1978-12-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and in circumstances of urgent and pressing necessity, 1 would move, if permission is granted, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
Given the estimate that excessive regulation in the United States will probably cost that country $100 billion next year, that the Canadian equivalent, on a comparable basis, will be even higher, and that the efforts by the Ottawa federal government in response to agreement reached by the first ministers' conference in February, 1978, do not begin to cope with this serious problem which is adding to inflation and strangling small business, this House urges the Prime Minister to assign special responsibility to a cabinet minister to deal with the issue immediately at the government level and proposes that the joint parliamentary committee on regulations and other statutory instruments be requested to examine and report the extent to which there is unnecessary regulation and its effect on the national economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: 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 as of September this year there were 826 AHOP defaults-53 per cent of all mortgage defaults- and in light of the fact that almost 10 per cent of all AHOP mortgages are in a default position, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That the minister of urban affairs make a full statement on motions today outlining the appropriate policies in an attempt to avert this disaster.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs be requested to make to the House, upon his return here, a statement on motions with regard to the situation in Namibia, dealing with allegations that the present vote in that country has been accompanied by fraud and intimidation, as to Canada's possible participation in a peacekeeping force and, generally, as to the whole situation, background and prospects in that country of securing a peaceful transition to full independence.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for discussion at this time only with the unanimous agreement of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
In view of the agreement which was signed in 1975-76 by industrial milk producers and the government through its Canadian Dairy Commission to cover the future costs of producing industrial milk, and in view of the fact that these costs have increased in 1978 by 52 cents a hundredweight, I

December 6, 1978
move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House consider this problem so that the Minister of Agriculture may agree to this increase of 52 cents a hundredweight and its becoming effective as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of this motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of pressing necessity, the urgency of which has been prompted by the imminent departure of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for the United Kingdom.
Because of the number of elderly, retired immigrants from the United Kingdom living in Canada without the benefit of indexed pensions as accorded to those who remained in the United Kingdom, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That this House charge the Prime Minister to place on his agenda for discussion with the United Kingdom Prime Minister the matter of a Canada-United Kingdom reciprocal pensions agreement and to report to this House upon his return the results of those discussions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the deplorable fact that the Ministry of the Environment, in the year 1978, moved into a building in the new complex in Hull while admitting it is dumping raw sewage into the Ottawa River-though they are responsible for the wellbeing of the environment-and that contracts have not been awarded for a reported $120 million sewage plant of which the National Capital Commission is supposed to fund $40 million,

whilst there are many vacant offices in Ottawa, I move, seconded by the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this government requests the Department of the Environment to immediately move out of this building in protest of this deplorable situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an urgent and important matter.
In view of speculations regarding the contents of the report of the task force on Canadian unity which suggest that the federal government should abandon its efforts to implement its language policies in the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That the House reaffirm its support of the Official Languages Act and call upon the Prime Minister to ask the co-chairmen of this task force to put an end to these speculations, which are both dangerous and detrimental to their work, by publishing the report forthwith.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my motion expresses a hope which I believe is shared by every member of the House. I trust, therefore, that it will be accepted.
December 6, 1978

1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr, Peters):
That this House express the hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs will soon be in a position to announce that war veterans allowance recipients will not lose any portion of their allowance because of increases they receive in the guaranteed income supplement or in family allowance payments arising out of Bill C-5 or Bill C-10, but that such veterans will receive the full benefit provided by parliament in Bill C-5 and Bill C-10, and that this assurance will be given as soon as possible, certainly before Christmas.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Introduction of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. My motion concerns the failure of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to meet and deal satisfactorily with the problems before it, one of which is the status of starred questions. This matter was drawn to the attention of the committee both by Your Honour and by myself.
The starred question procedure was first used under the government of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must ask the hon. member to put his motion.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The motion is that at the present time starred questions are not answered the next day, or even within a week or within a month. You, Mr. Speaker, have drawn this matter to the attention of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I have drawn it to the attention of the House leader on three occasions.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I have to lay this groundwork so that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot extend to the hon. member any different treatment than I extend to anyone else, if the hon. member has a motion, he will have to put it.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Then I will state that after asking the former House leader on three occasions and the present House leader to call a meeting-and the understanding was that it was to be held-on the status quo of starred questions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will have to proceed with the question period.
Oral Questions


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I move that my question be sent to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and that the committee meet immediately to deal with the status of starred questions. This motion is seconded by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs: it concerns the daily reports coming from accross the country about AHOP defaults and walkaways. Could the minister outline to the House the scope and severity of this problem? Just how serious is it in respect of the AHOP program?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: It is a very popular program, Mr. Speaker.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. Perhaps with the information I shall give the minister, he will not take the question so lightly. His department and CMHC have confirmed that in Ontario alone in the first quarter of next year there will be in excess of 8,000 notifications of foreclosures in respect of AHOP?


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Imagine the result if one multiplies that figure to cover the rest of Canada. Would the minister tell the House now, or make a statement on motions today, fully outlining this severe problem surrounding AHOP?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, last week I testified before a committee of the House and 1 explained the government's performance with regard to subsidies for the construction of homes in Canada. There is no doubt that there is an increase in the number of foreclosures. That depends on the economic conditions we are facing; but in his question, the hon. member refuses to acknowledge the fact that whatever transactions are done by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or by
1844

December 6, 1978
Oral Questions
the banks, there is always a risk. As far as we in the government are concerned, we prefer to take the chance of allowing a potential home owner to own a house even though we may possibly end up being obliged to'take that house back later, rather than denying him right from the start the opportunity to become a home owner.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, last Monday, CMHC sent a telex to all CMHC offices across the country directing them to send to CMHC in Ottawa a list of all AHOP mortgages which were in a state of default. The number that has been reported, which the minister has, is massive.
Without getting into all the rhetoric, could the minister tell the House of Commons, now, if he will consider convening the appropriate standing committee, and will he outline there the scope and severity of this serious problem?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything serious about this matter. I think there is a fundamental difference between the Liberal party and the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McGrath:: Vive la difference.


An hon. Member:: Horner is blushing.


André Ouellet: We Liberals on this side are ready to give a break to low income and middle income people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: In so doing, we are running the risk of there being some defaults. It is quite clear that the Conservative party will never give a break to the low and middle income people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: Shame. You are even stealing that one now.


QUALITY CONTROL UNDER AHOP
Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. He is a bit testy today, but that is all right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: I would like to ask the same minister a question with regard to the quality control program for AHOP houses. There seems to be a great deal of concern by many owners that the quality control mechanisms have not been put in place. Will the minister inform the House what measures are being

taken by his ministry and by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to ensure that quality control steps are taken for these owners?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the government, through the efforts of my predecessor and myself, has put in place, in co-operation with HUDAC-the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada-guarantee programs. We have indicated that from now on, any mortgage that is guaranteed by CMHC will have to be under a plan that gives full protection to the new buyer.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the minister has perhaps been misinformed a little by his department. That is after the fact. I am talking about the past.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: My goodness, the Gallup poll seems to have upset those boys.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: In light of the announcements by his ministry that he is bringing in the new guaranteed payment mortgage, will the minister please assure this House that the government will hold up that program until they review what is wrong with AHOP, in order that we do not compound the confusion for the poor people who have been put out on the street, with their credit ratings ruined-8,000 in Ontario alone? Will the minister please assure the House that he will rethink the guaranteed payment mortgage program?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, a few things are wrong in the allegations of the hon. member. First, it is a graduated payment mortgage, not a guaranteed payment mortgage, as she calls it. I assure the hon. member that this program allows other options for those seeking money in the market in order to buy a new home. It is quite clear that any time you allow someone to buy a new home and put forward a proper financial program to do it, you are running a risk.
The hon. member objects and appears scandalized because there have been some defaults. Obviously, the ideal position is to take no risk. However, that would substantially reduce the number of people who could become home owners. We do not think that is a sound way of doing it. We believe we have to take risks and give some breaks to those at the lower end of the income scale, hoping that their incomes will improve and they can keep their homes. Obviously, we do not succeed 100 per cent. However, the figures show that we have a success rate of over 95 per cent, which I think is pretty good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 6, 1978


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works, whom I congratulate on finding a difference between the Liberals and the Tories-something 1 have not been able to do. I have given the minister notice of my question.
Serious allegations have been made regarding kickbacks to a CMHC building inspector relating to the construction of 116 townhouses at Virginia Park, St. John's, with financial assistance provided through AHOP. Is the minister aware of these allegations? If so, has he called for an investigation by the RCMP?


André Ouellet: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. I had a chance to check this allegation with CMHC officials who are looking into the matter. I expect to have a report tomorrow or early next week. I will then advise the hon. member and the House of the outcome of this investigation.
As far as the condition of the brick exteriors is concerned, we have been working for some time to find agreement among those concerned as to how the cost of repair could be financed. That is one of the problems involved. We are trying to find ways to help those who are experiencing these difficulties to find the appropriate financial resources.


Alphonsus Faour: I am glad the minister is aware of the inadequate quality of the houses: there have been horror stories related to bricks crumbling, inadequate foundations, cracked tiles, and sagging floors. However, I should like him to give a more positive assurance to people in the housing development concerned that CMHC will ensure that they will not suffer, and will guarantee any necessary repairs to their homes.


André Ouellet: 1 cannot give such an assurance before being fully aware of the file. I can assure the hon. member that CMHC will take its full responsibility. We cannot go beyond, to the responsibility of the contractors, and we cannot assume the responsibility of the municipal authorities if, indeed, they were the prime ones who approved the construction and gave the go-ahead. But we are looking at the situation and we shall do our utmost to help the people affected by these deficiencies.


COMPENSATION FOR HOUSES DAMAGED THROUGH FAULTY WORKMANSHIP
James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister over a year ago. At that time 1 identified faulty inspection and the use of faulty materials, yet the minister refused to act and forced these low income earners to take their case to court.
Oral Questions
If the minister is as interested in low income earners as he professes to be, will he tell the House that he is prepared to make compensation to these people who are the victims of what are alleged to be very corrupt practices? There are allegations of pay-offs to CMHC inspectors, a matter clearly within the jurisdiction of the minister, not of the city of St. John's.


André Ouellet: I have indicated that the corporation is reviewing the various allegations and the documents.


An hon. Member:: You've had a year to do that.


André Ouellet: As soon as 1 have a report, I will bring it to the attention of the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: The situation which has surfaced in St. John's and which was aired on national television last night is, in my view, only the tip of the iceberg. We would identify other AHOP programs across the country where there is evidence of inadequate inspection and of substandard material being used. In the light of this, and of the evidence produced on national television last night, will the minister ask his colleague, the Attorney General, to order a full-scale investigation into the construction of AHOP housing?


André Ouellet: The answer is, clearly, no. The opposition is systematically, on the basis of an isolated case, trying to build up a large general situation. There are thousands of builders in Canada who are performing well, who are using government programs and putting up top quality housing. I totally refute the type of allegation made by the hon. member who tries to use one isolated case to convey a message that all the builders in Canada are crooks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


USE OF AIR PASSES BY CERTAIN MEMBERS
Mr. Richard Janelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Further to an article published in one of this morning's newspapers in which it is stated that some federal minister put their air passes to personal use, does the right hon. Prime Minister intend to issue orders for putting an end to that practice?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware of the details of that article, but I do know, if I am correctly informed, that Air Canada gives passes to the ministers of this government because their duties demand that
80067-4 5'A

December 6, 1978
Oral Questions
they travel throughout Canada. 1 point out to the hon. member from the New Democratic party that, at my request some five, six or seven years ago the leader of his party, the leader of the Progressive Conservative party and the leader of the Social Credit party of Canada were also given passes, which I suppose they use.


Richard Janelle: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. 1 am speaking here of air passes given to the federal cabinet ministers which are being used for personal trips, for holidays. Is that use of thoses passes not contradictory to the code of ethics edicted by the right hon. Prime Minister some time ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is speaking of special passes. May I repeat that I have not read the article. But I say again that ministers are provided with permanent passes, valid for a year but renewable from year to year; they are the same type of passes as those which, thanks to my intervention, the leader of the Social Credit party, the leader of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the Progressive Conservative party also received.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Since every member of the cabinet, as well as each party leader, has been issued these passes, and in view of considerable concern about their possible abuse, has the Prime Minister or have any of his ministers issued any guidelines, or have any guidelines ever been considered, so that Canadians can fully appreciate the fact that these passes are really for the purpose of fulfilling ministerial responsibilities and are not to be abused in any way? I think such abuse would be against the interest of the availability of these passes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it goes without saying that ministers, like other members of this House, would take free rides on Department of National Defence planes going to Europe. I know there are many Tories who do that. I assume they do it for the purpose of fulfilling their duties as parliamentarians.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister did not hear me. We are talking specifically about the passes which are given to cabinet ministers and party leaders with respect to two commercial airlines which operate both inside and outside Canada.
In view of the fact that this practice has been in existence for many years, can the Prime Minister indicate whether any guidelines have been issued or whether there is any understanding about the proper or improper use of these passes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have issued no precise guidelines on this matter to ministers nor, indeed, to the Leader of the Opposition, who receives the same kind of pass.
I understood the hon. member's question perfectly. The use to which these passes are put is to be decided by ministers, just

as it is to be decided by members of the opposition when they take free rides on DND planes. I hope they do it according to their conscience.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in somewhat of a "ready, aye ready" statement in London, said that the government has reached an advanced state of planning for sending a battalion of combat troops of 600 to 700 men to Namibia.
Would the Prime Minister tell the House if such reports are true and, if so, will the government now undertake to bring a resolution before the House for debate before a final decision is made to send troops on a new and major UN commitment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure why, in the preface to his question, the hon. member mocked the minister by suggesting that the minister's position is a "ready, aye ready" position. The House knows- and I thought we had the support of the opposition-that in peacekeeping operations Canada is indeed in the forefront of all countries which are members of the United Nations. 1 believe we have the greatest number of troops involved in such operations.
We happen to think this is a useful way to employ our military people. We want to make sure that our military people serve peace as well as war, and I believe there is full support for that. I hope the hon. member supports that policy.
As far as Namibia is concerned, the hon. member knows that Canada was one of the Group of Five trying to find a peaceful solution to the problem in Namibia. All the Secretary of State for External Affairs said was that if the United Nations asked us for further troops, we would naturally consider the request.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer the basic question of whether he would bring this matter back to the House in the form of a resolution so that the Parliament of Canada could know what kind of commitment we are getting into. At the present time, all the Canadian people and parliament know is that we are getting into a new and major commitment which is being made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding a very dicey situation in Africa. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that we will have an opportunity to debate a resolution in this House on this important matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member knows that, he certainly knows more than I do in this particular case. To my knowledge, there is no commitment. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made no commitment. The parliamentary secretary tells me that no request has been made to us
December 6, 1978

as yet. 1 do not know why the hon. member says that all Canadians know we are into a major commitment.


LOTO CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) relating to the ill-fated Loto Select program.
This morning I attempted to get, through the minister's office and through Loto Canada, copies of the government's $23 million contract with General Instruments, but 1 was refused. Can the minister at least tell the House today whether contained in that contract there is a clause which provides for the breaking of the contract or the cancellation of the contract with General Instruments? If so, what is the nature of that clause?
Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman could not have been in the House when I answered a similar question asked by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.
There are provisions in the contract which would prohibit its circulation or tabling in the House at this time. However, once the contract is cancelled, I have given my undertaking to consider tabling it along with the dispensation documents.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister one very straightforward question. Can the minister tell the House, yes or no, whether contained within that contract there is a cancellation clause which would allow the government to escape from its commitments?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is a lawyer, and I am not.


An hon. Member:: No, he isn't.


Iona Campagnolo: However, in the contract there is a confidentiality clause which precludes me from answering his question.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the passage, several months ago of Bill C-8 which provides under part IV of the Canada Labour Code the right of workers to refuse to work in unsafe working conditions, and for the establishment of safety committees, and in view of continuing uncertainty as to whether this legislation applies to uranium mine workers- who have experienced special problems in this regard in the
Ora! Questions
past-what action is being taken to clarify this matter so that we might see that workers are covered by the safety and health provisions of Bill C-8?


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been giving attention to the serious matter raised by the hon. member for Algoma. Just a week or so ago, my department received a legal opinion from the Department of Justice to the effect that part IV of the Canada Labour Code does, contrary to former belief, apply to health and safety matters in uranium mines. I have, therefore, asked my department to notify unions and companies in the industry to this effect, and I will be meeting with people in the industry to plan an orderly rearrangement of responsibilities.
The protection provided in Bill C-8 which we passed last session has not, thus far, been afforded to uranium miners because the licences issued by the Atomic Energy Control Board require companies to comply with provincial law. As a result of the legal opinion to which I referred, it is now clear that the federal law applies, and we will be making efforts toward a rearrangement of responsibilities.


KITIMAT OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources: it concerns the report in yesterday's Globe and Mail that the Kitimat proposal is being actively revived by that consortium. Previously, the minister has been somewhat ambiguous on the matter, but the Minister of State for the Environment was very clear that this government was completely opposed to the Kitimat oil proposal on environmental grounds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: My question to the minister is, can he confirm that it is still this government's position that the Kitimat oil proposal is dead and will not proceed?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that at my request the National Energy Board addressed itself to the question of whether or not a western port of entry would be essential or needed to support Canada's objective of self-reliance. The National Energy Board has since reported to me and it is quite clear that such a port of entry is not essential to Canada's objective of self-reliance.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The minister has not answered the question, because the National Energy Board did not state, in relation to U.S. needs, whether the port would be a viable one in supplying the United States; so he is clearly skirting the question.

December 6, 1978
Oral Questions
The Kitimat oil consortium recently lobbied the cabinet in British Columbia and I understand they received a favourable response. Their proposal is before the U.S. government now, and a decision will be made by the U.S. government very shortly concerning that proposal. My question is: has the government now received additional representations from either B.C., the U.S. government or the Kitimat consortium to proceed with a west coast oil port to supply U.S. oil needs?


Alastair William Gillespie: To the best of my knowledge, we have not received any additional representations on behalf of the U.S. government, on behalf of any of the producers or on behalf of the B.C. government with respect to the Kitimat port of entry. The point 1 want to make-I will restate it-is that the port of entry has not been found by the National Energy Board to be, so far as the foreseeable future is concerned, essential to the energy self-reliance of Canada.
I hope the hon. member will understand that the National Energy Board has to concern itself with the energy self-reliance of Canada and benefits for Canadians; it is not concerned with benefits that might accrue to third parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONTRACTUAL LINK BETWEEN CANADA AND EEC
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister as he takes off for Europe. I have just returned from a NATO conference, where 1 talked with a great many members of parliament from all the countries in the European Economic Community. 1 found that none of them had any knowledge of the operation of a contractual link between Canada and their countries. I wonder if the Prime Minister, when he arrives in Europe, would set in motion a search for this missing link which he announced with such fanfare a couple of years ago and which, if it actually does exist, is the best kept secret in Europe today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think there is a very simple answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member, who is a member of the opposition, must have been talking to opposition members over there who know nothing about their countries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: We in the opposition, when we go on visits of that kind, are democratic and speak to people in all parties, both government and opposition. We are not like the Prime Minister, who says that members of parliament are nothing when they are 50 yards from Parliament Hill.
I ask him this question: as it is now obvious that the contractual link has been stillborn, does the government not think it is entitled to a decent burial, along with that other

figment of the Prime Minister's imagination, namely, wrestling inflation to the ground?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member is actually looking for a link, he has not understood the nature of our policy. But if ever he wants to wrestle to the ground, we can give it a try, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I have driven him out of the House, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the gambling minister responsible for our federal lotteries. Yesterday, when I called the minister the $37 million woman so far as Loto Select costs were concerned, she replied she was only an $800,000 woman, only to increase that figure later to undisclosed millions. She thereby confused, if not misled, the House as to the actual costs.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put his question.


Otto John Jelinek: Would the minister take the opportunity now to correct her statements of yesterday including, what is more important, the false impression she left that the provinces were consulted prior to these expenditures regarding Loto Select; and at the same time can she tell the House whether or not Loto Canada acted with the advice of the government on this matter?


Iona Campagnolo: I thank the hon. member for his question regarding the figures. Those are the exact figures up to this time. The $2 million to $3 million that I mentioned as the resolution of the $14 million original commitment is not an exact figure as yet. When it is, 1 will present it to the House. The hon. member will also recall that, as I said, the $14 million figure given by the CBC was really a $2 million to $3 million figure.
As to the other question which the hon. gentleman asked me regarding consultation with the provinces, I want to make particularly clear what the exact history of this matter is, because shortly after I was given the responsibility for Loto Canada my first action was to set up communications with the provinces preparatory to a federal-provincial meeting to discuss just this matter. Such a meeting was convened in the late
December 6, 1978

fall of 1977. Two days before the meeting, the B.C. government representative for lotteries refused to attend; thus, all the other provinces refused to attend as well. 1 spent the next several months trying to set up another meeting. It was at the initiative of the federal government that the meeting was held at Regina in June of this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LETTING OF CONTRACT WITH GENERAL INSTRUMENTS
Otto John Jelinek: Obviously, the minister is talking about meetings after expenditures for Loto Select were made.
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Yesterday, the minister said that the Crown corporation, meaning Loto Canada, acted without the advice of the government. In view of the fact that the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport has just stated that she wanted to have a meeting with the provinces in that regard and Loto Canada was involved, can he confirm or deny what he said yesterday? Also, can the minister advise the House whether he has been able to find out, as he promised yesterday, anything regarding the letting of the contract with General Instruments Corporation, without tender?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that the Crown corporation acted independently, and I think that is what I still say today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT-ADVICE OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Can we have an answer to the question put by my colleague? Did Loto Canada, in the matter of the purchase of equipment, act with, or without, the advice of the Government of Canada?


Iona Campagnolo: As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said, we are a Crown corporation and we took our responsibility. That is not to say that we are in any way different from any other representative Crown corporation in the lottery business for, indeed, as the hon. member opposite knows, in the case of Ontario for instance they did precisely the same thing and dealt with the U.S. corporation as well, one which we have never heard of in the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: In her enthusiasm today-and I am pleased to see she is now refraining from advertising the superior virtues of CTV over CBC-the minister has declined to answer the question put by myself and my colleague.
What, precisely, was the role of the minister involved in the decision by Loto Canada to purchase this equipment? Was
Oral Questions
there advice, or was there not advice? Was there consultation by Loto Canada, or was there no consultation? Is Loto Canada, or are officials of that corporation, being hung up to dry by the Government of Canada, or is the government going to take responsibility either for the advice it gave, or for the failure to scrutinize the activities of the Crown corporation responsible to it, which resulted in a significant error costing Canadians millions of dollars?


Iona Campagnolo: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, or should know, we are a Crown corporation subject to the fiscal restraints of a Crown corporation, subject to the Financial Administration Act and subject, as well, to the Auditor General. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would be quite interested to know that I feel the only people who are being hung out to dry are the people of Canada, by virtue of his continued references to the provinces in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has made it perfectly clear that should he-heaven forbid-ever be on this side of the House, he would cancel Loto Canada. In doing so he would deny the athletes and the broad cultural dimension of this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the minister's colleagues were shouting to give the minister some time to cool down. My question is a simple one: was the minister or any other minister of the Government of Canada involved in the decision, or contacted with regard to the decision, before it was made in respect of Loto Canada to purchase this equipment? Yes, or no?


An hon. Member:: Yes, or no yourself, Joe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has said that I require time to cool down. I might say that is very interesting, in the context of this morning's CBC report which said I sat at my desk yesterday, long after question period, in order to cool down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to make it plain that I was still sitting here at ten o'clock last night because it was my duty day in the House. That is the kind of reporting we have had over this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: And that is the kind of attitude that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has taken. I am saying that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has been invited by the sports

December 6, 1978
Oral Questions
people of Canada to come and explain his position on Loto Canada and why he wants to cancel it, but he has refused to talk to them.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: Just answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY WHETHER DATA PROCESSING CENTRE WILL BE ESTABLISHED IN JONQUlfiRE, QUEBEC
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister tell the House whether, after his recent appointment to this portfolio, he intends to pursue the excellent job made by his predecessor regarding policy of the dencentralization of federal departments, and particularly the construction of a tax data processing centre in Jonquiere, which is essential for the economy of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area especially because of the number of jobs it could create?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly going to go ahead with our project to provide the town of Jonquiere with a tax data processing centre.

At the same time, I would like to reiterate our unequivocal commitment to a data centre in Sudbury, Shawinigan and Surrey.


POST OFFICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General, the Evel Knievel of the Post Office.
In view of the fact there is already low morale among workers in the Post Office, a fact of which I am sure the Postmaster General is aware, that this low morale is contributing to low productivity in the handling of mail, and in view of the fact that in the Ottawa area alone hundreds of suspensions and hundreds of discriminatory letters of warning have been sent out to CUPW members, will the Postmaster General tell the House if it is his intention that, instead of attacking CUPW, he is now prepared to rescind the suspensions and dismissals to date?


An hon. Member:: No way.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, again, I have no intention of rescinding any disciplinary action that has been taken by the Post Office. I should like to tell the hon. member that if there is low morale or low productivity in the Post Office, I would invite him to help us boost the morale and give them a better reputation, instead of directing all this attention to people who do not want to work properly, and giving more attention to that co-operative body of workers in the Post Office who want to work and do not want to be prevented by some militant workers.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Postmaster General is now taking an ostrich position, and in view of the fact that yesterday in this House he went even further to provoke Post Office workers by threatening to fire them on an even larger scale, perhaps the Postmaster General will tell the House whether he really believes that such retaliation and harassment will result in bringing labour peace to the Post Office; or is it his intention to provoke a strike to cover up the fact that the Post Office is not operating well but is still being mismanaged, going into the Christmas rush?


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to the one posed by the hon. member for Algoma to the Minister of Labour.
We in Saskatchewan are, of course, extremely interested in the whole matter of uranium mining, health and environmental considerations. Would the minister tell the House, in respect of his legal opinion, whether he intends to have his department move in unilaterally or whether he has, in fact, consulted with provincial authorities concerning this whole matter relating to health and environmental considerations?


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, we just learned of this decision a few days ago. 1 am discussing the federal-provincial aspects of it with my colleague, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. It is, indeed, my intention to discuss the matter with the provinces, particularly Saskatchewan and Ontario, for I well know their interest in mining health and safety. Perhaps we can work out a satisfactory arrangement in respect of the legal aspect which appears to be federal, and the inspection and enforcement aspects which traditionally have been provincial.
We do not intend to move unilaterally, but I must say-and I think the House would expect me to say this-that we cannot leave the uranium miners in the invidious position in which they have been because of these legal decisions. We will be moving as quickly as we can.
December 6, 1978


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, could we get the assurance of the minister that the jurisdiction extends also to uranium refineries and subsidiary uranium pursuits? One of the main concerns of Saskatchewan people, particularly, relates to the lack of available information from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. regarding the contents of the environmental and health studies that have been carried out.
Could we get a commitment from the minister that he will, in fact, bring into public light the results of his studies in terms of health and environmental consequences of uranium mining and refining?


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know that my department has done such studies. I will inquire. The question might more properly be directed to the minister responsible for the Atomic Energy Control Board. I will inquire as to whether in fact we have any such studies.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I would direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. I will give him an opportunity to get back to his seat. This is the third time I have stood in an effort to determine the position of the overclassification audit, or the classification audit which has been undertaken by this government.
On November 22, the former president of the treasury board stated, as appears at page 1372 of Hansard-.
Mr. Speaker, I will be making the results of that classification audit, inside and outside the national capital region, public within the matter of a few days. Also, I will deal with the response of the government to the findings of that audit at the same time.
My question is a simple one. Is it a fact that the findings are so embarrassing that the government is attempting to sweep them under the rug? If that is not the case, would the minister indicate why he is so slow in giving us this evidence which is sorely required by the Canadian people in terms of trying to find out how many million dollars we have lost?


An hon. Member:: That's a humble, simple little question.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: The answer to the first part of the question is no; and I will be tabling it the latter part of this week or the beginning of next.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, would the minister give us the opportunity of hearing his voice on motions? In this regard, would he assure the House that when he tables that document he will also deliver a statement as to the government's solution following the classification study, thereby giving members of parliament an opportunity to question him? Will he give us that assurance?
Economic Development


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to consider the representations of the hon. member.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have two outstanding procedural matters with which I would like to deal as directly as possible. However, if 1 could have some assurance that we might get through routine proceedings fairly quickly, perhaps we could deal with it first. I refer to points raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) yesterday, and by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) some time ago on a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), 1 wish to table, in both official languages, the terms of reference of the advisory committee on the impact of telecommunications on Canadian sovereignty.


MINISTRY OF STATE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
December 4-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion-That the following Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Jules Leger, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
The House of Commons, having considered the proposed text of the Order in Council laid upon the Table of the House on 4 December 1978, in relation to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Economic Development, prays that the making of the said order in council be approved.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 21(2), this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.
1852

December 6, 1978
Order Paper Questions
[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 79, 153, 162, 214, 251, 416 and 517.
1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Did Canada have a merchant marine, and, if so (a) during which years (b) how many ships did it consist of, and in each case, what was its tonnage?
2.	In the 1977-78 fiscal year, did the government own any ships and, if so (a) how many (b) what was their total value (c) how many were in service?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as Transport Canada is concerned:
1.	Canada has had a merchant marine since the early part of the eighteenth century. The following table lists the number of vessels and the gross registered tonnage for selected years from 1920 to 1977 for the foreign trade and from 1950 to 1977 for the inland waters trade. Statistics on the inland waters trade are not readily available prior to 1950. While an accurate trend is shown by this table some inaccuracies may exist due to the different methods of collecting statistics over the long time frame involved.
1.	See Transport Canada.
2.	(a) 258 vessels over 20 feet in length;
(b)	In 1978 dollars replacement value is $350,000,000;
(c)	245 vessels over 20 feet in length.
In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned:
1.	See Transport Canada.
2.	(a) 132.
(b)	*$3,274,621,000 (Fiscal year 1977/78).
(c)	119.
* The value was obtained using the original acquisition cost of the vessels multiplied by the inflation factor from a DND economic model. This does not represent the actual cost of replacement as the true cost of acquisition of new vessels would be much greater.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Regarding the November 2, 1978 editions of the VFR Supplement published by the Surveys and Mapping Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (a) what is the best estimate of the per unit cost of the edition which will provide coverage of Quebec south of 60 degrees north and the National Capital Region in French and English and will contain coverage of the rest of Canada south of 60 degrees north in English only (b) what is the best estimate for the cost of the total number of the partially bilingual edition (c) what is the best estimate of the per unit cost of the English only edition which will provide coverage of Canada south of 60 degrees north (d) what is the best estimate of cost for the total number of English only publications?
2.	Does all the information appear in English in the partially bilingual edition and, if so, what is the justification for publishing both editions?
1000 Gross Tons and Over
Foreign Trade Excluding
Inland Water Trade	the Great Lakes
		Gross Registered		Gross Registered
Year	Number	Tons	Number	Tons1920	82	334,4301925	79	422,2011930	66	397,5271935	42	295,9511939	38	241,6841945	173	1,075,9031950	255	724,174	88	582,6511955	252	875.395	25	183,3361960	252	927,273	18	150,4591965	199	1,356,833	3	43,7151970	163	1,507,827	3	57,7571971	156	1.486,236	4	27,6851972	157	1,544,850	6	37,7361973	139	1,475,872	5	24,3761974	146	1,512,932	3	13,0101975	143	1,502,695	1	4,0451976	146	1,546,201	3	56,4791977	150	1,674,405	3	56,479
2. (a) 79 government-owned ships operated by the Canadian coast guard of Transport Canada.
(b)	$222,373,833.
(c)	all 79 ships were in service.
In so far as fisheries and oceans is concerned:


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
1.	(a) The VFR Supplement is produced under contract and the unit cost estimate for the November 2, 1978 edition which provides coverage of Quebec south of 60 degrees north and the national capital region in French and English and the remainder of Canada south of 60 degrees north in English only is $1.59.
(b)	Production cost for the 7,651 partially bilingual supplements is $12,165. For this issue subscribers were given the option of receiving either the partially bilingual edition or an English only edition. At this time, however, not all returns have been received, and for these subscribers it was decided that they will continue to receive the partially bilingual edition until the Canada map office is in receipt of subscriber direction to convert to the English edition. It is anticipated that the eventual bilingual production quantity will be approximately 3,000.
(c)	$0.96.
(d)	$15,183.
2.	Yes. In addition, a section has been included which provides coverage of the province of Quebec (south of 60 degrees north) and the national capital region in French. The two editions are published in order to meet operational
December 6, 1978

requirements as specified by the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Roche: Is CIDA purchasing mobile homes from Hilltop Mobile Home Sales Ltd., London, Ontario, at a total contract value of $235,444 and, if so (a) how many (b) for what purpose?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes. (a) 4. (b) The mobile homes will be used to lodge Canadian advisers working on a CIDA-financed fisheries training project in Colombia. When the advisers depart for Canada the homes will be used to house the Colombian teachers who will continue work on the project.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Who has been appointed Associate Chief Legislative Counsel, Legislative Programming Section? What are his qualifications for this position? What will be the duties of this position?
2.	Who has been appointed General Counsel, Legislation and Regulations (French version)? What are his qualifications for this position? What will be the duties of this position?
3.	For what purpose were these two positions created? Do the responsibilities covered by these two new positions eliminate the need for other, already existing positions, and if so, delineate which ones.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: 1. Mr. Gerard Bertrand, QC; qualifications: LL.L. 1952 Laval; admitted to the Bar of Quebec in 1952; 1972 to 1976 assistant secretary to the cabinet (Legislation and House planning); Registrar, Supreme Court of Canada 1976 to 1978; duties: in association with the Chief Legislative Counsel advises the government on matters of legislative policy and acts to ensure that legislation drafted for the government meets the high standards required; in the absence of or on behalf of the chief legislative counsel, approves the final version of items of legislation for presentation to cabinet.
2. Mr. Remi Geoffrion, QC; qualifications: LL.L. 1957, Montreal; admitted to the Bar of Quebec in 1957; 1957 to 1967 private practice in Montreal; 1967 to 1978 legislation section. Department of Justice, responsible for the French version of legislation; duties: acts as special consultant to drafters of the French version of legislation and regulations; has supervision of work of re-writing French version of statutes for next revision.
Order Paper Questions
3.	The two positions were established as part of an over-all plan that responds to recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages with respect to the Department of Justice legislative group. The responsibilities of the positions are new and were not covered by previous existing positions.


Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Department of Supply and Services and what amount was each paid per year?


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: None.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Were efforts made to Find Canadians of equal competence to those of Americans working on the Ark Project in Prince Edward Island and, if so, what were they?
2.	Has an application been made to license in Canada the design components for the Ark Project which were manufactured in the United States?
3.	Were plastics for the Ark Project greenhouse imported from the United States and, if so, has any effort been made to manufacture the same types of plastics here in Canada and, if so, by whom?
4.	Is the Ark Project report to the government approximately three feet long and available in limited quantities at a price ranging from $200 to $250 per copy?


Pierre Bussières: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. Yes. The director of the Ark Project is a Canadian and six members of the New Alchemy Institute associated with the Ark Project are Canadians. The other two members are landed immigrants. Construction of the Ark was contracted to companies on Prince Edward Island, some of which employed a minority of citizens of the United States of America.
2.	No.
3.	All plastics used in the Ark were purchased from Che-macryl Plastic Company, Toronto, Ontario. With one exception, they were manufactured in Canada.
4.	No. Environment Canada published a free booklet entitled "A Most Prudent Ark" in 1977. The New Alchemy Institute published a book on the Ark in 1976 at a price of $200.


Mr. Mazankowski: How many orders in council were passed in 1977 and up to October 31, 1978 and how many were published in the Canada Gazette?
80067 -46 Vi

December 6, 1978
Motions for Papers


Yvon Pinard: Published in
Year	Passed Canada Gazette
1977	3,746	8601978 (to Oct. 31, 1978)	3,311	686
Note: -Some statutes require publication of certain orders in council in the Canada Gazette-the remainder are not published however all orders in council are public documents and lists of them are tabled regularly in the House of Commons. Concerning inspection and obtaining copies of orders in council, see part 21 of regulations made pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act (Canada Gazette part II, vol. 105, No. 22)


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 18 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Whittaker:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all contracts between Angus Stonehouse and Co., Ltd. and the Canadian Transport Commission having to do with the reporting of public hearings by the said commission.
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 2, 3, 10, 11 and 15?
[ Translation]
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS Motion No. 2-Mr. McKenzie:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all government contracts, excluding Crown corporations and agencies, with Canadian firms and individuals for the years 1976 and 1977.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the number of documents requested is high and the number of contracts is in the range of thousands. The expenses in terms of time and labour necessary for the reproduction of those documents would be considerable or prohibitive. I would thus ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT Motion No. 3-Mr. Towers:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the file or files in the possession of the Department of the Solicitor General and/or in the possession of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police relating to the investigation concerning Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration.


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that the investigation in this connection was with respect to a federal statute, the alleged offence was criminal in nature and came under the jurisdiction of the attorney general of Saskatchewan. Production of the files is being denied because, as stated above, they relate to a matter in which the province of Saskatchewan was concerned, and the concurrence of the provincial authorities to the release has not been forthcoming.
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I hereby ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Towers:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

QUEEN MARY VETERANS HOSPITAL IN MONTREAL Motion No. 10-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, agreements and other communications between the government and the province of Quebec concerning the transfer of the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital in Montreal.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion since there is a rather large number of papers requested and a substantial amount would have to be earmarked as well as much time would have to be devoted to their preparation.


An hon. Member:: Motion to stand. Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 11-Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications relating to the decentralization of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the province of Prince Edward Island.

December 6, 1978
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested deal with negotiations under way which could lead to agreements between municipal, provincial and federal governments and cannot be disclosed. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


An hon. Member:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Allowed to stand. Transferred for debate.
BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY Motion No. 15-Mr. Brisco:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all papers and documents, studies, reports and correspondence between the government and the Province of British Columbia and/or British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, relating to the duties and functions to be carried out by British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority in its capacity as the designated entity under the Columbia River Treaty and subsequent protocol endorsed by the Governments of Canada and the United States, specifically under Article XIV of the Treaty, including any and all exchanges of notes between the Governments of Canada and the United States exchanged under Article XIV and any other material, documents, papers, studies and correspondence in the possession of the government concerning the possibility of designating another entity than British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority as the agent of Canada under the Treaty, or the appointment of a second Canadian entity under the Treaty to share responsibility with British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, or the empowering or charging of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority with the responsibility of ensuring the greater stability of the Arrow Lakes and the suspension of all progress on the Kootenay River Diversion project.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the production of those papers would require lengthy and detailed research in the archives, but the main facts, including the duties and functions of the Canadian group concerned, as well as supporting documents, can be found in the following publication: The Columbia River Treaty and Protocol-A Presentation-February 1964. It is available at the parliament library as well as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
There have been no other discussions and therefore no other correspondence or documents on the possibility of designating another or a second group, or in connection with the responsibilities of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority with regard to the stability of the shores of the Arrow Lakes or the Kootenay River Diversion project.
In view of the above, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Brisco:: I will withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of documents be allowed to stand?
Point of Order-Mr. Andre


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there is, under the production of papers, No. 18. Did the hon. member say it would be allowed to stand?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that the motion for the production of papers No. 18 is acceptable to the government.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am sorry. That is the first time that anything has been acceptable.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, in accordance with practices which we have been following over the last short while, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) raised by way of a point of order his concern with a $1 item in the estimates. 1 thank the hon. member for having taken the occasion yesterday, the second last allotted day in this part of the session, to raise the matter. I would like to reiterate to the House that, having done that and thereby giving opportunity yesterday for a brief argument on both sides, it has given the Chair an opportunity to adjudicate on the matter in advance of the last allotted day and, therefore, in advance of the time pressures that are already too heavy upon the supply procedure on the last day.
I believe I gave the hon. member yesterday a preliminary indication of the procedural difficulty which I face. That was that the $1 item to which he had taken objection had simply extended the authority which was already placed in the original and main estimate, and was in precisely the same language in the main estimate item. It is therefore clear that the item does not seek any authority which was not sought in the main estimate and already dealt with at an earlier date by this House.
On the strength of precedents that 1 have already recited over the last one or two supply arguments of this sort, I am not able to intervene procedurally because the $1 item is not there for the purpose, obviously, of seeking any new authority. I cannot deal with it at this time.
The language which appears in the last line of vote 30a is remarkable. The hon. member has brought this to the attention of the House, and it was dealt with in a brief way by the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). It reads:
-notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars estimated as of October, 1977-
That language led the hon. member to fear that that appeared to be some sort of authority to go beyond the amount of the item. If so, it would seem to be at cross purposes with our whole supply process to use language which might extend to any organization or agency authority to spend more money than they were getting through the vote.

December 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
Again, this is precisely what was arranged in the original item, and the President of Privy Council also assured the House that that was not the intention. I did some further investigating into this matter, and it appears that the origin of that phrase had to do with the previous practice of listing grants and contributions under this vote of CIDA in foreign currency. Therefore, it was felt necessary to put in this language to protect against fluctuations when the grants were listed for the purposes of the estimates in the foreign currency. I think the hon. member can understand that some step like that might have had to be taken. That is no longer done. The breakdown of votes under this paragraph is now done in Canadian currency. It therefore seems to me that the language was not only inoperative but unnecessary.
I would, therefore, take up the hon. member's point by simply signalling that to those who are responsible for the preparation of future items, because I think the House would express surprise if that phrase were to recur unless there were some clear need for it, which does not seem to be apparent at the present time.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence) some time ago raised, by way of a very interesting question of privilege, a matter to which there were extensive contributions from all sides of the House. After carefully considering all of the arguments I attempted to adjudicate on the matter in a preliminary way on November 9.
On that day i listed a number of ancillary concerns that I thought perhaps stood in the way of a final decision, and I dealt with most of them. I left until a later date, however, three of the concerns that I had. One related to the form of the motion. In that respect I can say to the House at this time that the hon. member, who is the sponsor of the motion, at my request has sought some advice and assistance from the Table. In co-operation with them, he has drafted a motion which I think is less likely to damage our series of precedents in respect to these kinds of motions.
I use that language carefully, because I think I indicated to the hon. member at that time that I was not even sure whether I would have to find the motion out of order. 1 think I should make it clear that we were therefore not attempting to extend to the hon. member some relief against a motion which might have been out of order. I think he could probably have convinced me that I would have to accept the motion on procedural grounds. I would just be a little more comfortable with the kind of motion he has consulted about, and that we will be considering in a few moments.
I also left with the House two areas of concern that I thought the House might want to take up if it in any way

differed with my preliminary opinion. Those were the doctrine of subjudice and the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. I indicated at that time that I had some concern about both matters but that I did not think they had procedural significance.
In respect of the doctrine of subjudice, I was prepared to set it aside in a preliminary way-I said subject to further argument-because the parallel inquiry that would be involved was not in any way a trial and there was no verdict which I felt could be prejudiced by a parallel inquiry. I, therefore did not think the doctrine has an application in that sense. I did say, and I repeat, that we nevertheless had to face the danger of parallel inquiries. Whether this is an appropriate time for that is something for the House to decide. What I said then, and repeat now, is that I am simply finding there is no procedural basis on which I could take that into account. If the House wishes to take it into account in debate or an amendment of the motion, or a vote, that is the business of the House. It is not of procedural significance, in my view, unless I were to be persuaded now by interventions to the contrary.
Similarly, on the relationship to our practices in the past in respect of ministerial responsibility, 1 think it is noteworthy that the letter which is the subject matter of this question of privilege is a letter from a minister to a member.
The complaint which is the subject matter of the question of privilege is not directly a complaint about the minister. Indeed, it is founded on the fact that it is one of the minister's officials who has calculated to contrive this deliberate deception of the House. In fact 1 have indicated some concern about the fact that this may perhaps be looked upon as a new departure in our practice-that we are going around the minister to get directly at the official by way of this question of privilege. Even if that is so, I have come to the conclusion that it is not a procedural basis upon which 1 can intervene. Once again, it is a matter to which the House can address itself in debate, and in amendment if necessary, or in a vote. These are not the matters that finally become my responsibility from a procedural point of view, however.
Failing any argument to the contrary, therefore, I would consider that 1 had dealt with the ancillary matters completely that I listed on November 9. That leaves us with the complaint of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham respecting the testimony of former commissioner Higgitt-and I assume there is no further argument to be addressed to this matter at this time-to the circumstances in which the Solicitor General's letter dated September 4, 1973, was drafted. Does that lead us to the conclusion that, by virtue of an act or omission, the House, or a member, has directly or indirectly been impeded in the performance of its functions or his duty, or that there has been a tendency to produce such result? If I so find, then I really have no choice but to find, prima facie, that a contempt has been committed.
Having considered the whole question with extreme care, 1 come back to the simple testimony of former commissioner Higgitt when he said:
December 6, 1978

That is not, that is not an assurance the RCMP is giving to the minister at all, and as matter of fact, the practice was in matters of this kind-
-the practice was very often ministers' letters were not exactly drafted on precise statements of fact.
1 can interpret that testimony in no other way than meaning that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct the member in the performance of his duties and, consequently, to obstruct the House itself.
Even beyond the precedents and the complex law of privilege, I cannot conceive that there is any one of us who would accept the argument that this House of Commons has no recourse in the face of such an attempt to obstruct by offering admittedly misleading information.
I, therefore, find a prima facie case of contempt against the House of Commons.
May I, once again, reiterate the consequences of that decision. The job that I have in matters of privilege is a preliminary, procedural review of the matter to determine whether in fact it touches the privileges of members of the House of Commons or of the House itself. Having done so, 1 concluded that the motion put forward by the hon. member must therefore be given immediate priority and taken into consideration by the House at once. The House itself makes the decision on whether the motion shall carry, whether it shall be amended, or in any way altered and, in fact, whether there is a contempt.
I do not make that decision; the House does.
1 simply want to leave these matters with the House in the way that I am doing, and indicate that having reviewed all the matters very carefully and considered all the precedents and arguments very thoroughly, I have come to the conclusion that the hon. member does in fact have a prima facie case of privilege involving a deliberate attempt to impede the House in its work, and perhaps the minister and, in turn, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.
Having done so, and having collaborated with the hon. member to a certain extent on the form of the motion, the motion which the hon. member hands to me at this time follows. It is moved by Mr. Lawrence, and seconded by Mr. Nielsen;
That the letter sent by the Solicitor General of the day to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham on December 4, 1973, and the testimony of former RCMP Commissioner Higgitt on October 24 and November l, 1978, before the royal commission of inquiry (McDonald commission) concerning the practice of the RCMP in preparing letters for the signature of the Solicitor General, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation and report.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


Mr. Lawrence:: Thank you, sir-


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Inasmuch as there has been a prior examination by yourself and the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) of the motion, would it be possible for the rest of us to have it so that we can examine it?
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I think in your own modest way, if 1 may say so, you are perhaps underestimating what I conceive to be the importance of the decision you have made. There is no question that in this House it is not too often the Chair finds there has been a prima facie case of contempt of this House. That in turn relates to our only mechanism to grieve and to rectify that contempt.
A contempt against the House is a contempt against every member of the House, individually and collectively. It is not too often, if I may say so, that the Chair has found a prima facie case in the time that I have been here, since 1972. I appreciate why you have indicated what you have. I know it is presumptuous of me, but I must say I congratulate you for it. This is a very, very important matter touching not only on the rights of members of the House, but because we represent the people of this country it represents a fundamental and basic right of the people of this country to find the truth, to have the truth presented to them.
1 attended a college in this province, Mr. Speaker, and I know there are several graduates of that same institution in the House. The slogan of that university is emblazoned above the front door. The words are, "The truth shall make you free."
I feel strongly enough about this matter or I would not have raised it in the manner I did. I am quite gratified that you have found there is a prima facie case. To get right down to the specific and detailed examination of the matter before us, it is not only of fundamental importance in respect of the rights of members of the House and the alleged contempt committed against the House itself and the members thereof, but I think this particular matter raises a question that should be debated here today by individual members. Basically it is the first opportunity that members of the House have had to engage in a rather free running and widespread debate on some very basic and fundamental matters.
First of all, whether there was ministerial knowledge of illegal activities by the security service of Canada as they were taking place-that is a basic and fundamental matter we can discuss today, and I hope that we will be able to discuss it in the committee. Also, for the first time in this House and in committee, we can engage in a discussion on the actual allegations that have been made about illegal activities of a branch of one of the most important law enforcement agencies of this country. We can also engage in a basic discussion about the conditions in which a minister of the Crown may be negligent, incompetent, or maybe overworked. But certainly the whole question of ministers, if that is the alibi or plea that is to be presented to us, merely acting as a rubber stamp for officials who shove things in front of them which are immediately signed, ought to be discussed. I am not saying that that occurred in this instance, I do not know. But it is one of the

December 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
purposes of what I hope will be a discussion today in the House and a discussion before the committee.
Certainly, sir, in speaking to the question of whether or not it should go to the committee, I emphasize again with logic and emotion, and I do not think those two things are contradictory at all, to my colleagues in this House that certainly it would be a travesty, and a great injustice presented to the collective members of this House if this matter now fails to go to a committee, or should indeed fail to go to the committee set up to hear and make an adjudication of matters such as this.
We are dealing with a contempt of each and every member of this House. I think it would be unforgivable if the House did not decide unanimously that this matter should go to a committee.
As I have mentioned to you, sir, it is not too often that the Chair, in its wisdom, finds that there has been a prima facie case. In this case you have reached that conclusion and I know you did so after a great deal of soul searching and book searching. It would be inconceivable, now that that decision has been made, because of the importance of this matter and how it touches some of these basic freedoms in this country and of this House, that this matter should fail to go to a committee.
I would hope that when the question is eventually put no member would be rash enough to vote against it. That has not happened very often. Since 1965 my understanding is that there has only been one occasion, and that occurred in the last few months. There has only been one occasion, when the Speaker has found a prima facie case, that the House has not then voted to have the matter go to committee. I think that all sorts of conclusions can be reached and statements could be made in the event that the matter did not go to a committee for adjudication. 1 believe that is of great importance to the freedoms and responsibilities of this House, and is a matter only this House or a committee of this House can properly investigate and adjudicate.
First, if I may just refresh hon. members of the House in respect of the facts, 1 would like to give a quick rundown of the history, as I know it, of mail interference and mail openings by security forces and law enforcement agencies in this country. If members are honest with themselves they will remember there has been a suspicion for many years in the minds of many members, quite frequently openly stated in this House and elsewhere, that there has been a history of interference and openings of mail by law enforcement agencies or security forces, and perhaps by the military as well.
In particular I will refresh your memory, sir, by referring to a constituent of mine who made serious allegations to me of just such an incident. In my opinion, he had ample proof that his mail had been interfered with, read, and an investigation started by one of the law enforcement agencies of Canada. In fact the enforcing officers, when they came to the door of the addressee of that particular piece of mail, had a photocopy of it in their hands. Obviously the mail had been interfered with. There is no question about that.

These allegations were made to me. The matter was serious enough for me to be concerned about it. The facts as indicated were such that I thought I should, in all fairness and courtesy, write a letter to the solicitor general asking him in a non-public way if the allegations made by this constituent were true. 1 must admit to you that I had a suspicion that everything the constituent said to me was perfectly true. Nevertheless, 1 received a reply from the solicitor general, referred to in the question, and no matter how you want to quibble about the wording in the letter, it left me with the impression-it was designed obviously to leave me with the impression-that no such interference with the mail or any opening of the mail took place by the particular law enforcement agency involved. There is no question about that.
At the time this matter was being discussed in the House, in the reply given by the then minister of justice, that admission was made that it was a totally incorrect answer given to me by the solicitor general. Since then, sir, to confirm the suspicion of some members of the House, there has been ample evidence given in other places that mail openings, by the security services especially of the RCMP, have indeed been taking place. As a matter of fact there are now very reliable estimates placed on the public record of this country, in other places, that this has been a decided and continuous policy of at least one branch of the main law enforcement agency of this country. This procedure has been going on in this country for 40 years. For 40 years the allegation has been made, by officers and others who are in a position to know, that mail openings and mail interference have been taking place.
I have a letter from the solicitor general indicating that no such interference was taking place. How do I know that? It is simple. In other ways and other places the then solicitor general has indicated, since the publication of this contradictory evidence in other places, that if such mail interference and mail openings have in fact taken place, that that particular solicitor general knew nothing about it. I believe that particular solicitor general even said that in this House. Under the rules of this House, if a member says a thing like that we, of course, have to accept it. I do accept it. However, this practice has been going on for 40 years. The minister responsible says he knew nothing about it. He signed the letter to me, and perhaps to others, indicating that no such practice was taking place.
If the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) says he did not know that these matters were taking place I, of course, accept what he is saying. However, contradictory statements have been made elsewhere. Contradictory evidence has emerged elsewhere. There has been contradictory testimony lately. This testimony, these statements and these inferences are by officers and officials in positions of authority at the same time that this minister who signed that letter to me held the position of Solicitor General of Canada. In actual fact he was the political person who was in charge and had jurisdiction over these people.
December 6, 1978

What has this evidence said? It said there has been interference with the mails as a legitimate vehicle and a legitimate weapon to enforce the laws against the criminal element of this country, and also to enforce national security in this country. Personally, I have no great argument with that. If it is necessary, it should be done. However, it should be done legally. If there is not the vehicle to have it done legally, then the government of the day is negligent in its duty by not making sure what is done by the law enforcement agency is in fact legal.
Law enforcement agencies in every country today, but in particular in this country today, should not have to reach to the bottom level of integrity and morality where they attempt to fight fire with fire. Who else is going to enforce the law if the law enforcement agencies themselves break the law? That is a fundamental question to this matter that should obviously be considered by this House and by a committee of this House.
Number one, the contradictory testimony, the statements and inferences of these officers and officials, indicate there has been interference with the mail. Number two, the inference has been, if not already clearly stated in closed testimony before a royal commission, that the minister knew, or should have known about it, one or the other, because it is clearly taking place. Finally, we have the evidence in this House of the minister who says that he did not know that these events were taking place.
I wish to put on record a few quotations, if I may. According to Victor Marchetti, a former CIA employee and author of the book "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence," among material that the United States government succeeded in suppressing from the book which has been published in the United States, at the request of the Government of Canada, was information detailing, and I quote:
-very close ties between the CIA and the RCMP.
Mr. Marchetti is an acknowledged expert and has appeared before congressional committees in the United States. Again quoting:
Your people are in very tight with us. We trained them.
The allegation has been made that the CIA in the United States, and this has not yet been denied, trained officers of Canada's security service of the RCMP in the techniques of interference with and openings of Her Majesty's mail in Canada. They actually trained them. When this information was to be published in the United States, the Government of Canada brought pressure to bear on the United States to suppress that information.
We are dealing with the question of governmental and ministerial knowledge. Somebody in the government must have known what was going on, otherwise that type of government pressure at the ministerial level would not have been brought to bear. It is as simple as that. However, we have the minister standing up in the House and saying he did not know what was going on. Under the rules, we must accept his version of the truth.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
Assistant Commissioner Thomas Venner indicated in testimony, and I quote:
Cabinet ministers are not anxious to be overly informed in details of names and cases.
When we relate that specifically to the case of mail openings, we may be led down the tortuous path that, if it was not misfeasance as far as knowledge on behalf of the minister was concerned, perhaps it was intentional malfeasance on behalf of the minister. 1 need not point out that one is as bad as the other in respect of criminal activity or in respect of knowledge.
We still do not know whether the minister did not know as he says he did not know. We still do not know whether he did not want to know. If he did not want to know, then he is as guilty as if he did know, and he himself actively committed that contempt against every member of this House. That is the type of thing we have to inquire about in a committee of this House. Only a committee can properly adjudicate and inquire into that.
Assistant Commissioner Murray Sexsmith has stated that mail opening was terminated in 1976, largely because in the wake of American intelligence revelations, and I quote Mr. Sexsmith:
-you could already see the storm clouds on the horizon.
It was also because the Canadian news media, and I again quote:
-were convinced there was a Watergate and were desperately looking for one.
That is an Assistant RCMP Commissioner. If an Assistant RCMP Commissioner would make statements such as that, it is pretty hard for an unbiased, unprejudiced individual to believe that the person at the top of the ladder did not know about it.
Only a committee of this House can properly look into matters such as that, discuss such matters, and make conclusions. We cannot do it in this House. It would not even be possible for a royal commission to do that as well. Why? When a minister of the Crown stands up in this House and makes the statement he did not know about it, we have to accept that as the truth of the matter.
I have one other quote. RCMP Superintendent Patrick Banning made a very memorable quotation with regard to the illegal activities of the security service, and that is what we are talking about when we talk of mail opening and mail interference. He said, and 1 quote:
We are the second oldest profession. Delilah used a bit of disruptive tactic against Samson.
There is no question in my mind that RCMP Superintendent Patrick Banning knew about mail opening. There is no question in my mind that Assistant RCMP Commissioner Murray Sexsmith knew about mail opening. There is no question in my mind that RCMP Superintendent Donald Cobb knew about mail opening, or that assistant RCMP Commissioner Thomas Venner knew about mail opening-he has admitted it. There is no question in my mind that the commis-

December 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
sioner of the day knew about mail opening. I suggest that someone at the ministerial level, at the governmental level, also knew about mail opening.
Mail openings have been discussed at provincial meetings of attorneys general for over a decade, and representations have been made by provincial attorneys general from time to time in favour of having the law changed to legalize what may or may not have been a practice but was certainly a fact if the demand was there. I suggest it is stretching the truth too far for any one in this House, including members of the government or any preceding government, for that matter, to indicate that the question of mail opening by the law enforcement agencies of this country has not been discussed in the executive councils of this nation. It had to be discussed, because the subject has been with us 40 years. Yet we find the solicitor general of the day saying he knew nothing about it and, of course, we must accept his word. But do not take my word that someone had to know about it, Mr. Speaker.
Go back to the abridged report of the royal commission on security of June, 1969, the Mackenzie report-of course, we have seen only the abridged report; we have never been permitted to see the full report of that royal commission. In the abridged report there is a whole paragraph on mail opening by law enforcement agencies. The message there is loud and clear: it is being done, and if it is being done you had better legalize it. That was in June of 1969 in the abridged report, which was published only after the government of the day had sat on it for six months.
I suggest that if the solicitor general did not know about it there were certainly others at ministerial level, perhaps even at prime ministerial level, who did. My understanding of the British parliamentary system in a matter such as this is that if there is no admission by an individual minister of the Crown, then collectively the whole ministry is guilty as that particular individual. This is the question I should like to see discussed in committee. I believe it should be discussed in the committee, and I do not believe there is any member of the House who, if he were permitted to vote on the motion which is to be put forward this afternoon in an unbiased way, unhindered by the arm-twisting of any party whip, would vote in any other way but to permit a matter of such importance as this to go to the committee.
Now, as to the committee itself, I have had some experience in trying to run an investigative committee of this House. It is not a pretty picture because it is not a very efficient or productive process. I would agree that a standing committee of this House is not particularly designed to carry out a worthwhile investigation or to have it conducted in such a way as to present an unbiased and unvarnished version of the truth such as one would expect. If you think I am criticizing our committee procedures, you are perfectly right, Mr. Speaker. I am. I believe that in a matter such as this which touches the fundamentals of the knowledge of the truth, or the seeking of the truth, there should be some changes in that committee when it takes hold of this matter, as I trust it will.

First of all, I should like to see a worth-while counsel appointed by the committee, an impartial counsel completely independent of the staff of the House and, if you will permit me, sir, solely on grounds of lack of experience, from the staff of Your Honour as well. In saying this I am not seeking to detract by any means from the ability of those officers who have been of immense help to all of us in the past.
Nevertheless, I believe that in an investigation such as I contemplate, the committee should have the services of an independent counsel, if only to regulate the chronological order in which witnesses are called. This would not detract in any way from the rights of members of the committee. Members of the committee would still have all the rights presently enjoyed to ask questions in the way they think best. But I think it is most important to the logical reasoning inherent in a step by step exposure of the truth, that in the course of a hearing by an investigative committee, as the committee on privileges should be, we have every right to expect that the truth will be brought out in an independent and impartial way, and I suggest one of the best ways in which this could be done-and all of us know of examples in other jurisdictions-is through the appointment of an independent counsel.
I think the committee should be given, off the right bat, to subpoena witnesses. This is important, and it is one thing we do not have at the moment. Committees have to come back to the House to get that right, and there is a great deal of delay involved. My understanding is that the House can give the committee power to subpoena witnesses right off the mark, and I believe that in these circumstances such a right should be given. Moreover, when the committee takes evidence, witnesses should be under oath.
There is something else which is fundamental to this discussion. So far, in the press and in the media, only one side of the question has been given. It is true we have heard the solicitor general say he did not know, but he has only said this once, to my knowledge, and these allegations, inferences and innuendos have been made time and time again and repeated time and time again, not only in this House and in the media but before royal commissions and in testimony elsewhere. I believe the solicitor general of the day deserves an opportunity to give his side of the question before things deteriorate any further and certain evidence which has been taken in closed session before a royal commission is exposed to the public gaze-I hope it will be shortly. The solicitor general deserves the consideration of every member of the House and he should be given this opportunity. I see the hon. gentleman is unavoidably absent from the House this afternoon even though he knew this matter was coming up. If he is not here today to take part in the discussion, he should be given an opportunity in the committee to tell us his side of the question.


An hon. Member:: He did!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am talking of the then solicitor general. He should be given the opportunity to make known his side of the question in the House, if we are genuinely seeking the truth with regard to this matter without partisan consideration. On
December 6, 1978

that ground alone members who support the government should examine their consciences as they vote on this motion this afternoon.
How shall we proceed when we get this question before the committee? The first person who should be called should be the then solicitor general. It would be very worthwhile not only that he be given an opportunity to give his side of the story but, if he continues with his argument that he did not know what he was signing or that he did not know that certain activities were taking place, which activities he was denying in his letter to me, that we also find out who put the letter in front of him. I think it would be a worthy exercise of the jurisdiction of the committee to call that particular individual, and to learn of his knowledge of the facts in question.
Was he attempting to mislead the then solicitor general, or is his alibi also going to be that he did not honestly know that the security service was interfering by opening mail? I think that is the next step. That would be the witness who logically should be called next. He was the person who put the letter in front of the then solicitor general, which the then solicitor general signed.
I think the third witness should then be the person who drafted the letter which was given to the individual who gave it to the then solicitor general. I know this sounds humorous, but this is the kind of situation in which there should be a logical progression of witnesses so that we can come to the truth. I suggest that it would be in the interest of the government to get this kind of information before a parliamentary committee as much as it would be in the interest of anyone else. The government should be seeking the truth as well.
We should then get to the stage where we could find out who gave orders and who, at a responsible level in the law and security agencies of this country, actually did have knowledge as to what was taking place and how often it was taking place. These are matters which perhaps should be discussed in another forum such as a royal commission, but because they deal very pertinently and very directly with the matter of contempt of this House and the misleading of a member and perhaps of members of this House, they should also be discussed in a parliamentary committee, if for no other reason than that members of parliament themselves should be quite incensed and quite indignant that this type of fraud was actually perpetrated on members of the House of Commons, because it was. There is no question about that. The evidence is there.
We certainly owe it to ourselves, to those who have gone before us and to those who will come after us, to make sure that such a situation does not arise again. That is not the job of a royal commission. That is the job of the Parliament of Canada or of a committee of the Parliament of Canada.
In short-


An hon. Member:: In short?
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -I think the committee will have to make every attempt, impartially and independently, to hear the evidence of everyone else who knew or should have known that this type of thing was taking place.
The importance of the matter's going to a committee is obvious. There is absolute evidence now on the record-and obviously more will come-that this matter has in the past been referred to the executive council of the Government of Canada. One example-and there are others-was the example of June, 1969.
Another matter which has never been clear and about which perhaps the committee should make inquiries, is a matter which very directly touches the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). The Prime Minister admits that he gave directives to the RCMP, and the security service in particular, in 1970 which obviously resulted in stepped up intelligence activities in this country and perhaps elsewhere. These clearly were followed by some of the worst abuses we have heard about in the history of law enforcement agencies in this country. Those directives were given on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, on my behalf, and on behalf of the people of this country.
1 raise no question with respect to the motivation or the intention of the Prime Minister regarding the directives he gave in 1970. It cannot just be a coincidence that these matters followed those directives. Those directives have never been made public by the Government of Canada or by the Prime Minister. They should be. We have every right to know what has been going on in our name in respect of some of these security force activities, and in respect of the guidelines and directives which were issued in 1970 by this government. That again is a realm of activity and authority which must be looked at by a committee of this House.
If some hon. members of this House honestly and impartially believe that this matter should not go to a committee of the House, I can only say that that would be a tragedy for the traditions and the responsibilities of this House. It would be more than that. It would be further evidence of an intention and a direct attempt by the government of the day to cover from public gaze matters which should be uncovered, should come under full sunlight and should be exposed to the people of this country.
I am not necessarily talking about activities relating to foreign agents in the country. I am not talking about detailed activities. I am talking about the over-all guidelines which we have not yet seen, and attempts to shove under the mat activities which almost everyone connected with the security industry-and it is an industry-knew about. For the government to continue its sorry record and history of covering these matters up, I think would be a further travesty of justice and the seeking of justice in this country. When I said "its sorry record and history of covering these matters up", I fully expected to hear some yelp of complaint from the ministerial benches, and I would have been fully prepared to document some of these things. However, 1 heard nothing.

December 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
1 think the history has been a sorry one. First, we have the Mackenzie report of 1969 which has never yet been acted upon. We have the 1970 directives from the present Prime Minister. We have the setting up of the McDonald commission. The McDonald commission has been sitting in camera. We do not yet know what has been going on. We may never know. As I understand it, that royal commission will report to the government and not to parliament or the people of this country. It will be a fairly easy matter, as was the case with the MacKenzie report, to abridge the report of the McDonald commission and perhaps not to expose the whole matter.
We have the question of the deliberate shutting down of the Keable inquiry in Quebec. 1 know that was done on constitutional grounds. 1 know it was done on jurisdictional grounds, but there is no question that it was at the instigation of this government that the Keable inquiry was shut down. A bill was presented in the last session with respect to this matter. That bill would have generated debate, but it was not proceeded with. To my knowledge there is no sign of its reintroduction in this session, but I stand to be corrected by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen).
I suggest that it would be a travesty of the traditions, the history, and the responsibility of this House if the government does not proceed with this motion and permit the referral of this terribly important matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, in addressing ourselves to this question it is important that we do not spend too much time on its merits because Your Honour's ruling clearly indicates that a prima facie case has been made. Clearly the only place to determine whether there is a case of privilege is before a committee.
My purpose in rising is to urge government members in the House to give serious consideration before they again oppose a ruling of Mr. Speaker that a prima facie case of privilege has been made. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) pointed out that since 1965 it has only occurred in the House once that a government majority has rolled over the ruling of Mr. Speaker and denied the opportunity to a member, whose privileges have been violated on the surface in a prima facia way, of making any further inquiry into that case. You may remember that case because it was a sworn affidavit of one Mr. Warren Hart who stated, under oath, that he was working for and employed by the RCMP, and that in that capacity he was ordered to tape record at that time the previous solicitor general, at present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), and also ordered to tape record, which he did, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). The circumstances, as outlined in that case by the then solicitor general, contradicted the evidence given by Mr. Warren Hart.
Your Honour ruled at that time there was a prima facie case. In order to avoid the embarrassment of having Mr. Warren Hart come here and testify before a committee, this

government took the expedient route that said, "We will not bother being embarrassed. It is so important that we do not lose any political brownie points on this matter that we will therefore simply act against the ruling of Mr. Speaker."
If this House is to maintain any kind of credibility, it will have to honour those kinds of rulings and also make the inquiry into an effective inquiry. We have a committee system in this House which is a disaster area. If there is one thing of which the people of this country are sick and tired, it is watching the amateurishness of our committee system. You can go to the United States, for example, and watch how their committee system works. You will find it works effectively, their committees deal with subjects and provide counsel.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham spoke about how we could improve this inquiry, and I want to say how much I agree with him. We have all had considerable experience before these committees. First of all, the use of counsel is absolutely essential. It is embarrassing-and I must say 1 am as guilty as any other-to watch some members of the House perform in front of committees. It is unfortunate from time to time that the public is invited to these meetings, because we waste the public's money over and over because we do not organize our time and we do not use counsel to direct reasonable and pointed questions to the subject we are questioning.
I hope this House will decide today that the matter will be referred to committee. If, by some chance, we find that the government members decide that again they cannot support the ruling of Mr. Speaker, I hope they will reflect on the position in which they have placed Mr. Speaker, because it will now be routine for Mr. Speaker's ruling, on a matter as important as the privileges of the constituents of members of the House-it is not really the member's privilege that is at stake but his constituents' privilege-to be overturned, if the government decides again to run roughshod over Mr. Speaker. In such a case Your Honour will have no job.
Serious consideration would have to be given by Mr. Speaker to resign his position because his credibility would continue to be attacked by the government at every turn. The numbers are there, and therefore the possibility of objectivity in this place will be gone.
The reason I rise is the suspicion that not merely the government might seek to vote against this motion to chalk up some brownie points, but the credibility of this place will start to crumble even further if this government decides again to roll over this ruling. I would like to quote from Hansard of March 9. In ruling on the case of the hon. member for Nickel Belt I think Your Honour set the case very well. You said this:
-It is not the function of the Chair to prevent the House from attempting to deliberate on matters which come reasonably close to being questions of substance.
The difficulty is that it is now the position of this government to stop those kinds of inquiries. I say that the position this government took in the case of the hon. member for Nickel Belt was a disgrace to this House, a disgrace to the traditions of parliament, and it certainly confirms a great
December 6, 1978

many of the suspicions out there that there is no real respect for this institution from the present government.
I would plead with members on the other side that you, Mr. Speaker, have a chance to recover a little credibility in this case and to say, "No, we are not afraid of any inquiry, even if it could be slightly embarrassing to a minister." Imagine the benefits of this kind of inquiry. First of all, we will find at last that ministers will check their correspondence, will check who is providing them with the information, and some civil servants' heads will roll, and should roll, if they continue to provide misinformation to ministers who continue to mislead members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We will not deal with that kind of incompetence if the government continues to roll over these kinds of motions and to think of Mr. Speaker as simply a tool of the government rather than a tool of the House. If Mr. Speaker is to maintain credibility, I submit it is absolutely vital that this motion pass. As I said, I think it places Mr. Speaker in a position of seriously considering resigning from that position if his rulings continue to be thwarted by a government majority.
Incidentally, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham suggested counsel with regard to this inquiry and 1 indicated I supported that completely. I notice the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), who is sitting in the House today, is most interested in this debate. I might say he would be remarkably objective and fair, and I understand his fees have been remarkably modest in his legal career. I hope that members of the committee will give serious consideration to calling for counsel and will not rule out some competent members of the legal profession who happen to sit in this place.


An hon. Member:: That's a commercial.


Mr. Woolliams:: Best advertising I've had for a week.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The other aspect of this motion is the whole question of direct involvement with the McDonald commission inquiry. As has been pointed out, we will not receive a report for a long time. In the case of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, it is also not coincidental that his point of privilege was involved with that same inquiry, an inquiry, by the way, before which a key witness, Mr. Warren Hart, has somehow not yet been asked to testify. I suggest he would be a vital witness before that inquiry. So it is not coincidental that both these important matters of privilege arise directly from what has clearly been a Canadian scandal in the operation of our police forces.
I would urge that government members look at their moral duty in this place. They have a moral duty in respect of this issue, and that is to stand up and be counted before parliament. It is time we all did.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a motion that obviously was well prepared beforehand and which obviously was in the hands of the official opposition for some time, having prepared rt in consultation with the Chair. I regret that on a matter of this importance the motion itself was suddenly sprung upon us, and that we were not given any opportunity to consider the terms of the motion prior to its being put before us, obviously on a prearranged basis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not drawing any conclusion except that it would have been more appropriate for an orderly debate if this particular motion had been put before all members of the House, so we would have had the opportunity of considering it before the debate itself began.
However, the motion in its first part refers to the letter sent by the then solicitor general to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), and to the testimony of Commissioner Higgitt before the McDonald commission.
Let me refer to the debates of November 3, in which the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham put together the testimony of Commissioner Higgitt in one sentence, and this appears in Hansard of November 3. He put together at least the relevant one sentence of Commissioner Higgitt's evidence with that last sentence of the letter he had received from the solicitor general, and upon that juxtaposition the question of privilege was alleged, namely, that a deliberate deceit or deception had been perpetrated against the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.
Before dealing with the motion itself, I believe it would be useful if the letter from the solicitor general to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham were tabled in the House of Commons. With permission I would like to table it later. Before doing so, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the facts related in the main body of the letter.


Mr. Broadbent:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) would be thoughtful enough to table it now, following his own earlier recommendation. If he is now going to debate the letter he should table it so we can all get copies. That would prove useful to members on both sides.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be happy to table it when I have finished reading from it, because I have only one copy and that is the copy I intend to table.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham made it very clear in his speech on November 3 that he had inquired about the alleged interception of one of his constituent's letters by the RCM Police, and the reply of the solicitor general contained a complete description of all the facts in that particular case.
Of course, the item of mail he had referred to, which all of us assumed had been a letter, was not a letter in an envelope at

December 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
all. It was an unstamped, plasticized computer card, with an incomplete address. Typed on the card was the following message, and I think it is rather interesting to put this on the record:
Commission term report concerning security leaks of top secret data indicates unauthorized personnel have been scanning sensitive information and recording same for unknown reasons. When informed of this matter thru an unambered double agent, SECMIN 436-202-212 indicated that a series of dated codes be released thru this leak and then traced to source. This procedure was followed, and LANGTEK 422-902-510 was informed of the matter. Results are now pending. Data 436.
That is the end of the quotation that appeared not in a letter, covered by an envelope, but on an unstamped, plasticized computer card with an incomplete address.
We have been talking about the interception of mail by the RCM Police. In this case the unstamped, plasticized computer card with an incomplete address was not intercepted by the RCM Police. It was found loose in the mail stream at the Alta Vista postal terminal in Ottawa. Post Office officials who noted the suggestive message about "top secret leaks" forwarded the card to the Department of National Defence, and then the department passed it on to the RCM Police.
The police, whom we have been led to believe were intercepting mail, were the third-hand recipients of a plasticized, unstamped computer card, with an incomplete address, sent to the RCM Police. All this was explained to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. The RCM Police had no file on this case. The investigation was concluded, no breach of security was involved, and the card was sent back to the Post Office.


John Edward Broadbent: A lawyer's red herring argument so far.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the substance of the letter. I thought it would be interesting for the public to know that nothing was opened and the RCM Police were not intercepting a letter in this case, but were the third-hand recipients of an unstamped, plasticized computer card, with an incomplete address.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us the story about the house that Jack built.


An hon. Member:: It sounds like a recorded message.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was given a complete explanation of the matter about which he had inquired. Of course, in the last sentence of the letter there appeared this particular expression:
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 come to that particular sentence which was related by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and to the evidence that was given by Commissioner Higgitt, from volume 88, at page 145, of the proceedings before the McDonald commission. He quotes this one sentence:
That is not, that is not an assurance the RCMP is giving to the minister at all, and as a matter of fact, the practice was in matters of this kind-the practice 
was very often ministers' letters were not exactly drafted on precise statements of fact.
Those two sentences together form the basis of a question of privilege that there has been a deliberate deception by an unnamed culprit, who is still unnamed. These sentences are important, because in the argument on whether this constituted a prima facie case of privilege there were no references to all these facts. Mr. Speaker made a ruling, and his definitive comment was that it was before the McDonald commission that Commissioner Higgitt acknowledged for the first time that the letter in question was not exactly drafted on a precise statement of fact.
I would like to refer now to the testimony by Commissioner Higgitt, because I think that it will be clear that Commissioner Higgitt in precise terms did not acknowledge at any point in his testimony that the letter in question was not exactly drafted on a precise statement of fact. If hon. members refer to the evidence on page 14555 of the transcript, the relevant sentence is quoted as follows:
That is not, that is not an assurance the RCMP is giving to the minister at all, and as a matter of fact, the practice was in matters of this kind-the practice was very often ministers' letters were not exactly drafted on precise statements of fact.
Commissioner Higgitt is saying that "the practice was very often minister's letters-Counsel at that time might have asked-and they probably will when he returns-what his particular view was on this letter.
If the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham had wanted to be complete in providing evidence to the House, he would have referred to the preceding and following comments to the statement, which is the basis for this question of privilege, made by Commissioner Higgitt. I am not resting my case upon the words which clothe that particular sentence. I would like to make a more substantive quotation of Mr. Higgitt.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why don't you table all of the evidence? You have quoted from it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Peace River has asked me to table the evidence. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has quoted from the evidence, perhaps my friend should ask him to table it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I do not have the authority to table it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Commissioner Higgitt was asked this question:
Is it, therefore, correct to conclude, sir, that the last paragraph constitutes an assurance by the RCMP to Mr. Allmand. the Solicitor General, that it is not their practice to intercept the private mail of anyone?


Mr. Higgitt:: No, that is not correct, sir, and that is not the purpose of that letter and, in fact, to start with that is part of my answer-
I would like the hon. member for Calgary North to listen to this,
-and the second part is that the statement is true, if we want to think of the words being used, it was not the practice and it is not-I can't say today.
December 6, 1978

because I'm not there-was not the practice of the RCMP to intercept the mail of private citizens or citizens, and I have explained why 1 make that statement, because of the facts that have been adduced before this commission, showing it was not in fact the practice.
If hon. members refer to the evidence they will find that this is in fact what Commissioner Higgitt said in the same sitting as the sentence which has been picked out and forms the basis of the question of privilege. If Mr. Higgitt is to be believed in this circumstance, he confirms totally the accuracy of the last sentence of Mr. Allmand's letter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not my fault that the evidence of Commissioner Higgitt is contradictory. The hon. member is asking the House to find a question of substance, of privilege, on contradictory evidence before the McDonald commission.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has said that if the government voted down this motion it would be rolling over on the Speaker. That is a very inaccurate description of the proceeding which is before the House. The Speaker is obliged, under our rules, to find whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. Prima facie means on the first impression, on the surface, or at first blush. Beauchesne goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the House of Commons to find in substance whether there is in fact a breach of privilege.
So today, when the government is saying that it does not propose to support this motion, it is not saying to the Speaker that we have no confidence in his finding. It is saying that Mr. Speaker having done his duty, we have probed beneath the surface and found that there is contradictory evidence, and that you can find Commissioner Higgitt saying, under oath, that the last sentence of Mr. Allmand's letter to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, "the second part is that the statement is true." What statement? The last paragraph of Mr. Allmand's letter to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. That is Commissioner Higgitt's testimony. It is clear there, if you look at the fragment of evidence plucked out by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, that it does not have the unequivocal conclusion which this particular sentence has.
I ask you, sir, and hon. members, is it responsible for this House of Commons to find a question of privilege upon one sentence by a witness, that is totally contradicted by evidence given earlier by a witness who has not completed his testimony, and who has not been cross-examined before the McDonald commission?
I believe it would be a travesty for this House to vote that there is in fact a question of privilege based upon one sentence that is contradicted by the same witness and whose testimony has not yet been completed before the commission.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: What are you afraid of?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When the facts come out I do not know which side of the argument will be found to be the factual one
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
by the royal commission. I know it would be interesting to get the evidence from the man who drafted the letter and from other people. All that is before the royal commission. Why do we want a parallel inquiry? All of this is before the royal commission.
We set up the McDonald royal commission at the request of the official opposition. Today, when you strip away all the rhetoric and all the innuendo put forward by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, all you find is a plea to close down the royal commission, to set up a committee so that all of this sensitive matter relating to the security of Canada can be made the basis of political attack and that what ought to be the subject matter of a serious inquiry will become a political forum. We resisted that from the very beginning. We have no intention of agreeing to a parallel inquiry, particularly on what I consider to be one sentence of evidence before that commission.
I would say also that it would take a lot of persuasion to get me to vote for this motion. It is alleged that a deceit and deception have been perpetrated. Who has perpetrated the deception? Who has perpetrated the deceit?


An hon. Member:: That is the issue before the committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Who has perpetrated the deception? Mr. Speaker Michener, when he was called upon to rule in a similar case, said that in his view simple justice required that no hon. member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee unless he had been charged with an offence.
In simple justice, it seems to me that if the Canadian House of Commons is to say there has been any substance of breach of privilege, of deceit and deception, then it is the obligation of the House of Commons to know who the culprit is. The hon. member says it is not the minister. He does not say it is the RCMP. No, no, he would not go that far. He would not have the courage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was on this very basis-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What are you afraid of?


An hon. Member:: What are you afraid of?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that Mr. Speaker Michener said there is no accused. It is a very important point because it seems to me it relates to what the legal profession calls "the principles of natural justice"-that you say there has been a contempt, a deceit, and that is what the House is asked to find today, and the person or persons alleged to have brought about the deceit are left unnamed.
Mr. Speaker Michener said:
If there is some doubt in the matter, I am clear that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the unaccused.
In this case, we neither have an accused nor an unaccused. I just say we should wait for the commissioner to complete his

December 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
evidence. Let us get all the evidence from all the other witnesses, and when the facts are in, if the hon. member will hold off on his motion, we will consider it at a later date.
To ask the House to form an opinion on the basis of one sentence-a scintilla, a fragment of evidence that is not yet completed, by one witness who has not yet been cross-examined, is too much to swallow. We do not intend to swallow it on this side.
You have raised, Mr. Speaker, the question of ministerial responsibility. You have said it is not a matter of procedure, it is a matter of constitutional doctrine. On that point I agree 100 per cent. We have exercised ministerial responsibility in this particular instance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We were asked, we were pleaded with, every day, by the official opposition, to establish the McDonald royal commission. First of all we said no, but then as more evidence came in we said yes, we would establish the McDonald royal commission. We were applauded by members of the official opposition, members of the New Democratic Party, and all members of the House.


Mr. Andre:: Only because Quebec set up the Keable Commission.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have a royal commission in progress. It is examining all the evidence. That is the way the government is discharging its responsibility. When the commission report comes in, whatever responsibility will lie on the government at that time will be discharged by the government. Certainly it is not the exercise of either the ministerial responsibility or parliamentary responsibility to find a question of privilege on one sentence by one witness contradicted by other witnesses, in testimony that is not yet complete, that has not been tested by other witnesses and that has not been the subject of cross-examination.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You are gagging the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognize that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is the next member to be heard, but I am not speaking to the motion. 1 raise a point of order which I regard as a serious one.
In the opening remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) he referred to the fact that a copy of the motion had not been made available to all members. There is nothing out of the way about that. He went on to complain, however, about what he called collaboration-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I never used the word.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -with the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) in drafting the new motion. The implication was that the Speaker had been unfair to the government by working with the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham in drafting the revised

motion. I suggest that what was said was a slur on the Chair which this House should not tolerate.
I would refer the House to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 199(1), which reads as follows:
When a member hands a motion to the Speaker after having spoken in support of it, the Speaker may, before putting the question to the House, make such corrections as are necessary or advisable in order that it should conform with the usages of the House.
I point out that when you spoke to the House on this matter-
[Editor's Note: At this point the lights in the chamber were extinguished momentarily.]


An hon. Member:: You blew it, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 indicated yesterday in another debate that in the days when there were no microphones we had to make ourselves heard by the sound of our own voices. I could have carried on in the dark, but I am sure hon. members would want to see me as well as hear me.
When Your Honour spoke on this matter on Thursday, November 9, you dealt with four or five subjects and then said, as reported in Hansard at page 966:
The final concern I want to leave with the House-and 1 freely say that it would not be looked upon by me in any case as a fatal concern-is the form of the motion. The customary form of a motion on a question of privilege is very precise and explicit, in that the matter is referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
There follows a rather long paragraph which I need not read in its entirety. The final sentence of that paragraph reads as follows:
However, if the motion is found to be procedurally irregular or a departure from our regular procedure, I would be sympathetic to an amendment or an alteration to the motion, if we were to carry the matter forward.
I submit, sir, that you made it quite clear on November 9 that some alteration to the motion might be necessary, or at least desirable. I submit that under the terms of citation 199(1) you had every right to suggest an alteration in the motion to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, and that it was not like the President of Privy Council to cast the slur on the Chair that he did at the beginning of his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as an obvious red herring in order to obscure the force of the argument I had made on the substantive motion-


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: He has laid a charge against you.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I just want to say there was no slur whatsoever cast upon His Honour. I will look at the words tomorrow, and if there is any suggestion of any such slur I will
December 6, 1978

be happy to withdraw them. I will withdraw them in advance, in fact, because I do not think there is any such slur. I was drawing attention to the fact that while His Honour had indicated there would be amendments to the motion, it has been my understanding that when such amendments are made to a motion before the House, the amendments are made visibly with all of us present. It would have been helpful if the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), after having made those changes, had given us the motion in advance so that we could have considered it instead of having it sprung upon us at the last moment. That is an indication of the seriousness with which we ought to deal with his suggestions in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It may be useful to lay two points to rest in order that they might be set aside for all time in respect to the balance of the discussion on this motion.
The first has to do with the remarks that I made earlier today about the change in the text of the motion moved by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). Indeed, I did telegraph that, I thought, when 1 made the preliminary part of this decision on November 9 and indicated there might be some desire to change the text of the motion, although I did not think I would find it out of order. In fact I invited the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham to collaborate with the officers at the Table to get some advice on an amended text. He collaborated not only with them but with the parliamentary counsel which, of course, is his perfect right in the circumstances.
If I gave the impression earlier today that he collaborated with me, then 1 gave a mistaken impression, because he did not. He took advice and came up with an amended text, which I put to the House today. He had some assistance and advice from counsel and from the officers of the Table in order that the motion might be brought in greater line with our precedents. I did not in any way know of the firm text of the motion until today when it was moved by the hon. member, and seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I may have compounded the difficulty by inadvertently giving an indication when I said "the officers of the Table". I may have said the Chair and, if I did, I did that incorrectly. There was no collaboration with the Chair.
I did not think I had the right to release any motion to anybody until it was moved by a member in the House itself.
There have been some comments on the second question already, and I cannot stop anyone from making these comments, but there has been some preliminary comment on the role of the Chair in respect to questions of privilege. On two occasions recently I have found questions of privilege, one in respect of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). A vote in the House did not support that.
This was another question of privilege in which I found a prima facie case. There has already been an indication that government members will vote against it. I do not think I am saying anything inaccurately in view of the presentation just
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
made. I think we ought to keep clear that we each have a respective role to play in this matter. If I want to be guaranteed that no adverse result will take place on the floor in respect to a prima facie case of privilege, I can quite easily guarantee that by never finding one. In respect of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, I think the House will know that 1 reached some, and extended the benefit of the doubt to the hon. member for Nickel Belt. I did not think I was reaching to the same extent here. Nevertheless, if I am to be encouraged to reach in some of these new areas, to extend the judgment of the Chair in favour of an hon. member being able to have the opportunity of putting his question of privilege to the House, then I have to take the risk that on some occasions the House is not going to accept it.
If I have to be guaranteed that the House is going to support that very decision, then I think the sensible course for me to follow is never to accept one and then I cannot be in any jeopardy. If the House expects me to extend privilege more to members of the House, we must expect that the decision which I make and the decision which the House takes are never one and the same decisions, but separate decisions by separate people in different roles. Therefore, I would invite the House, to this extent at least, to co-operate and lay that point to rest in this discussion for all time. I think it would be better to concentrate simply on the merits of the question before us.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to raise the same point as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, but in view of what Your Honour has said I will not touch it until I hear what the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) may have to say tomorrow.
I think his synthetic and simulated indignation about the terms of this motion is a clear indication of the weakness of his case. I would like the hon. gentleman to reflect on the position of members of the opposition from time to time, who are faced with a supply bill with no notice at all. We are expected to debate a matter sometimes involving hundreds of millions of dollars, and billions of dollars at times. I ask the hon. gentleman to reflect on situations where sometimes legislation dealing with strikes are brought in to this House and presented to members of the opposition who are asked to debate them almost instantaneously. There are many situations where the opposition is greeted with the necessity of having to participate on a very important matter with virtually no notice at all.
The hon. gentleman talked about the McDonald royal commission set up at our instance. Were we consulted about the terms of the order in council which was enacted in order to found the operations and the activities of that royal commission? I suggest that the attitude of the hon. gentleman-


Mr. Dick:: He is sneaking out of the House now.


Gerald William Baldwin: He may not be a lawyer but he has learned one of the earlier tricks of some lawyers, that if you have a case which is weak in the facts you try to emphasize the law. If the law is bad you emphasize the facts. But when you have neither facts nor law on your side, you scream and beat the

December 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
desk, which is just what the President of Privy Council did in his intervention today. He probably acquired it by some form of intellectual osmosis from his seatmate, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who often operates in this way.
I want to deal with something brought up by the President of Privy Council. He quoted very selectively from some of the proceedings of the royal commission. It runs in my mind that, having done so, he might well be in a position of having to table that evidence in its entirety. The President of Privy Council said something about let us wait until former commissioner Higgitt gets back in the witness stand. I think he has forgotten that former commissioner Higgitt has been on the witness stand, 1 understand, in camera, that is, in secret, at the instance obviously of this government. The decision, of course, is entirely that of the commission. But certainly we have had some fair indication in the House that when proceedings of the royal commission get into a very delicate and difficult stage for the government, its members are quite happy to make application, through counsel, that the commission consider holding its proceedings in camera. This is precisely what has transpired.
If the government wants to know what the facts are, if the question is going to arise as to what the practice was and what was it that was said by the commissioner, what his views are and what his comments will be with regard to the question of opening of mail, let us have an opportunity to find out. Let us have a committee of this House, the ultimate and final court in the country, acting for and on behalf of members of the House, to study, to examine, and to challenge. Let us find out.
The President of Privy Council sought to draw a red herring before us, as he admitted himself, by quoting with some humour what was in the letter. That is not the issue, Mr. Speaker. What was in that letter was not the issue. What this House and hon. members are faced with is a simple question. Was there a deliberate deception by the authorities of a senior member of parliament? I must treat that very seriously.
1 am amazed that the President of Privy Council, one of the great parliamentarians of this House, is obviously so alarmed at what is liable to come out in a committee meeting that he uses his undoubted talents to confuse the issue and evade his responsibility. He has indicated he intends to vote against the motion. Apparently he does not want the facts to come out.


Yvon Pinard: We have the McDonald commission.


Gerald William Baldwin: The parliamentary secretary, who takes his cue from the President of Privy Council, must realize the government will use its best endeavours to try to persuade the McDonald Commission to sit in secret whenever there might be dangerous and embarrassing facts about this government to be introduced. In any event, the report of the royal commission will be made to the government. Only those parts of the proceedings of the royal commission as may be seen proper to be made public in the opinion of the royal commission, will be made public.

This House is interested in the truth. The government may not be. Members on this side, certainly the members of this party, want the truth to come out.


Yvon Pinard: It will come out.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am just amazed at what are the possible consequences of the evidence and facts we have heard. If the authorities are perfectly willing to attempt to deceive a senior member of this House, what about the public? What about the people whom I represent and those represented by my friends? What about the people who are represented by members on the government side? What manner of deception is being practised on them?
We have some facts which are an indication of what is going on. It is a shocking illustration of the fact that the government of this country faces a crisis in confidence. This is not a matter of inflation or unemployment. It is a lack of credibility and confidence. It flows from the kinds of actions we have seen carried on by the authorities, and today condoned and approved by the President of Privy Council. That is the situation which has to be of great alarm and concern to all of us.
The hon. member for Northumberiand-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) made a very moving and eloquent address, studded with illustrations. I thought it would have been accepted. I did not intend to get into the debate until it became apparent that the government was not going to accept it. That address was supported by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). 1 thought the President of Privy Council would have got up and said that, although they do not accept all the facts, they are prepared to let the matter go to a committee of this House in order to find out where the truth lies. Obviously the government fears the truth as the devil does holy water. Is is a fact the government should recognize and the people of Canada must recognize.
This case is bringing us into the jungle of misinformation, the Byzantine ways of secrecy and deception practised by the authorities. We have been aware of this for some time. It explains a lot of things. It has been established as prima facie in the minds of a lot of people. I say prima facie, because if government members are willing to accept their own independent and objective judgment and allow a committee of this House to examine this issue, we may get the facts out. In that case, what will be a prima facie case, as now established by the hon. member for Northumberiand-Durham, may be an opportunity for the House, through its agents on the committee, to find out where the truth lies.


Yvon Pinard: You have the McDonald commission.


Gerald William Baldwin: The parrots opposite insist on speaking about the McDonald royal commission. Something the members of the government do not realize is that the privileges of this House are the responsibility of members of this House and not of the McDonald royal commission. It is time members opposite learned that lesson. It explains why, when there is embarrassing or potentially damaging information, the authorities go
December 6, 1978

to almost any length to conceal it. It explains why the government fears to proceed with an open information law which would be effective in providing members of this party, members of this House, and members of the public, with an opportunity to find out what is the truth.
Let me use another illustration. I mentioned the public. What about the case involving the Toronto Sun! The Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) told us how he toiled, sweated, and strove mightily for 17 hours to examine 17,000 documents. Out of those 17,000 documents he extracted 580 odd and said those documents must be covered by section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act. He swore an affidavit that he had personally examined them and that, in his opinion as an officer of the Crown and as Solicitor General, those documents should not be made public.
What we have seen demonstrated by the facts established by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is that we cannot rely on statements such as that made by the Solicitor General. 1 am not saying that he personally may not have believed that, but the information upon which he swore that affidavit resulted in 500 odd documents not being produced in the trial of the Toronto Sun and Peter Worthington. Reputable counsel in that case said those documents were essential in order to conduct an adequate defence. The Solicitor General said no, they were not. How can the court in that case, and the accused, rely on that affidavit which unfortunately, as the law now exists, cannot be appealed? It is binding. It is mandatory. Under those conditions, surely any reasonable, rational, intelligent person must have great doubts about the quality of that affidavit sworn by the Solicitor General and filed with the court in the Official Secrets Act case against Peter Worthington and the Toronto Sun.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have followed carefully what the hon. member is saying. If 1 am not mistaken, he is implying that the affidavit given by the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), should not be believed, and what he said in this House, that he had personally examined over 500 documents in question here, is not believed by the hon. member. If that is what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is implying, I suggest it is contrary to the rules of this House and very unparliamentary. He should withdraw those remarks, or at least clarify what he has said.


Yvon Pinard: Resign.


Gerald William Baldwin: 1 will wait four months to resign. It will be a good time then. I made it quite plain in my remarks, and I will examine them carefully when I get the chance to read them tomorrow, that I was not suggesting that the Solicitor General was deliberately trying to mislead this House. 1 said to relate that case to the present case. The Solicitor General said that in 17 hours he examined all of these documents, selected 584, and filed an affidavit. The letter received by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, which was apparently prepared by people involved in the law enforcement agencies in this country, contained inaccuracies, and therefore must give grave concern to the court in the Peter Worthington case. It must
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
also give great concern to the accused in that case. Unfortunately, unlike this case, there is no appeal. It is a binding affidavit. That is an indication it is a bad law. I suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) that if he will look at that situation, that is what he will find.
What concerns me, and I believe all people in this country, is a government which does not hesitate when it is trouble to make use of the invidious provisions of Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, or of the Official Secrets Act, whenever it finds its position is endangered.


Marc Lalonde: Rather than make a specific statement, the hon. member prefers to go around by way of innuendo. But 1 understand what he said, and I presume the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) reserves his right to intervene on this issue. I would like to put it on record that he does reserve his right to intervene.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have listened to the Minister of Justice, who is a master of innuendo, and who has made great use of that particular talent.


An hon. Member:: Cheap! Resign!


Gerald William Baldwin: I will resign if you will come up and run against me. It explains precisely why, in the unfortunate case of Bernard Maguire under the provisions of the Human Rights Act, an act by which theoretically we were supposed to have the right to examine our own files but which has proved to be an utter farce, Mr. Maguire, deeply injured by actions of the authorities, was allowed to look at some of his file, from which had been rifled some of the most important aspects, and was then told that under no condition would he be allowed to publish or use what was on the file and, in effect, that if he did so he would be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. The attitude of the government in this case explains these things, Mr. Speaker.
I am not going to delay the House unnecessarily but I think it is a shocking thing that a government, in this stage of its life, faced with an obvious illustration of deliberate deception, has a senior member of this House refuse to allow the facts to come to the public through a committee, refuses to allow witnesses who are involved to appear before that committee, refuses to allow witnesses to be sworn, examined and cross-examined, a process which under our system for hundreds of years has proved to be the most effective way of getting at the truth. I am just amazed if what the President of Privy Council said a little while ago is the policy of the government. If that is their attitude and their point of view then, in the words of Cromwell, for God's sake, go, we have had enough of you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because we have already heard extensive argument with reference to this matter.

December 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
But very succinctly, the facts as I understand them, after listening to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), are that the solicitor general wrote the distinguished member with reference to information he was seeking for one of his constituents, to determine whether "Operation Cathedral" by the RCMP was being used with reference to the opening of mail. It is that simple. In the letter it was denied and then, of course, it came out in the evidence-under examination-that they are not always precise in their facts.
Mr. Speaker has found, after hearing argument presented previously and today, that there was a prima facie case of privilege, a breach of the rules. I was rather shocked by the argument presented by one of the most able debaters in this House, the President of Privy Council, (Mr. MacEachen), to the effect there was nothing to this because when Mr. Speaker finds a prima facie case it is merely a first impression on the surface, it is nothing. In the light of that definition, he used all the strength and argument of a red herring to show why the government does not want this matter to go before a committee so that the facts can be determined.
I agree with other members of this House that our committees, because of the way they function, are very inadequate to determine facts. But at the moment they are the only instrument we have under rules which have been forced on the House by closure. We cannot change those committees at the present time at this moment, when a reference to one of them is, hopefully, imminent.
But I want to come back to the hon. gentleman's argument. I was rather shocked that a man as intelligent as the President of Privy Council would give-he probably did it off the top of his head, as a lot of people do-a definition of what constitutes a prima facie case along the lines that it is the first impression on the surface-you make a decision and there is nothing to it. Now, what is the definition of a prima facie case? Let us put that on the record. This is from "Black's Dictionary" and I am sure Wigmore, too, after the volumes he has written in reference to evidence and prima facie would roll over in his grave if he knew the definition given on behalf of the government this afternoon in the highest court in the land. Look at some of these definitions of what prima facie means. "At first sight, on the first appearance". There is nothing wrong with that. "On the face of it, as far as can be judged from the first disclosure, presumably a fact, presumed to be true unless there is some evidence to the contrary." The definition goes on:
Such as will suffice until contradicted and overcome by other evidence.
Let me pause there. This government does not want any other evidence. It does not want the chain of events disclosed before a committee. Where there has been something deliberate in the sense of deceiving a distinguished member in reference to mail written by the solicitor general, one of the highest legal officers in this House, we are told, "Well, there's nothing to that on the surface."
When the Speaker finds there is a breach of the privileges of this House, when he finds that, Mr. Speaker-and you have found that-the only way the case can be met is not by

political bluff this afternoon; the only way that case can be met is to take that case before the committee. Let the committee of members from all parties listen to the evidence, listen to the witnesses who drew up the letter, obtain the facts, listen to the witnesses who gave the letter to the minister to sign and who drafted that letter-something which apparently appears from what has been said, and submitted now in evidence, to be untrue. When that evidence is met, the prima facie case will be met, and not before.
The definition continues:
A case which has proceeded upon sufficient proof to that stage where it will support finding if evidence to contrary is disregarded.
There follows a reference to certain cases, and these may be found at page 1353 in "Black's Dictionary." It continues:
A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favour is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it.
That is all we are asking. We are asking that a committee hear the evidence and, if the government and their witnesses say one thing and other witnesses say another, that committee makes a decision.
The evidence which is now before the House, a prima facie case of privilege having been found, must be met and can only be met by a hearing. The only way we have of doing that is by way of a standing committee. So much for the argument that just because it is a prima facie case it is something on the surface-"somebody's made a quick decision and the decision may be wrong."
I will tell the House what the problem is, and I will put it in a political nutshell. I am glad to see that the Deputy Prime Minister is here. Hon. members opposite do not want this matter to go to a committee. They say that it is before the McDonald commission.


Yvon Pinard: Right on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am right on, and the hon. member will have to agree with my next sentence. The government has forced itself into such a position that it must call a federal election within a few weeks or months, according to the constitution. The government hopes that this thing will drag on before the McDonald commission so that everything will be covered up and swept under the table. That is what the government is hoping this afternoon. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister presented such an able argument. He knows in his conscience, and he knew when he was making his speech, that if this matter goes to a committee, that committee will get down to work either before Christmas or after Christmas, that it will hear evidence, that it will come to some conclusions, that the matter will go before the Canadian people, the jury of this land, and that the Canadian people will turn this government out of office, when it has the courage to call an election.
In the whole argument of the Deputy Prime Minister there was nothing said about Mr. Speaker finding a prima facie case of privilege. If the Deputy Prime Minister did not like what I
December 6, 1978

said about calling an election, why does he not have a change of heart, a change of mind, a change of conscience, and a little political morality, and say that the government is not afraid of anything? Why does he not want this matter to go before a committee? Why does he not want hon. members to examine the evidence and to cross-examine witnesses without being stopped and stymied? The chairmen of our committees set up rules. There is nothing in the rule books which says I only have ten minutes to cross-examine a witness. When 1 ask one question, most ministers talk for 20 minutes.
I said I would not take very long. 1 have given the House the definition of a prima facie case. This is a serious matter indeed. A serious charge has been made. Mr. Speaker has found that there is a prima facie question of privilege. The privilege of an hon. member has been abused. The question of privilege is based on the fact that an hon. member has been deliberately deceived. Surely that is important enough to put before a committee.
This week I used the words "hiding the facts." The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, "Fancy the hon. member for Calgary North using such terminology!" If ever there was evidence of hiding the facts which could be called before the bar of justice today, there is evidence today. Facts are being hidden this afternoon because the government will not let them go before a committee so that they can be bared and so that the committee can report to this institution.


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I want, in a fairly short period of time, to clarify the issue because I think it has been seriously confused by the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). This issue relates to a series of facts which can be set forth in perhaps one paragraph. In November of 1973 the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) was sent a letter by a constituent of his who was concerned that his mail might have been tampered with by the RCMP. Also in November of 1973 the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham wrote a letter about that matter to the then solicitor general. On December 4, 1973, the hon. member received a reply, of which the following sentence was the conclusion:
I have been assured by the RCMP that it is not their practice to intercept the private mail of anyone and I trust the above explanation will set your constituent's mind at ease.
That sentence was quoted before, but I felt it to be of sufficient importance to quote it again. In November of 1977 the present Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) stated that in fact mail openings had occurred. Finally, we heard about the evidence given before the McDonald inquiry by former RCMP Commissioner Higgitt.
1 admit that that evidence does not lead to one simple conclusion but to two or three possible conclusions. However, that evidence no doubt can lead to the inference that ministers of the Crown were in fact aware that mail openings were occurring, and that in responses to members of parliament the strict truth was not always adhered to. Mr. Speaker referred to this matter on November 3 of this year. He has subsequently
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
decided that there is a prima facie case of privilege which should be referred to the standing committee.
This matter is not a question regarding the McDonald inquiry, a question relating to security, or a question regarding the substance of the letter concerned. It is not a question of whether a plastic card, a letter, or anything else was involved. Those are completely irrelevant matters. They have nothing to do with the substance of the procedural motion which is before us today. The substance of this matter is the simple question of the privileges of members of the House of Commons.
There has been much reference to the question of deliberate deceit and to whether the minister deliberately deceived anybody, as if the categories of privilege were ever closed. I refer the House to page 136 of Erskine May regarding breaches of privilege and contempt. This was quoted by Mr. Speaker in his remarks on November 9. Erskine May says the following:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
In other words, the categories of privilege and the categories of contempt are not closed. Therefore, Mr. Speaker was quite correct, in our view, in finding that there is at least a prima facie case of obstruction of a member of the House of Commons in seeking to get an answer to a question, that is, the question of whether his constituent's mail was opened. The answer the hon. member got in 1973 was not, on the admission of a minister of the Crown, the full truth.
This has nothing to do with security. This has nothing to do with the McDonald inquiry. It has to do with the process by which and through which a member of the House of Commons receives an answer from a minister of the Crown to whom the member directed a letter, the answer being unsatisfactory and misleading, whether deliberately, or simply because of the fact that the minister's civil servant, or in this case the RCMP, had been systematically giving incorrect information. If that is not a question which relates to the obstruction of a member of the House of Commons in the conduct of his duties, I do not know what is.
A member of the House of Commons should be entitled to find out how it is that we get replies from ministers which are false, which in substance are misleading, and which obstruct us in the performance of our duties. If a member of parliament is not entitled to that, I do not know what amounts to a question of privilege or contempt of this House.
Mr. Speaker found, on the basis of the evidence which was before him-which evidence I have just described-of sworn testimony given at the McDonald inquiry on the one hand, and admissions made to the House of Commons by the then solicitor general in November of 1977 on the other hand, and finally the letter in December of 1973-those are three pieces of evidence which were before Mr. Speaker-Mr. Speaker found this amounted to what he called a prima facie case.

December 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
What is a prima facie case? The Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council said that a prima facie case was just a case of first impression, or on the surface. That has nothing to do with what a prima facie case is, and it is a disgrace for a minister of the Crown to come before the Elouse and say that is what a prima facie case is. A prima facie case is a case which, unless answered by cogent evidence to the contrary, stands.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Marc Lalonde: That is not what Mr. Speaker said. You should listen to him.


Bob Rae: I am relating my point to the question of what is prima facie case. 1 might say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) that perhaps because 1 have just come out of law school, I am more acquainted with the law than he is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. May I point out that perhaps this is something he might have forgotten to learn in law school when he was there a few years ago, but this is not what I was referring to just now. I was referring only to a statement made by Mr. Speaker in the House this afternoon when the hon. member was present. If he had heard what Mr. Speaker said in the House he would know what Mr. Speaker had meant in the statement he made earlier this afternoon when he invited hon. members to respect his ruling and the implications of his ruling.


Bob Rae: All right. That was not really a point of order, it was a point of argument. But I will let it pass and I will respond to the argument.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: Qa va. That is not what a prima facie case of privilege is. I stand to be corrected, but I will be happy to read the transcript later this afternoon. What Mr. Speaker referred to is the relative functions of his job as compared with the functions of the House of Commons. 1 say to the Minister of Justice and to members that a prima facie case is a case which has to be answered. I submit that the rhetoric, the selective arguments, and the argumentative use of certain evidence given at the McDonald inquiry by the President of Privy Council, however skilfully it was done, and it was done very skilfully, is not a sufficient refutation of a prima facie case. Once a prima facie case has been raised, it must go to a committee for investigation.
The contempt, if that is not too strong a word, which this government shows for the privileges and concerns of members of the House, is beyond belief, because what ministers are saying in this matter is, "Leave it to us, boys; we know what the evidence is. We know what our ministers have said, we know what the contradictions of Commissioner Higgitt are, we do not need any kind of committee to tell us whether or not the privileges of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham as a member of this House have been interfered with." If that is
not behaviour that is contemptuous of members of the House, I do not know what is, because Mr. Speaker has said quite clearly, on the basis of the evidence that was before him, that there is what is called a prima facie case which-I say this with respect to the Minister of Justice-cannot simply be refuted by either the Deputy Prime Minister or himself rising and saying, "This is what the substance of the case is all about and this is how we will rule."
With great respect to the Minister of Justice, he has not conducted an inquiry into how these letters came to be written. He has not conducted an inquiry into precisely what was said to the Solicitor General with respect to this correspondence. He has not conducted an inquiry into the practice of civil servants with respect to all sorts of inquiries which go from members of the House to members of the government. Quite clearly that is a question for the committee. It is not a question of security; it is not even a question of the RCMP; it is a question as to how we get our mail answered, how answers are drawn up by the other side, how civil servants brief ministers, and what is the responsibility of ministers for the statements and letters they send out that turn out to be misleading. 1 submit that that is precisely the kind of case which, following the citation in May that the categories of privilege are not closed, has to go before a committee for investigation.
I submit that if in a moment of non-partisanship the Minister of Justice or anybody else on the front bench would consult other members of the House on his side, he might find that there might be members there who would be concerned to find out how this process went on and precisely what responsibility was being taken by the minister for answers that were given which turned out to be misleading. I submit that those are the issues before the House in this matter, and I also submit that those are the only issues.
The President of Privy Council spent his entire speech doing two things. The first thing he did was to make fun of the letter, to make fun of the constituent, which is an easy thing to do for the government, and to make fun of the RCMP, a very easy thing for this government to do. The second thing he did was to go into the substance of the correspondence and to say, "I have conducted an inquiry. I have looked at the evidence and I say there is not a prima facie case."
I think it was Stalin who said, "How many battalions does the Pope have?" That is precisely the attitude of this government toward the views of Mr. Speaker, because what this government is saying is, "It does not matter what the prima facie case is, it does not matter what the evidence is, it does not matter whether there is a dark grain of doubt at the back of every member's mind. What matters is that we have done the investigation and we have decided that the standing committee will not be allowed to look at this matter." If that does not show contempt for rational argument, for the legal process and for natural justice, I do not know what does.
The final argument used by the President of Privy Council was that there was no accused. He said there is not an accused and there is not an unaccused, therefore there would be contempt for natural justice if we referred the matter to a
(Mr. Rae.]
December 6, 1978

standing committee. I submit that that is an intellectual confusion of a very elementary kind. We are not accusing anyone. A member has raised a matter of privilege as a result of a letter he has received, and he simply wants to find out how these kinds of letters get to be written. If he does not know, it is only because of the essentially anonymous nature of this government, and only because cabinet ministers are not prepared to take responsibility for their statements and for the mistakes they make.
If there are no accused over there, it is because they do not have the guts to stand up and take the responsibility for what they have done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: So do not come to us talking about natural justice. The fact of the matter is that there is no accused. There is a motion on the floor that there be an investigation, that this matter be investigated by a committee of the House. You cannot confuse it with the McDonald royal commission because it has nothing to do with the work of the commission. We have never suggested that the royal commission stop its work. What it has to investigate is the matter of how, in this particular instance, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was given a letter which was not the full truth.
I find it absolutely astonishing that the government is not prepared to look at the matter and say, "All right, it may be embarrassing; somebody may have been lying, someone may not have been telling the truth, but we are sufficiently concerned about the truth and about the way in which we reveal our information to members of the House and to members of the public that we are not afraid." Instead of which we get the same old language of cover up and gobbledegook, evasion and the excuse that this is going before the McDonald inquiry and therefore is not a matter for this House.
This government has so emasculated the House of Commons that it has taken away all its powers and ability to deal not only with estimates but also with its privileges, and it is now saying that we will have to wait until the cows come home for the McDonald inquiry to come down with a report. It is not even going to deal with the question raised by the hon member for Northumberland-Durham.
The McDonald inquiry, I do not have to tell the Minister of Justice, is a general inquiry into matters of security in Canada. It is a general inquiry into not only past but future determinations of how the security forces should be conducted and how political responsibility for security forces should be handled. It has very little to do-I was going to say something else-with the direct inquiry which has been raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. It has to do with a little letter which the Deputy Prime Minister can laugh at and make fun of, saying it is just a card. That is his privilege. You can laugh at the Speaker saying it is a prima facie case, and you can conduct your own inquiry into your own ministers and say you have satisfied yourself that it has been carried out, but the
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
only people you are fooling in the long run, the only people the government is fooling in this matter is the government itself.
Any government or group of individuals who do not allow themselves to be governed by the rule of law, who bend and twist concepts of law, such as the concept of a prima facie case, to suit their own needs, and who become judges of their own case and use the simple power of numbers to decide whether an injustice has been done, are a group that have shown themselves unworthy of being believed by the people of Canada. I suggest to this government that is precisely what has happened.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a short statement which appears on the fourth line of paragraph 113, on page 102 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition:
A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in the House.
And for a very good reason, Mr. Speaker. As a newcomer to the House, I have been somewhat shocked by the remarks made this afternoon, especially by Progressive Conservative members. I have been deeply disappointed by what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has said, and I consider absolutely unacceptable to question the credibility of the McDonald commission. Mr. Speaker, we must not overlook the fact that this royal commission of inquiry was set up under an act of parliament. The Inquiries Act allows the governor in council, through a ministerial decree, to establish a commission whose terms of reference are described in the order in council. This commission subsequently reports to the government and issues recommendations.
I think it is unfair and unacceptable for hon. members of the House to suggest that this royal commission would not cast light on the practices referred to by the hon. member who rose on a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, either we respect our institutions or we do not! Clearly this royal inquiry commission has a legal mandate under a federal law passed by this parliament and consequently, it must be respected. Mr. Speaker, we must now deal with its terms of reference in order to determine if there is a real possibility of a parallel inquiry and this is the gist of the question.
We heard many superficial arguments from the Conservative members today. We heard many innuendos, we heard what I would call nonsensical, silly, political remarks, Mr. Speaker, but nothing really serious which would enable us in parliament to decide whether the motion should be referred to a committee or not because we should not forget that parliamentary procedure is very simple on this point. Notwithstanding all the remarks which have been made up to now by hon. members on the opposition side, Mr. Speaker himself felt it was necessary to call us to order in this debate, and the Deputy Prime Minister also described the problem very accurately.

December 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
In the same fourth edition of his Parliamentary Rules and Forms, on page 95, citation 104(2), Beauchesne says the following:
It has often been laid down that the Speaker's function in ruling on a claim of breach of privilege does not extend to deciding the question of substance whether a breach of privilege has in fact been committed-a question which can only be decided by the House itself.
That is exactly what is happening, Mr. Speaker. The House is settling the matter, despite the antics of the hon. member who has just left, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), and I regret having used the name of a member for whom I have a lot of respect, but despite his antics today to prosecute us prima facie, it still is not misleading, it is not difficult-prima facie, that means at first glance, by the looks of things, superficially-if it is not a slur on the Chair to say that it gave a prima facie decision, since when do we insult someone because he is bound, procedurally, to the way things appear, to the way they seem superficially, on the surface? What is less acceptable, however, Mr. Speaker, is that members of the opposition in a serious debate which is meant to decide the issue should make such superficial speeches as the ones we heard till now, with the exception, of course, of the statement made by the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne, at page 102, citation 113, adds the following, and those are premises 1 want to read into the record in support of my argumentation. He says:
It should be dealt with by the a motion giving the House power to impose reparation or apply a remedy.
So, Mr. Speaker, the motion now before us, if it were ultimately decided upon by the House, should seek a remedy, should seek, as Beauchesne says, reparation. Keeping those principles in mind, let us take the motion as written. I am talking about the new motion, the one drafted by the parliamentary staff, the clerks who are at the table with the hon. member raising the question. There are two things in that motion. First, it proposes that the letter sent by the solicitor general of the day to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) on December 4, 1973, and second, the testimony of former commissioner Higgitt, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation and report.
The motion before us can be interpreted in two ways: either it is interpreted restrictively or it is interpreted in a general, liberal way. If it is interpreted restrictively-which is what the hon. member has in mind today-it is to refer to a committee of the House for investigation and report a letter and a testimony, the letter he received from the solicitor general in 1973 and the testimony of Mr. Higgitt before the McDonald commission. That is all he wants. If we were to limit ourselves to that, if we were to give the motion a restrictive interpretation-and I agree entirely with what the President of Privy Council mentioned-the hon. member who raised the motion of privilege is only quoting a paragraph from the letter he wants to have referred to committee and he only used a short

part of Mr. Higgitt's testimony before the McDonald commission.
Earlier I heard the new member of the New Democratic Party talk about natural justice, and before he goes behind the curtain, I would like to tell him that the principle of natural justice requires that our search for truth be as objective and as complete as possible. And to search for truth as objectively and as completely as possible, you do not take passages out of context from evidence or a document and interpret them subjectively. This cannot bring out justice or the truth. 1 understand that the hon. member did not suggest that he would do such a thing himself, but I maintain, Mr. Speaker-


Bob Rae: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the parliamentary secretary if he would allow a question.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to accept a question from the hon. member when 1 am through.
To come back to what I was saying, and this is very serious, the hon. member was talking about natural justice. What the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has done by moving such a limited and restrictive motion is to take out of context part of the evidence given by Mr. Higgitt by selecting a short paragraph of the letter written to him by the solicitor general in 1973. If we are interested in finding the truth, Mr. Speaker, we cannot ask a committee of the House to limit its examination, its inquiries and its report to such selective passages because the results would be unfair for all members of the House. This goes against the principle of natural justice. It would be unacceptable that the terms of reference of a committee be limited to only part of the evidence. As the President of Privy Council has said, all the evidence has not been given before the commission. Mr. Higgitt has not even been cross-examined, Mr. Speaker.
The inquiry where he stands as a witness is not even concluded and they expect that members who are elected to represent the people and show examples of justice, members who enact legislation, they expect members to go along and waste their time discussing excerpts from letters and shreds of evidence at the very moment when an inquiry is under way to shed light on those incidents, including the letter about which the member who presented this motion today has complained.
In the circumstances they interpret the motion liberally, generally, and consider that even if the motion has been revised and corrected, it still empowers the committee to inquire generally into everything related to that letter and the evidence given by Mr. Higgitt before the McDonald commission. Then, Mr. Speaker, what is related to the letter and what is related to Mr. Higgitt's statement? Obviously, the letter was sent to a Progressive Conservative member by a solicitor general in 1973, so there will be reference to that solicitor general in this committee and he is related to the terms of the
December 6, 1978

motion. Here is the paragraph of the letter that has been underlined by the hon. member and taken out of context. 1 quote:
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.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it will be related to the RCMP. The RCMP is mentioned in that paragraph. Immediately, the solicitor general and the RCMP are involved. And let us not forget the principles I mentioned earlier. The committee will seek a remedy and a sanction against those who are related to the incident referred to by the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).
1 consider that it does not take much courage and I wonder why the Progressive Conservative members have been so reluctant to say it. It does not take much courage to say that in fact the hon. member who proposed the motion of privilege, wants a sanction against the solicitor general or the RCMP, or both. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what he wants. He seeks a remedy and a sanction against a politician, the solicitor general or someone in the RCMP. There is no one else involved in the letter mentioned in the motion or in the evidence given by Mr. Higgitt before the McDonald commission.
Mr. Speaker, this is precisely where the argument concerning the parallel inquiry is important. Why would this institution-so respectable and with its many tasks ahead-waste its time and engage in overlapping by investigating on the same people and the same facts through a parliamentary committee and the royal commission of inquiry set up by a federal act?
Mr. Speaker, in order to make my point fully understood, I will have to remind you what is the mandate of the McDonald royal commission of inquiry. This commission was set up by an order in council on July 7, 1977. Let me quote a very short extract from this order, which will show to what extent what is actually done by the McDonald commission would be done the same way by the committee which would be examining the letter and Mr. Higgitt's testimony. According to this order, its mandate is 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 that are not authorized or provided for by law. And, in this regard, to inquire into the relevant policies and procedures that govern the activities of the RCMP in the discharge of its responsibility to protect the security of Canada. That is the essence of the mandate of the McDonald royal commission of inquiry, that is to look into the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
Such is the essence of the terms of reference of the McDonald royal commission of inquiry: to inquire into Royal Canadian Mounted Police activities. What the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is asking for is that the standing committee inquire into a letter he received from a solicitor general, wherein it was stated the practice was not for the RCMP to open the mails. What the hon. member is asking for is that a standing committee therefore inquire into RCMP activities, the same thing exactly that is under investigation by the McDonald commission.
Mr. Speaker, what the member is asking for is a parallel inquiry. This is unacceptable. We have no time here to indulge in duplication, to ask members of parliament, public figures to sit, to make inquiries, when we already have legislation providing for royal commissions to do the work much more objectively, much more fairly, in a much less partisan way. Surely, were a committee of this House to go into the same matters the McDonald commission is now investigating, it could be seen that although the matter under review by both inquiries would be identical, even though the facts would be the same, the procedure and conduct of those two investigating bodies would be quite different, and clearly doubts could be entertained as to which of the two inquiries would shed more light and justice. As far as I am concerned, I have no doubt the McDonald commission is in a position to assess in the least partisan and the most objective way the facts in particular that pertain to the complaint made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, and the facts in general that pertain to RCMP activities.
Mr. Speaker, there is something else of significance in this whole debate. Under our parliamentary procedure, in order for the committee to seek remedy, harm must have been suffered, and 1 wonder how the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham can now suggest, in 1978, he was harmed by a 1973 letter, when in this House, on November 9, 1977, which is nearly a year ago, in answer to his own question, the then solicitor general, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Mon-tagnes (Mr. Fox) had an opportunity to supply him with answers which, to anyone with even minimai intelligence, meant that the last part of the letter could not have been accurate.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, and 1 give him the benefit of the doubt in due respect for his intelligence, had every reason in the world last November 9 through the answers given to his questions and those also provided to many other members on the other side on that same issue by the then solicitor general with respect to the opening of the mail by the RCMP. Mr. Speaker, the member cannot therefore make a plea of ignorance. He had been aware since November that the information provided to him by the then solicitor general was no longer correct. Yet he did not complain at that time, Mr. Speaker. Why? Because he suffe-


K0067-47 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
December 6, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
red no prejudice; it is as simple as that. Another time when he could have made us aware of any such prejudice and when he precisely chose not to do so because he indeed suffered no prejudice was on February 1, 1978, before the Keable commission in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I took part in the debate before the decision made by the Speaker of the House and 1 have already alluded to and tabled before the House the testimony of Mr. Higgitt, given on February 1, 1978, before the Keable commission in Quebec.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the letter referred to in the motion that we are presently debating had been tabled before the Keable commission as exhibit P 142, and that in this testimony reference was made to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. When I recently referred to this extract of the testimony of Mr. Higgitt before the Keable commission, testimony which referred to the member for Northumberland-Durham and which has been the object of the letter he is complaining about, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said: Yes indeed, but you cannot expect the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham to understand the proceedings that have taken place in Quebec because they are conducted in French.
Mr. Speaker, the testimony which 1 read in English the other day was not a translation. What was read in the House was an excerpt from the testimony as given in English. Well, Mr. Speaker, in case the Conservative members are unaware of it, in Quebec legal procedures are heard in both official languages, as provided in our constitution and recently confirmed by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. So when I referred to the testimony of Mr. Higgitt before the Keable commission, that evidence was given in English. Therefore, the point made that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham could not be aware of it, because it was in French, is not valid. Secondly, the public inquiry dealt with that excerpt. And when the name of a member is mentioned during a public inquiry on an issue of such current interest as the activities of the RCMP and that, in addition, the letter in question today sent by a former commissioner of the RCMP to that member is tabled, I think that one must be an ignoramus, some kind of fool or simpleton not to understand that the words contained in the letter from the solicitor general could prove inaccurate.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, that is the second instance where the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham could have complained about the fact that the letter addressed to him in 1973 was inaccurate in the last paragraph. But he did not complain then. And that for two reasons, either one of those reasons. Either he really was not aware of what was going on publicly, in English, in the province of Quebec, and on that account I am not blaming him although I feel it not very likely, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. I do not question his word. Or he was aware of it one way or another but did not feel prejudiced. He has not been prejudiced. In view of the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, that is the second instance where

the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham could have raised the matter of prejudice for which he is asking redress today.
The motion under study today is very simple. He is asking, for reasons I do not know, that a committee of the House do exactly the same work as the McDonald Royal Commission of Inquiry. He is asking that a committee of the House consider a letter already tabled before the Keable commission and a practice of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which is now being looked into by a royal commission of inquiry, namely the McDonald commission; he wants us to discuss the testimony given by Mr. Higgitt on November 1 and October 24 before the royal commission of inquiry, when in fact his testimony has yet to be completed, when it has yet to be contradicted though, in principle, it could be, when I am sorry to say, that testimony is ambiguous and contradicted by its own author who could in turn be contradicted by other facts or testimonies; in short, before the inquiry has not been completed.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind, the crux of this debate is to determine whether serious hon. members can, by virtue of our procedure, decide on a matter of privilege through a vote on the motion now before the House. I feel that our first duty is to ask ourselves whether our institutions, as imperfect as they may be, whether our institutions allow us to assign individuals to inquire simultaneously, on a parallel basis, on exactly the same facts, situations and circumstances. Secondly, I wonder what such a committee could do in terms of applying remedies or sanctions when, it really seems, in fact, that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham suffered absolutely no prejudice because, were it otherwise, he would have complained about it last November or in February of this year. Mr. Speaker, there is another important, in fact, very important principle involved here. Namely, the danger that we abuse our institutions, that we arrive at contradictory reports. The royal commission of inquiry has been requested to bring in a report; it is its duty to make recommendations.
It could very well be, Mr. Speaker, that in light of a much more exhaustive inquiry and after having heard a much greater number of witnesses and studied a lot more documents, it could very well be that some time from now the royal commission of inquiry arrive at recommendations which are different from those which could be made by the committee to which we would now like to refer a letter or part of it which was quoted, and to which we would also like to refer part of a testimony. The parliamentary committee, Mr. Speaker, could very well make findings and conclusions clearly different from those made by the royal commission of inquiry, and I am convinced it is not part of the terms of reference of members of parliament to overlap and make contradictory decisions. It would be a nonsense and a procedural abuse to vote in favour of this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is six o'clock and if you wish to interrupt me, I will let you do so.
December 6, 1978
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) on a point of order.


Mr. MacKay:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I presume we will be continuing with this tomorrow, so I should like to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It has already been called six o'clock. That is no problem. The speaker who just had the floor called it six o'clock and, even if he had not, it is still six o'clock.
The hon. member for Central Nova has raised a point of order which I was going to inform the House about in any event. We have found ourselves in a situation which resembles the disposition of motions pursuant to Standing Order 43, prior to the question period. It resembles it only in this sense, that we face a situation we have not faced previously.
We have a motion on the floor at the present time. Proceedings on that motion are automatically interrupted by the ordinary hour of adjournment which has now arrived. I have therefore a choice, it would seem, of how to dispose or deal with this matter on the order paper. One way is to list it under motions, and the other is to list it under government orders pursuant to some of the Standing Orders. 1 am not clear as to which way it ought to be done and we have no precedents to guide us. It is a motion in the name of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), and it is a privilege motion. I have therefore opted in favour of treating it on the order paper as a motion. That is the way it will appear on the order paper. I do so, however, subject to a point of order which I do not think we should deal with at this hour, because I cannot really expect anybody to be prepared, and certainly we are not prepared to deal with it at this point.
This is my preliminary choice and those are the brief reasons why I have done so. I do so subject to a point of order which can be raised tomorrow before this matter is resumed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, among the other personal undertakings broken by the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) before this House was one today in which as he lightly castigated some of us on this side for having no courage. He indicated he was going to table the correspondence, at the same time asking why I did not do it. He knows full well, of course, that under the rules of the House I have no authority to do that. My understanding is that he has not yet tabled that piece of correspondence. I would ask the President of Privy Council to do so. At the same time I would ask the hon. gentleman, as he indicated that
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
there was a very selective taking out of testimony of former commissioner Higgitt, that he also table, if he would please, the complete testimony of former commissioner Higgitt, of October 24 and November 1, 1978. This is referred to in the motion before the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to table the letter. It is in my office and if the hon. gentleman would give me a moment, I will be happy to get it.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-7, an act to implement conventions between Canada and the Republic of Korea and Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and an agreement between Canada and Jamaica for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lawrence:
That the letter sent by the Solicitor General of the day to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham on December 4, 1973, and the testimony of former RCMP Commissioner Higgitt on October 24 and November 1, 1978, before the royal commission of inquiry (McDonald commission) concerning the practice of the RCMP in preparing letters for the signature of the Solicitor General, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation and report.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, 1 would be pleased to table a copy of the letter from the solicitor general to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. The letter is dated December 4, 1973. I am happy to comply with the request and I regret that following the applause which greeted my speech I forgot to table it at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.07 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
80067-47'/;

Thursday, December 7, 1978