or not he knows directly about them, or indeed whether they occurred before he became the responsible minister. It was on that basis that the present Solicitor General was responsible for answering questions in regard to events which occurred some four years before he assumed that portfolio. Yet the Minister of Supply and Services refuses to accept responsibility for events which occurred while he was solicitor general of Canada and, indeed, about which he had a least partial knowledge, because he admits to having known, in advance of the break-in, about the RCMP surveillance of the APLQ offices.
The fact is that in claiming that he knew nothing of these matters, and in asking no questions about them, the Minister of Supply and Services is as guilty of gross ministerial negligence as he would have been had he counselled and approved of the illegal break-in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Ministers of the Crown just cannot have it both ways. They are quite prepared to accept responsibility for all of the positive things that government departments do. They will go forward and claim credit at the drop of a hat. But ministerial responsibility applies not just to the popular things that a government does; it applies also to the less popular and less positive things that a government does. It applies to mistakes or to errors by officials who are totally dependent upon their ministers to speak for them in parliament.
It is simply not acceptable under our system for a minister to slough off responsibility to senior officers of the RCMP. To say that he did not know and, even worse, to offer the House the lamest explanation of why he never asked, is no excuse at

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In
all. The minister must accept responsibility for the break-in. That is what ministerial responsibility is all about. He must accept responsibility for the cover-up. And he should not, as he has on too many occasions, let senior public servants, in this case police officers, carry the can for his negligence and then deny them a hearing.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Carry the can for their mistake.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister says "carry the can for their mistake". That is precisely the point. If they made a mistake- and it is not clear whether it was his mistake or their mistake-then under our system of government it is the minister who is responsible. That is what ministerial responsibility means.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Take it like a man, Goyer, not a jellyfish.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister shakes his head. We can only presume that the reason he was in Africa these last several weeks was not simply to avoid questioning in this House; perhaps there was something going on in his present department that he did not want to know about and for which he does not want to take responsibility.


An hon. Member:: Make a charge.


Charles Joseph Clark: The charge I will make is that that is completely consistent with the absolutely inadequate concept of ministerial responsibility which has become the hallmark of this government and, unfortunately, become the hallmark of that particular minister.
Parliament and the people of Canada need a public inquiry into this matter. We need a federal public inquiry. The Prime Minister has argued against a federal inquiry on a variety of grounds which are either irrelevant, invalid, or both.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Iona Campagnolo said no.


Mr. Railton:: I said no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent of the House for the hon. Leader of the Opposition to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Not only do they refuse an inquiry, they refuse debate.


Arnold John Malone: A test pilot for the Canada broom company.
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should have preferred to hear the last remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and ascertain also the position of other hon. members of the opposition-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) has the floor. It is a long night, and I am prepared to stay all night.
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: -also the position of other hon. members of the opposition. Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that we were interested, during this special debate in Parliament, in trying to shed as much light as possible on the events which took place in 1972. Last week I made a statement which I felt was quite complete, and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) made today a statement under his oath of office not only as a member of parliament but also as a minister of the Crown. Following this, there was a question period during which the minister replied to all the questions, although he was under no obligation to do so under our Standing Orders. He made himself willingly available to reply to the questions of the opposition.
Unfortunately, for a reason which I cannot fathom, Mr. Speaker, the opposition decided for a good part of the afternoon to neglect this opportunity, which was ideal in my opinion, to ask the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) all the questions they could have put to him. Instead of asking him specific questions, instead of clarifying the debate, which I would have hoped deeply, and I am convinced that the present Minister of Supply and Services agreed with me, instead of using this time which was made available to them, they decided to resort to procedural arguments and the worst kind of political partisanship.


John Edward Broadbent: Who did?


Francis Fox: Unfortunately, some members of the opposition. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that my comments do not apply at all to the leader of the New Democratic Party who constantly took advantage of the time at his disposal to ask extremely relevant questions. 1 do not agree with his conclusions but, obviously, it goes without saying that the leader of the New Democratic Party did use those moments made available to him to get as much information as possible.
Unfortunately the debate is apparently becoming an exercise in political partisanship. We should rather try to determine what really happened a few years ago. Nevertheless 1 would be remiss if I did not make some remarks on the theory of ministerial responsibility which the Leader of the Opposi-
June 21, 1977

tion has just exposed to the House, 1 have great respect for the Leader of the Opposition and I know he is a man who really cares for the interests of our parliamentary institutions. Still I think I can disagree with him on his notion of ministerial responsibility. I think the notion he has put forward to the House tonight is a very traditional one, which may be the historical concept enunciated, for instance, in 1867, by Mr. Walter Bagehot. In my opinion, there has nevertheless been a certain evolution in government institutions since 1867. Likewise, there has certainly been some evolution in the concept of ministerial responsibility.
I certainly cannot believe that, for example, were a customs officer caught red-handed driving under the influence, the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin), my colleague in the House, would have to resign immediately. It seems to me that that concept cannot stand analysis.


An hon. Member:: You are going a bit too far.


Francis Fox: 1 agree with the hon. member that perhaps 1 have chosen an unusual example, but I am raising the question quite simply and I feel that maybe if the conclusion he wants to draw were carried to extremes, that comparison might be more valid than he is prepared to admit for the moment.
Mr. Speaker, of course 1 would not want to recapitulate all the facts mentioned in my statement nor the extremely concrete principles I have put forward last Friday regarding the obligation for the police forces in this country to set an extremely straightforward example and to see to it that all their actions be performed within the standards set by the law. But, I would also like to take this opportunity to point out to the House that the work of the RCMP is extremely difficult and that the RCMP absolutely needs to find again the trust of the Canadian public, which it has deserved for a very long time, it must also have again that of hon. members of this House. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, for some time now, and I say it in all sincerity, we have been witnessing far too much, in my opinion, of that process whereby hon. members come to the House with allegations, without having had the time or opportunity to check them, and throw them at us publicly, in the House of Commons. It seems to me all hon. members here take to heart the reputation of the RCMP which is excellent. That does not mean that errors are not made from time to time, but it goes without saying that hon. members have responsibilities towards Canadian institutions, and one of those duties is to avoid coming to this House and flaunting out, in public allegations that are not founded. Mr. Speaker, I quite agree that it is the duty of any member of parliament, if he has information and evidence indicating that illegal actions have been committed, to bring the facts to the attention of those who exercise responsibilities and if the latter do not take the necessary measures, it is their duty, Mr. Speaker, and I would be the first one to agree on that, to raise this issue in public. However, Mr. Speaker, I think that their duty goes beyond mere public disclosing of this kind of information, 1 should not say information but allegations, because in several instances, as we have witnessed for some time, allegations of illegal
Montreal Break-In
actions involving the RCMP have been thrown on the floor of this House and hon. members are quite aware that some of the allegations cannot be sustained and 1 have submitted reports to the House to that effect. Despite those reports submitted to the House, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that certain of these allegations have led to inquiry by independent police forces, despite the fact that at least in one case, these allegations have been brought to the attention of a Crown prosecutor in another province, namely the province of Ontario, in which members seem to put their trust even if they do not put much trust in other provinces, despite the fact that the prosecutor from Ontario said there was no ground for suggesting a criminal act had been committed, this kind of allegation is still made in this House, and the integrity of the RCMP is still being attacked without any legitimate grounds, Mr. Speaker. This practice is certainly very serious indeed and hon. members of the opposition must surely bear the blame for it.
1 accept the fact Mr. Speaker that hon. members on the other side of this House care to defend the RCMP just like us from the cabinet who believe that we obviously are duty bound not only to see to it that mistakes be corrected but also that the RCMP be defended when groundless allegations are made against this police force. And if they really want, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Clark) was saying and I have no reason to question his good faith, if they really want to make some statements on the RCMP, which is one of the best police forces in the western world, I really agree at this point, Mr. Speaker, that the corollary must surely be that hon. members on the other side also partake in a duty, the responsibility of behaving as responsible citizens and not abusing their privileges as members of parliament.
Well, Mr. Speaker, some parts of the statement have also been used to imply a concealment or, to use the same word as the New Democratic leader (Mr. Broadbent), a cover-up.
I for one think, Mr. Speaker, that the real question is what the inquiry commission of the Quebec government has been ordered to study. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the then RCMP commissioner and the security service director could certainly believe in all good faith that, if the matter was investigated by the Montreal police, the inquiry would proceed and that charges would eventually be made. 1 think, Mr. Speaker, that by giving an order of reference to its inquiry commission the Quebec justice minister has really determined one of the key points, one of the key questions, which must be determined to know if there really has been conspiracy or not and the question to be answered is why the Montreal police inquiry was ended. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is a basic point, and on this point as on the others, I firmly intend to cooperate and the RCMP will cooperate with the Quebec justice department in their inquiry to determine this point.
The opposition leader and the New Democratic Party leader have told us of the necessity of a public inquiry. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we all agree there is now a public inquiry and it is being carried out in the province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In
did not hear any objections in this House when the province of Alberta, for example, decided to set up an inquiry and to summon the RCMP to appear so as to establish whether there had been illegal action committed in the course of an operation related to the Royal American Road Shows matter. No objections are raised when it is the government of Alberta, Mr. Speaker. Here is another example: When the New Brunswick government decides to open an inquiry and to investigate on the activities of the RCMP in their province, the opposition does not ask for an inquiry at the federal level. But when the province of Quebec makes an inquiry, Mr. Speaker, despite the position always maintained by the opposition leader, a position which seems supported by many provincial premiers to the effect that there should be more decentralization across the country, then he seems to forget his principles to say that the administration of the law in Canada has nothing to do with the provinces, or perhaps that it has nothing to do with the province of Quebec, because in the case of Alberta and New Brunswick I have never heard any opposition to such an inquiry at that level.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 would like to determine whether the minister would give us the guarantee or would accept a question as to whether he or his colleagues in the government will appear before the provincial inquiry in Quebec, the terms of reference of which are so limited as to prohibit them from inquiring into the question which is at issue in the House tonight.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) for his intervention. 1 realize, of course, that he did not answer my statement on his position concerning the centralization of justice administration which is obviously an experiment, a very new proposal and undoubtedly a most original contribution to the constitutional debates which are now going on in this country. Needless to say, the Leader of the Opposition has every opportunity in the oral question period to ask questions and nothing prevents him from doing so. He could very well have asked that question this afternoon to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). Of course, members opposite understand only "yes" and "no": if I may play on words, there is not enough gray matter in the opposition to see things otherwise than in black and white.
Mr. Speaker, altogether, I hope that the House will come quickly to the facts, to what happened and to actions which should be taken now. The leader of the opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party have stated that we should have a public inquiry. But, all things considered, there is already a public inquiry under way in the province of Quebec. I pointed out in the statement I made in the House that our intention was to offer our full co-operation to this public inquiry. Some hon. members on the other side said that we must have a federal inquiry because we cannot place the fate of the RCMP in the hands of an inquiry commission established by the government of Quebec. Obviously, they are

already making some distinction regarding the government of the province of Quebec which is part of our confederation and enjoy powers under our present constitution. The hon. member is right when he says that I am responsible for the RCMP and I totally agree with that. Both the leader of the opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party seem to suggest that we should have a federal public inquiry apparently because they think that it would put an end to the Quebec inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, if we establish an inquiry at the federal level this will not have the effect of cancelling the current inquiry in the province of Quebec. Under the present Constitution, they are responsible for the administration of justice in their province; they are responsible for the enforcement and implementation of the Criminal Code in their province and their investigation will obviously be maintained whether the federal government makes an inquiry or not. Furthermore, they will have the right to issue subpoena. 1 understand the Leader of the Opposition has three frontbenchers who are former provincial attorneys general. I think these attorneys general would agree with me that this commission of inquiry in Quebec would have the jurisdiction to issue subpoena and to summon the people who are necessary to clarify the situation to appear before them.
I fail to see, Mr. Speaker, why that process should be set aside. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, as I already said in my statement to the House of Commons last Friday, that we are going to cooperate with that commission. The only thing that 1 may say to qualify that assertion is that I have no intention of allowing any provincial body, whether it be in New Brunswick, Alberta, British Columbia or Quebec, to take the pretext of a provincial inquiry commission, to make a complete investigation into the activities of the RCMP in Quebec or elsewhere. As to the events surrounding the APLQ, we shall cooperate fully and completely, and I assure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) of that, but if this is an inquiry that other members and myself would term a fishing expedition, it goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that there are limits of course to powers of inquiry.
The leader of the New Democratic Party went further and criticized the Prime Minister for certain actions, and I should like to dwell on this matter, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition suggests that further action should have been taken in 1976. On this point, Mr. Speaker, 1 gave to the house a detailed explanation about the position taken by Parliament in 1976. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the action taken by the government in 1976 was based on the legal opinion given by the law officers of the Crown who believed that, under the circumstances, the government had to refer the evidence and cooperate with the provincial authorities responsible for criminal law enforcement within their own province. To suggest that something else should have been done, Mr. Speaker, is to suggest that the federal government should ignore the Constitution when it sees fit to do so, that it should completely disregard provincial responsibility as concerns the administration of justice and administer justice itself. Well,
June 21, 1977

the Constitution does not work this way, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat that it is the first time we have heard in this House such an extraordinary suggestion that seems to say that the province of Quebec should not set up an inquiry commission, but that if New Brunswick or Alberta should set up one, nothing will be heard from the other side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I believe, and my statement is quite explicit on this point, that the government took in 1976 the action required at the time in full cooperating with the Quebec inquiry. The government cooperated fully, no criticism was made about the RCMP, and indeed, the RCMP Commissioner himself met with Quebec authorities in 1976 to reply to all the questions asked by the Quebec investigator. The RCMP always cooperated fully, and the government itself in its instructions to the RCMP, always cooperated fully, Mr. Speaker.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will merely assure the House, as I have already done in my statement, that we intend to continue to cooperate with provincial authorities so that through the Canadian constitution now in effect, some light may be shed on the matter.


An hon. Member:: You are hiding something.


Francis Fox: An hon. member opposite tells me that we are hiding something. When we say, Mr. Speaker, that we will fully co-operate and that we will see that the RCMP fully cooperates, so that some light may be shed on the four points identified in Mr. Bedard's statement, 1 think that it is the opposite. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we could hold a board of inquiry-


An hon. Member:: What have you got to hide?


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


Charles Joseph Clark: Let him go on.


Some hon. Members:: Let him carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister extra time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Clear the record, Francis.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their kindness. Just as the leader of the New Democratic Party, 1 do not intend to impose on the kindness of hon. members. I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that most points raised by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party have been covered. Those problems were dealt with in the statement I made in the House last Friday.
We were the first ones to admit that the procedure of complaints against the police was inadequate and we have taken the necessary steps to ensure that important changes are
Montreal Break-In
made to this system. I believe the leader of the New Democratic Party was perfectly right to say that this procedure was inadequate. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) himself has indicated in his statement this afternoon that he felt it was inadequate and that he had made some recommendations which had led to setting up the Marin Commission. I have also clearly stated in my statement in the House that 1 intended to bring before Parliament during the next session, that is to say this fall, a legislation to implement and put in our statute books the recommendations of the Marin Commission as regards the non-partisan and objective review of complaints lodged against the police.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest those are positive ways to improve the present situation and ensure that this kind of situation does not occur in future. In summary, Mr. Speaker, I think that the statement I made this afternoon and that made by the Minister of Supply and Services himself, under his oath of office, answer all questions which were asked and cast of course a new light over this whole matter. Again, Mr. Speaker, the province which is responsible for the administration of justice, the province of Quebec in this case, has already set up a parliamentary inquiry and we will cooperate in the carrying out of the terms of reference of the commission.
Mr. Speaker, I only want to repeat once more that the steps which are being taken by the government are consistent with their action of 1976 which was to cooperate, to open their files and books to the Quebec investigator, which led to this preinquiry, to a conviction and, of course, to the plea of guilty and the sentencing by the judge. In so doing, Mr. Speaker, and here again 1 emphasize this point, the government was acting pursuant to advice given to them by the law officers of the Crown.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that is obvious today it is that the more the government talks the more everybody in the country realizes that there is only one way to solve the problem which is before us today, and that is with a federal public inquiry where the people who are involved in this affair can face cross-examination and lay all the facts on the table so that the country can judge who is guilty of misconduct, gross inability and negligence as far as the law-abiding citizens of the country are concerned.
No citizen in this country can feel safe as long as this government is allowed to perform the way it has performed today. It is clear that this whole matter is nothing more than a charade, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) in his speech moved from the point where no inquiry was required to the point where he is now trying to get the people of this country to settle for the inquiry that the government of the province of Quebec had the good sense to set up because it probably knew that this government would try to stonewall the Canadian people in so far as bringing out the facts of this sordid situation we are discussing here tonight is concerned. It is a national scandal, and the people of this country will settle for

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In
nothing less than this government's accepting its responsibilities and setting up an inquiry immediately.
I look to nothing more than the Bible of the Liberal party. There is no paper in this nation which has more consistently supported the Liberal government than the Ottawa Citizen. Its lead editorial tonight is entitled "Cover-up Bomb Ticking". That is the story from the mentors of the Liberal party down the street. This is what that great newspaper says:
There is, of course, a vast difference between calling for the heads of minor figures in a whitewashed political controversy and getting to the bottom of things.
NDP Leader Broadbent and Tory Leader Joe Clark have been more than justified in demanding a full-fledged investigation into the activities of the RCMP around the time of the illegal break-in at L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec in 1972.	.
I will not put the whole editorial on the record, but in conclusion it says the following:
Francis Fox would be well-advised to disarm this bomb by setting up the necessary investigation.
I want to take hon. members back to the time when this illegal break-in occurred. At that time a general election was in progress. That general election was to be finalized on October 30 of that year. At that time the government across the way saw its majority disappearing quickly. On October 30 the Liberal party dropped from a majority position to 109 seats, and the Progressive Conservative party arrived at the point where it had 107 seats. Let us recall that situation, Mr. Speaker; let us get that atmosphere in place. What was the solicitor general of the day doing at that time? I can tell you one thing: he was probably not around Ottawa very much. More likely he was in the province of Quebec trying to save his seat and the seats of other members in that province.
While the solicitor general of the day, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), had no time to talk to the Commissioner of the RCMP about what was happening in respect of the break-in at the APLQ, it is amazing that he had lots of time to talk to the Commissioner of Penitentiaries who was opposed to certain charges being made by the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alken-brack) regarding the situation at Millhaven Penitentiary. As a matter of fact, while the Solicitor General of the day could not talk to the RCMP and could not find out what was going on in a break-in that was news in Quebec where he was at that time, and that was resulting in the press conferences called by the group that was the victim of the illegal break-in, he could go on national television on October 21 and attack the candidate, now the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. He tried to convince the public that the erosion in the penitentiary service was not as bad as the hon. member had stated in his own press releases, which were in fact confirmed later.
It is amazing that the Minister of Supply and Services could talk to the Commissioner of Penitentiaries without any difficulty but could not find time to talk to the Commissioner of the RCMP about something that was happening in his own province, his own backyard. It was something he knew a great

deal about because every day he was listening to what was happening and the way it was being revealed to the people of that province by the people who were the victims of the break-in. It is a strange set of events that was occurring at that time.
This is nothing new or different. We got the same kind of stonewalling and scenario in the judges' affair. If we want to go back further, it is the same story every time in this House. I recall the revelations that led to the Rivard affair. I remember what happened in this House then. I remember very clearly how the minister of justice of that day rejected over and over again every call for an inquiry into that affair. Finally the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had the courage to stand up in this House and put the facts before the country that resulted in the Dorion inquiry. I would recall to hon. members, in case some of them were not here or some of them cannot remember, some of the results of the Dorion inquiry. An executive assistant had offered a bribe to a lawyer by the name of Lamontagne in the city of Montreal so that bail would not be opposed for a gentleman named Rivard, who was Mafioso all the way, and one of the kings of the drug trade in North America. I remember the results of that. One was the resignation of the minister of justice and another was that the executive assistant in question was jailed for the offence.
Some other things happened that were very important and that apply to what is happening now. I am going to suggest one of them to the present Solicitor General because he seems to be setting up a new set of rules for ministers of the Crown. I am going to refer him to a former Prime Minister who issued a set of rules that members of cabinet should follow and apply in their role as ministers of the Crown. These rules are set out in the book entitled "Vision and Indecision", at page 309 as follows:
. .. Prime Minister Pearson decided to send every cabinet minister a letter of friendly advice-in which some read an "or else" implication. This letter was leaked to the press and became known as "Pearson's Code of Ethics". It said in part:
It is by no means sufficient for a person in the office of a minister-or in any other position in the public service-to act within the law. That goes without saying. Much more is required. There is an obligation not simply to observe the law but to act in a manner so scrupulous that it will bear the closest possible public scrutiny.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: I say to the minister that he cannot stand up to "Pearson's Code of Ethics".
The excerpt continues:
It has been said that the elementary qualifications demanded of a minister are honesty and incorruptibility. But it is not enough to have those qualities. Our attitudes and conduct must be such as to reflect them.
I say again that the Minister of Supply and Services does not reflect these attitudes in the statement he made in this House today.


Some hon. Members:: 
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the excerpt goes on:
In order that honesty and impartiality may be beyond doubt, members of minister's staffs, equally with ministers themselves, must not place themselves in a position where they are under obligation to any person who might benefit from special consideration or favour on their part...
I say to the Minister of Supply and Services that his executive assistant of that day did not meet the qualifications set down by "Pearson's Code of Ethics" either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I want to put something else on the record. It is very important that we clear the air about certain statements made in relation to questions of privilege, to charges being made, and the sort of gobbledygook that we heard from the government House leader in this Chamber today.
On the occasion of the selective amnesia of the Prime Minister of the day in 1964, when he finally walked into the House of Commons and admitted that he had forgotten that the then minister of justice, Mr. Favreau, had told him on an aircraft of certain revelations, certain things happened. They are set out in the book entitled "Distemper of Our Times" by Peter C. Newman, at page 271 as follows:
[DOT] (Midnight)
Asked in the House why he had previously said he had first heard about the case on November 22, Pearson replied lamely, 'I had completely forgotten the earlier conversation.' The opposition moved that the whole matter be sent to the Commons committee on privileges and elections which, in effect, would have constituted a tribunal to determine whether or not the Prime Minister of Canada had lied. The Speaker ruled against this motion and was upheld 122-105.
The point is, no charge was laid. The motion sought to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. It was not accepted because the government voted against it. But there was none of this phony baloney about charges. It was a matter of straight referral to the committee.
There are 101 questions to be asked, and my leader this evening, in his most responsible, reflective way, placed the issue before the House. He asked for certain answers, but was met with the stonewalling in which the government engages when in trouble. And it is in deep trouble, let there be no doubt about it.
I seldom feel sorry for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), but I felt sorry for the man yesterday when, on coming to this House, he had to defend the Minister of Supply and Services for the third time in a relatively short period. For the third time the Prime Minister had to defend that minister from opposition attacks, and protect his seat. He does not deserve that protection, and this country does not deserve that kind of minister. After the inquiry deals with this matter that minister will not sit on this country's treasury benches. That inquiry will place the blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of the then solicitor general, the present Minister of Supply and Services. That day cannot come too soon.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker. 1 will not bore the House by repeating the sad events which followed
Montreal Break-In
the disclosure by Corporal Samson of the break-in, but 1 will deal briefly with the Solicitor General's (Mr. Fox) arguments opposing an inquiry. He said that since a Quebec inquiry is already under way, another inquiry would merely be a duplication. Keep in mind that if this government had done its duty and examined the information available, the Quebec government would not have felt it necessary to call an inquiry. We do not object to the Quebec inquiry, for its calling is entirely consistent with the facts at the disposal of the Quebec government. The real question is, why did this government not call an inquiry before Quebec felt it necessary to call its own inquiry?
Consider what the Quebec inquiry can accomplish. The Solicitor General should have been more forthright in his response to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). The question is, is Commissioner Higgitt a compellable witness at that hearing? Is the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) a compellable witness? Possibly Mr. Starnes is a compellable witness.
The issues which we in this House want to see determined cannot be determined at the Quebec inquiry, which is the biggest red herring anybody has thrown across our path tonight. Its terms of reference would not permit it to inquire into those matters we want clarified. Therefore the inquiry we want would not duplicate the Quebec inquiry.
Second, in this particular case the sentencing judge had access to documents which are probably prohibited under the doctrine of national security, and the Solicitor General has power under section 41(2) to prevent any evidence from being given before any tribunal in this country. In the Quebec case certain matters concerning national security were not made public, and the judge clearly considered them in sentencing. If necessary, at the inquiry we seek, evidence concerning national security could be heard in camera. However, we need an inquiry to examine evidence which, beyond the balance of all probability, shows there has been a cover-up.
I will not repeat past events, but it is clear that the government has abdicated its responsibility to the province of Quebec. The question arises, has it maintained the federal authority in this case? The premier of Quebec has already said he does not want the RCMP in his province, and this government has given him the best opportunity in the world for attacking the RCMP. The Solicitor General suggested that the opposition are attacking the integrity of the RCMP, but I say that this government has given the government of Quebec a terrific political lever with which to destroy the integrity of the RCMP within that province, to its everlasting shame. In the process of doing so it has helped further to fracture Canada's unity. It will have contributed substantially to the separation of that province, because one of the previous ministers concerned was guilty of sheer neglect. Probably both were guilty.
Last Friday the Solicitor General enunciated an important principle of law. Let me read what he said, as reported in Hansard, page 6795:
In a democratic society, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that those on whom, like the RCMP and the Security Service, falls the task of enforcing the law and protecting our basic liberties, can count upon the complete support of the people.

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In
This support, in return, must be based on the faith that those protecting these rights do themselves feel bound and indeed are bound by our laws in fulfilling their duties.
That is an excellent statement of principle, but it is typical of this government that it misses the fundamental point we are arguing. Not only must the public feel that those who enforce the laws are subject to the rule of law; they must be satisfied in a democratic society that those who enforce the laws are their servants, not their masters. We must determine if the Solicitor General maintained control of the force. He suggested we are attacking the integrity of the force, but I say its integrity is attacked every time a minister in this House becomes nothing more than an apologist for the force and does not accept ministerial responsibility for providing leadership with respect to the RCMP. And the government has dismally failed to provide it.
No police force is without its great problems. Being a policeman is a tough job. It is not a popularity contest, and there are bound to be bad policemen in any force. We say that in certain incidents the RCMP appears to have broken the law, and the minister says we are attacking the integrity of the force. But I say that we are trying to protect the integrity of the RCMP and protect the fine record and reputation of the force.
The question that is key in this matter is something else the Solicitor General said in his statement. It was in fact that the incident which occurred was neither unusual nor exceptional. I am paraphrasing. I am not saying it exactly. I point out to the Solicitor General that the evidence has been given over and over again by Corporal Ramsay, an ex-corporal in the RCMP.
I want to read some of that from tonight's paper. I hope the minister will take the trouble to have a look at it. The headline in tonight's Toronto Star reads "Break-ins Common-Former Mountie." I quote from the article:
During the last year and a half he was in the force, he said, as an assistant training officer in Saskatchewan, he was in charge of setting up classes for other officers.
Some of the classes dealt with methods of breaking and entering and bugging hotel and motel rooms as well as homes, he said. Lectures included playing tapes that were obtained by bugging... But major installations, which involved breaking into a home or office to install bugging equipment had to be approved by headquarters in Ottawa.
That is Jack Ramsay, an ex-corporal in the RCMP. Surely that evidence alone cries out for someone to take a look at making sure that the force is not engaged in illicit break-in activities in order to set wiretaps. The article continues:
Ramsay said that in his day all divisions of the RCMP had "technical aid sections" with bugging equipment and expert lock-pickers to conduct the break-ins.
I do not want to hear the minister get up in this House tomorrow and apologize again. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), who knows as much about this subject as anyone in this House, has raised these matters since I came here in 1972, over and over and over. The difficulty continues to be that the understanding of the present minister and his two predecessors of the role of Solicitor General is that it is

simply to protect and apologize for any activity of those in the force or in the bureaucracy that they represent. The Canadian people are really getting a little tired of it.
There is a rule of political leadership in a democratic society that the RCMP must, above all other people, surely obey the law. However, the Canadian public are in doubt right now that the political authorities are in control of the force. On that point alone I plead with the government to call an inquiry into this specific matter even if it does not wish to expand it into the others I am going to suggest also cry out for an inquiry.
I am not critical of the present Minister of Supply and Services in terms of his handling of the matter in the House this afternoon. I think he made a forthright statement. It was something he was not required to do under the rules. I am not critical of the present minister for the statement that he made in the House. But, as many people have pointed out, that statement raises far more questions than it answers.
However, what is important are two things that the minister, in answer to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), inserted in the record. One of them perhaps goes to the root of the problem. He said "that is easy to say", in response to the question of whether he should have asked the key question following the November 6 meeting.
Hindsight is very easy. The fact that he did not ask the key question goes beyond what was negligence of his part. It goes to the root of the question as to whether he understands the role of Solicitor General to be more than an apologist, to have a positive obligation, to find out whether in fact the force is obeying the law of the country. It is that duty the solicitor general at the time failed to meet.
Sure, hindsight is easy, but it is not just a question of negligence. It is a failure of this government's understanding of its role with respect to the RCMP because it did not occur to the minister to ask a question. He still sees his role as being the protector of the force. He would never believe they would break the law. That is at the root of the minister's failure. I am not challenging the veracity of the statement that the minister made, although it certainly raises some question of judgment.
The other line that the minister threw into debate, and I will be pleased to listen to his further comments, was to call this back-seat driving on the part of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, I say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that it is better to have somebody driving even if it is in the back seat, because what we have had was that no one who had that particular portfolio did any driving. He was being driven by the force and being ignored by the force.
In the United States a president was impeached because three operatives, not police officers, broke into the Watergate complex. The only reason we are debating this in the House today is because an RCMP corporal who was charged in an illegal bombing let slip in the evidence that he participated in a break-in. Otherwise there would never have been this debate in the House of Commons today. This matter would never have come to light.
June 21, 1977

The facts are obvious about a cover-up. The logic is overwhelming that there was a cover-up. Democracy cannot survive that kind of conduct. We need to have a complete and open society. The only way the government can demonstrate that it is in favour of that, and I plead with it tonight, is to agree to have an inquiry into this matter. It will be the first step back to restoring the integrity of the RCMP and putting ministerial responsibility where it belongs.
This is a serious time. 1 will not deal with the Praxis question because my time is limited. However, there are some serious questions with regard to that which remain unanswered. I will throw the name of Letourneau into this debate and 1 will deal more with that. This is another question of illegality on the part of the RCMP in Quebec. There was the Royal American show, the illegal police bugging. The police investigation in that case was simply to call in the officers, ask whether they did it, and when the officers said no, they said that was fine. Can you imagine an ordinary citizen alleged to have committed an offence being treated in that way? No statement was required and there was no investigation. Further evidence has now come out of that.
There is the New Brunswick inquiry, again the question of RCMP responsibility. There is now so much cumulative evidence that we have to start to redress on that balance.
When 1 began practising law the courts were very scrupulous, very careful that the rule of law was always obeyed. 1 am afraid there has been a swing in the pendulum. Because of a deep concern about rising crime, we have started to cut corners to control it. That is a great mistake. The kind of civilized and free society that we have cannot exist if we do not have a government which understands that the people are the masters of the RCMP and must remain so.


Hon. Jean-Pierre  Coyer@Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, 1 have listened to the discussion of the APLQ incident for the past two days and I am shocked by the lack of rigour, discipline and the degree of irresponsibility with which opposition members have carried on, making gratuitous allegations and insinuations.
What is the opposition after-the truth or sensationalized press reports? The opposition parties are so miserably lacking in creative ideas and policy proposals that I can understand this might be the only way for them to obtain press coverage. However, parliamentary tradition suggests that if any member chooses to argue on the basis of allegations and insinuations he should have enough courage, enough guts, to specify his accusations and to put his job on the line to prove them. I have already said 1 would put my seat on the line to support my statements.
For example, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has insinuated that I may have misled the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) in my account of the facts concerning my involvement in this incident. If he wants to accuse me of concealing evidence, let him be specific about it and let him pay the price if he fails to prove his accusation. If he chooses not to put up, he should
Montreal Break-In
shut up. The Leader of the Opposition is of course hesitant to stake his seat, because he knows very well that these allegations are unfounded.
As for some other members of the opposition, unfortunately they have not behaved very responsibly, either. Their tactics were clear: insinuation and innuendo. They obviously did not pay attention to the Solicitor General's statement. They chose to extract only those parts of the statement which suited their purpose. They chose to conveniently overlook important pieces of information.
One member was unethical and irresponsible enough to accuse me of having been involved in three "scandals". He should have more respect for the English language and use such words as "scandal" more judiciously. He should have enough respect for individual rights and reputations to use such words more carefully. First, though the purchase of aircraft from the Lockheed Corporation did give rise to serious problems, in no way could the negotiations be qualified as scandalous. We all know how hard the opposition tried to uncover a scandal, to no avail.
The second incident referred to by the member is the Hamilton dredging incident. I would like to correct an erroneous news report published as a result of the statement made by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) concerning my alleged involvement in the Hamilton dredging incident.
The members's allegations are false. This incident was dealt with in parliamentary committee which unequivocally concluded that I had acted correctly and responsibly in dealing with this matter. Furthermore I am tabling, with the signator's consent and, I hope, with the consent of the House, a letter sent to me by Mr. James E. Campbell, then Controller, City of Hamilton, dated April 8, 1975, which should erase any doubts which anyone might have concerning my role in this incident. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Goyer:
I felt that 1 should write to you as a result of the vicarious exchanges between us reported by the news media.
The news media and others were quick to seize upon and exploit a statement by me that certain information was handed to you when what was meant was that it was handed to your office.
At any rate the matter was acted upon swiftly as reported in the Globe and Mail on or about December 14, 1972 in a report that the RCMP had commenced an investigation of Hamilton Harbour.
If I can be of any help to correct any statement that may have caused any embarrassment to you or your department, I would be pleased to do so.
Yours truly,
James E. Campbell Controller


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Pierre Goyer: At the risk of repeating my earlier statement, I will explain my role in the APLQ incident once again. The Solicitor General has already tabled a statement; L myself, have risen on a question of privilege to explain my role in this incident; I trust that, the third time around, opposition mem-

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In
bers will begin to grasp the facts. I sympathize with the many opposition members who are just plain slow at grasping issues, but those who refuse to grasp the facts, who distort the truth are abusing their position as members of parliament and are abusing the confidence of their electors.
First, I want to state flatly that 1 had no prior knowledge of the October 6/7 1972 break-in at the APLQ. The Solicitor General has also stated that neither the RCMP Headquarters in Ottawa nor the Commanding Officer of "C" Division in Montreal had been told of the break-in prior to the operation being carried out.
Second, a letter dated October 9 was sent to me by the APLQ. The letter did not state that the RCMP had participated in the break-in, it asked if it had. This letter, received October 11, 1972, was not immediately brought to my attention but was referred to the RCMP. This was standard practice, and this afternoon I explained that practice.
As 1 mentioned this afternoon, this method of dealing with complaints about the RCMP was not ideal, but those were the tools available to me at the time. And in the early fall of 1972, 1 had recommended to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that a commission be instituted to look into disciplinary questions and the manner of dealing with complaints about RCMP behaviour. The commission was in fact established by my successor.
On October 26, 1972, the RCMP wrote to my assistant recommending that no acknowledgment of the letter be sent, without providing the reason for their recommendation.
My agenda indicates that 1 would have raised the matter with the Commissioner and the Director of Security Services of the RCMP on November 6, 1972. I was not informed of RCMP involvement in the break-in at this meeting nor at any subsequent meeting with the police. I was advised not to acknowledge the letter because the theft of documents referred to in the APLQ letter fell under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities and 1 was informed that la Police de Montreal was investigating the incident.
1 am sure that 1 was not told of RCMP involvement in the break-in. The former Commissioner and former Director of Security Services claim they would be surprised if they had not told me verbally. But, neither the Commissioner nor the Director of Security Services of the RCMP remember actually telling me about RCMP involvement in the incident. They both state that the matter was a very serious one and very unusual. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, they would remember discussing it with me? Do you not think that had they wanted to inform me about it they would have done so in writing?


An hon. Member:: Perhaps not in this case.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The RCMP's standard way of dealing with important information was to convey it to me in writing. I outlined the procedure this afternoon, but let me repeat that many days 1 received up to five or six documents on police matters. Decisions and policy directives were recorded in writing and such documents were initialled by me. The RCMP

is methodical, efficient, and thorough in keeping its records of discussions and decisions. The Solicitor General Department's files and those of the RCMP contain no written report to me on the APLQ break-in.
Why did 1 not specifically ask if the RCMP was involved in the break-in? First 1 received an inquiry about an illegal break-in from a group whose reputation and credibility hon. members can evaluate themselves. I found it hard to believe that the RCMP could have participated in an illegal break-in. 1 had no knowledge of the RCMP ever having taken part or even having planned to take part in illegal activities. I respected the RCMP's reputation and past record. The opposition is being cynical and opportunistic when they wonder why I trusted the RCMP. They were the ones, especially Tory members, who were attacking me at the time for not showing enough respect for the RCMP.
Secondly, when 1 discussed the APLQ letter with the RCMP, the Quebec justice minister had already stated publicly that no police force was involved in the break-in. He had prime responsibility for investigating the incident; he had done so and was unequivocal in his conclusion. Was it reasonable for me to doubt his conclusions? The RCMP did not tell me of RCMP involvement in the break-in, the Quebec justice minister stated bluntly that no police force was involved; it was thus clear to me that the RCMP was not involved in the incident. I had no reason to suspect the conclusions of the Quebec minister of justice as false and thus no reason to ask the RCMP if they had been involved in the incident. No member of this House would have reacted differently. When I was also told that the whole matter was being further investigated by the Montreal urban police, I was further reassured that justice would take its course.
The Quebec justice minister's statement denying that any of the three police forces were involved in the theft of documents was never brought to my attention as false.
On November 27, 1972, I was appointed Minister of Supply and Services, and the very first time 1 learned of RCMP involvement in the break-in was in March 1976.
As I pointed out this afternoon, neither the deputy solicitor general nor the then director, security planning and research group, were made aware of RCMP participation in this operation before March 16, 1976. The established practice called for their being informed of important questions pertaining to the RCMP's activities, to allow them to assist me in following up on such matters. Normally, at least one of them attended my meetings with the police. Neither one remembers even hearing about RCMP involvement in the break-in at the APLQ.
This now brings me to the broader question of the role and duties of a solicitor general as they pertain to responsibility for the RCMP. First of all, in a democratic society, day-to-day police operations should be carried out as independently as possible from the political process and the police should not be used to further political aims. As Solicitor General I was under severe pressure from opposition members not to involve myself
June 21, 1977

in the day-to-day operations of the force; opposition members watched carefully to ensure that I was not interfering with police operations.
1 agree that with regard to specific day-to-day police operations the role of the Solicitor General should be non-intrusive unless of course there is proof that police conduct is unworthy or illegal. 1 can assure the House that when 1 was Solicitor General, the RCMP was never asked to undertake any activities to further political interests nor was I ever made aware of any illegal police activities, under any circumstances. Thus my actions toward the RCMP were directed at policy matters at finding ways and means to make the RCMP even more effective and efficient.
Let me give the House some examples of how this was done. First of all, the whole recruiting process was reviewed, with special attention being given to upgraded entrance requirements. Bilingualism and multilingualism combined to make the force more representative of Canadian society and more efficient. It was decided that women could become members of the force. A national committee, formed of members of the force, was established to discuss problems and issues relating to improving conditions and relations between the commissioner and members of the force, and thus improving the work environment. 1 recommended the establishment of a commission to deal with disciplinary questions and the manner in which to deal with complaints about RCMP behaviour. A public relations program focusing on crime prevention was established in numerous schools throughout the country.
Some of the RCMP's methods of operation were reviewed and discontinued. For example, I put an end to the practice of soliciting information from young informers. 1 encouraged the RCMP to put added emphasis on white collar crime.
Of course, 1 also paid a great deal of attention to national security problems. That is what a Solicitor General should do. Threats to our national security arise not only from outside our borders but also from within the country itself. We had had bombings; innocent persons had been maimed and killed; political kidnappings and murder had taken place. It is easy for a member of the opposition to accuse me of "paranoia" about terrorist groups, but then what does this member know about national security? In fact, because I knew that members of the opposition parties knew very little about national security matters, I undertook, for the first time, to have the then leader of opposition briefed about security issues.
I repeat what I said this afternoon. No matter what I had been told about the APLQ's activities, under no circumstances would I have authorized an illegal break-in at the premises of the APLQ if I had had any prior knowledge of the operation. Had I been told about RCMP involvement in the break-in, under no circumstances would I have condoned it or covered up for the force. No circumstances can serve as an excuse for illegal behaviour not even with the best of intentions.
I have spent a good part of my life defending individual rights and civil liberties-as a student, as a private citizen, as a politician. If anything, I have been accused of being too staunch a supporter of individual rights. I was not naive,
Montreal Break-In
however, in my support of individual rights and collective freedom; 1 took national security questions very seriously, seriously enough to show prudence, seriously enough not to condone illegal police activities.
In order to get a better grasp of security matters, I established the Security Planning and Research Group to assist me in analyzing the great volume of material passed on to me by the security services of the RCMP. The SPARG was designed to advise me on policy matters, not to engage in police operations. It is just impossible for the Solicitor General to analyse closely the masses of information conveyed to him by the security services of the RCMP. He does not have the time and all the expertise to do so. The SPARG worked in close co-operation with the security services of the RCMP, and in the final months of my mandate had also begun to link with the Commissioner of the RCMP becoming more involved in studying other types of police information.
When I established the SPARG, however, I was severely attacked by opposition members for setting up a group that would, in effect, review and analyze some of the material provided to me by the RCMP.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the minister, but his allotted time has expired. He could continue past the 20-minute mark only with the consent of the House. [English]
Is there unanimous consent for the minister to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps at the same time the minister might table the letter he referred to earlier in his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2)? For this, he does not require the unanimous consent of the House.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to table the letter I quoted from.

The opposition claimed the RCMP was very capable of reviewing its information itself, that no independent analysis was required, that I was threatening the independence of the force. It is ironic that now the opposition is conveniently accusing me of not having intervened enough in police operations.
I feel that I did a good job in dealing with the RCMP- improved recruiting standards, better employer relations mechanisms, a review of disciplinary issues, the abolition of certain questionable operations, namely, those pertaining to young informers, a renewed emphasis on white collar crimes, an increased emphasis on crime prevention, a more effective security service. I did not know that the RCMP was involved in the APLQ incident before, during or after the break-in.

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In
One final comment: some members and journalists have tried to link this incident to the Watergate affair which occured in the United States. 1 wonder why Canadians are always so eager to emulate slavishly the United States? First of all, any comparison with the Watergate incident is so far-fetched that it is flabbergasting that anyone would waste his time attempting to make such a comparison. The Watergate incident involved the hiring of a group of men to take part in an illegal break-in and bugging of a recognized political party, for political purposes.
Various senior members of the U.S. administration had prior knowledge of the break-in, at least a few days after it had occured; senior members of the administration admitted trying to "pay off' the burglars to buy their silence, and in fact tried to cover up the whole matter. The APLQ incident is very, very different. First, no senior RCMP officers, no federal minister had prior knowledge of the break-in. No one was hired to do the job. The APLQ cannot justly be compared to the Democratic Party and, moreover, no political motive was involved. I was not informed of RCMP involvement in the incident; the Prime Minister was certainly not aware of the matter. No one was paid to keep his mouth shut. No minister was involved in a cover-up; on the contrary, as soon as a minister was in fact informed of RCMP participation in the break-in, an investigation was launched and charges were laid. One would have to have a very vivid and warped imagination to call this a "Watergate".
On the other hand it is obvious, given the nature of the debate which has taken place here, that members of the opposition have relied more on their imagination than on facts. Hopefully, their future statements will reflect more accurately what really happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I am almost ashamed to take part in this debate following the former solicitor general, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), a man who hears no evil, sees no evil, and speaks no evil. Seldom are we treated to such a sanctimonious performance and contribution as we heard tonight in the House.
The Minister said on several occasions today that he is willing to lay his job on the line if some hon. members made some charges and some accusations. 1 want to try to oblige this gentleman, who speaks with a squeaky voice, to see if I can arouse the minister's sensivity sufficiently to do what he promised, namely, stand up and resign his seat.
In 1973 the former great prime minister, Lester B. Pearson, said that if our security policy ignored or did not take into account the basic rights of the individual, it could operate not to defend but to destroy the liberties which were our first concern.
In February of 1974 our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, making reference to the security service, that the public security service is the custodian of part of the independence which every citizen yields so that the state may

act with the necessary authority for the common good. He referred to this assumed mandate as a sacred trust. This was the very language that every despot who wished in the past to curb or destroy the rights of citizens employed. Given the lack of parliamentary control over the nation's security system and the Prime Minister's known predilection for conducting political vendettas for the benefit of Liberals, what assurance is there that the security measures are not simply a political weapon?
The Solicitor General calls his actions or the goings on in connection with the APLQ a very unusual and serious incident. He says the reason no action was taken in the case of Montreal was because it was a very isolated incident. But apart from the break-in at L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec, we have heard about investigations in similar instances in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There is also the case of Katie Curtin and Sylvia Roche who were fired from their jobs at the Olympic Games in July, 1976, along with many others who were fired for security reasons. The reason I mention that case is that the lieutenant in the cross-examination by the Montreal police which investigated that incident said that Curtin and Roche were on the list of persons who were considered to be security risks. Corp. Gerard Lafond of the Quebec provincial police admitted at the same hearing that hundreds of files are maintained on persons who have never been arrested or charged, on persons who are suspected of being security risks. According to his testimony, duplicate copies were maintained by the RCMP.
I would like to deal first with some of the actors in this drama which is unfolding here tonight and has been unfolding in the last few days. First I will throw out a few names. There is the name of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), and the name of Lt. Col. Bourne who was involved, as we know, during the war measures crisis, in the Prime Minister's office dealing with some of the troubles in Quebec. There are the names of Starnes, Dabros, Cobb, all people who came from various offices such as the Department of National Defence, the Privy Council office, the Prime Minister's office and the RCMP forces. They brought with them the mentality of the War Measures Act and the October crisis in Quebec. There was a communist behind every tree, there was a leftist everywhere, and we were all nervous. Eyes were looking out of every mail box.


An hon. Member:: And bombs were in every other one.


Frank Oberle: The present Minister of Supply and Services came to his position in the Prime Minister's office after having been parliamentary assistant to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp). Lt. Col. Robin Bourne was already doing security work in the Privy Council office and he linked up with the Minister of Supply and Services. Col. Walter Dabros was fresh from the battle grounds where he was fighting subversives on the campuses, and he brought his experience to this select group, insp. Cobb did FLQ work in Quebec from August, 1966, to June, 1970. This group now became the custodians of
June 21, 1977

the independence we had to yield as Canadians to the government so that the state could protect the common good.
Now 1 want to speak about yet another break-in, another crime that was committed in support of the public good, that is, the crime that was committed during the break-in in the late 1970's in the office of the Praxis Corporation in Toronto. That group could be identified a little better. It was a group of individuals who formed a social action group. They came into this environment in response to the call for a just society, for participatory democracy. They were operating on grants, one particular grant given to them by the National Council on Social Welfare to organize a poor peoples' conference. They played their part in the grant economy of the late 1960's, encouraged of course by the Prime Minister who was going to make everybody equal and everybody happy.
They were called leftist because they were working with the poor people, getting them to participate, which the Prime Minister wanted them to do with the taxpayers' money. This same philosophy gave rise to rifling groups as well, some of them very radical. There were small vigilante groups operating at that time. The police, of course, aligned itself with right wing groups. In the case of Praxis one did not need to be a member of the RCMP to act under the protection of 141(2) which gives the minister the right to withhold evidence from the courts. All one needed to be was to be a member of one of these right wing groups, and as such one was granted immunity from the law. This is what happened in the case of the Praxis break-in.
It would appear that in the Praxis case there might not have been a direct involvement of a police force. In fact the government did not investigate this action as it did the case in Montreal, but our own investigation reveals that the police might have acted through agents, and one agent in particular who is no longer in the country. His life would have been in danger if the police had revealed his identity on January 24 when I introduced the black list in the House. It is now seven years after the event, but this person's life would still be in danger today. I ask myself who would do harm, shoot or kill this person who co-operated with the police at that time? Would it be the RCMP who would do it to conceal their involvement? Would it be a leftist or a rightist group? What kind of a society do we live in today when a person who collaborates with the police is in danger of his life?
Supt. Venner of the RCMP met the people who lost their files in the break-in. When the question of the obstruction of the investigative process of the Metro police by the RCMP was raised, Supt. Venner said:
Yes, we found ourselves in a dilemma of protecting this person. This was unfair to the Metro police but there was nothing we could do. If we gave out names, that would have put this anonymous person in danger.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) knows what happened.


An hon. Member:: The sly fox.


Frank Oberle: When 1 introduced this matter to the House of Commons in the initial stages, everyone but the Solicitor General knew.
Montreal Break-In
In the case of l'Agence de Presse Libre we are being asked to take the minister's word that there is no involvement. How good is the minister's word? How good has it been on other occasions? When the EPO matter was first raised in the House-that was after 1 had discussed it with the Solicitor General-he said he had never heard of such a thing. At that time I accused him and several ministers in the House of deliberately misleading the House. If the minister wants to accept that as a charge tonight, there it is. Of course several of his colleagues who were informed of the possible overthrow of the government by radical means were also totally ignorant of the facts until the list was read into the record of the House. This cured the minor cases of selective amnesia.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member be kind enough to indicate clearly who has misled the House? It is not too clear to me who he said it was.


An hon. Member:: The Liberals.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think the question is well asked. I heard the remarks of the hon. member and I hope he will make it clear that he is not charging that the minister deliberately misled the House, which is not permitted under our rules.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, if the Solicitor General would research the record of that day, he would find where 1 made the charge. He would see the list of persons against whom 1 levelled the charge. If the shoe fits, anyone here may wear it.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Come on, explain! Come on, chicken!


Frank Oberle: If the Minister of Supply and Services would wait a moment, there is more to come.


Ralph Goodale: Hit and run; keep it up.


Frank Oberle: The Minister of Supply and Services is one of my very special friends. There is more to come. Just hang in there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Be specific.


Frank Oberle: The EPO list was read into the record of the House of Commons.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would allow me to come back to his point. I really wonder if he is accusing anybody on this side of the House of misleading the House. I bring the question up because before the parliamentary committee the hon. member said he had made this charge in the House, and that since no one had responded to him, obviously somebody had misled the House.
Would the hon. member please either tell me who on this side misled the House or retract his statement to the effect that someone misled the House?
6972

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In


Mr. Beatty:: Give him a chance. Stop interrupting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might say to the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) that it is not considered unparliamentary to say that a statement is untrue, but it is unparliamentary to say that it is untrue to the knowledge of the hon. member making it, so I suppose by extension to say that a minister or a member might have misled the House is acceptable. Perhaps it is not recommended, but according to the rules of the House it is acceptable. However, what is not acceptable is to say that a member has misled the House to his own knowledge. This is what the hon. member more or less implied at the beginning. However, his remarks perhaps amounted to nuance. They were general, and in that case I do not think I have to intervene at this time.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Gee whiz.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why are you so sensitive?


Frank Oberle: It certainly shows how sensitive our friends over there are when someone refers to the list to which I have made reference.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: And how confused you are in your mind.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will not deduct from my time the time these gentlemen are abusing by way of interruption.


An hon. Member:: We extended their time.


Frank Oberle: The letter which was read into the record of the House of Commons, which these people did not remember, read in part like this:
Through such institutions the New Left seeks to organize and radicalize the 'underclasses' of society and mold them into a revolutionary force capable of overthrowing the present socio-political system . ..
The radical EPO program of the Left is, in short, a movement strategy predicated on a total and unequivocal rejection of representative democracy, its destruction and the creation of radical alternatives.


An hon. Member:: Who signed that?


Frank Oberle: That would mean it would have to be more radical than what we have now, and this letter was signed by Jean-Pierre Goyer, Solicitor General of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Frank Oberle: How paranoid can one single person get? In the case of Montreal we do not know what happened to the loot that was stolen. In the Praxis case we do know. The crime was followed by a series of incredible events. There was the illegal possession of the documents that were stolen. The minister's officials, through the RCMP-which had, incidentally, destroyed quite a few of the files that were stolen-compiled the evidence taken in that break-in which was brought to the then solicitor general. Evidence which was compiled and brought together from other police operations formed the basis for the EPO concept. The blacklist practice is, in my opinion, a Star Chamber technique. The Star Chamber, as we all remember, was an ancient English court dispensing justice without a

jury, which met in a chamber in Westminster Palace, the ceiling of which was decorated with stars. The only problem is that it was abolished in 1641 to end arbitrary and secret tribunals of the type this government is still carrying on today.


An hon. Member:: Goyer brought it back.


Frank Oberle: It was that minister right there who took the stolen property and converted it into his infamous blacklist, and attached to this list was another list with the names of 21 innocent Canadians who are still today affected by this smear campaign and by the actions of this government. As a matter of fact, there are now several lawsuits against those two ministers over there. Writs have been issued in the courts for libel. That is what these people are-
[ Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) on a question of privilege.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. member to say who sued me in this case and when?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Solicitor General on a question of privilege.


Francis Fox: Unless 1 am mistaken, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stated, when referring to these two gentlemen and to the commission of a criminal offense, that I was guilty of libel.
I therefore request the hon. member to retract immediately what he has just said or explain his statement, for the way I understood it, he said, referring to me, that I was guilty of libel.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 1 must point out to the Solicitor General that if those words were spoken, I did not hear them. 1 shall have to check Hansard, which 1 shall do tomorrow. Then, the Solicitor General can use his first privilege, that is rise on a point of order, unless the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) himself, knowing what he said, changes or withdraws his words.
[English)


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I too will examine Hansard tomorrow to see what the Solicitor General has said. If I offended his privilege, I am prepared to withdraw these comments either now or tomorrow. I am not like the government. I think that the judicial action which will be launched against these gentlemen should take its course before we identify them for what they are.


Arnold John Malone: He didn't say what you are.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order.
June 21, 1977


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Supply and Services on a point of order.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a question of privilege because the hon. member said that several judicial actions have been taken against me, and also because 1 support what the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) said, that is, that 1 protest strongly. 1 therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his words with regard to the libel he claims 1 am responsible for against Canadians. 1 ask the hon. member, if he cannot say who made the accusation against me, to withdraw what he has just said.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I can understand how the former solicitor general, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), would be quite upset because we are getting awfully close to the truth. I can understand that. Dealing with the question of privilege, however, 1 can tell him that one of the people who has issued a writ against him is a constituent of mine by the name of Ian Keith Carruthers. It was issued within the last two weeks.


An hon. Member:: And what about Stopworth?


Walter David Baker: It was about the question that I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford)-asking for some justice-


Jean-Pierre Goyer: When was it served?


Walter David Baker: With respect 1 am sure the Solicitor General heard it in the House today. As I understand it the writ has not been served, but 1 want to say to the House that the writ has been issued. If it has not been issued I will apologize to the Minister of Supply and Services. I suggest that he send one of his gumshoes down to the Supreme Court of Ontario office at the Court House to check the record.


An hon. Member:: Go away to Africa for three days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Pierre Goyer: And you are a lawyer!


Walter David Baker: I think it is extremely important. The Minister of Supply and Services asked for information. I have given him that information. He can check its veracity, and if I am wrong with respect to the issuance of that writ then I will apologize to the minister. I think that ends the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made a point of clarification. I am not in a position to decide whether this corresponds to facts or to court actions, or not. [Translation]
The Minister of Supply and Services surely made a valid point if he thinks that an hon. member claims a charge was laid against him and that the charge is not substantiated or at
Montreal Break-In
least that procedures were not taken. However, I must say that the Chair cannot control the content of the speeches, the truth of all that is said. If the minister feels frustrated and attacked in his integrity, I think he has the right to make a correction, and I hope the hon. member who was had the floor will be able to bring some precision in his remarks and clarify the situation.

I would hope that these insinuations about law suits or pretented lawsuits could be clarified in a way so that no member would feel his reputation has been attacked.
The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle).
I might say that the hon. member has gone well beyond his time and I have started to allow him extra time. Maybe if we sum up all the time that has been taken on points of order I shall give him an extra five minutes. After that I shall have to tell him that his time has expired.


Frank Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are most generous and most kind.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Especially for a Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that is the kind of remark that should be made in this place.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Mr. Speaker, the comment, of course, was provoked by the rudeness shown the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) tonight by the other side. In so far as Your Honour occupies that position with great dignity, I withdraw the remark completely, having made the point about the rudeness that the other side did not withdraw when they shouted down the Leader of the Opposition as he was stating the truth.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 am very grateful to the hon. member.
The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle).


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I will come to the conclusion of my remarks and will not abuse the graciousness of yourself and my colleagues.
I must sum up by saying the fact is that the former solicitor general, the Minister of Supply and Services, knew when he drafted and signed this letter "Jean-Pierre Goyer" that he had in his possession and the possession of his department, stolen materials. There is no way he could not know because it was widely reported, in Toronto and throughout the country. It was on television and in the newspapers that there had been a break-in.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but by sheer coincidence while these people were going in there, whoever they were-yesterday I gave the Solicitor General some indication of who it might be and he promised to investigate-I am fair with him;
6974

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In
he says we must give him information and I did. 1 give him another day or two days if he wants it, but then we need an inquiry. We cannot let it go forever. This man knew he was dealing with stolen material-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Supply and Services on a question of privilege.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have lost his head. If he wants to lay charges, let him do so with facts and not with innuendoes and let him prove what he just said in a clear and precise manner. Then I will be ready to discuss the question. Otherwise I think the hon. member should have enough respect for this institution to know that when an hon. member speaks, he must state facts and refrain from making false innuendoes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must point out to the minister that in my opinion the hon. member was talking about papers which were stolen one way or another in an illegal break-in and which were in the hands of his department, I guess, through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am obliged to give him the benefit of the doubt-


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I knew-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair did not understand that the minister himself was accused of having these papers in his possession. It may be because it is getting late but I hope once again that the words and interventions of the hon. member- [English]
-would be put in perspective as to where these documents were and had been kept.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister was lamenting all day that someone should lay a charge. He has put his seat on the line.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Lay one.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, what else can I say? Here in this letter is the information that was stolen at Praxis Corporation in Toronto. It is under the minister's signature. What else do we need?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: He cannot hide behind the police forces or one of his officials. Jean-Pierre Goyer is the man who signed the letter. He is the man who smeared names and destroyed the careers of innocent Canadians.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: What is the accusation? Put it.


An hon. Member:: You signed the letter.


Ralph Goodale: You are wearing a wool suit; did you kill the
sheep?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring this to a conclusion to allow the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) to finish up. I should like to add to a former Prime Minister's words when he said if the government, through it security forces, ignored or did not take into account the basic rights of the individual they could operate not to defend but to destroy the liberties which are our first concern.
The minister said twice or three times that he would put his seat on the line if he were found guilty of some of the allegations that have been made. I invite him now to resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe my hon. colleague across the Chamber is a counsel. 1 understand he is, but I do not see why he would be so sensitive about the mention of some of the many people who are widely reported to be suing him. Certainly I have been sued, but I am not particularly sensitive about it. Charges have been made against me by a corporation. As far as I know they are still in effect; it does not bother me, particularly since the corporation suing me was convicted on eight counts of doing what 1 said it was doing.
I wish the minister well in his defence of those actions brought against him by people like Rudnicki, Stopforth and others. 1 am sure justice will be done, and I urge my hon. friend not to be too sensitive about these things, particularly in view of the amazing speech he made. After listening to him 1 expected the grateful members of the RCMP, in recognition of all the wonderful things he said he has done, to take up a collection for a statue, to be erected in his honour in some suitable place. It would commemorate all the wonderful improvements he read into the record this evening. But the improvements have not been so manifestly obvious as to prevent the present Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) from saying, honestly, that things still are not as they should be after five years, and that changes should be made. On this point I do not recall hearing the present Solicitor General tell the House, except generally, by way of reference to the matter, that some of the Marin commission recommendations have been implemented. I stand to be corrected, but I know of no tangible evidence showing that these improvements have been made.
Our solicitors general, present and previous, both know full well that there have been many cases of the most serious injustice affecting members of the RCMP who have been summarily kicked out of the force pursuant to section 173 without the semblance of a hearing. If the former solicitor general were such a compassionate man and so concerned about the force, surely during the past five years he would have done something to bring justice to those RCMP officers, some of whom have been badly treated, and some of whom are still being badly treated.
1 associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). Tonight we are not talking about a matter of provincial jurisdiction. We are talking about
June 21, 1977

the national police force, and we are talking about matters of national security. How you can say that matters of national security involving the national police force fall within provincial jurisdiction, to the extent that there is no need for the federal government to look into them, escapes me.
There are reasons, I hope 1 am not being cynical, for this government to abandon its responsibilities to the government of Quebec. 1 have no quarrel with the Quebec government getting no more than any other government, but the government's attitude is strange, if one may judge on the basis of the government's confrontationist attitude which has characterized many of its negotiations. I suggest that, with respect to many areas, this government would not invite the government of Quebec to lunch; but it is prepared to leave an important matter involving our national police force exclusively to the province of Quebec. It knows full well that the terms of reference set out in the Solicitor General's statement do not adequately cover some of the important items about which we are concerned tonight.
Obviously the implications of this matter go beyond the simple break-in at the Quebec news agency premises. Therefore it seems to me ludicrous on the face of it to suggest that the Quebec hearing is adequate and will cover the topics we are discussing tonight. Actually the Solicitor General declined,
1 suppose for good reasons, to answer my specific question as to whether he would volunteer to appear, or if any of his colleagues would volunteer. He knows full well that, because of the terms of reference of that inquiry, such appearance would not be appropriate, and he probably could not be forced to appear in any event.
Also, in the circumstances, are the documents the Quebec inquiry may require obtainable by way of subpoena? I understand the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has looked into this and has not yet come to a conclusion. I may be wrong but 1 think the government should look into whether, in the circumstances, these documents ought to be or indeed are available, in law, to this inquiry.
I was interested to hear the former solicitor general, now the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), refer to the Hamilton Harbour matter. He brought it up, and we should look into it, because sometimes the more things change the more they remain the same. There is a curious air of deja vu about this whole affair. I happened to look into a press release covering this matter. The then acting prime minister, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp), was questioned by a newspaper reporter. The reporter asked:
What is the government's disposition regarding the most recent allegations concerning Mr. Goyer and has there been any decision to allow Mr. Goyer or to encourage Mr. Goyer to go before a Commons committee to get this matter out into the open and on the table?
That has a curiously familiar ring. The then acting prime minister was then asked the following question:
Could you tell us what you discussed with the justice committee members of the Liberal party in the behind-the-scenes room?
Montreal Break-In To which he gave the following answer:
I don't think I'm under any obligation. But as the Acting Prime Minister and as the House leader, this is the ordinary thing that happens. When some extraordinary matter arises in a committee they come to me for advice; 1 think 1 gave them good advice.
I do not question the procedure of the committee. I was at the committee that night. The present Solicitor General was there; the Minister of Supply and Services was there; the Commissioner of the RCMP was there. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) was there. It was curious to see two men, one of whom had been the solicitor general and the other of whom was the Solicitor General, sitting side by side, each making statements for the other, each trying to explain who was right at the time. Did Mr. Campbell make a mistake? The present Minister of Supply and Services said he did. Again, we wondered who was telling the truth. It was an unsatisfactory exercise, leaving us frustrated for, as we know, committees are not the best forums for dealing with such matters.
One thing which the Minister of Supply and Services said in that affair ought to be repeated in the context of this debate. He said at the meeting of the justice and legal affairs committee on Monday, March 17, 1975:
Just take into consideration that it is not my role to make a judgment on each and every bit of information we receive in the department to decide whether or not that information should be transferred to police or the concerned department. It is automatically done. It is then up to the police or the department concerned to decide whether or not that information is valid and if you can base an inquiry on those allegations. We receive hundreds of pieces of information of that sort. When it is a matter-
And I emphasize this point, because this is a security case.
-of direct concern for my department, like security cases, then, of course, I would put my mind to it and discuss it directly with the head of the Security Services or with the Commissioner himself, generally speaking, with both of them.
I believe Sessions Judge Roger Vincent mentioned that aspects of security were involved in the case he tried. In any event, I do not know if the solicitor general of the day went to the Commissioner of the RCMP. Perhaps he can elaborate later. He does not appear to have paid particular attention to the matter which has been a matter of concern for this House and country for some time. As I say, the more things change the more they remain the same.
Obviously, during the past five years not many improvements were made to the RCMP.


An hon. Member:: The present Solicitor General is an improvement over the old one.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I concede that the present incumbent is a vast improvement, and no disrespect is intended; but that is how I feel. Despite the relatively good performance of the present Solicitor General, it is obvious that at least two of his predecessors behaved badly. As the leader of the NDP said, it is a good thing there was a back seat driver, because nobody was out in front.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: How about your two tons of accusations? Explain that.

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my learned friend will understand the argument of res ipsa loquitur-the thing speaks for itself.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Two tons of documents. You are quite intelligent. Explain that.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: All right. How much does ten lineal feet of files weigh?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Twenty-five feet, 500 pounds.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Well, that is not bad. Five hundred pounds were destroyed on the day that I said. We will get into those questions later. I remind my learned friend without being objectionable, and I say this to him with the greatest of respect, my track record for providing information in this House is considerably better than his.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am just a poor backbench opposition MP while this man is a minister of the Crown with all the resources behind him. Who knows, as the saying goes, what revelations lie ahead when the Hamilton Harbour matter has finally cleared the court, but that is for another day.
There is certainly every reason why we need a federal inquiry into this matter. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, for example, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I for one, as a Canadian, would not admit that we have lesser rights than the Americans. They may have more abuses there and that is why, perhaps, they have to be corrective measures. I do not think the people suspect the RCMP of conducting themselves as the FBI do.
1 suggest that is probably the case. However, if we have further examples of the lack of direction, lack of communication, and lack of responsibility that have been exhibited over the past number of years by solicitors general, the people of Canada will become convinced that no one is giving the RCMP the type of guidance and direction that it requires.
The RCMP, as my friend from New Westminster said, is a fine police force, one of the best in the world. There are 19,000 of these people. They are one of the institutions in this country that Canadians respect and look up to. The very fact that they are such an institution makes this minister, who was responsible for them and who refuses to accept a responsibility, all the more culpable.
I tried to suggest to the minister this afternoon, and I am sorry he is so sensitive about it, that he would have been far better received had he in his exculpatory statement accepted the fact that it was his misfortune to be minister at a time when some of these unsavoury incidents happened. The minister would not necessarily be held in any less repute if he took some of the fault for this, but no, he will not accept any responsibility. He said to me in his reply that a lawyer would be very unlikely to brief his partners if he left a law firm. In

other words, he would walk out and leave his files. How ridiculous! Why did he not brief to a greater extent his successor, now the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
When solicitor general, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was questioned quite regularly in this House, not just by myself but by members of the NDP and the Social Credit. I remember one question by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal). I also remember the then solicitor general saying he now had a complete report from the RCMP, which he has yet to table a year later.
Surely the then solicitor general ought to have briefed his successor fully on matters such as this and, goodness knows, other things, but there is no indication that was done. It makes one wonder how much knowledge this minister had to pass on to his successor. Did he really know what was going on? Did he have anything to tell his poor, unfortunate successor who had to cope with the mess in the department, a mess which the present Solicitor General has conceded still exists? The present Solicitor General apparently, and 1 accept his word, is working hard to try to correct it and will bring in legislation this fall. That is five years after the date of some of the circumstances that obviously aggravated or prompted the need to make such changes. That is not performance. A five year delay in correcting abuses into justice is not a very good performance. A lot of people have served time since then, got out, and paid their debt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: There is no doubt that the inquiry going on in la belle province can perform a useful function. But its limitations were starkly outlined in the statement by the present Solicitor General. He recognizes the limitations. He is quite correct to be concerned about a fishing expedition by any province into some of the security matters of the RCMP whereby they have to cope with Russian intelligence, Chinese intelligence, and Cuban intelligence, and the minister knows all about that.
Not to take his responsibility for the federal police force, and not to get a commission or inquiry to allow some needed changes and show how the relationship at the top between the minister's office and the RCMP can be improved, is not in the best interests of the government or the country.
I also put it to the present Solicitor General that if improvements and changes, which he conceded are needed, result from the recommendation of an independent, responsible inquiry or commission comparable to the Marin Commission, which did not have a mandate to discuss this particular aspect, they will be perceived to be far more even-handed and appropriate than arbitrary changes implemented by the two parties whose conduct is under suspicion.
There has to be some sort of an agency, inquiry, commission or something, to put these needed changes forward in such a way that they will have the confidence of everyone, the House of Commons and the people of Canada. This is something to which the Solicitor General ought to address himself.
June 21, 1977

The hour grows late. There is no need to go over some of the details and indulge in the recriminations, although in many cases what we heard tonight was deserved.
In conclusion, I will just say that the RCMP, like fire, is a good servant but a bad master. No police force can be allowed to operate with impunity, to investigate itself and in some way to make decisions that are the prerogative of the minister to whom the force is responsible. We have seen strong indications that this has taken place in at least one incident, the one we are talking about tonight. We have seen indications in reputable publications in this country. Indeed I have been told, and I suspect the minister has been told, that such operations do go on.
On one occasion I spoke with a man who, when he was the force, was responsible for doing illegal wiretaps. He said to me that he accepted the responsibility, and that he knew that if he was caught he would be burned for it. He said that he managed to get the extra expense on his expense account, although in some cases it cost him money. I am very serious when I say that. I know the Solicitor General has talked to similar people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I thank my colleagues. I am about to conclude.
I wish to refer to excellent opinions on this subject from very erudite and dispassionate people who are concerned about it. One is W. A. Wilson, a columnist with whom most of us are familiar. Mr. Wilson makes some very interesting points. For example, he said that a royal commission on security some years ago concluded that security service perhaps should not be part of the RCMP's mandate. Sometimes security measures are so sensitive and require such extraordinary procedures that they should not be a responsibility of the RCMP because, when something goes wrong in the carrying out of this necessary work, the force tends to fall into disrepute.


Francis Fox: So you condone what happens?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: No. You are the one who condones what happens.


Francis Fox: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Certainly, but I am just about to conclude. At that point I will be glad to accept a question.
The other column I have in mind is that of Mr. Richard Gwynne who also had some interesting things to say about this matter. He said some things which are very sarcastic, very
Montreal Break-In
harsh, so I will not put them on record, just to show how sensitive I am. But 1 suggest the former solicitor general, as well as the present one, should read this article, as well as the other, because both columnists have put forward some good thoughts and suggestions.


Francis Fox: The hon. member has referred to the article by Mr. Wilson. 1 wonder whether he subscribes to the view that a minister of the Crown should be entitled to give his permission to the carrying out of an illegal or covert operation.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I would say that if such illegal or covert operations are necessary in the interests of national security, it would be much better if a minister of the Crown were aware of them. This is the type of question to which very serious thought should be given.


Francis Fox: The point is an interesting one. I, for my part, do not believe any minister should ever sanction an illegal operation. Does the hon. member not believe that if certain things have been done in the interests of national security the House of Commons should proceed by authorizing the solicitor general to give consent? The subject of this debate is whether or not a minister of the Crown was aware of an illegal operation, and members opposite are saying that if that was the case he should resign. Now, the suggestion is that in some circumstances it would be appropriate. If it is, we should, through the proper legislation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I suggest to the minister he is now getting far beyond a question. He is getting into debate.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: If it is necessary on the grounds of national security, if it is truly a matter of security-which obviously this tawdry instance is not-it would be far better for the minister to have extra powers and I would not be adverse, personally, to giving the Solicitor General additional powers if he could convince the House, as he might, that this would help him do his job better.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter this debate because of the seriousness of the matter brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent).
I noted with interest the remarks of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). He referred to himself as a poor backbencher, but I believe he is very modest in his comments about himself. I noted with interest his remarks on the column written by Mr. Wilson. Although I have not seen the blues of the transcript it seemed to me he said that a minister, if he is aware of an illegal act, or covert action, sanctifies it by that knowledge. This government is on record as saying that the government is not beyond the rule of law. This is certainly the crux of the whole argument.
Other issues were raised in that article by Mr. Wilson. He discussed whether security operations should or should not be conducted by a separate force. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) alleged earlier today that the former solicitor

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In
general sanctified the break-in. There was another allegation that he covered up after he had learned of that break-in.
The hon. member for Central Nova put forward an interesting proposition. He stated that maybe parliament should pass an act having to do with federal employees, or employees of federal agencies who commit criminal acts in certain circumstances. I find that interesting, especially as when an offence is committed in a particular province it surely falls, under our constitutional system, within the purview of' provincial attorneys general.
I also noted with interest the remarks of the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). On one hand he alleged that we on this side did not have sufficient control over national security forces. Yet at the same time he alleged we were exercising control in favour of Liberals. Hypocrisy! He cannot have it both ways.
He went on to suggest there was no parliamentary input into the whole question of the national security group which advises the government. I would point out that when this matter was brought up recently in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) requested the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) to arrange a meeting in camera to discuss the whole issue of national security. The minister agreed. Similar in camera meetings have been held in the past, and I find it hard to accept the statement that there has been no parliamentary input with respect to this group.
It goes without saying that the rule of law must be paramount in a democratic society such as ours. The Solicitor General has stated on a number of occasions that if the RCMP break the law they will be held responsible.


An hon. Member:: They did break the law.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: The RCMP are not above the law. There can be no compromise in this regard. It is upon this premise that the integrity of our democracy and its liberties are based. During the past few days in the course of other debates on the subject of alleged cover-ups and conspiracies on the part of the government I have witnessed the methodology used by members opposite, with much dismay. Unquestionably they should be allowed to pursue their inquiries with vigour. That is their proper role. However, I submit they must act responsibly.
Yesterday the hon. member for Central Nova posed the following question to the Solicitor General:
Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Solicitor General. Could the minister confirm reports, which I have received, that up to two tons of confidential files and data were destroyed by the RCMP in Montreal on June 2 and June 3, 1977; and could he confirm further that this action, involving the destruction of probably hundreds of man-years of work by the force, was initiated because of the implications of an inquiry being conducted by the government of the Parti Quebecois, rather than under federal auspices? Finally, will the minister tell us whether he or the Minister of Justice were consulted before this action was taken, and did he approve of it?

The Solicitor General answered:
Mr. Speaker, as 1 understand it, the hon. member is referring to the destruction of documents which would have taken place during the course of the past month. As far as I am concerned, I am not aware of any destruction of documents whatsoever. If the hon. member is aware of the destruction of documents in the furtherance of a possible cover-up of an illegal action, it is incumbent on him to give me the evidence so that appropriate action can be taken by this government.
Today the hon. member for Central Nova qualified and limited his question respecting the allegations that he made on Monday, June 20, 1977. If the hon. member had chosen to discuss the matter with the Solicitor General prior to making his allegations, I am confident that the hon. member for Central Nova would have been satisfied. Indeed, it might have saved him embarrassment. Unfortunately this is not the intention of the hon. member. Instead, it is abundantly clear to me that it is his intention to raise fatuous allegations like the destruction of documents, which could have been cleared up with the Solicitor General before going public. Instead, his actions leave me with no conclusion but that it is his intention to denigrate the reputation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
If the hon. member for Central Nova is truly concerned about the reputation of the force, then I think it is incumbent upon him to act in a responsible manner. Instead, it appears to me that the hon. member is doing the very opposite of what he says his intentions are, namely, he is making fatuous allegations and innuendoes. He is attacking the fine reputation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Similarly, I submit opposition members have not acted in a responsible manner and have denigrated the reputation of the force. I reiterate that there is no argument that members of the opposition should raise questions about illegalities involving the force; but I submit that these matters should be checked and verified with the Solicitor General first. I submit that this is only fair and reasonable if they really have at heart the reputation of the force, as I think all Canadians have. Instead, they seem to be satisfied in making generalized allegations which bear upon the reputation of the force.
It is very easy to do this. I remember hearing allegations made about the RCMP as a member of a community of Chinese ancestry. These allegations concerned harassment and abuse by the force. Over time I had the opportunity to check and verify these allegations and I found them to be nothing more than allegations. So I can sympathize with hon. members of the opposition and understand how they arrived at some of these allegations.
The other week I was on a radio hotline show in my area. Listeners were questioning me about the force, and one related to me an incident in which he was involved where a member of the force had issued him with a speeding ticket. This listener went on to say some very sour things about the force, and when I queried him about the basis for his remarks the listener said that all RCM Police are crooks. He also said to me: "Haven't you been reading the newspapers, watching television and listening to the radio?"
June 21, 1977

This clearly indicates to me that when hon. members opposite make generalized allegations and innuendoes, they denigrate the reputation of the force in the result. The Canadian people are fortunate in having one of the finest police forces in the world, a force which is envied by many others.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: We have said that.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Live up to it, then.
There are approximately 12,000 uniformed members of the force. They are dedicated men and women who, by and large, are beyond reproach. When I was in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia just recently I had an opportunity to meet some of the members of the force. Among other matters that we discussed they expressed to me real concern about our proposals respecting the young offender. They are involved with youth, volunteering their services to Scouts Canada and other worth-while organizations. They mentioned to me the lack of facilities and resources to look after youth offenders. I mention this because Canadians are aware that they are fortunate in having such dedicated men and women on the force. These are the people we are talking about when we discuss the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent on opposition members to exercise responsibility in raising questions about illegality in connection with the force. Instead they have raised fatuous, generalized allegations and innuendoes. If they have at heart the reputation of the force, I submit that when they have allegations to make they should be specific in nature and not generalized, as has been the case in the past and again today.
I should also add that I am surpirsed at the remarks of the hon. member for Central Nova in agreeing with the statement of Mr. Wilson in his article that ministers of the Crown should sanction covert and illegal acts. That is what happened in the United States when the Watergate issue was raised.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: They also stonewalled in the United States.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: What kind of stonewalling are you talking about here today? The Solicitor General has given an answer and made a statement in the House. Did the President of the United States have to stand up in Congress and make a statement? Did not the former solicitor general, the Minister of Supply and Services, give a statement? What kind of stonewalling is that?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There was a statement in the United States too.


Walter David Baker: Don't defend too hard, Art. You have a bad case.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: The hon. member says we have a bad case. Let me close by saying I am really surprised at the remarks made by the hon. member for Central Nova. I certainly hope that under this government we would never authorize covert illegal actions.
Montreal Break-In


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak tonight. 1 told the parliamentary secretary it was not my intention to speak unless he spoke. Since he has taken that option, 1 thought I might just cap off this debate and make a few remarks with respect to what has transpired. I will do it very quickly.
1 want to start off by expressing on behalf of my colleagues our great appreciation to the staff who have stayed here long hours and have worked hard doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Regardless of our party, we appreciate their extra endeavour tonight on this very important debate.
The parliamentary secretary makes reference to the fact that somehow the theory of this particular government is that ministers are not responsible, and members of parliament must not ask questions relating to the RCMP and the Solicitor General's functions at any time. That is the only conclusion which comes from the various discussions, representations, and statements made on the part of government spokesmen tonight. It ill behooves the parliamentary secretary, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), and the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) to make any critical remarks with respect to the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) concerning his role in this whole affair. This debate arises by virtue of the initiative and persistence of the hon. member for Central Nova.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The parliamentary secretary said that we should not be asking questions in respect of the RCMP. This is a very interesting proposition. Of course he is going to stand now and make a facetious point of order.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not say that. I said that they should check and verify things before they ask questions. That is only reasonable. 1 also said that they should continue to pursue with vigour, but that they should do so reasonably.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is precisely the kind of responsible questioning which has led the Speaker of this House to come to the conclusion that this particular matter requires a special debate under Standing Order 26.
As to any particular suggestion on the part of the parliamentary secretary, the Minister of Supply and Services or the Solicitor General that we have not been responsible with respect to questioning in this House, that is unfounded. The New Democratic Party, the Social Credit and one of their own backbenchers have asked questions with respect to this particular break-in. If the parliamentary secretary wants to go to caucus and chastize, as does the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal), then let him do it in private and not waste the time of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
6980

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The simple conclusion one can reach with respect to this matter has two aspects. First, all along during the course of the questioning there was a resistence and a repugnance on the part of the government with respect to questions raised by opposition members as to the circumstances, the background, and the ministerial involvement concerning the break-in at L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec.
Only this month the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) attempted to split hairs and suggest to the House without equivocation that the Minister of Supply and Services, the then solicitor general, had absolutely no knowledge that the RCMP were involved because the letter which was sent to his office only referred to police. It was subsequently pointed out to the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General that there was no simple deduction which could be made by the Prime Minister on the basis of his discussions with the Minister of Supply and Services. That was because there was a telegram attached to that letter. It was addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP in Montreal. It specifically asked about their involvement and thereby implicated the RCMP.
Then we have the Solicitor General telling us in his prepared statement that he is satisfied that the Minister of Supply and Services knew nothing until March of 1976, based on his investigation. In the next paragraph he has the audacity and temerity to point out the fact that there was a discussion and a consideration by the Minister of Supply and Services with respect to the allegation of the illegal break-in of the APLQ directly after that break-in. The Minister of Supply and Services answered tonight that he could not believe this particular proposition. The combination of that peculiar logic and rationale stretches our incredulity. If you combine with that the attempt of everyone in the government to make us believe that there was no knowledge of any RCMP involvement, it cries out for an independent inquiry into this whole proposition. The suggestions made by hon. members on this side are justifiable and should be acted upon.
The Solicitor General has made reference to the Quebec inquiry. He made a suggestion that the Alberta situation was somehow similar. There is a very, very important distinction in that situation because in Alberta there is no involvement of a cabinet minister. In this particular case it is not only a question of RCMP involvement, of wrongdoing, and a possibility of cover-up in the senior echelons after being told of the illegal break-in, but the instance extends directly to the doorstep of the Minister of Supply and Services.
The Minister of Supply and Services takes exception to my statement in this House, which I do not retract one bit. In my experience in this House of Commons since 1974 this man has been involved in three scandalous instances. The word "scandal" covers a wide sector of inappropriate, incompetent, and wrongful acts, in my view. We were involved in an explanation by the Minister of Supply and Services with respect to the Hamilton Harbourgate matter for which he bears no responsibility because his office staff failed to communicate the information received from the Controller in Hamilton. Next we had the Lockheed procurement situation. What is not scandalous

about a billion dollar contract which is not reduced to writing in a department responsible for that particular transaction? Probably that was the only thing which preoccupied him in that department. Finally, we have an admitted illegality with respect to the RCMP break-in of the APLQ.
In each case the Minister of Supply and Services has used the same device. He does not accept responsibility for what has transpired. He sloughs off the blame. In this case he blamed the RCMP; he has blamed his executive assistant; and he has fired Larry Stopforth. The same pattern always develops every time this man gets into trouble, and now he is telling us to accept that he was not guilty of any act of commission or omission. As far as our party is concerned, that is not acceptable.
As far as I am concerned, if the government fails to take steps to have an inquiry with respect to this incident, there will be an outcry from the people of Canada that the government will hear for some time to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, 1 have one or two brief comments to make. I find it somewhat regrettable to have to rise this evening to level accusations having listened to the personal defence statements of prominent members of the government in recent weeks, recent months. I have listened to them trying to rationalize their positions with respect to matters that are of concern to the Canadian public.
I rise to pose at the close of this debate one primary question, and I direct it to the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) who has had the courtesy to remain in his seat after one who used to be a very dear friend, and I hope who is still an honourable friend, has left the Chamber. 1 hope he left the Chamber because he was tired at 2.15 in the morning. I rise to ask a primary question on the responsibility of the government in using acts of parliament respecting the Canadian military in pursuit of information, the use of the Canadian Armed Forces which, as we all know, is our primary force of security, and the use of the military in terms of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In recent years we have indirectly done an enormous injustice to the RCMP as a result of the improper use of what the government considers to be its requirements with respect to security and intelligence information.
I had no intention of entering this debate at all. It is outside of my competence, but it is not outside of my knowledge as regards the degree to which the government over the years had used, deliberately and with malicious intent, its powers to affect the reputation of the RCMP and its internal security investigation capacities. It has maligned the reputation of the force in the eyes of the public to such a degree that the press today accuses us of being anti-RCMP.
June 21, 1977

I am speaking of the degree to which the Solicitor General and his predecessors have acquiesced in the abuse of national trust by directions which have removed cabinet from public responsibility. I think that this is what many of us object to, and if the Solicitor General is not aware of what I am talking about he should apprise himself of the degree to which the military, the PMO and internal security devices have been used to direct the RCMP to do certain work for him. He should apprise himself of the damage that he and his colleagues are doing. 1 suggest he do that, because only then can we come to some rationalization of what is taking place. So over-zealous is he about the rights of Canadians that he has allowed the abuse to result in accusations. I suggest that the Solicitor General apprise himself of the facts, and if he does know what is going on in terms of his internal security, and 1 suspect he does not-


Francis Fox: Make up your mind.


J. Michael Forrestall: I suspect he does not. 1 ask him this because I have some respect for him; at least I have had it up to this point in time. Perhaps after this evening I will have to review that conclusion. I suggest that he apprise himself thoroughly of what went on before he joined the august ranks of the Treasury benches of this government which he supports. Let him find out what has been done in the name of justice as perceived by his leader. Let him find out about the misadventures that have been blamed upon the national police force of this country that have been perpetrated by directions, through other security analysis groups, to the RCMP, the extent to which the RCMP has been used by other forces. 1 think he has the capacity to apprise himself of these facts, and if he does not he will be a disappointment not only to his own colleagues on the back benches.
1 do not know what the Solicitor General's gesture means. If he cares to stand up and tell me, we can go on to discuss it for the next two or three hours. I suggest that the gestures of the Solicitor General are rather meaningless.
The point 1 am trying to make is that I reject and react against the degree to which the Canadian military has been used to direct our national police force in the types of involvements that it has become engrossed with in recent years. As far as 1 am concerned successive solicitors general have denied that, for example, the telephones of members of parliament have ever been tapped. It would be a curious spectacle to see the Solicitor General stand in his place now on a question of privilege or on a point of order and deny that that has ever happened, because it would give me great delight to demonstrate to him that he would not know what he was talking about if he were to deny it. It would give me even greater delight to expose the fraud and the nonsense that I have listened to for the last ten or 12 years from successive solicitors general with respect to these questions.
I have been lied to in this House by ministers of the Crown when they, to my knowledge, have had explicit facts in front of
Montreal Break-In
them with respect to the truth. Therefore we can hardly be faulted for being skeptical with respect to some of the responses we have received from the other side of the Chamber this evening. The motion, which is in front of us, is a very serious one.
The Solicitor General is still here. I doubt very much that he is still here because of respect for parliament. I suspect, rather, that he is here because the great sacrifice is worth it, because he can sit and laugh at people who rise in their places to express grievous concern about the arrogance of the government and the extent to which the government opposite has gone to subvert rights in this country that many of us hold to be very valid and very true. Without the protection of these rights this country will not survive. I think the minister knows of what I am speaking.
Sometimes we talk at great length and in great circles without bothering to talk about what in fact is bothering us. It has bothered me for many years that the government has deliberately set out to establish a system of virtual espionage. The government condones it and finds ways of removing itself from direct responsibility, and its members sit in their places early in the morning and laugh and chuckle at what are in fact very grave matters with respect to the capacity of Canadians to continue to believe in the proposition that the central government should remain strong in this country, and 1 wonder sometimes about the smiles and the arrogance of knowing that there are those of us on this side who do know differently and yet who, for a variety of reasons, are not permitted to speak out.
I come back to my essential point. As the new Solicitor General goes forward and becomes well established and well accepted in his position, he should be conscious and continue to be aware of the concerns some Canadians have about the impact that he can have with respect to decisions taken by the government he supports, and with respect to the grave influence that he has on the security and intelligence work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and of elements of the Canadian Armed Forces today. I reject the minister's smile because I have been one of those who have been subjected to exactly that influence.
If the Solicitor General is curious, I shall give him a hint so that he can narrow his search. This goes back to the days when we were debating in this House a peculiar piece of legislation called the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act in 1965-66. It was not yesterday, but it was not too long ago either. The progressive degree to which the government, for some pathological reason not discernible to most Canadians, bothers to go to the trouble to direct the Canadian military to overtake, 1 suggest, and direct the security intelligence work of the national police force, is a matter of some concern to at least some of us in this Chamber, and 1 hope the Solicitor General can suppress his smiles and giggles in this respect.


Mr. Boulanger:: Who is smiling anyway?


J. Michael Forrestall: Prosper, go out and have another cup of coffee. You will probably need it. It is 2.30 in the morning.
8001 8-40 Vi

June 21, 1977
Montreal Break-In


Prosper Boulanger: That's a good idea.


J. Michael Forrestall: Sooner or later the government has got to be told to wake up and be aware. There are those of us in this country who reject the presence of the Canadian Armed Forces in our penitentiaries, for example, for the purposes of quelling riots, or for the purpose of serving one social will over another. If that is the acceptable thing, then we should change the role of the Canadian military in our society and our structure. But we should do it openly and do it through dialogue.
I think this is an appropriate time to say these things. It is early in the morning. There is probably nobody in the press gallery. There are certainly very few people in the public galleries.
Obviously there is nobody here of any great consequence. Prosper keeps lecturing us. The Solicitor General keeps smiling. The distinguished sailor from Saskatchewan, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), for whom 1 have great personal respect, keeps smiling.
In conclusion, we must be very careful in our inner circles, in our very private circles, in our very inner sanctoriums, or whatever they are called, where we make public decisions, that we do not remove our capacity to get at decisions about the security of our country and the methods by which we continue to ensure that the security of our country is under control or in good hands. We must be very careful about the degree to which we use the Canadian military in that pursuit because, to the degree that we do, we impair national unity in the final analysis. This does not enhance it.
I should like to give a scenario or two for the Solicitor General but might come dangerously close to saying things I should not. However, 1 am sufficiently concerned about the debates of the last two or three years to say to the minister that I deplore the degree to which he has impaired the reputation and the capacity of our national police force to be an effective security and intelligence group within our nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) on a point of order.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and understand the very real concern the hon. member has in these areas, and the great expertise he has which has benefited the House over the years particularly in the area of defence. I wish to assure him there is no malicious abuse by the government of the role of the security services. I think a great part of the debate today has centered around some suggestion by members opposite that there was insufficient control. If that is the general view of hon. members opposite I assume there would not be, as a corollary, any wilful abuse.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might prevail upon my colleagues

for two or three minutes to pose a couple of questions to the minister, if he would consent to answer them. I had hoped to have the opportunity to ask them-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has already spoken so he cannot answer questions. The only thing the hon. member can do is contribute to the debate.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Perhaps I could then put two or three rhetorical questions that the minister or any member of the government might answer. They were not answered during the debate.
One of the distressing aspects of this is that so much of the government's case has centered upon the fact that the former solicitor general felt it should be self-evident that it was not necessary to reply to the letter he received requesting information about whether the RCMP had been involved in the break-in. He indicated that any member of the House would have reacted in the same way. According to the statement made by the present Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) last Friday, however, the letter was sent to the former solicitor general on October 11, 1972. It was brought to the attention of the RCMP by the assistant to the minister, Lieutenant Colonel John R. Cameron, in order that a reply could be prepared for the solicitor general's signature.
After that letter was sent to the RCMP on October 26, 1972, the RCMP wrote to the minister's assistant recommending that no acknowledgment be made, without providing reasons for that recommendation. The question I should like to leave in the air this evening, and perhaps pursue at a later date with the minister, is whether he has personally seen that exchange of correspondence between the assistant to the solicitor general and the RCMP. I note that the minister nods his head in assent. If he has seen it, would he be prepared to inform the House who the official was who signed the letter to the then solicitor general on behalf of the RCMP, recommending that no reply be made to the letter to the solicitor general?
Next, I wonder if the Solicitor General would be prepared to bring copies of the correspondence to the House tomorrow to be tabled so that it would be on the public record.
The reason this information is so important is that each of us receives correspondence from individuals and organizations every day. There may be instances when we feel it is improper for us to give a complete reply to questions asked, perhaps because matters are before the courts or we do not have the relevant information. As a matter of procedure, however, virtually any member would at least do any individual or group who wrote the courtesy of explaining why an answer would not be forthcoming.
If, as the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) indicated, the reason he did not write was that the Minister of Justice in Quebec, Mr. Choquette, had stated publicly that the RCMP was not involved and that he accepted Mr. Choquette's statement, I would be curious to know why he did not write back to the organization and say that the Minister of Justice in Quebec had looked into the matter and determined there was no involvement by the federal police force and that he could answer categorically that that was not the case. If his concern
June 21, 1977

was that an investigation was going to take place to determine whether there was any federal involvement, could he not then have written to the group saying it would be improper for him to comment because there was an investigation going on into the allegations they had made?
If the Solicitor General were prepared to table that correspondence we would be able to see at what level within the RCMP a recommendation was made that there be no acknowledgement of that letter. It would also allow us to pursue further questions on what degree of knowledge there was within the RCMP, and what participation there was in suppressing information about the illegal break-in. If the
Montreal Break-In
Solicitor General would present that exchange of correspondence tomorrow it would help resolve these unanswered questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 26(13) I am satisfied that the debate has concluded and I therefore declare the motion carried.


Mr. Prud'homme:: On division.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This House stands adjourned until today at two p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 2.39 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Wednesday, June 22, 1977