1978-02-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The town of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, was settled in 1753 by immigrants from the Palati-nate-Wurtemberg and other states in the region, Montbe-liard and Switzerland. This year the town and its citizens celebrate their two hundred and twenty-fifth anniversary. Since the initial celebrations of this event begin next week, I move, seconded by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald):
That congratulations and best wishes be extended by this House to the mayor, council and citizens of one of the first real Canadian settlements under British auspices for the significant contribution made by its citizens to the history and economic development of our nation over the past two and one-quarter centuries, as illustrated by the schooner Bluenose on the Canadian ten-cent piece.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
DISTRIBUTION OF CMHC FUNDS BY MPs-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns that blatant and wholly reprehensible manner of the allocation of public funds by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In view of the fact that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), against the wishes of the president of CMHC, has turned the distribution of CMHC funds into a partisan political affair in which taxpayers' money is used to try to grab votes for the Liberal party, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That this House demands that this minister, who on a previous occasion was forced to resign as a result of his lack of judgment, resign permanently.


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


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Canadian Football League has approved the purchase of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats by Mr. Harold Ballard, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House notes that the efforts of the Minister of Labour with respect to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats has met with as much success as his efforts in the field of labour relations.


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


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that the cost of living has increased substantially over the past months, becoming a source of concern and economic restraint for old age security pensioners;
Considering that costs are rising more quickly than the quarterly increase of old age security and guaranteed income supplement;
Considering that it is the duty of the government to continue to look after the present and future needs of senior citizens tackling inflation and the ever increasing cost of living;
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):

February 17, 1978
That the House enjoin the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take all necessary steps to introduce a bill to increase old age security benefits to $225 a month and to raise the guaranteed income supplement accordingly.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, caused by the glaring discrepancy between the words of the minister responsible for the status of women and the policies that he presides over, concerning the employment of women in the federal public service. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That the Minister of State for Federal Provincial Relations make a statement on motions to explain to the House his recent statement that 'the whole idea of 'men's jobs' and 'women's jobs' is a culturally defined one based on tradition and not on fact or inherent ability', in light of the damning evidence clearly demonstrated by the total failure of this government to adhere to its rhetoric concerning the merit principle in the federal public service.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that yesterday, at the University of Regina, a publication entitled "Soldier of Fortune," which glorifies life as a mercenary, was removed from the campus bookstore because it is both inflammatory and racist, and in view of the fact that this action was not construed by the CBC in its report this morning as censorship, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That this House commends the manager of the bookstore for his common sense and urges all those who are polluting and poisoning society with pornography to take similar action, in the expectation that they will be praised for protecting contemporary community standards, not criticized for censorship.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


HOUSING
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing necessity.
Given the fact that, against the advice of the president of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has established within that Crown corporation a system of Liberal patronage, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House condemn the attitude of the minister in this matter and demand that he immediately put an end to such partisan practices.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an urgent and important matter. In light of the continuing high unemployment rate as a result of lay-offs at the Sydney Steel Corporation, in view of the fact that the Alcan pipeline will cost an estimated $10 billion and will use millions of tons of steel, and because the Sydney Steel Corporation produces slab steel capable of being rolled into plate for pipe, I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That the Sydney Steel Corporation plant be included in the provision of slab steel for the production of pipe to be used in the aforementioned pipeline.
If such a motion is approved it will put a lot of people back to work at the Sydney Steel plant.
February 17, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate can be made, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgency. In view of serious economic problems within the farming industry, accelerated by inability to acquire reliable help due to Department of Employment and Immigration regulations, and in view of the fact that many farmers' working hours in two days equal those of one week in other industries, with overwork and frustration forcing them to cut back production, ultimately pushing up food prices, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration immediately amend government regulations to alleviate this worsening, intolerable situation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the status of women, who was appointed August 8, 1974, and made responsible for implementing and co-ordinating programs of equal opportunity for women in the public service.
In view of a recent report from the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and the report yesterday from a group of concerned public servants about the very real deterioration in the number of positions available with respect to the employment of women in the public service, in view of the rapid increase in the job ghetto, at the clerical level, of some 10 per cent during the time the minister has been in office, and in view of the virtual exclusion of women at senior SX levels,
Oral Questions
with only 20 appointments of women, compared with 185 appointments of men at that level during the same period, can the minister indicate what action he has taken; or what explanation can he give for the very serious situation that exists in our public service?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for showing an interest, at long last, in this very important issue, on behalf of his party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


Marc Lalonde: This is an issue about which this government has shown concern for several years. The government has announced very many policies and put them into effect. As far as the question of equal opportunities for women in the public service is concerned, the hon. member knows that the appointments system in the public service comes under the Public Service Commission, which is answerable to this parliament and not to the government as such. Parliament has enacted rules concerning the merit system which are very important to the whole system. In addition to this, I remind the hon. member who is interrupting rather rudely that there are women at senior levels in the Public Service Commission, including commissioners, who are outstanding public servants.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that the Public Service Commission itself has an Equal Opportunities for Women section and an anti-discrimination office, which was set up several years ago and deals with the question of promoting opportunities for women and making sure there is no discrimination. It examines every case. We have set up a Human Rights Commission which examines all cases of discrimination on the basis of sex. Two out of three of the permanent commissioners are women-outstanding women at that. I would also indicate to the hon. member that if he would look at the record-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the minister is on the defensive over this, because his record is a shocking one. If the Prime Minister wants to answer and be accountable for the whole of the government, I hope he will do so-because this is a crucial issue. He can smile, he can laugh and make jokes about it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am just coming to it. I find it simply incredible that he is unable to explain. Why has the minister taken no concrete steps to offset the serious erosion of employment and advancement for women in the public service? In particular, in view of the human rights legislation which the minister indicated will be proclaimed shortly, providing for equal pay for work of equal value, what

February 17, 1978
Oral Questions
steps has the minister taken to deal with the very great inequities which exist in the public service, where men are paid, in some cases, twice as much as women and more than women are paid in traditional female occupations such as dieticians, nurses, librarians? What explanation does the minister have?


Marc Lalonde: If the Prime Minister


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: If the hon. member will give me a moment, I will be very happy to answer him, Mr. Speaker. First of all, as far as order in council appointments are concerned-that is, appointments coming under the authority of the cabinet-they have increased by close to 50 per cent in the last two years.


Mr. Gillies:: From two to four.


Marc Lalonde: These are decisions taken by this government. Secondly, in the autumn of 1975, the cabinet decided on the revised equal opportunities for women policy in the government. Under that policy, every department is now required to file with Treasury Board, on a yearly basis, its plan of action for improvement with regard to the status of women.
In addition, every department is now required to put forward a five-year plan, upgraded from year to year, with regard to the question of equal opportunities for women. The first year of the program was concluded a few months ago. Treasury Board is reviewing these proposals with the departments to determine what steps can be taken to improve the situation.
Third, we are in the process of putting forward and developing within the federal government and with the provinces, a national plan of action which will involve both the federal and provincial governments in all areas of equal employment opportunities for women. Once again, I am very happy to see that at long last the opposition is awakening to this very important issue and will support the action of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: If that is the best the minister can do, I will direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister, as he seems to express some interest in this question. He has now been briefed by the President of the Treasury Board. In view of these so-called plans of action which have been formulated by Treasury Board for each department, and the very serious request from a group of public servants concerned about this important problem, will he state publicly, on behalf of his government, the actual situation in the public service, rather than the kind of window-dressing and irrelevant remarks that are being made?
I am directing this question to the Prime Minister, not the minister responsible for the status of women. I ask the Prime Minister, as the minister in charge of every department,

whether there will be a report to this concerned group of public servants with regard to what is happening to women in the public service.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, quite clearly, has just awakened to this very important issue. Those figures are public; they come out in the Public Service Commission report on a yearly basis. They have been made public every year for a number of years. I have made dozens of speeches about this, pointing out areas where progress needs to be made. If the hon. member is concerned about not getting figures, I will be quite happy to provide him with all the figures that have been released in the past two years.


SUGGESTION WOMEN NOT APPOINTED TO SENIOR EXECUTIVE POSITIONS IN MANY DEPARTMENTS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the extent of the minister's rhetoric indicates the weakness of his case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to refer to the report made yesterday by this group of concerned public servants, and to the statement that of 43 federal departments and agencies listed in the report, 27 have no females in the senior executive category, including such crucial departments as Employment, Secretary of State-which is responsible for women's programs-Justice and Labour. How does the minister reconcile this with his statement of over a year ago that "within a reasonable period" the government would make sure that men and women were represented in all departments, occupational groups and levels in protection to available numbers of qualified people of both sexes?
Given the fact that there are 27 departments with no women in senior executive categories, how does the minister who is responsible for the status of women reconcile that fact with his statement that women would be appointed within a reasonable period? What is the minister's definition of a "reasonable period"? Does this situation not concern him?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that, rather than relying upon an anonymous report, she check her facts and examine what the situation is, department by department. For example, in the Department of Employment and Immigration I know that there are several women occupying very senior positions. Several of them are above SX positions.
Before relying upon an unsigned document which originated from anonymous persons, the hon. member, as a responsible parliamentarian, should check her facts and find out what the situation is. As far as the policy of this government is concerned, it is exactly what I stated. This government stands by the statement I made a year ago in this regard. The steps we have taken concerning plans which every department now has to file with Treasury Board, on a regular basis, concerning the
February 17, 1978

national plan of action which is being developed, with the co-operation of about 30 different departments and about 100 experts, are clear evidence of the government's commitment to the promotion of women in our society.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It would be more satisfactory if the minister himself would present some facts. He referred to the report and the fact it was presented anonymously by a group. Probably the most disturbing aspect of this report is that it includes the statement, "fearing repercussions and even retaliation, the authors have opted for anonymity."


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I ask the minister why he responded by saying, "If these people have any specific grievances, they should take them to the Human Rights Commission." Does the minister not distinguish between his role, which is to prevent the occurrence of discrimination, and that of the Human Rights Commission, which is to rectify discrimination after the fact? In advising this group to take their grievances to the Human Rights Commission, is the minister simply abandoning his responsibility in this regard?


Marc Lalonde: The hon. lady has distorted what I said yesterday. I said that if there are clear cases of discrimination which can be supported, they should be drawn to the attention of either the anti-discrimination office of the Civil Service Commission or to the Human Rights Commission, which will investigate them under a law proposed by this government and passed by this parliament, and see that proper action is taken; that sanctions are imposed.
The second option is to work through the administrative system, to reform and adapt that system to ensure that women are provided with full opportunity for upgrading in the public service. The Public Service Commission is aware of the concern felt by the government in this respect. I have, for the third time, indicated specific policies which have been developed, to show the government's commitment to this purpose.


An hon. Member:: But no action.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member should realize what actually has been done.


APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF ANTI-DUMPING TRIBUNAL
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? On Monday of this week, my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, sought to present a motion under Standing Order 43, which was followed up later by a question from the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton to the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the government's failure to promote Miss Marguerite Ritchie to the position of chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal.
Since Miss Ritchie's record is widely acclaimed, and since she seems to have all the qualifications necessary for promo-
Oral Questions
tion to the top position, would the Prime Minister tell the House why Miss Ritchie was passed over and a man appointed?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I am informed that the Deputy Prime Minister has already given an answer to that question in the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is precisely because the Deputy Prime Minister did not answer the question that I raise it again today. He gave us some words, but they added up to the fact that a man was appointed instead of a woman. Will the right hon. gentleman, as head of the government, reconsider this matter and even consider rescinding this appointment and putting Miss Ritchie in as head of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government did consider the matter. When we make appointments by order in council, we inform ourselves with respect to prospective appointees, and this appointment was made after consideration of the qualifications of Miss Ritchie and of other candidates. The candidate appointed to the job was one who responded to the necessities of the task. He had experience of economic matters, which, in the particular circumstances of today, are of extreme importance to the work of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal. For whatever it is worth, he has seniority in the public service over Miss Ritchie.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I trust the Prime Minister realizes that he has torpedoed the fine rhetoric of the minister who spoke just a few minutes ago. In view of the fact that not only in the Public Service is there continuing discrimination against women, in terms of employment, but that they also suffer extreme discrimination in matters of pensions, will the Prime Minister direct that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for pensions generally, the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for pensions in the public service, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who is responsible for pensions in his field, study the entire question of the pensions of survivors-in most cases they are women-with a view to achieving pension equality between men and women both in the public service and in Canada generally?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the question of pensions generally and pensions for women has been under review. There is work in progress between the Department of Finance and the Department of National Health and Welfare with regard to this issue. Some steps have been taken with regard to the Canada Pension Plan, as the hon. member knows, to ensure

February 17, 1978
Oral Questions
better rights for women in this particular field. We are awaiting the final conclusions of the studies which are taking place.


BILINGUAL BONUS FOR SUPERVISORS AND MESSENGERS
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that most civil servants holding positions where the knowledge of both French and English is a prerequisite, with the exception of supervisors and messengers, are entitled to receive the bilingual bonus, although the latter may sometimes have more opportunities to speak either French or English, due to the nature of their functions, would the minister consider the possibility of granting supervisors and messengers the bilingual bonus entitlement already granted to most other civil servants?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have directed his question to the President of the Treasury Board who seems anxious to answer.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat my question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that most civil servants holding positions where the knowledge of both French and English is a prerequisite, with the exception of supervisors and messengers, are entitled to receive the bilingual bonus, although the latter may sometimes have more opportunities to speak either French or English, due to the nature of their functions, would the minister consider the possibility of granting supervisors and messengers the bilingual bonus entitlement already granted to most other civil servants?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the provision of bilingual compensation is based upon the designation of the position itself as being required to be bilingual. The process of re-examining the designated positions throughout the public service is under way now. Where a position is designated as requiring bilingual competence, in terms of service to the public and other related matters also, the person occupying that position has to be qualified for it in order to receive the bonus. Whether a messenger would be involved or not would be based on the decision of the various departments of the federal government in their re-examination of whether the position does, in fact, require bilingual competence.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
McDonald inquiry-reported expansion of terms of

Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It results from the announcement made earlier this week that the McDonald commission was going to expand both the scope of its inquiry and the staff to conduct that inquiry, which will result in its

final report being delayed. In terms of the scope of the inquiry, the McDonald commission is going to parallel the Mackenzie commission of 1969 and inquire into whether the security service should be a separate unit of government. Is the expansion which is taking place in the scope of the inquiry occurring at the direction or with the concurrence of the Solicitor General?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the commission has not sought from me any formal increase in its mandate. I heard the news report to which the hon. member referred. I am sympathetic to that report and their attempts. 1 should like to study the matter further.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, now that we find the Solicitor General in a sympathetic mood, I will ask another question. With regard to Bill C-26, which is the legislation to permit the legal interception of mail, perhaps he would assure the House today that the standing committee which will be dealing with that important legislation will have the benefit of the evidence and experience of the McDonald commission to date. Therefore, will he undertake that there shall be a preliminary, or interim report from the McDonald commission relating to operation Cathedral, so that the standing committee will not unnecessarily duplicate matters and will have the advantage of the evidence presented to the McDonald commission?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, of course, the hon. member is raising a very interesting question with respect to the introduction of Bill C-26 and the ongoing committee. I would not like to confuse the two contexts and the two bodies. I invite the hon. member to address himself to that question when we are dealing with second reading of Bill C-26.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing myself exactly to what the Solicitor General requests. In order to make not only the legislation meaningful but the deliberations of the standing committee, and in view of the fact that the legislation deals exactly with the matter which the McDonald commission is investigating, will the Solicitor General not take advantage of my question today to indicate very clearly to the House, either in the form of a report or orally, that the McDonald commission will have a very high input into the deliberations of the standing committee when it is considering Bill C-26? Surely we can ask for nothing less than that.
[ Translation]


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the hon. member to give the impression that the scope of the McDonald commission does not extend beyond the subject of Bill C-26, and on that I would simply like to indicate to him that as far as debates on Bill C-26 are concerned there is no doubt that some of the issues which have been examined by the McDonald commission might be of interest to hon. members when debating that matter. We are concerned only with the substance of the matter, and there is no question of trying to involve the McDonald commission in the legislative process.
February 17, 1978


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the variety of conflicting statements made in connection with the Cranbrook airport crash of the Pacific Western airplane, some of which amount almost to the staking-out of positions in advance of an inquiry. Can the minister advise the House whether the preliminary investigation of the crash has advanced to the point of decision on setting up an independent review board for the accident?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it has not yet reached that stage. Indeed, the evidence is complicated in this particular case. The analysis is continuing. When I have a report, I will be in a position to make a decision.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, there are already so many disquieting questions being raised, as well as the divided jurisdiction among the Department of Transport, the municipality and the airline, that it should not take much longer- particularly in view of the news that the apparently indestructible black box has been destroyed, and the question raised by an hon. member opposite a day or two ago regarding the computer scramble of the passenger list. Does the minister know whether a complete list identifying the 42 fatalities has been issued?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that a complete list has yet been issued. It is unfortunate that so many partial statements are being made, in the nature of things, at this stage. But I hope to have a complete report. Of course, in the meantime I do not want to engage in further speculation regarding the matter.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the crash at Cranbrook airport was not the only air transport accident in British Columbia during that sad weekend. I ask the minister whether his department is reviewing the regulations for helicopter flights, in light of the growing recreational activity of glacial skiing, following the news of an almost simultaneous accident which occurred north of Revelstoke, with the loss of four lives and considerable injury.


Otto Emil Lang: 1 am sure we will want to review carefully the nature of the use of helicopters. That will be done in conjunction with, or at the end of the investigation into that matter.
Oral Questions


ANTI-DUMPING TRIBUNAL APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN-QUALIFICATIONS FOR POSITION
Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On Monday, when I questioned the Deputy Prime Minister about Dr. Ritchie's appointment to the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
In this particular case, because of the tribunal's requirements in relation to international trading concerns it was felt that the present appointee would be best qualified.
In view of the fact that Dr. Ritchie has been vice-chairman for five years, and would have acquired the fullest possible understanding and knowledge of the tribunal's requirements over that period of time, will the minister assure us that Dr. Ritchie was informed of this new requirement being created, and was she invited to provide the minister with information about her knowledge of such "international trading concerns"; and, most importantly, was Dr. Ritchie's name on the list?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the appointment was made by order in council. Many candidates were considered. Dr. Ritchie was considered. The cabinet concluded, through the order in council, that Mr. Kirkwood should become the commissioner.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, some wag has noted that it should be called the "aunty-dumping tribunal". In view of the fact that the Anti-dumping Tribunal is expressly required by the Anti-dumping Act to concern itself only with finding whether there is material injury to the production of goods in Canada as a result of the dumping of goods, will the Minister of Finance indicate whether the Anti-dumping Tribunal is now supposed to ignore the law and the problems of Canadian industry and be concerned just with the welfare of foreign companies?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is entirely irrelevant. We have appointed the chairman, and Dr. Ritchie is still the vice-chairman.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Some two years have passed since the multilateral Potato Action Committee was established to develop and implement a Canadian marketing plan in the eastern provinces, including Ontario. Is the minister now in a position to review the progress of that group, particularly in view of the catastrophic situation in which the producers find themselves this year, with barrel-bottom prices? If not, when-if ever-can we expect an interprovincial pact? In fact, is the Potato Action Committee still functioning?

February 17, 1978
Oral Questions


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Potato Action Committee has made recommendations. But it cannot force the provinces to do anything the provincial producers do not want to do: it is up to them. If they want a healthy marketing system or a proper sales program for their products, it is mainly left to them; and they seem to be satisfied. I understand one of the provinces has seen fit to continue with the sales program it has at the present time, which is giving them approximately $2 to $3 per hundredweight less than they are getting for potatoes in Alberta.


URBAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
DISTRIBUTION OF CMHC FUNDS BY MPs
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It is my understanding that last summer the minister contacted CMHC, asking them to send all municipal incentive grant cheques to his office so Liberal MPs could distribute them. I have before me a copy of a letter from Mr. Hession, of the department, saying:
I am also concerned that it does not lay itself open to criticism of political partisanship-

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House whether this practice exists, and, if so, will he stop it immediately?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what document the hon. member is quoting from but I do know that following the directions I gave the procedure concerning the distribution of these cheques has been changed.

I make no apology for the step I took in making better known the Canadian government's contribution in helping to solve the financial difficulties of municipalities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: When a federal civil servant sends a cheque by mail to a municipal civil servant, nobody knows about it; but when an elected representative makes an official presentation to another elected representative, there is publicity about it and then the Canadian public learns that federal money is at work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister whether, in fact, he can tell us who was presenting the cheques in the ridings of opposition members? Was it, indeed, a Liberal candidate? Just what is the process?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the procedure is that the minister is trying to make as many presentations as possible, but obviously the minister is unable to be everywhere. Indeed, I

have been asking some of my colleagues in this House to represent me from time to time. Now that I see the hon. member might be interested in representing me on some occasions, I will see if it is possible for him to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of State for Urban Affairs could inform the House whether he has asked any member of the opposition to present these cheques, ever; or does he only approach members on the government side of the House on this matter?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, most of the cheques which have been presented so far were in the province of Quebec. Hon. members will understand very well how important it is for the people of Quebec to know that the Government of Canada distributes vast amounts of money in their province. Everybody in Quebec should be clearly aware of the fact that the government of Canada is useful to Quebecers and that the government of Quebec is not the only one to be able to do something for the people of Quebec. Most of the cheques have been presented in ridings represented by hon. members from the government side, and if we have the opportunity to present cheques in constituencies represented by hon. members from the opposition side, I shall see with these hon. members whether they can take part in the ceremonies. I shall be very pleased to see them at these ceremonies.


OPPOSITION NOT INVITED TO ATTEND MUNICIPAL MEETING ON GRANTS IN LIEU OF TAXES
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, given the desire to have federal members participate in this way, would the Minister of State for Urban Affairs tell the House why, when he held meetings with officials of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton regarding grants in lieu of taxes, the only members from the Ottawa area who were invited were the hon. member for Ottawa West, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Somehow or other-perhaps the invitations were delivered by mail-the hon. members for Grenville-Carleton, Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, and Ottawa-Carleton were not invited. Does the minister not think that is just a bit cheap?


André Ouellet: No, not at all, Mr. Speaker. I think the meeting was convened at the request of the local authorities who wanted to meet government representatives and, indeed, we responded quite positively. I was glad to see that members of parliament from the Liberal side who are members of the party which forms the government were able to attend that meeting. It was a very successful meeting indeed. At the end of the meeting we concluded it would be appropriate to hold other meetings from

:


i
February 17, 1978

time to time. I indicated at the time that it was the view of participants that all elected members from this area be represented and that we would invite the others. However, when the first invitation was made, it was to meet government, not opposition, representatives.


Walter David Baker: Given the fact that the local municipal area covers the townships of Nepean, Goul-bourn, Rideau, Osgoode, Gloucester, March, parts of Ottawa-Carleton, and there is not a government representative in those areas, nor is there likely to be one for some period of time- and indeed there is some doubt about some of the other areas beyond-does not the Minister of State for Urban Affairs consider it in the interests of the people in the area, to have representations from all members of parliament in the area? I realize he is cheap, but could he not have forgotten it on this occasion and adopted another tactic?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. It is supplementary to the one asked by my friend, the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot. In a news report yesterday there was a suggestion that the Solicitor General has turned over two documents to the Keable commission of inquiry in Montreal, and the reason given was that they tended to confirm statements made in the House by a member of the government. Can the Solicitor General advise the House if, in giving affidavits under section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act on holding or withholding documents, he equates national security with embarrassment or benefit to the government?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: No, Mr. Speaker.
*
* *


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence, and it relates specifically to the Suffield military base near Medicine Hat. My question relates to the ongoing ten-year contract between the minister's department and the British ministry of defence for the tank troop training program which is now in its sixth or seventh year. I ask the minister whether negotiations for the renewal of that contract are under way. If so, what stage are they at, or have they been concluded?


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. As the minister is undoubtedly aware, many representations have been made from this side of the House for the exemption of wide-flange steel beams being dumped in British Columbia. Can the minister tell the House what decision has been made after due consideration of this matter?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, a decision has been made in this regard. It should be announced today by the Minister of Justice.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the intention is to conclude them. I cannot say precisely the state at which those negotiations are now, but if they have not been concluded, it is my understanding they shall be. I spoke to the British Minister of Defence, Mr. Mulley, and I understand they want to continue that project, as do we. There is the capital cost to be expended there, and everyone must know where they stand. There is the intention to renew that contract.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Can the minister say whether the government of Alberta has been involved in the negotiations respecting the contract with the British ministry of defence, not about the energy situation but specifically about the renewal of this program, as I think they should be, quite properly?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I believe they are involved in those discussions, Mr. Speaker. I am not certain, but I will check and find out. I know the government of Alberta has expressed agreement with the arrangement we have and seems to support it enthusiastically.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister with regard to Gerard Filion's case and the fact that, in the Speech from the Throne, it was announced that the government would amend the Criminal Code so as to guarantee the right to a trial in the official language of their choice to all persons accused of a crime.
As Mr. Filion has been accused of committing certain acts in Montreal, and as the RCMP made the accusations in Ontario rather than in Quebec, is the Prime Minister willing to assert to the House that it is imperative that this injustice be righted, that the fundamental right be proclaimed and that the necessary steps be taken so that the rights of Mr. Filion, as

February 17, 1978
Oral Questions
well as those of everyone in similar circumstances, may be protected throughout Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to state that unequivocally. The policy of the government is identical to that suggested by the hon. member. We said so at the time when the Speech from the Throne was read, we stated it again in the House on the government side a few weeks ago when we studied a private bill to grant those rights to Canadian citizens. Unfortunately, that bill was not passed because hon. members of the opposition chose to speak rather than to vote on it.
Mr. Speaker, no matter, for the government has completed the announced series of consultations with the provinces and the bill, an amendment to the Criminal Code allowing citizens to have a trial in the official language of their choice, will be introduced, and will apply in all those provinces willing to avail themselves of that right within their own sphere of jurisdiction, that is the administration of justice.


URBAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
DISTRIBUTION OF CMHC FUNDS BY MPs
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of his answer, I take it the minister is saying to the House that he denies having received any suggestion that the present method be changed, or that he received two alternative proposals. In view of his past lack of judgment, leading to his dismissal from the cabinet, I ask whether, if the circumstances are determined to be otherwise, he will resign his position in the cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of State for the Environment. In a speech given in Vancouver on December 13, the minister told foresters that they had better lobby Ottawa if they want to see the government paying more attention to the forestry sector. Does that mean he will only carry out his mandate if he is pressured into it by the public sector?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: No, Mr. Speaker; the message was that the forest industry and everyone who was involved in it should notify politicians at all levels, not just the government. I do not need pressure; that will not make my position easier. They have never before been active in the political process. I think it is up to them to make sure governments at all levels recognize the plight they are now in.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in light of the statement made by the minister in Vancouver, and the report prepared for the government entitled "Forest Management in Canada", which indicates that within 15 years to 20 years Canada will have exhausted all economically accessible forests, what does the minister plan to do to ensure that the youth of this country will have accessible forests to harvest in 15 to 20 years?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that jurisdiction over forests is with the provinces. I told them that I have no intention of invading their territory, but I also said to them that I am very concerned, especially since I come from British Columbia where the economy is very dependent on forests. We will play our role and I will be making recommendations to my colleagues for an expanded role, especially in the fields of research and development and the use of technology. This has high priority, and it is of great concern to me. That is the way we plan to play our role, especially in the area of silvicultural

February 17, 1978

research. At our meetings, some provinces told me very clearly that they do not want me to invade their territory, and I am not going to do so.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DR. SELIWINSKI, POLISH MINISTER OF HEALTH
Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members will want to join me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor representing his country in official talks for, I believe, five days: the minister of health for Poland, Dr. Seliwinski.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
 * *


PRIVILEGE
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am always reluctant to rise on a matter such as this, but I feel that today we have seen a further example of treatment of the opposition by the government in a manner which basically infringes upon the rights and abilities of members of parliament to do their duties. I refer specifically to the fact that a representative of the government, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), is in Vancouver. We were informed about this by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) a few moments ago.
I asked the minister what action the government is planning to take to relieve the problems of steel fabricators in British Columbia in connection with the anti-dumping ruling and the resulting tariff imposition. The Minister of National Revenue obviously has the answer, but has failed to inform parliament. Hon. members on this side of the House have raised this matter in the House many times. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has raised the matter. All hon. members from British Columbia have been very concerned about this problem, particularly the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), who is ill today.
The government has not had the courtesy to answer the question in the House. In addition, instead of permitting the Minister of National Revenue to give the answer, which he obviously knows, the government sent another minister to Vancouver to answer the question out there. It is obvious that hon. members on this side of the House cannot carry out their responsibilities when the government makes announcements outside the House. Furthermore, this action is taking place at noon on a Friday after question period is over, and nothing can be done, nor can comments be made, until next week. If Your Honour finds that this is in fact a question of privilege, I ask that it be referred to the appropriate committee.
Privilege-Mr. Clarke


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the opposition would appreciate my giving at least an indication that there would be an announcement made today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I did not indicate that anything has been finalized, but I did indicate that I am aware that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) is making an announcement.
I stand by what I have said. I hope the opposition will appreciate the fact that an announcement is being made today, and 1 will wait for the news release put out by the Minister of Justice this afternoon.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) knows about this, I wonder if he will make the announcement. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is here. If it is his responsibility- and he is available-why does he not make the announcement now in the House?


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make sure that Your Honour is aware that the minister did say specifically that a decision has been made, that he is aware of the decision, and that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) is assembling a select group of news people in British Columbia so that he can make the announcement there. This matter has been raised in the House on several occasions over the last few weeks. This matter accts national unity and the economy of British Columbia.
My privilege is affected. The announcement in British Columbia is scheduled to be made at 12 noon today. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Clarke) said, that denies us the opportunity to discuss this matter in the House. If Your Honour finds that our privilege has been offended, I will move that the minister avail himself of the opportunity on motions to make his announcement here before the House adjourns for the week end.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see that other hon. members want to participate in this discussion. This is not new ground. We have been over it many times before. The precedents are absolutely crystal clear that the actions of a minister, in making or failing to make a statement in the House and choosing some other locus for making a statement or in timing such a statement in a certain way, have never been considered a question of privilege. The precedents are abundantly clear, and the Chair has really no control. The choice is to be made by the cabinet.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not challenge your ruling, which 1 respect, but my role as a member of parliament is affected. Presumably the announcement today is based on a decision of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal. The decision affects not only British Columbia but Newfoundland as well. I am entitled to hear the announcement in the House. In all likelihood the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has flown in the face of parliament and gone

February 17, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Clarke
west at public expense to make the announcement in British Columbia. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) refuses to give us the information which his colleague is announcing on the west coast. If I had had an opportunity, I would have wanted to ask if that announcement concerns recommendations for Newfoundland as well.
Your Honour referred to the fact that the precedents are quite clear, that this is merely a grievance and that the Chair is not able to act, but surely there is more than a grievance involved here. When a minister leaves parliament at public expense to make an announcement, denying the House, which is sitting, the information contained in the announcement, that is contemptuous. That is grave contempt of the House, and that contempt is aggravated when the Minister of National Revenue stands in his place in reply to a question and says that there will be an announcement made outside the House today and that he has the information and yet the information is denied us. At the present time it is being given outside the House by one of his colleagues. I think that is the worst kind of contempt, and I am surprised that the Minister of National Revenue would be party to it.


Mr. Brisco:: I'm not.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Minister of Justice is at the moment. I would like to tell hon. members opposite that I do not agree with their allegations. I will answer any questions they want to put to me on Monday.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the precedents Your Honour is using today are quite different from the situation in the House today. We have in this House a minister who got up and said, "I know what the minister is going to say but I will not tell you." That seems to me to be substantially different from the precedents Your Honour is using to rule that there is no question of privilege here.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the grievance that hon. members have. I have let them air it as fully as possible in the circumstances, but I am sure the same hon. members understand that there is no action the Chair can take in circumstances of this kind. I have no power to compel any minister to make a statement in this House or to answer questions in this House at any time, and that is well known. Whether I sympathize with the grievance or however fully I sympathize with it, I have no power to do anything about it. I am afraid that is well known and well established.


POINT OF ORDER
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During question period today, on a question put by me and the
hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) wondered what documents or letters we were referring to. I want to send the letter over to him from Monsieur Hession which was written to the minister on August 31. If he wants further documentation I can provide it at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member can send the document over to the minister without raising a point of order.


PRIVILEGE
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In the House on October 24, 1974, the then minister of state for urban affairs, now the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson), in a speech on his estimates said as reported at page 719 of Hansard:
I think it is important to members in all parties to make certain our constituents know where these funds are coming from,-
In other words, that is the same thing as the present minister indicated-that federal funds are involved and it is federal people who are providing these funds.
He continued:
-because if our provincial counterparts do not let them know, they may think that you and I are not concerned or are not interested.
At that stage I rose on a point of order. In part I said:
On this specific point I happen to agree with the minister that it is most important that people in our constituencies should know where the funding is coming from. However, I was wondering whether the minister would explain his policy as to when an urban affairs program is being opened up.
As reported at page 723 I said:
I should like to put a couple of questions to the minister. One refers to a matter he raised in his speech in reply to an hon. member, namely, that he wants people in the constituencies to know that federal funds are being made available. I suggest that if he happens to finance a building in a constituency represented by someone other than a member of the Liberal party, he can still make the announcement, rather than send a Liberal from the far end of the province to represent him. The constituents would at least know that it is a federal member who is representing the government. I wonder whether the minister is prepared to use that tactic, rather than trying to find a Liberal senator or Liberal member far away from the area to go in the minister's stead if he is not able to make it, and if he is prepared to use the present member of parliament for that purpose.
The minister replied as follows:
I am already working on procedures that will be automatic and will involve the local member, because we all have an interest in showing the federal presence. We represent the federal government and it will be the local member, regardless of his party, who will undertake this work.
I rise on this point because this matter was put to the then minister of state for urban affairs and I have on record what the policy of the department is. Now I hear from the present minister that he will send in Liberals, that he is only using members from that side. He also indicates that he will only invite Liberals to a meeting with the regional officials in Ottawa. I happen to represent part of the region but I was
[Mr. McGrath.)
February 17, 1978

never invited by that minister. His actions are purely partisan. He does not represent the Canadian people-his party only got 44 per cent of the vote, not a majority. I think they should return to what has been urban affairs policy as indicated by the previous minister and that the local member should participate.
I think the present practice is an affront to all members of the House of whatever party and it should be corrected now. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in order that a full discussion can take place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Is the gutless minister not willing to talk?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows it is questionable whether he would be able to bring the subject matter within the confines of a question of privilege. In any case, if he could, he knows very well, I am sure, that several times in the past under well established precedents, a motion has been rejected on a question of privilege to the effect that "this matter" be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. "This matter" is a term which encompasses such a very wide subject that it would not be possible to determine the specific responsibility of the committee in the circumstances. This does not seem to be the type of grievance that is fixed in time as relating to today's answers. It may be a matter that the hon. member would want to consider further and then frame a more specific motion. Under the terms of the present motion, however, I have no choice except to set it aside.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, may I reserve and present a motion later?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Roberts (for the Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill S-4 (from the Senate), to implement the International Convention for Safe Containers.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 162, 203, 235, 291, 293, 366, 406, 461, 533, 823 (revised), 913, 960 and 976.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Does CNR hold an option on potential industrial property on Barnston Island in the Fraser River, British Columbia, and, if so (a) how many acres (b) how long has it held the option (c) does it have any immediate plans for development?
2. In the event that CNR does not have any option on Barnston Island properties, has it completed any feasibility studies for development of its operations on Barnston Island and, if so, what was the subject of each study and on what date (a) did it commence (b) was it completed?
3.	Are there any studies in progress?
4.	On what date was the answer to this question prepared?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	The government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.


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


Otto Emil Lang: 1. There are two persons under contract to the CWB, neither of whom are retired public servants.
2.	The total amount paid to persons under contract to the CWB during 1975 was $37,777.35 and during 1976 was $43,843.14, none of which was paid to retired public servants.


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


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Twenty-three persons. None are retired public servants.
2. (a) $57,074.98; (b) $83,591.34. None of which was paid to retired public servants.

February 17, 1978
Order Paper Questions


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


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. (a) No. (b) No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


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


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) The
Canadian Wheat Board obtained 10 part-time employees in 1975 and three part-time employees in 1976 from a private employment agency in Manitoba. No part-time employees were obtained from private employment agencies in any other province, (b) The Canadian Wheat Board obtained one fulltime employee in 1975 from a private employment agency in Quebec. No full-time employees were obtained from private employment agencies in any other province.
2.	Such employees are not paid from supplementary estimates and do not constitute an expense to the government of Canada. Rather, such employees are paid from the Canadian Wheat Board's general salary account and accordingly represent an expense to grain producers of western Canada.
3.	(a) The average hourly rate paid to private employment agencies by the Canadian Wheat Board in 1975 was $4.87 and in 1976 was $5.34. Both of these rates were paid in the province of Manitoba. An hourly rate was not applicable to the full-time employee obtained in Quebec, (b) The Canadian Wheat Board has not paid any moneys directly to employees obtained from private employment agencies. Such employees were remunerated by the agency concerned, (c) The total amounts paid by the Canadian Wheat Board to private employment agencies in 1975 were $5,901.67 in Manitoba and $487.03 in Quebec, and in 1976 was $843.35 in Manitoba.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What are the terms of reference for the Prairie Railway Action Committee?
2.	Is the PRAC authorized to review the Hall Report recommendation on 2,165 miles of railway line recommended for abandonment?
3.	What is the estimated cost of setting up the PRAC?
4.	Has action been taken on the Hall recommendation for June 30 abandonment and, if so, in what manner?
5.	Are there subsidy costs for not carrying out the abandonments on time and, if so, what are they?
6.	Will subsidies be required if the Prairie Rail Authority is not put into operation as recommended by the Hall Commission and, if so, in what amount?
7.	What is the cost of the less expensive procedure of contracting for services as recommended by the PRAC?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Prairie Rail Action Committee-Terms of Reference:
The objective of PRAC is to recommend to the government of Canada the disposition of each segment of branch line placed in the further evaluation category by the Hall Commission. This involves a total of 2,343.6 miles out of the present grain collection network of approximately 18,700 miles. It will also advise on the priorities for rehabilitation of the basic and the PRAC category lines and will further evaluate the Prairie Rail Authority concept as proposed by the Hall Commission.
To meet these objectives PRAC will:
Assess the Hall Commission proposals with regard to the PRAC lines and initiate discussion between the grain companies and other interested parties to determine the feasibility of designating lines to the basic network or otherwise resolving the uncertainties concerning future operation.
Consider relevant aspects of rehabilitation programs for both basic and PRAC lines and review where necessary the role of selected basic network lines.
Monitor the performance of each of the PRAC lines (traffic levels and patterns, periods out of service, maintenance problems).
In close consultation with the railways and grain companies identify ways of improving the level of service where feasible by making recommendations relating to:
Changes in train runs and methods of providing train service;
Elevator consolidation;
Revised maintenance standards;
Partial or complete abandonment of certain lines and the scheduling thereof;
The economic and technical feasibility of relocating existing elevators;
The feasibility of establishing off-line elevators.
In assessing the future role of each PRAC line before December 31, 1978, options will be: (a) Inclusion into the permanent network guaranteed until the year 2000. (b) Abandonment at a date to be specified by PRAC.
February 17, 1978

PRAC will recommend the format and responsibility of any on-going mechanism required beyond December 31, 1978 for the purpose of resolving any remaining issues pertaining to PRAC lines.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Estimated cost is $300,000.
4.	Yes. As of December 6, 1977 the Canadian Transport Commission has issued orders authorizing abandonment on the following June 30th Flail branch line recommendations:
Branch Line	From	To	MilesCN	Tonkin	Russell	MacNutt	32.7CN	Bolney	Paradise Hill	Frenchman Butte	12.8CN	Sherness	Cessford	Wardlow	7.4CN	Endeiang	Byemoor	Nevis	40.3CN	Kingman	Tofield	Kingman	13.0CP	Colonsay	Euston	Dilkie	21.8CP	Asquith	Sonningdale	Balgennie	15.1CP	Suffield	Hays	Suffield	35.3CP	Cassils	Cassils	Scandia	23.2CP	Rosemary	East Coulee	Finnegan	23.1CP	Lyleton	Lyleton	Dalny	15.3CP	Carman	Kronsgart	Plum Coulee	6.65.	Yes, these are normal items of costs as submitted in subsidy claims in accordance with the cost order R 6313 e.g., Train operations, Roadway Maintenance Cost of Capital, net salvage value etc. (Refer to pages 430-438 of R 6313).6.	The branch line subsidy programme will continue on the basis of the mileage submitted for subsidy. As the extent of this mileage is presently unknown it is not possible to determine the amount of the subsidy payable.7.	The PRAC has not made any recommendations.


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


Otto Emil Lang: The Atlantic Pilotage Authority advises as follows: 1. Two; neither of whom are retired public servants.
2. (a) 1975, $17,996.63. (b) 1976, $26,706.32 of which $2,790 was paid to a retired public servant.


Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the constituency of New Westminster by the Department of Transport and those agencies that report to it?


Otto Emil Lang: The department's financial records are not maintained in a manner that would provide this information by constituency. However in
Order Paper Questions
1976-77 an amount of $1,005,741 was spent in the city of New Westminster under the Railway Relocation Act.


Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1975 (c) 1974, what amount was paid by the government as a rail transportation subsidy to (i) CNR (ii) CPR, in respect of service in the Province of New Brunswick?


Otto Emil Lang: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Passenger train subsidies paid pursuant to the Railway Act in respect of services in the province of New Brunswick for the three fiscal years indicated are as follows:
1973/74	(In millions of $) 1974/75	1975/76CN	5.6	6.9	7.0CP	0.8	0.9	1.3Total	6.4	7.8	8.3
Although it is not the CTC's normal practice to pro-rate "through" services, the above figures include these services along with those which serve New Brunswick only. The prorate was performed on a route mileage basis. Payments were also made in respect of grain movements in bulk for export to eastern ports from inland points. However, owing to the multiplicity of the movements involved pro-rating these subsidies would be a very onerous task. There appears below a tabulation of payments received by Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Rail Limited, under the provision of the Maritime Freight Rates Act for the period in question. These payments are in relation to the traffic handled by the companies involved within and westbound from the "select territory" as defined by the Maritime Freight Rates Act. On the basis of the information available to the commission it is not possible to segregate amounts for individual provinces located within "select territory".
Maritime Freight Rates Act
	Canadian National Railways	CP Rail Limited
1974	$12,525,681.00	$1,212,394.551975	$13,115,781.00	$1,162,585.101976	$13,833,730.00	$1,157,085.93NUMBER	OF WOMEN IN PUBLIC SERVICE EARNING MORE


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 823-Mr. Howie: (Revised)
On November 1, 1977, how many women in the government, excluding Crown corporations, were earning (a) $30,000 and over (b) $20,000 to $30,000 annually?
John (Moody) Roberts: I have been informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: on September 30, 1977 (the latest date for which figures are in hand) there were, in the public service subject to the Public

February 17, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Service Employment Act: (a) 248 women earning $30,000 or over; (b) 4,076 women earning $20,000 to 29,999 inclusive.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	(a) Was the Inland Vessels stamp series limited to 24 million copies and is the series no longer available from the Post Office Department (b) is the government aware that a Toronto stamp dealer and others, have advertised in the Canadian Stamp News, September 5, 1977, the availability of the stamps in pads of 50 at a cost of $325 and, if so, what does the government intend to do to rectify the situation?
2.	Were post offices across Canada sold out of the 12 cent Christmas stamp by the end of November, 1977 and did they indicate that the stamp would not be available during December, 1977 and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: 1. (a)
Yes, but only in the sense that 24 million copies was the usual printing quantity at that time for a first class domestic letter-rate commemorative stamp. In keeping with the practice of retaining new commemorative stamps on sale to collectors for a maximum period of twelve months from their first day of issue, the Inland Vessels stamps are no longer available from the Post Office Department, (b) No.
2. A sufficient quantity of 1977 Christmas 12-cent stamps was printed to meet the anticipated needs of Canada Post Office. However, it is possible that local demand could have depleted a specific post office stock before the end of the Christmas rush. Christmas stamps are a one-time printing and when the entire inventory has been distributed, further supplies would not be available.


Mr. Howie: 
Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year ending March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, what was the cost of (i) facilities (ii) personnel used by the Department of Transport to check passengers and carry-on baggage at airports?


Otto Emil Lang: (i) (a) $841,127.00; (b) 739,298.20; (c) 781,392.40. (ii) Cost of personnel used to perform these duties is the responsibility of the air carriers.

[ Translation}


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 159 could be
made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	What are the terms of Cominco Ltd.'s power export licence?
2.	What amount of power has the Company exported from British Columbia and to what jurisdictions, over the past five years?
Return tabled.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, once again I should like to bring it to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that question No. 147 in its original form was set down during the second session of the Thirtieth Parliament. It deals with the expenses incurred by the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) through the use of a Falcon aircraft in Europe for some 22 days. I asked what the cost of the trip was, and I was referred to another question. When you work out the cost on a 24 hours a day basis it comes to $378,504, which is a bit much to pay for the vanity of any member of cabinet. I feel the 24-hours a day basis may be unfair, and I should like to have that clarified. I cannot understand the unseemingly delay in providing an answer to this.
The Department of National Defence is noted for the accuracy and completeness of its records. I should like to know what it cost to send that aircraft to Europe for 22 days so that it could carry the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) around during the hockey series a year ago. I cannot see any reason for this continuing delay, and I would like to have an answer as quickly as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain) moved:: That this House deeply regrets that the government, through neglect or because of its connivance with the police, allowed the whole of Canada in general and Quebec in particular to be engulfed in a crisis such as the one we experienced in October 1970, and therefore directs the Solicitor General to disclose in public all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the authority

February 17, 1978

given to the RCMP to act as they did before, during and after the October 1970 events.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in order to put this motion in its context and fully understand the purpose of its presentation today, one must remember that, one day in 1970, we woke up in a nightmare and we have not been able to determine as yet who was responsible for those events which not only traumatized the population of an entire nation but cast reflections on a particular province of this country which, in my opinion, represents a people and a nation as well. And we can say that never in its history this people and this nation have participated voluntarily in any conflict, even the one in 1755 which opposed both parent states and not those Canadians who were here at that time.
Mr. Speaker, when this nation had the opportunity in 1775 to join the American colonies in their rebellion, they chose not to do so. They were placed in similar circumstances in 1812, and more recently during the Boer War, World War I and World War II, but the people in Quebec have never accepted violence as a means of settling any conflicts and even less as a means of promoting its emancipation and development.
Mr. Speaker, such a people could not create the terrorist movement that led to the famous October 1970 crisis. We must therefore denounce those responsible in order to save the pride and dignity of the Quebec and the Canadian people. Our country should not have faced such a situation. Mr. Speaker, the serious suspicions we have about the federal government can be substantiated, and this is what I shall try to do while discussing this motion.
Before dealing more specifically with this motion I wish to conclude those preliminary remarks by referring to an incident that should be explained some day to prove that Quebecers are not really responsibile for the terrorism outburst that took place in our country in the sixties and reached its climax in 1970. The founder of the FLQ is one Georges Schoeters. He was neither a Quebecer nor a Canadian but an individual who came from Belgium and who, after visiting our country and Cuba, decided to start that movement. That man was also an ardent supporter of the British monarchy. At least he was during the First ten years he spent in this country. Now, the founder of the FLQ who was convicted in the early sixties for bomb attacks, that individual convicted for criminal offences is today at large in Belgium. I would like to know why the Canadian government agreed that this terrorist be released on parole and sent back to Belgium.
Why has the Belgium government agreed to admit a terrorist formally convicted of criminal offences here in Canada? Mr. Speaker, those questions regarding the circumstances surrounding the release and extradition of that Georges Schoeters, the FLQ founder, must be answered. Why has Belgium agreed to his repatriation since he had the Canadian citizenship? Mr. Speaker, this requires an explanation. But rather than make accusations, we should kick out of office those who are actually responsible for the chaotic situation we went

through. I would even go as far as to say. Mr. Speaker, that our present economic and financial difficulties might also be due partially to that confusion. That is why the motion specifically says "through neglect or because of its connivance".
Mr. Speaker, in 1970, more specifically on December 10 of that year, I had all the reasons in the world to inquire about the actual circumstances surrounding that famous crisis, that famous crisis which upset the whole country, that famous crisis which led to the adoption of war measures and put the Canadian armed forces on a war footing, that crisis when an insurrection was apprehended. It was even said at the time that the then editor of Le Devoir, Claude Ryan, headed a parallel government. He seems in fact to be accomplishing this now by running for the leadership of the Quebec Liberal party. On December 10, 1970, Mr. Speaker, I asked the government just how far the RCMP had infiltrated the FLQ. The reply was as follows, and I quote:
In answering his question, may I say that in accordance with long-established practice it is not in the public interest to reveal this type of information.
That was the reply given. I had every reason to demand to be told who exactly was Pierre Seguin, alias Yves Langlois, or the opposite, Yves Langlois, alias Pierre Seguin, of the cell responsible for kidnapping Mr. Cross. Who was this Seguin? What was his relation to the RCMP? I received no answer! I was told it was because of "State security". More recently, when little by little the former Solicitor General told us about certain somewhat irregular activities of the RCMP, I was told that if I had something to say, I should simply appear before the Macdonald Commission.
Mr. Speaker, if through neglect or its connivance with police authorities, this government contributed to the state of affairs which finally led to the October 1970 crisis, how can this same government, which appoints its friends to this commission, tell us the truth. How can we get at the truth if the terms of reference of this same commission repeat the answer that I was given on December 10, 1970? How can we have confidence in this commission if its terms of reference are:
to advise and make such report as the Commissioners deem necessary and desirable in the interest of Canada, regarding the policies and procedures governing the activities of the RCMP in the discharge of its responsibility to protect the security of Canada-
This reason is always invoked to keep something secret. But how can we know this? Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a situation ten times worse than the Watergate affair in the United States. If the truth came out in the United States, it is because American institutions allowed for proper scrutiny. But how can the suspects be at the same time the investigators and the judges? How can we discover the truth?
The terms of reference then say:
-adequacy of the laws of Canada as they apply to such policies and procedures, having regard to the needs of the security of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps everything was cooked up and that story of terrorism in Quebec was kept alive in order to cast reflections on honest Quebecers who wanted to promote the emancipation and the development of their country.

February 17, 1978

The War Measures Act was invoked under the pretence of national security and of a state of apprehended insurrection. Mr. Speaker, how many people were sentenced as a result of the October 1970 crisis? Ten. The whole army was put on alert, we were told there was a state of apprehended insurrection and yet only ten persons were actually involved in these FLQ cells. Still some 3,000 persons were harassed for all sorts of reasons. At one time even I feared I could be intimidated because in 1963, having been accused of terrorism, I had had the opportunity to learn a little about the methods of the police. That story made headlines in Quebec newspapers in 1963.
At that time I had learned quite a few things and this is why today, I can speak knowledgeably about these events. Yet, Mr. Speaker, out of these 3,000 persons who were harassed and out of the 500 others who had a taste of what our jails are like, only ten had done things for which accusations could be laid against them. However, I repeat, we have recently discovered that the RCMP allowed itself to commit burglaries, something which has been admitted by the Solicitor General and the government itself. It has also been discovered that the RCMP allowed itself, always according to that special committee, to set criminal fires. It has been candidly revealed to us that the RCMP took the liberty of stealing dynamite! Mr. Speaker, let me elaborate on that: what was the purpose of stealing that dynamite? If the authorities needed dynamite, they only had to get the necessary permit to buy it; why steal it? Mr. Speaker, how many times has this been done during and before the October 70 crisis? The former minister called me irresponsible because I voiced my suspicions about the procedural methods of the RCMP and even sometime alleging that some individuals might have been liquidated, before making any inquiry about it. Right then he said I was irresponsible. He had himself said that there had been no such event before 1972 and 1973 the year the break-in took place. Now, on January 9, once again the Solicitor General very candidly confessed that in 1971 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police took upon itself to issue a communique in the name of the FLQ which invited the population to commit acts of violence and insurrection. Mr. Speaker, this is just too much. Soon the inquiry will bear on things which happened in 1970. The inquiry has now gone back to 1971 and soon it will study 1970. That is why the Solicitor General should ask himself the following questions and above all answer them: When did the RCMP start closely monitoring the activities of separatists, FLQ sympathizers, independentists and so on? At the instigation of which authority and which representatives of that authority did it undertake to infiltrate these movements? How were the results reported to the authorities?
Is it possible to know all orders or counter orders that have been given or received at the higher level since 1960 concerning any criminal activity the RCMP was responsible for monitoring, preventing or uncovering, particularly in the area of separatist activities that were viewed as illegal by the federal government? What was done after evidence was

received from the City of Montreal authorities in 1969? Mr. Speaker, we have a federal police with a tremendous reputation. And when the minister announced, barely 15 days ago, that the RCMP had succeeded in breaking a Soviet spy ring, I was as proud of our national police as everyone else. They are competent, I am even told they are one of the most competent police forces in the world. How come such a competent police force, capable of competing with Russian spies, could not uncover and arrest terrorists from 1962 to 1970?
Mr. Speaker, this issue is extremely serious. The force's reputation is at stake, and I could not be satisfied with the answer that what happens in Quebec does not concern the RCMP. We have ample proof that the RCMP were aware of terrorist activities as early as 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963. Mr. Speaker, when the former solicitor general responded to my allegations concerning Michel Viger, he simply dismissed this as idle talk. Mr. Speaker, I received a letter dated December 14, 1977 from Mr. Jean Viger, Michel Viger's brother, which was indeed published by the newspaper Le Devoir. I would like to quote from it the following paragraph pointing to questions for which we will need answers. I quote:
I must say the circumstances surrounding the death of my brother Michel, on my St. Nazaire farm in the summer of 1975, while mowing hay, are particularly disquieting. On that day I had gone to Longueuil. Michel was alone on my farm. When I came back his family was worried because he had not come to supper. Also worrying, I went directly to that part of the farm that remained to be mowed. There I saw the tractor but not my brother; but then I saw him motionless, lying on his belly under the humming tractor, his arm crushed under the weight, his left leg caught to the break pedals, his neck broken under the pressure of one of the tractor's back wheels. There was no tightness, no trace of struggling or pain. He had died instantly, and many hours before.
Oddly enough, the tractor was in neutral, oddly enough Michel was lying under his tractor, he who was so prudent with those machines, oddly enough that had happened right when I was absent, shortly after a series of filmed interviews with Louis Martin, a very small part of which was to appear on the program "Format 60" in the fall of 1975. So on the one hand, a purely accidental death could be inferred; however, Michel's history can lead us to suspect things may have been staged to cover up a crime, in view especially of what the CIA, the RCMP and other state polices are capable of because they stop at nothing, including bombings, incidents, murders and so forth,... So, Mr. Matte, I am inclined to believe as you do that Michel Viger was murdered by the CIA, the RCMP or people like that.
Mr. Speaker, those are very serious things I am saying but their seriousness must not stop us from finding out the truth so justice will be done.


André Ouellet: That is an irresponsible statement!


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, they will say: Michel Viger is dead. Why don't we go and ask constable Robert Samson, he is not dead but he nearly died too. What was that responsible RCMP officer doing on a Saturday night with a bomb in his hands that exploded? He did not die. Mr. Speaker, those are facts and before they call me irresponsible let us get down to the bottom of things. Was it not following those events that the government and the Solicitor General were forced to divulge the criminal arson incidents-


André Ouellet: Tell us about the Wolfe monument in Quebec City.
February 17, 1978


René Matte: -the dynamite stealing incidents. Mr. Speaker, when in an otherwise respectable and responsible police department you have committees stealing dynamite, committing arson, issuing false communiques people are capable of anything. We should, I repeat, ask officer Samson since he is alive and able to talk-


Mr. Lachance:: That's a real farce!


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, so we have here a police department that was perfectly aware, and that is why-


André Ouellet: You should tell us about the Wolfe monument in Quebec City!


René Matte: -all Canadians and particularly Quebecers kept wondering about that famous October crisis. That is why we have to know exactly the circumstances prior to the October crisis, during the October crisis and after the Quebec crisis. There are questions unanswered everywhere. Books have been written on this subject. I will not quote them all but there are at least ten literary pieces dealing with that topic.


André Ouellet: It is doing them too much honour to refer to them as literary pieces.


René Matte: There are also strange things going on, like different sentences given for the same crime. In the case of Colette and Richard Therrien, convicted of hiding the Rose brothers, they were given a very light sentence-


André Ouellet: By the same judge?


René Matte: And in the case of Michel Viger, a much longer sentence, five or six times longer. How can this be explained for exactly the same offence? Mr. Speaker, everybody is questioning that, especially after seeing the impact of this apprehended insurrection and the implementation of the War Measures Act. Mr. Speaker, these questions will have to be answered. The RCMP knew what was going on, because that is its job. The 1973 January issue of the Financial Post, on pages 23 and 24, gives a detailed account of the RCMP involvement in a general conspiracy. That question also should be answered and we have a right to know why it has not been done. I made statements in 1972, as I have been trying to get to the bottom of this since 1970. Mr. Marchand, who was then minister, said that Rene Matte was certainly making Weird statements-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


René Matte: -and immediately after evidence was given here before the Committee on broadcasting, films and art subventions in 1969, that Mr. Marchand who was then Minister did not know.
Well, let's see. He didn't know anything about it. Mr. Cote, chief attorney for the City of Montreal, had to tell him that was indeed the case. And, Mr. Speaker, when I state that the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police were perfectly aware of what was happening, it is not I, Rene Matte, who is speaking. The facts speak for themselves. Some very clear, very revealing testimonies were heard by the members of this House at least a year before the October crisis. The committee proceedings of November 27 and 28, 1969 which explain that the RCMP knew exactly how things stood for a long time, a very long time are also available. I would like to quote here one paragraph drawn from all these testimonies. In one instance, Mr. Cote, chief attorney for the City of Montreal, answers that:
RCMP agents and Quebec Police Force agents share offices with the Montreal police force. And if they are on the premises when some searches are launched-and they are there most of the time-they usually go along with the Montreal policemen.
Also on November 27, Mr. Saulnier added:
Yes, and this confirms the cooperation I was referring to in my remarks this morning. I am told that in several cases people work in the same office and searches are made at the same time by the various police forces.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious and I have the evidence before me that we knew of the matter even as far back as 1963, when the first bombs exploded. Further on the report says:
Ever since 1963, when the first FLQ bombs exploded, we have been in the first stage of the revolutionary struggle which will develop into a total unrest situation which will culminate into an overall economic, political and social crisis. We are very rapidly reaching this critical point especially during the six last months.
This document produced by the Montreal municipal authorities shows clearly that terrorist activities were going on and that something had to be done. Mr. Speaker, that is not all. Mr. Saulnier who is, as everyone knows, a responsible and serious man went even as far as to say before this committee that he had informed the Prime Minister and the cabinet on several occasions, on three instances at least, of the whole situation. Mr. Speaker, in the face of such patent facts, we should wonder to what extent had the government planned the whole thing and therefore how far were they prepared to let terrorism go unchecked in an effort to ruin those advocating a quite normal and indeed very democratic idea.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are ready to rise. It would-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue if there is unanimous consent. I can give him one more minute, but in order for him to continue, there must be unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) was not able to continue. He was making some very interesting revelations, but perhaps I can carry on from where he left off. Also I am sorry the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) did not speak prior to me. However, the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) will speak after the Solicitor General. Perhaps the Solicitor General will be the ham between two slices of bread.

February 17, 1978

The reason I would have preferred the Solicitor General to speak prior to me was because of the answer he gave today, which was related to this particular issue in a general way. I asked the Solicitor General if, in the discharge of his responsibilities in signing an affidavit under section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, when he had to declare by affidavit or certificate that a document might well be free from disclosure, because it was a matter of national security, he took into consideration whether the document was embarrassing to the government. Most hon. members and most members of the media know that is the first consideration which the Solicitor General, and some of his predecessors, gave to the question of the discharge of responsibility. That having been done, then the Solicitor General can decide whether national security is involved.
I realize hon. members of the government believe national security and the omnipotence and the survival of the Liberal government are one and the same thing. Many millions of Canadians do not believe that at all. The Solicitor General should examine the provisions of Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act. As I understood the press release, his counsel indicated that he was releasing three documents to the commission because they tended to corroborate a statement made by the predecessor of the Solicitor General in the House. That is not good enough. Much more than that is required. Extraordinary powers are given to the government to be exercised through the Solicitor General. They must be exercised on a much more substantial ground than the question of benefiting or embarrassing the government.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. member should read the entire statement.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Solicitor General's statements to the contrary do not impress me at all. I know what the facts are. I know what kind of consideration is given to this issue by the Solicitor General.


Mr. Sharp:: The hon. member's mind is closed.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is not so. After a great many years of practising law in the criminal courts, I know the minds and mentalities of people. This morning prior to coming into the Chamber, I was reading a book published by Mr. Bob Halde-man in which the truth is finally being told. Daily I look over at the government side of the House and wonder if a Bob Haldeman is sitting on government benches. Before much more time elapses, hopefully one might be found.


William Herbert Jarvis: The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp).


Gerald William Baldwin: Perhaps the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) could write a very good book. The hon. member for Champlain deserves credit for the motion he is proposing. He has brought up an issue which should have been ventilated long before now in this country. It is relevant to present matters.
When the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his gaggle of inferior ministers slunk out of the national confer-

ence with its collective tail between its legs, having suffered a very disastrous three days at the conference, the reasons were most obvious. One of the reasons was because of issues relating to what the hon. member has said in his motion and in his statements. The people of this country have lost confidence in the government because of its failure to tell the truth and because of its continued disposition to exaggerate, to conceal, and to fail to come forward and tell parliament and the public the facts behind so many of the issues of the day. That has become so obvious that the fog of suspicion, doubt, and disbelief which originates from Ottawa has spread over Canada.
No matter how valid its suggestions, when the government attempts to introduce programs regarding economic and social problems, it faces the insuperable obstacle that people no longer believe in it. Perhaps some of the ideas kicked around the conference were all right, but Canadians reject the statements made by the government and its ministers. When that occurs, the government cannot govern any more. In the type of complex world we live in, there must be a reasonable relationship of trust between the government and the people.
Another reason for the failure of the conference was the Quebec situation and much of the difficulties which exist regarding the question of national unity. Many of these questions in regard to national unity were initiated because of the events in October, 1970.
I see it is the witching hour of one o'clock. I shall continue my exciting discourse some time after two o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, when the House recessed at one o'clock I think I had demonstrated to the satisfaction of most reasonable members that one of the main reasons for the failure of the recent economic conference, and the fact of the Prime Minister and his federal ministers crawling from it in a beaten and disspirited way, could be tied to this motion we have been discussing. I talked about the obsession for secrecy and furtiveness which has turned off most reasonable people in Canada with the result that no longer has this government any credibility; nor will it have credibility at any time, and the sooner it meets its fate at the polls the better for everybody.
The other reason for the failure of the conference is also referred to in this motion, and that is the problem which exists in Confederation because of a movement in the province of Quebec. I do not suggest for one minute that the government has to bear sole responsibility, but it has some responsibility for the situation which exists and which resulted in the failure
February 17, 1978

of that conference. This all stems from the situation and the facts that existed in 1970, 1972 and 1973.
I was here in 1970 and listened to the debates. I was House leader for this party and participated in some of those discussions. To recall the events and refresh one's memory one has only to read what was said by the then minister of regional economic expansion, now a Senator in the other place, but then the hon. member for Langelier. He made a very inflammatory and colourful speech. On October 16, 1970, he talked about several thousand active members of a group and indicated that probably some were armed.
He went on to say:
One thing is certain, Mr. Speaker-I don't know any more than the police, probably much less-there is an organization which has thousands of guns, rifles, machine guns, bombs and about 2,000 pounds of dynamite,-
It is interesting to recall in that context that one of the statements made by the security force was that they had stolen dynamite. It was put in the possession of FLQ so that it could be used as a means of trying to invoke action against them.
The minister went on to say:
-more than enough to blow up the core of downtown Montreal.
Then there was a book written later by the then secretary of state, now the distinguished ambassador to France, Mr. Pelletier, in which he referred, somewhat disparagingly, to the role of the Mounted Police in this issue and the facts leading up to the issue, a book which should be required reading for many of the current members of the House.
But what were the facts? Very simply what happened was that the War Measures Act was invoked. There was the tragic assassination of Mr. Laporte, and the subsequent state funeral manipulated on behalf of the government, as I understand it against the wishes of members of the family, so that it could be made into a media event. Then, because of the wishes of the then government of Quebec-and I think it only fair to say, a government which had been following the characteristic practices of the senior government in Ottawa, being secretive and arrogant and with elements of corruption, certainly a government which did not find favour with the people of Quebec-


Claude-André Lachance: That is not for you to decide.


Gerald William Baldwin: The people of Quebec decided that, and that was one of the reasons for its defeat. I am a Canadian and I travel and talk to the people of Quebec, and many people in Quebec said to me that that was one of the main factors in the defeat of the Bourassa government-it was too much like the Trudeau government.
What happened after that was that there was some resist-ence to the act called the War Measures Act being used in time of peace and they decided very wisely, following requests of members of the House and of the province of Quebec, to bring in a substitute temporary measure, a Public Orders Act. As the then House leader I remember participating in arrangements by which it was agreed we would facilitate the passage

of the second act and would approve the motion introduced by the Prime Minister, by which the House purported to accept the actions of the government, provided the other act was brought in. There was an understanding at the time that some permanent legislation would later be introduced, and certainly the then minister of justice, Mr. Turner, said that discussions were going on-this was at the time he introduced the Public Orders Act, a temporary act-and it was his intention that permanent legislation be introduced. I think that was very wise. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of the House that many of the problems which exist today would never have existed had the government followed through on its announced intention.
In the spring of 1971 the government set up a special joint committee of this parliament which was to be charged with the responsibility of dealing with all matter leading up to the need to have a law dealing with domestic difficulties which would be somewhat more moderate than the provisions of the War Measures Act, and would not contain the connotation that it was a measure in any way related to war or to apprehended warfare. The motion was first introduced for debate on May 13, 1971, and was debated. The justice critic of this party, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), moved an amendment by which he asked the House to agree that this committee would have the right to examine the facts leading up to the crisis of 1970. Mr. Speaker found that particular amendment to be in order and, the minute that was done, you should have seen the government troops run for the doors.
The then minister of justice spoke on May 19 and he made it pretty plain that, in his mind a motion of that kind establishing a joint committee with that kind of amendment to it was not one which the government would find satisfactory. So they ran away from it. The motion died on the order paper during a session which, you may recall, Mr. Speaker, lasted from 1970 to 1972. It was never brought back, despite requests from members on this side of the House as well as from some members on the other side. I see the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) here. He has been one who has urged the passage of suitably phrased legislation to deal with law and order in a domestic situation which, had it been in place in 1972 and 1973, would not have led to the current situation in which we find it necessary to establish Royal commissions to inquire into these problems. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont made a speech on October 27 of last year in which he called attention to this issue. As reported at page 344 of Hansard of that day he said:
It is important that despite the commitment made by the government leader in the House on October 27, 1975, a bill designed for such situations has not yet been introduced and the government has made no mention of it in its inaugural message.
It is interesting that the next day the Prime Minister was having a press conference at which someone picked up the statement of the hon. member, referred to it, and asked the Prime Minister what he said. The Prime Minister, with what I will call polite sophistry but which was in fact complete deception, said:
2982

February 17, 1978

Listen, I have no serious objections. In the months following the adoption of the War Measures Act by the government of which I was leader, I even expressed a desire to see this act replaced by provisions, probably added to the Criminal Code, which would enable us to act vigorously each time national security was threatened as it was in October 1970, without having to invoke the War Measures Act.
Then he went on to say that he did not bring it in because opposition members objected. That is an absolute falsehood. That was not the case. Nobody on this side of the House, and I believe I can speak for members of the NDP and the Creditist party when I say that no one from their parties, objected to it. We pressed continuously for the passage of such legislation, and if it had been in place in 1972 and 1973 this would have been a happier country. These scandals, these problems with various solicitors general, and the three inquiries would not have taken place as they did. But the Prime Minister had the unmitigated gall to say he did not do it because the opposition objected. When did this Prime Minister ever fail to take action which he thought he wanted to take because the opposition objected? That is absolute nonsense.
That brings us into what happened in 1972 and 1973. There is no doubt in my mind that the government knew-I do not say it initiated-in 1972 and 1973 what was going on then. I do not know who knew, but certainly people close enough to be part of the government apparatus were aware of what was going on. But they said nothing. The reason they said nothing in the fall of 1972 and 1973 was an issue of some bewilderment to me, until I happened to think about it.
What was the situation in the fall of 1972 and 1973? We had a minority government. What would have happened to the minority government had the Prime Minister disclosed publicly that security forces were engaged in these activities, and in particular had broken into the NDP offices? I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and his then leader, David Lewis, would have immediately dropped the government cold. They are honourable and respectable men. 1 disagree with them on most things, but on an issue of this kind there is no doubt at all about what would have been the facts and the minority government of the Prime Minister would have been defeated. That is why the government kept quiet about it. "What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive." That is exactly what has developed since then.
However, I think that is the end of my comments about the government. We all know these are facts. We have to look together to what we can do to improve the government. This country will make progress only if we have in it government which is open, honest, and acceptable. 1 am not saying anything about a new government. That is beside the point. Sometimes we have to do more than change the players; we have to change the rules. This means the introduction of legislation. This party and other opposition parties are committed to open, honest, and acceptable government.
Before this government meets its fate I would like to see it adopt this principle and say that it stands for openness and honesty. That would do more than anything else I know of to

restore confidence in this country and a reasonable approach on the part of the people. It would do much to bring about a turn-around in our economic situation, which is essential if we are going to make progress. It is a challenge for this government and for the private members on the backbenches of the government side. Most of them believe in open government. Do they have enough courage to stand up to the Prime Minister and tell him that is what they want? If they do not, God help this country.
[ Translation]


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising to speak on opposition day for the second time since I was appointed to my present position, I did not expect I would be able to participate in the House debates, and I want to thank the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) for giving me this opportunity.
I paid particular attention to the remarks by the hon. member for Champlain, and from the way he worded his motion today I had hoped he would have somehow, suggested ways or means to help me discharge my duties as solicitor general responsible for national security in Canada. Unfortunately I did not hear such suggestions in his speech. Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry he did not because, he is fully aware that the question of national security is of prime importance and that we all like to dwell on that issue which is related, to the quality of life and freedom for Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) might like to comment on some of the remarks by the hon. member for Champlain, and I will ask him to do so. As for me, Mr. Speaker, I would rather limit my speech to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and national security.

I would like to make a few comments relating to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), for whom I have great respect. That respect is in recognition of his ability to take advantage of the context of this House and what it provides, namely, an adversarial forum in which partisan interests come to the fore on a regular basis. I have yet to hear an advocate in the opposition who is better able to employ partisan argumentation and precise adversarial comments to carry out his responsibility. I know the hon. member has been around here for some time and has had a great deal of training in his trade in the opposition. He has not had much chance to sit on this side of the House. That is why he has become so competent in what he is doing.
I would like to call attention to the first point he made relating to a press release, a statement which was made by my counsel yesterday before the Keable inquiry, and the production of three documents which previously had been subject of an application under Section 41(2) by my predecessor.
If the hon. member had read the press release further, he would have seen that they were produced as a result of some confusion which had arisen and that had the circumstances of today been the circumstances when they were produced, those documents would not have been included within the affidavit
February 17, 1978

under Section 41(2). At the time my predecessor did not know of any illegal activity, and he did not have any knowledge of the "Ham" operation. It was all made clear by my predecessor. The hon. member is quite free to draw the partisan conclusions he has drawn. All I want him to do is recognize that there are additional comments which he did not draw to the attention of this Chamber to explain the circumstances surrounding the production of these documents.
I would like to deal with the matter of national security. The hon. member for Champlain has indicated in his motion that there is a crisis today which is similar to that of 1970. I listened to his comments, but I did not hear him indicate any events similar to the events of the late 1960's and the early 1970's. Where are the riots, bombs, and kidnappings we experienced at that time?
I am quite concerned about any indication that there could be a recurrence of the 1970 situation because one of my primary responsibilities is to avoid such a recurrence. I have been in my present portfolio for approximately two weeks. I have had a large number of briefings, and at my insistence there is an exchange of information on a regular basis. I am very well satisfied that the RCMP security service is an excellent service which discharges its responsibilities seriously.
I recognize that Canada, among all the countries with which we deal, is perhaps one of the most peaceful internally. It is one of the most inviolate in terms of external interference. It enjoys a very high reputation within the international community.
We have a large number of allies with which we exchange information on a regular basis. That exchange of information is a result of the confidence our allies have in our ability to preserve our own internal security and to protect our own national sovereignty. If there is one instrument which has been fundamental in securing that protection and reputation, it is the RCMP.
The RCMP is responsible for protecting us against subversive activities designed to undermine the confidence of Canadians and of our allies in our governments and institutions and designed to bring about governmental change by violence, force, terror or other criminal means. The RCMP is responsible for protecting us against the kind of trans-national terrorism experienced in less fortunate countries, a problem we do not have. I submit that the RCMP security service, by conscientiously doing its job, has protected Canadians from violence, from those who would weaken our NATO alliance and from those who would subvert our governments at all levels, as well as our institutions.
In October, 1970, action was taken by the government to establish the rule of law, a fundamental principle of our way of life, to ensure that the tragic events of that time did not occur again. It was clear that a proper intelligence on subversive activities was required. In gathering such intelligence certain unlawful acts were committed. I need not elaborate on those acts. They are now being considered by the inquiries set up by

the federal government and the provincial government of the province of Quebec, and the acts themselves have been referred to the attorneys general of the provinces involved. I am sure that you would agree that, in the total scheme of all RCMP activity, which is an ongoing process by a large force, there were very few unlawful acts and those were committed by very few people. I am not trying to condone them but simply to put the whole of the operations in perspective. We are dealing with acts that took place in the early 1970's, although we are now in 1978.

I would now like to address myself to the legal and constitutional aspects of our national security operations. As you know, many things have been written about the relations between the government and the Quebec Commission of inquiry chaired by Mr. Jean Keable which is considering some aspects of the RCMP activities in that province. When the PQ was elected in November 1976, the new Minister of Justice logically assumed the responsibilities of his predecessors with respect to the charges of allegedly illegal operations of the RCMP in Quebec. Mr. Bedard, in his own right, decided to set up a commission of inquiry chaired by Mr. Keable to shed light on the matter.
The federal government has recognized that commission and promised its full co-operation. However, some problems came up with the various redefinitions of the terms of reference granted to the Keable Commission and then the commissioner demanded the right to investigate, in my opinion, all RCMP operations. The federal did not and will not accept such terms of reference, as interpreted by the commissioner. It is also on the basis of that disagreement, that the question of legal responsibility in matters pertaining to national security of Canada has been raised.
I want to be clear on that point. All the allegedly illegal activities of the RCMP in Quebec known to the federal government have been brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice in that province, since he is responsible for the administration of justice in that province. Quebec has on hand all the facts of which I am aware and of which the RCMP is aware and if new facts were brought to the attention of the McDonald commission, they would also be referred to Quebec or any other province involved. Such is the procedure required under our constitution which we intend to follow.
If the Quebec Minister of Justice or the Attorney General of any province have sufficient grounds to delve any further into certain activities of the RCMP, it is their right to do so, but, Mr. Speaker, I think that a provincial Minister of Justice or Attorney General does not have the right to use such offences as a pretence to examine or inquire into all RCMP activities. The government as well as myself do insist on the difference between a possible illegal act committed by a member or a group of members of the RCMP and the regular ongoing activities of that police force, which is committed to protecting national security, and which is a federal body.
According to the government, this disrespect or unwillingness to admit this difference is the important factor in the
80031-47^2

February 17, 1978

debate which is presently going on between us and the Department of Justice of Quebec and the Keable Commission. The government has made its opinion known in court with respect not only to the way the Commission inquires into the alleged illegal acts committed by this police force, but also to the way they attempt to delve into all the activities of the RCMP. The RCMP is a federal agency and the federal government denies not only the government of Quebec, but also the government of any other province, the right to examine the day to day operations of that agency. One needs not draw before you, Mr. Speaker, the absurd parallel whereby the federal government would inquire into activities of a provincial government.
Mr. Speaker, if that principle is not upheld, any federal institution remains at the mercy of provincial governments. How could we expect Confederation to work in such circumstances? That is why, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has tried to have a restraining order issued against the Keable Commission. It was not, as it has stupidly been alleged by some people, because the then Solicitor General or the federal government want to evade justice or put a check on the PQ through the Keable Commission.
As a matter of fact, the Keable Commission and the PQ government want to do a detailed examination of all legal and illegal operations of the RCMP in Quebec. We do not intend to let them do it, Mr. Speaker. In the course of this debate, we are also aware of a confrontation between federal and provincial responsibilities in matters relating to national security in Canada. The Canadian government believes that he has the responsibility to safeguard national security in Canada against any threat whether from the inside or from the outside. Spying activities in Canada are part of the foreign policy of some countries and are closely linked with their perception of their own political, military, economic and cultural interests. Such is the case in Canada. Consequently, they must be seen in the Canadian national context and stopped by federal agencies which have jurisdiction under the Constitution on matters involving foreign countries and Canadian Defence.
Mr. Speaker, I do not feel it is possible to share with the provinces a responsibility which is totally within federal jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 91 of the Canadian Constitution. The same thing may be said about international and home bred terrorists who have given their all grance to foreign and international ideologies and who, judging from their outlook at least, are part of a terrorist conspiracy. Mr. Speaker, I cannot even imagine a situation where each province would claim the right to deal as it pleases either with the KGB or the Japanese Red Army or any other terrorist organization.
It may well be that the areas of responsibilities on matters involving national security are not well defined on account of the changes which have been taking place recently in Canada as far as police operations are concerned. In many respects, we and our allies are operating differently, as in a number of them there are major structural differences between law enforcing agencies and such groups which are responsible for national security.
Historically, in Canada, both those responsibilities have been assumed by the RCMP. It will doubtless be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Security, to which the hon. member for Perth-Wil-mot (Mr. Jarvis) made reference this morning, recommended the setting up of a security service separate and distinct from the RCMP. At that time, the government did not share that opinion but, following the report of the McDonald Commission, a similar recommendation may be made again. If such is the case, the government could reconsider it.
Mr. Speaker, one can certainly find arguments in support of both these previously denounced with regard to the security services. What must be remembered however, is that the federal government is responsible for ensuring the best possible mechanism to safeguard Canadian security against all foreign threats and most domestic dangers. In that regard, I want to stress that those threats to Canada are real, as we found out last week; because of them, Canada cannot do without a national security agency, and the one now responsible, though grappling with the problems now afflicting it, has done remarkably well, for the sake of our country, as I said before. Hundreds of foreign agents are operating in Canada in the intelligence field. Terrorists have entered Canada and others try to do so constantly. It is mostly thanks to the conscientious work performed by the Canadian groups in charge of security that our country has been unscathed by international events.
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, the days of the Olympic Games in Montreal, when we were scared stiff that the events that took place in Germany during their own games might happen again. Thanks to the efforts and industry of the RCMP, there was no trouble, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the people who organize such games would be willing to entrust to the provinces part of the responsibility for guaranteeing the security of the participating athletes against attacks planned by foreign terrorists.
In closing, I wish to offer some views on the issue of security operations and individual human rights. Of all the issues involved this one is, I believe, the most critical. I should like to refer to an action in the Court of Appeal, civil division, in the United Kingdom in March, 1977, where a lower court judgment on deportation for security reasons was reviewed.
In his judgment, Lord Denning, a justice who is highly regarded and for whom I have the utmost respect, noted, "where national security was involved the rules of natural justice were liable to be modified". That is a strong statement but one which, I think, best exemplifies the seriousness of the business of ensuring national security.
What we cannot allow is covert or secret infringements of rights such as that of privacy. I say that for the hon. member for Peace River who, I am sure, agrees with that statement. At the same time we cannot hide our heads in the sand while others exploit that right to privacy covertly to plan activities harmful to us all. The balance between the two, since the

February 17, 1978

infancy of democracy, has been a mature assessment of where collective well-being overrides individual desires. The forum for deciding where one begins and the other ends and the rules which must apply to ensure a maximization of both is, in our system, parliament. What we need, through parliament, is a thorough, non-partisan examination of what tools are needed to provide for tough, effective, and openly understood powers for Canadian security units. Everyone has to know the nature of the problem such as what we may lose as individuals, we gain as a community. But it should be clear that we cannot have it both ways.
If there is no wiretapping in Canada, do not fault the police for an inability to combat organized crime. If there are no provisions for surreptitious entry into Canada, do not fault the security service for rampant espionage. If there is no provision for selective opening of the mail, blame yourself for its usage to distribute heroin, or as a conduit for messages between terrorists.
Let us not agonize about this. Police and security powers should be, must be, only those that Canadian citizens allow. I say that, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that I practised law for seven years, with only one prosecution, as a defence counsel in the criminal courts of this province. In my responsibility it is a question I plan on analysing with ever-increasing seriousness. But those thoughts which I am advancing now I fully believe ware justified. If there is no provision for those measures that are required for the implementation and the protection of national security, then we can blame no one for it but ourselves for any infringement of that national security. Police and security powers should be, as I indicated, those that are presented by parliament. We should not advance more than one drop necessary in order to get the job done. But at least recognize that there is a job to be done, Mr. Speaker, and an important one at that; one which cannot be realized without full citizen commitment and understanding.
Some members of the RCMP exercised powers which were not given to them. They broke the law. That is unacceptable and that is why we have a Royal commission of inquiry looking into the matter; a commission of inquiry requested by the opposition and appointed by this government. But the fact the RCMP used authority they did not have and that they will have to answer for doing so, does not negate the reality that they ought to have such power. Indeed, I believe that to be the case, and so does the government.
If nothing else, the controversy surrounding RCMP operations has brought home to Canadians the importance of security activity in this country. It has underscored the reality that the requisite to citizen control is citizen awareness. In that sense we are growing up. The world is, and always has been, an imperfect place. One has only to look at the opposition benches to recognize that reality, Mr. Speaker.
Canada is not isolated. We continue to be the target of many threats. That is inevitable and must be accepted. Understanding that, as we have not done before, we must accept responsibility collectively for ensuring that aspect of Canadian security. We cannot continue, as we have done, to leave the

responsibility to others to improvise and do the best they can. That is the invitation to excess and those who were involved in the excess really reflect an abdication, on all our parts, of not having faced up to the issue of national security long ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) requests permission to ask a question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am so delighted to hear that news. The Solicitor General expressed admiration for the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, and I agree with him. Does he have the same respect for the decision of the Lord Chief Justice who, in the Crossman diaries case, repeated these comments about security but said that when there was a dispute it was for the courts to examine the document to see if it should be produced, and not for the minister to have the final decision. Does he accept that as being wide and sensible?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the Crossman judgment to which the hon. gentleman refers. Undoubtedly if Lord Denning was referring to a law specifically requiring the examination, that law must be in existence.
[Translation)


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, this debate which is so serious calls for something beyond simple conventional criticism. My colleague from Champlain (Mr. Matte) has been denouncing for a long time this outrageous and shocking way of dealing with changes that are necessary in this Canada that we would want to reflect the deep aspirations of its people.
The present leaders of this beautiful country did not understand a thing. They closed their eyes to see what they wanted to see. This narrow-mindedness, Mr. Speaker, can only generate tremendous difficulties. Besides seeing only what they wanted to see and hearing only what they wanted to hear they remained deaf to legitimate warnings, adequate recommendations and fair and reasonable claims. So it is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that the government should have remained deaf to the reports it was getting on the illegal, illicit and criminal activities perpetrated by a small group of terrorists.
Those allegations made by my colleague from Champlain are serious, very serious indeed. They are based on facts and true documents which can be readily consulted. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, by referring to the official issue of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts of November 14, 1969, to quote the extract of the testimony before that committee of the testimony before that committee of the then chairman of the Executive Committee of the City of Montreal, Mr. Lucien Saulnier, and I quote:
Mr. Chairman, and members of committee. I would like the subject to be clearly understood within its context. I will therefore read some passages that are in the document that has just been distributed to you, and which reports the observations I made, Saturday, October 11 last.
We now know that in Canada, individuals and groups are working actively to implement a plan which will carry the destruction of freedom, of our form of

February 17, 1978

democratic government and, in this plan, the people's will, as expressed in the ballot box, is excluded.
These individuals and groups are inspired and financed, in many cases, by foreign political powers related to an "international" that does not share our notion of man's fundamental liberties.
In other cases, the same ideas and the same plan of action are supported by the government of Canada through The Company of Young Canadians.
For many months now, we have made the seizure of a substantial quantity of documents which justify the preceding statement with the greatest certainty. It is enough to-day, and it is my duty to do so, to raise publicly a corner of the curtain.
The partial revelations to which I will limit myself to-day are but a small example of things I know and of which I have privately informed the Prime Minister of Canada a few times in the past year.
Mr. Speaker, please note this was on November 27, 1969. Mr. Saulnier, a sensible and responsible man, comes to Ottawa to force the federal government to act, as he himself stated, after having previously informed the Prime Minister of everything. He does not understand the government's almost reprehensible indifference. He understands all the less as the federal police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is actually aware of all terrorist activities going on in Quebec. Once again, I would like to restrict myself to Mr. Saulnier's statement, and 1 quote:
On the other hand, I am informed by reliable sources that the RCMP has all the information at its disposal that is in the hands of the Montreal Police Department and we are of the opinion that the Government of Canada can no longer leave the whole weight of this effort to ensure the safeguard of its democratic institutions as the sole responsibility of the Police Department of Montreal.
I suggest most respectfully to your Committee that it assure itself that the RCMP has informed the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice of the facts of which it is aware, and if it has done so, what matters the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice have taken in this regard; and if not, why the RCMP has not reported to the ministers responsible.
Mr. Speaker, we have to be very concerned about these statements. Since the RCMP was fully aware of the illegal and criminal activities of terrorist groups, how can we believe that the Solicitor General and the entire cabinet were not also aware of them? In any case, Mr. Saulnier gave firm evidence that proves that the Prime Minister was informed of this situation well before the date of this committee meeting. Once again, Mr. Speaker, to make my point, I would like to quote further from the evidence of Mr. Saulnier. These statements can be found on page 74 of the Minutes, Proceedings and Evidence of this committee. I quote:
I must add that several months ago, the Director of the Montreal Police Department drew my attention to the nature of this information concerning
these activities, and he emphasized the aspect which involved the federal authorities. 1 actually communicated with the highest officials of the government of Canada.
Mr. Sheppard, counsel for the committee, then asked Mr. Saulnier:
When was that?
Mr. Saulnier replied:
From memory, I would say it happened from 9 to 12 months ago. 1 informed the federal authorities, namely the Prime Minister of Canada. Since I was advised that the information we had was also in the hands of the RCMP, 1 suggested that the federal authorities obtain them.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, even though this might seem incredible, the government, or at least the Prime Minister, was well aware of the conspiracy that led to October 1970 at least two years before those tragic events. I say two years at least, since my colleague for Champlain also proved that the RCMP was aware of all the activities of the FLQ since the very first outbursts of terrorism. It is difficult to imagine that the senior officers responsible for this police force thought it advisable not to inform government authorities.
Let us not be childish and believe those fairy tales. The government took full advantage of the opportunity it had to discredit an honest and democratic movement which was only arriving at Quebec emancipation and fulfilment. They would indirectly control those subversive activities. How could the infiltration of the Compagnie des Jeunes Canadiens by former FLQ members be otherwise explained? What made a police force as efficient as the RCMP unable to find and disrupt those terrorist groups for ten years? How could the fact that criminal action by the police was disclosed by the Solicitor General himself be accounted for? Mr. Speaker, I believe that like any ordinary citizen, a police officer should obey the law, all the more so because he is responsible for its enforcement. Otherwise, we would have to infer there are two kinds of police: One involved in the protection of citizens against criminals and the other committing offences under the Criminal Code while pretending to ensure national security.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that our police officers generally behave like gentlemen in their routine daily tasks and that is not always easy, 1 must admit. But, the worst part, to my mind, is that some high ranking senior officers sometimes seem to indulge in low political intrigues. This is the key to the whole thing, Mr. Speaker. This government, under the pretense of national security, attacked a nationalist party that was legitimate in Quebec as if it were a crime to aim at rebuilding Canada according to the wishes of its people. Of course, as they needed an excuse to fight a sound and legitimate movement, they had to make out it was a subversive and criminal organization.
Instead of setting upon terrorist criminals, they attacked an ideology. So, they have let circumstances and events happen when they could have been prevented of eliminated. This is a terrible action that will have to be explained sooner or later by those responsible. In conclusion, I stress once again the necessity of knowing the whole truth concerning those obscure events of October 1970. A whole population was traumatized and unfairly disparaged because of the failure of a government more interested in constitutional wrangles than in the welfare and freedom of the people. Let justice and truth prevail. Such is the purpose of that motion moved by the the hon. member for Champlain that I am pleased to support.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as has been suggested by the hon. member who has just spoken, the plea in this motion, like the plea in the very effective speech made by the hon. member for Peace River
February 17, 1978

(Mr. Baldwin), is in these words: tell us the facts; tell us the truth.
I believe very strongly that the hon. member for Peace River was stating what needs to be said, namely, that no government can govern effectively unless it has the confidence of the House of Commons, the confidence of the people of Canada. If the credibility of this government has suffered to the point at which many people are losing faith in it and are losing faith in the governmental process, it is largely because of the secrecy, sometimes the deception, which the government insists in practicing with respect to police affairs and with respect to what goes on in the province of Quebec.
I regret very much that the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), in the speech he made a few moments ago, gave no indication that he got the message the motion was put down to convey to him and that he had no appreciation of the message which the hon. member for Peace River directed to him as well. His speech was simply a defence of past and continuing secrecy in matters of security, a defence of the demand for more rights and powers for the police, and 1 would say it showed an utter failure on his part to recognize how important it is to turn things around and move in the direction of open government.
The motion itself, of course, is drafted with reference to the events of October, 1970, which all of us remember so well. I remember in particular the decision which we in our caucus took a few hours before the matter was discussed in parliament. We knew when we decided we would have to oppose the use of the War Measures Act in that situation that, for a time at least, we would be very unpopular, not only in this House but throughout the country. And that was the way it turned out, too. But as the years have gone on, many people have come to realize that it was too heavy an instrument to use in that situation and that we were right in our opposition to the proclamation of the War Measures Act in October, 1970. Indeed, I think that one of the most statesmanlike utterances made in recent years was the comment by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) a while ago in which he commended the then leader of this party, my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), and the then deputy leader of this party, Mr. David Lewis, for the leadership they gave on that occasion.
Time has passed by and other things have happened. There were the events of 1972 and 1973, shrouded in secrecy. The hon. member for Peace River was quite right, in my view, when he said that had we known what was going on the political history of this country might have been changed sharply. In addition, Mr. Speaker, some of us think that the national unity crisis we have today has been made sharper because certain situations and forces in the province of Quebec were exacerbated by the heavy hand of the War Measures Act.
I regret very much that the speech of the Solicitor General today shows no indication of realizing the seriousness of the situation. It is all very fine to say we have a beautiful country

with less violence and less disturbance than most countries in the world, but we are suffering a traumatic crisis in terms of national unity and a good deal of that arises from the way in which the situation was handled in October, 1970. I am sorry that the Solicitor General, instead of responding to the one specific thing that is in the motion, chose to defend the way in which he and the government are running affairs.
I said that there is one specific request in the motion, and I draw it to the attention of the Solicitor General. In the opening part of his remarks he said he was sorry the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) had made no proposals and had said nothing positive. He said the hon. member had just ranted and raved about things in this country from his own point of view. Has the Solicitor General not read the motion? The key words after the usual words of preamble are these, that the House-
-therefore directs the Solicitor General to disclose in public all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the authority given to the RCMP to act as they did before, during and after the October 1970 events.
That is the request in the motion. That is what our party wanted in 1970. I remind the government opposite that several times during October and November of 1970 the then minister of justice, Mr. John Turner, promised the House that when it was all over we would be told the whole story. We are still waiting.
The hon. member for Peace River referred earlier today to the extravagant speech which was made by Mr. Jean Mar-chand when he was a minister on the other side of the House. There were some pretty strong statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as to what was going on, to the extent that many people feel today that the country was misled as to the nature of the situation. The answer to our complaints about this sort of thing back in 1970 was that when it was all over the full story would be told. Now, when there is a motion before the House asking that the full story be told, the Solicitor General does not even comment on that appeal.
The hon. member for Peace River was quite right in drawing attention to the parallel between 1970 and 1972 and 1973 in terms of events which were going on and about which we knew nothing. Secrecy is still the way this government believes it has to run things. Mr. Speaker, this is an old issue-freedom of information, open government, the basic principles of democracy. I heard the fine philosophy the Solicitor General indulged in about where you draw the line between national security and freedom, but it seems to me the government has shown by its practices that it leans the wrong way.
I cannot and do not go along with all the things the hon. member for Champlain put forward in his speech. He was talking about many things of which I have no knowledge, but in terms of the basic appeal in the motion itself, namely, that the House should call upon the government to give us the facts about the October crisis of 1970, I am glad the motion is before us. I am glad the hon. member for Peace River addressed himself to it in the way he did and I join with all who take that view in saying that I hope we may yet get out of the government that which was promised in 1970, namely, the full story.

February 17, 1978

Furthermore, let that become the principle of government. Let that become the way things are run in Canada; let the government govern not in secrecy, not by giving the police more powers but, rather, on the basis of openness of the kind which will enable the people to trust government, to trust the parliamentary process. We would be a lot better off that way than we are the way things are now being run by the government across the aisle.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, we are today facing a huge scrambling operation. In fact, I think that the motion before us today in the House is futile and dilatory, and it is not in a lighthearted manner that I take the floor to join the debate. I think that the incongruities uttered by the member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) have to be staunchly denounced.
Mr. Speaker, this morning the hon. member for Champlain made all sorts of insinuations, slanderous remarks and accusations, he mixed up some facts, dodged other facts and drew his own conclusions. Mr. Speaker, what is he actually seeking by presenting such a motion today? I am asking myself the following question: Why is it that a member whom I otherwise respect very much, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), associated himself with such muck raking and confusion breeding tactics? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, objectivity is a rather scarce commodity these days. Some will say that it is even more scarce in the field of politics. It may be so, I agree. Some people look at things through a magnifying glass. They scrutinize the facts, blissfully ignoring the context of a given situation. Some look at the facts through the small end of the scope. They are so general in their remarks that they forget what is important as well as the details. But in the case of the hon. member for Champlain, Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that he looks at the facts through a frosted glass. His vision is so blurred that you end up asking yourself what is he getting at. You can even ask yourself the following question: What does he actually want to accomplish by presenting the facts that way? Is he trying, Mr. Speaker, to resuscitate the dead? He referred to the history of Quebecers throughout the years, he stated that they are peaceful people who respect institutions, who are law abiding, who like order and he immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was impossible for insurrection to take place in our country, in our province, because of that peaceful and quiet history. Mr. Speaker, there is no causal relation between the two. I do not understand very well how he intellectually proceeds to arrive at such a conclusion. In any event, he mentioned a whole series of facts chosen at random, he tried to relate these facts in order once again to derive fallacious conclusions. Mr. Speaker, I have had a lot of difficulty following his thought and this is why I am saying that what is left of that whole issue is nothing but a blurred and unhealthy hodge-podge.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Champlain referred for instance to the Samson affair. He stated that Samson is not dead. But he did not go on with his argument. He planted doubts about the activities of officer Samson, and regarding

the orders he was supposedly complying with. This is why I say that this way of presenting facts draws dangerously close to some form of intellectual dishonesty. This is why I feel obliged today to take part in this debate, in order to try and denounce this situation as strongly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I definitely will not endorse the contents of the Opposition motion presented today by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) on behalf of the Social Credit party. I think once again that the confusion in the terms of the motion-and I urge all hon. members to reexamine this motion-cannot but lead me to ask very serious questions first, about the facts that are stated, second, about the conclusions drawn by the member, and third, about whatever he is asking the government to do.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, what is the gist of that motion? It is the War Measures Act. I was not a member of this House in 1970 when it approved the government motion for the proclamation of war measures. The hon. member for Champlain was a member at that time. Where was he? Nowhere. I looked, Mr. Speaker, and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, I looked for an intervention from the hon. member for Champlain when the War Measures Act was discussed in this House. 1 found none whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, his leader was in the House and he accepted the arguments put forward at that time. He said, Mr. Speaker, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, of course the measures we intend to approve today make poor publicity for us abroad. However, we must cope with the situation. The government can rely on our support to prevent recurrence of such acts as have been perpetrated.
Mr. Speaker, when the vote was called for implementation of the War Measures Act, the Social Credit party did support the government but the hon. member for Champlain was not there. If at that time he thought there was no state of apprehended insurrection, why did he not say so? Why did he not vote against the motion at that time? Or must have realized later on that supporting the War Measures Act had been like using a steam-roller to crush an ant-hill. This is possible, and I recognize that it is questionable.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I do not see why he comes to us today, in 1978, and implies that there was no apprehended insurrection and, this is even more serious, I ask myself questions in the light of his statement that the RCMP stirred up these disorders. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, to refer to Constable Samson, to try and relate this thing to the theft of dynamite he mentioned, to try and relate both events to other unfortunate incidents which are at present being investigated by a Royal Commission-he carefully avoided saying that there was such an inquiry on this matter, but implied, and once again, it is easy to imply, that nothing would be known of the conclusions of this commission since it is in the government's pay, is merely jumping to conclusions.
It is very easy to do that, Mr. Speaker. Insinuations can be made by the dozen but, Mr. Speaker, one cannot necessarily draw conclusions from insinuations, and I am afraid that the hon. member is systematically drawing his own conclusions,
February 17, 1978

one by one, and, setting himself up as an accusator, an arbitrator and a judge he states: as the RCMP acted illegally in the past, there was no apprehended insurrection in Quebec, there were just one or two score trouble-makers and the War Measures Act was perhaps simply a tool in the hands of the government. And there, we do not know exactly what he means or what he is suggesting. Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to something more important. Let us not forget that the hon. member for Champlain takes pleasure in ambiguity, Mr. Speaker. Let us not forget that the ideas of the hon. member for Champlain on our institutions are not as clear as they ought to be, and it is his prerogative to behave in such a way. He talks about a Quebec community, a Quebec nation, but very seldom refers to our federal institutions.
Mr. Speaker, in an effort to reflect upon the RCMP, would the hon. member for Champlain not be playing another game? I do not know. Yet, having heard the remarks he made this morning, I cannot help wondering, Mr. Speaker, which is unfortunate in a debate such as this. In fact when you make gratuitous accusations, or hastily draw wrong conclusions, or make nebulous suggestions, you sow the seeds of doubt in the public's mind something which I feel is extremely dangerous, Mr. Speaker, and should be exposed.
Mr. Speaker, I referred a while ago to the War Measures Act. I was a student at the time, and I must say that I had then and still have serious reservations about the implementation of that legislation. As I was saying, in view of the way the events were described at the time, the government may very well have overreacted-something which is debatable-in its use of the judiciary.
We were not aware of this in 1970, Mr. Speaker. We heard about it later! When the Prime Minister of Canada appeared before this House and asked for support of the motion, he did state that actual events as well as the information he had received pointed out to a potential danger. That is what he claimed at that time, after reading a letter from the Quebec prime minister requesting, and I emphasize the word "requesting" federal intervention. His Honour Jean Drapeau, the Mayor of Montreal, also wrote a letter stating that, in view of the circumstances, additional forces were needed to restore order. Mr. Trudeau, who was Prime Minister at that time stated on October 16, 1970, and I am quoting from his speech:
In spite of this political climate, a handful of fanatics is enough to ...
We are not talking in terms of hundreds of people-
... a handful of fanatics to show us how fragile a democratic society can be when democracy is not prepared to stand up, and how vulnerable to blackmail a humane and tolerant people can be.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker. Again, the fact that there has been a few dozen convictions does not justify our jumping to conclusions after the fact-it is easy after eight years-and to say there was no apprehended insurrection, indirectly alleging at the same time that the RCMP was there to stir up trouble and speed up the passage of this measure. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but it is very difficult for me to understand the reasoning and the mental process that lies behind all this.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances I believe I have established clearly enough that the allegations of the hon. member for Champlain are unfounded, at least so is the inference he derived from them.
I would simply like to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that in his long list of supposedly seditious acts by the RCMP he included the death of Michel Viger. He quoted at that point a letter published in Le Devoir of December 20, 1977. However, Mr. Speaker, he quoted only what was convenient for him to quote, and I shall now complete his quote because I think it is important for the record and for the information of all Canadians. I will simply quote the rest of that letter addressed to the hon. member for Champlain, Mr. Matte, and signed by Jean Viger:
I would therefore ask you to either elaborate and prove the basis of your allegations, or retract your statements which tarnish the memory of my brother Michel.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I have anything else to add, this proves adequately that the accusations made by the hon. member for Champlain are groundless.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the substance of or the implications arising from the motion, may I be permitted to make one or two comments, the first of which is directed to my colleague who has just spoken, the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance). He and I obviously interpret the motion or its implications in different ways, because, if I understood my colleague correctly, he found this debate very distasteful or abhorrent, though I forget his exact words.
I make no comment on his interpretation of the speech by the hon. member in whose name the motion stands, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte). Nor will I attempt to comment on his interpretation of the facts that arose during that very unhappy period of our history. However, 1 do not find this debate distasteful. I wish we were permitted the luxury of debating things which are not quite so difficult to come to grips with, and if I misinterpreted the hon. member's remarks I apologize.
That hon. member did participate in a careful examination of terror in Canada, but terror of a different kind-terror in our prisons. I think he found that, while the subject of the motion was not an easy thing to come to grips with, at least it is productive and a responsible thing to do. If I misinterpret what the hon. member said I hasten to apologize, but I got the impression he found this motion a distasteful subject to bring to the floor of the House of Commons. That was obviously a misinterpretation.
May I deal very briefly with what the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) said, or did not say. Unfortunately he would not come to grips with what I think is the issue here. I will just make one or two comments on his remarks.
Firstly, he was very disappointed that an atmosphere of partisanship had been created. For a Solicitor General to be
2990

February 17, 1978

living in a glass house such as that is difficult to understand. He has come to his present office through a very unhappy and regrettable set of circumstances which created the vacancy there. I can only presume that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in seeking to fill that vacancy, did not ask himself who was best able, through experience, for example, to deal with the present system, or who was most sensitive to the pressures and responsibilities that flow from becoming Solicitor General, or who has served the longest on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Those were not the criteria used in the selection of a successor. The criterion was: where could the Prime Minister find a good, tough, hard-nosed debater who could stonewall and sandbag in the House of Commons? That was the criterion and that is a matter perfectly within the responsibility and judgment of the Prime Minister. That is not the criterion I would choose, but I do not deny him that right.
The present Solicitor General has dedicated himself to tough, partisan debates in this House for five and a half years. He is good at it; that has been his style and his responsibility in this House. But let us not try to mislead the House into thinking there has been a remarkable transformation on the part of the present Solicitor General, when all of a sudden overnight, or within two weeks, we see a move from what was a very tough, partisan Liberal backbencher to a completely non-partisan, sensitive and delicate Solicitor General. That is simply incomprehensible. Let us remove that part of his contribution, or lack of it, from this debate.
The other thing that the Solicitor General preoccupied himself with, for whatever reason I do not know, was the excellence, on the one hand, of the security service, which no one is debating, and, on the other, the very delicate line between civil rights and the necessity to preserve our national security. That is not an issue in this debate. Let me say to the Solicitor General, in respect of mail interception, for example, that I support in principal the legal interception of mail in certain special and specified circumstances, given adequate safeguards and when other more usual law enforcement measures are ineffective. There is no quarrel there.
It is very regrettable that the Solicitor General did not come to grips with what I believe to be the implication of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Champlain. The implication as I understand it is the continuing inability of Canadians to know the full facts and truth about a very unhappy part of Canada's history. That is the implication I understand from this particular motion.
I was not a member in October 1970 and I did not live in that part of Canada which was most directly subjected to these events. However, I share the concern of the mover, and I think of all Canadians, that we do not know and are unable to know what were the events and the facts that surrounded and led up to that very unhappy situation. I say this because the Prime Minister has set the style in the context of our times in 1978. I will come to that matter in a few minutes.
There was a time in this House when all of the facts could have come out very properly in a forum constituted for that

purpose. This was in the days following May 13, 1971 when the then minister of justice, John Turner, made this motion:
That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to examine, inquire into and report upon the nature and kind of legislation required to deal with emergencies that may arise from time to time in the future by reason of lawlessness or violence in Canadian society and that endanger the existence of government or the maintenance of the peace and public order;-
The motion goes on to say that there shall be 12 members of that special committee, which will have the power to sit during the adjournment of the House, the power to report from time to time, and so on. That motion was moved on May 13, 1971, and of course it was prompted by the need to repeal the temporary Public Order Act. It was also prompted by the void that existed between, on the one hand the Criminal Code and, on the other hand, the War Measures Act, a very obvious and continuing void.
On that same day, May 13, 1971, an amendment was put by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). It read as follows:
That the motion be amended by adding at the end of the first paragraph thereof the following: "and, for better assuring the purposes of such report with respect to emergencies that endanger the existence of government, inquire into and first report upon all the circumstances anticipatory of and giving rise or purporting to have given rise to the proclamation of the War Measures Act on October 16, 1970, as well as all the circumstances thereafter following and thereto related which may have or presently or in future may endanger the existence of any government, whether federal, provincial or municipal".
There was a debate on the admissibility of that amendment. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) put it succinctly in one sentence-and I ask him to excuse me for quoting him while he is here in the House-when he said:
How in the name of heaven can a joint committee examine what it proposes to do in the future regarding emergencies of this kind unless it examines the procedures of the past?
Mr. Speaker ruled that the amendment was in order, and John Turner and his colleagues ran for cover. There is no other way to describe what happened than to say it was a simple retreat in disorder from an obvious responsibility of the government of the day. They had no idea that that amendment would be in order, and the minute it was, they went full speed in reverse. Because they did not believe that Canadians should have the right, through their elected representatives, to have a properly constituted, special committee to examine this crucial area. Therefore, not only do we not have a special committee, we have no legislation.
Five months later, the hon. member for Calgary North tried again to resurrect this government order but was turned down. Seven months later, in December of that year, the hon. member for Peace River tried to get some assurance that that particular matter would stand over into the next session, but he was turned down. Therefore, we have no legislation. To the everlasting shame of this government, we have no legislation to fill the void between the Criminal Code and the War Measures Act.
February 17, 1978

Why do we not have this legislation? Not for purposes of national security; that is absolute nonsense. This information is not being withheld for purposes of national security. It is being withheld because of the government's paranoia and passion for secrecy. They do not know what is secret any more. They have forgotten the original reason for keeping information secret because every report and every communique is presumed to be secret unless someone can prove to the contrary. The presumption is secrecy, not openness, and if you start from that point, almost everything will be secret. As I said, I will put it in the context of today. What is the context of today? Is it the peaceful and quiet Canada that the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) spoke of earlier this afternoon? It is not peaceful and quiet. We are a peaceful and quiet nation by tradition and through our heritage, but it is not peaceful and quiet in Canada today. We have just witnessed the expulsion of 13 Russian nationals. We have reports of 300 Russian and Cuban trained terrorists in our country. We have reports of the funding of terrorist activities. We have, as the Solicitor General said, the danger of foreign agents operating here or coming here to operate. We have arms smugglers. And, to use the Solicitor General's words of earlier this afternoon, we have real threats. The result is, not panic, but concern, and so it should be. But we find it so distasteful that we are not willing to come to grips with it.
In Germany they are coming to grips with it. Today's issue of the Journal contains a headline which reads "Bitter Bonn Anti-terrorist Debate". I presume that our colleagues in Germany are not relishing that debate, but they are coming to grips with it. Some members voted against a particular piece of legislation because they thought it went too far, while others thought it went not far enough; but they are coming to grips with it. We are not. We do not even have a piece of legislation in place which would fill the void I spoke of.
What has this led to? It has led to the concern I mentioned but, what is far more dangerous, it has led to cynicism. People are cynical about national security, and of all issues where we do not need or want cynicism, it is in terms of law enforcement, law and order and national security.
The Solicitor General said-I believe I quote him almost verbatim-that he deplored the motion and the speech of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) because what he was looking for, or what he wanted, was suggestions for improving the Solicitor General's ability to deal with his responsibilities and with national security matters, but that we had made no such suggestions.
I will give him one suggestion and I will give him an opportunity to stand up on a point of order and reply to it. 1 call on the Solicitor General to resurrect the Turner motion of 1971 with the amendment. He cannot possibly say that one cannot look at the events of the past to determine what legislation we will have in the future. He cannot have the McDonald commission making recommendations without investigating activities which have led to those recommendations. So I will give him that positive suggestion upon which he can act. Let him bring in the motion which Mr. Turner

brought in 1971, perhaps in more compatible terms with today's activities but certainly pursuing the same end, and from which he retreated with full force along with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the rest of the cabinet when they thought there might be some disclosure of facts leading to the necessary legislation. That is a positive suggestion, and we will support it on this side.
Let him not say this is a matter more properly to be considered by the McDonald commission. This has nothing to do with the McDonald commission. I agree with the Solicitor General that the law enforcement agencies of this country need the necessary tools and legislation to fulfil their serious responsibility. What we are talking about is, what legislation does the government have for a situation in which we would have terrorist activity with which we would have to deal quickly? There is no point hiding behind the McDonald commission when it comes to resurrecting that particular motion and the amendment to it. If the Solicitor General is serious in looking for means to aid law enforcement agencies and fellow Canadians in dealing with security matters, surely nothing is more self-evident than to put faith in members of the House to deal with the proposed legislation to counter terrorist activities once they have occurred. It is as evident today as it was in 1971 that he, as this country's senior law enforcement officer is responsible for national security, has the obligation to fill the void that existed in 1970 and which continues to exist today.
Surely that is something which cannot be shunted aside or subjected to a shroud of secrecy. Surely there cannot be a plausible argument against constituting that committee, which was a great idea, according to Mr. Turner and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in 1971, until they realized that some facts would be disclosed. I call upon the Solicitor General to bring before this House a government order constituting either a special joint committee or a committee of this House to study the events before and after the crisis of October, 1970 with a view to recommending legislation to the House of Commons and to the other place which would properly fill the void which exists now between the Criminal Code and the War Measures Act.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be worthwhile to look at a few of the assertions in the motion because I have not yet heard in this debate anyone comment on the following one:
That this House deeply regrets that the government, through neglect or because of its connivance with the police, allowed the whole of Canada in general and Quebec in particular to be engulfed in a crisis ...
I think we should look at that statement carefully because it attacks the government as well as the police. The motion does not single out the Quebec Provincial Police, the RCMP, the Quebec city police or the Montreal city police. It refers to the police generally.
Although I am not a lawyer, I believe that negligence consists of doing something a prudent person would not do. I
80031 -48!4

February 17, 1978

suppose the negligence referred to by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) is the imposition of the War Measures Act. I have to assume that because 1 cannot tell from reading this motion.
The second allegation is that if the federal government was not negligent, it connived with the police to cause a crisis in Canada in general and in Quebec in particular. In other words, the government somehow contrived to bring about a situation so that it could impose the War Measures Act. I have listened to hon. members opposite make speeches on capital punishment and on other things, and I know that they are very much aware of the need for law enforcement and for strong legislation to protect law-abiding citizens. However, this motion states that the government may have connived with the police to cause a crisis.
I do not think the government allowed a crisis to come about with its knowledge. I suspect that a group of terrorists, the FLQ, perpetrated acts of terrorism such as bombings and kidnappings without the by-your-leave of the federal government. I suspect that these things were done at murky levels, if I may use that term. Certainly these things were not done in the light of day. The government of Canada was not able to prevent that situation because it cannot grab people off the street for things they think or plan. There has to be concrete proof that people are breaking the law.
The motion alleges that if there was not negligence, the federal government connived with the police so that it could create a situation in which it could bring in the War Measures Act. I do not think that is what happened. I think that 50, 100 or perhaps 200 people-I am not aware of the number, and I understand it was not very large-brought the situation about. We have seen what can happen when one or two terrorists hijack an aircraft, kidnap a wealthy industrialist or do a variety of things. One or two people, let alone 100 or 200, can cause panic.
With hindsight we wonder whether the government overreacted to the situation or, as some people might suggest, did not go far enough. I know that the New Democratic Party opposed the War Measures Act, but it also voted as a group against the retention of capital punishment. The philosophy of the NDP is different from mine. I have always believed that those who break the law, whether they be terrorists or premeditated murderers, should be dealt with very severely. The NDP does not believe that, and that is its prerogative.
I was not a member of this House in 1970, but 1 was a resident of this country, and although I lived in B.C., far from Quebec, I felt that whatever affects one province or area affects the whole country. A sore thumb or hand affects the whole body. In 1970 the people of Canada felt that acts of terrorism such as kidnappings, bombings and political assassination were foreign to our country and that the government should proceed with despatch to ensure that acts of that nature did not spread. I respect the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but I wonder what guarantees he could have given in 1970, if strong measures were not taken or if a strong federal presence was not apparent, that the crisis would
not have spread. If it is perceived that in a crisis prompt action is forthcoming, that tends to stop the spread of that crisis. If terrorists see that their fellows are dealt with effectively, does this not indicate to sympathizers that it would not be in their best interests to become involved? The very fact that strong action was taken perhaps prevented the terrorist activities of others.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Such as arresting 500 innocent people?


Hugh Alan Anderson: I cannot give figures any better than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to what effect the War Measures Act had on the situation. However, I perceive that most Canadians, whether they be in British Columbia or Newfoundland, believe that those who transgress the laws of the country should be dealt with effectively, especially in a situation in which there is a group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the government. Most people feel that groups like that should be dealt with firmly and effectively. I suspect the people of Canada still feel that way not only about the FLQ in 1970 but about the whole question of preserving and maintaining our society for law-abiding citizens. Most people do not think there should be special concessions or exemptions for people who may be involved in criminal activities, whether that be the sale of heroin or any of the activities that we know exist in Canada through the efforts of organized crime.
I realize many people in this House and across the country may say that we must have due process of law, and I agree with that. But surely it should be the duty of government to protect our law-abiding citizens above those who transgress against the law. Surely the people of Canada expect this House to protect their interests. I know members would certainly protect the interests of law-abiding people above those who transgress against the law.
There is some question about whether a crisis existed in 1970.1 suggest that bombing, rioting, kidnapping and political assassination constitute a crisis and that the government of Canada not only has the right but the duty to respond to that crisis. If that is not the case them I am willing to listen to argument, but I suggest that a crisis did exist.
To explore in hindsight the question of how much pressure should be applied is fruitless. I suspect the only one who comes out ahead in this argument is a premier of a certain province very close to us.
I was very surprised to see members from the province of Quebec stand up and criticize the police and government and at the same time have the backing of the two opposition parties. I realize that in a democracy one can say whatever one wishes, but going strictly on the politics of this I do not think it has hurt the Liberal party. According to statements made in this debate it is the Liberal party that turns out to be the law and order party of Canada, not the Conservatives.
We have provided some more ammunition for the press of Quebec to use tomorrow and on Monday. The member from

February 17, 1978

this side who spoke ahead of me asked what the point was of bringing this motion forward at this particular time. Of course, the opposition parties thought it was a good time to hit the Liberal government, forgetting about national unity and the Quebec newspapers; just get the Liberals because an election is coming. Are they more interested in obtaining power than in keeping this country together? From some of the things that was said it seems that certain people are more interested in political gain than in keeping the country together. That is why I applaud the remarks of the hon. member who spoke before me. He was the first to put this motion in its proper context, the political one. It will give Mr. Levesque ammunition and will hurt the federalist cause in Quebec.
I say that in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, and wish to dissociate myself from the remarks of those who attacked both the federal government and the police force. This gives Mr. Levesque another free ticket. Why not just send money to him for his campaign to separate from Canada? He is grabbing at every speech made regarding the police and the events of 1970 and claiming that is what he is saying in the province of Quebec, that people cannot trust the police so they have to get out of confederation.
This position is aided and abetted by members of the opposition. Perhaps we will get down to the context in which we should be debating this rather than dealing with points of order about what should have been done in a legalistic sense eight years ago.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I strongly support the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance).
[ Translation]


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) referred to an excerpt from the speech I made in this House on October 27, 1977, when I repeated parts of a speech I had made previously about the need to reconsider the War Measures Act and the advisability of making substantial amendments with a view to ensuring that in this country civic and political liberties be always guaranteed by the judicial institutions, whatever the political context in which they are exercised.
The hon. member for Peace River read an extract from my speech. He also referred to an answer given by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) in his press conference which followed the debate, and it is following that answer from the Prime Minister that 1 wrote to the hon. member for Peace River on November 22, 1977, and also to the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), asking them what was their party's position on the need to reconsider the advisability of leaving the War Measures Act as is in our statutes to face emergency situations such as we had experienced in 1970.
The leader of the New Democratic Party answered me on January 23, 1978. Since that letter has not yet been made public, I will take the liberty, with the permission of the hon. member for Winnipeg-North-Centre (Mr. Knowles) of reading it to you, because in my opinion it is crucial to today's

debate. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby wrote as follows: In answer to your letter of November 22, 1977, I should like to restate the position that the New Democratic Party has always taken towards the War Measures Act, a position which has not changed since 1970. If one refers to the debates which took place in this House following the implementation of the War Measures Act, it is quite obvious that the NDP strongly advocated that this act be amended or repealed.
We think that the War Measures Act could lead to an abuse of parliamentary powers, a derogation of the Constitution of Canada and the violation of rights and freedoms Canadians enjoy. In fact, Mr. Lewis, the former leader of the New Democratic Party, opposed the motion to set up a parliamentary committee, the main purpose of which would have been the drafting of a special legislation similar to the War Measures Act. In the remarks he made in this House, as reported in Hansard on May 13, 1971, on page 5795, Mr. Lewis made it clear that, in his opinion, special legislation was not an answer to urgent situations. The New Democratic Party always maintained that the government should have the courage to introduce a bill in this House. We did not see the need for a special legislation but we were in favour of amending or repealing the present act. The motion introduced in the House in 1971 said that a special act was needed and therefore did not provide for a prior consideration of its need nor mention human rights and liberties.
Although we felt that the provisions of the Criminal code allow an effective intervention in urgent cases, we introduced amendments to replace the War Measures Act. As you will undoubtedly remember, Mr. Douglas tabled in October 1970 a bill which would have forced the government to inform the country of the circumstances that call for the application of the War Measures Act. It suggested that these special powers granted under the act should be limited to the right, first, of searching without warrant, second, of making arrests without warrants if there are valid grounds to suspect that a person is participating in the apprehended insurrection and, finally, to detain a person without charges being laid for a maximum of seven days. The proposals also contained other important aspects, such as the protection of several liberties by means of the right to consult with a lawyer and the safeguard of the rights granted under the act. The New Democratic Party did not depart from that position taken in the early 70s.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) did not answer in writing the letter I sent him on November 22, nor for that matter the letter I sent him on January 19, 1978 as a follow-up to the previous letter, asking him to define the position of his party, and perhaps alos his, on the proposed amendment or repeal of the War Measures Act. He rose that afternoon and I note the answer he gave. It will be found, in Hansard and it will certainly be useful during the debate that that will take place on that matter, for that debate will at least give us an opportunity to know clearly and precisely the position of the two main opposition parties as far as the

February 17, 1978

advisability of amending or modifying the War Measures Act is concerned.
The need, Mr. Speaker, to further discuss that matter appears more obvious following the comments made by the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) in an interview with the CTV private television network at the end of 1977. Indeed the Prime Minister gave hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions. But his answers did illustrate the importance of eliminating from our statutes the causes of potential abuse of power. Of course several elements relating to the October crisis of 1970 remain difficult to understand. It seems that we get more and more information. Last January we had the opportunity to read a letter from two exiled FLQ members who, through a Montreal daily newspaper, informed us about their new views relating to the events that occurred in October 1970.
Mr. Speaker, it still remains that even if we set up a royal commission, as long as the main actors of the events of October 1970 are not allowed to appear, here in Canada before a royal commission or before a regular court to give evidence of those events, of what they did at that time and of their responsibility in connection with those events all the debates that we might have to discuss what happened and to judge people who directly or indirectly were involved in those events will always remain partial answers.
However, we have gained something from these events. Surprisingly enough, Mr. Speaker, what we have gained can be found in the legislation which has been passed by Parliament since 1970. I am referring to the concept of national security. Until the events of October 1970, national security had never been a great concern for Canadians. Of course, we had the Mackenzie Commission who had been set up a few years earlier to investigate all the implications of national security in federal agencies and especially of Canadian commitments to some foreign countries, but several of the recommendations made in this report were not implemented.
Several members mentioned a recommendation concerning the opening of mail, which emphasized the need for the government to amend certain legislation, such as the Post Office Act and the Criminal Code of Canada. So the year 1970 saw the birth of the concept of national security. This concept is rather strange and very vague. It is hard to defined and is fairly wide encompassing. In fact, it was devised by modern democracies. This is a concept that we are attempting to define through legislation to fight what is now called revolutionary warfare or urban guerillas-and countries like the Federal German Republic are now facing much more crucial situations than we had in Canada in 1970. Attempts to define this concept through legislation have always been cautious. When it is mentioned in Canadian statutes it is always in passing without complete definition. For a better understanding of the term, it is necessary to refer to the authors or to the doctrine that initiated the concept of national security.
The most recent and commendable work on this subject is, in my opinion, Joseph Comblin's "Ideology of National Security". The Solicitor General of Canada should certainly read

this work which gives the history of this concept in the legislation of some countries over the last 30 years. Comblin defines national security as follows, and I quote from page 41 of his work:
National security is the authority given to the nation by the state to impose its objectives on all opposing forces. Naturally, such an authority is powerful. It is therefore the power of government able to counter all opposing forces and to ensure that national objectives prevail.
The counsel of the Solicitor General of Canada was in the gallery earlier this afternoon. He had the opportunity to define the national security concept in his plea before the Court of Appeal in January in a procedure to invalidate or dispute the terms of reference of the Keable Commission in Montreal. He defined the national security concept as the protection of the state and the territory. I consider that definition incomplete because it does not take into account the essential purpose of national security. The purpose of national security is not to protect the state or the territory first. It is to protect the individual and collective freedom of citizens.
It may seem like a semantic emphasis, but I believe it implies a notion completely different from that of a definition oriented towards the territory or the state. In fact, if one refers to the Canadian laws passed since 1970 concerning national security, one realizes that each time this concept is invoked, the judicial protection or the control and review capacity of the courts yield to the absolute discretion given to those responsible for national security to appreciate its extent and content. For instance, In the Federal Court Act, section 41 refers to national security and removes from the review and control power of the Federal Court any dispute about the content of a document allegedly concerning national security. Also the legislation we have passed in the previous sesion to create the Human Rights Commission and to protect privacy contained a similar provision, the result of which was to remove any document concerning national security in which an individual might be interested, from the protection of the Privacy Commissioner.
We have also passed an immigration bill by which the courts have no longer jurisdiction over the request of any person residing in Canada who wishes to acquire citizenship, but who is prevented from doing so on grounds of national security, and also deprived of any right of appeal. There is also before the House a bill respecting telecommunications in Canada which also deals with national security. In this case once again, the protection granted by the CRTC disappears entirely. There is also before the House a bill that has already been read the first time which will allow the opening of mail. Again, the protection granted by the courts in the first part of the legislation disappears completely when national security is invoked.
Mr. Speaker, I think these reminders are eloquent because we realize that over the past eight years the concept of national security has been constantly recurring in the Canadian statutes and almost constantly taken outside the purview of the courts. This is disquieting. Indeed when the 1970 public order bill was enacted, a provision in that legislation clearly pointed to the implications of national security when the arm of the state uses it. This is section 12, and I quote:
February 17, 1978

It is hereby declared that this Act shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights.
This means that despite any constitutional safeguards for the most essential freedoms and liberties, national security comes before anything else, even the constitution. This, Mr. Speaker, is a very significant feature. Because other countries where internal and external security was endangered to a much greater degree than was Canada's, these countries had to face situations that were no less difficult and implied more control operations than the RCMP had to perform here.
The United States of America had to review completely over the last three years the way civil freedoms and liberties in the American constitution are protected. A number of Senate committees worked on this and I would simply refer to the Senate committee meetings of October 21, 22 and 24, 1975 on the opening of the mail. These Senate meetings finally led to an executive order that was made public by President Carter on January 26, 1978. According to the press conference that followed, it is reported in the newspaper Le Figaro, on page 10, of Monday January 29, 1978, that:
President Carter has undertaken to follow it up with a legislation in Congress.
It may be interesting to refer to the contents of the American government commitment in matters of national security. 1 read from section 2-201 of the executive order. It discusses at length, the concept of national security at a time when the House must discuss two pieces of legislation dealing with the same subjects and a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate are discussing a green book tabled by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) on freedom of information and which also refers, in the exceptions of course, to national security. So I quote part of the executive order which very clearly shows that our American neighbours have extended this concept we sanction in our courts.
The activities described in Sections ... shall be undertaken only as permitted by this order and by procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Those procedures shall protect constitutional rights and privacy, ensure that information is gathered by the least intrusive means possible, and limit use of such information to lawful governmental purposes.
Activities described in Sections ... for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement rather than intelligence purposes shall not be undertaken against a United States person without a judicial warrant, unless the President has authorized the type of activity involved and the Attorney General has both approved the particular activity and determined that there is probable cause to believe that the United States person is an agent of a foreign power.
[ Translation]
And, in the list of activities governed by the issue of a judicial warrant, we find in section 2-205 Mail Surveillance, which I quote:

No agency within the Intelligence Community shall open mail or examine envelopes in United States postal channels, except in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations. No agency within the Intelligence Community shall open mail of a United States person abroad except as permitted by procedures established pursuant to Section 2-201.



That Executive Order of President Carter is very complete; not only does it make the jurisdiction of the court conditional upon the issue of a warrant for opening mail, but it also governs all spying activities on the part of American citizens provided those citizens are not suspected of being foreign agents.
Mr. Speaker, therefore the debate we are now having today can give rise to a whole lot of questions about which we may not have all the required information. I mentioned, a while ago, speaking about the October events, the fact that the main protagonists of that crisis are not in Canada. Still, this is not a reason for the Canadian democracy not to question the worst legacy left us, that event namely a concept of national security that does not come under the jurisdiction of our Canadian courts.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention to participate in this debate today, but the overstatements made by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) regarding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have prompted me to say a few words. The slanderous remarks and above all the absurdities professed by the member for Champlain certainly do not meet with the approval of the members of his own party because one can see in this House that three quarters or even perhaps 90 per cent of his colleagues from the Social Credit Party of Canada have decided not to be present in the House during this debate. The hon. member for Champlain is undoubtedly aware that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been operating in the interest of all the citizens of Canada for a period of over 100 years. This security force which is unsurpassed throughout the world has been going through difficult times in recent months.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the hon. member for Champlain and some other members of this House realize that one of the first steps to be taken by a movement which wants to sabotage or destroy a country is to undermine the credibility of the security forces of that country. I am now asking myself why the hon. member allows himself to play that game? Some two weeks ago, Mr. Louis Laberge lashed at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and behaved as some kind of anarchist. It is not the first time that this man speaks like an anarchist, but his statements reinforce my conviction that we are now witnessing a deliberate and organized effort on the part of separatist elements to denigrate and damage, by all possible means, the image and the credibility of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have in Canada, as I said earlier, one of the best security forces in the world.

When the NDP had an opportunity to take part in this debate today, no one in that party took the trouble to at least dissociate themselves from the wild exaggerations which one of their political colleagues, Louis Laberge, made a couple of weeks ago with regard to the RCMP.
I entered the debate today because, frankly, I feel that the campaign of vilification directed at the RCMP has reached

February 17, 1978

such a level, in my province at least, that one is obliged to come to the conclusion that it is nothing less than a deliberately orchestrated campaign by pro-separatist elements to destroy the effectiveness of the RCMP within the province of Quebec.
What I find amazing and sickening is the willingness of both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the leader of the New Democratic Party to lend themselves to this game. Over the years the RCMP have served Canada well. There is no question about the fact that they are the best security force that any country in the world is fortunate to have.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanieh):: Speak the truth.


Ian Watson: That is the truth, and members of the opposition know it. The RCMP has been under attack for the last number of months in connection with things that happened in the province of Quebec in the course of a long history of security activities. These activities are now being brought within a more modern framework which will allow police work to be under more adequate civilian control.
The government has announced its intention to proceed in this direction. I think people have the common-sense to realize that any government of Canada would move in such a direction following reports of the kind which have come to light. We are moving toward a framework which will allow the security forces to protect the country from both internal and external threats within a completely legal set of rules. This process has been proceeding, though I must say it has been interrupted by political activity of various kinds in the last few months.

I would like to read or at least draw the attention of the Elouse to what the Quebec minister of Justice, Mr. Bedard, said in January 1977, long before the setting up of the Keable Commission. At that point, he questioned the presence of the RCMP in Quebec. Lie also questioned the necessity of maintaining a federal police force in the province. It has since then become obvious that the expulsion of the RCMP from Quebec is one of the objectives of the government in power in Quebec. It is with this objective in mind that the Keable Commission was set up. I have nothing to say against the Keable Commission because I think that Mr. Keable has done an excellent job of conducting this enquiry. He did what he had to do. He did his job with honor. But the objective which was pursued when the Commission was established was a political one, and that has to be said because it is the truth.

I want to respond to two or three things which have been said today about RCMP activities during the period the War Measures Act was used in 1970. I had the opportunity to vote for the War Measures Act at the time. I certainly did so with the conviction that it was the right thing to do, as did so many other members, and 87 per cent of the Canadian people also felt it was the right thing to do. We now hear a different opinion from some agonizers who think it was a mistake. I still
think it was the right decision taken at the right time. Of course, if we had known then everything we know now we might not have used a tank to crush a fly. But at that time we did not have information allowing us to make any decision other than the one we took.
At that time the criticism was not that the RCMP were sticking their noses into everyone's business in Quebec or that they were infiltrating Quebec organizations. The accusation was that the RCMP had not infiltrated to a sufficient extent. Now the force is under fire because it took the lesson of 1970 seriously. Members of the force infiltrated and in doing so they committed certain irregularities which were not covered by any framework of rules. We are now establishing a framework which will allow the RCMP to be covered legally in the future if they are called on to attack an internal security problem.
I am speaking heatedly about this matter because I believe all this anti-RCMP propaganda we have heard in the last few months is having a bad effect on the ability of the force to protect Canadians. The force has been under the gun for several months now. It is uncertain about what it can do and what it cannot do and its members would be less than human if their work was not affected. I am sure these attacks have had a bad effect on the ability of the RCMP to protect Canadians from external or internal threats.
There are some who pretend that the situation in Quebec in 1970 did not require strong action. I take a different view, and in support of that view I would draw the attention of the House to the experience of an acquaintance of mine who was for some reason or other making a survey of a town in the Province of Quebec during the week prior to the War Measures Act being proclaimed. He told me that normally, while engaged on this work, he would find the doors of the houses unlocked, but in that particular week every single door was locked or barred. This showed what the sentiments of the people in the Montreal region were. They were highly alarmed.
I am confident that had the government not moved when it did and as strongly as it did we would have found ourselves in a state of civil disorder. Incidents would have occurred provoking actions and counter-actions. We would have been in a terrible mess in Montreal had it not been for the firm action taken by the federal government. Those who pretend that somehow we could have avoided taking such a decisive step do not have any alternative to suggest.
It is true, more people were arrested than need to have been arrested. That is very unfortunate.

However, I should remind the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) that the RCMP lists were not the ones used for arresting these people, but rather those in the hands of the Provincial Police which proceeded with most of the arrests. The RCMP was no doubt there on some occasions, but the lists drawn up by the Provincial Police were used. I regret that too many people were arrested but it must be pointed that those who were arrested, illegally as it was learned afterwards,

February 17, 1978

receive at least a partial financial indemnity for their unfounded arrest.
In conclusion, I reiterate my personal confidence in the RCMP. This force is going to serve Canada in the future as well as it has in the past. The government will establish the legal framework which will allow it to work effectively and within the discipline required by modern society. We must have total civilian control over the activities as well as total political knowledge of what goes on. This is the government's objective. It will be achieved without the campaign of vilification the opposition parties have lent themselves to.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if I did not have some respect for the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), I would not bother answering him in the debate today. In fact, I did not intend to enter into it. The hon. member made some considerable misrepresentations in his speech relating to a very important aspect of history.
The motion before the House threshes an awful lot of old straw. He referred to our history in the 1970s. Perhaps those of us who live through this era are not the best judges. He missed the point of the motion and should be brought back to it. The motion is not with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is with respect to the Government of Canada. In part the motion reads as follows:
That this House deeply regrets that the government...
It is deeply regretted that the government of Canada connived. That is the issue of the motion. I realize the hon. member is warmed up and heated. Sometimes when that is the case, an hon. member says things in the House and elsewhere which, upon reflection, he realizes should not have been said. The gist of the motion is simple. After the part about the connivance of the government, the motion directs the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais)-


Hugh Alan Anderson: With the police force.


Walter David Baker: I hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) referring to the police force. The motion directs the Solicitor General to "disclose in public all the facts". If an hon. member opposes the motion with respect to the disclosure of facts, he must be holding himself back for one of two reasons. Either he has a suspicion that the government conducted itself improperly, or there is some doubt in that person's mind as to the position of the RCMP. If the government had done nothing improper, the facts would sustain it.
I have no doubt about the work of the RCMP in 1970. I was not a member of parliament at that time, but I am sure the force acted with respect to the question of national security as directed by the government of the day. It the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has that doubt, he should express it.
I was concerned with what the hon. member for Laprairie said when he indicated that the hon. Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Clark) attacked the RCMP. I ask him to check the record in that regard. That is factually wrong. The Leader of the Opposition said that what has been neglected, throughout this entire matter involving the security forces of Canada, is the question of ministerial responsibility. It is important to mention that in the dying moments of this debate. The doctrine of ministerial responsibility means that a minister is answerable in the House of Commons for whatever an agency does, whether the action was right or wrong. It is not proper for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), or any other minister, to indicate that he does not know what the security service or any other agency of government is doing when purportedly carrying out its duties imposed by statute. That is not the doctrine of ministerial responsibility under the British parliamentary system. That is the doctrine of ministerial ignorance. Perhaps that applies in the congressional system where there is no such thing as ministerial responsibility, but it does not apply here.
Members are hamstrung with respect to questioning ministers of the Crown in the House respecting their former responsibilities when they were ministers or when they were solicitors general of Canada respectively. The actions of the present Solicitor General, who moved to that post from that of postmaster general, do not help the situation. The Speaker of the House of Commons indicated the other day that the present Solicitor General is on probation with respect to the manner in which he exercises his ministerial responsibility.
The guts of the motion is not an attack on the RCMP. It is dangerous for hon. members to indulge in this kind of wayward chicanery. It is a demand for information. The demand has been made elsewhere than the House of Commons. The demand is: what happened in 1970? If there was disclosure, perhaps we would not have to fear the involvement of the RCMP, as was suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. In fact, he appeared not to direct himself to the motion, but rather skirted around it.
1 hope no member believes that the security services should not be responsible to someone who, in turn, is responsible to the House of Commons. I hope no one in this Chamber takes the view that it is inappropriate for the security services to be in the hands of the RCMP. I do not share that view. That is where it should be.
Somewhere along the line a shadow agency was established called the security and intelligence advisory group, or some such name. Its lines of communication and responsibilities were not clear by tradition or practice. Someone used to call them "Goyer's gumshoes". Those things ought not to be left hanging with no communication to either the head of the government or a minister of the Crown, and that is the problem here. The whole basis of accountability in respect of a ministry and in respect of this activity has been damaged as a result. The RCMP in the minds of some people in the public, not mine, is carrying the can for what I think is wilful maladministration and misdirection on the part of the government of Canada. That situation now is being remedied, I think, and I hope this continues.

February 17, 1978

The hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) then dealt with the Keable inquiry. He said it was set up as a political inquiry-


Ian Watson: With political objectives.


Walter David Baker: Yes, with political objectives as the hon. member has corrected me, and I agree with him that this is exactly the purpose for which it was set up. The interesting thing is, and if my friend will check Hansard he will discover this, that at the time it was set up the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) expressed concern to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about the inquiry. The response by the Prime Minister was that it was a great thing, but that was only because it was convenient to him. He said it was appropriate for the administration of criminal justice in the province. Then, of course, when the Keable inquiry, unfettered in any way by anything at all, began to move in, because it was, and is, a political inquiry with political objectives the Prime Minister and the then solicitor general changed their tune, and we had four separate actions commenced to withhold information from the inquiry. That is the situation.
What did the government do? Certainly members of the opposition asked for the appointment of a royal commission, and I was one of them. If your Honour checks the record, you will see that this was a much different royal commission from the one that was set up, now known as the McDonald commission. I do not have the references with me but I invite hon. members to check on the kind of commission we asked to be set up. It was a commission to be established by the Chief Justice of Canada, not the government of the day. I want the record to be quite clear. The government chose not to do that. It wanted to set up its own commission which is the commission now set up under Mr. Justice McDonald. I do not know the man, but the commission is now being accused of being a little slow and not very comprehensive.
What happened to the RCMP before that commission? As the commission moves slowly day after day after day, the evidence is coming out in little bits and pieces, and every day's operation of that commission is damaging to the reputation of the RCMP. Mr. Speaker, just read your paper this morning in that regard.
That might not have happened, because I have great faith in Chief Justice Laskin. I think from him there would have been some terms of reference and conditions that would have meant at least speed, not the slow, meandering pace that is beginning to shake the confidence of the people of Canada, and certainly mine, in the McDonald commission.
When I look back and consider the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in respect to penitentiaries, and how members on all sides of the House, in dealing with that report, moved with swiftness, honesty and complete impartiality in examining that matter of urgent and pressing moment, I am convinced it would have been best if

that committee or a subcommittee had moved in this direction. That committee would have examined this matter more swiftly and honestly here in the House of Commons than anywhere outside, and with perhaps less damage to the RCMP.
I know there is a place for royal commissions, commissions of inquiry and a whole host of things, but what has happened in Canada is that we are knee-deep in commissions and task forces. Whenever there is a problem or something a bit ticklish in this country we sweep it under the rug and appoint a royal commission or task force. I really think, on reflection, that members of this House of Commons on all sides are just as capable-


Hugh Alan Anderson: Of being impartial?


Walter David Baker: Yes, of being impartial, that is true. The committee on penitentiaries is proof of that.


An hon. Member:: How many committees are there like that?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I guess I have a much higher regard for my colleagues on all sides of the House of Commons than does the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson). We are not utilizing this House to the fullest extent. This House is accountable to the people of Canada in a way that no royal commission is. I really think we made a mistake in respect of this matter. The hon. member for Laprairie is right regarding the objectives, but the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. The Prime Minister found it convenient to answer a question one day by saying the commission was doing its job; but when it was convenient to change that he said it was a dreadful thing and brought lawsuits against its operations. Surely that is inconsistent.
I look upon this motion as directing the House of Commons to ask for the facts. The government should not refuse that from its own point of view. I believe the RCMP, in respect of the part it played in 1970, would be prepared to stand or fall on the facts, and I am prepared to bet it would stand. We ought to consider very carefully the objectives and what we in the House of Commons can do in respect of agencies. No minister of the Crown, and not even the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, as blind an apologist for the government as he is-and I say that with respect because he supports the government-should allow the government to hide behind ministerial ignorance of situations in place of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility which has served the country and parliament well. As long as we have a parliamentary system then certainly a burden falls on ministers and the Prime Minister, and no one can deny that. This has been the issue over the course of this situation in this parliament.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. It was not my intention to participate in this debate until I listened to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and felt there were some situations and some information that ought to be set straight, particularly regarding his interpretation of what the Prime
February 17, 1978

Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said about ministerial responsibility. The Prime Minister has never said or implied that ministers are not responsible for their departments. He has said, and I paraphrase him, that solicitors general, who are responsible for the RCMP, should not actively be involved in the day-today activities of that force.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: "Have a right not to know", is what he said.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I think that that is a perfectly defensible statement. The RCMP is involved in many investigations and on occasion they have had to investigate people who are connected with, or are even members of, this chamber or who are friends of the government of the day. For the solicitor general of the day to be involved in those kinds of investigations would be dangerous and tantamount to political interference with the investigation of suspected or real criminal activity. I do not see how the opposition can fail to accept that kind of argument.
The other point I want to refer to very briefly is the point which the hon. member made with regard to the McDonald and Keable commissions. With regard to the Keable commission, he has chastised the government for not giving to that commission all the information it requested on its "fishing trip" for the separatists in Quebec. I do not think the government should have to do that. I do not think the Keable inquiry should have more power than the government that established it. The hon. member cannot pretend that the government of Canada is thwarting the effort of the Keable inquiry by refusing to give it authority which it does not have under the constitution of Canada.
The other implication in the hon. member's remarks was that the McDonald commission was set up simply as a cover to get the solicitor general off the hook.


Walter David Baker: I did not say that. I really did not say that, even by implication.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is the way
I understood the hon. member's remarks. However, 1 am prepared to accept his denial of that implication and I am glad he made that denial.
In the course of his remarks he referred to the setting up of a commission of inquiry by the Chief Justice. That seems to me to be a rather unusual suggestion. I do not pretend to be an expert on the Inquiries Act, but I cannot recall any incident of an inquiry being launched under the authority of the Chief Justice of Canada. I can just imagine the cries that would have come from the opposition if the government had followed such a course and asked Chief Justice Laskin to do that which the hon. member has suggested. The opposition would have cried out again that the government was afraid to take the responsibility for such a commission and had sloughed off their ministerial responsibility to the Chief Justice of Canada. Again I say they cannot have it both ways.
Privilege-Mr. D. W. Munro
Again the hon. member might not have been imputing motives to the commission, but I think he was very careless in his choice of words, to say the very least, when he said that a committee of the House would have proceeded with honesty, impartiality, and speed. It seems to me that the implication there is that the McDonald commission is not proceeding in that manner. I do not think it should be left to the public to infer from the hon. member's remarks that the McDonald commission is proceeding with deliberate slough, without impartiality or without honesty. I hope that is not what the hon. member was implying.


PRIVILEGE
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege. After the question period a question of privilege was raised arising out of an answer given by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke). The matter at issue was the manner in which an announcement was being made in Vancouver but which should have been made in the House respecting a Tariff Board ruling on wide flange steel beams entering Canada, a matter raised earlier in the House by, among others, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle).
It is my understanding that during his press conference in Vancouver today to announce the government's decision on this matter, the government spokesman, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford)-who just by chance, happens to be the member for Vancouver Centre-added that, according to his belief, a parallel announcement was to be made simultaneously in the House.
We all know that is just not the way things happened. Worse than that, we all know that we were denied this information in the House today.
Therefore, on my own behalf and on behalf of my party I want to reserve the right to return to this question of privilege on Monday once all the facts are before us. Because here is an outstanding example of the contempt shown to the House and its members by this government, not the first such incident but one which illustrates more than most the fact that power can corrupt absolutely.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. First of all, let me say I have the utmost regard for the hon. member and I understand his

February 17, 1978
Privilege-Mr. D. W. Munro
frustration as well as that of any member of the opposition when a minister decides he will go to a province or location which is affected by an announcement he will make. Such announcements do generate a certain amount of enthusiasm. Since we are being political, let us be political. It happens on occasion that a minister goes out to a province and announces something that affects that province. I see nothing wrong with going to the people in that area and making an announcement to them about a matter which will affect them. There are many members of the House who do not represent the province of British Columbia, but the minister goes out to B.C. because that province, the premier and the people of the province, are vitally concerned. What other place is as appropriate as the region concerned?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this a debate?


Yvon Pinard: No, Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in this debate. Is it five o'clock or can I take part in the debate?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thirty seconds!


Yvon Pinard: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Mr. Speaker, what strikes me in the comments we have heard from the opposition House leader is his interpretation of the motion moved by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte). The hon. member suggests that his motion is aimed only at the government and not at the police. If he would read it carefully, he would realize that the motion of the hon. member for Champlain is aimed at the RCMP.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Prior to adjourning the House I should like to inform the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) that the Chair has taken notice of his question of privilege and will bring it to the attention of Mr. Speaker.
It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 20, 1978