Mr. Martin O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):

Mr. Speaker, I quite understand the interest of the hon. member for Abitibi in the development of northwestern Quebec and particularly in the building of the road from Villebois to James Bay which is undoubtedly a project of great interest for the people of the area.

Last week, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) received a letter from the La Sarre Chamber of Commerce asking for financial help for the construction of that road.

In view of the fact that this request is now under consideration, it is much too early to announce what decision will be made in this respect. However, I should like to point out to the hon. member that the building of roads comes mainly under provincial jurisdiction and that according to the departmental terms of reference, financial help can only be granted for that kind of project if it comes within the framework of the special area program. Furthermore, such projects have to be essential to the success of a development plan prepared for that area.

Therefore, the minister will have to take this important factor into consideration in the answer he will give to the La Sarre Chamber of Commerce in the near future.

DEBATES 3401

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [English]

Mr. David Lewis (York South):

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcll-raith) earlier today whether he would order an independent inquiry by a judge or other person into incidents which occurred in Vancouver, or in British Columbia, on January 25. These incidents involved three United States army deserters who had entered Canada legally a couple of weeks earlier and who were on the evening of that day deported from Canada, in my submission without authority, without any deportation order, without the necessary warning and without any resemblance of lawful activity by officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

This matter is of the utmost importance. I would remind hon. members that some months ago the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) laid down the policy-I am summarizing it-that the military status of entrants to Canada from the United States was irrelevant and would not be taken into consideration. Therefore, the fact that these three young men were United States army deserters is irrelevant to our consideration.

My information is that they came intc Canada legally some weeks ago; that or January 25 they were taken into custody, oi apprehended or in some other way led from Bridal Falls to Huntingdon by two RCMP officers; that at Huntingdon they were interviewed by an immigration officer called Smith who found they had entered legally into Canada and that there was nothing wrong with the situation. I understand that one of these men telephoned the Reverend Hewett, a minister in Vancouver, from the Canadian immigration office in Huntingdon and said to him, "We are about to be deported. We do not want to be deported. Can you help us?"

These three young men then found themselves on the United States side under arrest. Who got them there? How did they get there? There is conflict between the information given me by Don Rosenbloom, a lawyer in Vancouver, by the RCMP officers in British Columbia and by the minister in a letter dated February 3.

[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)

The officers in British Columbia suggested that these three men wanted voluntarily to go to the United States, the kind of suggestion that only a fiction writer could have thought

February 9, 1970

3402 COMMONS

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of. Here were three men who had deserted the U.S. army and had come to Canada. The suggestion now is that they said, "Please take us across so that we can go to jail". The minister's letter to me does not make any such suggestion. In his letter the minister's suggestion is that these three men wanted to regularize their entry into Canada. How they could be so dumb as to regularize something that they knew was already regular, I do not understand.

The point is that as far as I am concerned, and as far as the information that I have is concerned, the behaviour of the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-and perhaps the behaviour of some immigration officer; I do not know-was sheer, illegal kidnapping; it involved putting these men across the border without any semblance of authority or action taken pursuant to the law.

According to Doug Collins on the television program last night, he spoke to the United States officer, Baty, who arrested these men on the U.S. side. Officer Baty informed Mr. Collins that he had been telephoned and informed that three deserters were going to be available on the U.S. side of the border. Then he came there and took them from the RCMP officers. These are some of the facts as related to me and as related to the people of Canada on television last night.

I am not blaming the minister in this case. It is not a question of my saying that the Solicitor General is in any way responsible. He could not know what the officers did. But I do say that it is a false sense of loyalty for him to be satisfied with an inquiry made "inside the show", for him to be satisfied with information given him by people who, even if they were the absolute apostles of truth, would nevertheless be influenced by the fact that they had to justify actions which, unless they could do so, were obviously outside the law. This is not the kind of inquiry that will give him or give this Parliament the truth.

The only way to get the facts is to have a judge or some other disinterested person inquire into the case. The minister should want this independent inquiry; it should not be necessary for me to pressure him to seek it. He should want it for the sake of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He should want it for his sake and for the sake of his department. If he is not ready to order such independent inquiry, I suggest he is either being misguided or he is so anxious to hide facts that would show his officers to be in the

wrong that he is prepared to jeopardize the reputation of the force.

I have heard on a number of occasions in the past about what appeared to be similar illegal action by officers who had taken people across the line from Canada to the United States and placed them in custody on the other side without the necessary deportation order. Before a deportation order can be issued legally, a special inquiry has to be held. People are entitled to be represented by counsel, and they are entitled to appeal from the deportation order if they wish to. None of this took place. Indeed, an inquiry made by Mr. Rosenbloom of the immigration department showed that there was no deportation order on record. There was no copy of such order at Huntingdon or anywhere else.

These three men who were in Canada legally suddenly found themselves under arrest on the other side. They did not cross the border voluntarily, because within an hour, I understand, of their arrest they kicked in the back of the truck or vehicle or paddy-wagon, or whatever it was they were held in, and escaped. Two of the men were recaptured. One of them, at least as of this afternoon, was still at large and seeking, I hope, to come back to this country. This kind of behaviour by officers of the Crown, acting in whatever capacity, cannot be tolerated in a democratic country and should not be condoned by the minister concerned. I am not suggesting that he is condoning it; I am suggesting that if he does not make the necessary independent inquiry he will be, in effect, objectively condoning it.

Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised this question in the House of Commons this afternoon. I had anticipated he was going to raise it on Friday, but regrettably he was not here then. He had previously exchanged some correspondence with me, giving me certain information which I had investigated and replied to. He has given me certain additional information and participated in a television show last night which I did not see and, regrettably, I have not had the text of it delivered to me as yet. I told him this afternoon I would investigate this new material-I thought I made that very clear-before dealing with his point as to whether there is any need for a further inquiry of the nature he suggests.

The hon. member makes very many direct allegations. For instance, he says these men were deported from Canada. I do not know

February 9, 1970 COMMONS

this, but I do not believe they were. I am going to pursue that matter. In the material he supplies he refers to certain RCMP persons by numbers. The RCMP has no numbering system of any kind and there is obviously some error in his material in that respect. In any event, we have been unable to trace to whom the supplier of the information was referring in this regard. This is the kind of difficulty we still have to clear up.

The hon. member persists in talking about these men being put under arrest. The truth of the matter is that these men came and solicited information from a uniformed member of the RCMP while he was having his meal in a restaurant. This is how they came in contact-

Mr. Lewis:

So they say.

Mr. Mcllraiih:

I think they expressed their pleasure with the mounted police for their entire conduct in this contact with the Agassiz detachment.

Mr. Lewis:

So the mounted police say.

Listen to him.

Mr. Mcllraiih:

I wonder whether the hon. member would be courteous and have the good manners to permit me to reply in so far as I can. I listened patiently to him, although

DEBATES 3403

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion it was difficult in respect of some of the conclusions he had jumped to without having sufficient evidence to support them. His conclusions are at least premature. I hope they will not be proven to be right, but even if they are, they are premature in view of the information he now has. Since I am limited to less than half the time he is given to make these allegations, I hope he will extend me the courtesy of allowing me to finish.

The point I am making is that we are dealing, in respect of the Bridal Falls episode-

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):

Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now seemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned-

Mr. Lewis:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did interrupt the hon. minister and I think he should be given another minute to complete his sentence.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):

That is not the practice at this late hour of the day. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Tuesday, February 10, 1970