1978-12-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
APPOINTMENT OF EDWARD SCHREYER-RETIREMENT OF JULES lEger
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to advise the House that Her Majesty the Queen, this morning in London, approved the recommendation by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that Mr. Edward Schreyer be appointed the next Governor General of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Those of us who have served in the House of Commons for a period of time well remember the vigorous young member who served the interests of his province and region so well during the four years he spent in Ottawa before returning to the west to become premier of Manitoba.
At only 43 years of age, he now takes on the deep national responsibilities of a new office which symbolizes such a vital link between the different parts of Canada and gives evidence of the cultural and linguistic character of the country.
Mr. Schreyer's background itself is almost a manifestation of the Canadianism, if I may use that word, which developed as this land was being settled. He was born during the depression to a Manitoba farm family of German descent. While growing up in the west, he became familiar with German, Polish and Ukrainian and while serving as a member of parliament was quick to take advantage of the opportunity to learn French, a language in which he is now fluent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In his political career, while lending his efforts to improving the conditions of daily life for Canadians generally, he has always had a particular concern and compassion for the native people and those whose opportunities have been limited by factors outside their control.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Schreyer has a feeling for all of Canada and possesses qualities which 1 am sure will bring the same sense of understanding and excellence to this high position as was possessed by his predecessors.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, to his Excellency the Right Hon. Jules Leger, and Madame Leger, we would offer our deep gratitude and affection for their warm and enthusiastic contribution to our country and its unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The word "distinguished" is the exact description of their performance, and I think all members would wish to salute their courage and dedication in the past five years. We extend to them our best wishes for many more happy years together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to receive, as I am sure the House is, the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) of the approval of Her Majesty, this morning, of the recommendation by the Prime Minister for the appointment of Mr. Schreyer as next Governor General of Canada. I am sure he will do a good job in that role, and on behalf of my colleagues I want to wish him well.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to pay a tribute to Madame Leger and the Governor General for the services they have rendered to Canadians during difficult times.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will understand why I am particularly pleased to congratulate our new Governor General and, if I may say so in this context, the Government of Canada for its very wise selection.
As the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) has already indicated, Edward Schreyer-a man we know well as Ed-served not only in a distinguished way in this House for a number of years, but in an equally distinguished way performed his responsibilities as premier of the province of Manitoba.
As has already been indicated, I think it is very important at this particular point in our history that we have a Governor General who not only speaks our two official languages but who is, himself, not of either English or French ancestry but comes from that broader, third dimension in Canadian history which is so important to our past and will be so important to our future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 7, 1978


John Edward Broadbent: 1 should only add that the personal qualities of integrity and commitment to the common good in Ed Schreyer will be a continuation of the tradition that has been firmly established by his predecessors, notably by the Right Eton. Jules Leger, the man he will replace in this important task for our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I join the two previous speakers to praise Mr. Schreyer. Members of the Social Credit Party of Canada are quite pleased with that appointment, because Mr. Schreyer served in the House for four years and throughout that period he was constantly the champion of the humbler classes and the average man. He was also the defender of both official languages and I am sure he will continue to be as Governor General of Canada. Before concluding, we must thank more particularly their Excellencies the Right Hon. and Madame Jules Leger for what they did for Canada during the five years Mr. Leger has served as Governor General.


RAILWAYS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the enthusiastic and determined public meeting of 700 Newfoundlanders, held at St. John's Tuesday evening, including the MPs for St. John's West and Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), five cabinet ministers of the government of Newfoundland, and some 20 members of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland representing all parties, representatives of the NDP and of the Newfoundland Federation of Labour and the St. John's city council, all of whom resolved unanimously that the Newfoundland railway continue in full operation, supported directly by funds from the Government of Canada and with new and invigorated management, and in view of the commitment contained in a telex message from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) that the government will grant direct financial support for the continued operation of the railway, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the government pay all rigorously audited and proven losses of the Newfoundland railway each year and provide necessary capital expenditures and that the government instal active and aggressive business management dedicated to attracting business and competing, so that the jobs of several thousand Newfoundlanders and the rail mode of transportation in Newfoundland be maintained and strengthened.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency and necessity concerning three Hungarian refugees, presently in Austria, with relatives in my constituency, namely, Ignac Lantos, Sr. and his sons, Ignac Lantos, Jr., and Laszlo Lantos. In so doing, I would sincerely like to compliment the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) for the interest he has taken in this case and the telexes he has sent to Vienna in an effort to facilitate their entry into Canada, but at the same time strongly criticize Canadian bureaucrats in Vienna who are moving slower than the pace of a turtle in dealing with ministerial instructions.
I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That in view of the dire straits in which this refugee family finds itself, in view of the fact that Canadian relatives have guaranteed to sponsor them financially in every way, and in view of the fact that Hungarian authorities are trying to entice them back over the border where they would be in severe danger, that the House appeals to the Minister of Immigration to issue an immediate ministerial order permitting entry to Canada of the Lantos family, thus enabling them to finally join in safety their relatives Mr. and Mrs. Larry Sherman of Brockville, Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Some bon. Members: No.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter that is not only urgent and pressing but is some 90 years old.
In view of the fact that CP Limited has used money earned from gifts by the Canadian people to expand Marathon Realty, in the United States, and to purchase Baker Commodities of Los Angeles, Syracuse China of Syracuse, N.Y., and Amtel Inc. of Providence, Rhode Island, but refuses to invest in new and repaired railway cars to move grain and other commodities, and since the situation is now so bad that the
December 7, 1978

Canadian Wheat Board, in a desperate, last resort effort, called for tenders for 2,000 hopper cars at the farmers' expense, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House request the government to have the Canadian Transport Commission enforce section 262 of the Railway Act, namely, to require the CPR to 'furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for the carrying, unloading and delivering of all such traffic.'


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


BILINGUALISM
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of vital importance for all French Canadians and the future of our country.
In view of the fact that this government has always claimed to be in favour of a just society; considering the alarming and unacceptable discrimination which was denounced recently by 16 Quebec students who are undergoing training as air traffic controllers in Cornwall with the consent of the Department of Transport, and that such discrimination runs contrary to any concept of national harmony, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Janelle):
That the House urgently appoint a parliamentary commission to carry out an on-site investigation and make recommendations to hon. members as soon as possible, so as to put an end to this national scandal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the terms of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent national importance.
In view of the early lapse, on January 1 next year, of the temporary exemption of country elevator agents from the hours of work regulations, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the Minister of Labour make permanent the hours of work exemption under the Labour Code and thus remove this potentially serious impediment to the movement of grain.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the terms of the Standing Order, unanimous consent is required before such a motion can be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FORESTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under Standing Order 43, to present a motion regarding the crucial importance of the Canadian Forestry Service to the forest industry in our country, on which a million Canadians rely for their jobs and which is our most important export earner. I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the Minister of State for the Environment be required to implement a resolution passed on December 6, 1978, by members of the Canadian Institute of Forestry, and presented to him today, providing for the immediate establishment of a task force to review and make recommendations about the future of the Canadian Forestry Service and the federal contribution to forestry in Canada; that the members of the task force be representative of the forest industry, labour unions, the provincial forest services, the universities, the Canadian Institute of Forestry and the Canadian Forestry Service; and that the task force should be as representative as possible of the geographical regions of Canada; that this task force be established immediately and submit its report, with recommendations, before April 1, 1979; and that pending the submission of this paper, the recently announced cutbacks in the Canadian Forestry Service be deferred.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 7, 1978
5.0.	43


USE OF AIR PASS BY SECRETARY OF STATE-MOTION UNDER
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In light of news reports that the Secretary of State and his wife may accept a free CP Air flight to the Far East, valued at $6,000, and will use the occasion to study cultural policy and freedom of information matters, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House request the minister to make a statement on motions upon his return outlining what new ideas he has learned about freedom of information from such model democracies as Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
RIGHT TO DRAW ANNUITIES ON P.RSPs-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 and due to the fact that a provision in the budget bill of April, 1978, prohibits persons under 60 years of age who are disabled, or otherwise physically unable to support their families, from drawing an annuity from their registered retirement savings program to which they may have contributed for several years, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. Crosby):
That this House do instruct the Minister of Finance to so amend the budget bill to restore to people who are under the age of 60 who are disabled, or otherwise physically unable to support their families, the right to draw an annuity from their registered retirement savings programs to which they might have contributed for years, so that these unfortunate people may look after and raise their families without being a liability to society.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard):
That this House extends its sincere appreciation and best wishes to Their Excellencies, the Governor General and Mrs. Jules Leger, for their devoted service to Canada and all Canadians for the past five yeais, and that this House congratulates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member or put him in an awkward situation, but I think he will recognize that I have consistently rejected the use of Standing Order 43 for this kind of purpose.
Furthermore, the hon. member must surely recognize that the spirit of his resolution has already been entirely accepted by the House through the remarks which have been made. I put them, as a matter of priority, before any other business today, to announce the appointment of the new Governor General and to wish him well, and also to extend on behalf of all parties the congratulations of the House to the new incumbent and, of course, the present incumbent of that office.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the greater Moncton area of New Brunswick is a large distribution centre; whereas in order to retain employment and an effective distribution system it is necessary to maintain expeditious transportation services for freight, cargo, mail and passengers in and out of the Moncton area by air, rail and highway; whereas Air Canada has just discontinued an absolutely necessary cargo and freight services to southern New Brunswick, flight No. 562, which operates regularly into Moncton in the early hours of the morning; and whereas this decision will have a very damaging and deteriorating effect on the economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the Minister of Transport and Air Canada be directed to reinstate immediately this special cargo and freight service, flight No. 562, to Moncton, as well as to improve passenger scheduling and service.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate can be done, 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.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the House will agree that the oral question period should continue until ten minutes past three.
December 7, 1978



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the intended President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers, the virtually supreme economic commander in the cabinet. It touches on the current account deficit of this nation which was disclosed yesterday, of $1.3 billion, our highest quarterly deficit as far as current account is concerned.
This means that there has been a deficit of over $17 billion run up by the government, in our foreign position, since 1973, the worst such record of any major industrial nation in OECD. Would the intended minister indicate what steps he has in mind to try to correct this serious imbalance in our current account deficit with the rest of the world?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if I will be able to give answers on a daily basis on what is obviously a medium and long-term problem to be solved.
I think the generality of my responsibilities and the responsibilities of the proposed Board of Economic Development Ministers will be detailed when we can find House time to bring forward for debate the resolution which is already before hon. members in terms of being public. However, the debate will probably be scheduled on the return of the Prime Minister some time next week, at which time the general functions of this board will be made clear to the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister, the would-be economic czar in Canada. The $17 billion cumulative current account deficit since 1973 to which I have referred represents an interest cost flowing out of the country, which is required to finance that type of deficit, of $1.5 billion.
Has the intended minister any plans to work with the government, with industry and with other groups to stem the outflow and, most importantly, the interest deficit we are accruing as a result of covering the deficit by the funding to which I have referred?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the balance on our merchandise trade account is encouraging to all of us. He knows the other problems to which he referred are long-term. Indeed, I will not spin-off an answer to a question in the question period on the kind of long-term, medium-term solution which we will endeavour to find, because it would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that there is a short-phase panacea answer to these kinds of questions that has any real validity.
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the minister. In view of the fact that great uncertainty has been brought into the marketplace concerning the government's attitude to our floating dollar-which is again under pressure today; it is brushing 85 cents-would the minister, who hovers over all the other economic ministers, indicate whether we are going to have a pegged dollar, as suggested by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, or does he support the Minister of Finance in floating the dollar, notwithstanding the fact that the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars a month doing exactly what government members have said they are not doing?


Robert Knight Andras: The Minister of Finance clearly speaks for the government on that kind of question, which is in the area of economic policy, and he has given his answers to the House on many occasions. I doubt very much if he would have given a different answer today if the question had been addressed to him. I will note the question and refer it to the minister to see if he wants to elaborate further on another occasion.


TOURISM
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: it is in connection with the deficit in the current account balance of payments.
With respect to the figures on tourism for the first three-quarters of 1978, our cumulative deficit is $1,387 million, the worst in our history. Last year, for the first three-quarters, it was $1,314 million, and the deficit in the tourism account for the first three-quarters of 1976 was $898 million. On February 26 of this year, when speaking at the Liberal party convention in Ottawa, the minister stated that Canada should come "awfully close" to balancing its tourism budget this year, after two years deficit.
My question is this: does the minister expect that there will be a surplus in the tourism account for the last quarter of this year of at least $1,300 million, so we will be "awfully close" to balancing our tourism budget; or does he agree with me that his predictions should be extinct, just like the great auk and the Newfie Bullet?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): I do not know whether the Newfie Bullet should or should not be extinct, but I like to think it could provide a tourist attraction if more members of the hon. member's former government supported it.
With regard to the tourist deficit, if one looked at the figures for the past three years one would see that the growth in that deficit has definitely declined.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
1884

December 7, 1978
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Horner:: The Leader of the Opposition taps his desk and says, "Isn't it terrible that nobody wants to listen to me today?'' I could play the game, too, with all the laughter and merriment on that side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to embarrass the hon. gentleman. I am sorry he has become crotchety because of my question. The deficit in the first three-quarters of this year was $63 million more than in the first three-quarters of last year, so I do not see how it can be declining.
My supplementary question to the minister is this: on June 10, the minister said, as reported by Canadian Press, that he would recommend to cabinet a package of promotional measures designed to reduce the lag in tourism and keep travelling Canadians at home. Perhaps handcuffs and leg-irons might do the trick.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: He said he was waiting for the recommendations of the special committee, which reported to the minister on August 30. My question is this-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: You do not like it, I know, but my question is this: has the minister now made his recommendations to the cabinet, and when will his promotional measures be announced which will correct this tourism deficit, this lag which we came "awfully close" to conquering in the first three-quarters of this year?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not know where the hon. member has been for the past year, but everybody in Canada knows that we have made great strides in convincing Canadians to travel across Canada. Every travel agent in Canada knows-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -and every one of my counterparts, every minister of tourism in the provinces, knows that in fact the Atlantic provinces and western Canada have benefited a great deal from the additional charter flights and the low-cost travel by rail that was brought into being by myself and announced last February.
Newfoundland, in particular, benefited a great deal because of the additional 314 charter flights which were made available to Canadians to travel within Canada this past year. We hope to upgrade them. We hope to have better co-operation from some of the major airlines. They have co-operated, but they have assured me that they will co-operate in an even better way next year.


POST OFFICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the more Canadians travel around and see the country, the less popular Liberals become: perhaps there is some connection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: My question is directed to the Postmaster General: it concerns a report on the Post Office which appeared in today's press, concerning the assured next-day delivery service. According to this report, not only has this assured next-day delivery service been cancelled, but it has not been in existence for more than 18 months and Canadians have not been told about it.
Is it true that the assured next-day delivery service is not functioning, according to the minister's own departmental officials? If it is true, why were Canadians not told that the program was officially cancelled?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, it is simply because Post Office people are very realistic about the service they can provide. Some time ago, when we did not have the same volume, when we did not have the same difficulties with transportation and all that, we guaranteed 24-hour delivery. Due to increased volume and various matters, we now know that we cannot give 24-hour service in all cases. Instead of lying to the people, we say that we will pick it up unconditionally. In many ways we can provide 24-hour delivery, but in certain circumstances we cannot.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General has not dealt with the question of the deception involved in this. As the minister knows, on the mailboxes which are within a couple of hundred yards of this building, Canadians are urged to make a distinction and wrap their bundles of mail in different ways, with the expectation that within 24 hours, if they mail at certain times, it will be delivered elsewhere in Canada.
Will the minister tell the House why Canadians were not told 18 months ago, when the program was cancelled, that it was cancelled?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, this program has not been cancelled; it is just phasing out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Lamontagne: It is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Gong Show.


Maurice Lamontagne: May I explain why it is phasing out?


Mr. Hopkins:: The Tories are phasing out.
December 7, 1978


Maurice Lamontagne: It is phasing out because for some time we had double mailboxes: one was for regional mail and the other was for local mail. Now that some of our plants have been automated, we do not need the double mailboxes. Being automated, the selection is done very rapidly at the plant. In localities where the mail is hand-sorted, there are still two boxes. There is nothing funny about phasing out a service which we do not require any more because of automation.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the program is not cancelled: it is just like the government, dying on its feet.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister said that in some parts of the country, apparently, it is still being continued. Considering that the inventor of the automated postal system-which I understand was reponsible for the complications-very recently admitted publicly that the entire system has not worked, has caused delays in the delivery of mail and has created labour problems of immense proportions, why does the government not recognize reality and cancel all the mechanical changes which have been a misapplication of technological change on a grand scale?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should get his information straight concerning the inventor. He means Mr. Porter. I know very well what was written in the newspapers. He wrote a letter to me, which I can table if the hon. member wishes, excusing himself: he said that he was misquoted, he overreacted, and that he was involved in the Post Office 25 years ago. He excused himself for saying some things that were not completely true.


BILINGUALISM
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since the Transport Canada training institute at Cornwall has decided to give courses and exams only in English, which is most unfair for the 16 Quebec student controllers in training at the institute, and since that will certainly not help improve the Canadian linguistic situation, I ask the Minister of Transport whether or not he is aware of that state of affairs and what he intends to do to have things change.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on the general question of examinations, of course, it is obvious that air traffic controllers will have to work in English as well as French in those areas where working in both languages is involved. However, the more serious question was referred to
Oral Questions
by the hon. member in preliminary remarks on his motion under Standing Order 43.
Simply, I should like to say that I have seen indications, through the press, of certain suggestions of bias or unfairness. Obviously, that cannot be treated lightly or disregarded. But on the other hand, it would be unfair to all kinds of people to assume there was truth in the allegations until there had been a chance to investigate and to obtain the facts. That investigation is now ongoing. As soon as I have any information, I will be glad to tell the hon. member.


INQUIRY AS TO MEASURES MINISTER WILL TAKE TO CORRECT SITUATION
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just told us the courses should be bilingual. Can he then tell us first of all whether he will see to it that this matter is taken care of for, to my mind, it is most discriminatory against French Canadians and secondly, whether he will ask that courses and exams are bilingual at the air controller institute?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the question about examinations may depend somewhat on the subject, the entire nature of the course and the program. I will also attempt to obtain more detail for the hon. member on that matter.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport: it relates to the government's ill-fated Loto Select program.
Three times yesterday my leader asked the minister if she would tell the House what involvement, if any, other departments or agencies of government had in negotiating for or arranging the purchasing for the government's Loto Select program, and three times he received no answer. I wonder whether today the minister will tell the House what involvement, if any, other departments or agencies of the government had in this particular program.


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, that was not the question asked by the hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition was questioning the functions of Crown corporations. In answering the question of the hon. member for Peel-Grey-Dufferin, or whatever it is-


Miss MacDonald:: It is in Ontario.
80067-48'/2

December 7, 1978
Oral Questions


Iona Campagnolo: -first of all, I should like to apologize to him for endowing him with a lawyer's degree, which I understand he does not have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: Second, the lottery corporation, Loto Canada, was in contact with the Department of Supply and Services with regard to the letting of the contract to General Instruments, to make sure the contract was in all respects properly compiled with respect to the Government of Canada.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to my question about whether there was a cancellation clause included in this particular contract, the minister refused to answer on the ground that there was a secrecy clause which prevented her from so doing. What was the reason for the inclusion in that contract of a secrecy clause which forbids Canadians knowing the provisions of the contract for $23 million to provide computer services?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is really a repetition of the question asked yesterday. When the contract is completed, and when General Instruments have reached an end to negotiations with Loto Canada, as I have said, I will be pleased to table in the House of Commons the information which will provide the answers the hon. member is looking for.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this minister is not prepared to disclose to parliament why the secrecy clause was included; therefore, I would like to address my supplementary to the Minister of Supply and Services.
In view of the fact that his department was partly responsible for negotiating this costly contract, will he tell the House what possible justification there could be for the inclusion in the contract of a secrecy clause which denies Canadians the right to know the provisions of that $23 million contract, including whether or not there is a cancellation clause in it?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions since the Loto Select file was opened my department has been involved in various aspects and stages of the issue; further, when we started negotiations with the General Instrument Corporation, they refused to give us specific details on the unit cost because of its-

-pricing strategy and its price in competition with other firms. What we did succeed in obtaining, though, is what we call the best price for the best customers. I have been convinced by officials in my department who have looked at the last transaction and other lotos which have been concluded by some states in the United States that we did obtain the best prices.

As the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) has said, we have not yet wrapped up everything, but I can assure the House that after everything is settled, in order to protect the legal rights of the state I will publish every detail of that transaction.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. At the recent federal-provincial conference of first ministers, on the economy, the minister when speaking of fisheries' development said, "they resisted chasing pie in the sky in the sea", which reminded me of a statement made by a former Social Credit leader when he said, "If this issue catches fire, it will snowball all the way across the prairies." The minister also said that the value of the fishing industry depends upon what is done on shore, and that in this area there was little or no action being taken by the provinces in spite of the fact that it came within provincial scope.
In light of the fact that the provincial minister of fisheries for Newfoundland, the hon. Walter Carter, has announced a program of resource management up to 1985 covering harvesting, the development of an inshore, midwater and offshore fleet, plus upgrading the quality of fish and the training of fishermen; in fact, a program that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I would ask the minister how he can say that no attention is being paid by the provinces to the problems of fishermen, and when can we expect an announcement of federal participation toward the carrying out of the plan announced in Newfoundland?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member had not taken the pie in the sky example, because I consciously put it in there to bring to the attention of some people a very simple reality, namely, that the 200-mile zone and the oceans, if we take care of them, will help us; but we cannot expect them to support every aspect of the economy. It was one way of underscoring that fact, and I thank the hon. member for helping me to do so.
1 also wish the hon. member had read the entire text of what I said at the premiers' conference, because he would find that the message I was trying to get across was that if the provinces-which are generally responsible for what happens to fish on shore-were discharging these responsibilities, then the real wealth of the 200-mile zone would be realized, because that is where the great development will take place.
With regard to the program brought forth by the province of Newfoundland, I think it contains many positive elements and I am happy to see that that government is moving closer
December 7, 1978

toward the policy I have been advocating and which we published in 1975.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell the House if he has examined the primary handling and distribution centre concept put forth by the Newfoundland government following in-depth studies by the Canadian Kellogg Company, which will revolutionize fishing and plant operations on the Avalon Peninsula and the east and northeast coast of Newfoundland and which will put an estimated 4,500 people to work? If so, does the minister agree with it, in light of the high unemployment rate in this area, and will the federal government be participating financially in the development of this plan?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, leaving aside rhetoric, I agree with a number of measures contained in the plan, as I have indicated.
There are a couple of areas where I disagree, and 1 will give the hon. member a few examples. For examples, part of the proposal is based on a large fishmeal operation for capelin. This was probably quite acceptable 1 xh years ago, but with the condition of stocks at the present time I have some doubt that it is now feasible.
The other matter is that the plan presupposes that fish would be caught, frozen at sea and then delivered to plants where it would be thawed out, processed and refrozen. The economics of that operation are not yet convincing; in fact, they are so unconvincing that the industry has been very shy about this sort of operation for a number of years. Obviously, this can be examined and weighed against social implications in terms of job creation, etc. This approach should not be considered as the panacea for all the ills of the region.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, to whom I sent notice of my question on November 22, since it is never too late to do things properly. During a visit 1 made to the Laval maximum security penitentiary I noted that some inmates did not carry identification while only one out of three guards carried some, and this is one of the things recommended by the justice and legal affairs subcommittee. Could the minister tell the House how many of those recommendations have been implemented up to now, how many are left and finally could the latest budget cuts be detrimental to prison security?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. When I appeared before the parliamentary commission last week I
Oral Questions
explained what progress we had made as regards implementation of the subcommittee's recommendations. There are 38 recommendations which have beer, or are about to be implemented, Mr. Speaker, and one of them deals with identification tags for guards and identification cards for prisoners. We have had problems in making sure that guards wear their identification tags, but the recommendations have been accepted and we are putting all our efforts in ensuring that identification requirements are adhered to by both inmates and guards. As for security, I remind the hon. member that one of the main functions of the Canadian Penitentiary Service is the provision of security measures. No budget cut can have the effect of hindering security in the penitentiaries.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport, who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, regarding the Wheat Board's decision to use the money of farmers for the purchase of hopper cars.
There were discussions last Tuesday afternoon at the National Farmers Union convention with officials of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission. Canadian Wheat Board officials said they did not want to buy the cars, but were forced to do so as a last resort in order to protect grain exports and our grain handling capability, because the government and the railroads refused to buy the necessary cars.
In view of the fact that one of the most urgent problems is hopper car supply, and since it is projected that the railroads will continue to phase cars out of grain service at the rate of 1,800 per year for the next several years, will the minister now require the railroads, as requested by the Wheat Board, to purchase 4,000 hopper cars and repair 5,000 boxcars in order to provide suitable facilities for the hauling of grain; and failing that, will the government do it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked me to require the railways to do something. It is a request which I am not at all sure I have the power to carry out. My first difficulty, therefore, is that he asks me to do something for which I do not have the necessary legal power.
The fact is that there is a very complicated argument about the number of cars required in 1979 and 1980 to carry grain. It is possible to take a cautious, different attitude with regard to that matter. The CPR has maintained that it has enough cars to carry its share of our projected 23 million tons of grain. I have indicated to them that 1 have some concern about that conclusion. 1 am considering the powers of the Canadian

December 7, 1978
Oral Questions
Transport Commission and of myself in relation to it, should it not prove to be a fact. I have done that particularly in the context of their failure to agree to repair additional boxcars, half at our expense and half at theirs.
In the case of the CNR, there was not thaf measure of disagreement, and the CN had earlier agreed to repair 1,000 boxcars, half at our expense and half at theirs. After the CPR refusal, CN agreed to repair another 1,000 boxcars. We will be entering into an agreement with them in order to pay one-half of that cost as well. The Canadian Wheat Board, wanting to be sure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre on a supplementary.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in order to help the minister continue his speech, I will ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister, a former dean of law, has some doubts about his legal capacity, I would refer him to section 262 of the Railway Act.
Since the Canadian Wheat Board urged the purchase of these cars and the repair of another 5,000 cars, as we are told by the minister, supported by the CNR and refused by the CPR, I ask the minister if he will require Canadian Pacific, under the provisions of the Railway Act, to cease investing money in the United States for the purchase of other property and provide suitable and adequate facilities for the movement of traffic in Canada on their railway lines.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said he was not a lawyer and I recognize that fact. The problem, which I thought I made clear to him, is that as long as a railway can maintain that it has adequate equipment, then some of the powers which may lie under the law in other circumstances do not apply.
1 think it is important to recognize that in this case the Canadian Wheat Board take the view that they want to be absolutely sure about having the equipment. That is the basis of their decision. We have the same difficulty with regard to terminal facilities, where terminal companies are cautious about expanding facilities because they like to use what they have to the full before they move to the expansion that the Wheat Board and this government urge upon them.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Labour which deals with a contentious issue in western Canada, namely, the hours of work of the country grain elevator agent-managers?
Can the minister announce an exemption, preferably a permanent exemption, from the provisions of part III, relating

to hours of work, of the Canada Labour Code for the grain buyers of western Canada?


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member probably knows, an exemption is now in place and will terminate on February 1, 1979. This question is on my desk. I think we all understand that until some five years ago elevator agents were considered managers. That status was upset by a judgment of the Canada Relations Board on due process. Since then, efforts have been made to work out a suitable hours of work regime for persons now classed as employees and who, therefore, come under the protection of the law as parliament passed it.
I am trying to find a balance between the interests of farmers, particularly at seeding and harvest time who have need for essential elevator services, and people who perhaps work hours well in addition to the normal. I am trying to balance those interests with the interests of persons as employees. I trust a satisfactory method can be found to balance these interests.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board? In view of the understanding he left with the western farm groups this fall, that that exemption would be granted, would he use his good offices to persuade his colleagues to grant a permanent exemption under the act?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague just demonstrated his very full grasp of the problem and indicated that he had the matter before him at this time. I am confident of the wisdom of the solution which will emerge.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, in an area that concerns the Canadian Wheat Board?
The chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board has been quoted as saying that the two marketing systems, that is, the open market system and the Wheat Board marketing system, cannot operate together, certainly not as they are presently set up. Does the minister agree with the statement of the chief commissioner? Could he inform the House if the Wheat Board, or the government, are giving consideration to changes in the Wheat Board system of marketing in Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 certainly agree that the way the systems were operating in the early part of last autumn made it difficult for them to operate successfully side by side. The end of switching, particularly the kind of switching which was not related to a sale at the
December 7, 1978

country elevator, however, has gone a long way toward improving that situation.
I believe other things can be done of a minimal nature in trying to improve the system, but I do not see any basis for terminating the general approach of an open policy with regard to feed grains. 1 have told those who want to terminate it that they should first have an answer to the question we were asking in 1971 and 1972 as to how we could have fair pricing in feed grains across the country. If they come up with another solution to that problem which is superior to the open market system we now have, I would, of course, be happy to consider it.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are the government or the Canadian Wheat Board giving consideration to ideas being put forward in western Canada to introduce more competition at the elevator level in order to allow any aspect of the elevator companies to have more say in the control of boxcars, for example? This has been suggested by the United Grain Growers and one of the pool organizers. Is this idea being considered, and could the minister comment on whether anything will be done about it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would say, generally, that the whole question of the control of cars and the maximization of their use is under consideration, both because the consultants will be looking at that aspect and also because it is obviously of vital importance to the whole question of grain movement.
I think that over the years the Wheat Board has tended to give preference to non-board grain, because it was controlling the cars and did not want to appear to be favouring its own grain. With the importance of non-board grains of a variety of types, this becomes a questionable procedure and some alternatives may certainly be required in that regard.



NARCOTICS


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
On Friday, my colleague from Fraser Valley East asked the minister whether there were any federal funds available, or about to be made available, to the province of British Columbia to assist in the health entry program, a program for the treatment of heroin addicts. The minister indicated there were not. If that is so, why was it the former minister of justice, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, stated four weeks ago that there would be money available, and why is it there is a letter to the former minister of justice from the attorney general of the province of British Columbia complaining that the word of the government has been broken in this regard?
Oral Questions


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think that part of the question which has to do with the accountability of my colleague, the former minister of justice, should be asked of him. 1 do not know what the statement was. I can explain my contribution and responsibility.
As Minister of National Health and Welfare for Canada, responsible for health in Canada and social services, I stated that there is no way in which we can give to one particular province an additional $16 million-which was the original request-when, if I remember correctly, that province is now being given close to $586 million in block funding for health purposes only, plus another amount for social services, which it can apply to any new hospital facilities it wishes to develop for the treatment of drug addicts.
Under what is really left to the federal government, namely, experimental development, I have offered to the province a special, additional fourth year extension of the program called Alternatives. That is what I referred to last Friday in this House.


John Allen Fraser: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Reports and information have been received that a commitment was made by the former minister of justice that there would be funds, not for the government's Alternatives program but for this particular program which British Columbia is launching because British Columbia has the largest number of heroin addicts in the country; consequently, it has incurred greater cost in dealing with them.
1 ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the government, through the former minister, made a commitment, or did the government not make a commitment? I understand perfectly the problems of the Minister of National Health and Welfare; however, I think the people of British Columbia are entitled to know whether a commitment was made or not.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the situation is quite clear. The Minister of National Health and Welfare speaks for the government with respect to matters within her portfolio. She has already indicated the position with respect to her responsibility.


John Allen Fraser: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, the question directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare was not adequately answered; that is why it is now being put to the government.
The question remains, did a former minister of this government make a commitment to the province of British Columbia to assist, or did he not? Surely that is a question the Deputy Prime Minister can answer. That is the allegation; that is the suggestion; that is the information I have obtained. Surely the Deputy Prime Minister can give an answer to that question. I do not want to hear anything more from the Minister of National Health and Welfare, because she does not have an answer.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and it deals with federal-provincial agreements on financing to support the teaching of the country's official languages.
Since this question has been raised on numerous occasions by myself and other hon. members, I would like to know if the provinces will be made accountable for the federal money used to teach the official languages. As these agreements will be terminated in March, 1979, can the Secretary of State tell us when the negotiations on that matter will begin and if he intends to demand that the provinces be accountable for all federal funds spent for teaching our official languages?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations to renew these agreements with the provinces will start early next week.

Obviously the House would not expect me to lay out in detail what it is we would be suggesting. I want to assure hon. members that the government does not intend to diminish its efforts in this area. We are concerned about having greater accountability, greater reporting, and success in meeting the objectives of the agreement. We will be proposing a rather strong shift away from the present emphasis on formula payments, to the non-formula side. I think that is about all I can say as to the position we will be taking at the conference.



NARCOTICS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister, since it deals with the obligation of the government to keep its word.
Was a commitment made by a former senior member of this government to the province of British Columbia with regard to the heroin addiction program? Is it the intention of the government to keep the word of that former senior minister? If the Deputy Prime Minister does not know, will he give us an undertaking to find out all the details? Also, will he tell us whether it is a matter of policy of this government to keep the word given by senior ministers to provinces such as British Columbia on questions of this kind?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition realizes that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is the minister speaking on behalf of the government with respect to such a program.
If, indeed, a commitment had been given by any member of the government, carrying the authority of the government, it would be known and supported by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I can understand that the former minister of justice, as a minister from the province of British Columbia, might have exhibited, as I do on many occasions with respect to my province, a sympathetic and forthcoming attitude to support particular projects. However, it does not constitute, and ought not to be taken as, a commitment on the part of any minister when such a sympathetic attitude is put forward. Policy with regard to departmental responsibilities is obviously expressed by the minister who has the statutory responsibility for these programs. In this case, it is the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just to be clear on this, Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Prime Minister saying that when the former minister of justice made that commitment on behalf of the Government of Canada, he was not speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition asked whether there was a commitment. Now he has stated there was a commitment. He ought not to ask questions on matters about which he has already informed himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 7, 1978



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: I have received three notices with respect to questions of privilege, but I am conscious of the fact that we are in the process of debating a question of privilege at the present time, and I really do not see any way in which I can interrupt one question of privilege to take into account another.
Yesterday, although there was some doubt about the status of the matter we were debating, I indicated that my disposition was to consider the matter as a motion and that it ought to remain as a motion, and that therefore, when we reached routine proceedings today, we would resume debate on that matter. I cannot see how other matters can be dealt with until we get to that point. However, there are items under routine proceedings, called normally every day, which bring us to the consideration of motions, and we ought to go through those steps.
There is a difficulty about the reporting of the decision I made yesterday, with regard to which I shall have something to say to the House a little later. For the moment, I would call those items under routine proceedings which will take us into further discussion of the motion in the name of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, as regards the question put by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I mentioned that 1 was going to table a letter to complete his information, considering that without this additional information the question might raise confusion or be subject to a wrong interpretation.
That is why I will be pleased, Mr. Speaker, to table Mr. Porter's letter which clearly defines his position as regards the Post Office.


INTERNATIONAL TAX AGREEMENTS
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill S-7, to implement conventions between Canada and the Republic of Korea and Canada and the United Kingdom of
The Press
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and an agreement between Canada and Jamaica for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


THE PRESS
Mr. McGrath:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have indicated I would not interrupt the continuation of the debate on the matter raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) by any procedural matter, neither questions of privilege nor points of order which arose during the question period, nor indeed, by reference to any of those three matters of which I have received notice. There is one question of privilege before the House and I think I ought to give it priority over other proceedings of the House at this time.
Having placed the subject on the order paper, under motions, the House should return to the consideration of the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham which we were in the process of dealing with yesterday at six o'clock. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) had the floor at six o'clock and a few minutes were left to him in which to continue the discussion. That will be the situation when I conclude the remarks I want to address to the House in a moment.
The House will know that the subject which was under discussion yesterday, the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, had one or two rather special features attached to it. I was at great pains to mention one of them, both on November 9 and yesterday: it was a departure from some of our practices in the past where, in circumstances of this sort, attacks had been made directly upon a minister or the government with respect to a communication of this sort.
I do not think it was my function, in reaching a decision, to indicate that in some way, in the course of debate on this question, the government was immune from attack. 1 certainly did not do that. Neither did I say, nor was I invited to say, by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham or by others who participated in the discussion, that the hon. member was misled by the government of the day or that he was deliberately misled by the government of the day. As a matter of fact, one of the points that I made was that we were not, as had sometimes been done in the past, holding the minister accountable in this process but that we were going around the minister to deal with this official.
In the contributions which were made to the debate from both sides of the House there were several arguments and submissions that the action complained of was one whereby

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
the solicitor general of the day may have been deceived. I am carefully trying to avoid coming to conclusions about this, but I think I ought to review the discussion to keep it in context, and that was that the solicitor general of the day may very well have been deceived by the action which was the subject of the complaint by the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham.
I was making the point that by going around the minister to get to an official who may have first of all deceived the minister and, through the minister, deceived the member, and therefore the House, we were embarking upon a procedure which was unique in that respect.
I can therefore only express my shock and dismay when the reporting of that decision seems to indicate that I had somehow found an element which not only was I not asked to find but which, of course, I did not find, and that was that the member had been misled by the government and, in turn, the House had been deliberately misled by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 want simply to say, not by way of any procedural point, that since we as a parliament are at great pains on both sides of the House to support and maintain a press gallery whose function it is to stay here and observe the proceedings of the House, obviously with a view to examining and reporting accurately and carefully the proceedings of the House, and since that particular decision seemed important enough to attract a large amount of attention to it, it is particularly disturbing that, when it does attract that kind of attention, the reporting of it should be so grossly and fundamentally inaccurate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, December 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lawrence:
That the letter sent by the Solicitor General of the day to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham on December 4, 1973, and the testimony of former RCMP Commissioner Higgitt on October 24 and November 1, 1978, before the royal commission of inquiry (McDonald commission) concerning the practice of the RCMP in preparing letters for the signature of the Solicitor General, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation and report.
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue the points 1 was making yesterday; I note that following your remarks only members on this side of the House and the New Democratic Party approve. For my final argument, I want to go back to the remarks made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).


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


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, here is what the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham said yesterday, speaking of the solicitor general in 1973 who wrote him the letter he wants deferred to the committee, and I quote from page 1860 of Hansard for that day:
-he should be given an opportunity in the committee to tell us his side of the question.
I am talking of the then solicitor general. He should be given the opportunity to make known his side of the question in the House, if we are genuinely seeking the truth with regard to this matter without partisan consideration. On that ground alone members who support the government should examine their consciences as they vote on this motion this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, that type of statement and insinuation is really irresponsible on the part of any hon. member who would be honourable and courageous to any degree. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was here in the House when, on November 3 last, I had occasion to quote excerpts from the testimony of the solicitor general in 1973 (Mr. Allmand) before the Keable commission in Quebec on February 15, 1978, and I can only refer you to Hansard for November 3, 1978, on page 786, where 1 quote the replies of the then solicitor general who unequivocally and categorically denied that he was aware that the RCMP opened mail, contrary to the allegation contained in the letter written to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. The hon. member who presented a motion of privilege yesterday, when he asked that the former solicitor general appear before a committee of the House, knew full well that the then solicitor general had made known his position on the matter, and that, unequivocally. I therefore submit with all due respect that it is unfair for that former solicitor general to insinuate and indicate that he never took a stand, never committed himself and to refuse to comment on the malter.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to refer you to the statements I made in the House on November 3 this year in the presence of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, at which time I quoted excerpts from the testimony of Mr. Warren Allmand before the Keable commission on February 15, 1978. 1 quote:
-the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) referred this morning to the testimony made by the same Solicitor General on February 15, 1978 before the Keable commission. He quoted only one answer but he could have added the two following answers on pages 50 and 51 of the document he referred to. The then solicitor general, Mr. Allmand, said, and I quote:
'No. I was told on every occasion that they did not open mail.'
And a little further during the same inquiry, the solicitor general said, and I quote:
The first time I found out that they did open mail was when it became public after I left, you know, in recent months."
Mr. Speaker, this is evidence the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham should have considered yesterday before insinuating that a committee of this House should be formed,
December 7, 1978

if only to hear the account of the former solicitor general. As the result of such statements, implications of unkind innuendos, untrue and incorrect newspaper reports and headings have appeared and it is due to the irresponsibility of some Conservative members in the House that quite often certain media absolutely destort the facts. Mr. Speaker, we only have to refer to the decision you made yesterday and to quote a very clear excerpt. On page 1856 of Hansard, while rendering your decision whether there was a prima facie case for a question of privilege to allow the House to go further, you stated in your decision, I quote:
The complaint which is the subject matter of the question of privilege is not directly a complaint about the minister.
Mr. Speaker, it could not be clearer. I cannot understand how certain media and members could possibly disagree and suggest or print the following heading as did Le Devoir: "Member of parliament deliberately misled by Warren All-mand". Mr. Speaker, this is irresponsible and absolutely untrue as you mentioned in the House yesterday afternoon. Again, Mr. Speaker, I quote the ruling you made yesterday:
The complaint which is the subject matter of the question of privilege is not directly a complaint about the minister. Indeed, if is founded on the fact that it is one of the minister's officials who has calculated to contrive this deliberate deception of the House.
Mr. Speaker, one has to be completely ignorant to interpret your statements and your decision as certain media did yesterday and in particular as a journalist of Le Devoir headed his article. The exact opposite happened in the House and it is an insult not only to the House but to all Canadians to say such unpleasant and unacceptable lies.
Mr. Speaker, another fact bears stressing. We should debunk what the Progressive Conservative members are trying to achieve with this question of privilege in the House. Nobody here wants to avoid truth, nobody wants to hide facts. We know that the McDonald commission exists under a federal act, I said so yesterday, and we all know that it is under the Inquiries Act and section 4 of that act that the commissioners are empowered to question ministers, to call them before them and to make recommendations about them once the inquiry is completed.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat in this House what I have already said: the former solicitors general who are directly or indirectly concerned by the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for that period, all those former solicitors general and the present Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) are anxious to be called before the McDonald commission and tell their version of the facts, and more particularly former solicitor general Allmand. On February 15, 1978, before the Keable Commission in Quebec city, he already denied under oath, categorically and explicitly, that he had been aware the RCMP was tampering with letters at the time he wrote his letter to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. And this member, Mr. Speaker, has shown irresponsibility when he required
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
yesterday that a parliamentary committee be set up to enable former solicitor general Allmand to take position.
Mr. Speaker, the former solicitor general has made his position clear. He has nothing to reproach himself; he categorically denies all allegations about irregularities and he is ready to testify again before the McDonald commission. Therefore it should not be suggested to the Canadian public nor insinuated in front of the people who watch us that the former solicitor general, his successors or the government want to hide the truth. On the contrary. They are prepared to testify before a democratic institution established under a law passed by this parliament. They want to do it in an atmosphere as objective as possible, Mr. Speaker, devoid of all petty politics and partisan tendencies, which would not be the case of a parliamentary committee where hon. members amuse themselves by taking out fragments of evidence and letters to make demagogy of the worst kind, as was shown by the statements generally made by the Progressive Conservative members on this irrational question of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks by saying simply that the main reason why we on this side want this question of privilege to be dealt with is that we understand well the evidence, the parliamentary process and the well documented decision you gave yesterday. We know that whether there is a question of privilege or not is not decided by you but by the House. All hon. members will have to vote on the motion which is presently before us. All you have to do under the parliamentary procedure, and you explained this properly but apparently some media did not understand it, is to determine whether according to some allegations there is a prima facie case of privilege, whether superficially there is an important matter to enable the House to discuss the substance of the matter and to decide whether there is a question of privilege or not.
It is a little similar to a preliminary inquiry before the courts, Mr. Speaker. In the preliminary inquiry, the judge does not rule on the substance of the matter. If there are prima facie facts which lead to believe that charges should be laid against the accused, the doubt is at that time against the accused. It is only during the trial itself that the principle of the benefit of the doubt is in favour of the accused, and the preliminary inquiry enables the judge to observe prima facie evidence. We know very well that nine times out of ten, during the preliminary inquiry, the judge decides charges should be laid against the accused who is afterwards entitled to the benefit of the doubt, during his trial. By analogy, Mr. Speaker, that is what you did yesterday. You said, at first sight, 1 will not go into details, you will discuss it, the motion is debatable and you will settle the matter, for my part, I think that prima facie it is sufficiently founded, there is enough evidence to allow a debate on the matter to take place and I allow the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham to move his motion. That is all you did and it is correct, it respects the rules of

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
procedure. As for us, members from both sides of the House, yesterday and today we accept our responsibilities, we respect parliamentary procedure and we decide whether or not there is ground for privilege. We are the ones who will rule on the question of privilege, as it is our duty to do so.
Following the interventions that have been made, we realize it would be pernicious, unfortunate and ridiculous to establish a second body to inquire into facts that are already being investigated by a commission created by parliament itself. The argument of parallelism, of the parallel existence of two parliamentary bodies investigating the same matter, and possibly leading to contradictory reports, the principle of avoiding two parallel inquiries should, by itself, suffice to justify an intelligent act, that is to reject the motion before us. It is inconceivable, Mr. Speaker, that on the one hand parliament be allowed to ask judges to inquire into the activities of the RCMP and that on the other hand this same parliament say: "Yes, but we do not believe in that too much, and that may take time, so we will not take any chances, we will use parts of the evidence and set up a little committee composed of members from the various parties, and make our own little inquiry at the same time, and if our report comes out before the McDonald commission's report, well, let us just hope that it comes to the same conclusions as ours".
This shows, Mr. Speaker, the absurdity of this whole situation. It seems to me that Canadians are now faced with enough serious problems that they have a right to expect a much more responsible behaviour on the part of the members of this House than what has been shown since yesterday, especially among the Progressive Conservatives. It is this same Progressive Conservative party, Mr. Speaker, which was complaining that we were not proceeding quickly enough with the consideration of the motion to create the new department. It is at its insistence that we wanted to debate the motion yesterday, that we wanted to put it on yesterday's order paper. But it is also because of its attitude that we were prevented from doing so, because we had to debate a question of privilege which is not finished and which we are still discussing today, Mr. Speaker.
No doubt that the serious people watching us will come to two conclusions. First, that the Progressive Conservative party is wasting the time of the House and that of Canadians, because the government is ready to move on to other matters and, therefore, the Progressive Conservative party is not assuming its responsibilities and could not care less about the Canadian people; and second, that the Canadian public will have the opportunity to realize that the government has assumed its responsibilities. What the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham is complaining about, namely the illegal opening of the mail, is the subject of an inquiry just now, and the government certainly assumed its responsibilities when it set up this inquiry commission which is currently working very seriously, and which is empowered to call in as witnesses not only the people of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but

politicians, past and present solicitors general as well. A royal commission will soon make its report. Why ask it to duplicate the efforts of another institution and waste its time by studying the same facts simultaneously, as I said earlier?
Mr. Speaker, this in short is the situation I wanted to explain on behalf of the government and this is why we want to settle the matter, as provided in our parliamentary procedure, by voting against this motion to avoid a duplication of efforts, to avoid the danger of contradictory reports, to avoid bringing ridicule on this institution since it has already passed legislation to establish a royal commission which is doing its job and its duty, as well as to show some respect for the former solicitor general who has been subjected to all sorts of charges and suspicions. Moreover, as hon. members will have seen, 1 wanted in concluding my intervention to make a rectification and call to order certain irresponsible people who have publicly spread lies, rumours and misrepresentations of the facts, especially as on the first page of Le Devoir of today we can see the title "Member of parliament deliberately misled by Warren Allmand". Mr. Speaker, this shows a total lack of responsibility or complete ignorance of the facts. Mr. Speaker, I consider the person who gave such a title to this article a fool, a simpleton or an ignoramus. He has lost contact with reality, he shows no respect for the very clear observations that you made in your ruling yesterday, he is completely divorced from reality, he has falsified what has happened in the House of Commons and misled the Canadian public, and he should be reprimanded publicly as I am now doing, Mr. Speaker, in closing my comments on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 was just checking with the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert to see if he wanted to precede me but, if that is not the case, I will continue briefly.
I consider it a privilege to be able to take part in this debate.
1 must say that I am disappointed by the attitude of my fellow Nova Scotian, the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who more and more frequently appears to intervene in the House and to use his great parliamentary talents in an attempt to restrict the activities of members of the House trying to uncover information.
I listened with great care to the speech made by the minister's parliamentary secretary, which I thought, if 1 may say so with all kindness, to be rather repetitious. It seemed to say, in effect, that what we should do is abandon our responsibilities as the House of Commons to the McDonald commission. Implicit in that was the question, to use his terms: what more democratic institution is there than the McDonald commission? That may very well be so, but I would have thought that the House is at least as important an institution, at least as democratic an institution, as the McDonald commission,
December 7, 1978

and certainly much more important and much more long lasting.
I was intrigued also by the fact that so far the government has been represented only by the Deputy Prime Minister and by his parliamentary secretary. Without in any way reflecting on the quality of what they have done and what they have said,
I would have thought that since we have such a plethora of former solicitors general in the House, who presumably are very interested in the background of the matter, we would have had an intervention from at least one of them, if not from the present Solicitor General (Mr. Blais).
I do not really believe that anyone suspects, that the solicitor general in question who wrote the letter-at least I do not- deliberately misled anybody, in the technical sense. I have felt, and I am on the record in the House as suggesting, that a number of solicitors general, perhaps through their own negligence, have not fulfilled their statutory responsibilities in keeping themselves informed as to what the true situation is with respect to their duties.
Section 5 of the RCMP Act is very explicit. 1 will quote it, it is very brief. It states:
The governor in council may appoint an officer to be known as the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who, under the direction-
I emphasize the word "direction".
-of the minister, has the control and management of the force and all matters connected therewith.
In this particular instance it is very obvious what has happened. Someone prepared a letter for the attention of the then solicitor general, the contents of which caused that hon. gentleman to give the wrong information to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), and that is what we are debating here in essence.
Just as in the case of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who had a similar, valid, prima facie case of privilege, as found by the Chair, we find the government, instead of allowing the proper committee of parliament, which is the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, to proceed with its duty and look into this important matter, using all its resources to block this procedure. Just as it did in the case of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, no doubt we will see the government mustering every vote possible to keep the committee from looking into the background of a matter which, I would think, using logic, the former solicitors general and the government would very much want to see. They should want to see what really happened and who was at fault.
If the then solicitor general is not culpable, then somebody is, and surely nobody over there would want to allow that sort of serious misconduct to go unpunished, or at least unreprimanded. Right now we in the House have no idea how this happened, and what better body than the committee to find this pertinent piece of information?
I have been concerned, as I said before, about the attitude of the government and of various solicitors general. This particular case, involving as it does privileges of members, is not a unique one. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse)
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
had occasion at one time to be concerned about a letter that was inspected by the technical unit of the RCMP. I do not know whether or not he ever received an adequate explanation for it.
The same thing happened to me, and I wrote to Your Honour about it. As the letter indicates, I did not wish to make a big fuss about it but I was curious as to how this innocuous letter addressed to me, containing one piece of paper, was inspected by the RCMP technical branch. I am sure it is coincidental that the letter dealt with the concern of the writer for the treatment handed out to Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun. It is probably just a coincidence. However, all I wanted to find out, sir, from the Solicitor General-since there was a place in the stamp that was affixed, presumably by one of the technicians of the force, for a signature and a date on which the letter was inspected-was, when this occurred and, if possible, the name of the officer or the technician who did it so that I could have a chat with him. After exchanging a lot of correspondence, I am no further ahead now than when I started. That is the kind of co-operation that members get in this chamber from the government.


An hon. Member:: You don't know how to write a letter.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A member says I do not know how to write a letter. I would have accepted a most rudimentary letter, even if it was full of misspellings and so on, from the government in response to my, perhaps, poor efforts. The solicitor general said that he took this up with the commissioner. I will quote from his letter to me of July 19 in which he said:
The commissioner further informs me that the points which you have raised have all been noted with interest by senior force personnel. Additionally, the commissioner has directed, as a result of your correspondence, that the mail screening operation at the Parliament Buildings be the subject of an examination in an attempt to alleviate any existing deficiencies, and to generally improve upon the operation whenever possible.
I do not know whether that is reassuring or not. 1 accept it in the spirit it was written, but I am still no further ahead.
The attitude of the government toward civil rights and toward the concerns of members of parliament and ordinary citizens leaves an awful lot to be desired. On February 7, 1977, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question relating to this subject. As reported at page 2777 of Hansard, he replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I for one, as a Canadian, would not admit that we have lesser rights than the Americans. They may have more abuses there and that is why, perhaps, they have to have corrective measures. I do not think the people suspect the RCMP of conducting themselves as the FBI do.
That was a gratuitous insult to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the FBI, two fine police forces. Why did he give such a nebulous answer? Since that time, that statement of the Prime Minister, as so many of his have been known to do over time, has not really stood up. We find in fact that the RCMP have recruited people from the FBI to come and work in Canada, such as Mr. Hart. I find no fault with that. The only fault I find is the manner in which they treated him, and the

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
way they are so determined to keep him from testifying, so far at least, before the McDonald commission of inquiry.
I should like to contrast that with what is going on in the United States. In a recent edition of the Globe and Mail the following appeared:
Who says the Canadian system is better than the American?
In the United States, the government is giving $1,000 cheques to citizens who had their mail intercepted by the CIA.
What a beautiful way to stimulate the economy, if we knew how many Canadians have had their mail intercepted.


Mr. Lawrence:: It would cost too much.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I suspect that is the truth. The article continues:
In Canada the victims of mail monitoring by the Mounties are getting beans all. Thus far the government has not even divulged who the victims were.
As I mentioned in my speech last week, certainly there has been a systematic attempt over the years, a highly sophisticated one in nearly every major city in the country, by the security service, authorized at highest levels, to intercept the mail of some people. In many cases I am sure the abuses would boggle the mind, if they were all brought to the attention of Canadians.
It continues:
Recently a federal appeals court affirmed a decision requiring the U.S. government to make payments to three people identified as targets by the CIA.
Citing this as the test case, attorney Melvin Wulf is now asking the government for the same $1,000 settlement for the "tens of thousands" of others who had their mail snitched.
It is incredible that up to a few months ago the then postmaster general, the present Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), stood up in the House of Commons and solemnly assured us that mail was not being opened, as one of his predecessors assured the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. 1 am making no reflection on the Solicitor General deliberately misleading anyone. But indeed, there was a facade or a front used to mislead people in this country and in this parliament, for one reason or another, for years and years and years, about mail openings.
I do not intend to speak long. I am sorry the Solicitor General is not present because I wanted to ask him a question.
I should like to explore what was going on concerning the activities of the RCMP vis-a-vis the Parti Quebecois in the last few years. 1 doubt there is anyone in the House of Commons who has any sympathy whatsoever with the political aims of the Parti Quebecois. However, it is a legitimately elected party. This is not Iran; this is not a country where repressive measures are taken on the basis of political disagreement. At least I should hope not. In fact, we received some assurance in a letter from the right hon. Prime Minister to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) last year. Page 4 of that letter reads as follows:
No person in Canada is immune from observation, surveillance or detection, if it is determined that such person has been or is engaged in activities that are defined in the Official Secrets Act as being subversive.

Prima facie, I am sure no one can complain about that. We recognize that the enemies of our country, who are doing things which they should not, should not be immune from surveillance or punishment simply because they belong to any organization, or because they happen to be members of the House of Commons, the Senate, or any other institution. I want to be fair, and if my impression is wrong I want members to correct me.
Based on my perusal of Hansard and my recollection of past statements by various members of the government, I have the impression that as far as the security service and the government are concerned, it was stated the Parti Quebecois was never punished or harassed as such simply for being the Parti Quebecois. There may have been some concern about terrorist elements attached to it going back to the 1960s, or infiltrating the party. The Prime Minister went on record and said that it was a very acceptable party, that it was democratically elected, and so on. As a matter of fact, on October 31, 1977, the then solicitor general said the following:
No democratic political party of any stripe can be, should be or ought to be the object of systematic surveillance by the RCMP. That has been made clear time and time again in this House by the Prime Minister.
He was replying to a question which was asked by the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). He continued:
As to the other part of the question, where I think some confusion arises, the Prime Minister is obviously referring to the fact that this question concerning the computer tapes on which the lists of members of the Parti Quebecois were included was brought to his attention at the end of last week or at the beginning of last week. I think it is as simple as that and the confusion once again rests in the mind of the reader.
At that time the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party was concerned, as he had every right to be, about the democratic process and what pressures, if any, were being brought to bear on the Parti Quebecois which were improper, in so far as its legitimate political activities were concerned.
Personally I have no time for the Parti Quebecois, but I should like to put some information on the record which may be of assistance, if it is not already known. Perhaps in some ways it will contradict the impression which I and other members of the House have as to what went on respecting sympathizers of the Parti Quebecois. Perhaps some members are aware that there is a file called MC-83. As people with some knowledge know, it is the code name of a top secret file in the RCMP. Some of the contents of this file may have been disseminated to newspapers. I do not know whether that is the case or not, but I have every reason to believe that as far as the security service activities directed against the Parti Quebecois are concerned, indeed there was a PQ desk in G section of the RCMP. It was a specific desk in G section devoted to the Parti Quebecois. This is a very interesting situation.
The member who was in charge of that desk, Sgt. Maurice Goguen, may have testified already respecting operation HAM at one of the inquiries. But the situation is a little more intriguing than that. The RCMP source or contact with whom he was particularly concerned, was well placed in the provincial ministry of cultural affairs. The honourable Francois
December 7, 1978

Cloutier was a member of Robert Bourassa's government. Mr. Cloutier moved on to some other cabinet responsibilities, and I am sure the situation continued. Serge Raymond, the RCMP source contact in this ministry, was used by the force to assist in eradicating Parti Quebecois elements in the Liberal party, as far as federal and provincial government departments were concerned. His handler, an RCMP member named Michel Papineau, who incidentally is no longer in the force, would go to Mr. Raymond and designate or finger someone who was not acceptable. It was Mr. Raymond's job to get rid of that person, using his political connections.
A lot of concern was expressed by serving members of the RCMP that this process may have been abused. One can see readily the tremendous capacity for abuse in this type of situation. I do not believe that the Solicitor General is aware of this situation, as far as I know. Certainly if he was, he had ample opportunity to put this on the record when he was questioned.
The implications of this are mind boggling as far as I am concerned. To think that this sort of situation could be permitted to exist on the basis of someone being designated, without any opportunity to defend themselves-perhaps not even knowing about it-relates back to the same sort of mentality we saw in this House in the operation of the so-called "black list" which was distributed, apparently, to his cabinet colleagues by the then minister of supply and services.
I hope that the Solicitor General and the McDonald commission will take the opportunity to look into this and ask these men, Messrs. Goguen, Papineau and Raymond, some very pertinent questions about what was going on. Perhaps the Keable inquiry will do it.
Getting back to this particular motion, we must keep in mind that what is asked here is that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for action and decision. It was the government that talked this matter out last night. Why is the government so reluctant to carry out this straightforward exercise? Why do we have such a committee in the first place, if access to it is so jealously guarded by the government majority for what surely can only be for political purposes? After all, they control the committee. Does the Deputy Prime Minister or his parliamentary secretary hold a committee in this place in such little regard that they do not trust it to look into a matter such as this, particularly when it is dominated by their own colleagues? Obviously, as in the case of the question of privilege by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, the government seeks to use its majority to block a very necessary function of parliament.
I urge members opposite to reconsider their position. If precedents such as this are allowed to pile up, they will not only be counterproductive to the operations of this House but they will undermine, to some extent, the status of the Speaker, who made the ruling, in the first instance that there was a "prima facie" question of privilege. If the Speaker makes such a ruling-and I agree that perhaps some unfortunate implica-
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
tions have been drawn from this matter, which is the only thing I can agree with in the speech of my friend opposite who spoke just before me-and it is systematically blocked by the members of this House, there is no point in making a ruling. It becomes a very trivial and redundant procedure when it should not be, and it reflects on the Chair.
The people of Canada who are watching right now the proceedings of what many have called, with some justification, the highest court in the land, must wonder what we are now doing here. The member opposite has said that we are wasting our time. I disagree. I think that this is one of the most important debates that this parliament has had recently. The only way we could be wasting our time would be if it becomes apparent that this government will not allow the opportunity for this important matter to be looked into by a committee set up for that purpose and staffed by members of this House from all parties. What could be more logical than that? What could be more illogical than the action of this government in impeding and undermining a very important parliamentary process, which ultimately undermines the position of the Chair as well?


Mr. Raines:: Will the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) permit a very brief question?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Yes, I would be glad to accept a question.


Marke Raines: Mr. Speaker, I found the argument put forth by the hon. member for Central Nova very persuasive. If this was a matter that was more clearcut, that is, if it was simply between the Solicitor General or anybody in the cabinet and any member of the opposition, then I could see that it would be a matter which could go before the committee on privileges and elections for decision. However, in this case we have an alleged link between the RCMP, a member of cabinet, and a member of the opposition, and if there were an inquiry before the committee all the witnesses would be needed. There is already an exhaustive inquiry in process, the McDonald inquiry. 1 am sure that the hon. member is not denigrating the McDonald inquiry, but in light of all these facts why would he want to bring this matter before a committee of this House?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, that is a very fair question. Of course I am not denigrating the McDonald commission, but neither am I upgrading it to the extent to where I think that it should be allowed to be equal to parliament in dealing with the privileges of the members of this House.
With regard to the link, it is simply this: the Solicitor General is one of us in this House and he has been apparently misled by our national police force. As a consequence he has, in turn, done something which has affected the privileges of another member of the House. 1 believe that such a situation is definitely within the jurisdiction and ambit of this place and is definitely of interest primarily to this place. The McDonald commission may not even be constituted at this time next year. It is a very worth-while body, but it comes and goes, as do all other royal commissions.

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
We have a fundamental problem here as to what will happen to this country-and I mean no disrespect to the Solicitor General, the government or the RCMP-if our national police force or any members of it are allowed to act as if they were a law unto themselves. If there is one thing we cannot afford in this country it is to have our national police force operating out of control, and when they mislead a minister of the Crown they are coming awfully close to that situation. That is why I think that we should be looking at the matter in this House.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to say at the outset that it is always a pleasure to follow the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), who does so well in misleading this House of Commons about what the essential issues are in any debate. In fact I would be prepared to say that he is quite conceivably the best debater in this House of Commons. I would even go that far, keeping in mind that debating techniques only occasionally touch on questions of truth.
The Deputy Prime Minister has to be seen throughout his career in this House as the master of the irrelevant argument, and if we ever had a performance which would lead to that conclusion, we had it yesterday. People who were here and watched that performance saw as clearly as it could possibly be demonstrated-and those who will read Hansard will be able to see even more clearly because they will not be encumbered by the drama, and I use that word loosely, of this place-the irrelevance of the debate by the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister spent almost half of his time yesterday, not on the substance of the motion, but on pooh-poohing the nature of the original letter which was intercepted and which gave cause to the erroneous letter that was sent from the former commissioner to the solicitor general and then on to the hon. member who has raised this question of privilege. He then went on to spend a good part of his time in raising an irrelevant comparison with the task of the McDonald royal commission, somehow implying that this question of privilege, and the way in which we have established procedures and methods of dealing with privilege, in this particular case would be duplicating in some sense the work of the McDonald commission. It was all absurd and irrelevant to the central question.
He then thought that his clinching argument, which was sufficient only for the minds of the backbenchers of the Liberal party in defence of government bad guys, that Mr. Higgitt, the former commissioner of the RCMP-


Marke Raines: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, 1 would like to advise the Leader of the NDP that 1 have the utmost respect for him. In the years I have been here I have listened to him with a great deal of interest. I am looking forward to what he has to say now. I think this is an important question. But I happen to sit in the back row, Mr. Speaker, and after four years I have just about had enough. I would like to have mutual respect from any member of this House. From time to

time we have these little lines about "another race," perhaps, and it is easy to fall into that habit.


An hon. Member:: If it is that bad, quit.


Marke Raines: Oh, no! With the utmost respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say, and 1 am sure he will take into account my seat in the back row of this House.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely apologize if I conclude from what the hon. member has said that he interpreted my comment as casting some kind of criticism on backbenchers. If that is his interpretation, 1 sincerely withdraw it. I said it in the context-and I shall not withdraw this-of what I regard as a profoundly misleading and dramatically interesting performance yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister. The people who were cheering were backbench members of the Liberal party, and I will not elaborate on that.
I paid him the compliment of saying that he is perhaps the most effective debater in the House of Commons, but debate, as the Deputy Prime Minister knows, has only occasionally something to do with facts, and that is particularly so on the other side of the House. He raised a number of interesting, at times charming, and other times not so charming points, all of which, except for the clinching argument which 1 will come to, were basically irrelevant to the very serious question that the House is now debating.
The question that we are debating was put yesterday by the Speaker in the following words, and I want to repeat them and deal with the substance of the argument. In dealing with the fundamental question of privilege that is at stake, Mr. Speaker said:
That leaves us with the complaint of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham respecting the testimony of former commissioner Higgitt-and I assume there is no further argument to be addressed to this matter at this time- to the circumstances in which the Solicitor General's letter dated September 4, 1973, was drafted. Does that lead us to the conclusion that, by virtue of an act or omission, the House, or a member, has directly or indirectly been impeded in the performance of its functions or his duty, or that there has been a tendency to produce such result? If I so find, then 1 really have no choice but to find, prima facie, that a contempt has been committed.
Having considered the whole question with extreme care, I come back to the simple testimony of former commissioner Higgitt when he said:
That is not, that is not an assurance the RCMP is giving to the minister at all, and as a matter of fact, the practice was in matters of this kind-the practice was very often ministers' letters were not exactly drafted on precise statements of fact.'
Then the Speaker concluded making his ruling with the following words:
I can interpret that testimony in no other way than meaning that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct the member in the performance of his duties and consequently, to obstruct the House itself.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the McDonald inquiry. It has nothing to do with the nature of the original plastic or non-plastic letter that gave rise to the case. It has absolutely nothing to do with most of the matters that the
December 7, 1978

Deputy Prime Minister spoke about in the House yesterday. The Speaker in the chair yesterday was unequivocal in his assertion that there was a prima facie case of privilege involved because of the evidence that had been produced. It was pretty clear from this assertion that a member of the House had not been informed on the facts in the way that he ought to have been, and that information was being withheld that ought not to have been withheld.
If that is a conclusion of the Speaker, then how are we to deal with this case? There is the Standing Committee on Privilege and Elections, whose very reason for existence is to consider prima facie cases of privilege. That is the purpose of the committee. It is not for this chamber, for members of the House of Commons at this stage of consideration of a question of privilege, to make a final decision on it. Not at all. We do not call witnesses, Mr. Speaker. We cannot call the former commissioner of the RCMP before the House. We cannot call the former solicitor general, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand). In short, we cannot do the kind of job that the committee exists to do.
Once we get through the maze of irrelevant argument presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and come to his fundamental argument, we find a flaw in his judgment when he concludes, as he did yesterday, that it is the purpose of the House and not the purpose of the committee to reach a decision at this point on this matter. That is precisely the argument the Deputy Prime Minister made yesterday. I want to use his exact words because I certainly would not want to distort his argument. I refer hon. members to page 1865 of Hansard where the Deputy Prime Minister is reported as follows:
The Speaker is obliged, under our rules, to find whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. Prime facie means on the first impression, on the surface, or at first blush. Beauchesne goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the House of Commons to find in substance whether there is in fact a breach of privilege.
So today, when the government is saying that it does not propose to support this motion, it is not saying to the Speaker that we have no confidence in his finding. It is saying that Mr. Speaker having done his duty, we have probed beneath the surface and found that there is contradictory evidence-
Mr. Speaker, I say the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong on both counts. First, he was challenging a ruling of the Chair. I would argue, because he knows better than most of us as he has been here longer, that there have been only two occasions since 1965-one just a matter of weeks ago, and the one now brought before the House-where the government has challenged a Speaker's ruling.
The Speaker has looked at the evidence on a prima facie basis, and brings to the House a recommendation which a standing committee of the House should consider further. Mr. Speaker pointed out quite correctly in the House today that he did not make a final decision yesterday. He did not condemn the government, nor did he condemn a minister. He said there was a prima facie case, based on a sentence, and the President of Privy Council singled out this one sentence. He asked how the Speaker could possibly base a decision on one sentence. I would point out to him that some people are married for their whole lives after saying one sentence. People who perjure
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
themselves in court frequently do so on the basis of one sentence. His is not a very persuasive argument when he says the decision was based on only one sentence. It was not very persuasive for the Speaker, nor for people on this side of the House. He has challenged the traditional position of the House of Commons, the traditional position of decisions reached by the Speaker.
In my view, if it is appropriate to comment on decisions and,
1 think, indirectly it is, the Speaker quite correctly reached the right conclusion on the basis of the evidence that there is a prima facie case. He has put this to the House, and if the House had any sense at all we would not be debating this now. We would have let this matter go where it ought to go, namely, to a committee to consider whether there is something beyond the prima facie case. After considering the matter, hearing expert testimony, calling Mr. Higgitt and others, if it turns out there is no question of privilege, and I would find that strange although it is possible, the committee could come back to the House and make its recommendations. At that point, what the Deputy Prime Minister says is true. At that point the House of Commons should make a final decision as to whether we have or do not have a real question of privilege.
To put it bluntly, the Deputy Prime Minister has it ass-backwards. He is saying that the House of Commons should be deliberating and passing judgment without evidence and without testimony. If there is an affirmative decision, he then wants to go to the committee. How absurd.
We say that the Speaker's ruling should be respected. We say there is indeed a prima facie case here, that an hon. member has been misled. This matter should go to a standing committee of this House which has been constructed to look at such matters. We say in the final analysis that the government is wrong, that it is challenging the decision. If this is perpetuated, the whole function of that committee, the whole raison d'etre, goes out the window.


An hon. Member:: And the Chair.


John Edward Broadbent: I am coming to that. Not far down the road Speakers' rulings will become irrelevant if they are not in accord with the majority view of this government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member will permit a question.


John Edward Broadbent: Certainly.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have been following the hon. member's very interesting address, but from his comments he has obviously forgotten what the Speaker has asked the House to do, namely, not to draw him into the argument by saying that in reaching a decision, with each member of the House making up his mind on the motion, that that in any way is casting a reflection upon him, because he has done his duty and it is now up to the members of the House to do their duty. That is what I was doing in making my statement. I wonder if the hon.

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
member has taken to heart the advice the Speaker gave by saying, leave that part of the argument alone, it has been settled.


John Edward Broadbent: With all due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, I am not challenging or questioning the Speaker's judgment. I am commenting on the logic of the government's position. Whether the Deputy Prime Minister wants to put it that way or not, it is indeed questioning the Speaker's ruling. When the Speaker says there is a prima facie case, that is his ruling.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Absolutely.


John Edward Broadbent: Before we had this government, the traditional practice of the House was to deal with such a ruling in a perfunctory way, instead of debating it and having the House perform as a committee. The Speaker surely knew, although I obviously did not discuss it with him, the normal procedure would be for a government which respects the Chair to respect that decision and have it referred to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I am not saying the government is not showing respect for the Chair. 1 am saying that the government ought to let this go to the committee so it can do its proper job and, after it makes its recommendation, let the members of this House, then, and only then, make the final decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to intervene briefly in this debate, not from the point of view of an expert on the rules and Standing Orders of this House, nor from the point of view of a great legal mind, because I am neither.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: At least I recognize my own limitations, which is more than some members do. I rise in this debate to put in my own crude words the point of view of the ordinary man on the street who must be confused by this debate. I am an ordinary person who represents the common people, in this House of Commons.
I take offence with the remarks made by the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Broadbent), who is more often a clown than an intellect, a quality which he displayed admirably today. The hon. member's remarks with regard to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) were not only wrong, but outrageous. That should be on the record of the proceedings of this House.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby stated that the Deputy Prime Minister was challenging the Speaker's ruling. That, of course, is arrant nonsense. He also stated that we who occupy the back benches on this side of the House will do whatever we are told. That, too, is arrant nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It is nice to hear the guffaws from the other side. Over the years since I have been here, we have been called all kinds of names, such as trained seals. At least we do not flap our flippers.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Good line!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I am surprised that the main proponent of illogic in this House, the leader of the New Democratic Party, would dare to comment on the logic of the government's case.
In his opening remarks the leader of the NDP referred to the ability of the Deputy Prime Minister to mislead this House. That is an affront to every member of the government party and, in particular, to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is known throughout this country as a man of honesty and integrity. I suggest that the leader of the NDP withdraw that specious remark. It has merit neither in fact nor in logic.
I want to deal with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). I did not find them offensive. However, I want to comment on them in the perspective of the man on the street who is not trained in the rules of parliamentary procedure or in the legal arguments of counsel.
The first comment which concerned me was that someone has caused the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) to misinform the House. That is a very serious statement. I am sure the hon. member made it very seriously and without any facetiousness. If that in fact occurred, and that seems to be the crux of the ruling which was made yesterday, it is indeed a matter of grave concern, not only for us here but for all Canadians. If it did occur, there are several questions that arise.
If someone caused the Solicitor General or any minister to misinform this House, who is responsible for this misinformation? Is the Solicitor General personally responsible, is the government collectively responsible, or is the person who misinformed the Solicitor General responsible for this misinformation? From the point of view of common sense, it would seem that the person who misinformed the person who passed on the information is responsible.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party said we cannot call the commissioner of the RCMP before this House. That is nonsense. We can call before the bar of this House anyone we wish to call.


Mr. Orlikow:: When did we last do it?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It does not matter when we last did it. The fact is we can do it and, if we must, we should. I understand, Mr. Speaker, there is still some space in the Peace Tower.
I do not believe any resolution of this question can be arrived at until all the information is placed before the committee. I agree with the House leader that the best way to get all the information is to await the report or, at least, the
December 7, 1978

further proceedings of the investigation which is currently going on into the activities of the RCMP. As I understand it, the accusation made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) is based upon testimony before that commission given by the former commissioner of the RCMP. If that is indeed the case, it seems to me that in the name of common sense we should wait until we hear the rest of the testimony of that former commissioner and until we hear the results of the cross-examination of that witness before the royal commission.


Mr. Baldwin:: It is going on in camera. How can we hear it?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) seems to want to build a reputation on certain aspects of security, availability of information, and so on. I do not blame him for that. In fact I applaud him for it. He wants to know how we can find out what is happening when the proceedings are taking place in camera. Well, it is obvious we should await the report of the royal commission; the House could then deal with the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. The fact that he waited for five years before raising it indicates to me that there is no urgency attached to the matter at this point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: We might never see the report.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member interjects to say we might never see the report. Well, I, at least, expect to be around here longer than that, and I expect to see the report. I know it is the government's intention to make the report public because, obviously, the government does not appoint a royal commission and then hide the report the commission makes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: You haven't been around here very long.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The concept of ministerial responsibility is important to us, and there should be no question that parliament is the highest court in the land. The government has proven over and over again that it is determined to find the whole truth in this matter. It has proven this, first by forbidding ministers of the Crown to go before the Keable commission in Quebec-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -to give that commission documents which were outside its authority. Subsequently the government established the McDonald commission to inquire into the RCMP. This commission has the legal status to look into all the activities of the force and report on them fully and completely. That is something we would
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
never have received from the Keable commission, as should be obvious to everyone.
Statements have been made to the effect that the government will not allow a report to be made. That is a specious argument. It is entirely sensible that we should wait until we hear the evidence before the McDonald inquiry. The worst aspect, from the point of view of the question under consideration, is that no matter what that evidence may be, no matter what the decision of this House may be with regard to tne ruling made yesterday by Mr. Speaker, the reporting, or I should say, the misreporting of what happened here yesterday, has convicted the government of the day in the minds of the people of Canada of, and 1 quote, "deliberately misleading the House."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is not what the Speaker ruled yesterday, and every member over there knows it is not what the government ruled yesterday.


An hon. Member:: The government?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: When they sit there now and say, "Hear, hear" they are only adding to the deliberate misrepresentation of the facts to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: They say,
"Hear, hear" to that, too. They agree they are trying to misrepresent the facts to the public. That is the position I take in this debate.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I was not here yesterday afternoon and I was not aware of the fact that a debate was to take place on this subject. It is always difficult to take part in a debate simply on the basis of reading Hansard. However, I am glad the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has let the cat out of the bag. He said the people of Canada today believe the government is guilty. Well, never did the people come to a conclusion more in conformity with the facts! 1 am very happy that in his dying words he was able to make very clear that the people of Canada as a whole think this government is guilty. That has made this debate worth while. If he had not participated, there might have been some doubt. After that participation 1 am sure the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) will not recommend him for appointment to a ministerial post.
Having said that, I want to deal with one or two matters in very short form. The motion before the House reads:
That the letter sent by the Solicitor General of the day to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham on December 4, 1973, and the testimony of former RCMP commissioner Higgitt on October 24 and November I. 1978. before the royal commission of inquiry (McDonald commission) concerning the practice of the RCMP in preparing letters for the signature of the Solicitor General, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation and report.

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
If they have nothing to hide, Mr. Speaker, why not agree to that motion? There is nothing more trying for a conscience which has anything to fear than the thought that what it has to fear might be revealed. I came here this afternoon without any preconceived ideas. Now I am convinced that this government is covering something up. That is not unusual for this government.
There are two matters at stake here. The McDonald commission is dealing in general with certain activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I say at once that I take second place to no member of this House in terms of the number of cases in which I have been involved over the years and in which the Mounted Police took part. In all those cases I have known of only two in which any one of the Mounted Police endeavoured to deceive the courts.
I am very deeply concerned about what has taken place in connection with the representations which are being made and the innuendoes which have been spread in the evidence before the McDonald commission. The RCMP is the most honest, straightforward police institution in all the world. That is its reputation, even though there may have been one or two cases in which there has been obvious wrongdoing, and that should be rooted out.
The royal commission will make its findings. Those findings will have to do with general activities and proclivities which were allegedly wrongful.
The second matter at stake is that the House of Commons is its own judge and must remain the judge of the conduct of its members. No commission has the right to interfere with the right of this House to determine what took place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: If there is no truth in the allegations which have been made, why not set up a committee of the House on the basis of unanimity? As has happened in past cases, the majority of Liberal members are again united behind the Deputy Prime Minister. With a majority of members of the Liberal party on the committee, do hon. members think there would be any danger that a report detrimental to the Government of Canada would be given? If that took place, it would be the first time, and I have been here almost 39 years. 1 have never noticed an example in which Liberal members did other than sing the Hallelujah chorus whenever any matter came up, no matter how detrimental it was. Why not set up this committee? What are hon. members opposite so worried about? What are they so concerned about?
I think the McDonald commission sits behind closed doors. I am going to see Mr. Justice McDonald. He has asked to see me tomorrow. The McDonald commission sits behind closed doors. Is the government afraid of what will be revealed? I think the government has every reason to be, but it pretends to be very anxious to have this matter cleared up. When will the McDonald commission report? There is no indication that it

will report before at least six or eight months from now, according to what I read in the press.


Mr. Nielsen:: After the election.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who never at any time is politically minded, says that the commission will report after the election. I do not know why the government is worrying about the result because, no matter what it does, it is going to be defeated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Let us have the situation cleared up. Let us absolve alleged wrongdoers, if they deserve to be absolved, but why-I repeat, why-is there such a desire on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister-and a similar message has been indicated by other Liberal members who have spoken-to deny the people of Canada the right to know what took place?
It has been part and parcel of the policy of the Trudeau government from the beginning, to hide facts and conceal facts from parliament. I will give a simple example. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wanted a swimming pool, philanthropists provided $200,000. Would hon. members not think they deserve to be anointed by public opinion? Are they to receive their rewards only through the Order of Canada? When we asked for information, the Prime Minister said, "I won't give you that information." That has been the answer all along with regard to anything which would be embarrassing to the government.
I will now speak of the Deputy Prime Minister. He has been in the House a long while. I have that admiration for him which one develops for those who have unusual parliamentary ability. He has that. That is generally admitted. He blushes about it because he knows that that is the general feeling. With that massive reputation for parliamentary perfection, does the Deputy Prime Minister not think it would be nice to be able to say, "When parliament asked for action, realizing that something should be revealed, I did not take the advice of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), nor did I adopt his attitude to parliament"? Would it not be nice to be able to say, "I decided that we would reveal the facts"?
If there is nothing to hide, why hide it? If there is nothing to conceal, why conceal it? Why not reveal the facts? Some hon. members who have spoken have said that the people of Canada have already convicted this government on this matter. Of that, those hon. members have better knowledge than I have, because apparently they have been in touch with their constituents and know what is going to happen to them.
Speaking about headlines, I suppose I have been the subject of as many press misquotations as anybody in this House. Sometimes I think I have a record in that connection, but having read Hansard and having watched television, I can say that I saw nothing wrong with the headlines.
Headlines do not go into full detail. One headline read, "Liberal Government Letter Misleads M.P., Speaker Rules". I have the letter here, and it is false. One hon. member asked,
December 7, 1978

"Do ministers have to assure the truthfulness of what they say?" Yes, they do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: They are not automatons.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I didn't say that. You are dissimulating again.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member speaks with the authority which ignorance permits him to speak.
Never during the course of the years I was Prime Minister would I ever have signed anything which had not been thoroughly examined. Otherwise one would have to pretend that the civil service is responsible. I will read this letter from the then solicitor general, only in part. 1 would read it all, but I do not want to waste the time of the House. The present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) is a thoughtful and very careful man. At least that has been the experience in other matters. The letter was to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), and reads in part as follows:
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
This will refer to your letter dated November 21, 1973 and enclosure concerning allegations made by Mr. Wally Keeler regarding invasion of privacy and disruption of the mails by the RCMP.
Then it goes on to explain what the computer had to say, and adds:
As you can see, the text was sufficiently suggestive of a possible security matter to warrant an investigation by the RCMP.
Every time this government is in difficulty and wants to hide anything, ministers say it is a matter of security. The one security they are concerned about is their own security. All too often they use that for an excuse.
It goes on to say:
This investigation led by Mr. Terrence Woolf of Sudbury ... assumed responsibility for the communication. His explanation that this was the private form of communication used between members of the People's Republic of Poetry was thought by the RCMP members to be rather far-fetched but was sufficient to convince them that this matter should be treated as a nuisance rather than a breach of security.
So it was only a nuisance. It has become more than that since.
It goes on:
On this note the RCMP investigation was concluded. The communication has been returned to the post office department. I have been assured by the RCMP that it is not their practice to intercept the private mail of anyone, and I trust that the above explanation will set your constituent's mind at ease.
What was the purpose of that? The purpose was to delude and to deceive. Why not let us get at the facts of this? I would like to see the former solicitor general, at present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, on the witness stand. 1 would not want to cross-examine him. I would refrain from doing so because of our personal relationship, but somebody
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
else could ask him questions. He is not anxious to get on the stand.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He has been there.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, he has been there on other matters, but not on this. He is not anxious to get on the stand, because if he were to admit that he did not know what he was talking about, he would be an inefficient minister. If he were to admit that this letter was placed before him and he signed it without consideration or knowledge, the result would be anything but a halo for him.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There are very few halos in politics.


Mr. Gillies:: How right you are!


John George Diefenbaker: I will repeat it, and that is all I will say in this connection: if you have nothing to hide, why hide it?
Now I will refer to the views of a gentleman who is often referred to in the better Liberal circles today as they view the Gallup polls. If only John Turner was available!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: 1 will read you what John Turner had to say two years ago when he was speaking in Winnipeg. He said this:
Where secrecy or mystery begins, vice or roguery is not far off.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: What immortal words! How truthful! I am sure that will appeal to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde), and even to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) who is smiling and apparently approves of that. I say to the ministers, they have to be very careful today, because if John Turner hears that they disregard him-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -what the future will hold for them will not be most hopeful.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are quaking in our boots!


John George Diefenbaker: I repeat these words: "Where secrecy or mystery begins, vice or roguery is not far off." That is what happened here-secrecy, concealment, a minister protecting himself under pretence that the civil service is responsible. The call for secrecy has a hollow ring; it is always the call of those who are in difficulty. The Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) is in that group. He has an appetite for secrecy. I wish he were here because I would be able to point out to him one or two examples. The appetite for secrecy has become a characteristic of this government.
The government says, "Wait until the McDonald commission makes it findings." I am not speaking about the rapidity with which the commission is meeting or their thoroughness, nor about the fact that a great portion of their meetings is held

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
behind closed doors. But without having any special knowledge of the matter, I say that I do not think the report would come in before July or August, but rather after the election.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We will still be here.


John George Diefenbaker: All this government is thinking about is that nothing be revealed between now and the election-they have enough trouble the way it is. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to say very much in this debate because I think the matter involved in the issue is fairly simple and straightforward, and no doubt the House could decide on the issue and consider that it has heard enough, particularly now that it has had the advantage of the words of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I presume that no Conservative member at least would wish to demean the importance of a message from that voice by following him as though there were anything more to be said on the matter. So, as I say, I hope the question will be put before the House very soon.
There are a number of questions of fundamental fairness which, it seems to me, hon. members on the opposite side have sluffed over and ignored in their urging that an affirmative answer be given to this motion. The fact of the matter is that some of those members are perhaps somewhat careless and carefree about whether what they say and do has an adverse impact upon a particular person involved in politics, even when they themselves admit that there is no basis for the slur, the innuendo, or the aspersion being passed.
We have seen headlines which Mr. Speaker himself noted to have been quite unfair and quite wrong in the light of what he had said and in the light of what had gone on in the House. There has been no suggestion that a minister whose letter was involved had wanted to mislead in any way any member of the House.
Let me point out that in the early part of the debate on the question of privilege, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) himself agreed that that was so, and he is nodding again now in affirmation that he was not making that accusation.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That is right; we do not know.


Otto Emil Lang: But at the time I was making that point and asking him to confirm it, I also made the point that it was unfortunate that the same hon. member had used expressions which could have left the impression that that was what he was saying. It was unfortunate that he would say that a minister's letter misled him or, as reported at page 779 of Hansard:
-I was deliberately misled by a letter-
I said then, and I say again now, that the fact he admits that the minister did not deliberately mislead him, that he is not making any such accusation, should have led him to be far more careful with his words, should have led him to make it

very clear at the time that he was alleging an error in the letter but not imputing to the minister that he was deliberately misleading him. It is very misleading to so use words that you leave a public impression that it is the minister whom you are charging with deliberately misleading.
I say the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was careless in what he did to the reputation of a colleague and a politician in the way he used those words. That is unfortunate. It is not surprising that, as a result, we have innuendo creeping into press reports. I am sure this is the kind of thing which hon. members opposite would enjoy engaging in, if this matter were debated further, here or in committee. That is a wrong which they do. It would be a wrong done not only to the minister but, in due course, no doubt to others who would not be there to defend themselves either. As the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) said, there is a broad, sweeping accusation, without a named accused, or without any knowledge or suggestion as to where that error crept into the document.


James McPhail Gillies: That is why it should go to committee.


Otto Emil Lang: So says the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), that is why it should go to committee. When there is a suggestion of wrongdoing, an investigation by careful investigative process is the right method. Public debate, analysis, accusation, and broad brush depiction of wrongdoing is not a process which is in our tradition.
As attorney general in days gone by, I knew the care with which an investigation should take place, before public comment or allegation is made to suggest wrongdoing. It is simply improper to use the broad brush approach, which is used time and time again in this political arena.
There is an important matter before the McDonald commission. Surely the matter which this motion seeks to put before committee, in the view of any rational person, would confuse the public and the entire process, in terms of what is happening here today, what will happen tomorrow in the McDonald commission, and then what will happen before committee. It would be difficult to maintain some semblance of the fact the innocent should not be made guilty by innuendo before any evidence is put forward. That guilt by innuendo is what we saw in headlines as a result of the deliberations yesterday. Also it is what we heard in the words of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham when he raised his question of privilege. That is a wrong we ought not to contribute to, by taking this type of sweeping issue before committee, when no wrongdoing against a member or minister is alleged.


Samuel Victor Railton: It should not be allowed in parliament.


Otto Emil Lang: In the course of argument on a question of privilege, I made a point which I should like to elaborate on now. From time to time in the House, a minister or other member will state something as though it were a fact, which turns out on later examination to have been an error. It is one
December 7, 1978

of the fine traditions of this House, as soon as that is discovered, that the member or minister will inform the House he has discovered the error. Obviously the statement made in error could in one sense be argued to be an issue of privilege in relation to members and how they are affected, as indeed is the pith and substance of the argument relating to this letter. Even when it is a matter of privilege, the tradition of the House is: when a member or minister makes an explanation and gives the House the correction or information upon which he was acting, it is accepted and the matter is treated as at an end.
Specifically that is what happened in this particular case, but in a much more broadly sweeping manner. A number of answers were given in the House which were not far different in substance from what the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham alleged was contained in the letter as a part of an answer. There were members in this House, ministers or solicitors general, who had a belief which ;hey indicated in the House and in other places in open testimony, that certain practices were not being engaged in by the RCMP. Based on that belief, obviously their answers and perhaps this letter gave assurances which either touched that question or indicated their belief in that regard.
As soon as it was discovered that those answers had been given in error-and no member suggests the error was deliberately expressed to the House-the then solicitor general clearly indicated that indeed it was an error. All matters founded upon that false understanding by solicitors general, at that point effectively were dealt with by the solicitor general of the day, as though a matter of privilege but iri the tradition of the House, putting the matter to rest by making clear the error. At that time we took the more fundamental step of referring the entire question to a commission for inquiry.
Apart from the arguments put forward by my colleagues as to whether this was privilege, and the arguments by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council indicating that the House could well judge beyond the prima facie level that it was substantially not, the House received an explanation that a series of answers, including the part of this one which is of the same sort, was based upon an erroneous belief on the part of solicitors general. The moment the true fact correcting that erroneous belief was made known, it was brought to the attention of the House, and in that sense completed.
Therefore, even if it were a substantial question of privilege, as distinct from simply a prima facie one, the motion does not present the course of action which the House should follow. The matter of any misleading by a member or minister, albeit innocent, was put to rest as far as the traditions of this House are concerned by the clarification of that error by the solicitor general of the day, as soon as it was known to him that there were facts other than those upon which his predecessors had based themselves.
As far as the House is concerned, this matter should be considered closed. Substantial questions relating to police activities are before the McDonald commission, and they will
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
be dealt with there. In terms of privilege, the matter is closed. There is no need to deflect or distract attention from the proceedings in one place, to recreate the confusion by having a House committee and a commission alternatively dealing with some of the same issues, to the great disadvantage of the public. Certainly we know from yesterday's experience, when the press was not able to handle a fairly straightforward analysis by the Speaker of a question of prima facie privilege, the chance of misreporting. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert said a moment ago, that need not happen and we need not have further innuendo on colleagues in the House. The right hon. member claimed the record for misquotes and misguided references. I believe that makes clear why I will vote against this motion. With the facts I have recited, 1 consider the issue closed.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will take only a few minutes-


An hon. Member:: Dear God!


Gérard Laprise: I hear someone saying "Dear God!" I think he had better rise and take the floor than say: "Dear God!"
Mr. Speaker, this debate is taking a rather surprising turn. One side is asking that a parliamentary committee be established to throw light on revelations dating back to 1973 which eventually proved to be inexact. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make long comments on that matter. 1 merely want to say that I agree with the motion to allow the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to throw light on that issue.
I read yesterday's Hansard and I listened to the proceedings this afternoon and 1 have been particularly encouraged to take the floor in support of this motion by the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister and his parliamentary secretary. They were eloquent enough to convince me that this motion is really needed because of their determination to oppose it. Mr. Speaker, I understood that the government had something to hide concerning that letter and what was said as well as concerning the revelations made sometime later before the McDonald commission by commissioner Higgitt. Mr. Speaker, in the last few years there have been surprising revelations concerning the activities of the RCMP, its methods of investigations, its actions against a large part of the Canadian people and, considering those events and the actions of that police force which we used to consider as the best in the world, these revelations have undermined our trust in that police force.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have reason to believe and to demand that the matter be clarified, in spite of the argument that a royal commission was set up to shed light on those activities, the fact still remains that the House of Commons is the supreme tribunal in Canada and parliament has all the rights

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
to shed light on points where it considers it necessary or useful. And that is indeed an important point.
In his argumentation yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said this, and I quote:
-that you say there has been a contempt, a deceit, and that is what the House is asked to find today, and the person or persons alleged to have brought about the deceit are left unnamed.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, in the letter the solicitor general sent to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), he does not mention the sources of his information. And that is precisely what we want to know.
The solicitor general of the day who was here in the House and listened to the debates all afternoon is now responsible for another department. He could probably, have risen and set things straight but he did not want to do so.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we are asking that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so we can question him to know the name of the person who misinformed the minister, and later on, through the minister, misled the House of Commons. The Deputy Prime Minister concludes by saying, and I quote:
In this case, we neither have an accused nor an unaccused.
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely certain that a committee of the House of Commons, be it the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections or another, is not a court of justice, but a committee to inquire into certain revelations that were not entirely made. We want to know all the facts, and this is what the motion put forward by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is all about.
I do not see why government members do not wish to shed light on this if they have nothing to hide.
Mr. Speaker, we support the motion. We hope the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will have all the help it will need to bring the matter under full light. I hope it has the complete staffing facilities needed to complete the inquiry.
It is my hope the government will recognize this is a valid motion and let the committee clarify this whole matter. If it so happens that there is nothing wrong, so much the better. The mover will lose face and support the consequences.
It is therefore my view that hon. members should support the motion so that we may finally know the facts.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) just addressed the House a short while ago, and at that time he implied that after he had spoken the matter was so very simple it required no further debate. I notice that he is being consistent in that he has folded his tent and stolen away. I agree with him that the matter is a simple one, but I come to the opposite conclusion. I think that this motion ought to be passed and that all members of this House should support it. To turn it down, and I am not unaware of

what the Speaker himself has said, would be a reflection on the Speaker, would undermine his authority and, as such, it would be a blow to parliamentary institutions generally and to the proper conduct of this House.
In addition, once the Speaker has held that there is a prima facie case of privilege by a member of this House, then the investigation of the facts by a committee of this parliament is essential. That is precisely the situation we are in now. The proposal to defeat this motion could only be based on a contempt for the privileges of the members of this House, and, indeed, of parliament itself.
Why is the government trying to hide behind the arbitrary rule of a majority? What does it have to conceal? What has it to fear in having a committee look into what the Speaker has held to be a prima facie invasion of its privileges? Do the government supporters not trust a committee of this House, upon which they are represented by a majority, to determine the facts without bias? I think the suggestion that they are not a fitting tribunal to do so is a reflection on the government members of the House, as well as on others.
The government party calls itself the Liberal party. The essence of true liberalism is respect for parliament and an openness and a willingness to look into the facts impartially, particularly where there may be some breach of the law or rules of parliament. I suggest that a refusal to carry out the normal practice of sending this matter to the committee on privileges and elections is a betrayal of all that is best in the philosophy of liberalism. I am not a member of the Liberal party, but at least I am enough of a liberal to say that what is being done in this particular debate constitutes a denial of liberal principles. It is time that the supporters and every member of the Liberal party elected to this House decided whether to be governed by principles or by a narrow view of their own interests and also perhaps by an ingrained habit of secrecy in respect of public affairs.
I know it is perhaps naive and over optimistic to hope, but I do hope that some Liberal members recognize that what we are seeing today, if the arguments put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) are to be accepted and this motion voted down, is the destruction of a party which, with all its faults, has served this country.
The argument of the Deputy Prime Minister that the motion is based on one sentence is, of course, nonsense. It makes not the slightest difference whether one, two or 50 sentences are the basis of a prima facie breach of the privileges of the House. If we have any doubt about whether that sentence- two sentences put together-subject to further investigation and consideration, did in fact constitute a prima facie breach of the rules of the House, we have the ruling of the Speaker to take as the principle which should enlighten us in this respect.
It is further suggested by the Deputy Prime Minister that the federal McDonald inquiry into alleged RCMP wrongdoing should prevent an inquiry by this House into a breach of its own privileges. This seems to me to be highly specious. I
December 7, 1978

concede the ability of the Deputy Prime Minister in argument, but no argument is going to persuade me, where the privileges of this House are concerned, that this House is not the primary tribunal in which to determine those matters.
Perhaps 1 am wrong, but what I think I see is part and parcel of a general tendency to cover up and keep secret anything that could be embarrassing to the government. I think these arguments should be repudiated by this House, as I am sure they will be by all Canadians who have a sense of the dignity of parliament and respect for its institutions and privileges.
The prima facie case is there, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport says that he is fully confident that the McDonald commission should inquire and that it be left to them. I leave apart the question of the inevitable delay. This parliament is the highest court of justice in the land and it is this parliament to which responsibility is given to protect the privileges of all its members. The orderly way of doing it is to designate a committee to look into the facts.
The McDonald commission may do very well pursuing its appointed course, but it does not have the overriding authority to determine questions of privilege of members of this House. It is the duty of the House to deal with this matter and, after dealing with it in an orderly way, to send it to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
1 do not think this is an unimportant debate. I think if this debate pursues the course it appears to be going, and if members of the government use their majority to defeat this motion, it would be an example of the fact that parliamentary democracy is decaying because of the actions of the government of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret I note that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has left the chamber. This is one of the few occasions in the six years that I have been here that I have found an issue upon which I could agree absolutely with the minister. He went on at some length and in a very convincing fashion to indicate the dangers to which a debate such as this can lead. I could not agree more. Had he been here I would have given him the opportunity of solving the potential problem by agreeing, without further debate, that this matter go to committee.
The minister and I acknowledge all the problems that can be created in a debate such as this, but apparently our solutions are different. For some miraculous reason he felt the solution would be to defeat this motion. I am not as sophisticated as the minister. I can only relate this to the problems in my part of the country. There are a lot of farmers among mv constituents and many of them produce livestock. Any livestock producer will tell us that there is a byproduct of that occupation which goes under various names. I think if I use the word "manure" most people will know what I mean. This presents a problem for which there are various solutions. The main solution in my riding is that producers knuckle down to a pretty tough job and restore that manure to the land so that it may in turn
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
become productive. What they do not need is the solution of the Minister of Transport-to go out and shoot all the livestock. That would end the problem immediately and forever, and that is what the Minister of Transport is urging, that we shoot down this very important issue.
Today the Chair was very concerned about press reports and the way the media treated this matter. 1 only saw one or two reports but I certainly saw the words "deliberately misled." I thought that is what this is all about. I am not disagreeing with the Chair's interpretation of the reports.
We only have to read yesterday's Hansard regarding the evidence of former commissioner Higgitt and the correspondence my colleague received from a former solicitor general relating to these matters. As reported at page 1857 the Speaker said:
I can interpret that testimony in no other way than meaning that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct the member in the performance of his duties and, consequently, to obstruct the House itself.
I agree. I agree that there is only one possible interpretation, as the Speaker found. 1 agree that the only conclusion is that there had been an attempt to obstruct, and that attempt had been deliberate. I agree that the attempt to obstruct was directed at a member of the House, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). It was not an attempt deliberately to obstruct the then solicitor general, although that could be possible. This was a letter from that solicitor general, signed by him, and directed to my colleague.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has no idea who was misleading him, and 1 am sure he agrees with the Speaker that, whoever it was, it was certainly deliberate. 1 thought that would be the function of the committee. The hon. member received a letter which deliberately misled him. He has never said, and I think all those who have participated in this debate agree, that the then solicitor general deliberately attempted to mislead him.


Yvon Pinard: He did say that.


William Herbert Jarvis: He said the letter misled him. There is no question that the letter was signed by the then solicitor general. I hope no one is denying that. However, the instruction that was perpetrated was perpetrated by a deliberately misleading statement. Surely there is no question about that. The Speaker has ruled on that. We surely are not appealing that.
The letter that was signed by the solicitor general of the day was directed toward a member of this House. That is far different from correspondence that may be the subject matter of the McDonald commission investigation. We remember the letter from the then minister of national revenue, now the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), directed to the then solicitor general, now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), relating to RCMP access to confidential tax files. That gives rise to no question of privilege. That is far different from what we are talking about here. That was a letter from one minister who
1908

Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
was very concerned about the legality of certain operations in which his department was involved, directed to his cabinet colleague who was responsible to the agents of government that were involved in that particular seeking of information from confidential files. That is far different in terms of the rights and privileges of members of this House from a letter from the then solicitor general to a member of this House, in which the Speaker has ruled there was a deliberate attempt to obstruct the hon. member in the performance of his duties and, consequently, a deliberate attempt to obstruct the House itself. The Speaker went on to say yesterday, as reported at page 1857:
-I cannot conceive that there is any one of us who would accept the argument that this House of Commons has no recourse in the face of such an attempt to obstruct-
What is the recourse? The government is saying the recourse is the McDonald commission. What is the McDonald commission? I regret I have to give a lecture in government to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). In order to determine what the McDonald commission is, the parliamentary secretary need look no further than the very clear statement of Mr. Justice McDonald contained on pages 6 and 7 of his statement of November 13, and I quote:
The governor in council, in creating such a commission as this, asks this newly and specially created unit of the executive branch of government to examine some particular aspect of the government, that is the executive. The executive branch, through its chosen executive instrument, is examining itself. This must not be forgotten by those who expect the commission to do as they wish and as it wishes.
Mr. Justice McDonald went on to indicate that he was part of the instrument created by the executive to examine itself. He pointed out that this was a very difficult and delicate position in which to be. Therefore, certain things must attach to it. It must not only appear that the commission is operating with some independence, but in fact it must so operate without interference.
Mr. Justice McDonald went on to say that it could not be directed by a minister. With all of this, 1 agree. If the executive creates an instrument to examine itself, and if it is to be anything more than pure sham, certain very special conditions must attach its operations. Still, however, as Mr. Justice McDonald pointed out, the commission remains an instrument of self-criticism.
The McDonald commission is not an instrument of the House of Commons. It was not created by the House of Commons. Its terms of reference were not approved by the House of Commons. None of its rules, practices or procedures are influenced in any way whatsoever by the House of Commons. It does not report to the House of Commons. The commission's terms of reference can be amended, not by the House of Commons but by order in council, the executive, the cabinet. Its very existence can only be maintained or terminated, either directly or indirectly, by the cabinet.
Mr. Nuss was originally counsel for the solicitor general of the day. Subsequently, and this is not at all clear, even to the McDonald commission, because Mr. Justice McDonald

December 7, 1978
specifically said so, that counsel enlarged his clientele to include all ministers of the Crown. That means the Privy Council, with one possible exception, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) in his capacity as Attorney General. It is very uncertain whether Mr. Nuss is counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, but it appears now that he is counsel for the government and not just the Solicitor General.
Mr. Nuss's arguments some-weeks ago were to this effect. Once the Privy Council decides that such a document or such and such evidence is not to be produced in public, that decision should be binding upon the McDonald commission. Fortunately that was rejected out of hand by the commission in its statement. If that argument were to prevail, and thinking how the government can terminate indirectly the existence of the commission, it could put the commissioners in such a position that in order to maintain any vestige of integrity they would be forced to resign.
If I recall correctly, Mr. Justice McDonald said that even if the government changes the terms of reference, the commission would be forced to re-examine its position. I agree. However, it is certainly within the power of the cabinet to terminate indirectly the very existence of the McDonald commission, a power that this House would not even presume to think it had in these circumstances.
I do not think we need go any further in terms of the relationship between the cabinet and a commission than to look to the Mackenzie commission. Hon. members will recall that the Mackenzie commission reported to cabinet, not to the House of Commons. Subsequent to the Mackenzie commission report, there appeared, and I believe it was tabled, an abridged report of the Mackenzie commission's findings. I do not know what was deleted. I doubt that any member now or then sitting, unless he was a member of the cabinet, has any idea in the world what was deleted from the MacKenzie commission report. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that commissions such as the McDonald commission, which according to the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is the answer to this question of privilege, bear no relationship whatsoever to the House of Commons or its individual members. The only relationship which exists is that between the commission and the cabinet.
Hon. members will recall that very early in the hearings of the McDonald commission submissions were made arguing that counsel should be permitted to appear on behalf of other groups in Canada. One of those groups happened to be the party I support. Those requests, not only by our party but by other groups, were rejected upon the basis of vigorous opposition by government counsel.
Compare that situation, the situation of the McDonald commission, which is simply the executive examining itself, with the position of the House of Commons. From my earliest days as a student I understood that parliament was the watchdog of the executive. It is interesting to note there has been some dialogue during this debate with respect to the role of the
December 7, 1978

backbencher; a point of order was raised today with regard to it. With respect to the McDonald commission, the backbencher has no role to play although, of course, he can ask questions about it. But as a watchdog over the executive, each member has a role. No matter where he sits in the House or what party he represents, he is entitled to fulfil that role as a watchdog of the executive. 1 hope that role is not questioned by anyone here.
Is the McDonald commission charged with determining whether or not there was a deliberate attempt to obstruct a member of this House? Never. That is not within the terms of reference of the commission. Indeed, I believe the commission would be horrified to find that this was its responsibility. Is it being alleged that the McDonald commission will investigate this particular situation? Well, I would want some very strong assurance from the President of Privy Council or from his parliamentary secretary that such an investigation is to be carried out. Does any government spokesman intend to assure me that the McDonald commission will investigate the circumstances leading up to this correspondence, this letter directed to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham? Are they going to find out who drafted that letter and bring that person forward to give evidence in public? Are they going to determine who gave information to that person and bring him, too, before the commission to give evidence in public? Are they going to determine who placed that letter in front of the solicitor general and bring that person forth to give evidence in public?
I would welcome assurances along these lines if they could be given, and I would accept them. But that is entirely hypothetical because such assurances will never be given. I would also want to know whether that evidence would be deleted from the report when it is finally made, as in the case of the Mackenzie commission report-it is within the power of the Privy Council to take such action. Suppose the commission were to decide to take this evidence in camera but to include it in the report. What assurance do we have that this particular part of the evidence would not be omitted? How could we be sure that we were not getting an abridged report as in the case of the Mackenzie report? We have no such assurance.
There is only one forum in Canada capable of dealing with a deliberate attempt to obstruct a member of this House, and that is the House itself through its committees. No one else can do it. No one else has the authority to do it. The circumstances leading up to the letter which was written to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham are an important issue, but not the only one. The hon. member himself put the matter clearly when he said the job of parliament is to do all it can to make sure this does not happen again. Can the McDonald commission give us that assurance? Never. It lacks the ability, the authority, to give such an assurance. Only the House itself can do that.
What has the response of the government been? I have read and re-read the speech made in this debate by the President of Privy Council and the reasons he gave for voting against the
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
motion. I noted five. The first was that the motion had been "sprung upon the House". That is a surprising comment, coming from the expert "springer" himself. Then he said he and his hon. friends proposed to vote against the motion, not because they had no confidence in the Speaker but because they had "probed beneath the surface". Amazing. They had no idea this matter was coming up; it was sprung upon them. Yet within minutes the President of Privy Council had been able to probe beneath the surface. This meant that the hon. gentleman and his colleagues were going to judge the issue. They were going to judge themselves.
The third reason he gave for voting against the motion was that it represented a plea to close down the McDonald commission. Good heavens, it was the government's own lawyers who said on its behalf: We, the Privy Council, want to decide whether the proceedings should be in secret or not. Just six weeks ago it was the government's own lawyer who said in an impassioned speech before the commission that the Privy Council wanted to determine what portion of the inquiry should be held in secret and what portion in public, what documents were to be made public and what documents were to remain secret.
I am sure the minister's lawyer did not just dream this up by himself. He had to be acting on instructions when he said that the government would take away the most vital part of the commission's role, that of deciding what is to be secret and what is to be open. The minister says this motion is a plea to close down the McDonald commission. That is nonsense.
The fourth reason given is that this is a sensitive matter relating to the security of Canada. What garbage is this? It has absolutely nothing to do with the security of Canada, and to allege the contrary flies in the face not only of fact but also of reason. If he had said that this is a matter of the security of this government, that at least would have been honest and we would have debated the matter on that basis. I do not know whether I should accuse the Deputy Prime Minister of confusing the security of the country with the political security of the party he represents, but to allege that this motion and its subject matter should not go to a committee on the basis that it represents a security threat to Canada is about as ridiculous as republishing 59 documents containing so-called top secret information and being for Canadian eyes only and distributing them all over Parliament Hill and Ottawa.
The fifth reason given was that the committee would be a political forum. For heaven's sake, what else would it be? Certainly it would be a political forum. The role of watchdog is to watch a political institution. Certainly the committee would be a political forum, and so it should be. Perhaps the minister meant by that that on the eve of an election it would be all partisan. That is what we expect in committees. Sometimes committees go that way. Sometimes they go other ways. I understand that, but to say that the matter should not go to a committee because the committee would be a political forum
80067-4<)'/2

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
invites us to extend that to its logical conclusion and to suggest that nothing should go to a committee.
The Deputy Prime Minister contented himself with those five reasons, but his parliamentary secretary came up with a couple more for urging his colleagues to vote against this motion. He said that the motion questions the credibility of the McDonald commission. Months after the commission began operating a government lawyer appeared before it and said that from that point on the Privy Council wanted the right to decide what the commission should hear in public and what it should hear in private. That makes this question of credibility look pretty weak. Frankly, that is like comparing a demi-tasse with a swill bucket. It just makes no sense at all. As recorded in page after page of commission proceedings the government's lawyer argued that the Privy Council should be deciding what should be public and what should be private. That in itself questions the credibility of the McDonald commission. Does the parliamentary secretary mean to tell this House that a committee investigating a deliberate attempt to obstruct a member in the performance of his duties creates a question regarding the credibility of the McDonald commission? Nonsense.
Finally, the parliamentary secretary made a long and impassioned argument regarding the lack of urgency of this matter. Allegedly, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham should have raised this matter a long time ago.


Mr. Boulanger:: Right. That is a weakness.


William Herbert Jarvis: That is a good argument, and do hon. members know what it is good for? It would have been a good argument regarding a prima facie case. At that point that argument should have been made. It would have been a good argument. Many questions of privilege have been refused on the basis that there was no prima facie case because of lack of urgency. I agree that that is an excellent argument, but although there was all the opportunity in the world almost a month ago to argue lack of urgency, that argument was not made.
However, once a prima facie has been established, it is too late to make that argument. Hon. members opposite missed their day in court in that regard, and to raise it now, to go over it time and again and to suggest that government members should vote against this motion because of lack of urgency, simply does not hold water. Hon. members opposite profess not to disagree with Mr. Speaker and not to question his ruling, but then after a prima facie case has been found, they turn around and argue that there is lack of urgency. That simply will not wash. It is too late for that. When hon. members make that argument at this point, they challenge the competence of Mr. Speaker. When they make that argument at this point, that is exactly what they are doing.


Prosper Boulanger: No, sir. Explain.


William Herbert Jarvis: Who are they who might be tempted to vote against this motion? I cannot name them, but they are those who wish to perpetuate the cover-up, the stonewalling, the delay and the whole litany of procedures the government has

practised for months respecting the broader issue of security service operations which led to the setting up of the McDonald commission. Ample evidence regarding that issue has been forthcoming for months now, not just in this debate. There have been questions during question periods, speeches and questions of privilege for months and months.
At first there was supposed to be one isolated incident. Then there was contradictory evidence, and we went on and on. There was an attempt to cover up. Prima facie cases having been established, there have been only two incidents since, I believe, 1965 in which government members voted against sending matters to committee. It is a remarkable coincidence that those two instances related to this particular issue. One would have to be very naive to believe that that is coincidence.
Who else might be tempted to vote against this motion? There are those who wish to have the executive proceed without accountability to the highest court of this country, this parliament. In the interests of expediency and efficiency there might be some who would say that executive action need not be accounted for to anyone. I believe that is the philosophy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It has been the philosophy of many political leaders, none of whom were very successful over the long run and most of whom were regretted in terms of history. However, that philosophy appears to be very much the philosophy of this government.
It has been said that ministers should be expected not only not to know about day to day operations but that they should virtually and deliberately avoid knowing. That is one of the most outstanding statements I have ever heard in terms of its repugnancy to me. It is absolutely unacceptable in terms of all I have come to know about parliamentary democracy. It is unacceptable by any yardstick because its logical extension would be that there should be government by the executive branch alone. I cannot accept that.
Nor can 1 accept the establishment by the executive of a special agency to examine the executive, such as the McDonald commission, as a replacement for accountability to parliament. With all its inefficiencies, with all its lack of expediency and with all the frustrations there may be, accountability to parliament has been the best system ever devised. If someone can show me a better system which eliminates the need for having the executive account for its actions and which at the same time protects the interests of the people it is set up to serve, then I would be the first to change my mind; but for centuries of parliament the fact that such a system exists has never been successfully argued.
Finally, there will be a group which might be tempted to vote against this motion. This group would be those who wish the rights and privileges of members to take second place to political expediency and political cover-up. Now, sir, in a pre-election period, as we all know, atmospheres change, attitudes change, performances change. That is part of the system. But that does not mean that one changes one's integrity. It does not have to mean that one compromises one's principles.
December 7, 1978

It does not have to mean that the very root of parliamentary democracy, that of accountability, has to take second place. Even from the crassest, most partisan political viewpoint, I cannot understand why we would deny a committee the right to investigate what Mr. Speaker calls a deliberate attempt to obstruct a member. To say that the privileges and elections committee is a parallel committee to the McDonald commission is about as absurd as anything 1 have heard. It boggles the mind. It just does not wash.
Once it is found to be a prima facie case that there was a deliberate attempt to obstruct a member-and Mr. Speaker found that that was the only conclusion to which he could come-the only conclusion was that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead; it was not negligence, carelessness or an inadvertent act, but a deliberate attempt to mislead and obstruct a member.
There is no question in Mr. Speaker's mind that it was intended to obstruct and mislead when he found there was a prima facie case, and there is no doubt whatsoever that it was a member who was being deliberately misled. No one is accusing anyone here. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has no idea in the world who was perpetrating the deliberate obstruction, and he has never alleged that it was the previous solicitor general. That is a possibility because, as my colleague the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) points out, he signed the letter. That is something which I would hope the committee would come to grips with immediately.
Let me say in conclusion that l implore members of the House to think about the role of the committee as the watchdog of executive action, not to try to crucify the government politically but to be the watchdog of executive action, the one form of accountability that the cabinet has to use. Why should we not have the right to discharge that function properly?


Erik Nielsen: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Prosper Boulanger: Oh, oh!
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to put up with it, as well as with a good many other things before he is through. I know we are a nuisance on this side. I also know the regard on the other side for this place is such, as has been indicated by the participants in this debate, that it is a complete misconception of what it is all about.


Roméo LeBlanc: That is an old cliche.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member does not understand this place.


Samuel Victor Railton: It is too bad.


Erik Nielsen: It is too bad, as the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) says.


Samuel Victor Railton: It is too bad you people do not understand it too.


Erik Nielsen: It is too bad hon. members opposite do not understand this place.


Samuel Victor Railton: It is too bad the hon. member is making a travesty of parliament.


Erik Nielsen: It is a travesty of parliament to suggest that the privileges of this place and of the members of this place-


Samuel Victor Railton: It is too bad the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)-


An hon. Member:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member should address himself through the Chair. The hon. member for Yukon has the floor.


Samuel Victor Railton: Tell the hon. member not to talk back.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was not interrupting while the hon. member was talking; it was he.


Samuel Victor Railton: Get down to the subject.


Erik Nielsen: It is a travesty of this place when hon. members opposite suggest the McDonald commission would have the power to decide the privileges of members of this chamber. I cannot conceive of a more distorted idea than that which seems to be prevalent in the minds of government members. It is not in keeping with any logic whatsoever or with any traditions built up over the years. We hear from members opposite that the privileges of members of this place should be decided by the McDonald commission.


Prosper Boulanger: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: That is exactly what they have been saying.


Prosper Boulanger: The hon. member is stretching it.


Erik Nielsen: 1 am not stretching it at all. That is exactly what they have been saying. They have said that we should not

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
conduct a parallel inquiry in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of this House, because the McDonald commission already is determining these matters. I suggest they fail to appreciate the nub of the question of privilege raised, that members of parliament have been misled by the government.
I sympathize with the remarks of Mr. Speaker today when he commented respecting the treatment which the procedure of this place was accorded in the press yesterday. According to the blues, Mr. Speaker said, "As a matter of fact, one of the unique points that I made was that we were not, as had sometimes been done in the past, holding the minister accountable in this process but that we were going around the minister to deal with his official."
With the greatest of respect, I do not share the view of Mr. Speaker when he made those remarks. Because we are dealing with the government and a minister of that government whose reply in a letter to the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence) binds that government in a situation where there was a deliberate misleading of the House.


Prosper Boulanger: You mean one paragraph of the letter.


Erik Nielsen: I do not care whether it is one paragraph or two words, it makes no difference.


Prosper Boulanger: It makes a big difference.


Erik Nielsen: If the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen)-of whom I will have something more to say in a moment-were shot to death, for example, and I were on trial for his murder-and God knows, sometimes it is difficult to tell whether the President of Privy Council is dead or alive, and the same applies to a good many of the members over there-and I was asked the question in my trial, "Who killed him?" and I answered, "I killed him", those three words would surely constitute rather compelling evidence for a jury to bring in a verdict of guilty.


Prosper Boulanger: C'est un argument simpliste.


Erik Nielsen: C'est (a. Mr. Speaker went on to say, "I am carefully trying to avoid coming to conclusions about this." That is to say, whether there had been any misleading of parliament. He went on to say, "I ought to review the discussion to keep it in context and that was that the solicitor general of the day may very well have been deceived by the action, which was the subject of the complaint by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. I was making the point that by going around the minister to get to an official who may have first of all deceived the minister, and through the minister, deceived the member, and therefore the House, we were embarking upon a procedure which was unique in that respect."
He is quite correct, but hon. members will note that Mr. Speaker is very careful in his choice and permissive use of the word "may", because the other conclusion, which many in this

country have already arrived at, is equally as applicable, that the minister himself may have deceived the House. That is what the motion is all about, to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for the purpose of conducting an investigation.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was quite accurate in his contribution to this debate when he said that the normal procedure would be to have the subject matter referred to the committee where an investigation would be conducted, and after the committee had reported to the House, the House would then make a decision as to the substance of the motion itself. However, the government has plugged its ears and decided that it is not going to committee, even though it has nothing to hide, but instead the decision will be made by a vote against the motion for referral.


Prosper Boulanger: You're playing a game.


Erik Nielsen: This is more important than a game. I suggest to the hon. member and to the hon. member for Welland-


Samuel Victor Railton: You're just playing a game, Nielsen. Don't kid me.


Erik Nielsen: I have been accused by the hon. member for Welland of playing a game.


Samuel Victor Railton: That is my opinion.


Erik Nielsen: I am not going to take objection because my hide is a little thicker than to be offended by his remark, but 1 am surprised that the good doctor would say such a thing because this is no game.


Samuel Victor Railton: I thought that the lawyer from the Yukon was more sensible.


Erik Nielsen: This matter concerns a member of this House who has been deliberately misled.


Samuel Victor Railton: Baloney.


Erik Nielsen: It is not baloney.


Samuel Victor Railton: It is baloney.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, the evidence is dear, was told in a letter which was signed by the solicitor general that there was no practice extant of opening the mail of citizens of this country. That is not baloney, that is fact.


Samuel Victor Railton: That is baloney because both you and he have made up your minds to carry on this sort of debate. That is all it is, just a debate. You have no real reason for it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Once again I would remind hon. members that if they wish to seek the floor they must rise in their place.


Erik Nielsen: He must also take off his hat, Mr. Speaker. I find it very difficult to believe that members opposite would
December 7, 1978

have that kind of view, that they could come to that kind of conclusion.


Samuel Victor Railton: You know what you can believe and what you cannot believe. You have given a good demonstration of that in the last six years as far as I am concerned. You can believe almost anything.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have had too much dinner.


An hon. Member:: More than dinner.


Erik Nielsen: Maybe more than dinner. There was an occasion in this House about five or six years ago when I rose in my place to complain about wiretapping. I related an experience that I had had with my telephone in my parliamentary office. I was conclusively led to believe that my telephone was being tapped, and I complained through the grievance procedure here in the House.
At that time the former member for Vancouver Quadra, Mr. Deachman, moved a motion that the subject matter of my question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. We agreed that it should be referred. I received a letter from the distinguished chairman, who is still chairman of that Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, requesting me to appear before that committee to testify. I said that I would be delighted to appear but for the sake of order perhaps the solicitor general should appear first to explain the policy of the government, and that members of the RCMP should appear following him to explain their activities. Once that had been done I explained that I would be most delighted to appear.
They did not call the solicitor general or the members of the RCMP to testify. The matter had ended and the committee had come back nulla bona, as we say in law, with nothing to report. Their tactic clearly was to "MacCarthyize" me on that committee, and when that opportunity was not available to them they stopped. They were very quick in those days to refer this kind of matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections but only if they could obtain political advantage. Yet we hear the hypocrisy of the President of Privy Council saying that we are taking this action for political purposes. We are not doing that at all.


Samuel Victor Railton: Beautifully done. I should congratulate you.


Erik Nielsen: We are taking this action for the purpose of determining who is telling the truth. There have been all sorts of contributions in this debate as to whom we are to believe. We are told by members opposite that once a minister stands in his place, then by the traditions of this House we must believe him. Yet we are confronted with the testimony before the McDonald commission which throws doubt on that belief.
We are not alone in coming to these conclusions. This has been a subject matter for the press throughout the country for a good long time. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is not in the House, I am
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
sorry to say. He complained about headlines in the press to the effect that the Speaker ruled that a government letter misled members of parliament. That is exactly what he ruled-the prima facie case that is being submitted to parliament to refer to a committee. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goo-dale) shakes his head in a negative manner.


Mr. Goodale:: Did you hear him speak?


Erik Nielsen: I heard him speak. 1 have been sitting here throughout this debate. The hon. member for Assiniboia has not. I have heard every word and have gone to the trouble of getting the blues so I know precisely what was said today and yesterday. I assert that the press stories are perfectly true. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was misled; there can be no question about that.


Samuel Victor Railton: He is easy to mislead.


Erik Nielsen: He was told that mail was not opened.


Samuel Victor Railton: Five years ago.


Erik Nielsen: I heard that too from the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), but the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham did not find out about this until the testimony came forth in the McDonald inquiry. Then he raised it at the first opportunity. There is no doubt-


Samuel Victor Railton: It took five years.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Welland says it took five years. How can he complain about something that does not surface for five years? The hon. members received that letter in 1973 and did not learn it was false until the testimony was given before the royal commission that we set up to look into these matters.


Samuel Victor Railton: It is not false yet. Who says it is false?


Erik Nielsen: It is patently false. He was told in that letter-


Samuel Victor Railton: It has got to be true. You are making a lot out of nothing.


Erik Nielsen: If what the hon. member for Welland says is true-that what the solicitor general said in the letter was true-then we would not be going through this exercise.


Samuel Victor Railton: Yes, you would. You would do it anyway just to mislead us and the country. That is what your main line is, to mislead the country.


Erik Nielsen: This is the old line, that we are a nuisance over here, a thorn under their saddle and we should be abolished- get us the heck out so that they can go on their own sweet way.


Samuel Victor Railton: The country is wising up to this.


Erik Nielsen: Indeed, they are! That is reflected in certain headlines I have read in the last two or three days.

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
Even the hon. member for Welland should concede that the letter from the solicitor general was false. He signed it. If we were to believe that he did not know what he was signing, I suppose he could well have sent a copy of the Lord's prayer to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and have adopted it as government policy.


Samuel Victor Railton: 1 don't know how he would know.


Erik Nielsen: There is a certain exposure there which might be beneficial to those on the treasury benches, of course!
The second point I want to make with reference to these things that are perfectly true is that, in order to be a prima facie case of privilege, the action had to be deliberate. Hon. members opposite have been delivering barbs and, indeed, some members on this side have been making excuses that the then solicitor general did not know the letter was false. But he signed the letter, Mr. Speaker. Ministerial responsibility has to begin and end somewhere. It had to be deliberate. When he signed that letter it had to be deliberately misleading. It was misleading; there is no doubt about that.
The letter, emanating as it did from the solicitor general, emanated from the government. It came from the solicitor general. He signed it. He made the misleading statement; therefore, the government has mislead a member of the House and, as Mr. Speaker has said, that is a contempt of the House itself. Therefore, I say that the press treatment of this proceeding is perfectly correct. That letter deliberately misled the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and deliberately misled this House.
The Prime Minister's predecessor in 1963 suffered from what we called at the time "selective amnesia". As long as remembrances occurred which might be embarrassing to the government with respect to the Rivard affair, the furniture matters or Munsinger matters, ministers conveniently forgot the circumstances. They could not remember; it was selective amnesia. The former prime minister travelled back from Prince Edward Island on a plane with the minister of justice of the day-God rest his soul-and he was told about certain things that he afterwards did not remember.
That was an affliction which dogged the government of that day. It seems to be a peculiarly Liberal affliction. They are no longer suffering from selective amnesia, but rather what I might call self-inflicted blindness, which is a theory that holds that by seeing no evil, its reality can be denied. Over and over again we have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say in this House-and I have quotations by the ream-that, of course, government is responsible for setting the policy of the security service.


Samuel Victor Railton: You should write children's stories.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Welland has more ability to write children's stories than I.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You have the ability.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi really should not speak about ability after his dismal performance in the debate this afternoon. I have never heard anything more inane in my time in the House than his so-called contribution to the debate. He asked, as did the President of Privy Council, "Who misinformed?" He wondered about responsibility being attached to an individual for misinforming the House. He did not know who it was.
I just put the question, Mr. Speaker: Who signed the letter containing false information sent to a member of parliament? Who signed the letter that deliberately misled the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham? It was the solicitor general of the day, and I am glad to see him in his seat. He has been peculiarly silent. One might have expected he would take part in this debate and attempt to set the record straight. That is the simple answer to the question.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Very simple. That is the problem.


Erik Nielsen: Very simple and very accurate. When a minister signs a letter one assumes he has read it. One also assumes that if the statement was made in that letter that mail was not being opened, he would recognize the seriousness of signing such a blanket assurance without asking questions. It is completely inconceivable to any logical, reasonable individual to conclude that the government operates a security service without any knowledge of what that service is doing in the country.
I believe that the letter contained information sent to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham which deliberately misled him, and that was the finding of the Speaker as well.
The motion calls for an investigation, but members over there do not want an investigation because the former solicitor general would have to appear and give testimony. The government majority would then have to exercise its usual effort of stonewalling. Even so, some damage and embarrassing evidence would emerge. That is what the motion calls for.
The President of Privy Council has tried to leave the impression that the House must make its decision here. When the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby made his contribution to the debate, he was absolutely correct in outlining the normal procedure that should be adopted when the House is considering matters of this nature. The matter should be referred to the committee, the committee should hear and consider evidence and then report to the House. Then and then only should the House make a decision.
Instead the government members, on instructions that the whip has laid on, are plugging their ears. They do not want to hear anything. They have decided the matter is not going to committee, that we are not going to get information, so that the matter will die here. They will be successful because of their majority. The facts will not be exposed.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!
December 7, 1978


Erik Nielsen: Let me give one educated guess for the benefit of the hon. member. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi during his so-called contribution to this debate spoke about trained seals. I might remind the hon. member that those members over there are precisely that, sir. They are trained seals. There is not an honest, independent initiative among all government backbenchers, no matter how important the matter is to parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member opposite claps. Let me remind him of what his leader, the Prime Minister of this country, said of Liberal backbenchers in the days when he was not in this place. He described members like the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi as trained donkeys seeing how fast they could get to the trough. That is a paraphrase but it is damned accurate in respect of the Prime Minister's words.


An hon. Member:: He didn't say that.


Erik Nielsen: He said that. He did not say it since he became Prime Minister but when he was a member of the NDP.


An hon. Member:: He said that before he saw the light.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder what light they see over there that blinds them to the natural course this parliament should be taking on this issue.
Let us consider the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) who used to be the minister of justice as well. Not only was he the minister of justice, he was the dean of the law school in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: Does that bother you?


Erik Nielsen: It doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is that students who went to that law school to learn the fundamental principles of law were subject to the influence of the kind of thinking to which the Minister of Transport is prone.
I can remember an occasion here in the House when we considered a statute which said in one of its clauses that payments "shall" be made to wheat farmers on a specific date. The Minister of Transport stood in his place and argued-I think he argued sincerely-that the word "shall" could be construed to mean "maybe". That is exactly what happened and the government held up those payments to the wheat farmers even though the statute said implicitly that they had to be made.
I remember the present Prime Minister standing up in the House, in February, I think, of 1968, when we defeated the government by two votes on a money measure, arguing that this really was not a lack of confidence and the government had every right to subsist and survive. He also used to be a law professor at a notable university in Montreal. No wonder we say that hon. members over there do not understand this place. They cling to power like a cat clinging to the hide of the Canadian people, whatever the cost.


An hon. Member:: What do the Canadian people say, Erik?
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Erik Nielsen: I think the Canadian people are pretty disgusted. The hon. member opposite reminds me of Bryce Mackasey.
I forget his riding, whichever one it was he represented from time to time-Verdun at one time, and a recent attempt at Ottawa Centre. He always tried to portray himself as the man going to work with a lunch bucket. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi thinks he is the only member of this House who has an understanding of what he calls the common, ordinary man in the street. I have news for him. There are other members of this House, on all sides, who are just as keenly aware of the guy who uses a wrench as that hon. member. He asks me what the Canadian people think. I would presume that what the Canadian people think is that those members over there are trammelling the rights of parliament. If the President of Privy Council were to have his way, we would have the gag rule. If the Minister of Transport had his way, it would be the gag rule, and that is the fact.


An hon. Member:: The people seem to be happy in my riding.


Erik Nielsen: I have lived in the hon. member's province for quite some time.


An hon. Member:: It doesn't show.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry if it does not show. I went to university in the hon. member's neighbouring province and I lived in that area of the country for six years.


An hon. Member:: You better go back and refresh yourself.


Erik Nielsen: I wonder if the hon. member has ever been to the Yukon. Let me tell him that I have lived permanently in every province and territory in the country, and I do not think that is a statement he can make. As a result, I think I am just as keenly aware of the feelings of Canadians as he is.
Canadians are going to get the impression from this debate and the exposure the question is receiving that the government, through the former solicitor general, is misleading members of this House. The Minister of Transport would like to see the debate terminated. He said the debate was closed and that this was a political attack. I have already given members the wiretapping example. It seems to me that if government members vote against this motion-


An hon. Member:: We will.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member says they will. The phrase immediately leaps to my mind: My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts. Hon. members opposite do not want the facts because they are embarrassing. This is yet another example of their total lack of regard for this place, and an example of the extremely low regard in which they hold the parliamentary process, the subject matter of the debate here last Tuesday.
I am really disappointed. 1 have sat here several years listening to the President of Privy Council. Usually I have a
8006 7-50

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
very high regard for his participation in debates of a procedural nature. However, every time he opened his mouth yesterday, he was doing so for the purpose of placing yet another restriction on members, yet another gag on members of parliament.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a point of order last night with regard to the words used by the President of Privy Council. During the debate today the President of Privy Council rose and tried to recoup some of that ground. There is no doubt that he was annoyed yesterday when Mr. Speaker found a prima facie case of privilege. He was annoyed that he had not received a copy of the motion. Obviously he was manifestly annoyed. He said in that debate-and so that hon. members do not forget who was the first person to reflect on the Chair, I will quote from page 1863 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a motion that obviously was well prepared beforehand and which obviously was in the hands of the official opposition for some time, having prepared it in consultation with the Chair.
1 am informed that is not true at all. That motion was not prepared in consultation with the Chair but was prepared in consultation with the Table and the officers of the House. There is a big distinction between the two. He went on to say:
1 regret that on a matter of this importance the motion itself was suddenly sprung upon us,-
What liability do members have-and I have raised several questions of privilege in this House in years past-to inform the government that we are going to be raising a question of privilege? None at all. They would like to have us operate as puppets, but that is not how we operate. He went on to say:
-and that we were not given any opportunity to consider the terms of the motion prior to its being put before us,-
Here were the damaging words:
-obviously on a prearranged basis.
He was accusing the Chair in no uncertain terms of collaboration, to use the word that was used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre last night. The Chair had nothing to do with the preparation of that motion. That was a very crass accusation to be made by the President of Privy Council. He really should apologize for it. However, it will not do any good because, in my view, the Speaker has a very fine judicial mind. After extreme care in exercising his discretion yesterday, he came to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case of privilege that has to be considered here.
What those opposite are saying is: "Your opinion is worth naught, Mr. Speaker. We do not agree with you that there is any case of privilege here. We are not going to allow it to be investigated. We are not going to allow it to be sent to committee. We are not going to hear anything from any witnesses. Our minds are made up. We are going to vote against the motion and you with your reputation as a very fine legal mind can go down the tube with it."
That is the position those opposite are taking. Then they draw the red herring across the trail of a parallel inquiry. I am
[Mr. Nielsen.1
glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council in his place.


Yvon Pinard: As usual.


Erik Nielsen: He has the audacity to suggest that this question of privilege should not be discussed in a parliamentary committee but should be decided by Mr. Justice McDonald and his commission.


Yvon Pinard: You don't understand.


Erik Nielsen: I not only heard the parliamentary secretary say that, but 1 read it again today. That is what the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi and the President of Privy Council have been saying. What a travesty of the parliamentary process! What could more clearly illustrate the complete lack of understanding of what this place is all about than that kind of a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council? We do not want a parallel inquiry. What we want, as the motion describes it, is a reference to the standing committee which usually considers matters of this nature.


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


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, your arguments and those put forth by most hon. members who have already spoken are quite convincing. This is clearly a motion which deserves the support of most if not all hon. members. This opportunity hon. members have to demonstrate real and sincere eagerness to straighten up our political ways should have precedence over any other consideration. For we must agree that unfortunately most of our so-called democratic governments are democratic only in names. Sometimes our leaders, under the cover of democracy, administer and govern in a way that would shock our people, if only they were aware of what is going on.
Without presuming what results such an investigation could have, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there has been too much mystery about things whose consequences are too serious to allow us to dismiss them lightly without scrutinizing them so as to show once and for all, as 1 said earlier, that this government can offer the population something positive rather than the opposite.
Mr. Speaker, I recall that in 1969, the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts heard the evidence of municipal authorities from the city of Montreal who stated that they were aware of a great number of subversive activities not only in the metropolitan area of Montreal, but also elsewhere in Quebec, and that they did not understand why nothing was being done to stop these activities after they had told the police and government authorities about them.
December 7, 1978

One year later, there was the famous October, 1970, crisis where we witnessed serious disturbances, and because of the circumstances surrounding these events, we were able to ask ourselves certain questions such as this one: Why is it that since the authorities were aware that certain events could occur, why is it that the police, especially the RCMP, while it found quite normal in its regular operations to infiltrate certain underground movements in the field of criminal activities or where the security of the country was involved, had let the situation deteriorate to such a point that this crisis could occur and not only affect certain people, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, but also harm the reputation of a whole nation and a whole population? The hon. member for Champlain was taken lightly and even laughed at in 1970, 1971 and 1972 when he asked a series of questions to determine how come certain events had occurred when the police was aware of the situation. All I was told at that time was that I could not be told anything on this subject because national security was involved, and this is how, as others have said before me, the government hid behind the rules to avoid revealing certain facts about which we should have been told.
Mr. Speaker, circumstances made it possible a few months ago to see that those considerations made several years ago were just as founded as the confessions of the Solicitor General who said it was true that the RCMP had set criminal fires, stolen dynamite, and issued communiques in the name of the FLQ in 1971.
Mr. Speaker, when we uncover everything under those revelations, we will realize that we are very close to a dictatorial government acting much like South American republics which always stand one hour or one day away from revolutions. Mr. Speaker, either one of two things-either the government takes its responsibilities and it has true and absolute control over everything that has to do with the security of this country, everything that has to do with its administration, directly or indirectly, or it leaves that democratic power in the hands of law enforcement agencies. In both cases, this goes against fundamental rules that should be guiding policies of this kind.
We have before us today a motion which puts those facts right to our faces, Mr. Speaker. How come the Solicitor General refuses to participate and the government confirms that refusal by informing us that it is going to vote against this motion whose only purpose is to bring about clarifications we need to set things straight? If there was an attempt to cover up, if it is still going on, I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is a way of doing things which sooner or later will generate disastrous reactions, and then do not be surprised when you see the comments that can be made on the general morality across this country, when the example comes from the top-the government itself.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we in our capacity as representatives of the people be able to preserve the fundamen-
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
tal rights and privileges the people have to know how their money is being administered, how their interests are being protected and what is the general direction of policies. If a solicitor general does not have more responsibility before this House than any law enforcement agency dictating letters to him, Mr. Speaker, we have to know where we stand. To refuse to inform adequately the duly elected representatives of the people is, as everyone else said before me, to try to hide the truth. It is high time in the system we have, which more and more people see as a corrupt system, for those who run it to shed their fear of facing public opinion directly by having the courage to disclose all the side-lights of what was done. I repeat, whether it was authorized or not, it occurred. Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to know under what authority and how it is the delegated authority the police was given went as far as stealing dynamite, setting criminal fires, and issuing communiques in the name of the FLQ.
In view of the special circumstances under which emancipation and growth led to the election of a Quebec government advocating a restructuring of the country along the lines of sovereignty-association, there is a strong tendency to conclude that everything has been done for a number of years to tarnish the reputation of those who are honestly, sincerely and peacefully striving to find a way for the people in this nation to live in true harmony. That the temptation has been to tarnish their reputations by all sorts of arbitrary means, such as controlling in some way the enforcement agencies or letting the police lead activities that are unacceptable in a so-called civilized nation-


An hon. Member:: Speak to the motion!


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, an hon. member opposite suggests I am not speaking to the motion, but this is more relevant than he thinks. I know of course such matters are of no interest to hon. members supporting this government. I know full well the large majority of Liberal members are not aware of all those actions, but they know as well as we do there have been actions that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the police are indulging in activities that might have been and in effect were from time to time in the nature of provocation. There were attempts to tarnish reputations, the audacity went as far as- and this has now been proved-to discredit a political party as a whole, namely the Parti Quebecois, in a successful attempt at getting a list of their membership.
Mr. Speaker, we hear reports of coups in South America. The reference is to banana republics, the implication is this is quite normal there. Well, if we got deeper, if we could finally find out how things happened and why they did happen, we might find out we are faced with an administration whose sense of democracy is no more advanced than that of countries led by what amounts to dictatorships. Mr. Speaker, we are here to protect the citizens, we are here to pass legislation
80067-SO1/:

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
promoting their emancipation and growth. In other words we are not here to play hide-and-seek to protect anybody.
Whether it be police forces, high-ranking civil servants or government authorities that are involved and made mistakes, we and the people are entitled to know the truth. And we should agree that the matter be referred to committee, so we may shed light. Certainly there can be no other conclusion that those who do not support that have something to hide. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, everything surrounding the facts that came to light, everything surrounding the very existence of the McDonald inquiry, the circumstances surrounding what is for all practical purposes the demise of the Keable inquiry in Quebec, all these things are rather mysterious and directions have certainly been given at a certain time to create such a situation. If we are not given the opportunity to scrutinize those issues in committee, how shall we know? When shall we be able to undertake a really objective analysis of all those facts and circumstances?
Mr. Speaker, we have no choice because there is no other means in this country to call all the witnesses to throw light on that issue. We have witnessed the fight between the Solicitor General of the federal government and the attorney general of Quebec concerning the famous Keable inquiry. We have witnessed that mouse and cat game, those proposals and counterproposals, the systematic refusal of any cooperations to shed light on the activities of police agencies and authorities in that matter, Mr. Speaker. How would we not conclude, as are doing all Canadians, that there is a plot of enormous proportions to try hiding the truth?
This is why, now that we have an opportunity to find out the truth, not for the sake of political or partisan revenge but merely to demonstrate to Canadians that we are responsible, we want to show our respect for democracy and even if the inquiry casts aspersion on certain people, we agree to go to the bottom of the matter to purify political morals and put an end to irregularities by the police to make sure that that kind of interference with the basic rights of citizens will not reoccur.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak in this debate because I think it is a matter of great importance. At least, I would have thought it was a matter of great importance, because surely whether the parliamentary system works or does not work depends on whether we can trust one another; and if we are getting into situations where a member cannot trust a minister, an answer he gets from a minister, a letter he gets from a minister, or a verbal answer he gets from a minister outside this House, and if he cannot trust that he is getting accurate information from a minister, or from another member for that matter, then how can this parliamentary system work at all? That is what I think is really at stake here.
When this letter was written on December 4, 1973, by the solicitor general of the time, we do not know whether the solicitor general of the time knew he was giving false informa-

tion to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). We do know that, in response to a letter of November 21 addressed to that minister by a member of this House, that minister gave incorrect information when he stated that he had been assured by the RCMP that it was not its practice to intercept the private mail of anyone, when it was its practice, when it was the usual thing, and when the RCMP had done it on dozens and hundreds of occasions.
Whether the minister just did not know or whether he took any steps to check the information he got, this House does not know. Therefore Mr. Speaker found a prima facie case. I want to point out what Mr. Speaker said as it is recorded at page 1857 of Hansard as follows:
1, therefore, find a prima facie case of contempt against the House of Commons.
Further on Mr. Speaker said:
-the hon. member does in fact have a prima facie case of privilege involving a deliberate attempt to impede the House in its work, and perhaps the minister and, in turn, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.
Having found a prima facie case, Mr. Speaker was not making a final decision. Surely the House has no other recourse but to ask the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to look into this matter. That is what one would have thought, but for the second time since 1965 hon. gentlemen opposite are going to vote against such a motion.
I remember that there was an Irish playwright who wrote a play called "The Playboys of the Western World". We see on the benches opposite the lemmings of the western world. They are all rushing headlong after their leader going over the precipice to electoral suicide. They are absolute lemmings, going blindly. The hon. member for Northumberland-Mirami-chi (Mr. Dionne) demonstrated his lemming-like instincts here today. I have made up a little verse about him.
The member for Miramichi
When told by his whip says "oui, oui".
Tonight on orders you'll note He'll give us a negative vote.
That is a typical hon. gentleman opposite. He does not want to make up his own mind about contempt of parliament, about contempt of the privileges of members, about whether members should get truthful answers from ministers, about whether members should get truthful answers from members or about whether members should have any rights at all. He just wants to vote blindly with his whip. When the whip says "vote yes," he votes "oui, oui."
The member for Miramichi When told by his whip say "oui, oui".
Tonight on orders you'll note He'll give us a negative vote.
I hope the hon. member proves me wrong before the night is out, or tomorrow is out, or Monday is out, or Tuesday is out, or Wednesday is out. Because if I had my way, we would debate this for the next month. We would give up Christmas.


Mr. Nystrom:: Three cheers for Tom Mayo.
December 7, 1978


John Carnell Crosbie: Tom Mayo is going to be in China with his cousin when I am through with him in the next election. That is the only mention his name is ever going to get in this House. He is never going to get here as a member as long I represent St. John's West.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: They are very upset next door to me here.
I want to give the House another quote. It has been proven false here today. A man named Barter Holyday said this:
A man may as well open an oyster without a knife as a lawyer's mouth without a fee.
It can be obviously seen that that is not true here today because lawyers are opening their mouths without fees, so far as we know. This is an important issue and it is a good thing we have them to speak.
Yesterday, the government House leader made his corkscrew defence of why the government was going to vote against this motion. Thank God 1 did not hear the hon. gentleman yesterday. He was like a boa constrictor. It was as if he had swallowed a donkey. He had a whole donkey down his throat, or a horse. He was like a boa constrictor twisting this way and that way, trying to digest what he had been ordered to do by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and have the House support it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Listen to them bray over there. Obviously he did not swallow all the donkeys because some of them are still braying over there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Now, Mr. Speaker, let us examine the House leader's speech made yesterday. What are the points he made as to why this matter should not go to committee?


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Is that the donkey braying again? Has the House leader returned? I am looking at page 1865 of Hansard to examine what defence the government House leader made yesterday.


Prosper Boulanger: You are brainwashed.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not think the hon. gentleman is brainwashed; he does not have that article to wash.
The House leader, as reported at page 1864 of Hansard, advanced his reasons why-


Prosper Boulanger: You are brainwashed.


John Carnell Crosbie: The House leader said he probed beneath the surface. God knows what he found when he probed beneath the surface of that caucus.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Prosper Boulanger: Brainwashed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to lose my train of thought here. At page 1865 of Hansard the government House leader is reported to have said of the government:
We set up the McDonald royal commission at the request of the official opposition.
How does that score with what the Prime Minister said a few short months ago? He said this at a press conference on October 28, 1977, when he appointed and gave additional terms of reference to the McDonald commission. He said, at the time when we had heard of some outrages by the RCMP, of breaking and entering and the like:
-I said, well, in that case, we will set up this commission of inquiry.
The Prime Minister decided to set up a commission of inquiry. Yet the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mac-Eachen) suggested that they set up the commission because we had requested it. They had not set it up for that reason at all, Mr. Speaker.
What did the then solicitor general do? We have had so many solicitors general that it is hard to remember all their names. In this case it was the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux Montagnes (Mr. Fox). He came to the House on October 28 and said that in the spring of 1976 they had been made aware of certain break-ins and some thefts on the premises of the APLQ in Montreal, but they did not think that was important and they did not set up a royal commission. But later on, in the summer of 1977, other allegations were made, and having inquired into these allegations-now I am quoting from page 8-it says here:
-the commissioner of the RCMP advised that he believed that in the circumstances it would be in the best interests of the RCMP that a commission of inquiry be set up to look into the operations . . . The government agreed that public support of the RCMP-
-was necessary, and they therefore set up the commission, not because the opposition requested that this commission be set up.
First the Prime Minister claimed that he set it up because in his great wisdom he decided it should be set up. Then the solicitor general said it was set up because the commissioner of the RCMP wanted it set up. Well, it was not set up to decide whether or not our privileges as members of the House have been violated. It was set up for certain other reasons, and it has been pursuing them ever since. As Mr. Speaker himself said, to knock down another argument of the government House leader-there are a lot of them over there who should be knocked on the head but we will only knock their arguments on the head-as reported at page 1856 of Hansard'.
-because the parallel inquiry that would be involved was not in any way a trial and there was no verdict which I felt could be prejudiced by a parallel inquiry. I therefore did not think the doctrine has an application in that sense.
So that puts that argument to rest.
Then the government House leader went on with his defence-it must have been painful to him because today he looked as if he had a bad case of the bends from having given these arguments yesterday-and said this:

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
Certainly it is not the exercise of either the ministerial responsibility or parliamentary responsibility to find a question of privilege on one sentence by one witness contradicted by other witnesses in testimony that is not yet complete, that has not been tested by other witnesses and that has not been the subject of cross-examination.
Who said that this was necessary? That is why we have the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, so that members of that committee can test the witnesses and can decide whether this sentence is contradicted somewhere else, or whatever the case may be. That is the whole reason we are asking that this should go to a committee.
Then the President of Privy Council, in the lowest blow, attempted to involve us in a conspiracy. He noted how the government is the victim of a lot of conspiracies now. The poor Prime Minister went to Toronto and spoke to the lukewarm Toronto Liberals and told them that there was a great conspiracy to get the Liberals out of the government, to defeat them. He said that the press was against them, the Conservatives were against them, the NDP were against them, the Social Credit were against them, that the people were against them, and it was all the result of a great conspiracy.
His deskmate, the government House leader, has the same conspiracy bug-not the kind of bugs the government has been putting in people's offices and houses through their agencies across Canada but another kind of bug. They have the conspiracy bug. The government House leader opened up his speech yesterday by saying that there was a conspiracy, that the official opposition had put forward the motion having prepared it on consultation with the Chair. It was put before us, he said, "obviously on a prearranged basis". In other words, there was a conspiracy, and even Mr. Speaker was involved in the conspiracy against the poor, pitiful hon. gentlemen opposite. Everybody is conspiring against them.
Imagine the President of Privy Council with his long record in the House saying that kind of claptrap, putting forward that kind of dangerous theory, that unless the Liberals stay in power in Canada, Canada will fall apart, and that it is a powerful and sinister conspiracy of people who are trying to pry them out of office to which they have attached themselves. They will cling to power by their fingernails, their toenails and their hangnails, and they will attempt anything to stay there. That is the effect of what the President of Privy Council said to us yesterday.
This is a sleazy, slingy, dingy government, and their actions yesterday proved it. They are sleazy, slingy and dingy. They are certainly not whiter than white; they are tattletale gray. They are not bright. Their whole performance in the last two years in the field of law and security is the sleaziest and dingiest of any elected democratic government in the world, and they still have not stopped.
All the defences that are alleged in connection with the McDonald commission give one cause to think and to worry. There was the Laycraft inquiry on the fact that the Department of National Revenue and the RCMP had ignored the law. All was given in testimony before the Laycraft inquiry. There is no confidentiality of information if the government wants to break the law and use it for its own purpose. The

government is not concerned about that; they will just stay in their seats and vote baa, baa black sheep whenever they are told to vote baa, baa black sheep. They are not concerned with these dingy affairs. Then there was the Doyle case that I have spoken about here before.
I want to give the House a quotation which summarizes how this government administers the law. It is from Balzac, a Frenchman I believe, who lived from 1799 to 1850. He said: "Laws are spiderwebs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught". So long as this government is in office, the big flies will go right through the spiderwebs. They are not paying their taxes, they are not obeying the law, and the little flies are getting caught. I am sick and tired of looking at them over there, satisfied, prepared to put up with it and voting blindly every time-


John Edward Broadbent: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have here another quotation which reads:
If police efficiency were an end in itself, the police would be free to put an accused on the rack. Police efficiency must yield to constitutional rights.
That was a statement by an American judge, Judge Wisdom. He was talking about who will guard the guardians. That is the question here: Who will guard these guardians opposite us who do not care about parliamentary traditions? Who will guard what happens in the House, if the majority will use their majority to prevent this matter from being referred to a committee for investigation? What a squalid spectacle, completely and utterly squalid.
The author of the squalidity is now over in Europe trying to take their minds off squalid affairs which are going on in the House of Commons. While he trips off to the United Kingdom and France, he is trying to take the public's mind off the squalid scene in the House tonight, all day today and yesterday. It is not going to work. It does not matter how the boa constrictor twists and turns, or what donkeys he swallows, or what horses he swallows. The Auditor General did not find any horses on the government payroll this year, but he found a large number of the rear part of horses on the public payroll. The horses are gone, but the horses' ends are not.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi better keep himself to saying, "oui, oui". There was a secret trial of Peter Treu. I remember in my youth listening to "The Shadow" on the radio. When that program was on, the saying used to be, "Only The Shadow knows". Well, only "The Shadow" knows in this House, because we do not know, and we are never going to know. It is only the government's little shadows that are going to know what happened and what are the true facts of the letter sent by the minister, who is right opposite me now, on December 4, 1973.
How can the minister sit in the House and have this matter discussed for two days, and not rise on his feet and say, "Gentlemen, this is what happened: I asked the RCMP", perhaps he might say, "to prepare an answer for me in all good faith, and this is the answer they prepared. I took them at their
December 7, 1978

face word about it". That is what he should be telling this House or telling the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. "This is what happened: I am very sorry but I trusted the RCMP. You know, you would expect me to trust the RCMP. ! was the minister in charge of them. When they told me X, Y, Z, I believed them".
Surely I could believe the minister if he said that. But how can I believe a minister who does not even get up to speak in this debate about a letter which he sent to a member, in answer to the member's letter to him asking for information? Honestly, how can one puzzle out what that means? I cannot understand it.
This is a scandal-ridden government if I ever saw one. If I ever saw a government scandal-ridden, this is it. The Auditor General's report, they have brushed that off. That has got scandal after scandal in it, but nobody seems to care. Is it that the press and the public think we are so corrupt that why should they bother caring about anything, about the hundreds of millions wasted, the way the Department of Transport put the blame on their ministers? Nobody even bothers to ask the minister to have an inquiry into why the public service is blaming the ministers for all these mistakes. Does nobody care that 65 per cent of all contracts in the country are handed out holus-bolus without tenders? Mr. Speaker, $1.8 billion to the Department of Supply and Services alone out of $2.7 billion, I think it was, in 1976-1977. Down in Newfoundland they had a royal commission investigation because a few hundred thousand dollars in contracts were given out without observing-


An hon. Member:: How much?


John Carnell Crosbie: A few hundred thousand dollars.


John Edward Broadbent: What is the government of Newfoundland?


John Carnell Crosbie: It is Progressive Conservative. They appointed a royal commission to investigate this minor transgression, compared to this outfit that is giving out and bashing out billions.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi better keep his thoughts to oui, oui, and not interrupt me. The lugubrious Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) got up to speak today, and he made another one of his unctuous, vacuous speeches here to defend the House leader. He said that it would not be the right method to send this to committee. No, it would not be the right method because there is something the hon. gentlemen are hiding. Therefore, it would not be the right method to do that at all.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi actually spoke today. He said that what the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) had said was arrant nonsense. Imagine, Mr. Speaker! What was it that the House leader said? It was Allan's nonsense. That is what he should have been speaking about, not arrant nonsense.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
Where are we? Here we have the Speaker finding prima facie a disgraceful state of affairs. The press reported accurately. The press had as its headlines, "Liberal government letter misleads MP". That is just what the letter did. It misled everyone. The member was misled. We have all been misled. It was a prima facie case of privilege. There was a deliberate misleading by somebody. The letter emanated from the government, from the solicitor general. It was signed by him. So the headlines are perfectly correct, that Liberal government letter deliberately misled an MP. That is exactly what happened, but the Liberal government do not care that they have misled a member of parliament. They do not care. They think the public will forget this in the long run.
There are other members who want to speak here, so 1 cannot really let myself go as I would like to let myself go. It was a funny thing. The Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) in charge of funds for education and the like is going to go to Mandalay or Burma over Christmas to find out about freedom of information. He should start unlocking some information in this House before he goes. Is he going to stop in Chile on the way to find out how free the information is? He will find there is more information given out by the government in Chile than there is right here.


John Edward Broadbent: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Where else is he going to stop? Why does he not shoot down to Iran on his way and find out how free the information is in Iran and the SAVAK? That is where we are headed for, if hon. gentlemen opposite are not turfed out on the first occasion the electorate gets in the next few months; we are headed right for the SAVAK. Imagine, freedom of information can be studied right here today and yesterday. Where is the Secretary of State? What has he said in this debate? When is this fine Torontonian going to rise to his feet to speak on freedom of information and the privileges of the members of this House, instead of going caw, caw, haw, haw when his party whip tells him to go caw, caw, haw, haw, oui, oui or non, non?
I noticed the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said that some officials were going to be hung out to dry in Loto Canada. I thought to myself, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) wants to hang out to dry the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, if he ever gets a chance. When it comes to pegging that old dollar, it is not going to be the dollar which is going to get pegged, it is going to be the chairman of the finance committee. He is going to go right up on a peg.
I have only given half of my address.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: More, more!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have one other quote which will stun hon. gentlemen opposite into insensibility. This is called Coughlin's

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
law: "Don't talk unless you can improve the silence". There is not one over there who can improve the silence. Not one of them can improve the silence. There is another law too, Gate's. I just happen to have this with me tonight. There is Gate's law: "If there isn't a law, there will be". That is Gate's law.
Because I know other members are anxious to speak on this, I will just say this. As a new member of this House, I am shocked. I do not even know whether I will offer myself for re-election, if this is the way the majority are going to treat the privileges of the members of this House, in such a supine manner. We will all be watching the member for Northumber-land-Miramichi to see whether it is oui, oui or non, non when this vote comes up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my friends on all sides if I deign to bring the House back from the road to Mandalay where the flying fishes play; but it seems to me that we have before us tonight a very serious issue. As a matter of fact, this started out to be a matter concerning a letter sent by a cabinet minister to a member of this House, containing a statement which turned out to be false. That in itself is a serious matter. In the absence of an immediate apology from the government side for this having happened, that issue would have been well worth the length of time we have been debating the motion put down yesterday by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).
In my view, what has transpired in these two days has produced an issue much greater and much more serious than the original question which got us into this debate. That more serious issue is the way in which the government has decided to respond to a judgment from the Chair that there is before the House a prima facie case of privilege.
I concede that this takes the form of a motion, that if there is a motion it can be voted on and that if the majority of the members choose to vote against the motion it is defeated. I recognize, too, that the Speaker is perfectly entitled to assume the position that he has taken, namely, that his role is separate from the role of the House and that therefore he does not feel his position has been downgraded by the stand taken by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and, apparently, by all those on the government side of the House.
As a member on the floor of this House, I feel that we are experiencing a downgrading of the parliamentary process. We are in a situation where the government is saying that by the weight of its majority it will negate the judgment of the Speaker. We give to the Speaker of this House a great deal of responsibility and authority. Many years ago that authority was confined by having appeals against Speaker's rulings, but we decided in due course that that was not the way to run the House, that it would be better for the Speaker's rulings not to be appealable.

I must say that in the days when we were discussing that change I had to be won over to it. I was here, of course, in 1956 when there were perhaps more votes on appeals of the Speaker's rulings than votes on anything else. Having experienced an occupant in the Chair who did not exactly grace it, I found it difficult to go along with the idea; but in the end I supported it. I am very glad that I did, as I think are all of us who participated in the making of that decision. We have had good speakers over the years, but the quality of the judgments by Speakers on points of order has definitely improved since the time we abolished appeals against Speaker's rulings.
This situation is in a slightly different category. It is not a ruling but a judgment which the Speaker has made. It is made by Mr. Speaker, who has been put in the position of having to give us his thoughts on the issue and the benefit of his judgment. He took a long time on this one, and it was discussed on at least two occasions on the floor of the House. In the end Mr. Speaker told us that, in his view, what had happened was very clear, that there has been a deliberate misleading of a member of this House and that that was an offence against the privileges of this House. He found that in his view there was a prima facie case of privilege.
It seems to me that in keeping with our experiences on Speaker's rulings on points of order, and with the more successful occupancy of the Chair, we have had since we went in for that way of doing things, there should have been no question about the judgment of the Speaker with respect to this matter, that there should have been immediate acceptance of the Speaker's opinion and that the motion made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and put before the House should have been passed without debate.
Of course, the whole debate could have been avoided completely if somebody on the government side had been prepared to stand up, offer an apology and ensure that steps would be taken guaranteeing that this sort of thing would not happen again. If the government was not prepared to do that, it should at least have been prepared to let the normal practices of this House proceed. The motion should have passed without debate, and the matter should have gone to committee where it would have been thoroughly examined.
However, the President of Privy Council has said that it will not be examined in committee, that it will be examined on the floor of the House. How can a problem like this be examined by having speeches made back and forth from one side to the other, whether it is the member for Mandalay who just spoke, the member for Winnipeg North Centre or the President of Privy Council? We are not conducting an investigation, calling witnesses or looking into the matter at all; we are simply making speeches which do not resolve the issue the way it could be resolved in committee. I feel that this matter should go to committee.
If the government does not like the judgment offered by Mr. Speaker yesterday, it is all the more important for the good name of the government to have this matter investigated. If the government simply votes down the motion, it seems to be
December 7, 1978

saying, "We do not want this matter looked into; we are using the weight of our majority". On the other hand, if the government feels that it could win its point of view if the matter were investigated, that is all the more reason the government should be allowing it to go to committee.
I have not taken the time to look up all the related precedents on such a matter, but certainly in my time here the only case I can recall of the government voting down a Speaker's ruling that there was a prima facie case was earlier this year when the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) had a point of privilege. I was shocked that, after the Speaker giving us the benefit of his judgment, the government would simply say no.
The President of Privy Council yesterday cited an example of something back in the days when Mr. Speaker Michener was in the Chair. As I recall, that had something to do with a civil servant against whom there was a complaint on the floor of the Elouse. The judgment he gave on that occasion related to the fact that that non-accused person was not here to defend himself.
This, however, is a totally different situation and Mr. Speaker Michener's dictum does not apply at all. In this case the person who has been offended is a member of this House right here on the floor. When you offend the rights and privileges of a member of this House, you offend the rights and privileges of this House as a whole. There have been no precedents advanced by those on the government side to support the government's position in this matter.
The practice is to send these matters to committee. I have known of a number of cases which have gone to committee, some of which after arriving there were found by the committee to have no privilege. That then is the end of it. Or the committee would report back to the House that there is a case of privilege, whereupon the House could turn it down. But to close the door by the weight of a government majority is flying in the face of reality, is flying in the face of what is the intelligent thing to do.
Even though Mr. Speaker may not feel offended by what has happened, I say that this action by the government is an offence to the Chair and is nibbling away at the authority of this institution, the parliament of Canada itself. 1 am disturbed by the fact that twice in the space of a few months the government has rebuked the Speaker in this way, and I think that it should not be tolerated at all.
I know that once a cabinet minister or two stands up and states a position, the backbenchers will go along. I hope that my friend over there does not mind my using that phrase. I know, too, that some government members, when they learned yesterday of the Speaker's ruling, assumed that it would be accepted because it was the Speaker's judgment. I have noticed some of them sitting in the chamber, and I wonder how they will vote. Surely there is something to this debate which has been going on these last two days, and surely there will be some Liberals who will not take the cue from the front bench, who will either absent themselves so that what is right can be supported, or will actually vote our way.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
As I say, our practices are clear in this respect. That is what we are governed by around here; not just by our rules, but by practice. This practice that is being developed by the negative vote, even without debate, when we had the question of privilege in the case of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, and now by these speeches and a negative vote-these are precedents that are a black mark on this parliament.
I hope that even yet, Mr. Speaker, the House will, in the proper parliamentary way, support the motion before us at this time.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not often intervene in matters of a procedural nature, but what we are debating at this time is very much more than a matter of procedure; it involves the question of how broadly or narrowly ministerial responsibility is to be interpreted. It involves as well the right and privilege of each and every member of the House to be assured of the quality and the integrity of the information imparted to them, which they in turn impart to those Canadians they have been elected to serve.
In following this debate, I am deeply troubled by the reaction on the government side of the House. It is as if they have not understood or will not understand the responsibility that each one of us has to make sure that the service, information, that we provide to Canadians is beyond question. To want to do so may sound idealistic to some, but where parliament is concerned I indeed remain unashamedly idealistic.
The motion we are debating would grant us the right to determine, in a committee of the House, whether or not a minister of the Crown was misled or misinformed by officials on a matter of a very sensitive and important nature. It will allow us to determine whether or not the minister in turn accepted that information without questioning it, or if he had any knowledge to the contrary, but who in any case relayed that information to a member of parliament to be conveyed to a constituent who felt that his basic rights were being infringed upon.
In light of some of the information already before us, that motion seems to be the only logical step for this House to take. It is the only honest step to ensure that our parliamentary responsibilities are being properly discharged by each and every one of us in this House. Here we have a situation where a Canadian citizen was very concerned that one of his most basic rights was being violated-that his right to receive mail without it being tampered with by any individual or any organization, by any member of the RCMP, would not be violated. That is what he was concerned about. He thought it was, and he raised that concern because he knew that such action would be illegal.
Because of his concern, because of the worries and fears he had, this Canadian citizen contacted his member of parliament, trusting that if anyone could get to the bottom of this matter or allay his fears it would be his member of parliament. His member of parliament, the hon. member for Northumber-

December 7, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), set out to get the proper answer to his constituent's question, as was his duty. On the basis of the reply he received from the then solicitor general, the member of parliament replied to his constituent. He accepted at face value this statement in the minister's letter and passed the information on to his constituent, believing it to be true. Let us take for granted that the concern and the fears of the constituent were temporarily allayed by the answer he received, only to find later that the answer was contradicted in testimony before the McDonald commission.
In light of this sequence of events I must ask what recourse a Canadian citizen has when he feels his rights are being violated. This particular citizen took his fears to his member of parliament, his representative in the highest court in the land. That member, in turn, asked the minister who has the ultimate responsibility for the actions of the RCMP for an answer. The answer to his question turned out to be wrong, and wilfully wrong.
Where does the citizen go now? That is the question that many Canadians must be asking themselves tonight. More important, on their behalf, where do we as members of parliament go now?
In his ruling, Mr. Speaker found, and I quote, "a prima facie case of contempt against the House of Commons". This is a very serious judgment-a very serious judgment, not to be taken lightly by any member of parliament regardless of party affiliation. As a result of that judgment, we have a motion to refer both the letter sent by the solicitor general of the day to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham dated December 3, 1973, and the testimony of former RCMP Commissioner Higgitt given before the McDonald commission to a parliamentary committee for investigation and report back to this House.
This would seem to be the most appropriate course of action under the circumstances. But what have we found in this House in the last couple of days? We have the government House leader indicating his intention-that is, of course, the intention of the majority in this House as represented by the government party-to ignore the decision of the Speaker of the House and to vote against this motion, thus to vote against pursuing the truth of this matter any further. Members of the government tell us that the McDonald commission can look after the matter. The government House leader puts it in these words: "Why do we want a parallel inquiry? All of this is before the royal commission?"
I have news for the government House leader, Mr. Speaker. The activities of the RCMP may be before the royal commission. The actions of certain members of cabinet may be before the royal commission. But the rights and privileges of the members of this House are not before that royal commission.
Since the question affects the privileges of all members of parliament, the settling of it must take place in a forum where all members of parliament can participate openly and forthrightly. Members of parliament cannot just go and appear before the McDonald commission, and indeed the commission is not authorized to have them do so. The proper place for this

matter to be examined and investigated is in a committee of this House, as the motion recommends. It is the responsibility of this chamber and not the McDonald commission to look out for the rights and privileges of members. It is the responsibility of the House to try to reach a decision so that incidents such as the one set out by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham do not occur again.
I want to recall for the benefit of members an incident which occurred not too long after I was elected, Mr. Speaker. On that occasion, members of a police force came into my parliamentary office and interrogated members of my staff without my knowledge and without the permission of your predecessor. That incident became a question of my privilege as a member of parliament, indeed, of the privilege of all members of this House.
It was agreed by members of the House subsequently to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. It underwent a thorough investigation with witnesses being interrogated and heard, and the unanimous report of that committee-and this is what is important because it can be used as a precedent in this case-was to affirm your authority in respect of activities on Parliament Hill. It also moved to strengthen the confidentiality and the integrity of exchanges between members of parliament and those whom they represent.
That reference of a serious question of privilege to a committee, which is recommended in the motion we have before us, and the resulting investigation of that committee, had the effect of strengthening our parliamentary processes. It had the result as well of strengthening our responsibilities as members of parliament.
If the government is determined on this occasion to follow a contrary course, and if this motion is defeated and the decision which you so carefully arrived at is set aside, Mr. Speaker, then we will have set a precedent by this action for any similar questions of privilege involving information obtained from ministers of the Crown.
If this motion is defeated, sir, who will bear the ultimate responsibility for any misinformation that gets passed on from ministers to a member and, finally, to a trusting constituent? We cannot, as the highest court in this land, a body whose activities are all too often treated with cynicism, afford to toss this question aside too lightly. We must refer it to a committee, and we must determine, first of all, if there was a deception; second, who was deceived; third, who did the deceiving; and fourth, what was the role of the minister involved.
All of this must be cleared up so that members of parliament will not again be put in a position of unintentionally misleading their constituents. If it is not cleared up, members of parliament will cease to trust the information they receive from ministers, and constituents will cease to trust the information they receive from members of parliament. At that
December 7, 1978

point, sir, the function of all members of parliament as representatives of the people will be placed in greater jeopardy.
The question of ministerial responsibility is basic to our parliamentary system, or at least it was. It is important that ministers of the Crown do everything in their power to ensure that they are cognizant of the major activities in their departments, and as certain as possible of the truth of the statements which are issued under their signatures.
If government members avoid this issue and defeat this motion, and if they use the excuse that an extraneous body can have a role and make a ruling concerning the privilege of members of the House of Commons, then, sir, the most basic principles of our parliamentary democracy are being challenged, and they are being challenged by a government afraid of the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the motion in the name of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Lawrence), which was negatived on the following division.
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Bawden
Beatty
Blackburn
(Division No. 16)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Brisco
Broadbent
Cadieu
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Crombie
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax-East Hants) Crouse Ellis Epp Faour
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
Firth Forrestall Friesen Gillies Halliday Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hare
Hargrave
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Holmes
Huntington
Jarvis
Johnston
(Okanagan-Kootenay) Kcmpling Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Abbott Allmand Anderson Andras (Port Arthur)
Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate) Beehard Begin (Miss)
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Buchanan
Caccia
Cafik
Campagnolo (Mrs.) Campbell
(LaSalle-femard-Cote
Saint-Paul)
Caron
Clermont
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Cote
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane Demers Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Duclos
Dupont
Messrs.
Lambert
(Edmonton West)
La Salle Lawrence MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacKay
Masniuk
Matte
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinley
McKinnon
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nielsen
Nystrom
++NAYS
Messrs.
Duquet
Ethier
Faulkner
Fleming
Foster
Fox
Francis
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier) Gendron Gillespie Goodale Guilbault Harquail Herbert Holt (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Horner
Isabelle
Johnston
(Westmount)
Joyal
Kaplan
Lachance
Lajoie
Lamontagne
Lang
Langlois
Lapointe
Leblanc
(Laurier)
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent)
Lefebvre
Lessard
Loiselle
(Chambly)
Loiselle
(Saint-Henri)
Lumley
MacDonald
(Cardigan)
Oberle
Orlikow
Pa proski
Parker
Patterson
Peters
Pigott (Mrs.)
Rae
Ritchie
Roche
Rodriguez
Saltsman
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Siddon Smith
(Churchill)
Stevens
Towers
Whiteway
Whittaker
Wise-75.
MacEachen
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
Maine
Marceau
Mclsaac
McRae
Milne
Nicholson (Miss)
O'Connell
Olivier
Oueliet
Parent
Pearsall
Penner
Philbrook
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Railton
Raines
Reid
Roberts
Robinson
Rompkey
Rooney
Roy
(Timmins)
Roy
(Laval)
Sauv6 (Mrs.)
Savard
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stewart
(Cochrane) Tessier T rudel Watson Wood Yanakis Young-107.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I declare the motion defeated.
It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock in the morning.
At 10.41 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, December 8, 1978