1978-11-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Robert de Cotret (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that the federal government owns or leases 8,036,885 square metres of accommodation and facilities across Canada, an area equal to 1,236 football fields, and in light of a local media report that procedures for monitoring and control of these organizations have been suspended, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott):
That this House direct the Minister of Public Works to set up immediately a monitoring agency as recommended by the Auditor General last year and further recommended just recently by the Standing Committee on National Finance in the other place, and to make available to this House as soon as possible a report on the current unused accommodations and facilities owned or leased by the government across the country and particularly in the Ottawa area.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion, under the terms of Standing Order 43, can be done only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), when asked on Wednesday what the effect on Canada would be of the record increase in the U.S. of an interest rate of 9.5 per cent-the highest in United States history-stated, "I am not going to speculate and engage in the kind of business the hon. member enjoys", and that the move "has to be welcomed by Canada", and in view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) speculated on the question of the dollar and on increases in interest rates by stating that an increase in interest rates in the U.S. automatically compels the Canadian government to raise interest rates and that he expects the bank rate to go up soon, saying, further, that he "is not happy about the latest move by the United States", I would move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That the Prime Minister explain to the House, on motions, if he can, which of his economic ministers he agrees with and whether Canada has no choice but to increase interest rates, or that speculation is unwise, or whether the United States move has to be welcomed by Canada or whether he is not happy about the latest move by the United States, and advise the House whether he is happy with the Minister of Finance and unhappy with the Minister of Industry, or happy with the Minister of Industry and unhappy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on an urgent and pressing matter arising from the fact that Canadian Pacific Railway has refused to participate in a program with the federal government to repair boxcars for grain service.
Since that company has been treated very generously by the Canadian taxpayer, receiving $102 million in direct hand-outs in 1977, the use of $135 million worth of new hopper cars with which to haul grain, and a tax deferral of $558 million of taxes owing, since the company bogged down grain movement so badly last year as to cost prairie farmers $90 million in lost grain sales and demurrage on waiting ships, and since Canadian National Railways has agreed to fix up 1,000 cars for grain service, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the Canadian Pacific Railway be required to repair and substantially increase the number of its boxcars, and that Canadian Pacific be called to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to account for its misuse of public funds and its failure to improve and increase its rolling-stock for grain movement.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion, under Standing Order 43, would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
766

November 3, 1978


REQUESTED REPLACEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF PRAIRIE RAIL ACTION COMMITTEE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the chairman of the Prairie Rail Action Committee stated in Calgary, on October 19, that the government should abandon a still larger number of miles of rail trackage from the basic network than was originally recommended by Chief Justice Emmett Hall in the Hall report, 1 ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House recommends to the Minister of Transport that Professor Fred Anderson be replaced as chairman of the Prairie Rail Action Committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion at this time would require unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL INSURANCE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas increasing evidence is becoming available that the government has broken its commitment that social insurance numbers would be used only with reference to social insurance matters, and whereas in the example of Walter Rudnicki, whose continuing difficulties and litigation involving the Government of Canada are a matter of public record, and that his social insurance number as well as his RCMP file number were quoted with reference to his security clearance by the Privy Council office, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey):
That the Solicitor General, on motions, indicate to what extent social insurance numbers are used in matters other than social insurance-related investigations and issues in his department and what limitations or safeguards, if any, are implemented by the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. My motion concerns Danylo Shumuk, a Ukrainian patriot who is reported to be dying of stomach cancer in the Soviet Union. Last Wednesday, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Siddon) moved a motion on this matter, and I believe there might have been unanimous consent at that time. In any event, I think there may be unanimous consent this morning. In light of the fact that the Soviet labour code itself provides that in the case of serious illness such a person may be released from prison, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House strongly urges the Soviet government, taking into account Danylo Shumuk's ill health, to release him from prison.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion-


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Lawrence:: Yes, there is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. Clark:: Wait a minute, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Charles Joseph Clark: No.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member at a later time on a point of order. However, there are two minutes left of the time allotted for motions under Standing Order 43. I heard a dissenting voice.


Charles Joseph Clark: You did not.


Walter David Baker: There was no dissenting voice.
November 3, 1978


Mr. Trudeau:: The Tories disagreed.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is offensive action.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, many times in the past number of years I have had the privilege of naming, as the seconder for my motions respecting veterans affairs, the former member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. Today, I am happy again to name the hon. member for Elumber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour) as my seconder. Accordingly, I move:
That this House calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make a statement on Monday indicating what legislation respecting veterans he proposes to introduce prior to November 11, the sixtieth anniversary of the armistice which brought World War I to a close, in the knowledge that the House would be eager to pass such legislation without delay as a tribute to ail of Canada's veterans.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with unanimous consent. 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 Prime Minister: it concerns comments made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce outside a cabinet meeting last Thursday. The comments were recorded in a taped interview with CHCH-TV Hamilton and CFGO Radio in Ottawa.
The minister stated that the increase in the American prime rate will, and I quote, "have the effect of forcing us to raise ours," meaning the interest rate, "or capital will flee this country into theirs". Asked, further, if he felt Canada could afford a rate increase, the minister stated, "It is not a question of can we afford to; it is a question of can we afford not to. If the United States raises their interest rates, they automatically force ours up". Would the Prime Minister indicate if the minister was speaking on behalf of the government when he made those comments outside the cabinet meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand that the comments quoted by the hon. member are
Oral Questions
out of date, because CP has issued a wire stating that the minister had not been quoted quite correctly.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have the corrected CP story before me and, as CP has indicated, it was simply designed to change the emphasis of the minister's statement from a "positive" to a "possible" statement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So what is your question now?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The quotations I read to the Prime Minister were not taken from the CP, but from a verbatim tape taken off the radio as listened to by myself and certain members of our staff a few minutes ago.
In view of the fact that the minister categorically speculated on future interest rates in Canada, and has stated quite categorically that they will automatically rise with American interest rate increases, would the Prime Minister indicate whether he thinks the minister was acting in a responsible fashion by speculating on future interest rates in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a difficult choice, whether I should trust CP or the hon. member. Just now he read a correction which says that the emphasis was changed from "positive" to "possible". If he is asking me whether it is possible that there will be a rise in the interest rate, of course it is; and if that is what the minister said, I do not see anything shocking about that. But it will still be the governor of the Bank of Canada who will decide, in consultation with the Minister of Finance. Certainly, that is a possibility.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed, again, to the Prime Minister. I would invite him, if he has not already heard the tape, in his own interest to listen to what his own minister said on the tape, and after he has listened to that, would he kindly go to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and suggest that in future he should make no such statements unless it is on behalf of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to do that, he is quite free to do it; but I am satisfied, on the basis of this correction, that the minister has not indicated anything would happen. He said something might happen. If this is what he said, that is fine. If he said that the interest rate would go up for sure-


An hon. Member:: He did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -which he did not, according to this correction-


An hon. Member:: It's here.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he said that, he did not state government policy which has been stated by the Minister of Finance.
768

November 3, 1978
Oral Questions


CABINET SOLIDARITY RESPECTING STATEMENTS MADE AFTER CABINET MEETINGS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Given the fact that there is so much concern about respect for parliament and the responsibility of cabinet, does he think it is appropriate for a minister to speculate on a question of this sort right outside a cabinet meeting since he just came out of cabinet? Where does the principle of cabinet solidarity lie? Whom is one to believe when trying to understand what government policy is?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, some ministers have been accused of not being sufficiently communicative and not speaking enough to the press. If the press would stay away from the cabinet door and not ask minister any questions, then, obviously, they will not get any answers. If they do get answers and then correct them, we should not blame the minister; we should just say he was misquoted.


James McPhail Gillies: Again I ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question in all seriousness, because everyone in the country is concerned about parliament and its role in the country, the cabinet and its role in the country and the responsibility of all of us as parliamentarians.
1 happened to listen to the tape, and there is no question that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said it is highly probable that interest rates in Canada will go up. He was speaking as a minister of the Crown. The problem with economic management in this country today is one of credibility, of uncertainty, of confused statements.
Surely the Prime Minister believes this is a serious matter which should be dealt with in some way. Can he give us some assurance that we can have a position stated by the government that the Minister of Finance will make statements on economic policy, and we will not have these ad hoc statements from irresponsible ministers which cause so much confusion around the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a reasonable request. I can give the undertaking that the Minister of Finance, or myself, will be making statements on this matter, and that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. However, since she has just stepped out of the chamber, may I pursue it when she returns?
[Mr. Trudeau.)


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration concerning the question I put to him on October 31 about that notorious section 57 of the regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I have to raise it again on account of the numerous letters of rejection from workers in my constituency. I have now almost 100 and the authorities of the office have much difficulty enforcing that section because when they would like to do justice to those workers they are prevented from doing so by that provision. I merely wish-besides the minister promised the other day to consider the case and try to correct that difficulty-to ask the minister whether he has made some progress in that connection?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there was progress to the extent that I checked out the representation made by the hon. member. Prior to 1967 there was a provision whereby agricultural workers could be exempted by doing it on a voluntary basis. As a result of that, there was more confusion and more difficulty administering the plan from the standpoint of the employee, the employer and the government. So that particular change was made in 1971 at the request of many organizations, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I wonder why in all other industries a worker who has completed a week is entitled to a week of unemployment insurance while an agricultural worker is not. As a supplementary, I would also like to ask him the following: I am told that under the section he cannot earn over $280 or $285, I do not have the section in hand, but he has to earn less than a certain amount to be exempted from unemployment insurance. Could the minister tell us if for example a worker earns $300 he is entitled to unemployment insurance whatever may be the number of weeks or days even if he has not completed 25 days?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the legislation regarding payment of benefit to agricultural workers is the same as that for other workers. I do not think that in the time allotted to me in the question period I can answer all the questions put by the hon. member; but I will undertake to write to him and give him a full precis of what the law is and how it is applied.
November 3, 1978


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to challenge a point which worries me considerably. The minister has just said that the same act applies to all industries. I do not believe it is so. I should like to ask the minister to kindly check the matter.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. One of the assistant deputy ministers in her department, namely, Dr. A. B. Morrison, head of the health protection branch, said on a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television program last night that six shipments of peanuts and peanut products have been seized because of aflatoxin mould, a by-product which he called one of the most potent cancer-causing agents known to man.
In view of that statement, can the minister confirm the fact that these seizures were made? How significant are these procedures? Are they just spot checks, or is there something here which we should be really concerned about?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to confirm the seizure: that fact was just brought to my attention by the hon. member. As the House knows, we monitor regularly shipments of peanuts to Canada and stop those which do not conform to the rules. He referred to a problem where mould which causes cancer of the liver can develop on some peanuts. I am certain there is no reason to warn Canadians of any particular problem at this point. I want to conclude by indicating that peanuts are still a provider of vitamin E, which is a sexual energy vitamin.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the very virile Minister of National Health and Welfare. Apparently, a CBC television reporter went out and bought six or seven package of peanuts at random.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Apparently, the television reporter bought six or seven packages of peanuts at random and showed them to Dr. Morrison on the television program. On examining these peanuts visually, he said publicly he would only eat one or two of the samples.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If this is the case, I should like to ask the minister why this screening mechanism does not work, as one
Oral Questions
would suspect if the head of the health protection branch who is making these decisions for Canada, on examining six or seven samples, came to the conclusion that he, personally, would not dare eat more than one or two of them because of the possibility that aflatoxin, which is a carcinogen, might be in them.


Monique Bégin: We do not as yet have one inspector for peanuts, Mr. Speaker. I just want to confirm, and I am now in a position to do so, that there is no reason to warn Canadians of any particular danger in relation to the purchase of peanuts. I have just received confirmation of that.
It may well be possible that some packages in shipments have not been identified properly. I do not know what the problem is with respect to Dr. Morrison not eating peanuts, but there is no reason to warn Canadians of a danger.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Morrison is quoted by the Canadian Press, in the Toronto Globe and Mail this morning, as saying when speaking in Guelph on Wednesday:
-he will not eat peanuts or any other nuts that taste stale, are misshappen or are discoloured because a micro-organism linked with cancer could be present. The organism, aflatoxin, will cause cancer in about 15 species of animals-
In light of the concern of the deputy minister of the Department of National Health and Welfare, I would like to ask the minister whether, because of the assistant deputy minister's concern about the possibility of a carcinogen, the department is considering a warning in order that the ordinary people might be aware of the possibility of this deadly carcinogen, particularly as we have just finished the Halloween season during which many people may have purchased peanuts and other nuts.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I want to reaffirm that we have no reason to warn Canadians of a danger at this time. We have had regulatory mechanism in place for 15 years. We work in close relationship with our U.S. counterparts. If they find any signs that shipments do not conform to norms, we are informed immediately, and vice versa. We are confident that the system in place is really sufficient to assure safety to Canadians.


NUMBER OF INSPECTORS TO GUARANTEE SAFETY OF PEANUT IMPORTS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the grave danger that aflatoxin poses to human health, will the minister give us her unequivocal assurance that her department has a sufficient number of inspectors to guarantee to Canadians that all peanuts or peanut products, such as peanut butter, are indeed safe at all times? If not, could the minister tell us what action she is planning immediately to ensure that the deficiency is corrected?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the

November 3, 1978
Oral Questions
system in place satisfies me that the health of Canadians is well looked after. We are, indeed, concerned about mould that can develop in some peanut shipments and that this may lead to the development of cancer of the liver, but there is no reason at this point to create panic in the Canadian population.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose this final supplementary question to the Prime Minister, as the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare seems to be misinformed. The fact is that the food inspection service works in relation to about nine different food inspection acts. There may be a sufficient number of inspectors in total, but each one is responsible for only one segment of inspection. This creates a situation in which there may not be enough inspectors to do a proper job in order to ensure Canadians of proper inspection services.
Would the Prime Minister inform the House why he is not taking steps to incorporate these nine food inspection acts into one, thus enabling the inspectors to have a broader area of responsibility and to do their job more efficiently without the necessity of increasing their number?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration. However, it is not without difficulty, because all these inspectors carry out different functions under the different acts. We want to make sure that if there is a smaller number of inspectors, they will be able to carry out different types of functions. This is under consideration.


FINANCE
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I should be asking for the lowering of tariff barriers on peanuts. I have a question for the Prime Minister. On October 13, Canada raised its bank rate three-quarters of a point, and on October 16 I asked the Prime Minister what the government's position was on that. He said, as reported at page 104 of Hansard:
-it was not an action based on the performance of the Canadian dollar on that day or days, but it was based on what happened in the United States-
In other words, Canada had no choice. In view of the action taken by the United States Federal Reserve Bank on Wednesday of raising the central bank rate by one point, could the Prime Minister tell us whether this automatically compels the federal government to raise interest rates or else take the risk of an outflow of investment dollars to more attractive foreign opportunities? Is this an automatic thing now, in view of his earlier reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the earlier replies stand for themselves. They do not stand for what the hon. member said when he attempted, wrongly, to

sum them up by saying we had no choice. I answered exactly to the contrary yesterday to a question put by the hon. member for Waterloo, if the hon. member would refer to Hansard.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the record of Hansard is there for anyone to read. Mr. Barry Bosworth, of the White House council on wage and price stability, has warned the United States that the actions taken Wednesday in that country could lead to recession. The growth forecast for next year was only 3 per cent to 3 Vi per cent, a factor which would have a very bad effect on our foreign trade.
In view of these warnings from Mr. Bosworth and the current situation of our own economy, that any further increase in the central bank rate could lead to the possibility of recession and a downturn in what is already a weak business situation, could the Prime Minister tell the House what policy options he will exercise in this situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Waterloo. I am glad that the opposition is coming around to the realization that some of the economic effects of what occurs in the rest of the world have a bearing on the Canadian economy. The Minister of Finance has been saying that for the past year, and always there is scoffing from the other side saying, "You are always blaming it on some other country, or on the weather or something else."
I am glad that the opposition economic spokesmen are slowly beginning to understand that when another economy like the United States behaves poorly, it can have effects in Canada without the federal government being responsible.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's reply indicates that the government has a choice. The Canadian people are waiting to hear what that choice will be. The economic and business activities of this country depends on the government making a choice. When is the governmnent going to make the choice? In view of this action in the United States on Wednesday, will the Prime Minister tell the House how long he will continue dithering?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I answered a very concrete suggestion by the hon. member for Waterloo and I indicated the choice we had made. If the hon. member would follow the dialogue and read Hansard of yesterday, he will understand a little better.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works. Since the deputy auditor general indicated last week that the government has again this year shown its inability to monitor its use of office space, and since the deputy minister also told the Senate national finance committee last year that a committee of ten
November 3, 1978

deputy ministers had been instructed to do that very monitoring and make reports on the departmental use of office space, will the Minister of Public Works assure this House that the committee of deputy ministers has been reporting all excesses in use of office space according to its mandate under the guidelines issued in May, 1977?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot give that assurance off the top of my head: I will have to verify it. I would like to indicate to the hon. member that in the Senate national finance committee report they recommended that the Department of Public Works, as the agent of the Treasury Board, have this monitoring role. In my testimony before that Senate committee, I said that while we are not eagerly seeking the role of policeman as far as the utilization of office space is concerned, I feel that with our operations right across Canada we are the logical people to fulfil that role and we would be happy to do so.


OFFICE ACCOMMODATION OWNED OR LEASED BY GOVERNMENT
Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works. As the minister knows, total accommodation inventory has increased from 6.2 million square metres to over eight million square metres, a dramatic increase of 23 per cent over last fiscal year.
Would the minister explain, in light of past statements made by himself and by his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, that public service growth would be held to less than 1 per cent, where all the additional space is going? What is this space being used for?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I am of the older generation and have not yet quite mastered the metric system. I will have to sit down and multiply by 11 all the figures the hon. member gave, to verify them. I do know that we have not been increasing our total space.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Ho, ho!


J. Judd Buchanan: I hear "ho, ho!" Perhaps the hon. member is talking about space that is owned, as opposed to space that is being leased or some other areas where there have been significant changes. We have been changing the ratios.
I dealt with the question of usage of leased space in response to a question put last week by the hon. member for Huron. I think we are doing a very effective job in this period of transition and in making certain that the space is effectively and properly used. We are right on the transition point- transition in the sense of moving from leased space into our own space-where, if anything, we would be at our maximum right now. As I indicated, within the last six weeks over half the space that was supposed to be vacant has gone off our inventory.
Oral Questions


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in recognizing that there is fairly clear evidence of inadequate control and weakness in management of the over-all federal realty resources, as the Minister of Public Works himself admitted during the proceedings of the Standing Committee on National Finance in the other place, is the minister still satisfied that his department could accept the responsibility for ensuring effective use of accommodation resources so that Canadian taxpayers receive adequate value for the half billion dollars spent annually on the accommodation program in the Department of Public Works?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a repetition of the question put by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton. I indicated in my testimony before that committee that, while we were not eagerly seeking the role of policeman vis-a-vis space utilization, I felt very strongly that our department is the logical agency on behalf of Treasury Board to make certain that the space is being properly and adequately used.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister assure the House that no funds from her department support the publication of the fall, 1978, edition of the Planned Parenthood Federation newsletter which, by despicable and insidious innuendo, vilifies the entire Catholic Church?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the funds granted to the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada do not support the preparation and publication of the newsletters. Our funds are used strictly for the operation of their national office.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that about two years ago the government announced, as part of its decentralization program, the building of a taxation data centre in Sudbury, in view of the fact that the government has obtained the land from the city of Sudbury and has proposed to start construction this fall, in view of the fact that we are sitting with one of the most massive rates of unemployment, second only to Newfoundland, particularly in the construction trade, and in view of the fact that the Minister of National Revenue informed me by letter on October 25 that because of cutbacks announced they cannot start construction

November 3, 1978
Oral Questions
this fall but would start construction in 1980, can the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Public Works give us the assurance, now, that they will review the situation in light of the very serious economic situation presently in that area vis-a-vis unemployment?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, that particular program has to be examined in light of the funds available. The hon. member has had some indication of the possibility of delay. In co-operation with my colleagues, the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of National Revenue, I will take a look at it; but I am not too hopeful that we will accelerate it. I will look at it in full knowledge of the circumstances outlined by the hon. member and prevailing in the area which he and another hon. member very prominent in this House represent.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. 1 thank the minister for that semi-positive answer. Coming from northwestern Ontario, the minister well knows the difficulty in the construction trade in northern Ontario. Can he assure us that, in reviewing the situation, he will consult the regional office of the Department of Manpower and Immigration in order to learn the facts about this serious unemployment situation in the Sudbury basin and make a decision on what is essential now, rather than show a carefree attitude toward a very serious unemployment problem in that part of northern Ontario?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, no Minister in the government takes a carefree attitude toward unemployment anywhere, in that part of the country or anywhere else. By adding that to the end of his question, I think the hon. member somewhat destroys the validity of his comment. Nevertheless, we will take those matters into serious consideration when we make our decision.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. On October 19, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, the minister stated that he hoped to be in a position to make an announcement in October on the amount of indexing which would be possible for public service pensions for the next three-year period.
Since it is now November, and Bill C-12 is before the House, will the minister tell us when he will make a statement on this important matter, in order to aid consideration of the bill and to reassure worried public servants that their pensions will reasonably reflect changes in the consumer price index in the future as a result of the bill?

Will the minister also undertake to provide actuarial estimates by the chief actuary of the amount of indexing available for subsequent three-year periods if the actuarial assumptions used by the Tomenson-Alexander firm in their report to him are realized in the future?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to be able to make this information public by the end of October. The process by which we arrive at the amount of supplementation, quite properly, involves reference from the chief actuary to me, and from me to the advisory committee on superannuation matters which consists of representatives of the bargaining groups as well as officials of the government. That process is almost complete.
The only indication I can give to the hon. member is that I am optimistic about the degree of supplementation that will be possible for the next three years. I intend to place the detailed information before the House when we bring Bill C-12 in for second reading. I anticipate this will happen very shortly.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board did not answer the second part of my question about the providing of estimates by the chief actuary as to what will happen in subsequent three-year periods. I know it is inconceivable that he would introduce the legislation without some idea of what will happen.
In view of the fact that the bill is now before the House, that it provides significant changes to public service pensions, and in view of the fact that the Tomenson-Alexander report to the President of the Treasury Board recommended that the valuation of the combined pension programs be made whenever significant changes were made to the program, will the minister assure the House that the valuation of the Public Service Superannuation Act prepared in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles as of the end of last year and which is now due, will be tabled in time for consideration of the bill?
Will the minister also assure the House that an actuarial valuation of the supplementary retirement benefit program reflecting the proposed changes will also be made available for the consideration of this bill?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I did not spell out all the voluminous detail: I wrapped it up by saying those details would be provided to the House when I made my statement on second reading.
I think the hon. member's second comment indicated a different kind of actuarial review. The every five-year actuarial review required by law of the basic plan is a question of a different order. That detail will also be made available, but not necessarily related to second reading of Bill C-12.
November 3, 1978


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, or for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if there is a division of responsibility.
I should like the minister to tell us what the policy is, or if there is a change in the policy regarding visitors' visas for members of parliament and other citizens from NATO countries who are visiting Canada. I ask this question because at the time of a NATO subcommittee meeting in Canada recently, the Greek delegate had difficulty coming into the country. Much to the embarrassment of members of parliament here, he pointed out that one of his colleagues was refused an entry visa for Canada and that Canada is the only NATO country where a visa is required for Greek citizens.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard of this matter. So that I may give a precise answer, I will take the question as notice.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the concern expressed by many women in the labour force, and particularly the reservations expressed by the commissioner of the human rights commission about the legislation before the House and the discriminatory implications of the "family income" provisions in the bill for married, working women, could the minister say whether he sought the advice of the law officers of the Crown prior to the introduction of this piece of legislation to see whether there were any aspects of the bill which were in contravention of the Canadian Human Rights Act?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the tradition in the House and, indeed, the rule is that law officers must look at legislation from the point of view of the Canadian Bill of Rights, and I have no doubt that this procedure was followed.
I am not sure that there is a specific procedure to test it against other legislation, but I will be glad to inform myself about that and to look at the pith and substance of the question being raised. I know, from listening to the debate yesterday, that the matter was discussed here in more appropriate form.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister looks into this very important question- important because it is of such basic interest, such a fundamental concept to working women in our society today-will
Oral Questions
he undertake to table the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in this regard, so that we will not be left solely with the opinion of individual cabinet ministers but will have a legal opinion before the House as well?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, not only is it not a practice to table opinions, but it should be obvious to hon. members that when a piece of legislation is before the House it is a matter for debate and consideration of members of parliament as to what is to be in the law: that should be clear, and that is the forum in which it is to be discussed. I am somewhat surprised that these questions are put at this time, when there will be an opportunity to put them a little later.


SOCIAL INSURANCE
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning the fear that people have about the use, or misuse, of the social insurance number?
In view of the assurance the minister has given to the standing committee, that the issuance of the social insurance number would be tightened up and the use of the number would be tightened up, may I ask if it is common practice, as has been described by some people in the Unemployment Insurance Commission or in the department, to give confidential information to welfare agencies, provincial governments and, for that matter, private agencies, especially in view of the fact that the new Immigration Act requires some very detailed financial information on Canadian citizens who become sponsors of immigrant applications?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not a general policy.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Charlebois, the executive secretary of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, is reported to have said:
The system works because officials recognize each others' voices. His officials won't give out information unless they are sure whom them are talking to.
In view of this, may I ask what procedure there is in the department to make sure the information is given to the legitimate organizations such as those within government? Is this the only security and the only check, namely, because the voice might sound familiar over the telephone, the department is now using, especially since the minister knows that even now that policy is under discussion within his department?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in answer to a question yesterday, we are working to establish guidelines so that the invasion of or involvement in a person's individual rights will not be affected. We tightened up the legislation in so far as the issuance of unemployment insurance numbers is
774

Oral Questions
concerned, and also gave the minister discretion as to who, or who should not, get information that is available, switching that responsibility from the commission-which is always within the parameters of the legislation-to the minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Justice. It is supplementary to that put by my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. The Commissioner of Human Rights stated in September, in testimony to a committee of this House, and I quote him, "I think it . . .''-speaking of the proposal that is incorporated in the bill introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare-" ... is contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act." In other words, there was notice two months ago from the commissioner of his considered view that the legislation being introduced was in violation of the Human Rights Act.
Can the minister tell us-I notice he has had a conversation in the interim with the Minister of National Health and Welfare-if his memory has been refreshed as to whether an investigation has made been by the commissioner? If there was not, can he explain to the House why, when alerted by the commissioner, neither the Minister of National Health and Welfare nor the Minister of Justice ordered that such an investigation be made?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, incidentally, my memory is not refreshed because we were not speaking about an investigation into the matter. I should say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, since he now makes it a matter for debate when the bill is before the House, that it seems obvious the proposal in the bill has the same kind of effect as the operation of family allowances generally. In that sense it is an improvement, only in the sense of helping the poor people more and not in any other way-a change in the fundamental principle or application of the law.
Since, therefore, it is a question for parliament to address itself to, to try to fill this issue at some point in time but not necessarily at this point in time, I make the very important point to the Leader of the Opposition that this same problem-if it is a problem-or to the extent that it is a problem, applies to the existing family allowance law. As a result, we would have to address the problem in a larger way. But in objecting to the particular change, all that he is objecting to is a transfer of more of the funds from family allowances in that broad area to families with many children and very low incomes.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of abusing the question period to debate, except to say the minister is wrong. But let me ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for the passage of this legislation through the House of Commons. We now have an invitation from the Minister of Justice that there will be an inquiry made as to whether or not the minister's proposed legislation violates the Human Rights Act. Could the minister tell us if

she is advised that it will in fact, violate the Canadian Human Rights Act if she introduces an amendment?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised, and I told the House last night-I regret the hon. Leader of the Opposition was not there at that very crucial moment-


An hon. Member:: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: That means besides redistribution, about $120 million additional cash will be in the hands of women in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I must assure the minister that I had the great privilege of watching her on television last night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and I appreciate that she missed my absence in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I presume that her leader, who was absent from the debate, was also watching her on television.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: But my question is, and it is quite important: is it the view-


An hon. Member:: Simmer down.


Charles Joseph Clark: I will refer the hon. member to the CRTC.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Is it the view of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and, therefore, of the government, that this bill as it stands, in the event of conflict with the Canadian Human
November 3, 1978

Rights Act-as the minister is now introducing it-will prevail over the Canadian Human Rights Act? Is that the view?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is again trying to develop a theory based on hypothetical points. I would like to repeat that in Bill C-10 we are not interested in the marital status as a basis of the bill. We are concerned with motherhood, or the legal custody of the child, for the only reason that this is needed to determine who would be the beneficiary of the new child tax credit. This is not at all discriminatory. If the income comes from one source or two, if it comes from the father or the mother, if the mother is married, divorced, separated or unmarried, this does not affect the benefits to the children of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. First of all, I should like to assure him that, contrary to what Quebec Premier Levesque claims, the vast majority of Quebeckers would be very happy to see the constitution patriated: they feel that matter should be dealt with as soon as possible.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know if, after having discussed the constitutional reform with the provincial premiers, the right hon. Prime Minister would be willing to hold a debate in the House on the subject, to give federal MPs, who also represent the electors of those provinces, a chance to express their views on this important matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestion of the hon. member is excellent. I shall therefore suggest that the government House leader discuss this possibility not only with our caucus but also perhaps with the House leaders of the other parties. As for me, I should be happy not only to hear the views of the government members, but also to know exactly what the specific views are of the Leader of the Opposition about his negotiations with the premier concerning sovereignty association.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Gray-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Oral Questions
Whatever happened to the national chicken marketing agency? Whatever happened to the Minister of Agriculture?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Can the Minister of Agriculture tell us whatever happened to the national chicken marketing agency?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there never was a national chicken marketing agency, so nothing has happened to it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has promised Canadian producers, on numerous occasions, that this government would act on short order to create a national chicken marketing agency. Can he tell the House why he has not delivered on his promise, and also whether he has been able to secure the support of his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? If so, what preconditions were put on that support by the minister?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion about farming and a national chicken marketing agency. I do believe we have the support of the hon. member, speaking for the glorious old Tory party on the other side-the unanimous support of the Tory party even including all the new members recently elected in the by-elections, etc.


Walter David Baker: Hang in there, baby!


Eugene Whelan: Maybe we should go ahead with it at this time. But I think the hon. member should realize that because of the devalued dollar, the poultry producers in Canada are enjoying a very good income at the present time: they are not suffering at all.


SOCIAL INSURANCE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question was going to be addressed to the Solicitor General, but because of the time it took for me to get the floor, I will put it to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In view of the answer to the question on social insurance numbers yesterday, I gather it is government policy not to encourage any spread of the use of the SIN number beyond the three fields to which parliament has given legislative authority.
My question is this: would the minister approach his colleague, the Solicitor General, and point out to him that in a pamphlet put out in 1978 in connection with gun laws, in the application for a fire arms acquisition certificate it reads as follows:
Applications for firearms acquisition certificates will include the following-
80065-5 OVi

November 3, 1978
Then it lists (d), social insurance number. Since this matter deals with the Criminal Code of Canada and is under all the penalties of that act, using a social insurace number, would the minister-following his policy indication of yesterday- approach his colleague and have him take that out of the application which becomes effective January 1, 1979?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Because it does, in fact, involve the Criminal Code, there very well may be some positive elements for the protection of the innocent. As a result of using the social insurance number in this way, the individual who is charged is the individual they mean to charge, and not somebody else.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My supplementary is very simple. I take it that the policy statement made yesterday by the minister, that they are not going to encourage the extension of the use of the social insurance number beyond the areas parliament has approved, is not going to be supported by the government when it comes to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General putting Canadians on the computer in the event of any infringement of the Criminal Code; because that is what happens in the case of failure under this act to make a proper application-you become convicted under the Criminal Code, it goes on to the computer, that goes on to the American computer, and we cannot cross the border of another country.
I take it, then, that the minister is repudiating the policy statement he made yesterday in so far as the Criminal Code and the gun laws are concerned.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I would commend to the hon. member a careful reading of the question which was put to me yesterday. We do not encourage the use of the social insurance number beyond the government aspect. Some people have said we are encouraging banks to use it, or encouraging private enterprise to do so, and we are saying we are not. We say there is nothing in the legislation which would permit us to prohibit the use of the social insurance number.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There remain outstanding a number of procedural matters, and I think we should understand the proper order in which we ought to deal with them now. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is seeking the floor on a point of order, probably relating to the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 43 earlier today. I received yesterday a notice from the hon. member for North-

umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) of a question of privilege; he indicated he wanted to proceed with that today. In addition I have just received notice of a question of privilege from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Martin). I think the matter arising today pursuant to Standing Order 43 should probably be dealt with and set aside first. Then I will hear the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham.
Before entering into discussion on the matter pursuant to Standing Order 43, I don't know, but the impression may have been created that I set aside that motion simply because the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was rising in his place on some point of order with respect to it. If that is the impression, it ought to be set aside, because that was not the case.
What happened was that the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) rose and indicated in his preamble that the motion he was about to put was similar to, or basically the same as, the one put by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Siddon) a few days ago. At that time there were a number of negative voices. However, as the matter proceeded the number of negative voices gradually diminished. Notwithstanding this, when I did get to the point of putting the motion there was still a "No". I cannot attribute it to a specific member, but there was a very clear negative voice when I said "The House has heard the question-". At the same time the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was on his feet on a point of order. That was not the reason for the setting aside of the motion.
This would be two tries at the same motion with respect to the same subject. I do not know whether the House wishes to try one more time to determine whether there is unanimous consent to deal with and pass that motion. If that is the disposition of the House, I am prepared to try, but it is an extraordinary thing to do.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am not disputing that you heard a negative voice. I want you to understand that. I can say, as a member of the House like yourself, that I did not hear a negative voice, and others were in exactly the same position on both sides of the House of Commons. I think the best way to handle the matter would be to recognize that the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) had consulted appropriately with our party-there were also consultations with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson); I am grateful to him today for the consultations he had with me. I think it would be appropriate, now, if we were to revert to motions for the purpose of putting that motion and having it dealt with because it is important that the House express itself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must say I had some impression that the resistance to the motion was not on the basis of substance but rather at the stage where the hon. member appeared to be moving a motion which was rejected at an earlier date-a similar motion from the other side of the House. It did diminish greatly, but it seemed to be still there at the end. I
November 3, 1978

think it may be the disposition of the House to go ahead. If the House wishes to do so, by unanimous consent it could revert to the calling of motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 just for that purpose. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House having reverted to the order for motions:


Mr. Speaker:: The motion which was put at that time was in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House strongly urge the Soviet government, taking into account Danylo Shumuk's ill health, to release him from imprisonment.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. It can be put only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the moving of that motion at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise, having given you notice, to indicate to you that I do feel very strongly I have a valid question of privilege in relation to some matters going back a few years and, as well, to certain information which was made public just recently.
Basically, my question of privilege has to do with a letter received by me from a minister of the Crown in response to a very important and legitimate inquiry to me from a constituent. That letter from a minister of the Crown misled me. It not only misled me but it led me in turn to mislead my constituent. I further allege, and I claim now in this House, that the wording of the letter to me was drafted in such a way as to mislead me and my constituent intentionally and deliberately. Further, I claim that that letter, coming to me from a minister of the Crown, on ministerial letterhead, over the personal signature of the minister, involved me in relation to a very deep responsibility and duty I feel I have to my constituents, a feeling I am sure is shared by all members.
I further understand that there are technical, legal and, in some cases, outdated prerequisites, in this House and traditionally in the British parliament, before one can establish what has been called privilege. Basically, as I understand some
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
these prerequisites with regard to privilege, privilege has to relate to a matter which either takes place in the House, or affects in the House the performance of the House or the House's attitude, or the attitude of a member in a particular way within the House. Second, there has to be a deliberate intention to deceive. My submission is that the facts to which I will now refer meet the prerequisites for a finding of a breach of privilege.
We have been told many times by ministers of the Crown in relation to inquiries from constituents, especially those which relate to law and order and law enforcement agencies, that it is unfair to spring the subject matter in the House on a minister in an oral question with no warning whatsoever. That suggestion has been made many times, and I have usually agreed with it. An inquiry of that nature should first be presented to a minister through correspondence so that some research can be done. Then, if the minister's reply by correspondence is not satisfactory, presumably we can raise the matter as a question during the oral question period in the House. In that way the minister at least would have full notice of a matter which, in many respects, we could not possibly expect the minister otherwise to have.
In this particular case I received an inquiry from a constituent about a very important matter, and I wrote to the minister involved, in this case the then solicitor general. The reply I received through correspondence with the then solicitor general very deeply affected my conduct and further questions I asked in this House later. I received a reply from the solicitor general of the day, and because of that reply I asked no further questions of the then solicitor general on that subject. Instead, I directed my inquiries to the then postmaster general.
My claim is that the reply I received was misleading. If it had not been false, I would have continued to ask questions of the then solicitor general. I would have asked different questions of the then postmaster general. Indeed, this is and was such an important matter that I would have directed my questions perhaps even to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). There is no question in my mind-and I make this allegation seriously now, knowing the consequences and the implications of it-that if I had been given a truthful answer by the minister involved, the performance of my responsibilities and duties in this House would have been entirely different in relation to the subject matter about which I am talking.
I claim to Your Honour today that the written misleading and false reply directly affected my capabilities and my attitude in this House. The incorrect information given to me in this House in relation to this matter also-and this is a matter of deep regret to me-materially affected my responsibility and my relationship with my constituent. There would have been further questions to the then solicitor general, but there were none. I would have asked different questions of the then postmaster general than the ones I actually did ask, and there would have been questions to the Prime Minister, had the thrust of my inquiries not been deflected by the false and

November 3, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
misleading answer I received. There is no question in my mind that the answer I received was deliberately and intentionally misleading and that, whatever the source of information the minister had, which information he gave to me, that source knew that the information which was supplied to me was misleading.
Just to prove this I would like to quote a very short extract from a portion of the evidence before the commission of inquiry concerning certain activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I refer to the proceedings recorded at volume 88 for November 1, 1978, at page 14480. This relates to the interception of mails by a law enforcement agency in this country. I want to quote from the testimony of former commissioner of the RCMP, William Higgitt, as follows:
Well, no secret in-it wasn't cast to the four winds-
By that he meant information relating to tampering with the mails by the RCMP.
-but there was no secret that this was one of the investigative aids that was, from time to time, resorted to on a very restricted basis.
In volume 84 of the proceedings before the royal commission for October 24, at page 13781 there is further testimony of former commissioner Higgitt as follows:
Certainly there was no secret of the fact that we were doing it and that secret was not held from the ministers. They were seeing the results in various forms.
What he means by "it" is the tampering with or the interception of the mails of this country by the law enforcement agency concerned.
From volume 88 at page 14555 of the proceedings before the McDonald commission on November 1, this week, I would like to quote these five lines from the testimony of former commissioner Higgitt:
That is not, that is not an assurance the RCMP is giving to the minister at all, and as a matter of fact, the practice was in matters of this kind-
Former commissioner Higgitt is referring here to the letter I received and the statement I received from the minister.
-the practice was very often ministers' letters were not exactly drafted on precise statements of fact.
There is simply no question in my mind that the testimony of Mr. Higgitt to the McDonald commission brought forward two facts which cannot be denied. One is that the essence of the letter to me was a falsehood, and the second is that it was a deliberate falsehood. It was known to be false at the time it was drafted and handed to the minister for his signature. Your Honour will note that I am not making the allegation- because it is no business of mine as far as it is relevant to the matter before this House today-that the minister knew it was a falsehood, but the fact is, as far as I and my attitude and my capabilities in this House and my relationship with my constituent are concerned, it was a falsehood. There is no question about that. I think this therefore breaches my privileges as far as this House is concerned.
I would like to give the House a short description of what this is all about. On November 15, 1973, I received a letter from a constituent. That letter made three very serious allegations. I must explain that this letter came from a young

constituent who is a poet. He writes his poetry in what he calls the computer language of the day, and he has as his pseudonym his social insurance number. He claims that he is well known for his poetry under his social insurance number as a pseudonym. He also claims that he has received mail many times addressed to him under his pseudonym, namely, his social insurance number.
He said in his letter to me of November 15, 1973, that a letter was mailed to him by a friend. The letter was addressed simply to him by virtue of his social insurance number and his postal code. The next thing he knew about this letter addressed to him was when his friend telephoned him and informed him that two RCMP agents had arrived on the friend's doorstep, the doorstep of the sender of the letter, to interview him, with a photocopy of the piece of mail in their hands. The further allegation was that the sender was told by the two RCMP agents that not only had the sender been traced but also the identity of my constituent had been traced solely and exclusively through their SINs which were in that piece of mail. In other words, the only identification of the sender of the letter was his SIN. That is also a pertinent point.
As a result of receiving the letter of November 15 I sent a letter on November 21 to the then solicitor general. I sent the letter rather than asking an oral question in the House, as a common courtesy, a point which I think has been well taken many times by several ministers of the Crown. In that letter I referred very specifically to the point that this is a very important matter because, first, there was an allegation of an invasion of the privacy of my constituent; second, there was an allegation of the disruption of the mail; third, there was an allegation of a photostat being made of private correspondence; and fourth, there was an allegation that a piece of mail had been prevented from reaching my constituent. I suggest to you, sir, that these are four very important matters, which were important then as they are today.
At the same time I sent a similar letter to the then postmaster general under the same date. I received a reply on December 10, 1973, from the then postmaster general saying to me, generally speaking, that it was simply not possible to account for how the mail eventually got into the hands of the RCMP. It was simple, blunt, but at least frank and honest on the part of the postmaster general.
I received a reply from the then solicitor general on December 4, 1973, the last paragraph of which I should like to quote. It is very well known now because it has appeared in the press lately. The letter was written on ministerial letterhead, addressed to me as an MP dealing with a legitimate and proper inquiry from a constituent, and it was signed by the then solicitor general, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand). The last paragraph reads as follows:
I have been assured by the RCMP that it is not their practice to intercept the private mail of anyone and I trust that the above explanation will set your constituent's mind at ease.
November 3, 1978

In relation to the actual quotations that I have given to you already with regard to certain witnesses appearing before a royal commission, obviously that is patently untrue. Obviously as well, it was perhaps cleverly and subtly designed to mislead me. Of that I do not think there can be any question or doubt whatsoever.
I merely say to you, sir, that in this context it does not matter whether the former solicitor general was misled by his officials. What is important to me-and, I hope, is important to all members of the House-is that I should be able, as an MP, both in and out of the House, to trust the word of a minister of the Crown on a critically and crucially important matter. We should be able to trust the word of a minister of the Crown. My argument is not with the RCMP; my argument is with the minister's word to me. His argument might be with his officials or with the RCMP, but that is his argument, his problem, not mine today in my submission to you. Mine is with him, and as an MP that is the only recourse I have. I cannot complain to him in this context that he might have incompetent, lying or negligent officials. That is not my argument today. My argument today is that if I, as an MP, cannot trust the word of a minister of the Crown in respect of a legitimate inquiry from a constituent of mine, where do I go? What are we here for or, more important, what is the minister here for?
This matter affects my responsibilities and actions in the House, and my submission to you, sir, is that in actual fact it did affect my subsequent actions in the House. This is not a matter exclusively for the inquiry sitting two blocks south of here day by day-there can be 47 royal commissions-but this is a particular matter relating to a deliberate and intentional act to mislead me, and subsequently my constituents, and therefore I submit to you that it is a matter which should be examined by the House since it affects us. It might or might not be a matter that is under the jurisdiction of a royal commission-that is irrelevant. The fact is that it affects my capabilities and responsibilities to my constituents. In fact, it might be no business whatsoever of a royal commission.
I just want to finish up my rather lengthy argument to you, sir. I appreciate your patience and tolerance in allowing me to go on this long.
The essence of my argument is that I was deliberately misled by a letter from a minister, possibly with his knowledge or possibly without it, I do not know, but from my point of view I was misled.
I note that on page 67 of the nineteenth edition of May's, privilege is defined as follows:
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers".
That is, parliament's powers.
They are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
Surely if anything inhibits the ability of a member of parliament to serve his constituents, it is the unwillingness or
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
the inability of a minister of the Crown to provide him with truthful information when he writes to him or asks a question in the House. Surely it is the duty of the House to hold the executive accountable for its policies and actions. This right is also circumscribed by the executive's refusal to release large amounts of information necessary to any concept of accountability. We have had that problem before. What is left to the House if the executive is allowed to extend its prerogatives not only to the privilege of withholding information but also to the point of deliberately uttering falsehoods?
To support my contention that this letter offended my privileges as a member acting within the scope of his duties and protected by privilege, I would draw the attention of the Chair to page 88 of May, which states the following from a 1939 report of a Westminster committee on the Official Secrets Acts. By the way, sir, this is reproduced in our Beauchesne. The quotation reads:
Cases may easily be imagined of communications between one member and another or between a member and a minister, so closely related to some matter pending in, or expected to be brought before the House, that, although they do not take place in the chamber or a committee room, they form part of the business of the house, as, for example, where a member sends to a minister the draft of a question he is thinking of putting down, or shows it to another member with a view to obtaining advice as to the propriety of putting it down or as to the manner in which it should be framed.
I suggest to you, sir, the circumstances in the case I am proposing to you fall squarely within that type of case referred to in May, and with some favour, in our own Beauchesne. That particular opinion was supported by a report of the committee on privileges of the United Kingdom. In its fifth report of 1956-57 at paragraph 12, it reads as follows:
We adopt and follow the arguments and reasoning of the select committee of November 1939, and we are of the opinion that Mr. Strauss in writing to the Paymaster General on 8th February, 1957, directing his attention to matters of administration in the London area of the Nationalized Industry of Electricity and criticising the London Electricity Board was conducting or engaged in a "proceeding in parliament" and that in so doing he is protected by the privilege declared to belong to parliament by the Bill of Rights, 1688.
In other words, the committee said that even though that took place outside of the House, it affected the responsibilities, capabilities, and privileges of the House in such a manner that it was an actual breach of the privileges of the House.
Finally, sir, I draw your attention to page 141 of May, which reads as follows:
It is a breach of privilege to present or cause to be presented to either House or to committees of either House forged, falsified or fabricated documents with intent to deceive such House or committees-
And the following page which reads as follows:
The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.
My proposition is that that obviously is extended. If there are forged, falsified or fabricated documents with intent to deceive the House or committees, obviously it means with intent to deceive a member of the House.
I realize many aspects of this matter are currently before the McDonald commission, but I feel obliged to raise it in the

November 3, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
House at this time because only this House can focus on the narrow question of whether a breach of parliamentary privilege is involved, and further, under the rules, as Mr. Speaker has reminded us many times, I must raise a question of privilege as soon as it arises. I believe this prevents me, and I suggest the House, from waiting until the final report is in from the commission. We have to deal with it now.
Following Mr. Speaker's ruling of last year on questions of privilege involving "deliberately misleading", in which I was involved, I am prepared to move now, or at any subsequent time, a substantive motion which I hope will be accepted as involving a matter of privilege. If Mr. Speaker finds that there is a prima facie case, I would be prepared to move the following:
That in the opinion of this House the letter sent to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham on December 4, 1973, was a calculated attempt to deceive the hon. member by responding to his inquiries with a falsehood, and, that the said letter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for a report on the source and circumstances of the deception.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by stating most emphatically that members on this side and members of the government consider it of first importance to give as truthful and complete information as possible to members in the House, and indeed in their dealings with members outside the House.
All members will remember the date of November 9, 1977, when the then solicitor general indicated the discovery on his part of the fact of certain mail openings on the part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Prior to that time, as has been made clear by solicitors general past and the then solicitor general, they did not have knowledge of that fact.
I do not want to get into a particular debate on the facts, but in view of some of the things said by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), I must comment on one or two of them. He described the 1973 letter in question as misleading. Indeed, I would go further and say that it was erroneous, and not engage in subtleties about the use of the word "practice". The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham should not have used consistently the words "deliberate falsehood", "deliberately misleading", and on one occasion he said that it was something deliberately misleading by a minister, since the implication of that was to suggest that the minister himself was deliberate in the misleading. I see the hon. member is shaking his head. I am glad he does that now. In fairness to the minister in question, he should have separated that fact clearly when he was proceeding through his remarks.
Clearly it was a surprise and an important matter to all of us on November 9, 1977, when the House was informed of this matter. In the case of this particular letter, the solicitor general of the day who signed it, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), testified before the Keable commission on February 15 of this year that he had been assured on each occasion on direct questions to them that they did not open mail. I say no more about that

fact and the question of any deliberateness on the part of the minister.
The hon. member has sought to extend proceedings in the House to the letter which was written outside the House. Perhaps Your Honour's ruling of yesterday, about proceedings outside the House and their relationship, may have some bearing on this question and indicate that it is not so. But, at the very best, he could try to bring himself within the position of a letter being equivalent to an answer or a response in the House. The important thing is that in the period prior to November 9, 1977, the solicitors general indicated that they had no knowledge of mail openings, indeed had assurances that there were no mail openings, and might well have answered questions along the lines of the letter received by the hon. member within that period of time. Clearly they would not have been happy about that fact, but indeed there were exchanges in the House which would show that replies substantially of that nature were given.
Apart from the question of it not being a proceeding of the House, even if it had been a proceeding of the House the important point is that the question of privilege matured on November 9, 1977, when it became apparent by the statement of the then solicitor general, after his investigations were renewed because of further reports about mail openings, that in fact there had been such mail openings. His investigation led him to disclose that fact to the House. That was almost a year ago. Since then the facts have been known in terms of the erroneous nature of the letter received by the hon. member some four years earlier. It is not a matter to be considered as a question of privilege at this time, even if it could be treated as a question of privilege before the House as a proceeding in the House.
Regarding such answers in the House based upon information given to ministers-and ministers have stated their positions in terms of their lack of knowledge of the contrary being true-the nature of the illegalities is before the McDonald commission at this very time. In this case, as in so many others, it really behooves us to let the McDonald commission continue its work and to explore the matters which are involved here. I am sure the commission will do that and, as a result, will in due course, throw further light on the background facts behind the position of the ministers. The ministers have made their position clear, and I think that is clear.
1 am glad that, by the nod of his head, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham agreed that his use of words like "deliberate" and "misleading" were not meant by him to be attributed to the minister, and that, indeed, what we do not know is the source of the particular phrases in the letter. I take it to its highest when I say that answers in this House prior to November 9, 1977, when the then solicitor general revealed that his investigations that morning had discovered that mail openings had been taking place, and I refer to Hansard at page 742 for Wednesday, November 9, 1977, would also have been based on that lack of knowledge on the part of solicitors
November 3, 1978

general, and clearly any question in relation to them was pertinent and relevant at that date, and nothing new has been added to our knowledge at this point in time.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 have just one or two things to say following upon the remarks of the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). It is really quite easy to say that we ought to let the McDonald commission continue its work. Of course, the McDonald commission will continue its work regardless of what this Elouse says about it. That is not the point.
The point made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) in his very excellent presentation is one of importance that we ought not forget. It is not the McDonald commission that focuses on the privileges of this House. It is the McDonald commission which focuses upon the truth as a case is presented before that commission. It is only this House that can decide on questions of privilege as between members, and that is why the matter is raised here now.
Let me say, with respect, that I think if the House were to turn the matter aside on that ground, then the House would not be doing itself justice in respect of its own privileges which are important to the carrying out of its duties. Surely the McDonald commission cannot deal with questions of privilege. Merely because it deals with the case from which a question of privilege might arise is no reason to forestall the House from dealing with the matter. I think that point is extremely important.
I am not going to repeat the quotations referred to by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, but I commend them to you, sir, in respect of what is not an extension of privilege to a communication. It is not an extension of privilege at all. It has been established in parliamentary practice to be part of privilege that a member can expect the truth from a minister. I share the position taken by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham in respect of the minister's role in this, which has been reiterated by the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice. The precedents are, and the practice is, that it is within the matter of privilege and not an extension of it.
It is part of the law of privilege that a member of this House in the performance of his duty can expect the truth from a minister of the Crown, even if that truth should be that the minister cannot or will not answer the question raised. Those are the facts, and the member can expect the truth.
The first point dealt with, or alluded to by the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice, really is that this was not an act of the minister in the sense it was brought up in his mind, worked over, following which there was a deliberate misleading of the hon. member. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has indicated that this too is his position, and I share it.
The fact remains that the letter referred to is a letter from a minister of the Crown which we should be able to rely on as the truth. It was not a letter signed by the RCMP or anyone else. If I assume that it is the rule of the Government of
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
Canada, as it is the rule of any other responsible government, that a letter signed by a minister is accepted as that minister's letter, and if that letter, even through no fault of the minister's misleads a member of parliament, then the member of parliament has a grievance with which only parliament can deal. Those are the simple parameters of this case.
A case seems to have been made out here in the prima facie way it has to be made out in respect of the matter of privilege. Sir, I put that to you respectfully. The precedents which have been quoted, and which you will no doubt want to review, indicate that this kind of case, and this case specifically, fall within what has been established for some period of time as a matter of privilege, and not an extension of the law of privilege. There is no extension involved.
Imagine the sorry state we, as members of parliament, all of us, would be in if we could not count on or know that ministers are responsible for what they write. It would clearly be a very difficult thing for any member of this House to operate in those circumstances. Ministers write letters and say, "I hope this will assure your constituent", or they will add at the end of their letters, "1 trust this information will permit you to explain this matter to your constituent." Members of parliament rely on these statements when making explanations, and part of our job certainly is representative.
In conclusion, if a matter can be brought up in the House of Commons by way of question and an answer is given which is inadvertently misleading, then surely the hon. member would have a question of privilege. If the same appropriate matter is brought up by way of a letter and a misleading answer is given, I submit to you, sir, the same thing applies and there is a privilege.
If, as the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham said happened in his case, the member tempers his questions or does not ask any further questions of the solicitor general because of the misleading reply, there is no doubt that the member's rights and ability to perform his duty are affected. We accept the word of all hon. members of this House. Therefore, sir, I submit respectfully that a prima facie case has been made, and I commend it to you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see two other hon. members seeking to participate, and I am anxious to hear them. I would like to hear some discussion on one point raised by the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in respect of which I have not heard any other comment. I refer to the fact that because of the procedural requirement that questions of privilege be raised at the first available opportunity, the first available opportunity in this case was in fact the day the House was notified some several months ago, almost a year ago, by the solicitor general at that time that in fact what had been previous information, that mail had not been intercepted, was erroneous information, and on that day he had learned of this and was, therefore, advising the House that there had in fact been opening of the mail. At that time and certainly in subsequent answers in the House there had to be the indication that answers made in the House by previous solicitors general on the basis of that information were wrong

November 3, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
answers and that the matter occurred not only once but several times.
It had to be brought to the attention of the House on several occasions in clear terms that answers which previously indicated that there had not been mail openings were wrong answers based on misleading information from officials responsible to the solicitor general of the day. That being the case, there would have been several occasions on which members either were or ought to have been alerted to the fact that the answers they had received prior to that time about mail openings, such as the answer received-which after all is the core of this question of privilege-were wrong answers. Despite the fact that it occurred almost a year ago, I still have to deal not only with the question of whether this is of such a nature as to be included in privilege, but also with a couple of procedural matters of that sort.
At least I am relieved of the obligation of having to decide whether the paragraph or sentence in the letter was misleading. The Minister of Justice has brushed this point aside for me. Even if I were to find all the necessary ingredients for privilege, how do I get around the fact that this was first brought to the attention of the House almost a year ago in such a way as to give rise to this question of privilege? Therefore, we are not only slightly but a great deal too late to deal with it on that basis at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in my view the request for this matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections is one that ought to be granted. It is clear from what has been said on both sides that a misleading statement was made by letter, by a minister, to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) used the term "erroneous", but at least there is no denying the statement that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was misled.
It is also part of the record now that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has in a sense charged that he has received a letter which was misleading. That is something which ought to be cleared up by the House.
During the course of his remarks the Minister of Justice made the suggestion that is made almost every time any matter in this area is discussed, namely, that we should leave it to the McDonald commission. On that point, I agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), that the issue of the privileges of members of this House is not before the McDonald commission. Whether the commission ever completes its proceedings or not, we have a situation here where a member of this House has had his privileges affected. I think that it is this House that ought to settle this matter.
The point which you made after listening to the Minister of Justice is one that is almost as interesting and difficult as the question we have in another debate involving a letter written

by the Commissioner of Human Rights to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). There are various angles to be considered. To put it hypothetically, if the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham had risen on November 10, 1977, on the basis of the statement made by the then solicitor general on November 9 to the effect that there had been mail openings, and had alleged that the letter he received three or four years earlier was therefore a violation of privilege, there would have been some difficulty about it. The member would have been asked, "How do you know that what was said three or four years ago was a misrepresentation?"
It seems to me that we have to put into the picture the fact that only a few days ago former commissioner Higgitt identified this particular letter and brought it out in the open-and now not only does the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham know about it, but the whole country-and that that particular letter was identified by the former commissioner as a misleading letter, or to use the word of the Minister of Justice, an erroneous letter.
I appreciate, sir, that you have to consider this very fine point, but what would you have done in my hypothetical situation had the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham raised this matter immediately after November 9, 1977? He would have been told that he did not yet have the evidence that that particular letter was included in the framework of misleading letters. Because this situation is really separate from the inquiry of the McDonald commission, and because a member of this House has had his capacity to do his job interfered with by a letter from a minister which, it turns out, did not tell what was true, I think that it ought to be considered as a prima facie case of privilege. The result, if the question of privilege is allowed and the motion is put and passed, is that what has happened between a minister and a member of this House would go to a committee of this House to determine how it all came about. It is totally different from what is going on in the McDonald commission hearings, and I believe that the question of privilege should be granted.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raises a point about the letter which I think comes to the aid of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. I confess that, while he made reference to it, I did not quite catch the significance of the fact that the testimony before the McDonald inquiry made specific reference to this letter. I was operating on the impression that the testimony, while it related to arguments, did not make specific reference to this piece of correspondence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It did.


Mr. Speaker:: Thankfully, that lays that point aside, because if I do find that the other ingredients of privilege are present, I would not be very comfortable setting aside a matter of this importance on the basis of a technicality. I would only do it in the event that I was faced absolutely and categorically with a procedural requirement which I simply could not get around. I do not like to set aside important questions of this nature on a catch, but with the specific reference by the ex-commissioner
November 3, 1978

to this particular piece of correspondence, I would think that that probably answers that one argument. Again, it is something I would have to look at very carefully.
[ Translation]


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, before starting my argumentation with respect to your remark and that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who said, and I quote:

*-Higgitt brought the letter into the open in the last days. This letter was brought in the open by Mr. Higgitt, not in the last days, but on February 1, 1978, publicly at the Keable inquiry. I would like to refer this House to the report of the Keable inquiry, volume 102 at page 62, where Mr. Michel Decary asks Mr. Higgitt in reference to exhibit P-142:
Now on page two (2) Mr. Allmand writes, or maybe someone for him but it does bear Mr. Allmand's signature:
"I have been assured by the RCMP that it is not their practice to intercept the private mail of anyone and I trust that the above explanation will set your constituent's mind at ease".
Mr. Decary asks the question again:
Do you recall having discussed with Mr. Allmand in the month of November or December, but anyway before December of 1973, such a practice of interception of private mail of citizens of Canada?
A. No, I do not recall any such conversation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Yvon Pinard: With pleasure, at the end of my intervention. What I want to say at this point, because I realize that it is very close to one o'clock, is that it is not exact to state that the letter on which the hon. member has based his question of privilege came out only in the last days. It was made public, and the hon. member should have known at least that it was public, at the Keable inquiry February 1, 1978. If the House is interested I can table part of this testimony so that hon. members will have knowledge of it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the hon. member if, in that testimony before the Keable commission, specific reference was made to the fact that that was a letter addressed to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).


Yvon Pinard: The answer to that question is very simple, Mr. Speaker; it is yes. May I quote the question put by Mr. Decary to Mr. Higgitt as follows:
Q. Now we have produced yesterday, under objection from your attorneys, a document P-142, exhibit P-142. Now this is a letter addressed by the Honourable Warren Allmand to Mr. Allan Lawrence, MP but I forget for what riding? A. I believe it's an Ontario member.
Q. Yes, an Ontario member for the Conservative Party of Canada I believe. I refer specifically, and you may take time and a moment or two to look at the
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
document, but I refer you to the last paragraph of page two (2) of Mr. Allmand's letter?
A. Yes.
Then a question by Mr. Pierre Lamontagne:
Q. If you take the position that we're dealing with foreign powers-
A. I have read this document.
I think this answers the hon. member's question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In any case, the discussion will obviously be interrupted by the luncheon adjournment. We are going to return to this at two o'clock.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking at one o'clock I saw fit at the very beginning of my intervention to rectify a fact which undoubtedly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) inadvertently brought to our attention. Though that has been clearly settled, I would like to make brief and clearer statements on that issue.
If we accepted the arguments given by the two members of the Progressive Conservative party and the member of the New Democratic Party who spoke before me, we would have to conclude that it is not because there is a royal commission of inquiry considering the practices of the RCMP that a committee of the House cannot study matters which are already the subject of the inquiry of the commission when privileges of members of the House are concerned. If we were to accept that assertion-which I do not-we would have to come to the necessary conclusion, in light of obvious facts, that the question of privilege as raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) was belated. It is belated because it is based first of all on a letter dated December 1973, one excerpt of which was quoted by the hon. member this morning. This excerpt has also been quoted by me when I read the wording of a question put to the Keable inquiry and which establishes clearly that the then solicitor general did inform the hon. member that the RCMP had advised him it was not current practice to open mail. Now, in 1973 the hon. member got that information which turned out to be erroneous. But last November, in 1977, in the House and more specifically during almost all the oral question period on November 9, it was clearly established, following a TV coverage from the night before, that there had been allegedly illegal mail opening.

November 3, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
It then became obvious to the hon. member who now raises this question of privilege that the information contained in the letter of December 1973 could be challenged because the facts contradicted the contents of that letter. I therefore believe that it is at that moment that the hon. member should have put the question of privilege, or at the latest the following day. The hon. member was indeed in the House that day and he had, along with other members, the opportunity to direct questions in that regard to the then solicitor general, the present member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox).
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to Hansard for November 9, 1977, page 742, where the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) directed specific questions regarding the illegal opening of mail to the then solicitor general, who answered unequivocally leaving the hon. member no choice but to conclude that the information contained in the December 1973 letter was false.
Therefore, the hon. member did not have to wait for the recent testimony of Mr. Higgitt who, as it was termed this morning, allegedly told the McDonald commission: "It was not cast to the four winds but no secret". I am sure that the hon. member is sufficiently clear-headed and intelligent that he did not have to hear Mr. Higgitt's testimony yesterday or the day before before the McDonald commission to understand, on November 9, 1977, in the House, that there was indeed a discrepancy between the information that he got from the solicitor general in 1973 and the many answers given in the House on November 9 by the Solicitor General and the Postmaster General to the effect that, unfortunately, there had in fact been mail openings. That is when he should have raised his question of privilege.
But allowing him a little more delay to understand, he could have had until February 1, 1978, at the latest-several months ago now, Mr. Speaker-to raise a question of privilege which could be receivable, in order or valid.
This morning I referred to that commission of inquiry which held public hearings and heard Mr. Higgitt. The latter, in answer to questions put by lawyers, and I will not quote again what I mentioned this morning, did indeed refer particularly to that letter of December, 1973, sent to the hon. member by the then solicitor general, even quoting textually the last paragraph of that letter which was also read this morning by the hon. member on his question of privilege. Moreover, an attorney even asked the Solicitor General who wrote that letter in December, 1973, whether, in the months of November and December prior to that letter, whether-
Such practice of interception of private mail delivered in Canada has been discussed with Mr. Allmand.

That question had been put to Mr. Higgitt. Mr. Speaker, this was public knowledge and the hon. member who brought up the question of privilege must have been aware of it. He

therefore missed the boat twice. First, on November 9 in the House when the Solicitor General himself told him mail was opened, contrary to what the letter said which was sent to him in December, 1973. He also missed the boat when, on February 1, before the public inquiry commission mention was made of that same letter. His name was mentioned at the inquiry, the letter in question was also mentioned and tabled as documentary evidence; mention is even made of the Solicitor General who wrote it and who denies having discussed its contents with anyone.
Mr. Speaker, once again, if we accept the position of hon. members, excepting that of the Minister of Justice who spoke about the matter before me, one must of necessity conclude that the question of privilege, at least from the procedural point of view, comes at a late date.
In closing the discussion on this first point, I would be remiss if 1 did not quote ever so briefly for the record the principle generally recognized by Beauchesne, in his fourth edition, page 95, paragraph 104, and I quote:
(3) A matter of privilege which claims precedence over other public business should be a subject which has recently arisen and which calls for the immediate interposition of the House. The matter should be raised at the earliest opportunity.
A few lines further he adds, and I quote again:
(5) As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is thereby given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed, and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity. If he is not so satisfied he may allow the member to make a statement with a view to ascertaining whether or not a prima facie case can be made out.
Mr. Speaker, it seems obvious to me, even if it displeases some people, that the rules of this House should be followed at all times. It seems obvious to me that in this case the hon. member who raises today a question of privilege is several months late. In fact what is the object of his complaint this morning? He received false information from a minister and he has become aware of this fact only recently, following the testimony given by Mr. Higgitt before the McDonald commission. It is not true, Mr. Speaker. If he received false information, which might be possible, he should have known that this information was erroneous last November 9 in this House or at the latest on February 1 or the following days when his name, the letter and the whole matter were discussed publicly before an inquiry commission, the Keable commission. To conclude on this first point, it seems obvious to me that this question of privilege is not receivable because of this considerable delay.
The second point I wish to raise has been mentioned by all hon. members who spoke before me and concerns the role of the McDonald commission compared with the role of a House committee regarding a question of privilege on a matter studied by the commission. Here again the facts are quite simple. We know that the commission was established by an order in
November 3, 1978

council on July 7, 1977. A brief passage of this order in council says about the authority of commissioners appointed pursuant to part 1 of the Inquiries Act, and I quote:

-to conduct such investigations as in the opinion of the commissioners are necessary to determine the extent and prevalence of investigative practices or other activities involving members of the RCMP which are not authorized or provided for and in this regard to inquire into the relevant policies and procedures that govern the RCMP in the discharge of its responsibility to protect the security of Canada.
[ Translation]
Of course, the order in council is much more elaborate concerning the commissioners' terms of reference. But the last quote is specific, however, and indicates the essence of the work or terms of reference of the inquiry.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, that commission was established under a federal statute called the Inquiries Act and has the power to hear any witnesses. Let me simply refer to that act, part 1, section 4, which provides, and I quote:
The commissioners have the power of summoning before them any witnesses, and of requiring them to give evidence on oath, or on solemn affirmation if they are persons entitled to affirm in civil matters, and orally or in writing, and to produce such documents and things as the commissioners deem requisite to the full investigation of the matters into which they are appointed to examine.
In view of the mandate given by an order in council under a federal act of parliament to a royal commission of inquiry investigating RCMP activities, it seems quite improper to me, because an hon. member alleged his privileges have been infringed upon, that the same subject matter be referred to a parliamentary committee to examine that same matter exactly. This would be creating duplication. The motion put by the hon. member must be placed in context. In my view, he is aiming at the solicitor general who wrote the letter-and I see clear evidence of that in the very words he used in his motion, those of "calculated attempt to mislead". He is imputing motives to the solicitor general who wrote the letter in December of 1973. In his motion he asks that the Solicitor General be censored for deliberately misleading the hon. member, or if he is not attacking the Solicitor General, he has to blame someone else for the inconvenience resulting from the letter sent to him, and that someone else can only be the RCMP. So by complaining that he was misinformed in a letter signed by a minister, he wants to have the subject matter referred to a committee, not to determine whether that caused him inconveniences-it appears obvious to me that having been misinformed in 1973 could have prevented him from putting questions to the Prime Minister, as he mentioned, or the Solicitor General; those are inconveniences, I am not denying that-but what remedy is he seeking today, Mr. Speaker? Is it simply to have us say that he was unable to ask questions at that time or is he trying to blame the Solicitor General or the RCMP? In either case, that is exactly the terms of reference of the McDonald commission, to determine whether or not there were wrongdoings and whether people in the public eye are involved. That is going to be determined, and referring the
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
subject matter now before us to a committee of this House could result in our arriving at different conclusions on the same matter. We could have a committee of the House blaming for one reason or another the Solicitor General for his integrity or knowledge or lack of knowledge of the facts in question and at the same time a judgment or a report by the McDonald commission exonerating the Solicitor General. And that is the nonsense situation in which we could find ourselves if we allow this kind of abuse, under the pretence that the privileges of a member of this House have been breached, of referring the subject matter that is already before a special commission, a royal commission, to a committee of public men, politicians, parliamentarians, particularly when there is, in my opinion, no remedy for the inconvenience which the hon. member is complaining about and which he could have complained about a lot earlier, Mr. Speaker.
In the circumstances, I think it is important to avoid, under the pretence that a privilege was breached, referring to two parliamentary bodies, a parliamentary committee and a commission set up by an act of parliament, the same inquiry into the same individuals. And that appears to me to be a nonsense that was certainly not on the minds of those who made the law and those who wrote the rules of this House.
One last point, Mr. Speaker, that seems fundamental to me is the intention of the Solicitor General who wrote the letter which was sent to the hon. member raising the question of privilege in December, 1973. At some point in his remarks this morning, the hon. member said:
"It does not matter if he knew or did not know about if he was wrong or not".

I cannot accept such assertion, Mr. Speaker. There is a world of difference between guilty intention and good faith. And if the hon. member suggests that the fact that the Solicitor General acted in good faith has nothing to do with the discussion, I believe he is completely mistaken, not to use an anti-parliamentary expression.
In matters of parliamentary privilege, just as in any matter of criminal or of any otherwise penal charge in society, it is important to respect two principles: first, the presumption of good faith. Good faith is always presumed, and whoever makes the allegations of bad faith has to prove them. That principle is generally accepted. But the second principle is that we can never condemn anyone for an act which may have bad consequences, which may cause prejudice or damage, if the act was done in good faith and without bad intention. And it seems to me obvious in this instance, Mr. Speaker, that through his question of privilege the hon. member gives only one version of the facts, one side of the coin.

November 3, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
There lies the danger when raising questions of privilege and calling the attention of committees of the House on matters which are now being investigated. To be fair to the Solicitor General who sent him that letter, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) referred this morning to the testimony made by the same Solicitor General on February 15, 1978 before the Keable commission. He quoted only one answer but he could have added the two following answers on pages 50 and 51 of the document he referred to. The then solicitor general, Mr. Allmand, said, and I quote:

"No, I was told on every occasion that they did not open mail."

And a little further during the same inquiry, the solicitor general said, and I quote:

"The first time I found out that they did open mail was when it became public after I left, you know, in recent months".

So I think that it is unfair, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that the solicitor general wrote the letter referred to by the hon. member in a calculated attempt to mislead. I think the hon. member is unfair when he says, I quote:

"The letter from the minister of the Crown deliberately misled me and my constituent".

I believe it is unfair to say such things in the House when the minister himself stated exactly the opposite under oath before a public commission. Mr. Speaker, the danger in all this would be if we, members of parliament, through a committee, were invited to question the same people and pass judgment on the same activities when a commission is now considering this same matter, and is now interrogating one witness, who gave his own version of the facts, and when the commission will then have the power to interrogate other witnesses.
It is obvious that all former solicitors general involved are impatient to testify before the McDonald commission. They have said so, they will do so and this is provided by the legislation, as I said earlier. Why then ask this institution to do the same work over again? I think we must be logical and respect the spirit of the law. There already is a commission established by an act of parliament which is now investigating the activities of politicians and the RCMP. Why then should we ask another agency of this House to do exactly the same work when the investigation is not yet completed and we have conflicting evidence? If, as each witness testifies before the commission, every member could rise in this House on a question of privilege and ask to refer the matter to a committee, there would be no end to the situation.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is only logical and sensible to avoid doing the same thing twice. I believe that we should have enough restraint not to attribute intentions to the solicitor general, and I therefore believe that this should not be considered a prima facie question of privilege, first because it is belated, and second, because it is legally irregular and out of order.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to go over the arguments which were very ably made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) and by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), but I want to re-emphasize, for your consideration, the principle of ministerial responsibility. This has been touched upon but not emphasized.
It seems to me that the fact that a minister sent out on his ministerial stationery and over his own signature an assertion to a member of parliament, in reply to a question which could have been taken as a notice of questions to be raised in this House, has to bear a good deal of weight on your decision. The minister knew what he was writing. He signed it. If he did not know what he was writing, he should have made appropriate inquiries at the time the draft was presented to him.
Either we, as members of parliament, on all sides of the House are entitled to rest secure in the knowledge that we are going to receive the truth in ministerial replies, or we are not, and obviously it is the opinion of all hon. members of this House in this instance that the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham did not receive a truthful reply to this inquiry. Where does it leave us if we disregard the fundamental principle of ministerial responsibility?
There is no doubt in my mind, having regard to the circumstances surrounding the Keable inquiry, that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham did not know the facts. The facts as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), with respect, are incorrect. Even if the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham did know of those facts, the question of privilege is still well founded, but the fact is that the hon. member first knew of the erroneous nature of the content of the reply only this week.
The Keable commission inquiry-and in this sense I feel as if I am speaking for a minority- was conducted in French. The transcript was in French, and I do believe the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is bilingual in the sense that he speaks French and English. This matter did not, I am assured by the hon. member himself, come to his attention until this week. It came to his attention because two blocks away a royal commission is inquiring into these matters. A specific question about this specific letter was raised, and the matter has received much English exposure. That is how the hon. member came to know of it.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 wonder if I could interrupt the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) just to direct his attention to a point which troubles me nevertheless, and it is very much related to the point he is now arguing. I am not very concerned about

November 3, 1978

whether I should be looking for some procedural device with which to defeat the point of the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), saying he should have raised this at the time it became known, turning back to the Keable inquiry and saying that if what the ex-commissioner said before the McDonald inquiry was in fact said before the Keable inquiry, that information is deemed to have been transmitted to the hon. member. It would seem that that kind of approach would be a little too technical. What troubles me is a little more substantial than that.
I have not looked at the remarks, but the day on which the former solicitor general stood in the House-I think it has been described in the argument as being on November 9, about a year ago-he said that he had then learned, and was informing the House, that the RCMP had in fact been opening mail. That was a revelation which was, of course, entirely contradictory to the information which had been given to him and to previous solicitors general. Upon hearing that, a number of letters were sent to the then solicitor general and questions asked in the House to which answers had been given.
Again I have not checked it in the record but I am sure there were numerous occasions in this parliament when members asked the solicitor general of the day in the House whether the RCMP was opening mail, to which the solicitor general of the day said no, that according to his information the police were not doing so. On the day almost a year ago when the then solicitor general said that his information was incorrect, every one of those questions and answers in parliament became a potential question of privilege. The then solicitor general said "We were misinformed, and I am telling the House we were misinformed", and therefore answers which he gave to questions in the House were incorrect on the basis of misinformation. Basically, as I recall, that is what the then solicitor general said about a year ago.
My point about timing is this: why then should we now at this stage concern ourselves, not with answers in the House- which are obviously a proceeding in the House and fundamentally related to the whole question of privilege-but go beyond them to a letter which might or might not be a proceeding in the House within the definition of privilege, and not only that but a letter which is not of this parliament but of the previous parliament? So the timing of the question of privilege that it be raised on the first occasion, is more than simply a procedural gimmick to put in the path of the question of privilege; it relates substantially to whether or not we can deal with a question of privilege on a different problem, on a new point, but I think it demonstrates the fact that it is more than simply a procedural matter. It is a substantial question, that if all these questions and answers put to the solicitors general become questions of privilege within this parliament, why do we now, some time later, go back to the letter which predated this parliament and try to stretch those two points? That is the point that concerns me.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Erik Nielsen: Your remarks, sir, certainly indicate that you are taking the matter as a very serious question of privilege, which is only proper. With respect to the previous parliament, that is very novel. I had not thought of it before. But it is the same government and the solicitors general have been playing musical chairs with such frequency that this does not disturb the principle of ministerial responsibility, I think. May I point out with respect, sir, that if there had been a change of government, then the point might merit more investigation, but here we are confronted with a situation where we have the same government, notwithstanding the fact that we are in another parliament. So the validity of the first opportunity for raising a point of privilege, in my submission, still prevails.
With respect to the November 9 circumstances and the first time when this parliament was informed that there had in fact been the opening of mail-a fact about which I could say more, if we were not constrained by the Official Secrets Act, and about which those members who sat on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in camera know full well-I would draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that the then solicitor general, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), had resigned, and the statement on November 9 was made by the new solicitor general, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox). That has a bearing on the situation as well because the core of the question of privilege lies in the conduct of the then solicitor general, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
I wish also to draw the attention of the Chair to the matters raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council. I followed the Keable inquiry quite closely, as I am following this one, and I have two points to make. I have already made one point, that it is not unreasonable to conclude that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham did not know of the testimony given by ex-commissioner Higgitt before that inquiry. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council shaking his head as though in disbelief, but that is the information I have from the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and I take him at his word. However, there is a more important point to make with respect to that testimony.
As is apparent from the testimony before the present commission, ex-commissioner Higgitt believed, at the time he was testifying before the Keable inquiry, that what he was saying with respect to the letter under discussion was true. He has found out since that it was not as he stated it to be before the Keable inquiry because he had been informed since that inquiry that the letter was indeed drafted by the force. I abjure you, sir, to consider that very carefully. The ex-commissioner believed at the time that what he was stating was true, and not only did he believe it to be true, on the basis of the information he had at the time it was true. But he found out subsequently, and so testified before the McDonald commission, that his information was inaccurate.
Let us get back to the question of whether the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham knew at the time that the state-

November 3, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
ment made to him was false. He first knew that the statement was erroneous, to use the more gentle term, early this week, and this was the first opportunity he had to bring the matter to the attention of the House. It is not a question of when he knew that mail was being opened in a general way-I knew that years ago-but the question is when it came to the hon. member's knowledge, and it came to his knowledge only this week, not a year ago, not last November. One cannot impose the burden on all members of parliament of following all commissions of inquiry and reading line by line all the evidence adduced at these inquiries in order to retain the privilege of raising a question of privilege in the House if one might arise as a result of that testimony.
With respect to the role of the McDonald commission and the emphasis placed on that by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council when they said "allow them to finish their task", permit me to be sceptical, sir. First, the matter affects the privileges of members of the House. That is not within the ambit of the mandate given to the McDonald commission. Second, as to my scepticism, having regard to the efforts that have been made by government counsel, as instructed by the Minister of Justice and God knows who else in PCO, I am not so sure that they will be able to see everything which would enable them to come to the proper conclusions. But putting that aside, the McDonald commission has no mandate to decide whether or not the privileges of a member or of members of the House have been breached.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council spoke about privilege, and asked that it be left to the McDonald commission. I am really surprised, but then it explains itself to me in this fashion, that they have very little regard for the rights and privileges of this place and its members when they suggest, as he did, that this matter should be left to the McDonald commission to decide. 1 disagree most violently with that. I am sure the view is shared by the majority of members in this place, that we, and we only, have the right to decide whether or not the privileges of a member of this place are being abused.
He said many things imputing motives to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. I did not detect that in the member's remarks in raising this question. Indeed he, the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), and the opposition House leader were on all fours when they assured the House through you, sir, that there was no imputation of motives here, that they were zeroing in on the principle of ministerial responsibility. Surely that is the crux of the whole question of privilege. Has the minister, or any minister of the Crown, the right to mislead members of parliament with impunity? I suggest a letter written to a minister, under the circumstances described by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, is a notice to the minister that the question will be raised in the House. That connection was made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the hon. member

for Northumberland-Durham, and the House leader for the New Democratic Party. In essence, an inquiry of the minister is a notice to the ministry that, unless a satisfactory answer is forthcoming, the matter will be raised. It was not raised because the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was deceived by the answer.
I will confine my remarks to the emphasis on the question of ministerial responsibility and the question of the responsibility of the ministry. Whether it be in this parliament or the last, being the same government, or whether the last parliament is set aside, the fact is that when a minister signs his name to a letter, whether it is drafted by his executive assistant political, his executive assistant administrative, or any other of his officials, he is signing a letter which is tantamount to standing by all the statements put forth in that letter. If he did not do it in that sense, he cannot be heard to say, "Well, I signed the letter but I was misadvised".
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council that when the then solicitor general saw that paragraph, he should have said to his adviser, "Is this true? Are we not opening mail, and if we are, I want to know?" In my submission that is what he should have said, and it is fundamental to the principle of ministerial responsibility. It is fundamental to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. If the minister did not ask that question, it is the central question we should be allowed to determine before the standing committee to which this matter should be referred, as urged by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in joining on the question of privilege by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), I should like to make specific comments concerning the points raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). As I understood his representations, he indicated my colleague had sufficient advance warning of the possible misrepresentation that he should have raised his question of privilege at an earlier date.
I have had an opportunity to review the testimony before the Keable commission, to which the parliamentary secretary referred. He very kindly provided me with photostats of what he read from, and if the testimony by Mr. Higgitt before the Keable commission says anything, it would confirm that the letter my colleague received was accurate. There is no suggestion in Mr. Higgitt's testimony before the Keable commission which would cause my colleague to say that he was misled, if he knew of the evidence or not.
I should like to refer to the specific testimony which was referred to earlier, but in the context of what I am saying. I assume there was an unintentional misleading of the House in the manner the parliamentary secretary presented this testimony. Certainly on first blush it sounded to me that he meant Mr. Higgitt, as long ago as February 1, 1978, before the Keable commission, basically said the same thing as he said before the McDonald commission. That is not true. What Mr. November 3, 1978

Higgitt said before the Keable commission is quite different from what he said subsequently before the McDonald commission.
1 draw the attention of the House to page 62 of the Keable report, which was previously referred to by the parliamentary secretary. It reads as follows:
Q. Now on page two (2) Mr. Allmand writes, or maybe someone for him but it does bear Mr. Allmand's signature:
"I have been assured by the RCMP that it is not their practice to intercept
the private mail of anyone and I trust that the above explanation will set your
constituent's mind at ease."
We are all agreed on that quotation. It continues:
Do you recall having discussed with Mr. Allmand in the month of November or December, but anyway before December of nineteen seventy-three (1973), such a practice of interception of private mail of citizens of Canada?
A. No, I do not recall any such conversation.
If one follows the argument of the private secretary, why should my colleague have taken from that evidence that the letter was wrong? All the commissioner indicated was that he had no conversation. The report continues, with Mr. Pierre Lamontagne asking the following question:
While we are on that letter, Mr. Higgitt. there has been a suggestion made this morning by Mr. Cameron that very frequently the Department of the Solicitor General, whoever Mr. Cameron or somebody else, would ask the RCMP not only for an answer but also for a draft reply. Looking at that letter which has two (2) pages, exhibit P-142, could you tell us if according to your knowledge the practice in all this, the setup of letters etc. of the RCMP, if that draft was prepared by the RCMP?
Commissioner Higgitt's answer was as follows:
I would say with absolute... or with almost positive certainty that this was not prepared by the RCMP and I say that because of the phraseology. I say it also because of the setup of the letter itself. The RCMP did not set up letters in that nature and 1 would say from this superficial look that it is most unlikely that the RCMP had any part in actually writing that-
The next page was not given to me. In that part of the Keable evidence, Commissioner Higgitt again makes it clear that in his view-and he said that it was a superficial one-it was not drafted by the RCMP. My colleague had absolutely no reason to feel that the letter was in any way misleading, based on the evidence given before the Keable commission and referred to by the parliamentary secretary.
I should like to refer to the point raised by the parliamentary secretary initially concerning evidence in this House. In your remarks to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), Your Honour made specific reference to this. I am referring to the November 9 testimony of the then solicitor general of Canada. The parliamentary secretary referred to an answer given to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, but he did not refer to an earlier answer given by the solicitor general in response to a question posed by the hon. member for Central Nova. At that time the then solicitor general said the following:
In some instances, after my examination of the files with senior officers of the Crown, it clearly happened that the mail has actually been opened by the RCMP security service. Because of that, I referred the whole matter to the Attorney General of Canada and also to the McDonald royal commission of inquiry.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
I would make two comments in regard to that answer. First, if I had been in my colleague's shoes it would have registered with me that the solicitor general had said, "in some instances". He did not say "in all instances". I would suggest he did not make any more meaningful comment than to say, "Yes, I have found instances where letters have been opened".
The second thing he said, which I think was very reassuring, was, "I have referred it to the Attorney General of Canada and to the McDonald commission". Is it not a natural thing to expect a member of this House to presume that any matter he had raised, such as the letter before us, would be looked into and, if found to be one of the instances when in fact there was an interception of the mail, it would be corrected and that correction referred back to him?
I would strengthen that argument, Mr. Speaker, with the fact that my colleague then did get up and in his question asked the minister why he evaded the question, and why he could not be more specific. It was then that the solicitor general came back and said essentially the same thing. He said:
-it became very clear to me during the course of that meeting that there had been indeed a number of instances in which the security service of the RCMP in particular areas of counterespionage, terrorism and countersubversion opened a number of pieces of mail.
Again, I would suggest there was nothing other than a general comment there. There was nothing to cause my colleague to suddenly think, "Well, I must have been misled in the letter I received sometime ago from that solicitor general."
I would then suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if you review the testimony before the McDonald commission, and I believe my colleague has already put some of this before you, you will find at page 14555 Commissioner Higgitt for the first time refers specifically to this letter, and for the first time indicates there was wrong information in it. That is the point on which I believe this all turns. This is the first time the letter we have under consideration was specifically indentified as a letter that fell within a situation which in fact had involved mail tampering, and in turn my colleague learned for the first time that the letter he had received was presumably misleading.
I hope I have made that clear, because I think what the parliamentary secretary said has clouded the issue somewhat. The hard truth is there has been absolutely no reason why my colleague or anybody else in this House who has made any specific request concerning the possibility of the interception of mail should have had his fears aroused in the sense that he had been misled, other than in the case of my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, as a result of Commissioner Higgitt's testimony before the McDonald commission, to which I have referred.
In this context, Mr. Speaker, let me ask you, if I may, to think of the almost impossible situation in which it would put all members of this House if it were otherwise. Surely there can be no suggestion that if general comments are made by ministers that would lead one to believe they may have made misstatements in the past, without any specific indication of

November 3, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
when or where those misstatements had been made, hon. members would be aware of specific cases. Think of the position in which it would put all members of this Elouse. They would have to act almost like computer machines, checking all previous correspondence and everything they had ever been told by a minister, and if they did not do that and immediately raised a question of privilege they would lose that right.
Surely the important question is, when in fact did a member learn specifically that a representation which had been made to him on a certain subject was misleading? I would suggest in this case it is very clear that it was made with Commissioner Higgitt's testimony before the McDonald commission and, therefore, there is reason for a proper reference to the appropriate standing committee of this House to consider this question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must say that the difficulty I have with that argument put forward by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is the fact, which he has just brought to the attention of the House, that on the day the solicitor general of that moment, November 9, revealed to the House that information in respect of mail openings was in fact incorrect information, one of those who questioned the solicitor general about this at the time was the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). I would then have difficulty saying he was not on notice of that fact when in fact he participated in questions-not so much having to do with the Keable inquiry but in respect of proceedings in the House. I have to examine the record in that regard as it is a point to which I must direct myself. It is a very serious point, involving going back in time and determining that a member who put questions to the solicitor general on November 9, 1977, thereby eliciting information which is fundamental to this question of privilege, should or should not be deemed to have been on notice at that time. I cannot do that on the basis of a cursory examination. I will have to look at the actual language used at that time.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be very brief. I just want to point something out that is perhaps obvious, and something you touched upon a few moments ago. This is not a case in respect of which we have had any continuity in the office of solicitor general. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has not had the opportunity for a long time to question the man from whom he got the letter. I think that is very important. One of the distinguished holders of that portfolio, the hon. Mr. Mcllraith, held that post as solicitor general for many years. We have had a number of solicitors general in recent years, and it is very difficult for a member who feels he has been given an answer that is less than perfect to go back to it because of the rules that have developed.
As soon as that solicitor general who wrote the letter to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham left his portfolio we were pretty well precluded under the rules of this House from questioning him, or double checking on the authenticity of what he did.
To make matters even more complicated, the present Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), and his predecessor, have said as a matter of policy, pretty well unequivocally in this House, as I understand it, that they are not prepared to answer, as a matter of government policy, anything that could be remotely connected to the McDonald commission. They have taken the attitude, sir, that anything they could possibly attribute as being within the mandate, in the widest possible interpretation, of the McDonald inquiry is something that we, as members of this House, really ought not to be talking about, ostensibly on the basis of national security and for other reasons as well, which defies logic, in my respectful submission.
On the occasion when another question of privilege arose involving another matter, that of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), we were not allowed to pursue that either.
What I am saying to you, sir, is that if we are to get any useful mileage, as members of parliament, from the mechanisms that are in place, such as the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, we should not be as hesitant as we have been in the past to refer matters of substance which obviously affect our rights and privileges, in order that the committee can conduct appropriate investigations. Otherwise the committee is in existence but it certainly is not serving the purpose for which it was designed.
Those two reasons, namely, the practice which has developed, and I do not know since how long, of not allowing any meaningful probing of a minister when he leaves a portfolio, and the policy which has developed since the creation of the McDonald royal commission, which has certainly been to prevent us on this side of the House from pursuing matters which those on the other side can remotely claim are covered by the mandate of the McDonald commission, whether that is basically true in law or in fact, make it all the more important that you consider very carefully the appropriateness of allowing members of this House the opportunity to go into these things. We do have that mechanism available to us.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a technical point, and 1 think this would be useful to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has a number of technical points he thinks would be useful to the House too.


Walter David Baker: I have a couple.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that everyone who has participated so far would like to re-argue some of the points.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the question at issue here is whether the disclosure at the Keable commission last November and questioning in this House would bar the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) from raising a question of privilege today, in that it has been alleged by the parliamentary secretary that at the time the hon. member was under notice, or

November 3, 1978

should have been, that a letter he had received in 1973 was at issue, was wrong and was misleading.
It is stretching the point, and the best way I can qualify it is to say that the argument put forth by the parliamentary secretary has been a carefully devised red herring for the fundamental reason that while commissioner Higgitt was questioned by the Keable commission in November, 1977, at no time did he say anything, nor was he questioned, about the authenticity or the truthfulness of the letter written by the then solicitor general in 1973. I could question the parliamentary secretary and ask him directly whether that gentleman found any reference in the testimony in the Keable commission by commissioner Higgitt of an admission that the letter was misleading, as has now been done before the McDonald commission.
This is precisely what my colleague is complaining about, the letter he received in 1973 from the solicitor general and the fact that just this Wednesday before the McDonald commission the commissioner admitted under cross-examination that the letter was misleading. That was the first time there was direct testimony that that letter prepared for the then solicitor general was misleading and was intended to mislead the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.
One can build all sorts of inferences, but is it to be attributed to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham that he should have been under notice that the letter he received in 1973 was misleading? The hon. member may have participated in the questioning in the House in November, 1977, which was his responsibility, but that does not include the authenticity of the letter because the commissioner had not said anything about the letter being misleading. The commissioner had admitted before the Keable commission that there had been some opening of letters, but he did not say anything about that particular letter.
1 put it to you, sir, that it is the question of this particular letter, which the commissioner has now said was prepared in a misleading way for signature by the solicitor general of the day in order to mislead my colleague, which must be righted. With the greatest of respect, I would suggest that the arguments of the parliamentary secretary to counter this motion is a finely drawn red herring.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I have no legal knowledge at all, but I believe this has become a legal wrangle. I see no point in getting away from the statement that the minister had purposely misled the House. As far as I am concerned, it is the general responsibility of every member, whether it is a minister or a backbencher, to tell the truth, and we have all taken an oath to that effect. 1 do not see why we have to worry about a letter of this type when every day we have under Standing Order 43 and in preambles to oral questions statements and debates by the opposition calculated to mislead the House. It is about time we realized that the same red herring has issued from the other side.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There has been ample contribution to this question of privilege, and I know that all hon. members who have participated so far would like to reargue the points that are at issue. I hope that they will allow me to examine all these arguments and address myself to some of the considerations which I have tried to put on the record as the discussion progressed.
In response to the argument made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I think that it touches on a fundamental point about the role of the minister in this matter. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was, in fact, very careful, by the tone of his motion, not to mention the minister in the particular circumstances.
It has been argued that the testimony of commissioner Higgitt, which is so material to this matter, is that the draft of the letter, if his testimony at the McDonald inquiry is to be accepted, was calculated not only to deceive the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, but the solicitor general of the day as well. That fact is rather central to the whole issue and is the point that concerns me. Did the solicitor general of the day on November 9 make that plain to the House? In other words, was the House on notice that questions which had been answered by solicitors general, obviously in good faith, on several occasions were in fact answered on the basis of misleading information from the RCMP?
My point is this: if that announcement and the questions of members at that time had the effect of putting the House and members of the House on notice to that effect, then surely questions of privilege about previous misleading answers, whether by letter or in the House, became operational at that time. These are arguments which I have to look at. I have to look at the content of the statement of the solicitor general on that day, and I will give careful consideration to all of the arguments.
I know that some of the members who participated in this discussion have to be away from the House for one or two days next week. It will probably be Wednesday before I would be able to assemble all these arguments, and I would hope to deliver my decision on the matter on Wednesday of next week.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may 1 make one more point which has come up since my original submission on the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not see how I can permit the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham to have that privilege and then deny it to all other members.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. So has the Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not want to reopen the debate in any way, I appreciate that you have reserved your decision and I am not at all referring to

November 3, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
this debate. I merely wish to rectify a fact mentioned by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who has suggested, if I understood him correctly-and I want to check the official record in Hansard and reserve my privilege-that I read in English some evidence given in French before the Keable commission. The Quebec judicial administration recognizes both official languages.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The arguments have been presented on both sides. In the course of debating and discussing a question of privilege, there are going to be several points on which there will be diametric disagreement. Disagreements have been put with different positions taken by others, and arguments made that not all of the testimony was put-the type of arguments which are fundamental to such discussions. I would hope that we are not now going to go over every contribution which has been made to this rather lengthy discussion today, take it piece by piece and determine whether something which is in disagreement or put into discussion is now going to found a separate question of privilege.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been accused of having distorted the meaning of the documents tabled. I have here the record of evidence given in English, I have read them in English and the hon. member is accusing me of saying that this has been done in French.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The parliamentary secretary is rearguing the point he made earlier in the day. I am not going to allow all of the participants to do that, and, therefore, I do not think I should allow any of the participants to do that.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have yet to be recognized on a question of order which melds into a question of privilege. It has always been the practice in this House with respect to what you have just said not to apply the rule applicable in general debates limiting speakers on questions of privilege to one intervention. In particular, that rule has been applied over the years I have been here to members who raise questions of privilege.
There is one point that Your Honour, in my respectful submission-1 should not use the term which I said I do not use-should be hearing from the mouth of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and which you have not heard. It is central to the question of privilege and to the problem upon which the Chair has put its finger, namely, when did the knowledge first come to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham? The hon. member has been attempting to rise to reassure the Chair that that knowledge first came to him this week, and you, sir, should hear that from him.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect, I have heard that already from the hon. member for Yukon, who put on the record that he took the hon. member for Northumberland-
Durham at his word. So do I. I have taken all hon. members who have contributed to this discussion at their word. I do not think I have to do it again; that is my point.


MR. DIEFENBAKER-BUREAUCRATIC USE OF SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS
Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, you indicated earlier today that my question of privilege would come forward. I am taking the opportunity to respond to the invitation you gave yesterday in regard to the question of privilege raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), when you indicated that the minister might care to make a few comments on the point that was raised.
The matter of the use of social insurance numbers has received a great deal of attention in the House recently in various debates. I think it is important to set out the facts relating to the question raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. He indicated that, in his view, the privileges of members of parliament were affected by the latest use of the social insurance number in connection with the cashing of Canada Savings Bonds coupons.
The point he raised is now part of the Income Tax Act and was part of the budget resolution of May, 1976, brought forward by the former minister of finance, the then hon. member for Rosedale, Mr. Macdonald. It became part of Bill C-22, passed in this House in February, 1977. Revenue Canada commenced administering the new regulations in July of that year so it is part of the law of Canada at this time.
This is not the only section of the Income Tax Act that relates to the use of social insurance numbers, as section 237 deals with the use of social insurance numbers on income tax returns and has been part of the law for several years.
The point raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert suggests that perhaps Canadians are not aware of the increased use of this particular piece of administrative machinery without adequate warning. I want to bring to your attention, sir, and to the attention of the House that when the legislation was passed a press release was issued by the then minister of finance dated June 2, 1977, which referred to the pending issue of Canada Savings Bonds. I should like to put one paragraph of that press release on the record. It reads as follows:
When applying for purchase of new Canada Savings Bonds this fall, investors will be asked to provide their social insurance number if they have one. This information will be used exclusively as an account identifier and will form part of the base for a newly-designed computerized registration and retrieval system. The system will enable the government to provide better and faster service to investors when handling inquiries on their holdings of new Canada Savings Bonds. For the investor who holds bonds of several issues and counts on the annual interest income from them, the new system will ensure a single, prompt, accurately addressed payment by cheque or direct deposit.
In addition to that communication which received wide distribution, a press release was issued by the then minister of national revenue. It was labelled "For Immediate Release" and began as follows:

November 3, 1978

Residents of Canada who cash certain bond interest coupons will be required to provide a correct social insurance number or pay a 25 per cent withholding tax on their interest payment under an amendment to the Income Tax Act.
This new procedure has become necessary because some taxpayers have not been reporting the full amount of bond interest payments.
In addition, a wide advertising campaign was conducted in the same year by the Department of National Revenue which included an advertisement in all major newspapers in the country which was entitled "Notice to Bond Holders." It repeated much of the information contained in the other two communiques. Teller cards were also placed in financial institutions across the country at the same time.
Just to summarize the background to this matter, Mr. Speaker, it arises from an administrative problem faced by Revenue Canada. Of course, it is important to ensure that investors correctly report their investment income. That point was brought out in a private member's bill just last week by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who acknowledged that this is part of the law and that he was not really questioning it. Some of the points made in the course of the debate that followed are worth mentioning, however. If a question of privilege is found on this issue, I would suggest that reference be made to that debate.
It should be made clear that no penalty or tax reduction whatsoever is involved. It is simply a mechanism for withholding tax. This is something which Canadians are used to in terms of salary payments or commissions or other forms of payments. Indeed, the withholding system has been with us for a long time.
I think it is important to know that there is no compulsion whatsoever for any bond holder to indicate his social insurance number if he does not wish to. If the number is not indicated, however, there will be a withholding tax which will be returned when an income tax return is filed. If no tax is otherwise payable, it will come back as a refund; but if tax is otherwise payable, it will be deducted.
There is another misconception which was put before the House on two or three occasions, although I am not sure if the right hon. gentleman specifically referred to it. I think it is important to mention that we are dealing only with interest, not with face value of the bonds. The procedure is intended purely and simply to assist in ensuring proper compliance with the income tax laws so that there will be no misrepresentation of income.
With these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I hope we can put this matter to rest. The facts are now clearly before the House should we ever get into further debate on the point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We can certainly put the procedural aspect of the matter to rest. I do not know if the matter itself will be put to rest but it is not anywhere near a matter of procedure or privilege. It may be a matter of substantial interest to members of the House, but it is not necessarily a matter with which the Chair should occupy itself. It is not a question of privilege.
Order Paper Questions SAFE CONTAINERS CONVENTION ACT


MEASURE TO IMPLEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
Robert Knight Andras: for leave to introduce Bill S-3 (from the Senate), to implement the International Convention for Safe Containers.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, question No. 43 will be answered today in both official languages, as in the courts of Quebec.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LABOUR
Mr. Orlikow: November 3, 1978
Family Allowances
ment and government and the related policies of the Department of Labour-$21,024. Plettenberg, Elizabeth-examine and appraise the industrial relations system of West Germany and the role of trade unions and the views of the participants and leaders at the union-government-sponsored labour studies centres-$3,000. Quantetics Corp.-study to provide Department of Labour with cost estimates for setting up various systems for information exchange in a collective bargaining information centre-$4,219. Pothschild, Robert-analyses existing adult educational facilities available in the community colleges and similar institutions-$878. Scott and Hart Associates Inc.-consulting on labour productivity in the automative industry-$975. Simmons, Prof. Gordon-advisory services related to protection of employees against wrongful dismissal and the arbitration of dismissal grievances-$1,104. Smith, A. & Associates Ltd.-provide advisory and consultative services to the Department of Labour with respect to the development of a framework for the implementation of expanded advisory services as part of the department's postcontrol program-$34,951. Willard, Joseph-provide advice in connection with policy related to the development of controls and post-controls related to inflation-$7,241. Willard Consultant & Research Services Ltd.-provide advice with policy related to the development of controls and post-controls related to inflation-$1,200. (b) Supply and Services Canada (Audit services bureau)-provide audit services relating to provincial safety inspection agreements and services provided by Workmen's Compensation Boards-$36,667. Capelle, Ronald G. Dr.-provision of advisory services related to organization development of the department-$937. Clarke, Richard-assist the Department of Labour in the preparation of labour standards documentation-$3,560. Weiler, Richard & Associates Ltd.-provide advisory and consultative services to the Department of Labour in the development of works councils (safety and health committees) and assessment of the progress of the department's reorganization and program implementation-$7,437.
2. see 1 (a) and (b) above.


Mr. Speaker:: Question No. 43 has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 2, consideration in committee of Bill C-10, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide for a child tax credit and to amend the Family Allowances Act-Mr. Chretien-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Chairman:: Clause 1 is under consideration.
On clause 1-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make comes under clause 1 because the bill does not especially deal with the particular subject. Some members of the House may remember that over the last four years I have pointed out that the family allowances bill of 1973, which the minister made very clear was a universal bill, was not in practice universal. I think the regulations will show that any person within the age set down in the act gets the family allowance, with one exception. That exception is if that person or child is an orphan.
Since 1974 I have been asking the minister's predecessor about this, and he was shocked that this provision would be in existence. The promise was made to bring in amendments to make sure that orphans would be protected by the universality clause of this bill. What the regulations actually say is that if any child has parents with any income whatsoever-and every child has parents-regardless of the income of the parents that child gets the family allowance. To put it into simple terms, a person could be a millionaire and have children within the age limit who would still be entitled to the family allowance.
However, when they brought down the regulations, with no approval of parliament whatsoever, the regulations said this does not apply to an orphan if that orphan has an estate which yields more than $1,660 a year. My point is that when these people drafted these regulations, approved by a committee of the cabinet, and which have been in effect for the past five years, they discriminated against a person who is a child, whether that child was two years of age or 16 years of age, merely because he is an orphan.
In my file I have a whole series of questions that I have asked every three or four months about this matter. I have a copy of a report on the Family Allowances Act which states flatly that the allowance is not paid for a child who has a taxable income. I am simply asking whether, after this bill is passed, the same discrimination will apply. The answer, as I read the bill, is that it will, because the eligibility sections of this bill are the same eligibility sections as those which are found in the Family Allowances Act.
My question to the minister is very simple. Would she consider an amendment to this bill to make it absolutely clear that no power is given to anyone to bring in regulations that destroy the principle of universality? I contend that if a child is an orphan and has lost both parents, whether he is under the care of uncles, aunts, grandparents or social agencies, that child by law of parliament has a right to family allowances. Under this bill, if it is passed, such a child should also have the right to the refund. I think that is a very clear question. It is a moral and a political question. If the minister wants, I can give the answer the minister gave as to why it is not being done.

November 3, 1978


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, the member asks an important and appropriate question as to the situation of orphans regarding access to family allowances and the new child tax credit.
The new child tax credit will be given to individuals who have legal custody of an orphan, in a similar way as that person receives the family allowance right now. So I can assure hon. members that orphans who are in the legal custody of an adult will receive, through that adult, the new child tax credit.
With respect to those orphans under the care of an institution, we intend to send an amount of money equal to the family allowance, before reductions were made. This amount of money will be higher than the $20 that all other children in Canada will receive. The institution will receive, in the name of the child, an amount fully indexed to the cost of living, as would normally be the case in the month of January of each year. Right now they receive $25.68 per child. They will receive the fully indexed amount, which will probably be around $28 as of the month of January. Therefore, we keep the universality of the system.
We could not find any other mechanism by which a tax credit, based on parental income, could be transmitted to institutions. If we consider the institution as a parent, this would create easy tax loopholes. If the institution sent a list of children in their care at a particular date in the year, they would be reimbursed as parents, and then a month later they could discharge these children. There would be no way to control the number and identity of children kept by institutions. We are therefore proposing arrangements by which a fully indexed family allowance, higher than that for other children in Canada, would be paid as of January to all children in institutions, including orphans.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minister for the courtesy and accuracy of her answer, but I would like to make just one point. The regulations have not yet been altered under the Family Allowances Act. They still remain the same. Therefore, as I read the terms of this bill, on page four the proposed section 122.2 provides:
(2) In this section
(a) "eligible child" of an individual for a taxation year means a child who had not attained the age of 18 years before the end of the year and in respect of whom the individual was entitled to receive a family allowance under the Family Allowances Act, 1973-
My question is this. I am referring not to a hypothetical case, but an actual case where two orphans are living with their grandparents. Will they now be able to get the family allowances which they are not presently getting? And, secondly, will they get the refund if their income is under $18,000?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, in the case of any child orphan in Canada today who is in the legal custody of a grandparent, that grandparent does receive the family allowance right now. There is no doubt on that point.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I can assume, therefore, that this report, which is dated for the year ended March 31, 1975, is in error and that the
Family Allowances
changes have come about, and that the provision that the allowance is not paid for the child who has a taxable income is out. Has that regulation been changed?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that if the child has a taxable income, which seems to be the case referred to by the hon. member, the child does not qualify for family allowance. Could I ask if we could have a look at the official documents and clarify the exact point made by the hon. member in a few minutes?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: 
Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped very much to be recognized by the Chair last evening when the debate at that time seemed, unfortunately, to be less even-tempered than it is this afternoon and several ideas were expressed in the speeches which disturbed me considerably. At the same time, I was anxious to accept the invitation of our Minister of National Health and Welfare for mothers to make their voices heard in this debate. As a mother, Mr. Chairman, I am more than willing to take advantage of that invitation and I hope I will do justice to the aspirations of the various mothers and their children who will benefit from this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: I would also hope that by putting forward the point of view of mothers I might assist in getting rid of the empty time-wasting rhethoric which we have heard up to now.
Before we go into the merits of the legislation I think it is important to discuss the philosophy behind the provision of family allowances. To this end I did a little research and found that on July 17, 1944 the philosophy concerning family allowances was expressed by the then finance minister, who said:
In order to ensure a greater measure of well-being to the children of the nation and to help gain for them a closer approach to equality of opportunity-
That, Mr. Chairman, was the philosophy that led to the adoption of the family allowance program in 1944. Compare the philosophy of that time with that enunciated yesterday

November 3, 1978
Family Allowances
evening by our Minister of National Health and Welfare, who said:
The purpose of this bill is to see that the children of the nation are provided for.
Hon. members will see from a comparison of those two statements that there has been no shift in philosophy on the Liberal side of this House. I can also state that this philosophy has been accepted and applauded all these years by the people of Canada and I hope this support will continue.
From there, Mr. Chairman, I move to the first troublesome statement in last night's debate. The member who made the statement is unfortunately not in the House at the moment. I refer to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, who said:
When has it become the government's responsibility to look after children?
I hope the hon. member will read my remarks on his return to the House, because I would like him to hear my answer. I quote Mr. Gordon Graydon, leader of the opposition in 1944 who, if my history is correct, was leader of the Tory party. He said:
The Progressive Conservative party takes a determined and vigorous stand in favour of meeting immediately the health and welfare needs of the people of this country, especially of our mothers and their children. Let that be clearly understood right at the beginning. We take second place to no party in this parliament in the advocacy, promotion and execution of the necessary measures to ensure decent, wholesome lives, social justice and equality of opportunity to all of Canada's citizens.
Those are noble words, Mr. Chairman. I continue the quotation:
That, we contend, calls for governmental programs which will not only make possible equality of opportunity and decent levels of self-support for those capable of providing for themselves and their dependents in a civilized Christian state, but means also a fair and just bearing of the burden of meeting adequately the needs of those who by age, condition or circumstances would otherwise falter and fall in this race of life.
I think there lies the answer to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, who asked when had it become the government's responsibility to look after children. I think he will find that the answer was given in 1944 and, probably, long before that as well. So I say this kind of spurious question has to be abandoned and put out of the way as time wasting and contemptuous.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us what the vote was in 1944.


Ursula Appolloni: I am sorry, I do not have those records at my fingertips.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was a recorded vote and it was unanimous.


An hon. Member:: Were you here then?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of course. Perhaps the hon. member might like to know that there was one Conservative member who was not in favour of the bill, but he was not here for the vote. So it was carried unanimously.


Ursula Appolloni: The hon. member's good heart is exceeded only by his fantastic memory. To continue, the hon. member

for Surrey-White Rock has a command of English which is certainly to be admired-it is a matter of common knowledge in this House that his English is extremely good. As a matter of fact, I think he even taught English at one stage in his career. But "redistribution"? What does redistribution mean? I hesitate to impute motives to the hon. member, but if I am to understand the meaning of his question I suggest that instead of using the word "redistribution" one could more sincerely use the word "sharing". If the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, or any other member of the House, refuses the concept of sharing their wealth with the people of Canada who need it most, then maybe we are not quite so Christian or as civilized as we pretend to be.
Also in the debate yesterday we got into legalities. I do not profess to be a lawyer. As a person who is not a member of the legal profession, I may even admit to my own sense of frustration with the legal profession when they get so hung up on legalities and on so-called rights that in their efforts to discuss these things they totally ignore the passage of time wherein the victims of their procrastinations are left wondering and suffering.
This is what I wish to address myself to at the moment. I am not speaking as a lawyer. I speak as an extremely concerned parent who, incidentally, will by this legislation lose the money we have been getting. I would say God bless us, we are going to lose it, but we are losing it to aid children less fortunate. That is the whole philosophy behind this legislation. I will leave it to the lawyers to dispute whether or not we are infringing on human rights, whether women's rights are going to be subordinate to men's, or something like that. We are talking about sexual rights. I would in all humanity ask these legal brains to consider whose right is being overlooked in this terrible controversy. It is that of the child who needs this money.
If we are to be honest, sincere and responsible in our approach to the question of human rights and freedoms, surely the first thing we should want to do is ensure that the majority does not represent a tyranny which would overlook any hope for the poorest and weakest members of society. That is my concern at the moment. I am very much afraid that in this tangle of bureaucratese or legalese children's rights and needs are being overlooked, and we must avoid that at all costs.
What we are doing at the moment is clouding the issue. I shall refer again to the speech of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. He wonders if the government is not showing arrogance in proposing that the payments be made once a year and therefore telling mothers what to do. Here again I speak as a concerned parent. The government is not showing arrogance. It is displaying sound common sense, and I will explain why. This measure is very basic housekeeping. Some hon. members who have joined in this debate may be very good at debating some issues, but I must tell them that when they are talking about housekeeping and common sense methods, they are out of their trees.
November 3, 1978

The reason I think this proposal of a once-a-year lump sum, at least for a beginning, is based on sound common sense and good housekeeping practices is that that sum of money is going to arrive in the spring.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just before the election.


Ursula Appolloni: Unfortunately, children do not have the vote.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Theirs mothers do.


Ursula Appolloni: If children did have the vote, I would be a shoo-in. As I was saying, this lump sum will come in the spring, election or not. Hopefully we will not have an election every year. Hopefully spring will come once a year. Spring is the time of the year to do the best shopping. It is that simple. People who have young children take advantage of spring sales to refurbish children's wardrobes for the following winter. People buy one or two sizes larger than what is required. That is common sense. It is not poetic; it is somewhat mundane, but we talking about things which are more mundane: the safety, health and improvement of conditions for children in this country. On that ground alone the government has acted not out of arrogance but with common sense.
If at a later stage some mothers decide that they would like to have their benefits prorated, that is fine. The government is not saying that cannot be done. The minister has said there will be flexibility, as there should be. 1 mention this just to point out that we are in grave danger of losing sight of the real issue behind this legislation. For the first time in many years we are offering to the poor of this country a beacon of hope which is really needed. Let us not blacken out that beacon with spurious charges of misuse of words and with legalities. Let us not charge that women will be offended because they will have to ask for their husband's signatures on a form.
We have been talking about the family unit. Marvellous words have been used to describe the family unit and its importance to Canadian society. As a member of a family unit, I must point out-and I think 1 speak for every mother in this country-that when it comes to necessities for my children and when it comes to benefits for them, I am not ashamed to ask for my husband's signature, and I do not think he thinks less of me if I do.
Some feminists are up in arms. They went to the commissioner of human rights. They stormed to his door asking what we are doing to the women of this country. I wonder who those women are.
The hon. member for Kingston and The Islands is very incensed by this measure. If she is so incensed, why does she not call a convention in Ottawa for all mothers in this country who object to this measure? I suggest that that convention would not cost her a red penny because it could be held in any telephone booth in this city.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Family Allowances


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions to ask of the minister. I do not intend to comment on the remarks made by the member who just preceded me. In reply to the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands the minister indicated that she had been in contact with a number of women's group and that they endorse the legislation in the form it is now before us. As recorded at page 758 of Hansard for yesterday, the minister said in reply to the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands, and I quote:
There are just a few more points in order to clarify this matter. The federal Advisory Council on the Status of Women approved wholeheartedly of this reform, and made that approval known by a resolution of the complete council, as well as through numerous speeches and meetings. I have met with many women's groups all of which approve of this reform. Some of them regretted, as I do and as I have said often, the reduction in universal family allowances.
I wonder if the minister can tell us whether there was also correspondence from these groups endorsing this measure. The minister said that there was support from these groups. Was there any correspondence, and would the minister be willing to table it?
I wonder if the minister or the parliamentary secretary can indicate the amount of time which must elapse before a person can get a social insurance number; that is, the time lapse between the point at which a valid application is received and the point at which a social insurance number is received. This legislation will require persons to apply for social insurance numbers. A number of mothers will not have filed income tax returns before, and in order to file income tax returns they will need social insurance numbers. In her presentation the minister repeatedly said that there is no great difficulty in getting social insurance numbers. We have discussed this question for some time in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. There is a long time lapse between the time a person applies and the time a person gets a social insurance number. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has often repeated that one reason for that is that there is now closer scrutiny of applications.
I want to debate that with the Minister of Employment and Immigration at some other time in order to follow that argument to its logical conclusion, but for now I will ask the parliamentary secretary how much time elapses before a person can get a social insurance number. Because it is my understanding that this takes a considerable amount of time. I think that should be clarified.
Yesterday in reply to a question the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that the lump sum payment of $200 maximum per child per year would be non-taxable. I believe I understood her correctly. I do not think that is the case, however, I would like to have clarification as to whether that lump sum payment is taxable, for example, if a mother who has a taxable income is filing an income tax return.
For example, if, for argument's sake, a mother is getting $5,000 and the total family income is below $18,000, and therefore she gets $200 per child, does the mother pay tax on
798

November 3, 1978
Family Allowances
the $200 per child, being in a taxable bracket although she is a low income earner?
The other question I would like to ask has to do with consultation with the provinces. The minister has indicated that there has been consultation with the provinces, and yet at the conference in September in Antigonish, where the various provincial welfare ministers met, a communique was issued complaining that they had not been sufficiently consulted on changes in family allowances. Not only did they mention family allowances but they also mentioned unemployment insurance. However, we will take that up when we have Bill C-14 before us. They requested at the time that the Minister of National Health and Welfare meet with them at the earliest possible opportunity. I should like to ask her if she has done so and, very specifically, whether she has consulted Alberta, Newfoundland and Ontario in view of the fact that all three ministers from these provinces have indicated clearly that there was no prior consultation.
I should also like to ask the minister whether she has had any clear indication from the provinces whether provincial welfare will be reduced owing to the fact that there will be additional income coming to families benefiting from provincial social assistance. I do not want a general response to that question. I want a specific response as to what the various provinces have indicated. Also, perhaps I could prevail on the minister to tell us whether she has correspondence or memoranda in that regard indicating a firm agreement or understanding between the provinces and her department. It would be beneficial to the House if we could have that information.
Ancillary to that question is the question of day care fees and whether there will be adjustments made to day care fees in view of the increased income which will be coming from this measure.
I have some other questions, Mr. Chairman, but in view of the advancing time I should like to give the minister some time to respond to my questions.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer the three questions put to me, but before doing so I should like to assure the hon. member for York South that I listened to her remarks very carefully. I also want to say to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock who spoke with some indignation last night of the intervention of the government in the sanctity of the family unit, as he put it, that my answer to him is that that sanctity was surely lost the day public schools were created in our country. That should clarify that particular point once and for all.
The hon. member for Provencher asked several questions regarding consultation with women's groups or advisory councils. I suggest he could write to the president of the federal Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Mrs. Yvette Rousseau, to ask her for the three resolutions passed by the council with regard to this reform. 1 do not know whether or not I have received letters on this subject. The work I did was not for the royal commission of inquiry. I spoke and met with mothers and with women's groups because it is women's

groups that have defended the interests of women in their role as mothers. I intend to continue these discussions, even if it is not within the scope of my portfolio, each time I attend public meetings in this country on the subject of this reform. My next meeting with women is to take place next week in Quebec city where several women's groups will gather to discuss this bill with me. Let me reiterate that all the women's groups I have met have backed the reform. Some have indicated disagreement-which I understand very well, of course-with the reduction in universal family allowances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You agreed with them on that.


Monique Bégin: I myself regret very much the fact that, due to the economic situation of the country, these reductions in family allowances have had to be made.
With regard to consultation with the provinces, I have never said that there have been consultations with the provinces on the reform before it had been announced officially in August. However, when a guaranteed annual income as an objective of the Canadian government's social policies was rejected in June of 1976, the provinces instructed my predecessor to explore all possible tax related programs and mechanisms to ensure on a selective basis that whatever social programs are necessary are put into effect.
I have often publicly questioned tax exemptions and explained the advantages of tax credits, but obviously the official opposition is not aware of my public statements on the subject in the last six months. I have also identified the three most vulnerable groups in Canada, of which families with children are one.
There was no formal consultation in August but the general avenues we were exploring were well known. I have kept my provincial colleagues informed and I wrote to them formally in August-I do not know the exact date right now-asking them to pass on the full and complete benefits for children through every one of their assistance programs. As I said more than once yesterday, I have not yet received one formal commitment. I have met some of my provincial colleagues informally whenever circumstances allowed me to do so. They understand my viewpoint very well and I am confident that they will pass it on. I am meeting all my provincial colleagues later this month, I believe on November 20 and 21.


Alan Gray Martin: things work well, he estimates that a period of two to three weeks should cover it adequately.
Let me answer briefly the other point raised by the hon. member for Provencher as to whether the $200 will be taxable. I say no, it will not. In fact, it is a tax credit, and if the individual is not otherwise subject to income tax-as is the case of many others who receive these credits-that person will receive a cheque in the amount of the credit and it will not be taxable. In the case of those who are taxed, the amount will be deducted from their income tax which would otherwise be payable.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I spoke to the parliamentary secretary about having a more detailed breakdown of certain of the savings and expenditures initially referred to by the Minister of Finance under this bill, and I thought it would be helpful if that schedule could be appended to today's Hansard.
Secondly, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could indicate whether the Minister of Finance will be with us when we resume on Monday.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could go over this table between now and Monday, and if it is in order, consider tabling it at that time?
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 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, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Notice of motion No. 1, in the name of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion stands at the request of the government.
Motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion stands at the request of the government.
Office of Education EDUCATION


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF EDUCATION
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing an office of education, to conduct research in the provinces with the co-operation of the provincial governments and also in other countries, to consider the provisions of federal financial assistance for second language training in elementary and high schools and to disseminate information with a view to improving the education of Canadian youth.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is about the time of the year that this motion comes up for debate. It has been debated in the House before. It was debated in October, 1977. It is just as well to use up some time going over the arguments which were presented for and against the motion at that time. In order to put things in perspective, perhaps I should quote from some of my remarks last year:
-such an office would be responsible for the collection, organization and dissemination of information on a Canada-wide basis, as well as for the promotion and support of an adequate program of research in education ... Regional disparities in educational opportunity are a severe and persistent problem-
Federal-provincial fiscal arrangements have a decisive influence on the ability of the provinces to meet the cost of maintaining and improving the services provided by schools in their jurisdictions .. . The essence of learning is access to information. Agencies of the federal government have the capacity for the provision of information relevant to educational planning ... The federal government has s specific financial obligation to education, and to establish a system of equalization grants which will enable each province to provide an adequate and comparable standard of education for every child in this country.
-the minister of education of the province of Ontario... was in general agreement with the need for national action.
It is interesting to note at the present time that the federal government is very involved in the field of education. One argument against the motion last year was that we were proposing action in a provincial area of responsibility.
I should like to make two comments on that. On Monday of this week at the first ministers' conference, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) corrected one of the provincial premiers who referred to education as being an exclusive provincial responsibility. He said that it was not so, that the federal government also had responsibilities in the field of education. That statement of the Prime Minister was not rebutted by any of the provincial premiers.
If the motion is read carefully, one will see, even in the narrow confines of what is generally accepted as a provincial area of responsibility, that there is no intention to intervene. Basically the motion calls for an office where information would be collated, not just right across the country in all provinces and the territories, but also from foreign countries. At the present time the federal government certainly is very much involved. A year ago I referred to the various departments which are involved: the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of External Affairs, the Department of National Defence, and the Department of National Health and Welfare.
80065-sm

November 3, 1978
Office of Education
Depending upon how one compiles the figures, at the present time between $2 billion and $3 billion goes out of the federal treasury into the field of education.
I should like to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) last year. A couple of his points are well worth repeating. Ele said:
-100 years ago we did not have to worry too much about the mobility of Canadians. At that time, if you grew up in one province, by and large you spent the rest of your life in that province.
-in 1977, with a very mobile population ... Canadians are hampered severely because of the disparity of education standards in this country.
It is worth underlining that point. If we want to keep this country together, we should start to recognize some of the problems created by the present system. He went on to say the following:
We need a national perspective on education-
There is no national education policy which can direct the energies and aspirations of Canadians... Education systems should still be run by the provincial governments, but the federal government could establish broad national policies-
I am not suggesting that we intervene to establish any policy. I am suggesting that the federal government should set up an office which would be an office of information. It would put together information which is sometimes not even available within the provinces at the present time. For example, on the island of Montreal it is quite difficult to put together the two approaches to education provided by the two school systems, the Catholic and Protestant ones. This difficulty is compounded in that area by the fact that the sytems are also divided on the basis of language. Nevertheless, there is a recurring difficulty, aside from the restriction presently imposed by the provincial government, to easily transfer between the systems because of their different approaches to education. This is not necessarily intentional, but there is certainly a lack of information transmitted between those bodies. An independent office in the Montreal area would be an excellent idea.
We can consider a federal office as being independent. It could look at the different standards which exist across the country, and possibly the systems in other countries. The office could collate that wealth of information for the benefit of everyone in each province.
Certainly in the maritime provinces there has been a move toward the establishment of a maritime union study to bring together the maritime provinces so as to provide a higher and improved level of education there.
The subject of jurisdictional responsibility, which was raised last year, I find somewhat amusing. First of all, as I have tried to explain today, there is no intention in this motion to intervene in what was generally accepted as a provincial responsibility. Whether it is or is not is not the point. What I found difficult to understand was this attitude on the part of the hon. member of the official opposition who spoke last year that the motion I was proposing was in fact intervening. I found it the more amusing because the week before last I came
(Mr. Herbert.]
up with a rather simplistic motion for eliminating the huge deficit, and that was to stop all our transfer payments to the provinces-transfer payments in the order of about $12 billion at the present time, approximately the amount of our deficit. No one disputes that these transfer payments are made in areas that are exclusively areas of provincial responsibility.
I was quite pleased, having made that motion, to read in a newspaper account, which I have not heard denied so assume to be correct, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) during the course of a federal-provincial meeting of finance ministers announced yesterday that the federal government will not be proceeding with an expensive program for the block financing of community social services run by the provinces.
The reason I was pleased was not because I do not like to see federal moneys going to the provinces, but because I feel that any time federal moneys are being spent in an area which is generally acknowledged to be within provincial responsibility it should be for good reason. If we are maintaining minimum standards, if we are trying to ensure that the population can be mobile for such things as hospital and health care, then there is good reason why the federal government should use its fiscal powers to ensure either minimum standards or equality of treatment. But in the case of social services, the provinces have insisted that there be no strings. Furthermore, we were not even using this block funding for social services as a form of equalization payment.
Once again there is good reason for federal intervention in provincial fields through equalization payments to help provinces which are not as wealthy as some of our rich provinces. Under those circumstances we are making, or we were proposing to make, a per capita grant from coast to coast. I cannot see any point to providing funds for provincial governments, many of which are proportionately better off financially than the federal government. In principle, the persons who spend the money should have to raise the money.
What I found somewhat strange was that, having proposed the motion to discontinue transfer payments, by a simplistic motion, but one making a point, the following day the spokesman for Her Majesty's official opposition rose in anger proposing her own motion under Standing Order 43, suggesting that the very act of transferring moneys from the federal treasury to provincial treasuries was the linch-pin of confederation. The lady then went on to defend strongly the practice presently followed of transferring moneys from Ottawa to the provincial governments. On the same day the subject was raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), who also was apparently shocked. I will accept their point of view that we should continue these transfer payments. As I said earlier, I am not opposed to transfer payments as such; I am only suggesting that transfer payments should be for good reason.
In the case of an office to collect information on education, I am not suggesting any direct intervention in the provincial field, but I am suggesting it is an area where the federal government could have an impact on education in this country, if only to point out the differing standards, and if only to point out that because some provinces can spend two or three times
November 3, 1978

as much per capita-per child-there is not equal opportunity in the educational field. Possibly this is one area, if the information was properly put together, where the provinces might agree that the federal government could intervene to ensure equal opportunity. The first thing to do is put the information together.
I hope with these few remarks I have pointed out why, in my opinion, the motion as such is certainly not intended to be an intervention in the provincial area of authority, and why at relatively small expense the approval of this motion could result in the dissemination of a lot of valuable information and ultimately mean better education for many children in those provinces where the educational system is below the average for Canada as a whole.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, 1 congratulate the hon. member who has presented this motion. He is known in this chamber for his independence of thought and for always being ready to introduce ideas that are new or that go against the stream of things as it has been in this country.
It is not my purpose this afternoon in rising to speak on the motion to oppose it in the normal sense of opposition, nor to enter very greatly into the jurisdictional question. I know that the virginity of the provinces in respect of controlling education was long ago seduced by offers of money in various fields, be they second language training or the development of facilities for education in areas like auto mechanics. That was one of the moves made some 20 or so years ago with a fair provision of federal funding. While all of these interventions, and there are others, are extra jurisdictional, they are so welcome that one finds increasingly almost every offer of money being accepted. Whether the money actually gets used for the purpose for which it is offered is one of the problems.
I realize too that the hon. member was not really speaking of large sums of money to be disseminated. That is not the role of the office, I gather, as he presents it. Whether the federal office of education could function today in Canada's somewhat shattered system of education, I do not know. At one time in British Columbia we had a system of education which was unique in that it was the most secular of all educational systems in the country. This was due to the fact that the people setting up the original system of education in the united colony decided prior to British Columbia's entry into confederation that they would establish a secular system of education.
Because that system was in place when British Columbia joined confederation and in the British North America Act, it had to remain, and remain it did until very recently. I suppose it still remains that way, although the provincial government is prepared to recognize independent schools and to provide public funding to them, I gather, in the next three years or so, under certain circumstances. So even in British Columbia there will be a breaching of the system and the setting up of additional systems, because I notice in the province a rush to establish independent schools. I am sure that some of these
Office of Education
schools are being established, even though it is expensive to establish a school today, in the hope of assistance through public funds in the future. Of course, the hon. member was correct when he said there will be systems within systems.
The other thing which makes it increasingly difficult for the federal office to function is that even within the public system there are great differences. The "in" thing in education in the last years has been to individualize the instruction student by student, to introduce novel courses school by school and to have the school responsible for its curriculum in a way is not really the equivalent of the system in the United Kingdom, because we do not have anything comparable to Her Majesty's inspectors. In fact, that might be something to consider, that the federal office have a corps of educational inspectors to fan out across the country and to report, with no jurisdictional powers at all but armed simply with powers of persuasion and example.
1 am a little concerned about the motion's emphasis on second language training because that is one of the areas where a good deal of money has been spent and, where even the Auditor General has expressed concern at the inability to obtain any clear indication whether that money was spent for its intended purpose. In realizing the problems that have arisen through the whole bilingual and bicultural program in this country and the way it has been administered, one would hardly recommend additional spending unless there was at the same time some great rethinking as to what have been the results of that effort and money.
I am sorry that the member for York South (Mrs. Appol-loni) has left, because after listening to her emotional and interesting speech a half hour ago and her defence of the lump sum payment of family allowances, one can foresee in the future where the result of a national education office would quite likely be payment of lump sums to every student of voting age quite close to the election date. One grows cynical at the way federal interventions are used and the way changes are brought about, apparently for the highest of motives. For we who are in the profession of politics, it is difficult not to grow a little cynical and impossible for us to totally disregard the timing of some of these federal initiatives.
A federal office of education will not improve the situation across the country. I agree with the hon. member's comment that there are great discrepancies in the quality of education. But I would argue that these have virtually nothing to do with money being available to the provinces, but have everything to do with the loss of nerve in the teaching profession. There has also been a loss of nerve by parents who have entrusted their children to the school system, and a willingness on their part to put up enormous sums of money for what are not necessarily the most beneficial aspects of an educational system.
It is a truth of modern education that every advance in the last 50 years has placed something between the teacher and the student, be it film strips, movies, television, overhead projectors, a semester system or a mini-course system. They are all devised to shorten the time that the teacher must spend with his or her students, in spite of the fact they have been

November 3, 1978
Office of Education
hailed as enormous advantages. 1 can remember the day when it was forecast that television would remove the teacher from the classroom and would take over the entire educational system, save for the few people necessary to make the films. It has not worked out that way.
The people who have suffered most educationally in this country are those whose education was entrusted to the television box flickering away in the darkened classroom. I taught in such a school for a while, a new experience for me. I can remember that shortly after I began my teaching there, one of the great federal-provincial conferences started and was televised, just as this recent one was.
At the time I was teaching Canadian history in a school which was set up with devices to aid the presentation of televised material. All I had to do was call the co-ordinator, tell him what I needed and when I needed it, and everything would be set up for me. We darkened the room and the prime minister of the day and the provincial premiers began to move across the screen. I looked around the classroom and noticed a strange thing: student after student was folding his or her arms, placing them on the desk and putting his or her head forward. 1 realized that this had become a pattern in the school and that the darkening of the windows meant an hour of sleep until the lights came on again. Just because this marvel in modern technology came into the classroom did not mean that the next 60 minutes were going to be particularly educational, except in the role of restoration through sleep that had been lost the previous evening watching the late, late show. There was a double irony in the educational advance there.
I wandered up and down the aisles tapping people on the shoulder, pointing to the screen and saying, "Look, I brought this in for you to watch". There were expressions of surprise mingled with indignation that I should be so rude as to interrupt the rest period which they had already taken for granted. The students took the signal of the television starting as a time to drop off. It is the loss of nerve which is so terribly important, and it will take more than an office of federal information to restore that. What is required is the expertise to enable teachers to approach the classroom and the students with something to offer and with confidence in their role.
1 believe the only successful educational process these days is the infectious one where the student captures interest and zest from another person, usually a teacher of ability with knowledge and scholarship. Those are some of the factors that have been missing from our classrooms.
I am sure anyone who has taught school in recent years has had the experience of sitting in a staff room when another teacher rushes in and asks if anyone has a film. One then knows that that teacher cannot face the class at that moment and wants any film to fill in. If someone in the staff room has a film on splitting the molecule, on ancient Greece or modern art, it is grabbed and immediately placed between the teacher and the student.
Some years ago in the school where I was teaching I argued against the semester system, saying it was based on the philosophy of things that could not be borne. Certainly it saves money for the schoolboards. One of the purposes in reducing the school year from ten months to four and a half months was that the teacher only had to bear the class for four and half months and the class only had to bear the teacher for four and half months. It was assumed they could stand each other for that long but that ten months was too much. There has been an improvement with the introduction of the mini-course; the period that has to be borne has been reduced to about six weeks!
Therein lie some of the problems of education in today's world, Mr. Speaker, and money will not solve them. If the purpose of education is that it be a clearing house for information, more power to it.
Just the other day I was delighted to have a visit from a young lady from the Unity campaign. She brought along a kit containing beautiful material on Canada, presented in small doses, and told me that it would be available for schools-a hundred years too late.
I should like this office of education to be given the power-which 1 know it will never get-to demand that no student in the country be granted a secondary school leaving certificate of any kind unless he or she is able to answer two questions. First, he or she should be asked to give a simple explanation of the federal system. One of the greatest faults of our system is that people increasingly believe we live in a congressional system. They will argue that we should have elections every four years because the United States has elections every four years. They do not know that the United States have elections every two years because we do not see the mid-term elections here in Canada, only the four-year one.
1 did not realize the profound confusion that exists about the federal system in the country until I campaigned in 1974. I knocked on doors and told people I was the Progressive Conservative candidate for the riding in the coming election. Many of them replied, "Good, we have to get those people out of Victoria." Of course, they did not use the word "people". That was in 1974. There was a time when I would have stood on the step and explained the difference between a federal and a provincial election. By 1974, however, I just said "Yes, I am just the fellow to do it," and went on to the next door.
The other question that should be put to students, and none should receive a secondary school certificate until they can answer it, is: What is meant in Canada by responsible government? I realize there are some dangers in that question because we have not had responsible government in this country since 1968. We lost it in that dark week when the government was defeated twice on the floor of the House and did not resign. We may have regained it in 1974 so perhaps one should say it was lost for those six years and restored in the defeat of the government in 1974, and the subsequent election. Perhaps if we could once more teach responsible government and what it means in this country, it would do wonders for unifying the country again.

November 3, 1978

One of the sad things about education in western Canada is the loss of appreciation of great names in Canadian history such as Champlain, Maisonneuve, Jacques Cartier, even La Verendrye who broke through to the west-


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


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the motion moved by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that the government should consider the advisability of establishing an office of education. I believe at this time when we are all concerned about fostering national unity that such a move would probably be regarded with deep distrust as an intrusion by the Government of Canada into an area of provincial responsibility. It could only serve to widen the gulf between the different levels of government rather than pulling us closer together, as seems to be necessary today.
I realize, as the hon. member for Vaudreuil said in his careful and balanced address, that if his motion is read carefully it does not really impinge upon provincial rights in the field of education, and that it is not his intention to do so. I am afraid the symbolism is against him, however. The creation of such an office would symbolize a federal intention to intrude in this provincial area of jurisdiction. That is my concern and that is why I cannot go along with the motion.
Historically, at the time of confederation the Government of Canada played no role in education in Canadian society and the British North America Act placed the responsibility for education with provincial governments. The Government of Canada has been and is directly responsible for education in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, in the armed forces, in the penitentiary service, and for the education of Canada's native peoples.
Throughout our nation's history there have been many occasions on which the Government of Canada has been called upon to play an active role in educational developments. For example, the Government of Canada became involved in education in response to the educational demands of industrialization in the early 1900s, to the demands of veterans returning from two world wars, and to the enormous expansion of post-secondary enrolments in the 1960s. In each case, participation by the Government of Canada was effected without usurping the authority of provincial governments and for the benefit of the country as a whole.
In 1966, Prime Minister Pearson clearly stated the position of the Government of Canada with respect to education. He said:
Education is, under our constitution, a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The federal government does not dispute this or wish in any way to do so. At the same time, education is obviously a matter of profound importance to the economic and social growth of the country as a whole ... the federal government accepts primary responsibility for employment and economic activity generally in the country. We recognize that provincial governments share our concern in these matters and pursue these common aims in the conduct of their own affairs.
Office of Education
That is the end of the quotation from Prime Minister Pearson. I believe that the federal government's objectives have not changed since that time. I believe that a review of the history of the involvement of the Government of Canada in education will demonstrate clearly that this involvement has occurred without usurping the constitutional rights of the provincial authorities.
Participation by the Government of Canada in education dates back at least to 1876 when, in an effort to train more Canadians to serve as army officers, the Royal Military College was established at Kingston. Another early step was a 150,000 acre land endowment to the University of Manitoba in 1885, as provision for capital expenditures and establishment of a permanent source of revenue for the university. Although these early steps were of considerable significance, federal involvement was still quite limited in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Indeed, at that time education was considered to be a family responsibility and participation was largely determined by social status and religious belief. Public responsibility extended only to elementary schooling, and secondary schools, which were usually supported by religious organizations, were reserved to train future elites.
There was additional pressure on the Government of Canada in the early 1900s. This was linked specifically to the flow of young people from farms to cities, which began to jeopardize agricultural production, and to the shortage of skilled manpower in manufacturing industries. Following requests for action from business and labour, the Government of Canada appointed the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Vocational Education in 1910.
The work of the commission resulted in important legislation: the Agricultural Aid Act of 1912 and the Agricultural Instruction Act of 1913. The former supplied grants to provinces to develop agricultural education and techniques; the latter specifically gave assistance for training directly to the three existing veterinary colleges and indirectly, by channelling funds through the provinces, to agricultural colleges. This was the genesis of channelling federal aid for education through provincial governments.
In 1916, as a result of Canada's war involvement and a desire to improve research and development, the federal government formed the National Research Council. Initially, this was an effort to co-ordinate government research programs. During World War II, the National Research Council played a vital role in co-ordinating and conducting scientific research. The council now has an extensive program of grants and fellowships.
When the federal government established the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in 1918, provision was made for a division to be concerned with education statistics. The education division published its first statistical report in 1921, and it has expanded its services and publications considerably since then.
The economic depression of the 1930s served to identify a major problem within the secondary school system. On leaving

November 3, 1978
Office of Education
school many students found that they had few occupational skills with which to enter the labour market. In an attempt to alleviate this problem, the federal government introduced a new program for technical education in 1937 with the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act. This act, directed towards maintaining the morale and increasing the employability of young people, was negotiated in agreement with the provinces, on a cost-sharing basis, through the establishment of various occupational training projects. Eligibility was limited to those between the ages of 18 and 30. Emphasizing vocational and technical skills, this act initially provided funds of about $2.5 million during its two years, but corrected only to a limited degree the inadequacies of technical and vocational education.
The Rowell-Sirois commission was appointed in 1937 to make an assessment of the economic and financial basis of confederation; the distribution of federal and provincial powers; and federal-provincial financial relations. While its mandate did not extend to education, the commission felt that equality of educational opportunity did come within its domain. According to the commission, the concept of "education" had changed and expanded to include new dimensions since the time of the British North America Act. In view of this, the commission recommended that "the federal government should have full power to provide employment aid for those recognized as employable . . . (which would) make the training of unemployed youth a matter of even greater federal concern than at present." The commission assumed that the provinces would provide a system of courses to those Canadians requiring further training.
While the commission stated that a free hand in education was vital to provincial autonomy, it identified certain problems arising in this context. Representations were made to the commission concerning "the existence in several provinces of a sense of grievance which may well contribute to national disunity as well as to lack of harmony within the province concerned." Although the commission lamented the disparity in educational opportunity throughout the country, it made no relevant recommendations. Solutions rested on financial proposals which would place the provinces in a position to meet their responsibilities for education, if they chose to do so.
The commission also suggested that a council, analogous to the National Research Council, could be established to support research work in the social sciences in Canadian universities and elsewhere. The commission suggested, furthermore, that it might be appropriate for the federal government to establish a national library.
Growing Canadian cultural awareness and concern for a Canadian identity prompted the federal government in 1949 to appoint the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences. This commission, generally known as the Massey commission, after its chairman, released its report in June 1951. In the field of higher learning, the commission saw three major problems: scarcity of financial aid to the arts and humanities; the financial condition of universities; and orientation toward a small educated elite. As the

commission noted, the number of veterans enrolling as students was quickly diminishing and, as a result, the federal aid that came with them was eroding. The commission believed that action was urgently required in this sector and that it was the duty of the federal government to assist in some way.
In view of the fact that the Canadian constitution did not forbid financial assistance to a citizen in order to help him to carry on studies in his chosen field, the commission did not feel that it would be improper to recommend federal aid in the form of contributions to individuals. A further recommendation was the continuation of federal support for the program of the National Research Council. As for disciplines outside of the boundaries of natural science, the commission recommended the establishment of what is today the Canada Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, with the stipulation that such councils receive an annual grant from the Government of Canada for the establishment and maintenance of an adequate number of scholarships, studentships and bursaries for post-graduate students of Canadian universities in the humanities, the social sciences and law. Further recommendations included a broadened and improved system of aid to undergraduates, and funds for exchange scholarships.
In 1963, in response to the increasing articulation of Canadian language and cultural problems, the Government of Canada appointed the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The commission, also known as the Lauren-deau-Dunton commission, received a broad mandate to inquire into and report upon the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada and to recommend what steps should be taken to develop the Canadian confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races. The commission was also to consider the contribution of other ethnic groups to Canadian society.
As a result of this mandate, the commission devoted much of its time to an investigation of the field of education, which is closely linked with language and culture. The commission examined the education of the official language minorities in each province, the teaching of French and English as second languages, and the image of the other cultural group which students may derive from their studies.
The commission affirmed that while education was a provincial responsibility, it was reasonable to expect that the federal government should reimburse the provinces for the extra costs involved in providing facilities for students from both language groups. In view of this, it recommended that the federal government accept in principle the responsibility for the additional costs involved in providing education in the official minority language.
The historical developments I have described illustrate clearly the philosophy of federal financial involvement in education. The Government of Canada has responded to changing educational demands which relate to federal responsibilities, and it has become actively involved in financial support to education while completely respecting provincial
November 3, 1978

jurisdiction in this area. The Government of Canada has a responsibility for employment and social and economic development. Research has an important impact on productivity and growth, and the Government of Canada has recognized this through the creation of the various granting councils. A good central information system is critical for proper planning and policy, and the education division in Statistics Canada has responded well to the need for information.
In moving the motion, the hon. member for Vaudreuil noted that there are still inequalities in educational opportunity in Canada today. I can assure the hon. member that the Government of Canada shares his concerns. The Government of Canada as well as the ten provincial governments have repeatedly affirmed their commitment to the principle of equality of educational opportunity, and to ensuring that every individual has equal access to the public education system. The creation of an office of education as proposed by the hon. member for Vaudreuil would, at this time, Mr. Speaker, not necessarily improve the result and could adversely affect the spirit of co-operation that now exists in this area between the Government of Canada and the provinces.
I have spent a rather long time in describing some of the events which led to federal participation in education. There are many other developments that I would have liked to talk about-in particular the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada student loans programs, but I should leave consideration of these matters to other members.
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary
of State): Mr. Speaker, there is very little time left. There are a number of things 1 would have liked to say, particularly following the speaker who has just preceded me, in order to carry on, perhaps, with the kind of historical analysis he put forward. But perhaps the time has come, notwithstanding the critical time in terms of unity, the critical time in terms of seeking understanding and co-operation between provinces, for members of this House, if nothing else, to ask other some questions.
Surely, all of us as members of this House, independent members, members of parties, are aware that the school trustees across Canada have said there is a need for a larger, overseeing body in education to look after the concerns of individuals who are travelling extensively across Canada, and promote, for example, interest in Canadian studies, if one could presume to create an orbit or sphere within which an organization such as the one contemplated by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) would be able to operate. It seems it would not be unreasonable to hope there might be forthcoming from some body, be it the council of provincial ministers or a body created under the auspices of the federal
Office of Education
government, the desire to create something called Canadian studies which would in effect be universal to all Canadians.
The difficulty we seem to face right now is that, if one goes from Newfoundland to British Columbia, frequently even the texts of the histories that are taught do not seem to relate to Canada. It may be that the reason is the absence of an all-encompassing, overseeing body that would be able to judge that there is a Canadian history, that there are Canadian studies that should be taught to students across Canada.
It is true that the federal government now spends in excess of $3 billion a year on education which is recognized by the federal government to be exclusively within the purview of the provinces. It is also true that the Auditor General has suggested that the accountability of those transfer payments leaves something to be desired. I am sure it is not fiscal accountability he is concerned about-certainly it is not fiscal responsibility which concerns me-but rather accountability in terms of whether or not the moneys being spent in the second language education programs are actually accomplishing their purpose. Are they actually accomplishing the objectives for which we, for all the right reasons, voted them to the provinces? I wonder whether the time has not come, notwithstanding the symbolism that might exist, notwithstanding the concern that might exist in the various provincial spheres with regard to an encroachment, real or anticipated, for hon. members to say there should be some type of universal scale, some method whereby we could ascertain at the federal level that the moneys we are transferring under the various programs are, in fact, accomplishing those ends which we all agree are necessary and correct.
Given the times we are experiencing right now, given the fact that we are holding constitutional conferences, the likes of which just closed this week, would it be inopportune for members in this House to suggest to the government of the day that perhaps this is something we should be asking to be placed on the federal short list, if you will, in terms of negotiating for increased federal powers? Would it be so wrong to suggest, not that the entirety of education be put into the federal sphere, but that if we are going to be asked to transfer funds, if we are going to be asked to participate in a financial way, we should be given the opportunity at the very least to set up a scale of accountability? Would that be unreasonable in terms of a question which members at the very least should be considering? This may be beyond the organization contemplated by the hon. member for Vaudreuil.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
It being five o'clock p.m. the 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, November 6, 1978