1978-03-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. There has been no budget brought down by this government since March 31, 1977, despite the serious deterioration in the country's economy. Budgets are necessary for planning for Canadian business and taxpayers; budgets contain supporting information and documentation to substantiate projections, and uncertainty of taxation or incentives undermines business confidence and the taxpayers' forward-planning.
In view of this government's horrendous deficit covering current operating expenses, which means mortgaging our country and future generations as a testament to this government's incompetence, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to immediately bring down a budget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Firestone of Canada Ltd. has just laid off 110 workers at its Calgary plant, bringing the total number of lay-offs to 270 in the past year. Firestone had been given a 15-year grace period from city taxes in return for providing Calgarians with jobs. I therefore
move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That this House condemns the Firestone company's refusal to co-operate with UIC officials and directs the Minister of Employment and Immigration to intervene on behalf of the workers at that plant.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an urgent and important matter.
As the protection of the citizens should be the basic concern of any government, and as it also behoves the federal government to ensure the citizens better protection in their dealings with the state, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House call upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to take all steps required, as soon as possible, to introduce a bill creating for Canada the office of a federal ombudsman, given the fact that present efforts by the government to determine how best to guarantee the citizens optimum protection in their dealings with the state are inadequate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 17, 1978


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
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 light of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) is reported by the Clarenville Packet as having advised that he had meetings with three reputable companies to discuss the possible take-over of the Come-By-Chance oil refinery, and that a number of options are open to the federal government, and in talks in the United States he had been told that "there was talk of using Come-By-Chance and all other surplus refining capacity in eastern Canada on a basis that would help supply the eastern seaboard of the U.S. if Canada would establish Come-By-Chance as an 'in bond' refinery with American crude in and American finished products out destined for the United States," I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the minister make a statement on motions outlining the reputable companies he has met with who might take over the Come-By-Chance oil refinery, and whether or not the government of Canada is entering into arrangements so that the oil refinery at Come-By-Chance could be used as an 'in bond' refinery so that the 600 persons once employed at the refinery might again have jobs available, or advise the House whether his interview with the Clarenville Packet was in reality meaningless.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move an urgent and pressing motion. In view of the fact that certain models of Volare and Aspen cars which have been sold in Canada have been found to have design defects which could cause the cars to stall under potentially dangerous circumstances, in view of the fact that the Automobile Protection Association made the departments of transport, both in Canada and in the United States, aware of this problem last October, and in view of the fact that on December 20 the United States department of transport announced Chrysler was recalling over one million cars that have been affected, in order to have the defect corrected, and while as yet no recalls have happened in Canada-allegedly because dealers do not have the parts-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):

That this House instruct the Department of Transport to instruct Chrysler to commence recall on the 200,000 cars involved in Canada and to explain why the recall could be commenced three months earlier in the United States than in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion is permissible, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who appears to be tiptoeing through the parliamentary process in a desperate attempt not to bring a budget into this House. Last evening he was at least forced to admit that the government's cash requirements for the coming fiscal year will be about $ 11 billion.
Would the minister indicate if this is the total cash requirement, including the requirements that may be needed with respect to Crown corporation borrowings which the government has got into the habit of not including in their cash requirements?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, yesterday I was not forced to make that statement: I made it on a very voluntary basis. I came into the House to ask for an increase in the borrowing authority that we have always had on interim supply. I volunteered the information to the House, rather than trying to hide anything, on the cash requirements of the government.
For many years, Crown corporations have been borrowing in the marketplace like other businesses. Of course, when they borrow on their own, we do not have to include them as borrowing from the government. I said that the cash requirement of $11 billion for 1978-79 included $2.6 billion in interest and bonus payments. That is a one-shot affair; it is not something we had to cope with last year. The cash requirement for the normal operations of the government will be similar to what we have this year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister referred to the fact that Crown corporation borrowings are not included in the cash requirement as revealed last night.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Some.



March 17, 1978


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Notwithstanding the fact that Crown corporations bind and covenant the people of Canada, would the minister indicate what he estimates to be the total Crown corporation borrowing in the 1979 fiscal year and what he thinks will be the total cash requirement for the government of Canada, including those Crown corporation borrowings?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I just said that it was a desire of the Crown corporations, and very often of this House, to let the corporations that have matured be in the marketplace like other corporations. I just said that they are in the marketplace, they are operating on their own authority, and thus are not to be included in the cash requirements of the government. Many of those corporations now operate in the marketplace.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The public document filed in the registration statement with the SEC in Washington reveals the startling truth of this government's debt program in the last few years, a debt program that by the end of this year, based on the minister's statement last night, will indicate they have doubled our borrowing in the last four years. Bearing in mind that in two years the government has saddled the Canadian public with $23 billion of borrowings, would the minister indicate when he sees this trend reversing?
[DOT] din)


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member and his party will be consistent, because their leader, in Toronto, yesterday was advocating a tax cut-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -of $2 billion, which will cause even more borrowing.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Answer the question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I respect the position of the NDP which says you can borrow and borrow and borrow and there is no limit to it. But at least the hon. member's party should make up its mind. If you want me to cut taxes by a further $2 billion, it means that with the other $11 billion dollars of cash requirements the total will be $13 billion.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I ask the hon. member to check with his leader before he gets up in the House of Commons.


BUDGETARY DEFICITS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Finance is undoubtedly the worst, in both languages, since confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: In the budget statement I was given on March 31, 1977, in this House, table I-a work of fiction it turns out
Oral Questions
to be, and not fact-stated that the deficit of the government of Canada on our budgetary account for this fiscal year would be $7.1 billion. Seven months later, in October, the minister said that the deficit was going to be $9.2 billion, an increase of over 30 per cent from the estimate seven months earlier.
The minister realizes that the confidence of the financial community is very important. How can they be confident, with such errors? My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: Given that the Department of Finance made an error of 30 per cent in the projections of the deficit for last year, what can we take from the minister's weasel wording in his remarks last night when he said that the deficit this year should be the same as 1977-78? Would he guarantee to the House that this is going to be true, that there will not be an error of 30 per cent to 40 per cent in that figure?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, for a guy who has to run away from being minister of finance of his own province-


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


An hon. Member:: Stop being so chippy.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I was in exactly the reverse position: many people of my province wanted me to return to Quebec, and I decided to stay here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I stated yesterday that the cash requirements of $11 billion include interest and bonuses on an official bond issue, a Canada Savings Bond issue, in 1969 which will mature November 1, 1978. Aside from the cash requirements of the government for 1978-79, they will be about the same as last year, because my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, has succeeded in holding the growth of public spending to under 10 per cent for next year.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is proud to be called a street fighter. As I told him the other day, he is not even an Ally-Oop. The last three ministers of finance are still running, and the minister will be running from his position before the year is out.
The minister said last night that his forecasts were for a budgetary deficit of the same next year as last year, over $9 billion. He said that loan advances and capital assets should represent $48.8 billion. All through his remarks he said "should". Why is the minister using such imprecise language, and when is the minister going to give us back-up for these figures such as would be contained in the budget? Will he provide us with as much back-up for these figures that he gave last night as he would provide in a budget? We know even last year's figures in the budget were wrong. Would the minister at least give us the comfort, and the investment and financial community the comfort, of looking at the figures that should be presented in this House before there is an election under false pretences?

March 17, 1978
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as early as the fourth week after my appointment as Minister of Finance I made an economic statement, which some people called a mini-budget and others a budget, determining rather clearly the financial and fiscal position of the Government of Canada. 1 said, and I repeat, that I do not think it is useful to have a budget at this time since we had something equivalent to a budget on October 20, 1978. I would like to see the effect of the incentives we gave to the Canadian economy resulting from Bill C-ll which was passed last December, and I think it is quite wise to wait for some time to know the performance of the Canadian economy in the first quarter of the year.
[DOT] (U22)


John Carnell Crosbie: Will the Minister of Finance confirm or deny the suggestion that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is going to have the gall to come before the House within the next few days to ask for an increase in the borrowing authority of the Export Development Corporation to the extent of $20 billion? If that is the case, why will the minister not tell us what are the borrowing expectations for Crown corporations for this year? Twenty billion dollars is the figure that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is suggesting the Export Development Corporation should have.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this borrowing is done by the corporation to help Canadian exports, which are on the increase. I am amazed that the opposition do not want to help the export industry of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious and important question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Given the fact that all signs indicate there may not be much more time for the passing of legislation in the thirtieth parliament, and the fact that this House demonstrated on March 1 that it can put an important piece of veterans' legislation through all stages in a few hours, will the minister do his best to get his cabinet colleagues to agree to a bill to restore the basic rate of the war disability pension to the level that was agreed upon in 1973, namely, that the basic rate be equal to the average take-home pay of the five categories of public servants that were designated in 1973?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this and many other matters are under consideration in my department.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are under consideration by the electorate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I preface my supplementary with the same point I made earlier. Time is of the essence in this parliament, and these matters are of great urgency to the veterans of Canada and their families. If the minister is not able to get action in this session on the question of the basic rate, will he try to get action with regard to the pensions of widows of disabled veterans, particularly those who receive no pension at all because the husband's pension was less than 48 per cent? Will the minister try to get that through, if he cannot get the other-but preferably both-before this parliament is dissolved?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the same answer applies: This is also under consideration by my department.

[ Translation]


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
Considering the announcement made recently by the minister that he was going to table a bill to establish the position of ombudsman for Canada, could the minister tell us when he will put this bill before the House?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have been working very diligently with my officials in the drafting and preparation of the bill. I hope that work will be completed soon.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the very perilous position the world is in today as a result of the situation in the Middle East. It is perilous to the future of the Middle East, perilous to peace and generally dangerous to the world.
Will the minister enlighten the House as to the information he has on the situation, within the limitations I realize he has to observe? Will he provide an opportunity on Monday for a full discussion of this question because, after all, there is something to which Canada can contribute. We have a particular interest in the Middle East. Could the hon. gentleman also tell us whether, in the event that a peace force is set up- as is apparently being considered by some countries in the western world-Canada will follow the course which it did
March 17, 1978

under the administration of Mr. St. Laurent and myself, that of providing a responsible group of Canadians experienced in the operation of such a force? This would be a step which Canada could take now, and it would bring results, because everywhere in the world Canadian peace forces are recognized and appreciated.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is one occasion upon which I can say with all sincerity that I agree with the preamble to the right hon. member's question. It is a most serious situation. Along with many other countries, we have already deplored the terrorist action which occurred in Israel and the retaliatory action which followed. Unfortunately, this diminishes the prospect of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.
As for developments since then, hon. members will be aware that yesterday I expressed the view that it would be desirable to see the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the southern part of Lebanon. This carries implicit in it the view, which I hold, that there is a need for some kind of stabilizing or peacekeeping force such as the right hon. member suggested. I made it known some months ago that Canada is prepared to consider participation in such a force if there is a proposal for its establishment and if it receives the approval of the United Nations, something which, as the right hon. gentleman knows, would be necessary if the force is to be effective. Events over the weekend will determine whether or not a call for such a course will be made in a formal way. I believe the President of the United States made a suggestion to that effect yesterday.
As to the matter of a discussion in the House, I would have no objection, but the timing is important. It would be a question of determining whether the actions of the various governments concerned have reached a point at which discussion among ourselves in Canada would be useful and beneficial. I will undertake to keep the House advised as fully as possible. We are prepared to look at peacekeeping if a number of conditions are met, to our satisfaction, including the fundamental one that such a force would be able to carry out its mandate and restore a high level of stability to an extremely troubled and perilous situation.


John George Diefenbaker: The answer given to me is in keeping with what I had expected, except for the last three or four lines when the minister made available an escape hatch for Canada. Why did he include the proviso as to whether this, that or the other prerequisites are met? The force is bound to be helpful. It is bound to be effective. It is time for Canada to take the initiative, as we have in the past, instead of waiting for other nations. It is time to give a lead to peace-loving countries all over the world and to make our own contribution.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Now the situation is back to normal and I can disagree with the right hon. member again. The qualification I made was a studied one. The reason for it is simple and hon. members opposite should find no difficulty in accepting it. Such a peace force would of necessity require agreement, for example, from Israel. Unless Israel was prepared as one of the concerned parties-and there are others-to accept this force
Oral Questions
and to be governed by it, we would be putting Canadian forces into a very difficult and risky situation which would be counterproductive and, would involve, as not the least of our considerations, a serious risk to their lives and to their safety. All I am saying is that the qualification is that we must be safisfied that the force can carry out the mandate it is given.
If you will permit me another moment, Mr. Speaker, there is also the problem, which we would obviously have to discuss, as to the role such a peacekeeping force can perform. For example, we are already very heavily committed with regard to a logistics support role on the Golan Heights and also in the Sinai. If we were asked to perform that role, we could not expand our capability; therefore, it is again a matter of defining and asking just what we can do. However, that does not diminish our commitment in any way.
I would like to emphasize that the initiative I took in the Middle East back in October I think indicates that we are, and should be, as the right hon. member has properly said, concerned and willing to act.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ALEXANDER HAY, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS
Mr. Speaker:: Before continuing the question period, I know hon. members will want to join with me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor who is on an official visit to Canada, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mr. Alexandre Hay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that the employment tax credit bill, with all its shortcomings, is about all we have, and since even that cannot have its maximum effect because of the erosion of confidence in this government and the failure of the minister to bring in a budget, can the minister tell the House why it has taken so long to get the forms into the marketplace? There are parts of the country which have not yet received them. Can the minister tell us when we can expect this measure to be in place in order to have whatever effect it will have on creating jobs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I understand that all the forms are in place. I do not know if the hon. member has information to the contrary, but I think his

March 17, 1978
Oral Questions
question should be asked of the Minister of Employment and Immigration who administers the program, not me.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration, then, whether he can explain why it has taken so long to get the forms out. The eastern townships of Quebec got them only late this week. Can the minister also tell us what programs he intends to put in place for advertising and militant promotion in order to maximize the return from this measure which is all we have from this government?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that my department did, in fact, meet its deadline, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition was propounding at the beginning of this week. The forms were in place with respect to Quebec. We wanted to make certain we got the forms out in bilingual fashion. They were all available on Monday and were moved out by bus to the various regions.
I am also pleased to say that initial indications are that there will be a positive and solid response to this particular program. The forms are in place. There may be one or two outlying offices where for one reason or another they have not been received, but the vast majority of Manpower offices have the forms. Employers can hire now and fill out the forms retroactively.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that this program is being handled by Canada Manpower centres which, let us face it, do not have a real presence in the business community, can the minister tell us how he intends to reach the business community? More particularly, when will the minister start his promotional campaign, and does he intend to promote the program actively in business journals and through chambers of commerce?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that the business community is much better informed than my hon. colleague gives it credit for, because it is in fact aware of the program. There has been some impatience on the part of the business community. It has been waiting for us to get the forms out and the necessary regulations passed. However, preliminary indications are that the business community is aware of this opportunity and is, in fact, moving forward to take advantage of it. It is a splendid program and I am pleased to see that we are getting the appropriate reaction.


ALLEGED INEPT FORECASTING OF ECONOMIC SITUATION-EFFECT ON BUSINESS AND CONSUMERS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. We have noticed that there has been inept forecasting regarding growth, inflation, unemployment and cash requirements, which destroys the confidence of business and consumers. How can the minister tell us that he can rely on the expertise he has, and is it not about time he started to question competence?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that this question comes this morning because yesterday, with grand fanfare, the opposition proclaimed that Mr. de Cotret of the Conference Board of Canada had joined them. The Conservatives claim that that is a great acquisition. I am glad to say that the prediction of the Conference Board of Canada for growth in 1978 was 5 per cent, exactly the same as that of the Minister of Finance. Perhaps now hon. members opposite will have someone who will tell them what the reality is, something which they cannot understand themselves.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, all indicators seem to show that we will need more than 2.5 per cent growth. We will need something over 5 per cent, and that is a fact.


Mr. Andras:: He said 5 per cent.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When the minister went to Washington in March of 1978, he indicated that we would have a $7.7 billion cash requirement, yet last night the figure jumped to $8.8 billion. How can the minister reconcile this? It is one thing to mislead the House of Commons and the Canadian people; it is another thing to go to Washington and mislead the people there.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, speaking of misleading, I have not been to Washington in the last three years, so I think the hon. member has his facts wrong.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You got my message, though. Answer my question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: With regard to predictions, I said very clearly yesterday that the increased cash requirements are caused by the fact that we have to pay interest and bonuses on the special Canada Savings Bond issue which comes to maturity on November 1, 1978. For normal operations, the cash requirements will be almost the same this year.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF BAN ON SACCHARIN
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that the courts have ruled that the sugar companies of Canada are joined in a monopoly, and therefore hold tremendous power and influence to block and prevent competition, and in light of this finding which, incidentally, might influence some members of the fourth estate to retract some of their invective against the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, who alone tackled the monopoly-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: -will the minister have an independent investigator from outside her department review the ludicrous research upon which Canada alone banned saccharin, with the possibility of reversing that ban?
March 17, 1978


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since 1977 was the fifth consecutive year in which there was a net outflow of direct investment capital from Canada, when does the minister propose to create a climate of investor confidence so that Canadian jobs, wealth and output may be protected?


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand what the hon. member means. We are trying to create the most favourable climate, and I think the hon. member could help in this regard if the opposition would stop spreading all kinds of rumours exaggerating the deficits or cash requirements of the federal government. If the opposition were a bit more responsible, things might improve somewhat. I am told-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You confirmed the deficit.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition decided to bring someone into his party to replace the hon. member for York-Simcoe as financial critic.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: We do not have to spread any rumours; the outflow of capital is referred to daily in the newspapers. It is the uncertainty caused by the federal government, and not the unity question, that is driving business and investment out of Canada and creating record unemployment. Are we to rely completely on government make-work projects as the only hope for future jobs for the over one million unemployed in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in spite of what the hon. member says, the question of national unity is one of the problems. Last week the Treasurer of Ontario, Mr. Oral Questions
McKeough, said that the reduction of the Canadian dollar to the level it is at now was caused 40 per cent by the political insecurity. I invite the hon. member to read the speech of Mr. McKeough on that topic.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the last Liberal convention passed a resolution in favour of the legalization of marijuana, and that last August the Minister of Justice stated that he would declassify marijuana from the Criminal Code to the Food and Drugs Act, would the Minister of Justice state to Canadians what the government's policy is on this very important matter?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I stated earlier that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Solicitor General and I have studied Bill S-19 to determine what amendments should be made to that bill, toward its introduction. I am not sure whether it is deliberate or not, but the hon. member has put me in some difficulty. I am aware the Prime Minister made a statement on this matter yesterday. Because of other events this morning, I have not had an opportunity of reading his comments. Therefore, I think the question should be directed more properly to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I will direct the same question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the last Liberal convention passed a resolution in favour of the legalization of marijuana, and that last August the Minister of Justice stated that he would declassify marijuana from the Criminal Code to the Food and Drugs Act, would the Prime Minister state the policy of the government on this very important matter?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we made that policy very clear when we introduced a bill in the Senate, which was passed in its amended form by the Senate. That represents the policy of the government. We would gladly introduce it and pass it through the House if we could have unanimous consent to do so in half a day.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the discrimination against rural mailmen who are threatened with the loss of their jobs by the $10,000 ceiling on contracts, notwithstanding their substantial investment in transportation

March 17, 1978
Oral Questions
equipment, when will the Postmaster General bring in amendments to the Post Office Act to remedy this injustice? Of course, it is aggravated by continuing inflation, and amendments were promised by his predecessor when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications last May 5.


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have received many inquiries concerning the $10,000 limit with regard to rural contracts for delivering mail. I know these people are suffering because of inflation and other costs. At the moment, we are trying to revise all these contracts, but unfortunately the limit set by the Post Office Act is $10,000. Probably we will have to pass an amendment to the Post Office Act in the future in an attempt to give justice to these people.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of this issue, as was emphasized by the Postmaster General, and while there is yet time, will the hon. minister introduce amendments to the Post Office Act not only to resolve this particular injustice but also to legalize rate increases and deal with the many other urgent amendments which must be made to the Post Office Act if the Post Office Department is to get back on the road to recovery?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, the Post Office Department is already back on the road to recovery. According to the last statistics, it is getting better in many parts of the country.


An hon. Member:: Not in Nova Scotia.


Maurice Lamontagne: Perhaps that is an exception.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: What about Toronto?


Maurice Lamontagne: I can tell the hon. member that there are many things to be amended in the Post Office Act. I think we will see revisions carried out in due time.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is really supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I hope I can frame the question so that the Minister of Veterans Affairs will not use the word "consideration" in his reply. The minister is aware that a committee is studying the basic rate of pension in the 48 per cent widows' inequity. Can the minister give some hope to the veterans of the country by indicating what progress is being made by this committee, and when we can expect a decision?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer not to be that precise today. The study is progressing quite rapidly.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, dealing with another glaring inequity, can the minister indicate what progress has been made with regard to the submission of the provincial command of the Canadian Legion in Newfoundland which did a survey and came up with 4,000 deteriorated homes which require repairs? A commitment was made three or four years ago that a pilot project would be done so that the project would spread across the country. Can the minister give a definite commitment now to providing those funds? Can he indicate what progress has been made? What is his answer?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, considerable progress has been made. As the hon. member knows, last year all communities in Newfoundland with fewer than 2,500 residents were designated for rural RRAP. Certain areas will receive higher priority than others. Now that the budget for this program is $3 million, which is ten times that of the 1976-1977 budget, I understand there has been an appreciable increase in applications for assistance under the program. RRAP is capable of meeting the needs of veterans in most areas. Hon. members of the House should recall that when areas are designated, it is done by the provinces. Thus, this program is progressing considerably. I have spoken to my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, and everything possible is being done at this time.

[ Translation]


URBAN AFFAIRS
Alexandre Cyr: 
TEXTILES-INQUIRY WHETHER TARIFFS EXEMPTION LIST SUBMITTED TO GATT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the increase in unemployment in the textile industry. Given the threat of further unemployment that reduced tariffs in the textile trade would bring to communities which are dependent on this industry, and given the increasing uncertainty and concern in these communities because of lack of information about what is taking place with the GATT negotiations in Geneva, I should like to ask the minister if an exemptions list for Canadian tariffs is now in place and whether textiles are included on that list.


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we are entering into the MTN negotiations. We are putting on the table those things we believe we require from other countries. We are asking for things. We do not have an exemptions list as yet. I should like to inform the House that in the last half of 1977, investments in the textile industry rose, employment rose, and there is new confidence in this Canadian industry.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister whether it is the government's intention to submit an exemptions list and whether textiles will be on that list, because the answer the minister has given is pretty cold comfort to dozens of textile communities throughout Ontario and Quebec for whom uncertainty and secrecy are the greatest fears, as his colleague, the Minister of Finance, should be telling him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we are going to great lengths to inform the industry of their exact position. During the whole negotiation we are going to great lengths to inform the provinces about what is going on at Geneva. I think never before in any trade negotiations at GATT have so many people been so well informed, nor have the provinces been so well informed as now.


CANADIAN CULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) and pertains to a conference or seminar which will be sponsored by the department of multiculturalism and held here in Ottawa on the twenty-third of this month. Will he explain what criteria were used to determine who would receive invitations, and give us an idea of the total cost of this conference to the government?
Oral Questions


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, there is an upcoming conference for all the ethnic press in Canada. It will be taking place later this month; in fact, next week. The purpose of the conference is to explain the new provisions of the Immigration Act and the human rights act. It will also deal with multiculturalism policy and our relations with the ethnic media.
In terms of cost, as this is being shared between the Department of Employment and Immigration and my department, the figures are not readily available. As soon as they are available, I will be very pleased to let the hon. member know.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact, as the Minister has stated, that an invitation to the conference was extended to representatives of the ethnic media from across Canada, would the minister explain why Mr. Kissin, editor of the Toronto Jewish Press, did not receive an invitation, among others who have been in touch with my office to indicate they were not invited, considering that Mr. Kissin's newspaper has one of the largest circulations among the ethnic press in Canada?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the hon. member drawing that information to my attention. If he knows of any other persons of the ethnic press who have not been invited, perhaps he would be kind enough to forward that information to my directorate and we will see that invitations are, in fact, extended.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since nothing has really come out of the national food policy conference that was held in Ottawa in February, except confusion, would the minister indicate whether the government is considering setting up a new national body to advise the government on food policy and, if so, would this national body that has been talked about include representatives of the various food systems in Canada?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says nothing has come out of the federal strategy conference that took place here. Even some of the greatest procrastinators in the media were complimentary of the conference, saying it was a success. Some of the people who had condemned it from the start said it has been a success. They are putting all that information together-a lot of it was submitted by working groups-in order to arrive at a decision. Because the hon. member, on such a day as this, March 17, St. Patrick's Day, is not being so kind to the Minister of Agriculture, I would say to him, may the little people be kind to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 17, 1978
Oral Questions


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, we are both Irish, so there is no point in the minister saying what he has just said. I would like him to answer my question. We can debate whether the conference was positive-and our opinions are obviously not the same-but my question was in terms of whether the government is giving serious consideration to setting up a national body to monitor food policy in this country. Is the government giving consideration to this? Will the minister answer that direct question?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, many suggestions have been made. There has been no decision as to what avenue we will follow at this time.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Now that his officials have returned from Windsor, where I understand they spent yesterday with Chrysler of Canada, does he have any further report to make on the closing of the light truck production plant at Windsor?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my department has given me a brief report on what was found at Windsor. The plant will be shut down for extensive renovations and is expected to be reopened early in 1979. The plant will supply parts for the new Pillette Road plant. Chrysler has invested $43 million in the new plant and increased employment to 2,500. Almost half of the 750 employees who have been laid off will return to work when the plant reopens. The remainder will be employed at the Pillette plant and plants in the area. Chrysler does not expect any permanent lay-offs. Employees will receive 90 per cent of their take-home earnings.
Of course, it is regrettable, but these renovations have to take place in order to keep our industry competitive. The Big Three automotive companies are spending about $300 million a year upgrading their plants generally. I should also point out that this year alone, cars brought into Canada from offshore have increased in price 18 per cent, so I think our automotive industry should be competitive on the North American continent.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is not intended to trespass on today. Perhaps I would have asked the question in any event if I had been recognized. We want to take over some time, Mr. Speaker, but not right this morning. My question really relates to what might be in the weeks ahead, and it is for
[Mr. Whelan.)
the Prime Minister who is obviously one of the more prominent thespians on the political stage. In the vain hope of getting some idea of his concept of leadership, would he please tell the House, when he stands with his thumbs in his belt in his new prime ministerial pose, does he feel like Tom Mix, or Tom Thumb?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
[Editor's Note: Mr. Trudeau moved to another seat in the chamber.]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: George, come on over.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[Editor's Note: Mr. Hees crossed the chamber and stood in Mr. Trudeau's place.]


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I find life very dull over here, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[Editor's Note: Mr. Hees resumed his seat.]


Mr. Speaker:: Something like this could only happen after the hon. Minister of Agriculture wished the little people upon
us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be for the Hon. George Hees, the acting prime minister, but I will address it, instead, to the friendly leprechaun, that fellow who claims to be Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Canadian cattle industry has said that the number of cattle inventoried in our country dropped by 6 per cent last year, due in part, or perhaps in the main, to low prices and high imports. In light of these recent figures, will the minister give serious consideration to cutting down on imports of cattle from abroad, keeping in mind that this government increased these import quotas by 2 million pounds last year?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is using figures wrongly again, which is not uncommon for him, because we have not increased the quota
March 17, 1978

that much. They are entitled to a 4.4 per cent increase in quota, according to the international trading agreement. We have increased it by 1.5 per cent, which is not what the hon. member said, or some 1,400,000 pounds.
All I can say to him is that we are very concerned because we see a tremendous increase in the production of beef in Australia alone-34 million head of cattle in that country- and the tremendous productive capacity that is there. All they have to do is leave them on the range, and they can harvest them. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and myself are watching this very closely because they are under import control at the present time. They have been for the last four years, except for about nine months in 1976.
Various cabinet ministers have met the cattle people. I even saw the hon. member at one of our meetings in Regina last week. I am sure he found it very informative. I am sure, also, that he was there for beef interests and not political interests; he had the concern of farmers at heart. I am sure he heard various farm groups expressing their views to us at that time. We are taking them into consideration.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Really, all I want is an answer to my question and the question asked by hundreds of farmers who met the minister on Saturday. Is it his intention to cut back on imports, as the farmers want? At the same time, would he give consideration now to introducing a national meat authority, as the overwhelming number of farmers in Regina wanted when he met them on Saturday?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, our concern is the concern of the beef industry in total, as it always has been. I am sure the hon. member recognizes that there is no group with more widely different ideas, more disseminated, than the beef producers of Canada. To put them all together and come up with a proper program is not as easy as one might think. You do not cut off imports from your trading partners with a snap of the fingers; it is not that easy. There are trading agreements with Commonwealth partners and members of GATT. I believe all the Commonwealth partners are members of GATT. You just do not throw those adrift and then fight compensation and trade wars, etc.


ST. PATRICK'S DAY EXPRESSION OF TRADITIONAL GOOD WISHES
James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had tried to get your eye at thirteen minutes after eleven o'clock to carry out a tradition of this House. As a matter of fact I had hoped that the chief spokesman for the leprechauns in this House, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), would have risen in his place to extend to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House on behalf of all
Privilege-Mr. Symes
of us here who pride ourselves on our Irish extraction, the top of the morning, sir, to you, on this St. Patrick's day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to an answer I received yesterday from the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) and the alteration of the official record of the House, namely, Hansard, which I submit misleads the public in what the answer of the minister was.
If I might explain my question of privilege I would hope that the minister would rise on this occasion to state clearly exactly how this alteration of the official record took place and to clarify what the government's position is on student loans.
By way of explanation I refer to page 3829 of Hansard of yesterday, and to my second question to the Secretary of State relating to the problem under the Students Loans Act whereby a graduation student, having obtained a student loan, must begin repayment of that loan after six months. There are no provisions in the act to waive that until the student obtains full employment. Any waiver of that repayment provision is entirely discretionary on the part of the banks that issue the loan. My question was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the minister knows full well that national students' organizations object to merely increasing loans because that decreases the grants allotted to students, I hope the minister takes my First question seriously. By way of supplementary, since graduating or terminating students must begin repayment of student loans six months after leaving their educational institutions, and in light of the disastrous unemployment rate, will the minister ensure that any bill to amend the Student Loans Act will provide that students need only begin to repay the loans after first obtaining full-time employment?
I submit the essence of the question is: "Will the minister ensure that any bill to amend the Student Loans Act will provide that students need only begin to repay loans after first obtaining full-time employment?"
The official transcript-more commonly called the "blues"-the literal taking down of the notes, indicates that the Secretary of State replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have already given the hon. member that assurance privately.
I believe the television transcript or record of proceedings of yesterday will also confirm the original notes. In the official record of Hansard we find that five extra words have been added to the minister's answer, which I submit substantially alter the interpretation of the answer given yesterday.
In Hansard we read on page 3829 the Secretary of State saying:
Mr. Speaker, I have already given the honourable member that assurance privately that I will explore this.
Those extra words "that I will explore this" indicate a certain degree of ambiguity which, I submit, substantially

March 17, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Symes
alters the interpretation I had and indeed that the public had yesterday-that the minister had given assurances that there would be amendments to the Students Loans Act providing a student would not have to repay until he gained full employment.
The official transcript of yesterday says the minister will explore the matter-a quite contradictory interpretation of what we heard yesterday. 1 should like to know how that Hansard record was altered in such a way as to contradict clearly the answer of yesterday. I would also hope that the minister would explain what is the government's actual position on repayment of student loans?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the hon. member for having indicated to me that he intended to raise this question of privilege. That was a kind thing for him to do and I appreciate it.
I can explain it quite simply that the words were added to try to make clear what was, in fact, the situation. As the hon. member knows, we have had some discussions about the legislation, and to have left the impression that I had given the assurance to him that the change which he wanted to see in the legislation would in fact be presented, would not have been true. That was not in fact the substance of our conversation and it did not seem to me desirable to have the public record misstate the facts of the situation.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that there is not a right to contravene the sense of the answer and that was not my intention in adding those words to make the response clearer. It would have been the essence of his question, or the part that stuck in my mind was his desire that we take these issues seriously, and that was the assurance which I wished to give him and which I give to him still.
I would therefore welcome the opportunity that he has presented if there have been-he has told me this privately- some press reports which indicated that the legislation would contain the provision for a six-month delay of the re-collection of loans until after the point when the former student was employed. It enables me to indicate that that had not been the intention of the proposed legislation, but I indicated to him that I would explore this possibility. Since such a change would indeed take place in regulations and not in legislation itself, I would hope that he would not let that lacuna-that vacuum in the legislation from his point of view-impede the passage of legislation which I believe is of very considerable significance to the students of the country and would assist them greatly.
On the other matter which I also promised to explore, that of the situation or the position of the provinces in relation to grants, I have been assured after telephone consultations that it is not the intention of the provinces to make any changes in the ratio of grants to loans. There may be some provinces which will want to make changes in relation to grants vis-a-vis their own bursaries. That undertaking has been made to me as a result of telephone conversations. I hope that meets one of the concerns of the hon. member and that he and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party will therefore be prepared to give speedy treatment to this legislation when it is presented to the House.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, this raises a very important question. I think the minister by his answer indicated he changed the purport of the transcript. If that practice continued, the debates in the House can become meaningless and irrelevant. They can change from day to day, overnight, and outside the House. The minister knows there is a procedure available to him to rise on a question of privilege and indicate that he inadvertently misled the House or did not give a complete answer, and that would be accepted with applause by all members.
Further, and I say this as kindly as I can, this statement has come from a minister who, in terms of his estimates, indicated that there was some difficulty for some period of time. I followed his answer with interest, and I would like to reserve the right to raise the matter later if that should appear to be necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have touched upon a point which concerns my authority in respect of the faithful recording of the proceedings of the House. I will discuss it, of course, with the Editors of Hansard to determine what in fact has taken place. It is a matter of great and substantial importance to the accuracy of the record of the proceedings.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee on a Northern Gas Pipeline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs dealing with Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Anti-Inflation Act.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

March 17, 1978


NATIONAL SECURITY
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, during the past several weeks, considerable attention has been given in the House and in the country to the conduct of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) involving highly sensitive national security information. This House is also aware of an article published in the Toronto Sun on March 7, 1978, which made detailed and explicit references to a secret document containing national security information. While the two events may appear to have been related, I wish to indicate at the outset that I have not been made aware of any information that would relate the hon. member for Leeds to the article which appeared in the Toronto Sun.
In each of these instances, it is clear that certain documents and information of the most sensitive nature have been unlawfully released by, or obtained from, someone authorized to have them. Unfortunately, the person or persons responsible for this unlawful release of information have not been identified. The investigation into the circumstances of the release of this information will continue to be vigorously pursued and appropriate action will be taken when possible.
In some circles, the public servant who leaks sensitive information has some approval and "glamour". In my view, they have none. Such actions are contemptible and cowardly.
If a person in the service of this country is so dissatisfied, as is that person's fundamental right, with the conduct of public business by a duly elected government, their remedy is not in skulking about delivering brown envelopes and thereby discrediting their associates who serve Canada with devotion and integrity. Their remedy is to resign and endeavour, through our free institutions, to influence public affairs and public opinion. That, Mr. Speaker, in my view, is the lawful, proper and courageous way.
Because of the importance of the issues involved in these matters, I think that this House and the people of Canada are entitled at the first opportunity to know the decisions that I have reached on whether prosecutions should be instituted under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act against the hon. member for Leeds or against others in connection with the publication of the article in the Toronto Sun.
The privilege of free speech in this chamber and the freedom of the press are matters which are fundamental to our democratic system. Decisions on issues which tend to draw these fundamental principles into conflict with the protection of our national security interests must be taken with great care. What may be seen by some as a matter to be decided with speed has therefore been seen by me as a matter that demanded decision with careful thought and consideration.
What I have had to face, and resolve to my satisfaction, is whether and under what circumstances to authorize prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act. I have been guided by those parliamentary, constitutional, and legal principles which should be taken into account by the Attorney General in the
Official Secrets Act
discharge of this particular responsibility. Mr. Speaker, it might be useful to set some of those out.
In arriving at these I have been guided by recognized authorities such as Lord Shawcross, Edwards, Erskine, May and Bourinot, and more recently and very helpfully, my valuable discussions with Commonwealth attorneys general in Winnipeg last summer on the office of attorney general, and more particularly my personal conversations at that time with the Attorney General of England and Wales and the Lord Chancellor.
I am aware that, since the enactment of the Official Secrets Act, this would appear to have been the first occasion in Canada where consideration has to be given to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act and the right of a member of the House to freely express his views in the House in the course of carrying on his parliamentary business.
The first principle, in my view, is that there must be excluded any consideration based upon narrow, partisan views, or based upon the political consequences to me or to others.
In arriving at a decision on such a sensitive issue as this, the Attorney General is entitled to seek information and advice from others but in no way is he directed by his colleagues in the government or by parliament itself. That is not to say that the Attorney General is not accountable to parliament for his decisions, which he obviously is.
Clearly, I am entitled to seek and obtain information from others, including my colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), and the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the security implications of recent disclosures. This I have done.
In my view, the special position of the Attorney General in this regard is clearly entrenched in our parliamentary practice. Based on the authorities and on my own experience as a member of the government for ten years, which has included my three immediate predecessors, this special position has been diligently protected in theory and in practice.
Mr. Speaker, the second principle is that every citizen is subject to the law. One of the pillars of our system of government, dating back three centuries, is that neither the King nor any other person, be he a member of this House, a member of the government, a member of the press, or someone possessed of title or position, is above the law. The law should apply to all, equally. He who breaks it must bear the consequences.
Third, with today's differing ideological viewpoints between different countries, it is essential for the preservation of our democratic way of life that there should be maintained a strong and vigorous security service. In spite of all that has been alleged and what is properly being examined by the McDonald Commission, we are being well served by a group of dedicated individuals.
The functioning of a security service by its very nature demands that most of its operations remain secret. Unlawful

March 17, 1978
Official Secrets Act
disclosure of the details of what is known about the operations of foreign intelligence agents in this country, or provision to others of information about the operations of our security service, is to destroy and render useless the work of this service.
Fourthly, in exercising a discretion as to whether or not to consent to a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, the Attorney General should ensure that the widest possible public interests of Canada are taken into account; that, as a member of this House, he has responsibilities toward the rights, privileges, traditions and immunities so necessary for the proper functioning of parliament; and finally that each competing public interest is weighed and balanced against the others in as responsible a way as possible.
In the present situation, the hon. member for Leeds has made statements in the House which must clearly have been based upon highly classified national security information. In my judgment, the hon. member's use of the secret information he was not entitled to have was contrary to the national interest. However, by law, his statements cannot constitute the foundation for a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act since it is well established that no charge in a court can be based on any statement made by an hon. member in this House.
The hon. member for Leeds did, however, make additional statements. In my view, these statements did not add substantially to what he had already said in the House. There is some doubt as to the extent to which a court would view these statements as being protected by any parliamentary privilege or immunity. The existence of this doubt guides me in my decision whether or not to provide my consent to a prosecution.
The obligation of the Attorney General in deciding whether or not to provide his consent under the Official Secrets Act calls into play the many factors I referred to earlier. In my view, an Attorney General should not provide such a consent unless the case is free from substantial doubt.
Having considered the evidence produced in the investigation to date, and having considered applicable legal and parliamentary principles, I have concluded that I should not consent to a prosecution against the hon. member for Leeds.
I must emphasize that in any case free from these elements of doubt, involving unlawful disclosure of information relating to national security by an hon. member, I would not hesitate to have a court of criminal jurisdiction pass upon the issue.
This House has established a committee to examine the privileges and immunities of members of parliament, including the application of the Offical Secrets Act. That examination is necessary and, in my view, urgent. It is essential to protect the position of members of parliament to continue to be able to speak freely and candidly in carrying out the responsibilities that we bear on behalf of our constituents and the country at large without any harassment.
I look forward to the report of the special committee which I hope will outline the principles that should govern a member of this House when dealing with security or other highly

sensitive matters and which will, I hope, strike a balance between the imperative public interest that the national security and integrity of the state ought not to be imperilled and the equally imperative public interest that members of this House should enjoy a freedom of speech commensurate with the necessity of fulfilling our obligations. It is historic and preferable that this House, and not the courts, settle these issues.
Mr. Speaker, with the highest of immunities goes the highest of responsibilities. I would urge all hon. members, prior to asking a question, or disclosing sensitive information of any kind, to take reasonable steps to bring the matter to the attention of the responsible minister of the Commissioner of the RCMP so that the member may be fully apprised of the possible seriousness of the matter and so that measures in proper cases might be taken to protect the information from public disclosure with its attendant risk of doing serious damage to our national security. To be fair, I want to add quickly that I am advised that there are members of the House and members of the press gallery and the public who do this.
I would further commend to the attention of hon. members what was said by the 1939 United Kingdom Select Committee on the Official Secrets Act and Privileges of Members, relating to the Duncan Sandys case, and I quote:
Your committee are of opinion that the soliciting or receipt of information is not a proceeding in parliament, and that neither the privilege of freedom of speech nor any of the cognate privileges would afford a defence of a member of parliament charged with soliciting, inciting or endeavouring to persuade a person holding office under the Crown, to disclose information which such person was not authorized to disclose or with receiving information knowing, or having reasonable grounds to believe, that the information was communicated to him in contravention of the Official Secrets Act.
With respect to the publication of the article in the Toronto Sun, parliament has not extended to any other person or body, the rights, privileges or immunities that are accorded by law to parliament and its members.
That is not to say that the press is not in a somewhat special position in our society, for without full and free dissemination of information through an independent and responsible press, a free society cannot continue to exist. That freedom is exercised under and pursuant to the rule of law. In that respect, members of the press are in no different a position from anyone else. I am confident that the courts are the proper forum for dealing with and defining the rights and responsibilities of the press.
Because of this special position of the press and lest any step be misconstrued as an attack on the essential freedom of the press, it is important that the process of the criminal law be invoked only after most careful and studied consideration.
It is with such consideration that I have examined the available evidence, including the extent of the information that was published, the present state of the law, the various competing public interests, and all other relevant factors in consenting, as I have done, to a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act in connection with the publication of the article in the Toronto Sun.
March 17, 1978

In arriving at these decisions, I have sought the opinion of the officers of the Department of Justice, and they concur in my decisions.
May I just add that because of the fact that an information was being sworn and laid, 1 felt it was appropriate that those people to whom it was being directed should concurrently know what I was saying before others. Therefore, I felt I should not and I did not provide to opposition House leaders or spokesmen a copy of my statement. That is not my usual practice, but I felt it was required in these circumstances. I trust they will appreciate that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 527, 685, 697, 704, 881, 929, 1,027, 1,152, 1,206 and 1,209.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Howie: 1.	From January 1 to November 1, 1977, what amount was spent by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology or its supporting agencies or councils for research in the industrial sector of the economy?
2.	How many research projects (a) were started (b) were concluded (c) are still ongoing?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: The policy of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is to formulate and develop policies in relation to the activities of the Government of Canada that affect the development and application of science and technology. The objective is to assure the optimum use of science and technology in support of national objectives. The Ministry has no laboratories and does not award grants-in-aid of research, scholarships or fellowships.


Mr. Howie: 1.	From January 1 to November 1, 1977, what amount was spent by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology or its supporting councils or agencies for research at the university level?
2.	How many research projects (a) were started (b) were concluded (c) are still ongoing?
Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Tech-
Order Paper Questions
nology): In so far as the Ministry of State and Technology is concerned: The policy of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is to formulate and develop policies in relation to the activities of the Government of Canada that affect the development and application of science and technology. The objective is to assure the optimum use of science and technology in support of national objectives. The Ministry has no laboratories and does not award grants-in-aid of research, scholarships or fellowships.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, what amount has the Ministry of State for Science and Technology or its supporting agencies or councils made available to industry and/or universities for research work in the transportation field?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: The policy of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is to formulate and develop policies in relation to the activities of the Government of Canada that affect the development and application of science and technology. The objective is to assure the optimum use of science and technology in support of national objectives. The Ministry has no laboratories and does not award grants-in-aid of research, scholarships or fellowships.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, what amount has the Ministry of State for Science and Technology or its supporting agencies or councils made available to industry and/or universities for research work on solar energy?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: The policy of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is to formulate and develop policies in relation to the activities of the Government of Canada that affect the development and application of science and technology. The objective is to assure the optimum use of science and technology in support of national objectives. The Ministry has no laboratories and does not award grants-in-aid of research, scholarships or fellowships.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, what amount has the Ministry of State for Science and Technology or its supporting agencies or councils made available to industry and/or universities for research work in the aerospace field?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: The policy of the Ministry of State
3884

March 17, 1978
Order Paper Questions
for Science and Technology is to formulate and develop policies in relation to the activities of the Government of Canada that affect the development and application of science and technology. The objective is to assure the optimum use of science and technology in support of national objectives. The Ministry has no laboratories and does not award grants-in-aid of research, scholarships, or fellowships.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1976, were any studies on fluorocarbons in the atmosphere authorized by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology or any councils, commissions or agencies funded by it and, if so, in each case (a) on what date were they authorized (b) have any reports been received to date (c) what amounts were (i) granted (ii) authorized?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the
Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: No.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What financial assistance is available to the Province of New Brunswick to assist with urban transit over the next five years?
2.	What amount will be given to New Brunswick for this purpose in each of the next five fiscal years?
3.	Is financial assistance intended to be available for (a) community operated bus systems (b) privately operated bus systems (c) systems operated entirely within the municipality (d) systems operated between urban centres?
4.	What are the minimum requirements for federal assistance?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Department of Transport and the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs as follows: 1. Federal assistance for urban transit will be available to New Brunswick through the Urban Transportation Assistance Program which will be implemented April 1, 1978. Total funding available to New Brunswick will be $6,774,000 over the five year life of the program ending March 31, 1983.
2.	The annual allocation to New Brunswick is to be $2 per capita according to the population of the Province as recorded in the official census of 1976. Accordingly, the province may receive up to $1,354,800 annually over the five year life of the program.
3.	(a) Federal assistance through the Urban Transportation Assistance Program will be available to community operated bus systems, (b) Assistance will be available for privately operated bus systems, however all funds are to be made available through the province and accordingly it will be the responsibility of the province to specify projects which it wishes to have funded, (c) Federal urban transportation assistance will be available to transit systems which operate entirely within the municipality, (d) Federal urban transit assistance will not be available to intercity services.

4.	The minimum requirement for assistance through the Urban Transportation Assistance Program will be concurrence by the federal government that the projects, put forward by the province for funding, meet at least one of the program objectives of: (i) Improving the efficiency of the urban transportation system, (ii) Improving standards of urban environmental quality and land use efficiency, (iii) Contributing to energy conservation, (iv) improving safety at railway crossings, (v) the Urban Transportation Assistance Program does not provide any funds for operating subsidy. The funds are to be used for capital acquisitions or improvements only. In addition, each project is to be evaluated against the objective it was designed to meet to determine the effectiveness of federal assistance for urban transportation. Approval of a grade separation or railway relocation project will be subject to the provisions of the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act and Urban Development and Transportation Plans Regulations.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, what amount did the Ministry of State for Science and Technology or its supporting agencies and councils allocate for research into finding new safe uses for nuclear fission?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: The policy of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is to formulate and develop policies in relation to the activities of the Government of Canada that affect the development and application of science and technology. The objective is to assure the optimum use of science and technology in support of national objectives. The Ministry has no laboratories and does not award grants-in-aid of research, scholarships or fellowships.


Mr. Howie: Does the Ministry of State for Science and Technology or any of its supporting agencies and councils have ongoing in-house research into Reye's Syndrome and its possible link with spruce budworm spraying?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: The policy of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is to formulate and develop policies in relation to the activities of the Government of Canada that affect the development and application of science and technology. The objective is to assure the optimum use of science and technology in support of national objectives. The Ministry has no laboratories and does not award grants-in-aid of research, scholarships or fellowships.
March 17, 1978


Mr. Saltsman: 1.	(a) Has Crown Assets Disposal Corporation signed a contract to sell recyclable waste paper and, if so, what are the terms of that contract (b) are all government departments and agencies now giving their waste paper to CADC so that it may be sold, or are some selling the waste paper on an individual basis?
2.	(a) Has CADC agreed to commence source separation of waste paper from garbage so that only paper would be collected by a recycling firm (b) has source separation been delayed and, if so, on what date will separation begin?
3.	(a) If source separation has not begun, and the waste paper is not being bought from CADC, how much is it costing the government to dispose of this garbage every day (b) how much would the government be receiving in revenue if the waste paper was being sold to a recycling firm?
4.	What efforts are being made to educate various departments and agencies as to the purpose and benefits of paper source separation and the proposed implementation of this plan?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, the Departments of Public Works and Fisheries and the Environment as follows: 1. (a) No, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation has signed a contract to sell mixed office waste paper, (b) Crown Assets Disposal Corporation administers two contracts for the disposal of waste paper. In the National Capital Area, the major waste paper generating federal facilities are included in those two contracts. The number of facilities in the existing contracts would increase with the implementation of the federal high quality waste paper separation program. This program involves segregation at the point of generation of high quality waste paper from the rest of refuse. This refuse, including waste paper is currently disposed of under a refuse removal contract administered by the Department of Public Works.
2.	(a) No. (b) At-source separation has not been delayed. Before the Federal Government could start a large scale implementation program, the system had to be demonstrated, guidelines developed and all costs identified. The pilot study to demonstrate this selected at-source separation system, was completed on April 30, 1977. The system has since then been implemented in three facilities occupied by approximately 3,000 federal employees. Three additional facilities with approximately 5,000 employees are being brought into the program in early February.
3.	(a) It is not possible to answer this part of the Question as the Department of Public Works' figures show only garbage as a whole and do not give a breakdown for waste paper as a separate item, (b) If departments located in the National Capital area implement the at-source separation program, there is a potential to recover in excess of 4,000 tons/year of high grade waste paper. This would be in addition to the quantity that is currently being recovered through CADC contract. The revenue from the sale of such paper would be determined through CADC's tendering process and would reflect current market conditions.
4.	The Department of Fisheries and the Environment is finalizing a Federal Government Guideline which outlines steps to be taken to organize and manage an at-source separa-
Order Paper Questions
tion system. When approved, the Guideline will be distributed to all departments to assist them to implement at-source segregation systems for high grade waste paper. Publicity material as well as assistance is also available from the Department of Fisheries and the Environment to brief departmental co-ordinators on such programs.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each of the past five years, how many new drug submissions have been received by the Department of National Health and Welfare and how many received notices of compliance?
2.	What is the average time period between the receipt of a submission and issuance of notice of compliance?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Year	Number Received	Number of Notices of Compliance1971-72	63	511972-73	51	501973-74	74	501974-75	89	671975-76	79	63Year	Number	Average Days	Median1972	49	513	3511973	50	310	2831974	67	341	2651975	63	335	2871976	46	446	353


Mr. Beaudoin: In (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, were there any unemployed in the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what economic sector were they the most numerous?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (a), (b) and (c) There are no statistics on unemployment for the Constituency of Richmond, in total or by economic sector, for the years 1975, 1976 and 1977. The only valid estimates of unemployment for constituencies are those given by the Census of Canada. (The latest Census data available are for 1971). The Labour Force Survey, which is the other official source of unemployment estimates, does not produce data by constituency. Because no constituency unemployment estimates are available, the Department has, only for the purpose of allocating Canada Works Program and Local Initiatives Program funds, produced constituency labour surplus estimates. However, these estimates are not comparable from one program to the next, since they are based on different definitions and they pertain to different time periods. The following are the labour surplus estimates produced for the constituency in the last three years. It is emphasized, however, that these figures are based on different definitions and should not be compared with one another. LIP 75/76: 3,174 (First
80033 - 33^2

March 17, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Quarter, 1975); LIP 76/77: 2,354 (First Quarter, 1976); CWP 77/78 Phase I: 2,208 (December 75-March 76); CWP 77/78 Phase II: 2,874 (November 76-March 77).


Mr. Herbert: For each private firm in Quebec that accepted development incentive offers from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the past two years, what was the known amount, if any, at the time that the Department made the offer of direct or indirect Financial assistance from the (a) Government of Quebec (b) local municipal authority?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned the reply is as follows: No information, relating to commercial or financial matters, which has a bearing on files administered under the Regional Development Incentives Act may be divulged by the Department, in view of the commercial confidentiality of the contents of these files.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many days of fishery patrolling have the patrol ships Tanu, Laurier and Howay carried out since April 1, 1977 and at what cost?
2.	What operating funds for how many ship-days of patrolling are left for each ship prior to April 1, 1978?
3.	At what cost per day will a DND Destroyer carry out a fishery patrol on the West Coast?
4.	How many ship-days are outstanding for DND fishery patrols on the West Coast prior to April 1, 1978?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of Fisheries and the Environment and National Defence as follows: 1. "Tanu", "Laurier", "Howay", 407 days April 1, 1977 to January 31, 1978. Cost $427,350 exclusive of ships crew's salaries.
2. "Tanu"-$72,000 for 45 days; "Laurier"-$40,000 for 50 days; "Howay",-$40,000 for 50 days; February 1, 1978 to March 31, 1978 exclusive of ships crews' salaries.
3.	$5,210.
4.	As of January 31, 1978 there were 20 shipdays outstanding prior to April 1, 1978.
MR. RENfe-JEAN RAVAULT AND STUDY ON FRANCOPHONE ASSIMILATION


Mr. Epp: Did Mr. Rene-Jean Ravault carry out a study for the government on Francophone assimilation and, if so (a) at what cost (b) how much was he paid?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Rene-Jean Ravault made a study on the assistance from the Department of the Secretary of State to the French-speaking communities outside Quebec. He submitted his report in June 1977 to the Official Language Minority Groups Program of

the Secretary of State, (a) Cost of the study, $24,117.58; (b) Amount paid to Mr. R-J Ravault, $24,117.58; The breakdown of this sum is as follows: Fees, $18,500.00; Travel, $2,493.24; Administrative costs, $3,124.34; $24,117.58.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: that Bill C-21, to implement treaties on the transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Blais moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I intend to be very brief in speaking on Bill C-21. This bill is one which I personally, along with many members of parliament on both sides, have asked for with reference to the exchange of prisoners between the state of Mexico and the state of Canada. I have asked many questions in relation to this subject. What I am about to say is by way of introduction-it may appear to contradict the questions 1 asked in committee when it was studying the bill.
I had asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) whether there was an agreement between Mexico and Canada, and on March 10 I received a letter from the hon. gentleman-it was not addressed to me in confidence so I believe I can quote it. The Solicitor General, in his usual friendly fashion, wrote:
Dear Eldon Woolliams,
Following Mr. Vincent's acknowledgement of November 23, 1977, your letter of November 15, 1977, addressed to my predecessor concerning the Canada-Mexico Prisoner Exchange Treaty, was brought to my attention.
Although discussions have already taken place between Mexico and Canada regarding the possibility of a prisoner exchange treaty, an agreement to that effect has not yet been reached. Consequently, I cannot provide you with more detailed information on that subject at the present time.
I call attention to those words in the letter which say an agreement had not been reached. We were told in the committee that there had been an agreement reached but that it had not been ratified. I make nothing of this as argument, Mr. Speaker. I am not challenging the minister at the moment. I believe there is a misunderstanding here with regard to terminology. I suppose the question is whether there is an agreement in place and ready to be ratified, or whether there is any agreement at all.
March 17, 1978

There is one point I should like to make with regard to this. Over a year ago the United States got their agreement and put their legislation in shape, since when they have been operating along the lines of the bill before us. I would hope that before this measure is passed the minister will clarify the situation in every respect.
As I have said over and over again-and I have heard many of my hon. friends on this side say it, not only in this Chamber but in caucus-none of us, and I am sure this applies to members on both sides of the House, condones Canadian citizens going to a foreign country and breaking the law of that country, particularly when it involves, as it does in many of these cases, the use of drugs or trafficking in drugs.
One of the most difficult things to control today is the international trade in drugs, particularly hard drugs. Unfortunately, many of our young people who go down to Mexico because of the attraction of a climate which we all enjoy-I think of Acapulco and other places-find, as is reported in our news media and elsewhere, that marijuana is grown in Mexico as a crop and they cannot believe a little simple possession may put them behind bars, waiting for months and sometimes years to be charged for what they consider to be a very minor crime in their own country.
I want to deal with some of these problems because in 1963, I believe it was, I was chosen by my party, then forming the Government of Canada, along with Chief Justice Tremblay of the province of Quebec, to lecture at a special seminar on civil rights in Mexico City where members of the United Nations from all over the world were attending. I cannot forget the statements which were made then by Mexican officials, Mexican professors and others on the question of civil rights.
But it was while I was in Mexico City that the Chief Justice and myself received a telephone call from two people who had been incarcerated in one of the Mexico City jails and held there for two years without charges being laid following an argument about the price of a motel. I did the leg work to dig up the facts, as was only proper since Chief Justice Tremblay, because of his position could not become directly involved. As a Canadian and as a member of parliament I did the work. I went down to see them. They had run short of money in Mexico and had wired their parents in the City of Montreal. They had sent them a cable transferring some money. The fact that the money came from such a source tipped off the motel people who tripled the price of the accommodation and, when the girls refused to pay, they were thrown behind bars and held, without a charge being laid, under conditions to which I shall refer in a few moments.
One of the big problems in Mexico is this: if you have any money at all the state does not feed you while you are in jail. You have to pay for your own meals, and so on. I was told by these girls-and they struck me as being honest people-that the older prisoners, the male prisoners, governed the food supply and that if they, the girls, did not perform certain sexual acts, they did not eat. It is under such abominable conditions as these, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians are being
Transfer of Offenders
incarcerated. This is what started me on a crusade to get people out of jails of that kind.
I want to put another case on record. I rose in the House of Commons some time ago, about two years ago, I believe, to move a motion under Standing Order 43. It read:
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Miss Bethune, daughter of longshoreman Ray Bethune, of Vancouver has been incarcerated since February in a Mexican jail whereby her father has spent some $18,000 to obtain a hearing or a release, I move that the Department of External Affairs after discussions with the Department of Justice and through the Minister of Secretary of State of External Affairs protest in the strongest terms that Miss Bethune be given an immediate hearing and, if innocent, be released from the deplorable jail conditions in which she is incarcerated and subjected to indignities and conditions similar to those inflicted on other Canadians now and in the past in that nation.
I am glad to see there is some remedy provided in the bill with respect to the second point I wish to make. There are weaknesses in the legislation, but I shall deal with them in due course. This is the kind of situation which arises. When young people are detained, for whatever reason, cables are sent to their parents informing them that the services of a solicitor are required. Money is required to buy food for their children while they are in prison. This is used as a system of blackmail so as to get money out of parents in Canada. There is never any accounting for this money. Much of it disappears, and nobody knows what happens to it. It is about time we came to grips with this situation.
I should like to quote, now, from the Toronto Star, an article written on December 7, 1976 under a Mexico City dateline. It starts:
There might be something dumber than having dope in Mexico City, but I don't know what it could be. Norman Piche, a 25 year-old Montrealer, knows what he is talking about. He and 11 other Canadians are languishing in vermin-infested Mexican prisons because most of them tried to make a quick buck by smuggling drugs.
We do not endorse what they did, but I am complaining about the conditions under which these people have been held.
To make matters worse, the Canadians feel that Ottawa is doing little to help them.
Without the pressure which was exerted by myself and other members of parliament, we would not have received any answers from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). We were not getting relief. I do not want to read this whole article, but for those who are interested, it shows the kinds of conditions under which these people were incarcerated.
That brings me to another point which is of concern to me. I know our procedures do not allow hon. members to quote bills. At this stage we are supposed to be discussing the principle of the bill, but with the leave of the House I would like to quote from one part of the bill at page two. Clause 4 of the bill states:
Where a Canadian offender is transferred to Canada, his finding of guilt and sentence, if any, by a court of the foreign state from which he is transferred is deemed to be a finding of guilt and a sentence imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction ...

March 17, 1978
Transfer of Offenders
That is good, but section 617 of the Criminal Code does not apply in respect to the offence of which a Canadian offender has been found guilty in the foreign state from which he is transferred, and his finding of guilt and his sentence, if any, are not subject to any appeal or to any other form of review in Canada. That is provided for in clause 5 of the bill.
This bill really only applies where a person actually has been charged. The criticism I have in this regard is not with reference to what this bill will do for those who are charged. I read very carefully the remarks of the parliamentary secretary, and I think I am correct in saying that even where a sentence is under two years, it is possible to transfer a prisoner if he has been convicted, provided there is provincial consent. That is a good part of the bill, and I endorse it.
I support this bill. I am glad we have gone for even half a pie, but the escape clause concerns me. The Mexican authorities do not have to charge people. They can say matters are under investigation. The same old blackmail will be practised against parents. Without a charge this bill does not apply, so people will continue to rot in vermin-infested dungeons in Mexico. That is what I do not like, and that is why I want to say a few words in that regard. There has to be a positive answer. We like to have good relationships with our neighbours, particularly on the North American continent, and more particularly with Mexico and the United States. We also want good relationships with South American countries.
The field of diplomacy is really outside the minister's jurisdiction, but ambassadors have been reluctant to bring very much pressure to bear with regard to the grievance I have mentioned. In the past all they have done is handled money as brokers do. It seems to disappear into thin air, and nothing happens. In view of what Mexico has said with regard to civil rights, and in view of its style and process, there should be actions instead of words, and Mexico should not be objecting strongly. I am glad to see that a former secretary of state for external affairs is here. I know he knows the difficulty, but we should be objecting strongly to this kind of blackmail and to the holding of Canadians without charge in Mexico. Surely at the highest level of diplomacy in Canada we can get better treatment for our Canadian citizens by the Mexican authorities.
I think I have covered what I wanted to say. In conclusion I would like to say that I endorse this bill. It will not come to a vote because I think everyone is basically in accord with it. We have gone a long way. Perhaps it is not possible to legislate in cases where people are not charged. I want to be fair, but if that is the argument

and it is an argument of substance-I must come back to what I said, that in the strongest terms we must say that we want the provisions of this bill carried out with agreement. Perhaps this legislation ratifies an agreement, but we want the agreement carried out.
In the days of the dictators of Europe people rotted in jail. This is going back 300 or 400 years in history. They rotted in jails without being charged. In my opinion, holding people without charging them is illegal, but there is nothing Canadian

authorities-the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Basford) or the attorneys general of the various provinces-can do.
I hope due process of law will be interpreted in wide terms. The United States has already done its thing, as it were. There has already been an exchange. The article to which I referred earlier indicates the situation for some young Canadians. Some were charged, and some were not. Some were charged and convicted. Some are waiting for their trials, and that can take months and sometimes years. John Howard, the prison reformer, would blush. Some Americans were allowed to go home more than a year ago, and we are still waiting for action by this institution. Therefore I will be brief.
I hope the bill will be passed immediately. I thank the House for its kind attention. I congratulate the government for introducing this legislation. I am critical about the delay, but perhaps that is part of the parliamentary process. Perhaps I am mellow because this is Friday, but let us get on with the job. Let us pass this bill, but let us not forget the warning I have given with reference to people who have been held in jail without being charged and with reference to people who are charged but who never get to trial.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker), who very ably led the debate on the bill on second reading as well as in the committee stage. He performed in a masterly manner, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to thank him publicly.

I join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who made some complimentary remarks about the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore last Friday when this bill was introduced at second reading.
With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), it is true that the information I provided to him in my letter tends to be misleading. I do not think I should have indicated that there was no agreement because an agreement has been signed. It was signed at the time the letter was written. It was signed in November of 1977, but it has not been ratified. Notwithstanding the fact that it has not been ratified I think the execution of the agreement indicates the content of the exchange. In fairness, I think the letter referred to the last argument the hon. gentleman made. I was addressing myself to that argument, and the nature of the comments I made in that letter still apply at this time.
I agree with the hon. gentleman that there should not be a long detention prior to trial. We in Canada recognize that as part of our bundle of civil rights. We recognize that individuals ought to be brought before the courts immediately upon being charged and that there should be no undue delay.
The old adage that justice delayed is justice denied is very applicable.
March 17, 1978

In attempting to offer some solace to the hon. gentleman, who recognizes the difficulties in achieving what ought to be achieved, I might indicate that in my view this treaty and this legislation will permit additional treaties to be signed and subsequently ratified, which will encourage an increase of exchanges between legal jurisdictions and legal systems throughout the world.
If we deal with offenders and the exchange of offenders, naturally there will be an increase in the familiarization of each other's systems, even with Mexico. Undoubtedly the signing and ratification of that treaty, after this bill is passed, will encourage an increase in exchanges between Canadian justice authorities and those in Mexico. As a result of that, we will be able to assist to a greater degree the Department of External Affairs and our representatives in foreign countries in order to achieve the ends the hon. member identified, namely, ensuring that Canadian citizens who run counter to laws in foreign lands are dealt with expeditiously, fairly, equitably, and in accordance with the standard of justice in those countries; and that Canadian authorities are kept abreast of the manner in which those individuals are dealt with.
In conclusion, I thank hon. members who participated in this debate. It has been a very constructive one. We have canvassed the issues very readily. It is that type of co-operation which is essential to the proper functioning of parliament at this particular time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) indicated at second reading stage of this bill and in the standing committee, our party supports this legislation. We are not dealing with the offences which persons may have committed, nor the severity or otherwise of the sentences imposed. We are dealing with the making of arrangements for transferring persons detained in certain foreign prisons to this country and vice versa. This is good legislation, and it is long overdue.
We share the concern of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) regarding those detained in foreign prisons awaiting trial. I welcome the assurance of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) that he shares that concern as well, and that the matter is being pursued. We were prepared to give unanimous consent to proceed with the report stage of this bill today, even though the rules require a bit more time. We hope the bill can be passed today. As a matter of fact if I sit down, perhaps it would be passed by one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Elections


ELECTIONS
Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-33, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Election Expenses Act and the Northwest Territories Act in respect of territorial elections, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reason I was anxious to deal with this bill is because I think we can dispose of it before one o'clock. There have been discussions with all parties. Particularly I want to thank the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). They agreed to give this bill all three readings today before one o'clock. That is the understanding.
Effectively the bill transfers the legislative and administrative responsibilities for the conduct of councils' elections in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to the councils, the commissioners and their staff. This bill has been the subject of consultation with the people in both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. It has their support. Therefore, with Your Honour's indulgence, perhaps the bill can receive all three readings today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, there is an all-party agreement for Bill C-33 to go through all three stages today. This power to administer elections has always been in the Yukon. It was transferred approximately five years ago to the Chief Electoral Officer. It was thought that some money would be saved and efficiency would be improved. With the growth of the territories, we now find we would like to have the powers resident locally once again.
Provisions exist in the Yukon Act which provides them with the power to run their own elections. Simply, the territories want the power returned to them. The minister is correct when he indicated that there was an all-party agreement for the bill to pass all three stages this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) has been made aware of the contents of this bill. The bill seems to carry out what we were told would be in it. I may add that the hon. member for Northwest Territories expressed the hope that we would pass the bill quickly. It received first reading yesterday. We are happy to give it second reading now, consideration in committee of the whole and third reading, before lunch.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. Is there unanimous consent to changing the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 17, 1978
Criminal Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


James Hugh Faulkner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
[DOT]	(1402)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blais that Bill C-26, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Post Office Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill and one which I believe ought to be given very sober and careful consideration by this House.
[DOT]	0412)
After a number of years in this House, it has struck me that the more purple the rhetoric of the speech which deals with a subject, often the less substantial is its content. I regret to say that I find this to be the case in what we have heard so far from the hon. members opposite on this bill. Indeed, the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) gave such a thespian performance that I could only believe that, representing as he does the city of Stratford, he was auditioning for a role there later this summer in the event that his electoral fortunes do not go as he would wish. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) on his own side who followed him was, nevertheless, most impressed by his colleague's address. Perhaps he though he
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
was playing the role of Henry V. As I heard it, it sounded more like Polonius.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This sounds more like baloney.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I think we have to look at the public's perception of a matter such as this when we are concerned with something which is not only a matter of technical concern to members of parliament or a small group of learned people, but to the whole public. It potentially involves the whole country.
The hon. member for Perth-Wilmot has cited the Mackenzie report at page 3772 of Hansard where he points out that the Mackenzie commission recommended that the power of opening mail be available to the government. The Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) rightly drew attention to the fact that the Franks commission which reported in the United Kingdom in 1957 and the Australian Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security in 1977 also agreed that the power to intercept and open the mail should be possessed by the government.
In a constituency bulletin I recently put this question to my constituents on the subject, which I phrased as follows:
Do you favour legislation which would give the power, under appropriate safeguards, to open first class mail to apprehend drugs or to protect national security?
As you will note, it covers both aspects of this bill which is before us. I gave my constituents until this week to reply. I received approximately 700 replies, and the breakdown is as follows: those who favoured such legislation totalled 74.6 per cent and those who were opposed totalled 25.4 per cent.
One cannot treat the results of such a questionnaire with scientific exactitude because it is not a poll in the same sense as in a Gallup poll, but I have no doubt that the same proportion of support for legislation of this kind would be found in a proper poll in any constituency, indeed, in the constituencies of the hon. members who have either spoken against the bill or those who have very haltingly spoken in its favour. I submit that this is certainly an occasion for consideration of public attitudes since it involves the public and the public's mail. It is their mail, not our mail, and the public should be listened to.
With respect to drugs I sense, even on the part of the opposition, a disposition not to raise very difficult questions as to the provisions. I would like to quote a publication which came across my desk this week. It is a newsletter of the Council on Drug Abuse, dated February, 1977. I received it on the very day that the hon. members opposite were making their speeches. My quote is from a news story in the newsletter entitled "Heroin In Our Mail To Continue Or Not?". It reads as follows:
It was reported at a meeting of the International Narcotic Enforcement Officers Association held in Toronto in August that the use of first class mail for the importation of heroin into Canada was prevalent.
One gram of heroin worth $5 at source can easily be mailed in a regular envelope. By the time this has been cut and adulterated with other substances
March 17, 1978

and passed down the distribution chain, the resulting portions sell for $16,000 on the streets . . .
The use of the mail is an insidious means of importing with little risk of detection.
That was only the relevant part, but I notice that the Solicitor General was more modest in estimating the street value of such a gram of heroin. He placed it at $ 11,400. I am prepared to accept his figures on that. The point is that the value increases enormously with distribution and, of course, with the addition of other substances which increase the quantity. This is therefore a serious problem that we have to confront.
Earlier in the year the Commissioner of the RCMP presented the problem to the justice committee, and the members of the committee realized that something had to be done to prevent this from happening. This was not an area in which we could wait the requisite length of time until the McDonald commission had reported. One of the important aspects of this bill is that this is sunset legislation. The bill will end within a limited time after the presentation of the report of the McDonald commission.
Some hon. members opposite have raised the question, "What if the McDonald commission does not make a final report?" Can anyone in this House seriously imagine a commission on a matter of such vital importance to the country not making a final report? If for some reason it did not, surely another commission would be appointed that would make a final report. It is inconceivable that there would be no final report of that commission. The length of the life of this legislation is tied to that report.
As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I sense a disposition even on the part of the opposition, of opponents to the bill, not to raise serious questions about mail opening with respect to narcotics, but rather to attempt to attack the opening of mail for purposes of national security. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) made the sharpest attack on the possible meaning of this section. He said as reported at page 3775 of Hansard'.
This legislation gives to the Solicitor General an unbridled discretion to issue a warrant in determining which group he considers to be subversive, and any group can be subversive if they are suspected of using any criminal means.
Let me give the Solicitor General some examples of groups which could now become subject to the opening of mail at the hon. gentleman's discretion-and I am sure he will use that discretion in the broadest way he can, to judge by his record to date. Take, for example, one group which appears to be unpopular at the moment, the Greenpeace organization. The government recently made it an offence for anyone to go on the ice within half a mile of the seal herd. To do so carries a penalty under the criminal law. It would probably be a popular thing for the minister in present circumstances to issue warrants permitting all the mail of Greenpeace to be opened. That is just one example. I could mention many other groups, native groups, anti-poverty groups and so on.
While obviously, Mr. Speaker, a member who is attacking a bill is free to try to extend the legislation to make it look at its worst, I think that this is a poor interpretation to give to the bill. It is an impossible interpretation, and I think it arouses needless anxiety where there should be none. Section 16(2) of the Official Secrets Act, which was added to the act at the time we amended the protection of privacy legislation with
Criminal Code
respect to wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping, reads as follows:
(2) The Solicitor General of Canada may issue a warrant authorizing the interception or seizure of any communication if he is satisfied by evidence on oath that such interception or seizure is necessary for the prevention or detection of subversive activity directed against Canada-
That is the relative part of that subsection because it goes on to say:
-or detrimental to the security of Canada or is necessary for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information essential to the security of Canada.
The words that the hon. member for New Westminster has put in question are those relating to "the prevention or detection of subversive activity directed against Canada." Those words are defined in 16.(3) which defines subversive activity under a number of possibilities. Three of those are directed toward activities of foreign countries: foreign intelligence activities are dealt with in subparagraph (b), activities by a foreign power in subparagraph (d), and activities of a foreign terrorist group in subparagraph (e). Those are not particularly relevant to the present discussion since the hon. member for New Westminster did not bring them into contention. Subparagraph (a) deals, simply with espionage or sabotage. It cannot really be supposed that there is any problem about that.
The subparagraph about which the hon. member has argued there can be some question is subparagraph (c) which reads as follows:
(c) activities directed toward accomplishing governmental change within Canada or elsewhere by force or violence or any criminal means;
That is where the hon. member for New Westminster found the phrase "or any criminal means." He has ignored a very important part of that subsection, however,-"activities directed toward accomplishing governmental change." Surely no one is going to argue, whatever his views on the seal hunt, that taking a stand one way or the other is a means of accomplishing governmental change in Canada. By overlooking that important part of the definition of subversive activity, it seems to me that the hon. member for New Westminster has given an entirely impossible interpretation to this legislation in suggesting that it could be applied to groups such as Greenpeace. I think this is somewhat mischievous. It could arouse a real apprehension on the part of such groups that they might be subject to scrutiny of this kind when there really is no possibility under the legislation that that could occur.
I should add that the Solicitor General would in any event have to find that in his best judgment and based on evidence under oath there were activities directed toward accomplishing governmental change by force or violence, or any criminal means. There is a fairly heavy onus to be satisfied by those who appear before him seeking such a warrant.
Indeed, it seems to me that the only valid question to raise about the power to open mail for the protection of national security is with respect to the organ of government which should give permission. I do not really see, and I do not think
3892

March 17, 1978
Criminal Code
the public of Canada sees, how anyone who is determined to subvert the Government of Canada, whether it be another foreign government or whether it be genuinely subversive elements within Canada, should be allowed to use our mails to get away with that with impunity. The valid question is with respect to the person or body or organ of government which can give power to do that. In this part of the legislation, that power rests in the Solicitor General rather than in the courts. Some members of the opposition have attempted to make the argument that this is not appropriate.
I want to recall that this issue in a very slightly different context has been before parliament for quite some time. I think it was in 1969 that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs first had a reference on the subject of wiretapping. At that time the committee had a very difficult time deciding who should grant such authorization. Whichever way you decide that question-whether you go to the courts or decide to leave it all in the hands of the Solicitor General, as many members of the committee wanted to do at that time for all cases of electronic eavesdropping, whichever way you decide, it is a very narrow decision to be made. Very good arguments can be made in favour of either position. On the one hand you can argue that the courts are the traditional protectors of our liberty, and on the other hand you can argue that because of ministerial responsibility it is better to put that onus squarely on the government in a way that they cannot escape it.
I think I should say that many of the remarks of the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot were beside the point. He talked about the kind of problem that has become apparent recently in law enforcement in Canada with respect to the activities of the RCMP and other police. We are aware of those and we deplore them and have set up a royal commission to attempt to discover the truth. But the fact is, those are not governmental activities in the sense that they are directed by the government. The opposition case-if there is any case-with respect to such activities, directed at the government, can only be that the government did not take sufficient responsibility. I do not agree with that case, but that has to be their argument.
Mr. Speaker, here is a case where the government is taking responsibility. That is precisely the purpose of this legislation. The Solicitor General on behalf of the government, takes responsibility in cases of this kind for the issuance of authorization. Therefore, any arguments which attempt to invoke any popular feeling today against police activities are beside the mark. They do not refer to what can happen under this legislation
That was a slight digression, Mr. Speaker, in the course of telling you about the consideration of this question previously by this parliament. The justice committee considered it in 1969. It came into the House with the protection of privacy legislation and, of course, that legislation has been amended several times since. On each occasion it was considered by the House and then by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Again I say it is a very close decision whichever way you go.

I do not think we have to decide that question today in the context of this bill for the following reason. The government is proposing legislation which is sunset legislation-it will expire after the report of the McDonald commission is presented. It is really up to the McDonald commission to settle this question.
It seems to me that at the moment parliament must follow the precedent it has established in the area of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping. It must follow that precedent and adopt the same procedures here as were approved by parliament at that time. I would think that any other course would be irresponsible on the part of the government. Until the McDonald commission reports, I think the government has the clear duty to follow the procedure which parliament has set up in this parallel case. In other words, we are not dealing with an eternal principle here but with a mechanism which will be subject to review at the time of the report of the McDonald commission. In the interim we must follow existing procedures.
It may be that if the McDonald commission recommends to the contrary with respect to the authorizing authority, we will then have to go back and review the wiretapping legislation and see if such a change should be there as well. Surely we do not want to act in a precipitous way, however, without the benefit of their expertise.
This is a stop gap measure, Mr. Speaker. It is not a final determination of the issues. As a stop gap measure the government has followed not only the best existing precedents but the only existing precedents. There really is no alternative to the provision which this bill places before us at the present time.
The only remaining matter on which I wish to comment is the question of why we proceed now-why we go ahead without awaiting the report of the McDonald commission on the whole thing. Some opposition speakers, in particular the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot, have said, "When we raise questions about things that are before the McDonald commission you say you have to await the report of the commission, but when we want to raise something you argue we are being inconsistent in taking this up now."
Mr. Speaker, the kind of issues they have been raising are matters concerning the guilt or liability of individuals. Those are matters which have to be determined by the commission. They are not appropriate matters for parliament to decide.
We are now confronted with a matter in which the government, through the Solicitor General, has shown a gap in the law which can allow drugs to be circulated by first class mail, and which can allow national security to be imperiled. We simply cannot wait, without legislation, on a matter of this kind now that the gap has been discovered. We cannot wait until the McDonald commission reports. We must have something in place. When the McDonald commission reports, that will be a different story and we will have to reconsider the whole matter. The government's good faith in this matter is shown by the fact that this is sunset legislation and that it will come to a conclusion at the appropriate time after the presentation of that report.
March 17, 1978

We are confronted with a situation in which there is a genuine need for action. The precedents are very clear and were established by the Protection of Privacy Act. It seems to me that we are proceeding responsibly and carefully if we pass this legislation because it protects all aspects of the public interest. It protects the public interest against crime and it also protects the public interest in liberty because it provides these extraordinary powers only under very strict limitations.
Mr. Speaker, that is the case for the bill, and as such I am pleased to support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the bill that is now before us does two things principally, as I understand it. It authorizes the government or the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) and the government to proceed in connection with drug offences under the Narcotics Control Act and the Food and Drug Act to intercept communications that go through the mail in the same way that they are now authorized to intercept telephone communications under the earlier legislation, and with the same safeguards as in that legislation. In other words, there has to be an annual report to parliament. There has to be a notice given to the person whose mail is intercepted, within 90 days, unless a judge grants a longer time, up to three years. You have to go to a judge to get the authorization. You have to submit affidavits to him and so on.
I am not going to deal with the first part of the bill. I am very lukewarm about that. I do not like our present law relating to wiretapping. I do not like the first part of this bill that relates to the Narcotics Control Act. I do not like the cynicism that caused the government to bring into this House legislation combining the two subjects of narcotics control and drugs and national security. They are not connected. It was only a political manoeuvre to attempt to put people in a position that if they are against the bill because of its national security provisions, they can somehow be said to be supporters of those who sell and traffic in drugs and the like. That is the only purpose there can be of combining these two things.
I want to deal myself with the part of the bill that I find to be particularly obnoxious, and that has to do with national security. First, I have to agree that I believe that the state should have the right in certain circumstances, carefully defined, as our spokesman, the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis), said the other day, carefully defined and carefully safeguarded, the right to open written communications through the mail in the interest of seeing that the state survives-and that we all survive in a civilized society. The same as I have to concede it should have the right to listen in on telephonic communications, or bug people, and the like, if it is done with certain safeguards and to certain very strict purposes.
I have to agree there has to be some kind of power in the state or in the government to do that. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the kind of power that the government is
Criminal Code
arrogating to itself in this bill to carry out that objective. I do not agree with it because it has been left in the hands of the government and in the hands of the Solicitor General to decide what is the matter when there is a national security question involved. That gentleman, without reference to anyone else, is to decide whether my mail is to be opened or your mail is to be opened, or whose mail is to be opened. He does not have to report to this parliament. He does not have to report to any other authority. He does not have to submit anything to a judge or some outside third party. He, and he alone, is to decide the issue.
Well, I say quite frankly that I do not trust the government and I do not trust the Solicitor General to make those decisions. If this Solicitor General were not there, and this government were not there, I would not trust the next government or the next solicitor general. I do not trust the executives to make those decisions by themselves. There should be some other authority that can be appealed to in the event of disagreement as to what is a national security matter and what is not. Apart from the fact that I do not believe any government should have the authority, I, in particular, have no reason, I have seen nothing demonstrated to me to trust the present Solicitor General to carry out these objectives. I just do not. His record of the last few weeks does not inspire me with confidence that he should have that authority. It is erratic to say the least.
It may be true, as the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) suggests, that the public is overwhelmingly in favour of having mail interception, whether for national security, drug reasons or whatever reasons. That is probably true. He cited a figure of 74 per cent approval from his mail-out. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the determinant of the issue. That does not determine in the House whether we should agree with the legislation or not because the great majority of the public may not care. The great majority of the public does not think a lot about these issues and they feel that they themselves are innocent of any wrongdoing, that they are not criminals themselves. They have never engaged in any criminal activity or any conduct detrimental to our security interests, so why should not mail be opened. That is the way they feel. What we do have, Mr.Speaker, is a minority of people who are concerned and who must also be considered. We also pride ourselves in saying that we are a country of great civil liberties.
As a matter of fact, in the very disappointing speech which the Solicitor General gave when he opened this debate, he mentioned that himself. Mr. Blais said as reported at page 3768 of Hansard of March 14:
Canada, and I have said this often, has the most secure civil liberties of any nation in the world.
What the Solicitor General said when he said that was buncombe. It is not the truth. And it is certainly not the truth if we pass unchanged the legislation which he has introduced to this House. What kind of poppycock is that statement? I will tell you right now, Mr. Speaker. The United States of America has got far more effective and secure civil liberties
3894

March 17, 1978
Criminal Code
than Canada has. We do not even have a bill of rights in our constitution.
This statement of the Solicitor General's is pure buncombe that Canada has the most secure civil liberties of any nation in the world. It has not. It has the Official Secrets Act which gives the Solicitor General and the government unlimited power. It has many other powers so that civil liberties do not even weigh in the balance. How can anyone say that, with the record of the last six or eight months of what has been revealed of illegal activity by the people who work for the executive branch of the government? How, after what we have heard for the last six or eight months, can any Solicitor General stand up and say that we are so secure in our civil liberties?
Where were the civil liberties when the barn was burned down in Quebec? Where were the civil liberties when the break-in took place in L'Agence de Presse down in Quebec? Where were the civil liberties then? Where were the civil liberties when they broke into the Parti Quebecois headquarters to take membership lists? Where were they then? Where are the civil liberties, when, as the Laycraft inquiry has shown out in Alberta, the law has been ignored by the RCMP and by National Revenue officials who interchange information? The income tax people are giving information to the RCMP illegally when the RCMP wants it, and vice versa; as revealed in the Laycraft inquiry. Where were the civil liberties then? So the vast majority of people are not interested in civil liberties because they never come across it. Their rights are not interfered with. But there are other people who do get interfered with, who do come across the law. And then they become concerned about civil liberties when they see what can be done to them even if they are innocent. I am concerned with civil liberties, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I am not going to support this bill in its present form.
The member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) who opened the debate for our side has done a first-class job. He has done an excellent job. He has done an excellent job as critic of the Solicitor General. I agree with the principle that he stated when he opened the debate are reported at page 3770 of Hansard of the same date:
We support in principle the legal interception of mail in special specified circumstances, given adequate safeguards and given the situation where the more normal, acceptable and traditional methods of law enforcement have proven ineffective. Therefore, we support Bill C-26 in principle. In our view it meets most of these requirements.
He went on to say changes will have to be made in committee. I cannot accept his statement, Mr. Speaker, that I can support the bill in principle. I might be able to support the bill if it goes to committee and it comes out with adequate safeguards in relation to national security so that the Solicitor General himself, and he only, is not left in a position of having the power to decide what mail interceptions are going to take place or not. If it is amended to provide some effective safeguards I could go along with it. Therefore, I intend to abstain when the vote comes if I am here because I want to wait and see whether the bill comes back improved. If the bill

comes back as it is now without substantial improvements that protect civil liberties, I will vote against it on third reading.
I do not want to embarrass my own party, but this is a matter that transcends party consideration, in my view. 1 agree, Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General opened the debate and he did nothing to show why we need the legislation passed. The gall and the impudence of it will take your breath away. What the Solicitor General is doing in effect is saying, "Look, we have sinned for 40 years. We have violated the laws of this land." What law did you violate? Section 43 of the Post Office Act, which excluded any other act from interfering with the post office and stated that nothing is liable to demand, seizure and detention while in the course of post except as permitted by the law.
For 40 years, the government, the Solicitor General and everybody in government who should have known about this permitted the law to be ignored and permitted interception of mail to take place illegally in Canada. Now they come before us and say, "We have sinned, forgive us for our past sinning, and authorize us to go on sinning in the future." They have not given any reason why it was necessary in the past or why it is necessary in the future.
The present Solicitor General when Postmaster General assured the world that mail was not being intercepted and opened. The present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) assured anyone who was interested that mail was not being intercepted or opened.
When all this became public, they agreed that mail was being illegally intercepted. There was no apology, not even a word to say they were sorry. They just brazenly came into this House with other legislation to authorize them to keep on intercepting and opening mail and, in the case of national security, without any check by anybody of what they are doing.
If the old saying that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel is an accurate statement, and it certainly was accurate with regard to some people who used to wrap themselves in the flag, then national security is the last refuge of a power-mad and power-hungry government that wants to stay in power forever. That is what this is, this national security, this security blanket in which the Liberal party is trying to wrap itself. It is the last refuge of a scoundrel of a government. I am not going to give it support unless something is done to improve vastly the safeguards that are there.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville said that this is sunset legislation. What a joke! It is the sunset on civil liberties in Canada. It is another part of pulling the shades down over our civil liberties. That is our sunset. How many angels can dance on the tongue of a former dean of a law school that he would get up in his House and make the subtle little distinctions with regard to the law now before us. The sunset law, he says. It is to be in effect until a year after the McDonald royal commission reports, and then, if the House passes a resolution, it is to continue.
March 17, 1978

The hon. member went on to say that it is up to the McDonald commission to settle this question. It is not up to the McDonald commission. The McDonald commission will never settle the question for me. I will read their report to see whether I think it is valuable or makes sense. To say that the McDonald commission will settle the question is ridiculous. We are going to settle the question, if we are re-elected. Those of us who will be here in one or two years' time, if that royal commission ever finishes its work, and it is a pretty slow commission proceeding at a pretty slow pace, will decide the issue in this House, not the McDonald Royal Commission. While we are waiting to be guided by the McDonald commission, we only have to say we are disappointed at a lack of progress to date.
For the government to have the gall to come in with this legislation in view of the record that has been revealed since the last solicitor general spoke in this House last October is most surprising. The McDonald royal commission was announced last October 27.


An hon. Member:: It was in June.


John Carnell Crosbie: Was it in June? I thought the statement was in October. Their terms of reference were widened in October. The hon. member is correct, it was last June.
We have had questions about former solicitors general, who are still members of this House, for the past year or two on past issues that affect the McDonald commission and the Keable commission. Instead of the government and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) insisting that they be first before that commission to clear their names and clear up all the confusion, they have been hiding out ever since that commission has been appointed.
We have been told by the McDonald commission they are not going to start questioning people like that until next summer. If that is not a cover-up, I do not know what is. If I were in the position of either one of those two gentlemen, I would insist to Judge McDonald that I appear before the commission now, under oath, to explain and clear up the discrepancy, and not month after month sit like a dummy.
We have a mummers troupe now at the National Arts Centre which is presenting "They Club Seals, Don't They?" I would like to have them cut loose in here and club some sense into the government. They are called The Mummers Troupe. The Mummers Troupe should be joined by the government because they are mummers also. They are mum. To be mum means to say nothing, to keep quiet, to cover up, to hide.
The government is the mummers troupe. They should all troup over to the Arts Centre and join the Mummers Troupe tonight and do something useful instead of the positively harmful things they are now doing to Canada, such as bringing in legislation like this.
The time of the present Solicitor General will be short. He may as well go over and join the Mummers. In fact, he was the original mummer. He was not going to answer any questions.
Criminal Code
He was murn, mum, mum. He was so mum, he was a mummy. He is in the long history of the Egyptian mummy.
Let us look at this piece of legislation.


Mr. Lachance:: It's about time; you have already taken 15 minutes.


John Carnell Crosbie: You do not have to stay here. You can leave if you are not interested. This is the report that has to be filed under the Official Secrets Act if it is a national security matter under Section 16(5) about interceptions, whether they be telephone interceptions or mail interceptions. God knows what other kind of interceptions go on, hidden by the Official Secrets Act. It is one skimpy page. It tells you nothing. There were 471 warrants issued for an average of 244 days. The methods were wiretapping and eaves dropping by microphone. One warrant authorized interception of a written communique. It goes on with a pansy little statement about the warrants being very valuable in detecting subversive activities, and so on. It is only one page. It is nothing. That is what we get under the Official Secrets Act. The Solicitor General has full power, but reports nothing to the House.
Under the privacy legislation, another report has to be made to do with wiretapping under the Criminal Code. That is a 21 page report. There is not all that much more information in it, but at least you can see how many warrants were issued, how many led to a charge being laid, and how many charges were successfully prosecuted. That is shown in this 21 page report.
In the legislation now before us, the only kind of report we will get about the mail is this spindly little thing, this wizened, weak nothing, that tells us nothing and tells the country nothing. That is all we are going to get under this legislation. That is the only safeguard we have.
The Globe and Mail had an editorial on Thursday, February 9, that made a lot of sense. It pointed out that with respect to wiretapping and the parts of this bill under the Narcotics Control Act where it is necessary to make reports and go to judge, and I quote:
-the protections are largely illusory.
I agree with that. When discussing the national security part of this, it goes on to state:
Warrants empowering police to intercept or open mail under the Official Secrets Act would not require the sanction of a judge; they would be issued by the Solicitor General of Canada. People whose mail had been opened on the authority of such a warrant would not have to be told that their mail had been opened. Their mail could be opened even though neither the Solicitor General nor the police-nor anyone else-had any grounds even to suspect that a crime were being committed or contemplated. It would all be done in the interest of (that term again) national security, the prevention of "subversive activity".
What constitutes subversive activity? The definition, and the scope of the definition, will change from day to day, will change according to the political and social mood of the times, will vary according to the political insecurity of the government in power.
If the present government's proposed legislation becomes law, then private mail could be opened with no one save the police and the government permitted to know whose mail had been opened or what it contained. This is not what we consider to be law geared solely for the protection of the public from

March 17, 1978
Criminal Code
harm. This is law capable of causing harm as severe as any of the dangers it might conceivably seek to prevent.
I agree with that 100 per cent. That is just what this is. I do not trust this government. They do not need to have this legislation passed. They have already demonstrated that they are eager and willing to engage in illegal activities whenever they want. They do not need this legislation and they are not going to get my approval unless there are a lot more safeguards put into this bill. Not on your life! It has not been demonstrated that it is necessary. We know the government can already deal with bombs going through the mail and so on. They have that authority in other areas.
The record of the government is shameful. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a sad mistake. I made a mistake of giving him a vote for the leadership of the Liberal party. I should be sculded for ever having done it. I was a delegate at that time. Thank God I saw the light. At that time he was a civil libertarian.


Mr. Daudlin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I do not want to take any of his time. My point of order does not relate to the substance of what the hon. member is saying but rather to the electronic Hansard we now have in the House, namely, the television cameras.
Just a moment ago in the lobby of the House, while watching the hon. member on television, I noticed that instead of showing the hon. member in the midst of his speech the camera was zeroing in on the notes the hon. member was using. I suggest that when the electronic medium was brought into the House its purpose was to provide an electronic Hansard which would record visually and in sound what was going on in the chamber. But zeroing in on a speaker's notes is not the function of an electronic Hansard and in my view, directions should be given from the Chair that the practice should cease.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member might have a point of order or even a question of privilege. I will take it under advisement and make a judgment at a later date.


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, my notes are in order, 1 hope.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: So if they zero in on my notes it should be all right.
Well, the Prime Minister was a great civil libertarian in his day. Was. He is now the new Duplessis of Canada. That's what he is today. And when we are considering whether this bill should be passed or not, Mr. Speaker, we should consider the mood and thoughts and how the government acts. Let's look at the Prime Minister today, 15 years after Cite Libre and all that business, fifteen years after fighting Mr. Duplessis he is the new Duplessis of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Just listen a moment and I will convince you. You'll be right over here with us in a few minutes. I have here the transcript of the Prime Minister's press conference of October 28, 1977. He was asked a question-I am referring to page six of the transcript. Just a moment. I will get to that one in a minute. I want now to refer to page four. The Prime Minister said, "I think in circumstances like that if the law has to be broken technically in order to save a city then either it should be broken technically or the law should be changed to make that not an illegal act. And that is what McDonald is going to advise us on."
Well, the Prime Minister was asked about breaking into a building by certain people who worked for the RCMP security services. He was asked whether this illegal act should be tolerated. He went on to say how policemen broke the law sometimes and drove fast to catch a man who was escaping from a bank. Then he went on with this irrelevancy that if the law had to be broken technically to save a city then he thought that either it should be broken or that the law should be changed. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of codswallop a hypocrite uses, that a person who doesn't care about the truth uses, that a person that doesn't care about civil liberties uses.
What does it have to do with breaking the law technically to save a city if somebody breaks and enters an office to take membership lists, or if somebody burns down a barn, or if somebody gives information wrongfully to National Revenue or the RCMP if they are not supposed to, or if the law forbids it, or if somebody intercepts and opens mail when it is illegal to do so? What has that got to do with saving a city? That is not saving anything. That is the specious argument of an authoritarian. That is the argument of a padlock law supporter. So never let it be put to us again that the Prime Minister is a civil libertarian. He is not. He has left that long behind him. He is a man who is now anxious to cling to power by any means at all.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Has there been anybody prosecuted for all these illegal acts yet? Not on your life!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They have been given medals.


John Carnell Crosbie: The great civil libertarian. Those people are getting medals! Now, on another question. The Prime Minister said the government and the Solicitor General and those who were involved should not really know much about security matters. They should not interfere with what the police were doing in the security service and with the RCMP. At the same press conference he said, and I quote from page six:
And if the government, the ministers or myself had begun asking the RCMP in any detail about their operations and where did you get this fact on the file and who gave you this information and what do you say on so and so in your file and how do you know-we would certainly have been accused by the opposition and probably by people like yourself, Mr. Wilson, of having undue political influence and interference in the RCMP.
So he is suggesting that the less we know the better. It is like the story of three monkeys, one had his hands over his eyes, the other had his hands over his ears, and the third had his
March 17, 1978

mouth shut. See no evil; hear no evil. This is the new doctrine of ministerial responsibility. That is what we are being led to believe happened over all these illegal acts for the last seven or eight years-that the solicitors general were instructed and the Prime Minister agreed not to ask the RCMP security services anything but just leave them on their own-Don't ask any awkward questions or try to find out what is happening. That is not our practice." But the lie was given to that, Mr. Speaker, just about a week ago when the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General went berserk getting every kind of detail from the RCMP and security service they could. They got all the files and every little bit of information they could to try to prosecute and persecute the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). That gives the lie to the Prime Minister's high protestations that their principles were never to interfere with the RCMP.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, to serve their political purposes, sir, they put their snouts into the security files immediately. And they did not have the gumption-and they were correct-to try to prosecute the hon. member for Leeds; it is the biggest surrender since Napoleon left Moscow. But instead they are going to bully the media. They are attempting to show the mailed fist to the media. They are going to prosecute the Toronto Sun. They know they are on a sticky wicket with the member for Leeds so they are attempting to intimidate the press. Well, what a scurvy bunch. And still, that scurvy bunch are asking me to support them in having more power without any reference to anyone; that the Solicitor General should have this tremendous power, untramelled in any way. How can I go along with that? I cannot. I will not.
Only if the bill comes out of committee with protection for the people of Canada, for us, and for everyone else concerned, will I support the bill. I agree there has to be the right to intercept, but only under very careful safeguards, both on the security side and the criminal side. The behaviour of this government only gives me every reason to continue to cling to that point of view.


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock!


John Carnell Crosbie: No, it is not yet five o'clock.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They would like it to be five o'clock, but it is close to midnight for them.


John Carnell Crosbie: The time is close to zero hour for them. The sunset law is going to come down on their heads very shortly.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Prime Minister and his Japanese terrorist. We caught a Japanese terrorist, he says, by intercepting the mail. It is the first time I ever heard of a Japanese terrorist being small enough to fit into an envelope. What was he in? What kind of a cardboard carton was the Japanese terrorist in, Mr. Speaker, that they caught him coming through the mail? The poor devil would have starved to death had he got caught in the Canadian Post Office before he could ever have been delivered to the receiver.
Criminal Code
What kind of malarkey are we supposed to swallow here in Canada from this government? Japanese terrorist!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, so much for that. It turned out, before the McDonald commission, that there was no Japanese terrorist caught in any manner by means of the interception of any mail. Every attempt to get information from the government is stopped. The Keable commission, which was in no way under its control and which was doing a fine job in the province of Quebec, asking proper questions, being meticulous, burrowing in to get the information we are all interested in having if we are interested in civil liberties, has been guillotined by the government opposite, not because it is digging into something under federal jurisdiction but because it is digging into the truth. And it is the truth the government cannot stand having revealed. So it is the self same government which now comes rushing in to ask us to put our imprimatur on this bill and to forgive them for acting illegally for the 39 or however many years it is they have acted.
Where is the freedom of information act, Mr. Speaker? Have they rushed into the House with a freedom of information act? They offered us that little green paper! They must think we are too green to burn. They used to use such an expression about Newfoundlanders. They used to say that Newfoundlanders were too green to burn. Well, where is the freedom of information bill? One would have thought they would have brought it in at the same time as this bill-the one which will allow the government to intercept the mail. Where is it? It is nowhere. It is not coming because this government cannot afford to let any information go out, other than what it chooses to evacuate through anaemic press releases which come flooding into our offices day after day.
My God, the amount of paper wasted by the government opposite in these things is enough to give one the horrors. Not information, but poppycock and piffle and vacuous statements of vacuous ministers evacuating on the Canadian public. What we want is a freedom of information act. I imagine at one time the Civil Liberties Association thought the Prime Minister wasn't too bad. Well, they wrote him a letter a while ago in response to that press conference that I quoted from, and here is their letter. It was in the papers November 16, 1977, signed by some very eminent people, fine people. Judge Emmett Hall, a great appointment of a former prime minister, an adornment to the Supreme Court of Canada, a man of impeccable credentials, a royal commissioner of superb talent and ability, signed this letter addressed to the Prime Minister about the RCMP, the government and the rule of law. It was an open letter making certain suggestions, pointing out the same statements that I quoted from the Prime Minister today saying how shocked they were and asking him to correct the statements, to make all relevant information on RCMP law breaking immediately available, to launch immediate disciplinary proceedings, to launch immediate investigations into illegal conduct at the Post Office, to establish a parliamentary committee

March 17, 1978
Criminal Code
to inquire into how various ministers of the Crown have exercised their responsibility.
Has the Prime Minister agreed to any of this? Has our great civil libertarian Prime Minister agreed to one thing that the Civil Liberties Association of Canada requested? He has not. They have not. They have ignored it because they think that the majority of people are not concerned about these matters. They think they are safe in ignoring them. Well, I don't think they are safe in ignoring it, Mr. Speaker. That is what the Nixon administration thought down in the United States of America when they originally got started on their grubby path to glory. We all saw how glorious it was when they got finished.
Now, we don't have the same protection here. The Bill of Rights that was passed by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) doesn't, through the interpretation of our courts, supersede and come ahead of every other law of the land. So for a solicitor general to make such a blatantly false statement as he made, unknowingly I will agree-I agree unknowingly, not knowingly, because the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) doesn't know what he is talking about, so it is not deliberate. It is not intentional. For him to say that Canada is the greatest bastion of civil liberties in the world today demonstrates the lamentable lack of his state of knowledge of civil liberties. He knows nothing about them.
The greatest bastion of civil liberties in the world today is the United States of America. The second greatest would be Great Britain where they have a tradition, where they believe in what they say, where governments are very careful, in security matters and all other matters, not to step out of line because of the force of public opinion in that society. That's where civil liberties are strong and vibrant today, not in Canada where a government feels free to act illegally for years and then comes before the House of Commons and asks them to pass legislation not only authorizing but giving them even more powers than they had assumed before.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have the U.S. experience. There was a good article by Michael Valpy in the Vancouver Sun of February 18 on this subject. He compared it to the United States of America, and he referred to the 1972 Keith decision where Justice Lewis Powell, a conservative on the bench of the United States of America, said, and I quote:
"We cannot accept the government's argument that internal security matters are too subtle and complex for judicial evaluation ... If the threat is too subtle or complex for our senior law enforcement officers to convey its significance to a court, one may question whether there is probable cause for surveillance."
Now isn't that just solid common sense? If the Solicitor General can't persuade a judge that he needs a warrant for national security purposes or if his officers are so opaque or so unable to convince the judge, surely to God there is no cause for surveillance.
"That decision effectively ended warrantless wiretapping in purely domestic security surveillances (with the court reserving judgment on the rights of foreign agents...
In the 1975 Zwelbon v. Mitchell decision, the court further restricted the executive's powers: "A warrant must be obtained before a wiretap is installed on a domestic organization that is neither the agent of nor acting in collaboration

with a foreign power, even if surveillance is installed under presidential directive in the name of foreign intelligence gathering for protection of the national security."
It doesn't matter what the name is; you have still got to go and get judicial sanction before you start off on this course. But under this legislation our Solicitor General can open mail and give his sanction; he can open anyone's mail without reference to anyone. He doesn't have to justify it. He doesn't have to discuss it. And, Mr. Speaker, when we have a situation like we had a week or two ago with our hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) when the government was threatening and bullyragging and browbeating and waving all its weapons and saying what it was going to do, when we had that situation we had no impartial third party to decide. But the government said it was national security, and the government is not going to explain why. It's not even going to say how many copies there are of the document, the 58 copies. They won't even say that there are 58 or one copy. That's national security, you know, to give any information. That's what the government said.
Well, obviously we've got to have some other authority, judicial or parliamentary, to which these matters can be referred as to whether it is really a national security issue. It could be a committee of the House of Commons with five people on it representing the various parties, but there has got to be a judicial reference. There has to be more information come to us on how many warrants were given for national security and what kind of national security, did anything result from those warrants or not and so on, when we are agreeing to the Canadian people having their rights changed and infringed like this.
We need more information, and we need the minister to justify what he is doing before at least a judge or someone, the same as in the other part of this bill. Everybody is very careful what they say about the RCMP. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. I think the RCMP is a fine police service.


Simma Holt: How can you?


John Carnell Crosbie: But that doesn't mean to say that I am afraid to criticize the RCMP. Not on your life, sir. I am not afraid of criticizing anyone, and if the RCMP deserve criticism, I am going to criticize them; or if the police deserve criticism, 1 will criticize them. That doesn't mean to say I don't think they are doing a fine job. What is required is to have the RCMP removed from the security services altogether. They shouldn't be involved in that grubbier side of extra-legal operations. That should be done by security forces. The RCMP should be left to do their thing in the area they are best capable of doing it where their reputation is not going to be sullied by some of the things that are bound to sully it in this grey security area. That is the first thing the government should do.
Not only have there been all the violations of the law I mentioned earlier, but the same thing is being done with Ontario Health Insurance Plan records. The law has been broken there. The RCMP, doing security checks or something like that, got information from the Ontario Health Insurance
March 17, 1978

Plan without permission and "may have jeopardized the prospects of the applicants' getting the jobs, Ontario Attorney-General McMurtry said Tuesday". This is a clipping from the Journal of March 1. Here's a case where some people may not have got jobs because of illegal actions of the security forces. Are we to treat that lightly? Suppose it is only one case in Canada a year. Are we to treat it as though it is unimportant? Supposing that 99 out of every 100 people in Canada think we are wrong not to give the government absolute power to open everything and to listen to everything and to take away all our privacy. Supposing 99 per cent think that. Would we be right to allow some people to lose jobs or not get jobs because of illegal actions of the government? Surely that is not a reasonable position to take, and it is not a position that I will take or can take.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is going to go to the committee, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and I have little hope that it is going to come out much better than it went in. 1 don't think the government is likely to agree that there should be changes made in it, and if it comes out as it went in, as I say, I will be voting against it. I have to go on the record as being against it. I will be against it in any event, but 1 am doubly against it because of the sorry record of this government in security matters. It just does not inspire in me the confidence to give them any further authority.
The Solicitor General apparently is going to accept personal responsibility for warrants now under this legislation. I wonder how long it will be when a question is asked before he says no, no, he doesn't take any responsibility; he just signs them blindly; that "they send them up to me from the security service and I blindfold myself, honourable gentlemen in the House of Commons, and I sign them, so I can't take responsibility". That will be the song we will hear in six months' time when the bill goes through, or in a year's time. He should report to the House with full details, if he gets this power, every year, and there should be a special national security committee of this House, in my opinion, with all parties represented, and all questions of security involving ministers and M.P.'s should certainly go to that committee where national security is involved. We should have a freedom of information act to show us that the government has got some sincerity and is not afraid to have any information at all go out on them.
So, Mr. Speaker, in winding up, here is the honourable drug-taker from Vancouver-the woman who is against drugtaking, I am sorry, from Vancouver. It is too bad she was overborne by her party. The party that is supporting the pot ignored the hon. member here a few weeks ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, what we want in dealing with this bill and in dealing with the government-


An hon. Member:: They want a pot in every chicken.
Criminal Code


John Carnell Crosbie: They want a pot in every chicken.


Simma Holt: What about the Conservative conventions?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We have never had a pot in our conventions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lefebvre):: In order for him to continue there must be unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: I just wanted to end, Mr. Speaker, if that is agreed. I was at my last sentence. What we want then, Mr. Speaker, addressed to this bill is a sculping knife to get at the truth. We have got to use the truth-dealing gaff on this bill, the same one that the sealers are using. We have got to pelt the hide off the smug seals of Liberal self-satisfaction. We have got to puncture their pretentions. We have got to remove the blubber of Liberal blunders and really get into this bill, Mr. Speaker, and eviscerate it before I can vote for it.


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


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak later on about the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) when I come to the problem of national security as dealt with in this bill, but I should like to limit myself, first of all, to remarks of a judicial nature, at the risk of sounding like a dotard to my colleague for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) about the concept of direct or indirect evidence, and the pertinence of that evidence before the courts.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is extremely interesting to note that Bill C-26 now before the House is the direct counterpart, with regards to communications, of another bill which dealt with oral communications, namely the Protection of Privacy Act and the regulations on the guarantees related to wiretapping. Mr. Speaker, I noticed with great interest when I first read the provisions of this bill that in clause 178, paragraph 2 in Bill C-26 the same concept was introduced that had been the object of an intervention on my part on March 3, 1978, on a motion for second reading of Bill C-227 by the hon. member for Calgary North, concept which can be defined thus: To mar the image of justice, concept which allows to guarantee, once and for all, the pertinence in a debate or judicial proceedings, of wiretapping, or in the case of Bill C-26, wiretapping itself, when the Crown, for some reason or other, decides to introduce as evidence, which it can do under the terms of section 178, paragraphs (1), (2) and (3), evidence provided directly or indirectly by wiretapping or illegal interception. I

March 17, 1978
Criminal Code
always use the term wiretapping or interception because, as I said a few moments ago, those are exactly the same concepts underlying Bill C-26, if it is approved by the House, and the legislation on electronic surveillance as well as the Criminal Code amendments which were passed by this House in the spring of 1977. In what respect is this clause 2 so interesting for those who want to protect fundamental liberties in this country? Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the reasons which prompted the government to introduce last spring, and now in the case of Bill C-26 provisions which allow the police to intervene in areas that were traditionally reserved and where they had no means whatsoever to stand in the way of organized crime. Because, once again, it is still the principle and concept of maintaining balance between fundamental liberties and organized crime prevention which is present in all those provisions and which allows to police, under strict guarantees, either to intercept an oral communication or, in the present case, to intercept a written communication.
The danger pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary North in the bill which he introduced in the House, a bill which has still not been passed on second reading, Bill C-227, was precisely due to his concern that, when legal safeguards are included in the consent given to police forces to intercept an oral communication, those safeguards were not adequate and thus opened the door to potential abuses by police forces if the courts were unable to expose, if necessary, an illegal action of those police forces while it was still possible for the attorney general to submit under the amendment presented in the spring of 1977 some direct or indirect evidence as a result of illegal wiretapping and that the wiretapping itself was not relevant to the prosecution.
I replied to the hon. member, in my intervention of March 3, 1978 as he will remember, that I felt that the provision contained in section 178.16 of the Criminal Code, now in effect and which reads as follows: When the juge thinks the introduction of this evidence might damage the image of justice, he is in a position to refuse this evidence coming directly or indirectly from illegal wiretapping. So, as I said, this new concept has not been tested by the Supreme Court, which explains why I raise it once again, so that in due time the people who will have to interpret it know exactly what it means, namely that the introduction of this concept protected and sanctioned the relevance at the trial of the wiretapping itself. Consequently, police corps would be ill-advised to take the opportunity of a so-called open door in the provisions of the Criminal Code to tap illegally while they know very well that if they could get a direct or indirect evidence through illegal wiretapping they would never be able to introduce it in the trial without taking the risk of this illegal wiretapping being used by the counsel for the defence saying it damages the image of justice.
So it is, Mr. Speaker, a legal subtlety, a subtlety of evidence; I realize and recognize this. But I think this provision is so

fundamental that I consider it to be my duty to rise twice in the span of two weeks and explain twice this very concept on two related areas so that in due time, when the Supreme Court will be called upon to interpret it, it will do so in the most enlightened way with everything available since the judges of the Supreme Court must hopefully read Hansard-if not, this is more or less assumed-so they will know exactly what was the intention of the legislator when he incorporated this provision of in the law, in the Criminal Code.
So, Mr. Speaker, to come back to the bill now before us, Bill C-26, we find again this very provision under subclause (2) to which I was referring earlier, which reads as follows:
(2)	The judge or magistrate presiding at any proceedings may,
(a)	notwithstanding subsection (1), refuse to admit evidence obtained directly or indirectly as a result of information acquired by interception of a communication in the course of post that is itself inadmissible as evidence .. . where he is of the opinion that the admission thereof would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, I suggest this is fundamental. It is fundamental because any interception by the police that would not have been authorized according to the procedures set out in this bill, namely the warrant that must be issued by a judge with all the legal guarantees that accompany it, this provision allows the evidence, the interception itself, even if the evidence resulting directly or indirectly therefrom is only being introduced as evidence, to cross-examine a policeman in the witness box and ask him: But where did you get that evidence? And then the judge, Mr. Speaker, under the principle of relevancy and because of this provision, has to allow the question. And then, the witness must answer: Your Honour, we have obtained this evidence through mail interception. Was this a legal operation? And then the witness has to explain if this interception was legal or illegal to demonstrate that he has not tarnished the image of justice in using and presenting that evidence.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member for Calgary North is becoming very nervous. So I encourage him to take part in this debate if he wishes a little later and then we shall be able to denounce the illegal use of an interception in that trial and eventually bring the police officer before the court on different grounds, for having contravened the provisions of what will eventually become a law, Bill C-26.
So, if I insist so much on that aspect, Mr. Speaker, it is only to explain that what might appear at the beginning to be a vague concept-to tarnish the image of justice-what might be considered a legal subtlety, is in fact one of the most basic guarantees that have been included in amendments to the Criminal Code last spring and that are included again in Bill C-26 to prevent police forces from abusing their powers and feeling entirely protected against any prosecution. Without that guarantee it would not be possible to submit as evidence
March 17, 1978

the interception itself when direct or indirect evidence is presented before the court.
Therefore, the hon. member for Calgary North is perfectly free not to agree with me, taking into account that healthy differences of opinion between us will not result in a controversy nor mean the end of a beautiful friendship, for, contrary to what may think the hon. member for St. John's West who certainly came out today with wild remarks, hon. members on both sides of the House are eager to find the proper balance between the need to fight organized crime and the need to protect our basic freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, I am always somewhat amazed and disappointed whenever hon. members, for the sake of party politics, try to denounce a "so-called" politically oriented policy, when we all know through experience, documentary evidence and otherwise that hon. members on this side are just as concerned with the issue of basic freedoms as any hon. member opposite. However, it is extremely important to try by all means at our disposal, even if we must admit that they are imperfect, to fight organized crime, which is a real danger in our society, while protecting the basic freedoms, and that must be our long term objective, an objective which must be present in all our activities in the House and our whole Canadian democracy.
It is therefore this balance, Mr. Speaker, that we must try to establish and, unfortunately, I have not found it in some of the previous interventions. I know that the hon. member for Calgary North is concerned about this matter. When I spoke on March 3 last, I said that I respected him for his efforts in trying to meet this objective in his own way, even though we do not agree about those means. Even though I do not agree with him about the means, our aims are the same.
But I am always a bit disappointed when someone like the hon. member for St. John's West makes a long speech without suggesting one answer to the problem of national security and spends instead forty minutes making a rambling speech to denounce present practices, which we must admit are unfortunate, but which are now the subject of investigations on the part of a royal commission, and concludes in flamboyant rhetoric that the government is completely incompetent as concerns national security and that we cannot trust them. No, Mr. Speaker!
It is true that the concept of national security greatly concerns me. It is true that the legacy of the 1970 crisis is perhaps not one of the things of which we can be most proud. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the necessary research on national security was made by a member on this side of the House. The concept of national security is very vague. It is hard to define. It was introduced in our legislation to meet a certain need at a certain time. It is a concept whose possible utilization could result in enormous abuses and this greatly concerns me.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not with speeches such as the one that we have heard this afternoon from the hon. member for St. John's West that we will solve the problem. It
Criminal Code
makes me pretty mad to hear such rambling speeches. I therefore urge him to read the speech the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) made on February 17, since the latter does not have a reputation for being a yes-man. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont has looked into the origins of the concept. He has tried to define it and to set forth the problems inherent to the national security concept.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that eventually this House will have to study thoroughly the concept of national security and define its meaning as well as the use we intend to make it and which objectives we are seeking when including that concept in several pieces of legislation dealing with immigration, electronic monitoring or mail interception.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague from Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) intends to deal with this issue which concerns him a lot and I know from conversations I have had with him that we both share to a great extent the same concerns as do other members of this House. Yet does this mean that one has to extrapolate and denounce, under the pretense that once again we are including this concept of national security in a bill, alleged practices on the part of the government, stretch the facts to tarnish reputations, indulge in sensationalism, which is precisely what I am deploring Mr. Speaker in the case of the hon. member for St. John's West.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that certain members from both sides of this House will seriously and thoroughly explore this concept of national security to try and define its limits so that we may be able to solve this problem which is a serious one, a matter which will not be solved by passionate speeches such as we have heard earlier and during which not a single solution was presented because there was not even a definition of that concept. I strongly urge the members from the other side, whose interest in this issue I am aware of, to rise and participate in this debate to make clear not only to the government but to this House and the country at large what we intend to do to fight organized crime and also to get prepared to prevent such unfortunate incidents as people now experience in Germany, Israel, France, Italy or elsewhere at a time when the very foundations of western democracy are being shattered by terrorism, a challenge we must be prepared to meet.
Mr. Speaker, this bill gives me reason for concern. I feel concerned because once again it includes a concept which I do not understand well because it is ill-defined, yet this does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that one must condemn altogether those who support it; on the contrary, I am confident that since this legislation is only temporary it will be reintroduced before this House though, as is often said, what is temporary becomes permanent and what is permanent becomes temporary. Since this temporary legislation will be back before this House after the McDonald commission has presented its report and since we will then have had the opportunity of studying again this issue, the House should support this bill, provided we are given an opportunity later on to study in depth the scope of the

March 17, 1978
Criminal Code
national security concept which, in itself, calls for a good debate in order to become better defined.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, it being Friday afternoon I will take support from wherever it comes. No, I seriously appreciate it. I am being a little facetious.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After all, you are at the left wing of the Tory party physically.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right, and I am glad to be here.
I was quite impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) when he spoke on my private member's bill. I know that he is as conscientious and serious in his references to this matter as I am, but I would like to take a moment to get the debate back on the rails. I have a feeling it got slightly off the rails.
This bill is very narrow in its scope, and I say that in its proper sense. It deals with two things. It deals with the right- and I will deal with the authorization in a moment-to open mail for drugs, and secondly for purposes of national security. Coming back to the first point, the right to open mail, the bill does not deal with other offences in the Criminal Code such as rape, murder or robbery with violence. It deals with a very simple thing when we are dealing with criminal law, and that is the right to open mail in reference to drugs or the trafficking in drugs. That right can only be obtained by the police upon authorization from a judge in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Criminal Code as it applies to the privacy act. That is what the bill says. I am not going to spend much time on that part because I am in accord with the provisions.
I may differ with some of my fellow members in my own party as to whether we should wait for the report of the McDonald commission, but I have always said that if I were the minister of justice and wanted to give one of my legal friends a great job I would make him a commissioner. You never know when it is going to end. You do not know how long it is going to last, or what it is going to cost. The libraries must be filled with commission reports.
Coming back to the question of drugs, I cannot think of anything that is associated with international trade and within our own domestic society that demoralizes the people of our society more than the traffic of drugs. It is not so much the harm that taking the drugs does to individuals but what happens to them once they are hooked on these drugs. Hon. members have only to read the reports, particularly those that come out of British Columbia, to know that once a girl or a boy, or a man or woman, get hooked on drugs, they must stoop to all of the low, base crimes of the nation to obtain money to

afford their habit. Because such drugs are illegal, they can only be obtained from an illegal source, the trafficker. I am not considering medical prescriptions.
Most of the crime in our urban centres can be traced to drug trafficking, whether it is prostitution or robbers with violence. Take, for example, the woman walking down the street with a purse in her hand and she is pushed down, her glasses are smashed and she is run over, all to obtain money to be able to afford the habit.
I do not know in my own mind whether the right to open mail in reference to drugs will give the police the necessary evidence, but if it does not then it will not be used that much. Therefore, I am not going to spend much time on that phase of the bill. I am one and I speak for myself. I notice that the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) took the same position. He is our critic of the Department of the Solicitor General on this side of the House. I have never really liked the word "critic" because it sounds as though we do not ever produce positive suggestions. I know that the hon. members over there believe that I do offer positive suggestions by moving a number of private member's bills and having alternatives in the speeches I deliver.
As far as opening mail with reference to drugs is concerned, I support it 100 per cent. I support it because I am prepared to give the police officers that authority, providing it is obtained by authorization from a judge. I hope that the Criminal Code will be amended in line with my private member's bill, where the person who is the object of the electronic surveillance will be notified within 90 days, or an extension of time thereof necessary to solve and investigate the crime in question. With that I endorse the bill.
I will point out one thing that I have not seen any legislation on, and it is with regard to the position of the courts in this country, the judiciary. Many laymen think that all of the law flows from parliamentary legislation. That is entirely wrong. There is more common law made by the courts based on precedents. It is the custom and tradition of mankind that our law is crystallized by precedention our courts. More important, when we pass a bill in this House on laws that govern the rights of the court it is interpreted by that court. The court will take the words in their grammatical sense and interpret them, no matter what we intended. That is the law of the land, and that is the way it must be because to operate under any other system of jurisprudence would be very bad.
Before I go into the question of security, I would like to deal with a second point. The second part of this bill deals with national security. Here we do not have the features of the first part of the bill, where an application must be approved by a judge to authorize wiretapping. This can be done by a writ and the signature of the Solicitor General without any report to the person who is the object of that wiretap.
Although I did not agree with everything the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said, I agree with him in this regard, that I am not prepared to give the Solicitor
March 17, 1978

General (Mr. Blais) or those who come after him the authority to issue those warrants. I hope this provision will be changed in committee. If those warrants, under national security, are to be issued they should be issued in the same manner as a warrant under the privacy act for electronic surveillance on the telephone or for the opening of mail when investigating drug traffic in Canada.
It may be claimed that national security is a different field and, therefore, the powers should be given to the executive rather than the judiciary because the matter is highly confidential and we must always protect classified information. There may be some merit to that argument but I have great faith in the judiciary of this country. On the whole, over the years we have appointed good people to the various benches, whether District Court, the Supreme Court trial division, the Appeal Court, the Supreme Court of Canada, or the Federal Court. I think with very few exceptions they are people of great integrity, intelligence and compassion. I think they have the capacity to keep matters confidential.
Surely one could apply to a judge for a warrant. Maybe all the facts of classified information would not have to be set out, although I am sure a judge who takes an oath of allegiance to the Queen-not to the government-to do a proper job without discrimination of any kind, would be able to keep information confidential. That is a positive suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the government will give it serious consideration if and when this bill goes to committee. I am prepared to make such an amendment in committee. I hope my amendment does not fall like the seeds and the stones from the sower of the seeds in the Bible and fail to germinate or sprout because there are always too many Grits to vote me down on my positive suggestions. I am usually told a few minutes later that I do not come out with anything positive, it having been thrown in the waste basket by the Grits in question.
I want to deal with something that really frightens me, Mr. Speaker. I want to read from the report of the Solicitor General of Canada issued pursuant to section 178.22 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This covers the period from January 1, 1977 to December 31, 1977. The number of wiretap authorizations obtained under the Criminal Code was 589; wiretap authorizations under the Narcotics Control Act, 1344; under the Food and Drug Act, 197; under the Customs Act, 24; under the Excise Act, 9; and under the Bankruptcy Act, 1. The total authorization for that year was 2,164. The amount is going up like inflation, Mr. Speaker. There were 879 persons arrested whose identities became known through wiretaps. Out of 2,164 wiretaps, approximately one-third were arrested.
There is something else I wanted to put on record regarding the issuing of warrants authorized by a judge. As the hon. member for St. John's West said, we cannot find out the facts about these warrants that were issued by the Solicitor General. He accused the minister of being blindfolded but I do not know whether that is correct. However, only 28 persons were convicted as a result of wiretap information. Mr. Speaker, that is 28 convictions out of 2,164 wiretaps. That is quite a thunderstorm, but I suggest the result is a mere shower.
Criminal Code


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: How many of the investigations are still going on?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, that was the story last year. One thing about the Liberals, they never change their philosophy or their policy. Their policy is power. That very question was put to me a year ago when I was speaking in this House.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Answer it now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All right, I will. Last year they said there would be a carryover. That is included in the 28. There is a carryover every year but it does not really affect the result, except for one or two. I hope that answers the hon. member satisfactorily.


Simma Holt: It is also justice not to charge if you have not complete evidence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to argue. I hope my good friends make their own speeches. I came here with the facts, but when you talk facts to the Liberals they just cannot take the truth.
Let us look at something else now. These are not my figures, they come from the Solicitor General's office.


Simma Holt: Because he is an honest person.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not going to get into whether he is honest or dishonest or what he is. I wish my good friend from Vancouver, whom I always give a good hearing in committee and in the House, would restrain herself. I know she gets frustrated sitting there because she does not go along with many things that happen. Sometimes she explodes in committee because of that frustration. If she could only restrain herself for a few moments, it would be a great help to all concerned.
I should like to refer to the Solicitor General's report again. Referring to the Official Secrets Act, it shows that 471 warrants were issued by the Solicitor General. The average length of time-


Mr. MacFarlane:: Was it 472?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not know the hon. member wanted to be included. I will see that is done next year. The Liberal whip said it should have been 472. Perhaps he has some inside information about himself that I do not have. I hope he will go to Hamilton and get himself a good lawyer this afternoon!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I thought they had missed you!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The average length of time for the warrants was 244.55 days. That is out of 471 warrants. Aside from the case in Montreal the report is secret and silent about how many arrests and charges there were. I know of only one case, and I do not know whether wire-tapping was used in that Montreal case or not. Even if it was, there was only one conviction out of 471 listenings conducted under the Official Secrets Act. The figures on both sides of the fence, whether

March 17, 1978
Criminal Code
under the Criminal Code, the Narcotics Act and the Official Secrets Act, are almost identical. I think that shows the danger of too much extension.
I want to repeat that I believe that in order to wiretap under the Official Secrets Act for national security, the judge should grant authority.
This is a very difficult act. It would be very difficult to defend oneself under the Officials Secrets Act and it would also be very difficult to get a prosecution. It is like the old laws on rape; it was very difficult to defend or to prosecute a rape case because the language was quite vague.
The Protection of Privacy Act deals basically with national security, which we are dealing with under this Bill C-26. I want to read once again something I have taken objection to, and I quote:
(2)	The Solicitor General of Canada may issue a warrant authorizing the interception or seizure of any communication if he is satisfied by evidence on oath that such interception or seizure is necessary for the prevention or detection of subversive activity directed against Canada or detrimental to the security of Canada or is necessary for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information essential to the security of Canada.
Then we go to the next clause, which is the definition of "subversive activity" which means various things, such as espionage or sabotage. But one thing that strikes me is that it means activities directed toward accomplishing government change within Canada. As I said the other day when speaking on my own private member's bill, in any election, when the government finally goes to the people, isn't the opposition asking the Canadian people for a change in the government? In view of economic policies of this government and the economic mess which we find ourselves in with this deficit, if we do not get a change in government this time, the country will be bankrupt. As the member from Crowfoot, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), said only a month before he took that strange walk to join the cattle rustlers, "The country cannot stand another year of Trudeau."
Now I come to subversive activity. Subversive activity means activity toward accomplishing governmental change within Canada. Well, anybody might be suspected of a breach of national security if that is the law of the land. I think it is a very dangerous law. I do not like to put that kind of law or that kind of a tool into the hands of this present Solicitor General or any other solicitor general that may be appointed in the future; solicitors general have not always shown they can obey the law either.
The Official Secrets Act has many sections and they are difficult. For example Section 2(3) provides:
(3)	In this Act.. .
(b)	expressions referring to obtaining or retaining any sketch, plan, model, article, note, or document, include the copying of, or causing to be copied, the whole or any part of any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document; and
(c)	expressions referring to the communication of any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document include the transfer or transmission of the sketch, plan, model, article, note or document.
Section 3 provides:
(1)	Every person is guilty of an offence under this Act who, for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State,-
That is subject to very wide interpretation. What does it mean? There is probably not one member in this House who could come up with the same definition. Likewise there would not be one judge who would come up with the same definition. Under this act it would be very difficult to prosecute, but it is just as difficult to defend, depending on the circumstances, depending on the political temperament of the country and depending on what the judge had for breakfast.
Under this same section concerning prosecution the act says:
(2)	On a prosecution under this section, it is not necessary-
And listen to this.
-to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him,-
The lady from Vancouver will not like that, she likes "her".
-he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, or his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State;-
With that kind of ambiguity in the law I must say I am not prepared now or tomorrow to give the Solicitor General the power and the authority to sign warrants without a judge's authorization. I want to repeat that I have absolute confidence in the judiciary of this country. If it is a matter of some evidence that has to be disclosed to a judge which is classified, I am confident, whether that judge is male or female, that he or she would keep that information confidential and private from the public, for the good of Canada. I continue reading this same section:
-and if any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information relating to or used in any prohibited place, or anything in such a place, or any secret official code word or pass word is made, obtained, collected, recorded, published or communicated by any person other than a person acting under lawful authority, it shall be deemed to have been made, obtained, collected, recorded, published or communicated for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State-
In other words, if any person is in possession of such information, whether or not it was obtained accidentally, if hon. members wanted to take the extreme interpretation of that section that person-man or woman-in Canada could be found guilty. Suppose a person listened in on the telephone having obtained the Solicitor General's warrant and someone asked: "Did you find a document, a sketch, a note or a copy on your desk?", and the answer was "Yes, I read it". Maybe the person in question had no idea whether it was harmful to the state or not but that person could very well under this section of that act be convicted without any notice to himself and without any authorization by a judge. I say that is not good enough, not when we are dealing with this kind of an act.
Then I go on to another section. Again I quote:
4. (1) Every person is guilty of an offence under this Act who, having in his possession or control any secret official code word, or pass word, or any sketch, plan-

March 17, 1978

And further down it says:
(a) communicates the code word,-
The person might indicate that code word over the telephone innocently if he did not know that it had been laid down on a piece of paper inadvertently and placed on his desk. I am not prepared under those circumstances-and again I emphasize this-to let the Solicitor General have this power, in particular this Solicitor General or one to be appointed in the future. Indeed those in the past were not always above the law. Therefore, I want a judge to give the authorization.
Can I call it four o'clock, sir?


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


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I request the unanimous consent of the House so we may proceed to consideration of Bill C-234 and that all items appearing on the order paper before that bill be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The House has heard the request of the parliamentary secretary. Is there unanimous consent?


Walter David Baker: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mark R. MacGuigan: that Bill C-234, respecting National Heritage Day, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is, on the one hand, a pleasure to be able to speak again on this important piece of unfinished business. On the other hand, it is a slightly unhappy occasion in that it is necessary to speak on it again, to find that the bill has not yet been passed and that the government bill with a similar initiative which had been introduced in the last session has not been reintroduced. Nevertheless, I understand that the
Heritage Day
government is committed to this initiative and will at least in time bring forth legislation on its own behalf.
In the meantime, I would certainly like to advance the acceptance of national heritage day through my Bill C-234. Indeed, as I will develop in the course of my remarks, there is at least one substantial difference, perhaps two, between the bill which I am proposing and that which it appears the government would desire. I would suggest on both points that the consensus of parties which is represented in my bill is the preferable position to take.
I wish to say first that it is a pleasure to have an opportunity on an occasion such as this to celebrate my national heritage as well. We Irish have become so Anglicized that we do not have as many chances to parade our original origins now as we used to. In some places they still turn rivers green on St. Patrick's Day. In most cases all we can do is wear a badge to indicate our origin. In my case all of my ancestors came here from Ireland in the 1830's and forties. It is a long time ago, but I like to look back on that heritage because I believe it has made an important contribution to what Canada is today.
That is what each of us feels about his heritage in Canada. That is one of the great things about this country, perhaps the greatest, that we each have a distinctive heritage. Each of us can look at his own heritage and his own contribution to Canada with pride. Our government looks at all of these with pride as having made a contribution to the development of our country.
With respect to national heritage day, I believe two provinces have adopted national heritage days. I think the territory of the Yukon has also done so. In addition, there are a number of large organizations which are very instrumental in pressing for the establishment of our heritage. Kinsmen are one of those groups and I frequently had an opportunity of appearing before them. They have been taking a major initiative with regard to this legislation. I believe Optimists International have taken a similar position.
Bill C-234 is a symbol of the richness of our national heritage. I believe it is strongly supported by all the people of Canada. In a questionnaire which I included in a householder last month, I asked my constituents the question: "Do you favour Heritage Day as a national holiday in February?". The replies are now in, about 700 in all. Of those, 68.7 per cent favour a heritage day as a national holiday in February. Only 31.3 per cent are opposed. In fact, most of those who were opposed objected only to the date, not to the concept. They wrote on the questionnaire other dates they would prefer. Nevertheless, the date proposed in this bill is obviously the one around which there is the greatest popular consensus.
I would like to go back to the genesis of this bill in the justice committee. In 1973, this matter came before the justice committee with some degree of force because there were quite a number of bills at that time which were referred to the

March 17, 1978
Heritage Day
committee. The committee was being asked in some way to resolve this problem.
I might just mention that some of those who presented bills were the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), I believe. He was certainly a member of the justice subcommittee which straightened out the matter and I believe he had a bill. There were also several former parliamentarians such as Mr. Reginald Stackhouse, the hon. member for Scarborough East at that time, and Mr. Nelson from British Columbia. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will know his constituency.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Burnaby-Seymour.


Mark R. MacGuigan: He was the member for that area at that time. Having regard to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I would like to pay a special tribute to him for his support in this important task.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: He has been indefatigable in his activities with regard to this legislation. 1 am encouraged by that because I have noticed in the course of my public life, and even more in the course of his, that he very often in the long run gets his way with many of those pieces of legislation for which he so tenaciously struggles in this House. That gives me added reason to hope that before very long we will see the fruits of his labour, mine and those of many other people and get this measure on the statute books of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I wish to refer to the report of a subcommittee of the justice committee that was presented in that committee on December 18, 1973. As I mentioned, there was a diversity of options. The justice committee set up a subcommittee of which I was the chairman. We were able to bring in a unanimous report which made the following recommendations. Although this is found in the minutes of the justice committee at page 32:4, I do not think it would be a bad idea to put it in Hansard today. I presented the report of the subcommitte on the subject matter. It read as follows:
The Sub-committee on the subject-matter of a National Holiday of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs has the honour of presenting to the Committee the following recommendations:
(1)	That the Government consider the advisability of introducing legislation to establish the third Monday of February as a new legal holiday;
(2)	That this holiday be kept and observed under the name of Heritage Day;
(3)	That the particular aspect of our heritage to be honoured on this day should be varied by proclamation from year to year. In the opinion of the Sub-committee the focal point of the celebration for the first year should be the Canadian Flag, for the second year our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, and for the third year, our native peoples;

(4)	That a new Standing Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, chaired by the Speakers of both Houses, should be established to recommend to the Government the theme of the holiday from year to year;
(5)	That the Government consider the advisability of issuing a special stamp and coin each year to mark the celebration more fully.
After debate thereon, on the motion of the hon. member for York-Simcoe the report was concurred in unanimously by the justice committee. I might just make a few additional comments on that.


Walter David Baker: What year was that?


Mark R. MacGuigan: December 18, 1973. The name was varied from heritage day to national heritage day on my initiative because of the difficulty of finding an adequate translation in the French. It was thought that the word "patrimoine" by itself might not signify exactly the right thing, that "patrimoine national" was the preferred phrase. Therefore, we made the insertion of the word "national" in the English as well to keep the name of the holiday parallel in both languages.
There was a subsequent resolution of the justice committee which recommended that the Canadian Bill of Rights should be the focal point of the celebration in the fourth year. That has also been added to the bill.
I did not proceed with the idea of a standing joint committee of both Houses of Parliament chaired by the Speakers of both Houses to advise the government, not because I had a change of mind on this, but because it seemed a bit too elaborate a setup for a single matter of this kind.
The matter was put in the hands of the government to decide by proclamation but with the understanding and recommendation I am making here now that this be done on the basis of a consensus of party leaders, or whatever form of consensus might be established, so that the holiday which was established would not be one which brought any acrimony to the Canadian scene but was one which had very general support in all segments in this House and, therefore, in all parts of Canada. Indeed, it would be political folly for a government to proceed in any other way on a matter of this kind.
I will come to that subject later, but not too much later because I do not want to prevent other members from making a contribution to this debate. I wish we were not having a debate but simply putting the bill through. Since I do not sense that to be the disposition of the House, I think this to be an opportune time to put some things on record.
The bill which is before us represents an initiative of an all-party body. It represents the feelings of all groups in Canada. There seem to be only two arguments against it. One was raised by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) on a previous occasion and his opinion may be shared by other hon. members.
March 17, 1978


Stanley Howard Knowles: By the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), for example.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I do not think that is the view of the Secretary of State. I think there is simply a reluctance there to proceed at the moment. As for consideration of the question of the work ethic, the notion of the work ethic put forward by the hon. member for Palliser is not mine. My notion is that people should work when they wish to, or when it is their duty, but that they should also have time off. It would not be excessive to have 12 holidays a year rather than the nine or ten presently recognized. Consequently, I have no difficulty with this concept.
There are some who link their opposition to this proposal with our present economic difficulties and they tend to think its adoption would present difficulties for business. Several years ago a survey was made with respect to employees under federal jurisdiction. It showed that most of such employees in Canada already enjoyed more days off than were designated in legislation. That was in 1973. In other words, we are merely establishing a minimum by what we propose to do here because employees are already receiving more days than are prescribed by statute, so the number of holidays will not necessarily increase. At the time of the survey, 95 per cent of employees had nine or more general holidays when only eight were required by legislation. Some 72 per cent had ten holidays, at least two more than legislation at the time required. This is an indication that the business community does recognize that holidays make an essential contribution to work. I hope that once our temporary economic difficulties are over the government will recover its courage and proceed with this bill immediately. I hope this will come about early in the next parliament.
Another type of argument is used-I do not think it is one which will stir the country. There has been a feeling expressed in committee that the government might use its unilateral proclamation power to vary the focal point of the celebration each year, misusing the discretion given to it for its own purposes, and that this would be divisive. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that a government which attempted to use tactics of that kind would not profit politically by so doing.
On the other hand, it is quite likely that in the mind of the government there is hesitation about accepting such a power on the ground that it is too weighty a responsibility: in the mind of the public it would be taking responsibility for whatever day is established and nobody else would share it. Well, that is a very good argument, it seems to me, in favour of the government's appointing a public committee. It could be a committee of this House or it could be a committee of citizens, or a combination of both, set up to make recommendations as to what the focal point should be each year. I would suggest that this be done on an annual basis, without making too many
Heritage Day
decisions far in advance. This should not arouse selfish instincts because as long as the country and the world continue there will be a succession of opportunities to name a day, and a group which does not get the year it desires recognized in terms of its special hero will still have another opportunity the following year. So it is not a question of the government ever having to say no. The government merely has to say: You have to wait a bit longer until your subject matter is recommended by the advisory committee.
The advantage of having this power of proclamation lies in the opportunity it affords to recognize the richness of our country. Canada is a country with so many cultures that we have been able to adopt an official policy of multiculturalism which states there is no official culture, that the earlier notion that there was such a thing as biculturalism in Canada was a mistaken one, and that while we think about bilingualism we now couple this not with biculturalism but with multiculturalism. We recognize all these cultures and their contribution to the present and the future and, indeed, to the past of our country.
This power of designation by government on the recommendation of public spirited citizens and parliamentarians, coupled with the ability to issue stamps and coins and all the things which would help Canadians to recognize aspects of their life together, seems to me to be an immensely useful one. Even if you look at it from the point of view of historical discoverers, or if you look at it from the point of view of immigrant groups, on however you look at it, there are just so many aspects of our national heritage to be recognized that you can think of a century of subjects to be recognized without having to sit down for more than three or four minutes.
There is no trouble about arriving at aspects of our national life which we want to celebrate. So this power of designating those aspects, of giving a little special recognition to them from time to time, is very important. It could make an enormous contribution to our life as a society. So I would hope that when the government does again embrace this initiative, or if it is prepared to support my bill, the power to designate the aspect of the holiday will be embodied in the legislation.
I just want to say in conclusion that the genesis of this bill suggests that it should not be a matter of partisan strife. There is, I believe, a genuine national consensus on the need for such a holiday. The only real dispute among most ordinary Canadians has to do with when it should be each year. That is a fortunate position for a parliament to be in, to be able to take an initiative which is so generally acceptable to the people, and I urge that this step be taken very soon.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honoured to follow a fellow Islander, the hon. member who has just spoken, a very distinguished parliamentarian and a one-time opponent of mine in a general election.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I would rather forget about that!

March 17, 1978
Heritage Day


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A few years ago the Liberal party in Prince Edward Island thought it should scour the highways and byways to get a more highly educated man than Macquarrie. It discovered the hon. gentleman, whose erudition and education I salute and respect. I look upon him as one of the most distinguished Islanders of this generation or any other following a very distinguished and honourable family in our province.
I want to say, too, that I have the greatest respect for what he has done in the course of his duty as committee chairman. He has brought broadmindedness and, generally, an apolitical attitude toward some very important issues facing the Canadian people and parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It is not for me to give advice to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the twilight of my political career, but if I were forced to do so I would say this to him. The people of Windsor and many hundreds of thousands of Canadians cannot understand why the hon. gentleman is not in the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: He has abilities and capabilities to spare, once you even him up with the present members. That is the only nasty thing I will say. It is not meant to be nasty; it is a tribute to my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island, and if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) takes that advice and my party loses ground, then we will charge it up to my professorial rather than my political posture.
I am very pleased with the leadership the hon. member has given to this matter, and I am very disheartened by what the government has done about it. In my couple of decades here I have noted that there is a great tendency on the part of this government, if there is something developed by a private member which wins acceptance in parliament or in the country, immediately to cut off that initiative of the private member and to produce a bill.
I remember that time after time my very dear friend the Liberal member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) produced bills to get the likenesses of Canadian prime ministers on the currency of our country. God help us, it is nearly time that that was done. He also introduced a bill to get the flag of Canada into this chamber. His bills were always talked out or ignored. I was sitting in the House when the then minister of finance stood up without even consulting the hon. member for Cochrane and said that the government would bring out an issue of currency with Laurier on the five dollar bill and John A. Macdonald on the ten. I think that is very suitable because when you buy a bottle of rum, you need a ten dollar bill, and I always use a John A. Macdonald bill. I think I am being very

historic as well as gustatorily correct. I am told Borden is on the one hundred dollar bill-I have not seen one-and that Mackenzie King is on the fifty. We should have done that long ago.
We Canadians have been reluctant to let our Canadianism show. I went to school in the United States in grade one. Perhaps that is where I went astray. Abe Lincoln was there, and George Washington was there. I was taught exactly how to salute the flag, what to do with my hand and what words to say, and I can say them yet. But will we give John A. Macdonald credit? Will we give Laurier a chance? Will we honour Borden? Will we respectfully give credit to the great men who brought into being a great country?
I have studied-and the hon. member is a great scholar- the nation builders of the world. I have taught in university about Cavour, Mazzini, Bismarck and all the rest of them. But our founding fathers do not have to take second place to any statesmen in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The task which faced Macdonald, Brown, Cartier and McGee was enormously difficult. The challenge was tremendous and horrendous, but they overcame it. I often say, and I am sure my hon. friend agrees with me, that we are unworthy successors if we allow what those men created to disappear. Surely to God on this St. Patrick's Day-that Scottish born saint whom we all honour-we must realize that bringing this country into being was far more difficult than keeping it together in a time of advanced communication. In 1864-and it is wonderful that I am following the hon. member because Canada began in Charlottetown, the cradle of confederation-the problems of communication and transportation were enormous and difficult. The people did not know one another. It was reported in a very distinguished Nova Scotia newspaper that maritimers did not know many Canadians, and the few they did know they did not like.
However, it took people like Macdonald and Brown to build Canada. Brown even started to drink during his visit to Charlottetown. We are very proud of that. He had quite a good time. He probably relaxed for the first time in his life. All these people decided that the ideal of the country was very important. Yet we are reluctant to honour Macdonald. We are reluctant to have likenesses of these men on our coins. We are totally unmindful of Cartier. Having studied a good deal of history I often wonder what might have happened had Macdonald died before Cartier and Cartier had become the leader of our party. If that had happened, today we would be what I think we should be, the favourites of the province of Quebec. However, that did not happen. These men were great figures. Only recently have we even mustered up the courage to put on the stamps of the nation the likenesses of wonderful men like Mr. Pearson, Mr. St. Laurent and a man I did not like very much but admired greatly, Mr. Bennett. These people were
March 17, 1978

leaders. I thought that the hon. member who has just spoken did an excellent job in integrating all our various interests.
For 15 years I have been pleading in this House for a day to remember John A. Macdonald, the father of our country. He was the outstanding architect of Confederation. He was not the only one, but the outstanding one. In consultation with the hon. member I was prepared to forget that John A. was born on January 11, which is a rather bad time, ten days after New Year's Day. John A. was a Scotsman. He knew all about hogmanay. It took him about ten days to recover. We were prepared to move it on into February. We talked it over with the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who-please, God-may be Minister of Finance before the year is out, and we all agreed. There was a very good discussion and a consensus in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which, if I am right, was then chaired by His Honour Mr. Speaker. That, in my judgment, was parliament working at its best. It is unfortunate that here today there is not a single cabinet minister I can address this remark to, but I think it behooves the executive to note occasionally the consensus and the will of the people's representatives.
I think it was quite unbecoming, improper and unnecessary for the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) to pre-empt the hon. member and the rest of us, and even more unbecoming, if I may use that kind of garbled English-and I do not often do that-for him then to renege on his own interference. We do not have the holiday. We have put the consensus of parliament into discard, and that I find totally reprehensible. At a time when it was more important than ever before that this institution be well regarded by the public which it represents, the government did a double disservice not only to the hon. member, to me, to the hon. member for York-Simcoe and to Sir John A. Macdonald, but also to the parliamentary institution itself. For that I think they deserve the harshest condemnation, and I hope they will take advice and not continue this practice which I have indicated. I mentioned the hon. member for Cochrane, but it has happened many times. Perhaps the most important hour in this parliament is the private members' hour, when we do not listen to the orders of our beloved friends, my highly regarded whip on my right and the House leader, and when members who are here because people sent them here decide what they are going to talk about and what they are going to say. Because representative government is older than responsible government, I think the emphasis should be on that private members' hour.
The learned and hon. member who has just spoken rendered a great service by making a good, earnest and sensitive representation on behalf of people. He is a very courageous committee chairman. He is sensitive to very hot public issues, if I may say so. I applaud him for his leadership.
Heritage Day
I never make long speeches. Perhaps my speeches are longer than I think. I believe I am to be followed by the venerable hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He is the chancellor of an outstanding university which has still not offered me a degree. As a Scot, I can say that I am proud we gave the Irish St. Patrick. I am very mindful of where my strength came from. I remember the many Irish Prince Edward Islanders who voted for me over the years. I was happy to have an opportunity to follow my fellow islander, the distinguished hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). I am happy to support him in his endeavours to establish a national heritage day.
I am not afraid Canada will fall apart if another holiday is celebrated. Is our economy so frail? Are our people so weak? Are things so bad that if one more holiday occurs, the entire country will go to hell? I cannot believe it. I am interested in greater productivity during working days. I discount the days people do not work. There is no reason why a highly developed country like Canada, with its advanced technology and albeit lousy government, cannot afford a holiday every month.
We must celebrate and honour our native people. We must honour discovery day. We must honour Sir John A. Macdonald. Then we can honour Sir Wilfred Laurier, Sir Robert Borden and even Mackenzie King, God forgive me. There have been many tremendous Canadians. There was Dr. Wilder Penfield, who was probably one of the ablest and most brilliant men the world ever produced. There was Dr. Bethune. Also there is Dr. McClure, who is still living. He was the former moderator of the United Church of Canada. There are scores of people who should be honoured by us for one day. We should stand aside and honour these people who make up our heritage.
If I were greedy and wanted to use up more time, I could name many people. I could talk about Senator Cairine Wilson, Nellie McClung, C. G. D. Roberts, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), C. D. Howe, Charles Tupper, M. J. Coldwell and J. S. Woodsworth. It would be exciting, imaginative and valuable to have a national heritage day. As was suggested by the hon. member, from year to year a Canadian could be chosen to receive honour. We could survive for 100 years and not be required to use the same list twice. I will not live for 100 years, because I am too intemperate.
While I condemn the government for its niggardly action and their even more reprehensible reaction, I commend and support the measure before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the quality of debate that we have on Friday afternoons leads me to make the suggestion that perhaps we should use the power of parliament to declare five days of the week to be Friday. We could have delightful debates. Today we passed two or three bills. Perhaps everything would become better and more productive around here if every sitting day was a Friday.

March 17, 1978
Heritage Day
After listening to two Prince Edward Islanders speaking with their usual modesty, I confess I began to wonder what right a Canadian from another part of the country might have to take part in this debate. But I realized I could boast of my New Brunswick and Nova Scotian ancestry. That gets me into the picture.
Also I noticed that this is a day of accolades. They are being handed out all over the place. I want to join in on some of them. Before I join in on the accolades to the living, I should like to indicate that I enjoyed the manner in which the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) referred to great names in Canadian history. He started away back in our history and got to the era of Borden. Then he picked up with Bennett, but he missed one in between. The second time around, he decided that he should mention Mackenzie King in order to save his soul.


An hon. Member:: Mackenzie King probably heard him!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, probably he was heard. 1 join with the hon. member for Hillsborough in paying tribute to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) in connection with his persistence regarding this bill asking for a national heritage day. I am sure all members of the House would join with me in paying tribute as well to the hon. member for Hillsborough for the 21 years of service he has given to parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has decided that what he has done is enough at least for now. His presence in the House of Commons has been enjoyed very much. The students who will sit in front of him in Mount Allison University will indeed be fortunate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Returning to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville and this bill, it strikes me there is a double significance about it. I support the hon. member for Hillsborough by saying that consideration should be given to it. As the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville pointed out, his bill represents a consensus or a bringing together of the ideas of several hon. members. Perhaps more than any private member's bill that has been before parliament in a long time, it is not just one member's bill. As I say, it is before us as a result of several bills having been introduced.
The hon. member for Hillsborough presented a bill to honour Sir John A. Macdonald. As was mentioned before, Mr. Ed Nelson presented one as well. In fact there were four or five, including one of my own. I was calling for a holiday in February, midway between Christmas and Easter, by whatever name it might be called. All these bills got to committee. It was in committee that the idea to combine them was developed. Thus, this bill comes before us. It is not just the product of the thinking of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, but it is the combined thinking of several private members from all parties. I wish we could get around to passing this piece of legislation. I see no reason why this bill could not be passed today, so that it can go to committee.
I will not take the time of the House to go into arguments concerning economic restraint and productivity. Those who argue that we need more work and that people must be more productive surely will not follow that to its logical conclusion and indicate that we should cancel the holidays we now have. We have a number of holidays during the year because we believe people are more productive if they have a bit of time off. I suggest an extra day off in the long winter in Canada between Christmas and Easter would be a good idea. I support the bill on that count, and I also support it very strongly for the reasons presented by the two previous speakers, namely that we do have a heritage in this country which we should celebrate and talk about, and that we should tell our people about. I think that on every count we ought to have this day.
Having said that in the friendly fashion that develops here on Friday afternoons, I think I must also join in the criticism levelled on the government by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, and which was levelled even more strongly by the hon. member for Hillsborough, for not having proceeded with it. Originally it was a private member's idea, or the idea of several private members.
The bill in the name of the member for Windsor-Walkerville, two or three years ago, did not get through, and then the government took it up. In the session previous to this one it had two bills; Bill C-30 and C-32. Bill C-30 was to establish a national heritage day as one of the national holidays of this country, and Bill C-32 amended the Canada Labour Code in respect of what was to happen on certain holidays. Private members can put bills down year after year and know they may have to wait twenty, thirty or forty years before getting them through; but when the government makes it a matter of government policy and puts it down, that is a declaration of what the government wants. For the government to have backed away from that in the last session I think was reprehensible, particularly so because it had taken the idea away from private members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: This session when we thought that last session's Bill C-30 or Bill C-32, or both of them, would be brought back again we were told by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) that this was not to be done. I think this is most unfortunate. I suppose it is too much to hope that my friend's bill will get passed, but I would rather see this bill passed than the government's bill because it does

March 17, 1978

represent the thinking and the ideas of private members. If that cannot be done, I hope it will not be long before this kind of legislation is passed and the third Monday of February becomes national heritage day.
There is one other element about this that disturbs me. Four or five years ago when this matter was under very active consideration and it looked as though it would pass, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall settled a railway dispute, and part of that settlement was that when the parliament of Canada passed a bill for heritage day that would be an additional holiday for railway workers. Those railway workers feel they have been short changed very seriously by the fact that such a bill has not been passed, and now once each year for three or four years they have lost a holiday they thought was included in the award of Mr. Justice Hall.
There is more that could be said, Mr. Speaker, but I had better sit down so I will not be part of the process of talking this bill out. So far here we are: we are unanimous and everybody seems to be in a good mood, so let us pass this bill this afternoon.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege of speaking today on Bill C-234, an act respecting national heritage day. Unlike some of my colleagues, I will be very, very brief, not only because I have to catch a plane back to Oakville, but because most of the major points have been expressed very eloquently so far and, most important of all, because I want to see this bill passed and not talked out.
Let me congratulate and support very strongly the sponsor of this bill, my colleague the hon. member for Windsor-Walk-erville (Mr. MacGuigan). As has been said, it seems to me the main objection thrown up time and time again to this bill is that in hard economic terms it would badly influence or take away from the productivity of this country. That is a spurious argument. In fact, being the only holiday during the hardest time in the Canadian year, the hardest part of winter, it would lend itself to many strong arguments as to why it would improve on the productivity of this country. If in fact it would make people less productive or would take away from our work output, then we should be doing away with the holidays we have so far. We should be doing away with weekends off. We should be doing away with the whole principle and practice of coffee breaks, all of which is obviously ridiculous.
To close on a positive note, this holiday would be good for the productivity of this country, contrary to what others have said. Surely the most important thing we can do at this time in our history, with issues, worries and anxieties about major things like national unity and our economy, both of which are often overplayed, is to have this holiday to remind ourselves of what a great country this really is.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise for just a few moments as this may be one of the
Heritage Day
last times we will have the opportunity of hearing the voice of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) in the House of Commons. That hon. member has become known throughout the world as a proponent of heritage and as an authority on the early history of our country. He has become what I would like to call an ornament in parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: When he takes his leave of us this institution will have lost one of its richest assets.
I want to speak for a moment as the House leader of the Progressive Conservative party, and I hope the House will allow me to do so during the private members' hour. There will be other tributes paid to the hon. member, but there will be no tribute more sincere than mine on behalf of all my colleagues in parliament for the contribution he has made to the thought and political processes of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It is not just to this country that he has confined his duties. The hon. member for Hillsborough is known throughout the world as a man of great conviction, a man of great eloquence and a man with a tremendous sense of compassion and concern for his fellow man, whatever be the colour, creed, race or religion of that man.
I should say as the House leader of the official opposition that we as a party, his province, his parliament and his country would be richer were he to change his mind and stay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Private members' hour is devoted to the business of those of us who were elected but do not hold an executive function in the government of Canada or a position recognized in our constitution. The House leader of the official opposition and the House leader of the NDP hold positions different from that of the Leader of the Opposition. As a result, the rules pertaining to the private members' hour do not bar House leaders from participating.
When a House leader rises in his place he does not necessarily speak for his party. Like other members of the House, he can also speak for himself. It is in that way that I want to speak for just a few minutes regarding this piece of legislation.
The hon. member for Hillsborough has given us a lesson today that we ought not to forget. We ought not to distort our history and we ought not to take away from the richness of our heritage by our petty squabbling. If Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-fitienne Cartier had concentrated on those things that made them different one from the other, we would not have a country. We would not have this parliament.

March 17, 1978
Heritage Day


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: If we had relied on refe-rendums in those days to decide whether or not we would have a Canada, we would not have had a Canada. The maritime provinces would have said no to confederation to begin with, and I dare say there would have been others who would have said no as well. The creation of this country and the fact that it has existed for 110 years was not an act of referendum. It was an act of statescraft and great men, who were bigger than themselves, who were prepared to sit down and discuss the country despite their differences, and were prepared to say that there is something worth while to be done, some good reason for us to build together a nation in the northern half of North America. That is why we are here as a nation.
If we can accept that spirit, somehow or other we will remain a nation. Because a nation is more than bricks and mortar and plants and highways. There is the matter of spirit in a country. Without assessing blame today, we have lost that spirit in Canada. It is not dead, it is just lost for a while. It has not flickered out, it has been dimmed. I think our heritage is important to us, and we ought to recognize it not just in terms of a holiday-even though that idea is not offensive to me- but in terms of those who have gone before and on whose greatness we are building so that we can make our country more united.
I say those words in tribute to the hon. member for Hillsborough because throughout his parliamentary career that is what he has tried to do. I think parliament is richer for his presence today, and when he is gone its poverty to the extent of his leaving will be felt by all of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I am proud to join today in the tribute that has been paid by my friend and my neighbour, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to a great Canadian and Parliamentarian, I suppose in this place the first parliamentarian. He is one of the most eloquent men here, and he has made our chamber and our political process a richer thing by his presence.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I too want to make a few remarks with regard to Bill C-32-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bill C-234.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Bill C-234,1 am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I must be suffering from dyslexia today.
Before going directly to the bill, I would like to add my voice to those who have already expressed to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) their very good wishes for when he retires from politics and goes back to the academic

life. I am pleased that he will be taking up residence in my native province. I am also pleased to know that he will be taking up residence in an area whre my party is strong, and he will probably have little political influence. I hope, however, that he has a great influence-and I know he will-on those who enter his classroom and who partake of his wisdom. I wish him well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It has been noted already that the quality of debate seems to be better in this chamber on Fridays, and I am not sure why that is. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has suggested that we pass a bill here declaring all days to be Friday for the purpose of debate. I think that might be a good idea because on at least two days this week the opposition parties in this House tried to give us heritage day without passing a bill. Maybe that would get rid of these silly motions to adjourn the House which waste our time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I also want to differ a bit with my hon. friend from Hillsborough in taking credit for Scotland for producing St. Patrick. He is known as a scholar, and I hesitate to argue with him on this point, but the research I have done on this venerable man-I am referring to St. Patrick, not the hon. member for Hillsborough-indicates he was born in France. It makes no great deal of difference to me, since some of my ancestors came from France, some came from Scotland and some came from Ireland. I am one of those people who is a mixture.
I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, when speaking to this bill dealing with our national heritage that we mention, even if briefly, that such a day as national heritage day might move Canadians to call to mind the contribution that has been made to this country by our native people, by the Indians and the Inuit. Perhaps that would serve as a point of focus to bring the culture and heritage of those people more to the minds of other Canadians. It would certainly be advantageous for the country.
I support the idea of a national heritage day, but I wonder if declaring a holiday is the proper way to do it. I wonder whether, Mr. Speaker, if in the classrooms of this nation on a designated day all the teachers of this nation were to spend that day developing projects looking back into history, showing films or slide presentations, or having the students themselves develop ideas on the heritage of Canada-on the great people to whom the hon. member for Hillsborough referred, and others whom time does not permit mentioning here today- that would not do more to focus attention on the richness, the wealth and the diversity of the heritage that is ours. Therefore, I question the validity of making the day a holiday.
March 17, 1978

I am also wondering if this in fact is an appropriate time, in view of the difficult economic situation in which we in Canada find ourselves at the moment-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now
Heritage Day
expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 20, 1978