1960-04-25

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pertaining to two articles written by Mr. A. I. Goldberg of Moscow, reproduced in various Canadian newspapers and commented upon fairly extensively. The facts should be recorded.
The first article, printed in the newspapers of April 15, reads as follows:
Trade Minister Churchill said here Thursday that Canada would be willing to sell the Soviet union uranium from Blind River, Ontario, mines. Mr. Churchill, in Moscow to sign a new Russian-Cana-dian trade agreement, said, in reply to questions, that the Russians wanted Canadian uranium.
The second article, printed on April 16, reads in part as follows:
He said there was a "misunderstanding" about a statement he made on his arrival here two days ago that Canada "would sell uranium to the Russians if they want it." This reporter asked, "Would you sell uranium to the Russians under your new trade agreement"? Churchill's reply was, "Yes, if they would want it."
The quotations I have read from the two articles are false in their entirety. The true story of this episode is as follows. Immediately on my arrival on the 14th of April at the National hotel in Moscow I met Mr. Goldberg in the corridor for a period of about 30 seconds. We exchanged greetings. Mr. Goldberg said he had been in the Blind River area a few years ago, and I said I had recently been there on a visit. There was no discussion of the uranium stretch-out program nor any reference to the proposed trade agreement as he writes in his article. He stated that Canada had a surplus of uranium, and I said "Yes".
Then he put to me the following question, and this was his only question: "If Russia wants to buy uranium from Canada are you willing to sell?"
Uranium is not a product to be dealt with lightly. It is used for nuclear bombs. The question was obviously a trap, so I did not answer it. My only comment was, "Canada has plenty of uranium". That was the end of the conversation.
Mr. Goldberg then proceeded to falsify his report and to invent an answer which I did
79951-0-204
not give and to invent a question which he did not ask, namely about the Russians wanting Canadian uranium.
The next meeting with Mr. Goldberg was on Saturday, April 16, at a regular press conference which lasted for almost 40 minutes. In his second dispatch, printed in Canadian papers on April 16, Mr. Goldberg does not mention the press conference nor quote from it, for the simple reason that he took no part in it. He asked no questions, he just sat silently. Uranium was not mentioned by anyone. He had ample opportunity. One of the correspondents asked, "What articles or products does Canada expect to sell to Russia?" I replied, "With the exception of wheat, no particular articles have been mentioned." At that moment Mr. Goldberg might have intervened to challenge my statement. He remained silent.
His report refers to a private meeting that I had with him after the press conference was over. His report of that private meeting reads in part as follows, as printed in the newspapers of April 16:
Today Churchill said: "There was a misunderstanding. I am not here to sell any specific item and selling uranium to the Russians would be the last thing we would do."
The quotation I have just read from Mr. Goldberg's second article is false. Mr. Goldberg appears to have a very unreliable memory. The facts I will now give, based on notes I made of the conversation, for I knew that I would not be able to rely on the veracity of Mr. Goldberg. I had hoped that he would correct his first dispatch, and that was why I saw him privately. It was a vain hope. Instead of correcting his first false story he repeated it and embellished it.
I said to Mr. Goldberg that he obviously misunderstood the problems connected with uranium, for he was writing fantastic nonsense. To test his knowledge of the subject I asked him various questions with regard to uranium being on the list of strategic materials, about the necessity for bilateral agreements before it may be sold even for peaceful purposes, and about the supervision and control of uranium sales. His answers showed that he was well aware of all those matters.
I then said to him that the statement he had attributed to me in his Thursday dispatch was untrue and incomprehensible in

Question of Privilege
view of the knowledge that he had of the restrictions placed on the sale of uranium. Then I added, "The last product that Canada would be willing to sell to Russia at this time is uranium". He said, "I will report that".
He twisted and distorted it. He twisted it to read that the last country to which we would sell uranium would be Russia.
Another paragraph of Mr. Goldberg's report of our private meeting, printed on April 16, reads as follows:
Reminded of his Thursday statement and the context in which he made it, Churchill said, "Well, it was made in a joking way".
The Thursday statement has been given in three versions by Mr. Goldberg who is nothing if not versatile.
The first version was printed on April 15:
Canada would be willing to sell the Soviet union uranium from Blind River, Ontario, mines and the Russians want Canadian uranium.
The second revised version was printed on April 16:
Canada would sell uranium to the Russians if they want it
The third revised version of the same date:
Yes, if they would want it.
I said none of those words at any time. My Thursday statement was simply, "Canada has plenty of uranium".
Goldberg attributes to me a statement that I did not make. Then he writes that he reminded me of that statement and that I said it was made in a joking way.
As I did not make the statement in the first place, in any of the three versions, Mr. Goldberg is obviously falsifying the record again.
There was never any joking on my part about uranium nor any statement by me that I had been joking.
I asked Mr. Goldberg what purpose he had in mind in inquiring about the sale of uranium to Russia. He would not answer that question. I then accused him of making a farce and a joke of a serious matter with a careless disregard for the consequences. No responsible person, knowing that uranium is the material that is used for nuclear bombs, would talk lightly, in this period of international tension, about selling it to any country as if it were just another commodity.
So that there may be no mistake about it,
I would add that at no time during the course of the lengthy negotiations with the Russians either here in Canada or in Moscow was the subject of uranium mentioned by any one of the officials or the ministers on either side.

In conclusion may I express my surprise that in the midst of the turmoil that appears to have upset some editorial offices in Canada no contact was made with me. No representative of the press of Canada at home or abroad, no representative of any other news-gathering service, got in touch with me. There were no interviews, there were no cablegrams, there were no telephone calls.
It is regrettable that Mr. Goldberg's dispatches, on the vitally important subject of uranium, at a critical moment in the trade negotiations with Russia, were accepted in Canada without any attempt whatsoever at verification.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PAKISTAN MINISTER

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the house would allow me I should like to refer to the fact that Hon. A. K. Khan, minister of industries, irrigation and power of the government of Pakistan, who joined President Ayub Khan's cabinet in November, 1958, is with us here today. In welcoming him we do so both for himself and the country he represents, one of our friends of the commonwealth with whom we have the closest relations.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to join on behalf of this party in the welcome which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has jusit given to the minister of a sister nation in the commonwealth.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the C.C.F. wish to join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in offering our sincere welcome to this distinguished guest from Pakistan. All Canadians, I am sure, will welcome his visit to our country.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of certain events which took place during the Easter recess perhaps the house will allow me to make a statement, first on the visit of President de Gaulle and second on a return visit which I paid to Mexico.
The recent state visit of the President of the French republic and community, General de Gaulle, provided the Canadian government and people with an opportunity to pay tribute to one of the foremost statesmen of our time, the illustrious leader of one of Canada's

mother countries. Together with my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) and members of the cabinet, a most satisfactory exchange of views took place during the stay of the president in Ottawa. The international situation was discussed, as well as the question of disarmament, aid to underdeveloped countries and other subjects of equal mutual interest.
These exchanges of views served to emphasize the continuing need for full consultation among members of NATO on matters which affect the vital interests of the western world. Coming as it did just two weeks before the summit conference, an excellent opportunity was presented to make known to him the views of the Canadian government on the major subjects which will be discussed at the conference.
I will not go into detail with regard to those discussions except to say that they covered the range of those matters which are of peculiar and particular interest at this time. I need hardly add that relations between our two countries continue to be excellent, and a wide measure of agreement exists on current world issues.
Following the course of the past, and with the consent of the house, I move that the address which President de Gaulle delivered at the state luncheon on April 19, 1960 and the address delivered by the Prime Minister be included as an appendix to the official report of debates for the third session of this parliament.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I say that we agree with great pleasure to the inclusion of these addresses in Hansard. They will be a memento of a happy visit to our country of a great and towering figure of our times, a man who never lost faith, during what appeared to be defeat, either in the cause for which his country was fighting or in the destiny of that country which in a very special way is our country, too. It will be a memento also of a man who once again has been called to the service of his native land and to the service of peace in difficult times, and who once again has responded to that call with courage and devotion.
I am sure the President's visit to Ottawa and to other parts of Canada will serve to strengthen the bonds which are already so strong between our two countries.


Hazen Robert Argue: The visit of President de Gaulle to Canada was most welcome to our nation, and emphasized once again the very close relations between Canada and France.
79951-0-204J
25. 1960
Visit to Mexico by Prime Minister
President de Gaulle has earned for himself a very distinguished name among all the nations of the world which are interested in democracy and which played a part in defeating nazism. General de Gaulle became known to us in a large measure as the leader of free France. He continues to play a leading role in the unfolding of history as it concerns France and other nations.
The Prime Minister mentioned many subjects which were discussed with the President. I am certain that in the field of disarmament there was discussion of the desirability of the discontinuance of nuclear tests, as well as the subject of providing aid to underdeveloped countries. The President's visit was most welcome, as I have said, and we trust that such exchanges will continue in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion made by the Prime Minister with respect to the printing of these addresses in Hansard?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[For text of addresses above referred to, see appendix]

John George Diefenbaker: As I said a moment ago, I returned the visit paid to Canada last October by President Lopez Mateos, the first Mexican head of state to be an official guest of this country. I did this during the Easter recess.
If the regard and esteem of a people for another can be gauged by the welcome given to their official representatives, the three days I spent in Mexico have brought home to me, more vividly than anything I had ever heard or read, a realization of the good will that Canada enjoys in this dynamic and rapidly advancing North American neighbour.
During this visit I had occasion to discuss with the President and with the foreign minister, Sr. Manuel Tello, questions of concern to both our countries, including international questions, and as a result of these conversations I can say there are no basic differences in our approach to world problems although our policies may not always coincide; and do not, with regard to the law of the sea, where the need to maintain historical rights confirmed by treaty makes it impossible, in the President's view, for Mexico to support the Canadian stand.
These conversations have further convinced me of the need for consultations at a high level with the political leaders not only of countries associated with Canada by tradition and alliance, but those of all other states

Visit to Mexico by Prime Minister whose similarities in background, outlook and interests are bringing them closer to us, in order to reach a wider and clearer understanding of the motives and requirements on which our respective attitudes are based, and to explore the possibilities of more effective collaboration.
I was glad to hear the views of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) a moment ago when he paid his tribute to the need for these exchanges. I can say one thing, that my visit to the various commonwealth countries was worth while in that it provided me with a knowledge and understanding of the attitudes of the other members of the commonwealth which could not have been attained in any other way.
On behalf of the people of Canada I made a presentation to the national university of Mexico of volumes relating to various aspects of Canadian life and achievement.
I could speak of the welcome I was accorded in many ways. As a lawyer I naturally was deeply touched by the fact that for the first time in its history a foreigner was made an honorary member of the illustrious and national college of advocates, a tribute by the bar of Mexico not to me personally but to the people of Canada.
There was a wide measure of public sympathy with the attitude of the Canadian government on matters such as disarmament and the suspension of nuclear tests, to which the hon. member for Assiniboia just referred, the need for international co-operation in the use and development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, a reduction of discriminatory trade restrictions, the value of fostering cultural relations and an increase in the exchange of students through the granting of scholarships and other facilities.
May I summarize this. I think visits such as this contribute to good will, good fellowship and better understanding. There are no words I can use to describe the warmth of the feeling of the President, the government and the people of Mexico to Canada. I hope the President may be able again very soon to pay a visit to Canada so that we in turn may continue in that close feeling and warm relationship that prevails between our two countries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of the house, and certainly we on this side, were pleased when we learned that the Prime Minister was able to take time off from what might have been a vacation to return the visit of the President of Mexico. I am sure also that this visit has


made its own contribution to the strengthening of the political, cultural and trade relations between two countries which over the years have built up a tradition of friendly relationships. After all, Mr. Speaker, there is a special bond between Mexico and Canada because, with the oceans, we surround the United States.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the C.C.F. believes that a visit such as the Prime Minister has made to Mexico is of a kind that is likely to lead to a strengthening of the relationships between our two countries. We would hope it would lead to an expansion of trade, and be viewed as an indication of Canada's growing interest in the development of good will between Canada and the Latin-American nations and an indication of our concern for their improved economic development.
The Prime Minister made brief reference to some words I used earlier. I want to tell him we feel that exchanges between Canada and other nations should be undertaken from time to time. We say that when these visits are considered the Prime Minister should have in mind their timing and duration, because the Prime Minister's attention to domestic matters as well as external matters is of great importance. We feel that the visit to Mexico was one that probably should have been made.


TABLING OF PROTOCOL AND LETTERS RESPECTING AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I now table for the information of the house the text of the protocol signed in Moscow on April 18, 1960, which renews for a three-year period the trade agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of February 29, 1956, as well as the understanding set out in the letters which the two parties exchanged at that time concerning the right of the Canadian government to fix under the Canadian Customs Act values of goods for ordinary and special duty.
The protocol also provides that each of the two governments will give sympathetic consideration to any representations which the other government may make concerning the implementation of the renewed agreement and with regard to other matters which may affect their commercial relations. The protocol is in force provisionally from the date of signature. It is to be ratified as soon as possible, and will enter into force definitively on the date of exchange of instruments of ratification, which is to take place

in Ottawa. An early opportunity will be provided for a debate in parliament, and a resolution of approval will be introduced to this end.
I am also tabling copies of letters which I exchanged with the Soviet minister of foreign trade, Mr. N. S. Patolichev, setting forth certain additional understandings concerning the development of trade between the two countries. If the house agrees, I suggest that the text of the protocol and of the letters be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give concurrence to the proposal of the minister that the text of the protocol and the letters be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of protocol and letters above referred to, see Votes and Proceedings of today1


Gordon Minto Churchill: As hon. members are aware, the negotiations for renewal of the trade agreement with the U.S.S.R. took a considerable time. They were initiated before the 1956 agreement lapsed on February 28, 1959, and the early discussions were not without difficulties. However, common ground was eventually found, and the agreement is being renewed on terms which I consider satisfactory from the Canadian point of view, particularly taking into account the changed trading circumstances since the earlier agreement was concluded.
The house is familiar with the provisions of the 1956 agreement which is now being extended. In brief, Canada and the U.S.S.R. exchange most favoured nation treatment and, on a reciprocal basis, provide for nondiscriminatory treatment of merchant ships in the seaports of the two countries. Either government may, however, apply prohibitions or restrictions of any kind directed to the protection of its essential security interests. Our strategic export controls are therefore not affected.
The protocol extending the agreement broadens the basis on which representations can be addressed to either of the two parties. Previously the two governments had agreed to give sympathetic consideration to representations concerning the implementation of the agreement. The scope for such representations has now been enlarged to include any other matters affecting commercial relations between the two countries. Should the necessity arise this would permit Canada, for example, to take up with the government of the U.S.S.R. any special problems which may
25. 1960
Trade Agreement with Russia be encountered in respect of the sale in world markets of Soviet products in which Canada has a substantial export interest.
The letter which I exchanged with Mr. Patolichev provides that in each year of the renewed agreement the Soviet foreign trade organizations will purchase Canadian goods up to a total value of $25 million Canadian, including not less than 200,000 metric tons of Canadian wheat, provided the total annual value of Canadian purchases from the U.S.S.R. is not less than $12J million Canadian. Should the total value of Canadian purchases from the U.S.S.R. be less than $12J million Canadian in any one year the Soviet undertaking to purchase from Canada would be reduced and would be determined on a two to one basis; that is, the Soviet union would purchase twice as much from Canada as Canada imported from the Soviet union, and wheat will constitute not less than half the value of such annual Soviet purchases.
It will be noted that no commitment to purchase Soviet goods has been made by the Canadian government. As in the case of trade with other countries, the level of our purchases will be determined by the commercial decisions of Canadian importers. The house will appreciate that the U.S.S.R. agreement to trade with Canada on a two to one basis represents a very substantial concession on their part, since the Soviet union normally endeavours to balance trade with each of its trading partners.
In addition to establishing the Soviet commitment to purchase Canadian goods the letter provides that the authorities of the two countries will meet at least once a year, alternately in Ottawa and Moscow, to consult concerning the implementation of the agreement and any other matters affecting Soviet-Canadian trade relations. It is the hope of both parties that trade will flow reasonably regularly in each year of this agreement. The annual consultations will provide the occasion for an exchange of views with respect to the operation of the agreement. They should also prove of value in building up greater understanding between the two countries with respect to trade matters.
The letter also sets forth an understanding that as a measure toward attaining the mutual objective of an expansion of trade the two governments will facilitate visits for business purposes between the two countries. It is my hope that within the framework of the renewed agreement, and in pursuance of the undertakings in the letter which has been exchanged, there will be a mutually advantageous growth in trade between the two countries. The actual growth in trade and the nature of the goods to be exchanged

Trade Agreement with Russia will depend mainly on the decisions of the businessmen and business organizations of the two countries.
The Canadian market is highly competitive, and it will be necessary for the Soviet export authorities to understand our requirements if they are to sell successfully in Canada. Similarly, it will be important for Canadian exporters to make known to the Soviet import organizations the products and goods which they are in a position to supply on competitive terms. In general, it will be necessary for there to be much closer contact between the traders of the two countries than has been the case in the past. To this end I have suggested, and the Soviet authorities have agreed, that a group of Soviet traders representing both export and import interests should visit Canada, and the Soviet authorities have indicated that they would welcome a comparable visit of Canadian businessmen to the Soviet union. I hope the necessary arrangements for these visits can be made during the current year. I have also invited the Soviet minister of trade, Mr. Patolichev, to come to Canada and this invitation is being considered by the Soviet government. I hope he will find it convenient to come at the same time as the visit of Soviet trade representatives.
As a further measure to facilitate the growth of trade, Mr. W. J. Van Vliet has been appointed commercial counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Moscow, where his main responsibility will be to assist in the promotion of our exports to the U.S.S.R.
The house will recall that under the 1956 arrangement the Soviet union undertook an annual obligation to purchase a specified minimum quantity of wheat, 400,000 tons. The new arrangement provides that at least half the value of the annual Soviet purchase commitment will be in the form of wheat. If Soviet purchases were to rise to the value of $25 million, our sales would include at least 200,000 tons of wheat. Accordingly, while the Soviet union will continue to purchase significant quantities of Canadian wheat, we may now look toward more diversified sales to the U.S.S.R. Both sides are aiming to diversify as well as to expand trade.
The house is aware that the Soviet union has greatly enlarged its production of wheat and is a regular wheat exporter. In the circumstances the amount of wheat which the Soviet union has undertaken to purchase may be regarded as satisfactory. I should add that I raised with the Soviet government the question of the approximately 200,000 tons of wheat still outstanding under the old agreement. Provided trade develops in a satisfactory manner, in accordance with the agreement and

the letters exchanged in Moscow, I was assured by Mr. Patolichev that the Soviet union would endeavour to make up this deficiency so there would be no question of the Soviet union not having fulfilled the earlier obligation.
I should like the house to know, Mr. Speaker, that I was received with friendship and courtesy by the Soviet ministers and senior officials whom I had the opportunity to meet. In addition to Mr. Patolichev I had the pleasure of general discussions with Mr. F. R. Kozlov and Mr. A. I. Mikoyan, both first deputy premiers of the Soviet union. These gentlemen showed a welcome awareness of Canada's interests as a world trader and major exporter.
Our conversations were frank and constructive. The hospitality which was shown to me and to the other members of the Canadian delegation was generous and memorable. I believe that over and above the provisions of the agreement and the exchange of letters, a basis has been established for closer and more fruitful co-operation between the two countries in the field of trade.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Oiiawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the minister is somewhat longer than is usual on motions, and in addition to giving the factual information which we all welcome and which is properly given at this stage of the house proceedings on a subject of this importance, it also contains some debatable material. In so far as it contained factual information and related to the tabling of the documents relevant to the new trade treaty, we welcome it because this will give us an opportunity of examining the actual documentation to see precisely what the situation is. We welcome also the announcement that in due course the matter will be coming before the house for discussion.
The minister described the agreement, if I understood him correctly, as satisfactory in the circumstances. His later elaboration of it would lead us to believe it is not necessarily so satisfactory, because it does not even provide for the taking up of the requirements for wheat provided under the earlier agreement, although it is quite true that they may take that additional 200,000 tons and thus complete the earlier agreement. While he told us how high the obligation to purchase might go if our Canadian importers bought heavily from Russia, he did not tell us what I took from his statement to be a fact, that it could also go much lower than it has been if our importers do not buy.
I noted also the omission to deal with the list of prohibited goods for export to Russia.

Perhaps when we come to orders of the day we can get some further information on that point. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, there is no purpose in making further comment at this time.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, our group was very happy to learn that the minister was in Moscow, and that at long last he was able to complete the renewal of our trade agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We note with considerable interest that, unless I am in error, this is the first time the Canadian government has entered into what is in effect a reciprocal trade agreement, in that we agree to buy a certain amount of goods from another nation if another nation will buy a certain quantity of goods from us.
It is our hope that our government will realize its responsibility in this regard. We regret very much that even if the optimistic objectives that are aimed at under the agreement are realized, it will involve a reduction in Russia's purchase of Canadian wheat under the earlier agreement by 50 per cent. We regret very much this proposed reduction in Russia's purchase of Canadian wheat.
However, we want to emphasize, and to underline as heavily as we can, that for the first time to our knowledge, in signing a trade agreement, the Canadian government has morally, if not otherwise, accepted a responsibility. I noted the minister's announcement that a counsellor had been appointed to serve in Moscow to promote Canadian exports. I hope the government will realize that under the terms of the agreement, exports will automatically follow our imports. I hope the minister might see fit to exert considerable energy toward the promotion of Canadian imports from the Soviet union, and that those efforts might extend beyond the expression of pious pleas and platitudes to Canadian enterprise to actively consider the importation of goods made within the Soviet union, because our exports are so directly related to Canadian imports under the terms of the agreement. We hope the government will realize its responsibility in this regard and will not be entirely dependent upon the whims of Canadian importers.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the statement on the matter made by the Prime Minister before the Easter recess, might I ask him now what arrangements
Inquiries of the Ministry the government proposes to make to bring about a discussion of apartheid in South Africa.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that on April 11, during discussion of this matter, I stated as follows, as recorded at page 3088 of Hansard, when the Leader of the Opposition asked whether an opportunity might be given for the introduction and discussion of such a resolution as had been brought before the United Kingdom House of Commons three days before:
-I can say that immediately after recess, when the condition of affairs in South Africa will at least not be as turbulent, we hope, as it is at the moment, we might then give consideration to doing that which the hon. member has suggested so that the views of Canada's House of Commons, with respect to which there is no difference from the point of view of party affiliation or position in the house, might be expressed.
Having given that consideration, I think it would be proper for some discussion to take place between the Leader of the Opposition, government representatives and other members in the house, to the end that a discussion might take place or could take place on this subject and generally on those matters which may come up for consideration at the prime ministers' conference which opens in London early in May. I shall be leaving, if my present plans eventuate, on Thursday next. Therefore, after discussion with the hon. gentleman and other members, if some mutual arrangement can be arrived at for discussion or a course of action determined in order to permit a discussion, that will be done.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not
wish to transgress the rules of the house, Mr. Speaker, but any arrangements the Prime Minister might have in mind, as he has outlined, will be acceptable to our group.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the government in a position to announce whether it intends to ask parliament to provide for a continuation of the freight rate subsidy in order that freight rates may be held down until the report of the royal commission has been received?


John George Diefenbaker: I think I can tell the hon. gentleman that he is not the only one who has had that question in mind. There were two hon. members supporting the government and

Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), all apparently activated by a speculative article which appeared in the Canadian press on Saturday last. All I can say in this regard is that the freight rate assistance act is in effect until August 1 next. Hence ample time will be given for consideration or determination of this matter, or at least for an announcement of the policy to be followed. Further than that I will not go at the moment, except to say that this is a question of government policy which will be announced in proper course.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether he has recently had discussions with the chairman of the royal commission on freight rates, and whether it is expected that the report of the royal commission may be received before August 1 or whether it will be later than that?


John George Diefenbaker: I had one chat with the chairman of the commission, and there was no indication as to when a report might be expected. As I have said on other occasions, having once gone out on a limb and suggested a target date for the report of a royal commission and having heard about it on a number of occasions since then as evidence of a lack of prescience on my part, I do not want to add a further example.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a supplementary question. The Prime Minister will probably recall that before the house took recess on the 13th of this month I asked a question with reference to the extension of the freight rate freeze, and the Prime Minister answered the question. Then I referred to what appeared in the annual report of the president of the Canadian National Railways, that April 10 appeared to be the deadline date. The purpose of my question then, as it now, was to ascertain whether the government would make a decision with regard to the freezing of freight rates before the end of this month.


John George Diefenbaker: Again, Mr. Speaker, may I make this answer; and in the past I have heard the hon. gentleman, when he was minister, give the same answer. When a decision is made and it is proper to announce it, the announcement will be made in the house.


Lionel Chevrier: May I go a step further and ask the Prime Minister another question which arises out of the press release to which the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Assiniboia have referred.


John George Diefenbaker: Not a press release; press speculation.


Lionel Chevrier: I sent it to the Prime Minister. It is a statement which might qualify under that head. I will not take issue with the Prime Minister on that matter, but the point about which I should like to ask now is this. Is there any intention of granting an increase in freight rates by way of subsidy?


John George Diefenbaker: I have stated that the article in question was a speculative one, and I do not intend to make any observations on speculative articles.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister in a position to advise the house whether there will be an extension of seasonal benefits under unemployment insurance? If not, what provision is being made to care for those who will come off that list on May 15?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: No decision or consideration has been contemplated by the government with regard to the extension of seasonal benefits beyond May 15.


Harold Edward Winch: As a supplementary question may I ask whether the minister has in mind any plans by means of which to take care of those who will be off the benefits on May 15 and still have no employment?


Michael Starr: No consideration in that respect has been given. The situation will be as it has always been at that time of the year. When seasonal benefits end, then of course those who are on seasonal work are expected to be back at work.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HOLIDAY AND SEVERANCE PAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister yet in a position to advise the house when he anticipates receiving, or being able to report on, the recommendations of the unemployment insurance advisory committee as regards holiday pay being classed as wages?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I expect to make a statement in the house tomorrow on this matter.

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, or in the absence of the minister his parliamentary secretary may take note of it. In view of the annoyance experienced by tourists entering Canada owing to the discount on United States silver, which is causing considerable hard feeling, will the minister give consideration to giving every tourist entering at Canadian immigration points a letter containing a friendly explanation about the discount on United States silver?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: In
the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources I will take this question as notice.



CODFISH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the minister a question. Could the minister say whether the government has made any representation with respect to the proposed tariffs of the common market on salted codfish, which would of course be exceedingly detrimental to exports from Canada?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the views of the Canadian government have been made known to all the countries concerned with respect to all the commodities which were proposed to be embraced in the averaging process of tariff arrangements contemplated by the Six to become effective on July 1. I think it is a matter of satisfaction to all hon. members that the proposed changes have been deferred by the Six until January 1.
This is in line with the views which were put forward by the Canadian representatives. It means that the GATT negotiations will have an opportunity to begin before the date on which the proposed tariff changes will take effect. This will afford an opportunity for discussion of all these questions, we hope, at the GATT meeting, which is in keeping with the view the Canadian government's representatives have expressed on various occasions hitherto.



REQUEST FOR LATEST STATISTICS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the press release issued on Wednesday on the employment situation, showing an increase of 11,000 over last month in the number without jobs and seeking work and 41,000 over last year, can the minister now provide us with the latest figure in his possession for unplaced applicants in comparison with a month ago and a year ago?


Michael Starr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The latest release shows that the number of unplaced applicants as of April 7 of this year is 828,000.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of his explanation of the regrettable incident during his visit to the U.S.S.R., and concerning the statement he made earlier in the proceedings today about the reports of this alleged statement on the sale of uranium. My question is asked in order to get clarification of the earlier part of his statement.
As I have noted his remarks, I understood him to say that Mr. Goldberg asked him this question: If Russia wants to buy uranium, will you sell? To that question I understood the minister to say in his statement that he did not reply. He then immediately proceeded in his statement to say that he then said, "Canada has plenty of uranium to sell". What I want to clear up is this point. Was there any conversation between the question of Mr. Goldberg and the statement about Canada having plenty of uranium to sell?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Ottawa West will not further complicate a matter which I hope is now abundantly clear. My statement on Thursday was "Canada has plenty of uranium".


George James McIlraith: Plenty of uranium?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes plenty of uranium; period. I did not answer the question of Mr. Goldberg's. He wanted me to say yes or no. I have answered too many questions in the house here-


Harold Edward Winch: Very often we also want that and we do not get it.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: -too many loaded questions, to be caught in that way. Mr. Goldberg made a statement to the effect that Canada had a surplus of uranium, and I said yes.


George James McIlraith: What I am trying to clear up is this point. It seemed to me there was a gap in the statement read to the house by the minister at the opening of proceedings today. He described the question which I have read, and he stated that he did not reply. Then the minister went on to deal with this other matter, that Canada had plenty of uranium. What I want to know is this. Was there any conversation between those two statements? There seems to be a gap in the minister's statement. If he has the text there I think he himself will see it. It is clarification that I want.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will clarify the matter right away, but the hon. member will have an opportunity to read all these things in Hansard. The conversation with Mr. Goldberg lasted for 30 seconds. I stepped out of the elevator, moved over to the door of my hotel room, a distance of about from here to across this aisle, and in that space of time Mr. Goldberg said four things and I said four things, and I have reported them all in the statement. That was all there was to it.


George James McIlraith: Thank you very much.



REPORT OF STUDY GROUP ON TRANS-ATLANTIC ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask whether it is proposed to table the report of the committee of four on European economic co-operation, which I think has now been made public?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall be glad to look into that matter.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Canadian government will give consideration to extending the benefits of our world refugee year efforts to the so-called white Russians who are residing and have been residing for many years on the mainland of China.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the efforts of the Canadian government in world

refugee year are directed toward bringing tubercular refugees from Europe to Canada, and that plan is proceeding very well. In addition, of course, we do provide funds to the high commissioner for refugees for use among refugees in China to whom the hon. member refers, but that is not part of our special contribution to world refugee year.


Erhart Regier: May I ask the minister whether he would explain to the house why there exists discrimination between people of European origin who are refugees residing in China, and people of European origin who are refugees in western Europe?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking one of those argumentative questions which I think is out of order at this time.


Erhart Regier: In that case perhaps I may reword my question. Would the minister explain the reasoning of the government, as to why they adopted a different attitude toward these refugees now living in Asia and refugees now living in western Europe?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, no discrimination has been shown. I think the hon. member is merely trying to stir up trouble. If he wants to follow this up, when my estimates are up for discussion I will be glad to deal with this question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, meanwhile may I ask the minister if he could say how many additional families it is expected will be coming here under the government scheme?


Howard Charles Green: No, I cannot give that information yet.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue or his parliamentary secretary, both of whom I see are busy with other matters. In the light of the statement made by the Prime Minister a moment ago concerning the visit of President de Gaulle, which I am sure the house welcomed, may I ask the minister whether he is aware that on the very day of the arrival of General de Gaulle in Canada the French network of the C.B.C. devoted a half hour program to Marshal Petain. If so, has the C.B.C. offered any explanation to the minister?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I shall see that this question is drawn to the attention of the minister, who I know will have to ask the C.B.C. for an explanation in any event.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce; notice of my intention to ask this question was sent to his office.
Can the minister advise the house whether there are any negotiations going on between the government and promoters of a pipe line to move liquid hydrocarbons to the great lakes area? If so, will this proposed pipe line be a feeder line to United States industries, or is it being constructed for the purpose of building a petrochemical industry at the Canadian lakehead?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the second part of the question is purely hypothetical, but perhaps the first part might be answered.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, a matter such as this should be directed to the national energy board, if I correctly heard the hon. member's question. I cannot give him a complete answer at the present moment, but I will inquire.


Hubert Badanai: Has the minister not received the copy of my question which was sent to his office?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether there is anything he can appropriately report to the house on his conversations today with another great soldier, Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery, whose presence we are delighted to observe in the gallery.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I am sure we are all delighted that Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery is here today, and is able to spare time to appear in the gallery. We had a very interesting discussion during luncheon.
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION


REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON STATEMENT BY EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether he has any comment to make on the propriety of the statement made on internal security by the Secretary of State for External Affairs during the television program "The Nation's Business", which has been widely interpreted in the press as a reference to a case before the courts.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no observation to make with regard to that matter. Knowing the hon. gentleman as I do, I know he does not commit improprieties.


George James McIlraith: He did in that case.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is planning any action whereby an individual resident in Canada who has been labelled as a security risk may be able to hear the charges made against her, and defend herself and clear her name, if possible, of the charge laid against her by the Prime Minister in this house.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that the question appears to concern a woman, I take it that it has to do with a case which is before the courts; therefore the hon. gentleman should know it cannot be referred' to here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the Prime Minister think it should be referred to by a minister outside this house?


Erhart Regier: On a point of order, may I ask the Prime Minister whether this is the issue which is before the courts, since I understand it has nothing to do with the issue before the courts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not a point of order to complain about an answer which the hon. gentleman has received.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State and ask him whether he will be good enough to look into a return to a motion made by myself on February 3 concerning the plans

Inquiries of the Ministry and specifications of an application made by Quebec Hydro for the development of power resources at Carillon. It was passed by the house on that day but I still have not received the return.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Secretary of State if he will look into a return of mine, part of which was tabled on April 4. After that I raised a question of privilege, and after a couple of more inquiries another part was tabled on April 12, but the second and third questions are still not answered. As this return has to do with a matter now before the house, I hope the minister will expedite it.


Léon Balcer: Could' the hon. member give me the number of the question or the subject matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The subject matter of the question has to do with federal payments to the provinces, and I think the Minister of Finance is very familiar with it.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: May
1 address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister gave a short resume of his talk with General de Gaulle, I wonder if the right hon. gentleman could tell us whether in the course of this discussion any mention was made of the nuclear tests in the Sahara, and whether the attention of General de Gaulle was drawn to the fact that after the recent explosions there was a sharp increase in radioactive fall-out in all parts of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think that matter required to be brought to his attention. In so far as the radiation hazard is concerned, Canada's views in favour of an end of the tests were brought to his attention.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the indulgence of the house to consider, by unanimous consent, a certain course of action.
On reviewing the evidence submitted before the committee of the other place in two divorce cases, No. SD-140 and another which


has already passed this house, it has appeared to me that there is extreme conflict in the evidence which was presented. I have discussed this matter and reviewed the evidence with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), who has agreed with the course of action I am proposing.
I therefore wonder if I may ask unanimous consent to move that order No. 56 concerning Bill No. SD-140 be discharged and the said bill referred back to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house prepared to give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Skeena to make the motion he has referred to?


Mr. McCleave (Halifax):: I have no objection, but I should like Bill No. SD-35 to be referred back at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: The proposal is that by unanimous consent the two bills which are standing for consideration in committee and which are items Nos. 35 and 56-


Robert Jardine McCleave: The second item, the one I referred to, is item No. 217.


Mr. Speaker:: -that items 217 and 56 on the orders of the day be discharged and the bills referred back to the committee on miscellaneous private bills. Is it the pleasure of the house to give unanimous consent to this course of action?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and orders discharged.



MARIE RITA DUBE HOULD

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-38, for the relief of Marie Rita Dube Hould- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Frank Howard: May I make a comment on Bill No. SD-38, unless of course, as has been done on past occasions, the hon. member for Halifax wishes to say something before I do? I do not know whether he does or not. If not, I will proceed to make one or two references to this particular bill.
The petition in the bill which is before us, and the evidence relating to it, indicates that the marriage took place on July 17, 1954. As alleged in the petition, it is shown that adultery took place on May 13, 1959 at a particular hotel in the city of Montreal involving one of the parties to the marriage.
To bring out these statements in the petition a number of questions were asked by the subcommittee of the other place. In so far as proof of marriage is concerned, this information is contained on page 11 of the evidence, where a series of questions is asked by the clerk of the committee. The

questions are directed to the petitioner, asking her name, her age, her address, and other material facts of that nature. The question is asked, "Are you married?" and the answer is "Yes". Then the name of the respondent is given. The questions and answers continue: Q. When were you married?
A. July 17, 1954.
Q. Where?
A. Lachine, Quebec.
Q. By whom?
A. By Father Thomas Wardell.
Religion is asked about, and both the lady and her husband are Catholic. The evidence continues:
Q. Do you recognize this document I am showing you?	s
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. It is a copy of my marriage certificate.
Q. Are the statements contained therein true and correct?
A. Yes.
Thus the fact of marriage having taken place as stated in the petition is proved to be the case. There is also proof of the consummation of marriage to the extent that a child was born of this marriage, and this information appears at the top of page 12. Questions are asked by Mr. Lieff, Q.C., who appeared as counsel for the petitioner. He is questioning the petitioner:
Q. Do you have any children issue of this marriage?
A. Yes.
Q. How many?
A. One.
Q. What is the date of birth?
A. January 9, 1956.
Further evidence follows with respect to a legal separation having been obtained, and some material factual evidence is given about the circumstances which led up to that legal separation. On page 12 the petitioner was questioned by her counsel, Mr. Lieff, as follows:
Q. And did you obtain your legal separation in the courts in Montreal?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there a judgment giving you that separation?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the judgment award you any money?
A. Yes, $100 a month.
Q. Did your husband pay that money?
A. Yes.
Q. Until when?
A. Until September, 1959.
Q. And what happened after September, 1959? Why was it not paid then?
A. I didn't want anything else to do with him and I contacted the air force and told them to stop it.
One could assume from the evidence that she entertained an intense dislike for her husband, which on the basis of the other evidence she adduced as to his conduct prior to the separation was perhaps justifiable.
Private Bills-Divorce Two private investigators were involved in this case, Mr. Lawrence Steele and Mr. Roy Humphries, both of Montreal. There is some question about the propriety of the attitude of one of the investigators whose evidence appears on page 13. After being sworn Mr. Steele was questioned by Mr. Lieff and asked if he could identify a photograph of the respondent, which he did. The questioning then continued:
Q. Did you investigate his behaviour?
A. I did.
Q. When?
A. I first started the investigation in February, 1959, but nothing really happened until May, 1959. He is with the air force and he would be flying in and out every other day of the week. On May 11 I had information that he was in town and I checked at the air base and found that he was in some hotel in Montreal. From investigation at the hotels I found that he was in the-hotel.
I assume the investigator contacted a number of hotels to see if the respondent was registered there. The evidence continued:
investigation snowed tnat he had been in there on the Uth but I did not see him until the 12th.
There was a Mr. and Mrs.-registered in the___________
hotel, room-. In the evening I called Roy Humphries to join me at the hotel which he did about 7 o'clock. At that time I was in the restaurant and so were the subjects. When they came out Roy followed them upstairs.
Q. After he came back what did you both do?
A. We both sat around the lobby and they came down in the elevator around 10 o'clock. Mr.-and the woman who was with him. They went back about an hour later from the cocktail lounge Roy followed them up again. We kept observation on that room until 1.30 a.m., which was then May 13 When I gained admittance to the room, after Mr.-opened the door, I showed him my identification card and also his photograph and asked him his name and he told me it was-. And then I told him the purpose of our visit.
One must wonder whether the officials of some of these hotels do not have full knowledge of what takes place in some of these cases. Apparently from 11 p.m. until 1.30 a.m. the two investigators wandered around the floor of the hotel where the respondent was staying keeping observation on his room. Surely a hotel employee encountering them there would inquire about their purpose. They could have been accused of attempting to break into rooms. That, however, is apart from the issue before us. The questioning continued:
Q. Did he have anything to say about the photograph?
A. He just nodded his head that it was him.
Q. And then you went over to the bed?
Hon. members will notice that Mr. Lieff did not ask a question but in fact made a statement. The witness would understand from that question that he was supposed to answer "yes", which he did. The questioning continued:
A. Yes, and I addressed the woman in the bed and told her, "You are not Mrs.-,what is your

Private Bills-Divorce
name?" At first she did not say anything and neither did he, but X said that we have ways of finding out and it would make it more unpleasant that way.
There is conflict of evidence on this point. Mr. Steele testified that he in fact threatened the woman, but Mr. Humphries testified that when asked her name the woman replied after a brief silence. These two people should get together on the evidence and prepare their notes more carefully. Understanding what happens in these cases I would suggest that there were some threats. Apparently Mr. Steele is the senior investigator and I would think that there were threats used to get the required information. In any event, the corespondent finally gave her name, and that name was on a postal order and other things that identified her as that particular person. This question was asked:
Q. Do you know what address she gave?
A. No, there was no address on that except a Shawinigan address. At this point he told me to get the heck-
I am quite sure that at this stage the respondent did not use the word "heck" and I think the investigator is probably not giving a factual account of what took place in the hotel room.
At this point he told me to get the heck out of there and he started being nasty so we left.
You will notice again that the pattern is the same. The anger starts after all the information is obtained and not before. There is no anger when the investigator knocks on the door or when the gentleman, apparently dressed only in a towel and nothing else, comes to the door. There is no anger or concern at that time. It always happens that either the respondent or the corespondent becomes angry after all the information is obtained, after there is no chance of a slip-up and not having the necessary proof such as the names of the individuals, who was wearing what clothing, whether the bed had been slept in by one or two people, whether the bed was mussed up when they looked at it. They are told to get out after the information is obtained. Anyone giving the matter a little thought will see that the pattern is always the same and come to the conclusion that things just did not happen that way but possibly were arranged.
I notice, Mr. Chairman, that you too are looking round the chamber. If it comes to my attention that we have less than a quorum in the committee I am not sure but what I will so advise you. At the moment I would think that we are running pretty close to a quorum. I believe there are 22 here now.


Mr. Pallett:: It shows the interest in your speech.


Frank Howard: I know that my friend is not only interested in the speech I am making now but, when he is in the house, in most of the speeches that I make. But he is not carrying out his function very well because he should be outside the house rounding up members so that there will be a quorum.


An hon. Member:: There are only two C.C.F. members here.


Frank Howard: He should be trying to avoid the government being embarrassed by not having sufficient members present.


Mr. Spencer:: We have a higher percentage than you have right now.


Frank Howard: No, you have not. We have 25 per cent of our members here. I might say that I have never been a higher percentage of anything.


Norman Leonard Spencer: I did not see the member behind you.


Frank Howard: Oh, he is here. To get back to this gentleman giving the investigators heck and starting to be nasty after the information was obtained, reference is made to an address and I would point out something that has not been cleared up. I should like to refer to point No. 6 in the petition where reference is made to adultery having taken place. It reads as follows:
That on the 13th day of May, 1959, at Montreal-
Then there is reference to a particular hotel.


John Cameron Pallett: The percentage is down to 12J.


Frank Howard: 
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the applicant before parliament is a 30-year old private secretary supporting one child on an income of around $250 a month. My purpose in rising is not to bring these humane facts for the consideration of the committee, because I realize that it is of little use or purpose in considering the mischievous animus that activates a few people who have acted in this way for some time.
I was glad my hon. friend from Skeena did not bring up the point that there had been any lobbying in connection with this case because it might have had a very serious effect

Private Bills-Divorce on whether or not this bill should properly go through parliament. The respondent's husband has been referred to as a member of the Royal Canadian Air Force. A few days ago he flew to Egypt. Before he went he had been in touch with me several times. He had arranged for a marriage again and quite a considerable sum of money had been spent. He asked whether it would not be possible for the C.C.F. to change its filibuster tactics and allow his bill to go through so that his money would not have been spent in vain. I told him of the rule against lobbying which I had propounded here on previous occasions, and told him definitely to stay away from the House of Commons, not to approach any members and to take his financial licking. Perhaps some day, not at this session but some other time, there would not be this mischievous behaviour on the part of a certain few denying the minority their rights. I gather he has done that and has left the country, poorer for having contracted a marriage and paid a large sum of money and not having been able to go through with it.


Frank Howard: I should not say this is precisely new, but in one sense it is new. I had understood, not from the hon. member for Halifax directly but from someone else, that there was one particular case in this group with which we are now dealing, in which some marriage arrangement had been concluded based upon the hope that the petition would be granted. I did not know that this was the particular case. I knew nothing about it, or whether there had been any lobbying or importuning of members to hurry up or slow down or anything of that nature.
I would have liked to make some comments about the very things the hon. member for Halifax mentioned. As you know, it is my contention that in those cases where children are concerned we should give a greater degree of consideration to them. I refrained from doing that because the hon. member for Halifax raised a point of order on a previous occasion when I dealt with the question of children. You, yourself, sir, were in the chair at that time and ruled that we had no jurisdiction with respect to children or their maintenance. Your colleague, who is in the chair occasionally in your absence, also made a similar ruling. As a matter of fact, I think he made the same ruling with respect to me four or five times.
The reason I refrained from mentioning the fact that there were children, except to point out that there was one child which indicated the consummation of the marriage, was this ruling. However, there is reference to the income of the petitioner, the fact she looks after the child and that she is working.


All this information is in here. I am very pleased that the hon. member for Halifax did mention this subject. As I say, I did not because I did not want to run afoul of your ruling, even though I know that each member of the committee is vitally concerned about the welfare of the children in any one of these cases. By the ruling, however, we are forbidden to concern ourselves with that. I would say that on each occasion in which there are children concerned I will do the best I can to go as far as I can in the direction of wondering orally about the welfare of the children.
In this particular case, the petitioner has been given the legal custody of the child by the court. As the hon. member for Halifax indicated, the mother is a private secretary with an income of about $280 per month. The child is four, probably a little over four by now, and is looked after by an aunt while the mother is at work. The mother sees the child every night, and sees that he is properly looked after. If these circumstances persist it does appear that the child will get along fairly well in so far as material maintenance is concerned. If the woman marries again, there will be a father and mother for the child. The husband came to see the child very seldom.
As I say, I do not want to go too far in that direction and cause you, Mr. Chairman, too much exercise in getting up and down to call me to order, even though I know this is something that is in the minds of other members of the committee and even though they may vote against particular motions we might move at some time in order to ask permission to discuss the children themselves.
From the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax I took a certain inference. He made some reference to the mischievous few and said that because of the actions of that mischievous few some people were not having their petitions for divorce dealt with as expeditiously as they might have expected, having regard to the procedure in years past. From what the hon. member for Halifax said I also assume that he is referring to me as being one of the mischievous few and to the hon. member for Timiskaming as being the other half of the mischievous few. Whether or not this is so, he did not say, but I think I am entitled to take that attitude.
Seriously, may I say this? While the hon. member for Halifax may allege that this action is mischievousness,-a description which would indicate that it is not sincere-I think I should be afforded the opportunity of making a comment in rebuttal thereto in order to point out to the hon. member for Halifax that such is not the case. It is not a question of mischievousness. It is not a

question of lack of care or concern for the individuals involved but rather of the greatest appreciation for the domestic problems they have and of great sorrow-in some cases more than in others, depending on the circumstances, of course-for the steps that these people are obliged to take in order to obtain relief from their marital problems. They are steps which are not available to people living in other provinces; they necessitate long delays, in many cases up to a year.
In this particular case, I find from a quick look, it is almost one year ago-May 13, 1959 -that the adultery took place. In any event, even if we had not debated and discussed these particular divorce bills to the extent that we are discussing them, with the particular goal we have in mind, it would have been 10 or 11 months anyway before the petitioner here could have had any hope of getting a divorce granted or of getting relief from her problems. In some cases the time range is over a year.
This situation arises because this particular petitioner here and others must take the step of petitioning parliament, that parliament can deal with these petitions for divorce only when it is in session and that it is not in session all the year round. We set up rules governing the procedure. The other place does so and we do so by our standing orders. We set up rules with regard to private bills. These rules say that you must have your application in by a certain time. If you do not have it in by a certain time, parliament is not going to deal with it anyway. A person might find himself or herself just over that borderline of the time limit and having to wait until the next session. It is a question of costs which range in amount, on the average, to twice as much as they do in any other province. For these things we have great concern.
There are also other matters but these are vitally important ones. There is the question of the welfare and maintenance of children, a matter with which we have no right to concern ourselves or to deal with. We can grant a divorce but we cannot take any action to deal with the children themselves. This is another unfortunate thing. This jurisdiction should be vested in the same place so that-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Frank Howard: Certainly.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does the hon. member feel that the laws of the province of Quebec dealing with the custody and maintenance of children are adequate or not?
Private Bills-Divorce


Frank Howard: I am not sufficiently familiar with them to answer that question. So far as I have had the matter explained to me as it relates to custody and maintenance of children I gather that there is sufficient provision. However, the same civil code in Quebec which allows a legal separation does not allow a divorce, even though the grounds are the same. In the second place, if a woman obtained a legal separation from her husband in the province of Quebec and was awarded alimony for herself-assuming there were no children and there is no provision for the children-the moment she obtains a divorce through this system, then she no longer gets alimony. It has nothing to do with whether she has married again. I see that my hon. friend shakes his head as if to say that it is not so. I wonder whether I might ask the hon. member for Halifax whether the shake of his head indicates that I am incorrect in that matter?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, it only indicates a
terrific headache. I am sorry my hon. friend took that meaning from it. I dare say it will clear up about August.


Frank Howard: You mean October. We will be back in session by then after the summer recess.
In any event, as I understand it that information is factual and is given in evidence by a lawyer from Quebec in another case that is before us. Therefore to that extent they are not sufficient. To the extent that the courts under those laws are able to deal with the maintenance of children, yes, possibly that is so. But as to dividing jurisdiction between divorce on the one hand and maintenance of children on the other hand, that is not fair to those individuals. We think there are alternatives to this particular matter which would be much fairer than the situation is at the present moment. We think there are alternatives to the present system of parliament having to deal with these matters.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I must rise on a point of order. I think there will be opportunity to discuss the general application of divorce either on third reading of this bill or other bills or on second reading of other divorce bills that appear on the order paper. However, I do not think there is supposed to be general discussion in committee on these matters.


Frank Howard: If I may, I should like to make a comment on the point of order. It is done because the hon. member for Halifax referred to the mischievous few in this house. I tried to find out from him whether he is referring to me and to the hon. member for

Private Bills-Divorce
Timiskaming. I assume that he is referring to us. It was on that assumption that I was arguing the case and trying to point out that we are not mischievous, that we are vitally concerned about and interested in this question of divorce.


John Cameron Pallett: You would be non-suited.


Frank Howard: Someone says "nonsense".


John Cameron Pallett: Non-suited; I said you would oe non-suited if you tried to argue in that way.


Frank Howard: In any event-that term
escapes me for the moment-we are vitally concerned about this question and we should like to see something done about it. The alternatives are many. The problems are many now and they could be overcome. That is why I was arguing along those lines. I was doing so in order to point out to the hon. member for Halifax that even though that phrase "mischievous few" is a gentle and delicate one and certainly could not be considered to be unparliamentary, it is one which in the circumstances is far too strong for the hon. member for Halifax to think about or to use. That was the reason I was arguing along those lines, namely to point out that it is not mischievousness that causes us to follow this course.
We consider that it is the only method available to bring to the attention of the committee, to parliament and to the country the necessity for making alterations which will bring about conditions which will be more fair, just and equitable to those people in two particular provinces who find it necessary to petition the Senate and the House of Commons in order to obtain a divorce. As I said, there are many alternatives. Each one, if followed, would afford some measure of relief and relaxation of the burden which is upon individuals in those two provinces to obtain a divorce. The mere fact that the lapse of an entire year between the time adultery takes place-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I again rise on a point of order. These points are very interesting and have merit, but surely they are meant for discussion on second or third reading, the appropriate times, not when the house is in committee on a particular bill.


Frank Howard: May I speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would point out to the hon. member for Halifax that I think his point of order is right but his argument is wrong. We would be just as much out of order to discuss these things on second and even more on third reading than we are at the moment.


The Deputy Chairman:: We are more concerned right now with proceeding with our discussion in committee. The hon. member has strayed very widely again, and I ask him once more to come back to this bill.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, on the point raised by the hon. member for Halifax I would like to point out that while it is true we are concerned with each individual as he or she comes before us-and we appreciate the fact that the chairman of the committee has advised against lobbying as in years gone by-it still should be borne in mind that we weigh each of these cases on its merits, not on granting the divorce. It may be quite fortunate that in this particular case the divorce has not been granted previously, particularly when this gentleman is being transferred to Egypt, as I understand it. If he had not remarried by the time he left here, if he had obtained this divorce it is possible he would have been married in Egypt and his problem might have been international rather than just of a local nature.
In this particular case there was an alimony settlement made in the province of Quebec which awarded the wife $100 a month, and she drew that for a little over two years, amounting in all to about $2,400. If he had not paid this alimony or been in a position where he had to pay it, then he would have been able to pay $2,500 for the divorce and there would have been no problem.
As it is, if the chairman of the miscellaneous private bills committee checks up he will find he has been able to save $100 a month from September to May because the wife decided she did not want the $100. So there is that amount of money available as a down payment for this divorce in any event.
I do not think that any consideration should be given to the argument that delay is taking place. I think we should be ashamed of ourselves for what has gone on in the past rather than attach any blame to anyone for going into these particular cases. In this case we are concerned with a point made by the hon. member for Skeena, that the maintenance for the child has been discussed in a particular case, and we will find it in the 48th report. I would like to quote what the lawyer said because at that time he was referring to this matter. On page 12 senator Farquhar asked:
Q. If you get this divorce is he bound to continue paying that $75?
That is the amount awarded in the civil court in Quebec. Then Mr. Usher said:
Senator, probably I would be better able to answer that question. Under our jurisprudence, once there is a divorce the obligation to support the wife ceases, but the obligation to support the child remains. If there is a judgment rendered by the



I960

[Stage Direction]
superior court of Montreal awarding alimony in favour of children a divorce in Ottawa does not affect that, because it is not an alimentary payment to the wife. Mr. Justice Mackinnon, I think it was, in around the year 1952 or 1953 rendered a judgment to that effect, that a divorce does not affect the alimony payable for children.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that statement, if it is factual-and I have no reason to think it is not-has and should have a bearing on what we do in relationship to payments to the wife and children, and particularly the desire we have expressed many times that the superior court in the province of Quebec should make these decisions rather than leave them to us in Ottawa when we have not the jurisdiction to make those particular rulings.
This case is an interesting case, as the hon. member for Skeena pointed out. There are a number of facts in this case which we have not been concerned with in other cases, and I think for that reason we should give some consideration to the problems arising from this source. I would like to read a short part of the evidence appearing on page 12 of the 47th report, as follows:
Q. But when did you stop living together as man and wife?
A. In the summer of 1957.
Q. What sort of life did you have with your husband for a year or two prior to the summer of 1957?
A. Very bad.
Q. What was the trouble?
A. He was not home very often and I saw a social worker.
To digress, I would suggest that very few people employed in the air force, particularly in certain fields, are home, and this does not always warn of bad relations unless other factors are hinted at which are not discussed at all in this case, and that is the complaint of mental cruelty. The report goes on:
Q. When did you see a social worker?
A. In the summer of 1957.
Q. Why did you see a social worker?
A. Because I was feeling kind of sick.
Q. Did you consult a doctor?
A. Oh, yes. I did.
Q. What did you learn?
A. I learned that he had given me a venereal disease.
Q. Did you take treatment?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you all right now?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have venereal disease at the time of your marriage?
A. No, sir.
Q. From the time you learned about that- it was in the summer of 1957 that you learned about that?
A. Yes.
Q. -up to the present time have you lived with your husband as man and wife?
A. No, sir.
Mr. Chairman, this raises in my opinion, a number of questions. One of them is the
Private Bills-Divorce
question that some consideration should be given to these people in a social service way which would eliminate probably some of the disagreement which appears to have arisen from the employment of this particular airman and the fact that he had to be away from home for some time. I was interested to know what the effect would be in relation to this venereal disease charge, because I understand this is a factor in separation and divorce proceedings and has a connection with what the courts decide in these particular cases. On page 337 of Kent Power's authoritative work on jurisprudence in Canada appears the following:
Proof that the defendant husband is suffering from a venereal disease may be accepted, according to the circumstances, as sufficient evidence of adultery unless the contracting of the disease is satisfactorily explained.
Then reference is made to an Alberta case,
L.	v L., where the defendant husband was shown to be suffering from syphilis.
It was of recent origin and there was complete absence of evidence other than the testimony of the defendant to indicate that he might have been affected innocently. The court accepted as true the testimony of the plaintiff that she had not had sexual intercourse with any man other than the defendant. He also testified that he had not committed adultery with any person since his marriage to the plaintiff nearly five years previously. It was held that this statement of his was not of sufficient evidence in the circumstances to repudiate the presumption arising from the other evidence that he had committed adultery. Therefore an order nisi should be granted.
Reference is made to a number of other cases of that nature, and it is pointed out that in each of these cases sufficient evidence of this kind will constitute reason for a separation on the ground of mental cruelty. It is further pointed out on page 537 that where the communication of venereal disease is relied on as constituting cruelty it is not necessary to plead or prove that it was communicated wilfully, negligently or recklessly. Reference is made to the case of Browning v. Browning in 1911, where it was stated that in practice, unless a defendant is able to prove that he obtained venereal disease in a manner that would be acceptable to the courts, transmission of the disease is sufficient to constitute evidence of adultery.
This being an acceptable method of establishing adultery, I am surprised that the committee of the other place and the lawyer handling this case did not place more emphasis upon this aspect of the petition. It must certainly have led to medical attention being given at the time. If the facts are as stated it could probably be proved that this disease was communicated without any care being taken as to the results. If this is an acceptable method of establishing adultery
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
charges-and the leading authority in Canada appears to accept it as such-I am surprised that a counsel with the experience of Mr. Lieff would go to the trouble of bringing in evidence of adultery at a later date. The court in the province of Quebec must already have given consideration to this matter; it awarded alimony and a separation on that basis.
To return to the evidence, the question is asked: Was there any agreement? The answer is given in the negative. Then questions were asked about reconciliation, as follows:
Q. Was there any chance of reconciliation between yourself and your husband?
A. No.
Q. Did you do all you could to make a success of this matter?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you give your husband any reason for running around with anybody else?
A. No, sir.
Q. While you were with him did you consult a psychiatrist about his behaviour?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you tell the psychiatrist your problems?
A. Yes.
Q. And about your husband's?
A. Yes.
I am surprised that the chairman of the Senate committee should have allowed these questions to be asked without seeking to arrive at the reason why the psychiatrist was consulted and what the result of the treatment was; whether the wife was to be treated for some quirk of a mental nature, or whether the husband was suffering from some such affliction. I am sure that if the Minister of National Defence were here he would immediately say that an airman would obviously not be so affected and that therefore it would be the woman who was bene-fitting from psychiatric treatment, because, certainly, air force personnel are not suffering in this way or they would be in a mental hospital or receiving treatment from another source.
I should like, now, to consider the evidence as given by Mr. Steele. I am particularly interested in knowing how they found out who this man was. There was a reference to the fact that they knew which hotel room they were in, No. 944-
It is quite all right. The hon. member can leave. I think there is a quorum.
The evidence at this point reads:
By Mr. Lieff:
Q. Mr. Steele, can you identify the photograph which has been filed as Exhibit No. 2?
A. Yes, it is Joseph Hould.
Q. Did you investigate his behaviour?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When?
A. I first started the investigation in February, 1959, but nothing really happened until May, 1959. He is with the air force and he would be flying in and out every other day of the week. On May 11

I had information that he was in town and I checked at the air base and found that he was in some hotel in Montreal. From investigation at the hotels I found that he was in the Laurentian hotel. Investigation showed that he had been in there on the 11th but I did not see him until the 12th. There was a Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Hould registered in the Laurentian hotel, room 944. In the evening I called Roy Humphries to join me at the hotel, which he did about 7 o'clock. At that time I was in the restaurant, and so were the subjects. When they came out Roy followed them upstairs.
Q. After he came back what did you both do?
A. We both sat around the lobby and they came down in the elevator around 10 o'clock, Mr. Hould and the woman who was with him. They went back about an hour later from the cocktail lounge. Roy followed them up again. We kept observation on that room until 1.30 a.m., which was then May 13. When I gained admittance to the room, after Mr. Hould opened the door, I showed him my identification card and also his photograph and asked him his name and he told me it was Joseph Hould. And then I told him the purpose of our visit.
I call attention to the fact that they do not indicate how they found out where he was. The witness does not say he consulted the register. I am not aware whether a detective has a right to direct a hotel to produce the register or not. If he has, then I am surprised that the witness had not seen the handwriting of this man, or had not looked at the register. On page 14, the witness says:
Q. Did you see the registration?
A. I did
Q. You were not able to check the handwriting?
A. He did not leave it there very long.
I do not know to whom reference is made, but the Laurentian hotel must be a good one to stay away from if the hotel permits private dicks to wander around at will, make entry into rooms at will and conduct an examination of the registry, however briefly, at will. I was previously under the impression that the hotel had a good reputation. I did not know it catered to the divorce mill making its facilities available to detectives in cases of this nature. Perhaps the investigator represented himself as a detective in the employ of the hotel.
Canadians must be damn fools if when they are awakened in the middle of the night by an unknown joker they throw open their doors and welcome him with open arms. I could understand this happening in the bush where you may find a sign on a door inviting you to lift the latch and enter because you will be welcome at any time but this is not true of large cosmopolitan cities. It has not been my experience that you are admitted into homes at three or four in the morning.
Let me cite a personal illustration. In the town of New Liskeard my son recently rented the Legion hall for a teen town dance. After the dance it was discovered that the key to the hall had been taken home by another

[Stage Direction]
executive member. My son went to the homes of three members at a late hour in an attempt to recover the key but no one responded to his knocking at the door. He went to two or three other places but met with no success. Finally I had to get the telephone operator to ring for a long time the telephone of someone I knew before I could get an answer. It simply is not reasonable to ask us to believe that Canadians are so stupid as to welcome strangers at three or four in the morning wearing only shorts or a bath towel. There must be connivance, assistance from the hotel or misrepresentation on the part of the detectives. The detectives give the most flimsy, unsupported and incredible evidence and the chairman who handles these matters has the audacity to say that these bills are being held up unreasonably.
I wish now to deal with another important matter, the posiion of the corespondent in these cases. I have not asked what his position is but if I were a corespondent I believe I would fight the case because my reputation and good name would be at stake. If I did not defend the case it would mean one of two things, that the facts were as stated or that I was hired to do a certain job. It is not for me to decide whether this is connected with the divorce court or the morality set-up in Montreal but some consideration should be given to the corespondent.
In the present case there is some difference of opinion about the address of the corespondent. Mr. Steele in his evidence said that her address was Shawinigan Falls. I do not know where Shawinigan Falls is but I have heard of it and I am sure that a letter addressed there would reach the person for whom it was intended. Reference was made to a Blue Cross card on which the young lady's name was given as Lorna Challow, and her address as Shawinigan Falls. The chairman then asked where the lady was served and the clerk of the committee said she was served at 4132 Parthenais street in the city of Montreal.
What kind of clerk do we have in the Senate? Why would he send notice to her at an address in Montreal when on the basis of the evidence her last known address was Shawinigan Falls? There is no previous reference to the Montreal address. I have served summonses for witnesses and have always understood they should be served in person at the last known address of the individual. It is a serious matter if the corespondent in this case has not been served and does not know she has the opportunity to appear before the Senate and the House of Commons to defend herself.
Private Bills-Divorce
We are certainly not interested in pressing any charges that could be laid as a result of her actions if she admitted them. On the other hand she may not have been served and she may be unaware she has the opportunity to deny the allegations. We have the obligation to ascertain if she ever received notice. Because her last known address is Shawinigan Falls we have no right to assume that notice would have been served at the Montreal address.
This is a serious matter. We are making charges in this case against a third party. In my opinion the third party in these divorce cases should be given the benefit of the doubt even if nobody else is. If this young lady wishes to give evidence to indicate that she is not guilty of adultery and had no part in it I think she should be allowed to do so. Everyone here is aware that there have been discrepancies in cases we have dealt with before. The hon. member for Halifax referred to one that he asked to have referred back. We know of cases where the evidence has not been true, where the respondent was not notified and did not know anything about the proceeding. We know that these cases exist.
We have been asked to deal with one and I suggest that we give the chairman of the committee handling these cases the opportunity to ask for unanimous approval to have this case referred back so that this matter may be cleared up. I should like to ask the sponsor of the bill if he will not agree that this is a matter of grave concern and that the third party may be an innocent party. We know that there are overzealous lawyers and over-zealous detectives. In fact, in many cases the senators may be overzealous because they are under great pressure when they have 500 cases to deal with. They also want to take a holiday of a month so they are under some pressure also. This pressure may be to the detriment of the corespondent in some of these cases. Would it not be in the interests of common decency and justice to refer this case back so that the corespondent's wishes can be ascertained?
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that course is necessary in this case. Admittedly there should be an investigation of the methods of service. We are going to have the opportunity to do that in another case, but to proceed merely on the ground of suspicion seems to me a very poor judicial course indeed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there is one other matter I should like to draw to the attention of the committee. It touches to some extent on the comments made by the hon. member for Timiskaming because it relates to the conflict in the evidence given


Robert Jardine McCleave: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This is the third time this afternoon that offensive words have been uttered against a gentleman in the other place by the two members in that corner. This is clearly against the rules of this house.


Charles Edward Rea: Yes, I think the point is very well taken. The hon. member should refrain from making comments about a member of the other place.


Frank Howard: Yes, all right; I shall refrain. I certainly do not want to transgress the rules of the house or cast any reflection upon members of the other place, particularly my good friend the hon. senator. However, the evidence which was obtained under his chairmanship would certainly call for a second look because of these conflicts which I have pointed out. There is the conflict about time. The two investigators were not sure whether it was 10 or 10.30, and they were not sure whether they were in a corridor on the ninth floor observing a room or whether they were down in the lobby waiting until 1.30.
Private Bills-Divorce
With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a case in which some steps should be taken, perhaps after the bill is reported, to refer it back to miscellaneous private bills committee in order that these conflicts in the evidence might be cleared up. In this regard, 1 might say I have great admiration for the hon. member for Halifax, with his legal training, his perceptive ability and his experience in these matters. Perhaps the hon. member might give the house the benefit of his experience in these matters and guide us as to whether or not he, as chairman of the committee and sponsor of the bill, thinks it would be wise to refer this case to the miscellaneous private bills committee in order to ascertain what the situation was that these two detectives found, and in order to clear up the conflict between them in the evidence.


Robert Jardine McCleave: This is always a point in these legal cases. If witnesses give similar testimony, the opposing lawyer says there is evidence of conniving, they are acting in cahoots with each other. On the other hand, if there is a discrepancy in time of half an hour or thereabouts, then we have criticism such as my hon. friend has directed against these witnesses. I think his point of view is a reasonable one in that, at the trial, they should have been asked to account for these differences. However, I do not believe the differences in their evidence are so vital to the case that the course the hon. member suggests should be followed.


William Arnold Peters: I am surprised, and concerned, that in this particular case we have not yet been able to establish whether or not the respondent or corespondent was notified as to the machinery available for his or her defence. We have, on occasion, had a corespondent come before parliament as a witness to attempt to prove the case on behalf of the respondent. However, we might find cases in which the situation was not as pictured. The corespondent in a particular case might not have been in the situation indicated by the evidence. He might have dropped into the hotel room for a drink and been framed into being the corespondent in a divorce case. In this particular case, he might not even have known that these proceedings were going on or that he had an opportunity to appear before the Senate or this committee and be heard.
Certainly, the Senate is O.K. We will not talk about the senators. However, I believe they have done a sloppy job. We do not need to mention them. There are only four of them on the committee.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. There has been a direct allegation made against members of the other place.

Private Bills-Divorce
I submit that is definitely against our rules. I believe it is page 107 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, page 107, standing order 35, which says:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the royal family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the government of Canada nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof.
I submit this covers this particular instance.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, I would submit that I certainly did not intend to make any reference to the character or person of any particular senator. I think the operation of the Senate committee which heard this case was sloppy, and I think we have proven that by reference to at least seven or eight discrepancies in this evidence. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that no slur was intended against any particular senator, but rather on the work of the committee of the other place. I might point out again why I believe that statement applies to this particular case and this particular evidence.
If you will check on the matter, Mr. Chairman, you will find that the evidence is signed by F. S. Lawrence and G. R. Baker, official reporters of the Senate of Canada, sworn reporters. I do not think that any evidence was given that does not appear here. I would have thought that the serving of a summons or a notice or whatever it is that is served on a corespondent should have been served at the place of last address. It was not served at the place of last address. It was served at an address not in Shawini-gan but in Montreal. I am curious to find in the evidence any indication of where the committee received this information to send to this particular address. They did not get it from the evidence of the detectives. They did not get it from the evidence presented to us. Hence I am wondering if there ever was such an address or if any notice was ever sent to this address or if there was any intention whatsoever of giving an opportunity to this young woman to appear and defend herself against charges which may or may not be correct. In either case she may or may not wish to defend herself but I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that she should have the opportunity of doing so because she is a third party and an injured party in this particular case.
I mentioned the fact that this to me was sloppy evidence. Would it not be a good question to ask ourselves what happened to the original picture that was used in this particular case? Where did the detectives all of a sudden find exhibit No. 2 which is the second picture which is not a picture of a man in an R.C.A.F. uniform but a picture of another type altogether. Did it not occur 
to the Senate that it might be wise to find out what happened to the other picture, of whom it was a picture or any other factors?
It may just be possible that this address, the name and the incidents of the whole case, are nothing but a figment of the imagination. It is quite logical to make that assumption. We have one picture appearing in evidence and the picture that was used by means of which they identified the people who were in this hotel room is not the same picture at all. It may be of somebody else altogether because we did not see the picture. Nobody asked what happened to the first picture that was presented and why the second one was substituted in its place.
Let us look at another item in this evidence. I have been before a number of courts in another capacity. In these cases almost without exception when any evidence was being obtained, the least that was done by the detectives or the people that were getting the evidence was to get into the next room so that they could listen through the wall or go into the clothes closet. There was the old story about holding a glass up to the wall and listening to all the things that were going on in the next place. They tap the telephone if it is at all possible. They do all sorts of things. But no; they are not done in this case. The detective drives up to the hotel. He has free access to large hotels. He goes into the room and tells the man when he gets in that he is there for this purpose. He does not get thrown out. He does not even get insulted in most cases. In this case I think there are good grounds to say that this particular incident is like other incidents which we shall prove before the session is over. I think it can be indicated that the incidents in this case and in a number of other cases are figments of the imagination of the detectives themselves and that the situation as expounded by them does not now exist, has not existed and never did exist.
If this was not so, I am quite sure the Senate would have done as they did in other cases and would have asked questions that would have led us to know that they had given serious consideration to these matters. It is true they asked, "Is this the picture?" Then they are told, no, this is not the picture but it is a similar likeness. Who says it is a similar likeness? The wife and the two detectives. But does she say she has seen the first picture, the one on the strength of which the detectives made the raid? No; she does not say that at all. This question was not asked. There was no inquiry in this respect. She admits that the picture that is shown in the Senate is a likeness of her husband. I would suggest that there should have been some inquiry because it is quite likely that the

respondent in this case could have made an appearance there. Certainly it would have been a very embarrassing situation if he had turned up for the Senate committee to see him and he was not the same person as that in the picture being presented to the Senate. If he had been the person in the first picture and had turned up there, there would have been quite a few questions asked and I think the detectives would have had to say, "We are sorry, but we are here with the wrong case; we will be back tomorrow with this one."
For this reason I think the evidence that is given in this case is unsubstantiated, and has not been documented and that no opportunity has been given for it to be disproved. I might go so far as to suggest in this particular case it was not until the last minute they knew whether the respondent had been invited to attend these hearings. If we are going to handle these cases, we are going to handle them with much more care than we have been exercising in the past. I do not mind how lazy, incompetent or careless Senate committees are. We are not going to be incompetent; we are not going to be careless; and we are not going to rubber-stamp their inefficiencies. We are going to ask these questions and we are going to find some answers or there is going to be a different system of handling them.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has used adjectives which directly reflects on members of the other house and that procedure is contrary to section 107 of our rules. The words to which I refer are "lazy" and "incompetent".


Charles Edward Rea: It is quite right that the hon. member must not reflect on the other place. I am sure the hon. member for Timiskaming did not intend to do so. I was listening to him quite carefully and I was under the impression that he slipped a little bit.


William Arnold Peters: I am certainly not referring to any of the senators as being lazy or incompetent. I am referring to this report or to the evidence we have. This report, this evidence and the whole presentation of this case bear out the correctness of the adjectives I used.
I have no friends in the Senate. I do not know more than three or four senators. I certainly do not wish to reflect on any of them.


Charles Edward Rea: I would ask the hon. member to be more careful.


Frank Howard: There is one matter-


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.
79951-0-205
Private Bills-Divorce


Frank Howard: Here we have this insane rush again. May I say to hon. members that they should just relax. They are in a rush all the time and that is what gets them ulcers. During the course of this discussion I think the hon. member for Halifax has been most helpful in assuring us that the conflicts in the evidence, which were questioned by the hon. member for Timiskaming and myself, were not serious matters. However, in the discussion two or three fairly important points have been raised and I do not think they have been answered satisfactorily by the hon. member for Halifax or by anyone else.
One is the question of the two pictures. The hon. member for Timiskaming dealt with this matter quite thoroughly. He pointed out one matter and I mentioned it also. How are we to know whether one picture is the same as the other picture or whether they are both pictures of the same person? If they are both the same person, are they a sufficient likeness of that person? This we do not know. We are not sure. The evidence is absolutely unclear about it. The only comment we have is the reference to it by Senator Roebuck, that he thinks it is sufficient.
Second, the address of the corespondent is unclear. The hon. member for Timiskaming points out that the corespondent was served at 4132 Parthenais street, Montreal, but this is the only evidence in the report as to what the address is. The petition shows another address entirely. The petition states that she resided at No. 30, 956th avenue, Pincourt, district of Montreal. The petition states one thing and the evidence another; in fact, it is not evidence but only a statement by the clerk of the committee as to where she was served. So there is a conflict there.
I cannot say that I accept the comments of the hon. member for Halifax with respect to the discrepancy in the evidence of the two investigators, although I know he says that not everybody says the same thing and that the accusation can be made that their evidence is rigged because they consult each other. But in this case here are two investigators working on the case, and one phones the other and says, come on down to the hotel. Then the other comes down to the hotel and they both work as a team. Why in heaven's name should they not collaborate and so know whether it is the same time or not? You can cast more doubt on them not knowing it was the same time because they worked together on the case than you can on their saying it is the same time and accusing them of collaboration.
As the hon. member for Halifax pointed out, these are not two witnesses who are dissociated one from the other and who appear

Private Bills-Divorce
in court to give evidence about something which each of them saw separately and which they were not supposed to work together on. This is evidence of two people working together as a team. One phones the other and says, come along down, and he does and then each gave evidence supporting what the other did. Mr. Steele gives evidence that his partner Mr. Humphries came down and went into the restaurant and then followed upstairs. Then Mr. Humphries gave evidence that he got a call from Mr. Steele and went down to the hotel but did not meet him immediately. Then he got a signal from him to follow two people who were going up in an elevator. This is a collaborative effort, two people working together.
I submit that this requires a pretty thorough examination in an informal way of sworn witnesses which examination we in this house committee cannot do. Only the miscellaneous private bills committee of this house can do this. I might as well give an indication or notice of my intention in this particular case so that hon. members will be forewarned of it. If this case comes to the stage of third reading, and I suspect it might on a day such as this, because of the reasons I have given just now, indisputable reasons, questions which have not been answered, and certainly not answered but confounded in the evidence, questions which should be cleared up, I am going to move a formal motion based on these reasons that the bill be not read a third time but be referred back to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills in order that that committee may go more thoroughly into these queries and questions and unclear points and confused and contradictory evidence which has been given.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned with this matter. This is one of the few cases which we have discussed where the doubt in my mind rests not on one of the major parties but on the third party. We have a man in the air force who travels around and whose conduct at home to his wife has not been satisfactory. Yet we find he comes to the city of Montreal and rents a room in one of the large expensive hotels, and the events we have discussed follow.
It would seem to me that we are asked to believe that these things which have been pointed out took place, and that the results of the investigation made by these two investigators were factual. We are asked to believe the story the wife tells us, which is quite- a story in itself, where somebody is mentally unbalanced, a psychiatrist is called in, they discuss their medical problems with a social worker and bring a doctor into the

case. It is rather a muddled up mess as far as these two people are concerned and we can grant that there is good reason-not necessarily this reason but good reason-for a separation, although the grounds we are using in this particular case are not necessarily those grounds.
What really concerns me is the position of the hon. members of the Senate and House of Commons who are accepting evidence from two investigators, as they so call themselves. I do not know whether they are private detectives; I doubt if the one is, and I do not know about the other. I doubt if they are qualified detectives in the true sense of the word. Probably they are making a living off this particular racket and do not engage much in true detective work. But obviously they have an arrangement with the hotel because they do not even rent a room or pretend to stay there. This sort^ of evidence goes through without even trying to protect what in this case is a third party.
On page 13 of the evidence Mr. Steele says:
When X gained admittance to the room, after Mr. Hould opened the door, I showed him my identification card and also his photograph and asked him his name and he told me it was Joseph Hould. And then I told him the purpose of our visit.
Q. Did he have anything to say about the photograph?
A. He just nodded his head that it was him.
He did not say it was him; he just nodded his head.
Q. And then you went over to the bed?
A. Yes, and I addressed the woman in the bed and told her, "You are not Mrs. Hould, what is your name?" At first she did not say anything and neither did he, but I said that we have ways of finding out and it will make it more unpleasant that way.
I would suggest that he probably meant that if she did not tell him he would twist her arm, beat her up, steal her purse, or do some of the things we have heard about in previous cases. I wonder why the committee of the other house did not ask him what were the ways. Do they allow blackmail? Do they have some method of going to the employer and asking him if she will be fired from her job? Have they methods in the city of Montreal for making things unpleasant? I can think of a great number of things which would be darned unpleasant if they happened through unscrupulous detectives, from the evidence they give of the manipulations they concern themselves with.
Anyway, they did get the information they wanted, and she finally gave her name as Lorna Challow. That name was on a postal order and other things to identify her. Normally we do not use the names of these



[Stage Direction]
people but I should like to use the name in this case for the reason that she may read what I am saying at some time, or read a report in a newspaper, and thus be informed that she, or someone using her name, is a corespondent in a divorce case taking place in the city of Ottawa of which she herself may have no knowledge.
There was no address except the Shawini-gan address. I have pointed out already that Shawinigan is not a small town. It is well known to the people of Ontario and I assume it is fairly well known also in the province of Quebec. An address in Shawinigan Falls without any further detail would be a satisfactory address, and even if she had moved to Montreal within recent times it is quite likely there would be a fair chance of getting information to her that she had the opportunity to appear in Ottawa to defend her name against this particular charge. I assume she would have to move to Montreal because she would have to change her medical card and Blue Cross card.
The adultery charge is, of course, phony as it usually is:
Q. How many beds were in the room?
A. Just one. It had been occupied by two people. She was covered up to her neck.
Q. Did you see anything else in the room?
A. Yes, some articles of furniture, a dress and clothing on it.
Q. What kind of clothing?
A. A red dress we had seen on her earlier. That was on the chair.
Q. Please look at the petitioner and say if she is the woman you saw in the bed there?
A. I have never seen this woman before.
Talk about rushing things through. Talk about trying to establish adultery charges. I have read on previous occasions what constitutes an adultery charge, and it is not just thinking about it. However, this is the evidence they gave. This is the evidence which was given by the detectives. I am not too concerned whether the evidence given by one is corroborated by the other. Certainly it should be, because one guy hires the other guy and he has to give the evidence he is asked to give. He would not give evidence which would not confirm previous evidence unless he was incompetent, probably a young fellow who might be impressed by what he saw. It might be his first case. In this instance I have not checked. I do not know whether he has been in many cases.
Then there was this business about the handwriting. In no case did they establish that this was the airman they were looking for. The man never said he was. He did not have to impersonate anyone, because he did not answer the question; he only nodded his head. It seems surprising that this evidence should have been obtained away back 79951-0-2054
Private Bills-Divorce
in May, 1959 and that this particular detective could remember the guy nodding his head. But in no case have we established that this was the airman or that the corespondent was actually the lady who has been named, or that such a woman existed at all. It is not proved.
No indication has been given that the normal notice was ever sent to her. Perhaps the sponsor of this bill could give us an indication of what type of legal paraphernalia is gone through with regard to inviting these people to attend before the committee when they are involved in a case other than as a petitioner, to inform them that they do not have to testify if testifying might implicate them; that they could give evidence through a lawyer, and that this evidence will carry some weight if it consisted of a sworn statement. Such persons could go to the lawyer of the opposite party, I am told, and give him the evidence if they so wished and it would carry a certain weight and it would not allow them, I am informed, to be put on the stand and lead, possibly, to self-incrimination. They would, however, be able to get across to the committee the evidence which they wished to give without leaving themselves open to charges of perjury or adultery.
This is very important, especially to people who have not been warned about these possibilities. The sponsor of the bill shakes his head. I presume it is that headache of his, but in case it is not, may I say I should be very surprised to think that his nod means that he believes these people should not have the right to know what their rights are. That is not what the courts believe, and in support of this contention I quote from page 340 of W. Kent Power's work:
Although a suit for divorce is a purely civil proceeding, an admission of adultery is held to be incriminating because adultery was an ecclesiastical offence-
This will become an open field when we bring in the ecclesiastical side of it.
-and subject to ecclesiastical censure, and therefore the right to be protected against questions tending to show adultery exists apart from the statute or rule-
Then there is a footnote (d) which reads:
It is one of the principles of English law that a party cannot be compelled to discover that if which answered would tend to subject him to any punishment or penalty-
The Depuiy Chairman: I wonder what the hon. member is trying to establish by that quotation.
William Arnold Peters: I am pointing out that these people have the right to go before parliament. I am speaking on behalf of the corespondent in this case. They have the right to go before
3248	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce
parliament or before a court and give certain information in various ways which would tend to disprove their adultery without leaving themselves open to a charge of adultery. They are allowed some leeway because if they gave evidence which tended to prove an adultery charge the court would feel it had tended to force the person into the position of committing perjury which would be a charge additional to the one charge of adultery.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member has a very fine argument, but I cannot see that it is relevant to this bill.


William Arnold Peters: I am suggesting that the corespondent in this case did not appear before the Senate committee to indicate to that committee that she did not commit adultery. I am suggesting that the reason she did not appear was that she was not notified at her proper address. The sponsor was not very cooperative. The hon. gentleman could say I should know this-and I should-but I am not familiar with the methods the Senate employs in sending notices to corespondents that they can appear and defend themselves.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the hon. member be satisfied if I were to assure him that exactly the same procedure that is used in the provinces is used in these cases as to the method of service and the sending of notice?


William Arnold Peters: Does that involve personal service of a summons or service by registered mail to the last known address?


Robert Jardine McCleave: In these cases I believe it has to be personal service.


Frank Howard: As I understand it this procedure varies from province to province. I know you can quickly get into an argument by saying you have been advised by a lawyer and immediately 30 other lawyers will disagree with him, but a lawyer explained to me that service upon a respondent or corespondent in Ontario allows for the person to sign his name which in effect constitutes a receipt-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. We are discussing a Quebec case, not an Ontario case. I urge the hon. member to return to a discussion of Bill No. SD-38.


Frank Howard: I would be pleased to. I will refer to the bill and read therefrom.

and whereas by her petition she has prayed that, on the ground of his adultery since then, their marriage be dissolved: and whereas the said marriage and adultery have been proved by evidence adduced and it is expedient that the prayer of her petition be granted-
The reference is to adultery. A corespondent is necessary for adultery to take


place. The question is whether or not the corespondent was properly served. I was telling the hon. member for Halifax that the procedure here is not the same as in the other provinces. If the procedure is the same as in Ontario there would be on record a copy of the notice which was received with the corespondent's signature on it, in effect a receipt that she received notice of this action.


Robert Jardine McCleave: In this case I believe there would be in our files an affidavit indicating by whom she had been served and where the service had taken place. I cannot speak for this case but there would not necessarily be a signature on it to show that she had accepted service.


Frank Howard: This raises another point. The hon. member made reference to files containing affidavits. Could this information be made available to the committee at this stage of the discussion? This would be useful in future cases so that if doubt arises the facts may be ascertained without having to guess about them. Would the hon. member explain how we could get that material here?


Robert Jardine McCleave: If the hon. member would show up in committee he could obtain it there very easily.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend is embarking again on these irrelevancies. The hon. gentleman knows I am not a member of that committee and if he does not know it he should not be chairman. I invite the hon. gentleman to tell us how this information could be made available to committee of the whole house. Membership on this committee is restricted and making the information available to committee of the whole house would assist hon. gentlemen who are not members of the divorce committee.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am sure it is not such a popular committee that a person could not find a place on it. However, the information could probably be obtained through the committees branch or the miscellaneous private bills committee, but I do not see the purpose that would be served in bringing the information here.


Frank Howard: Because this is a delicate point in this case, could we postpone consideration of this bill until that information is brought before committee of the whole house?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have no particular objection to that, Mr. Chairman. I will bend over backwards. I have had my feet swept out from under me since this debate began. We



[Stage Direction]
could, of course, let this bill go to the end of the list and go on to something else and talk it out.
Frank Howard: My hon. friend is misconstruing my purpose. He is attributing to us by innuendo something that is not so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: No sir. He has always followed this practice as an examination of Hansard will reveal only he is now man enough to stand up and say it instead of mumbling it from his seat. I made no reference to this going to the bottom of the list. The hon. member suggested we are trying to shove this to one side but we only want to stand this bill aside until we get the files here. That can be done with unanimous consent. My hon. friend is imputing incorrect and untrue motives to us. If he is willing to allow this bill to stand and then resume debate on it-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frank Howard: Some hon. members are
saying, "No"-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps I could explain what would happen if we met with the hon. member's request. I do not think our committee branch is open tonight and we could not get the files here and therefore this case would stand at the bottom of the list and we would take up something else. The hon. member seems to be reading into a simple remark like that a suggestion that he is bent on some mischievous course and I did not suggest that at all.


John Cameron Pallett: Even if it is true.


Frank Howard: I will gladly accept the hon. member's withdrawal.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that at the dinner adjournment we were engaged in a rather lengthy discussion about a number of items, one of which was the residence of the corespondent and whether or not the corespondent had been properly served with a notice of this action. There was some discussion as to whether in the official files and documents relating to this particular case this information might be obtained. I hope the hon. member for Halifax will not feel upset if I undertake to perform some of the functions of a sponsor of a bill of this nature and relate to the committee information contained in the filed documents
Private Bills-Divorce
relating to this particular case which I was able to obtain during the dinner adjournment. Incidentally, this information was not in the custody of the committees branch in the west block. There is in this file a sworn affidavit relating to the question of whether or not the corespondent had been served. It is an affidavit sworn by a Mr. Rene Ouimet, a sworn bailiff of the city of Montreal, province of Quebec on June 25, 1959. In this affidavit he indicates that he served the corespondent named herein personally with a true copy of the notice which is attached, and left it with her at her place of employment. The address of her place of employment is given, and it is also referred to in the evidence earlier as information given by the clerk of the committee.
Therefore, it would appear from this that the corespondent was served personally. The only thing I wonder about was why the bailiff would undertake to make service of this nature which, as we all realize, involves a sort of complex domestic personal matter. I wonder why he would undertake to serve a copy of the notice on her at her place of employment. Her place of residence would appear to be the proper place in which to serve the notice rather than perhaps to indicate to her fellow employees where she was working that she was involved in an incident of this nature, especially when it is dated one month later than the date of the petition itself, which indicates what her actual residence number is.
At this stage I wish to make additional comments to show that it was possible to obtain the material, the documents and affidavits relating to this particular case in so far as service upon the respondent and corespondent is concerned and also copies of the notice and other documents which are designed to meet the rules of the other place with respect to these matters. I should like to indicate not only for the benefit of the hon. member for Halifax but also for the benefit of other hon. members and I am sure Mr. Dubroy does not mind my saying this-that these documents are kept in the office of the second clerk assistant and if anyone desires to obtain this information it can be found there because these documents will be kept in that office while the bills are being dealt with in this chamber. Once they are passed, all of this material, along with the evidence, will be returned to the Senate.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I have also seen what is considered to be, I suppose, the portfolio which contains the information in relation to the service of the petition and the notice of the serving. I have read them; they are contained here

Private Bills-Divorce
and I think they have allayed some of the suspicions that were voiced before the dinner adjournment. However, Mr. Chairman, I am still at a loss, after reading all of the official documents, to understand how the relationship was established between the Shawinigan Falls address and the subsequent serving of the copy of the petition on the corespondent. The evidence does not show it, nor does the complete report of the committee on divorce of the Senate show how they found out she worked at this particular address. It strikes me as strange that they should have been able to ascertain where she worked when they only saw her in the evening partly clad, at a different address altogether. I do not understand how they came to serve not a summons but a petition where she worked, and how they found out where she worked. It would appear to me that there is still some information somewhere, some method of eliciting the information that they were able to secure in finding out where she worked.
We also mentioned the fact that we were concerned that the corespondent, the respondent and other witnesses, who may be of importance in this particular case, were not given the information which would allow them to decide for themselves whether they could come to parliament or to the Senate committee and obtain protection, if they needed protection, because of the subsequent proving of the adultery charge and at the same time put in a defence if they wished to.
I am not as familiar with these documents as I am with the other ones but we shall be after a while.


Mr. Small:: You are taking a correspondence course.


William Arnold Peters: We are taking one.


Frank Howard: We do not want to pass the exams.


William Arnold Peters: In another one we shall know where to find this. It is quite simply the notice of the petition that they give to the corespondent. It does not indicate that they have the right to come before the committee and present their side of the case if they feel they have been wrongly accused.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, because of the practice in English law whereby a respondent or corespondent is given the opportunity of disproving the charges that are made against him or her, they should be given notice that they have the opportunity of appearing on this particular day in person. In my opinion, such information is not given in that notice. I believe that evidence should be given before the committee of the other place indicating that personal service was

made upon these people by a bailiff so that we will not be troubled by lack of knowledge as to whether or not notice of the petition was given to the corespondent as well as the respondent in these cases.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-39, for the relief of Stella Jean Margaret Newman Lamartine-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Frank Howard: I should like to make a few comments about this particular bill before us, and relate them somewhat in the same way as I have the others, to the facts set forth in the bill itself, the marriage and adultery, and whether or not those facts have been proven. In doing so I should like to make reference to the petition itself which indicates in its first paragraph that a lawful marriage did not take place on March 8, 1928, and in the sixth paragraph that on May 25, 1959, at a particular address in the city of Montreal, adultery was committed. The names of the respondent and corespondent are given.
Evidence was given by the petitioner before the committee of the other place in substantiation of these allegations and by two witnesses, who were investigators, namely Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Paquette, to the effect that adultery was committed. According to page 9 of the evidence the petitioner appeared, was sworn and asked certain questions by the clerk of the committee concerning her name, age, occupation and where she lived. Then the next question asked of her is:
Q. Are you married, and if so to whom?
A. I am married to-
Then, she gives the name of the husband who is the respondent in this particular case.
Q. When were you married?
A. I was married on March 8, 1928.
Q. Where?
A. Montreal.
Q. By whom?
A. By the Rev. Mr. Clare.
Q. What is your religion?
A. I am a Protestant, Unitarian.
Q. And your husband, what religion is he?
A. My husband is a Unitarian also.
Q. I show you a document. Do you recognize this document?
A. Yes, it is my marriage certificate.
Q. Are the statements therein contained true and correct?
A. They are true and correct, yes.

This would indicate that the first requirement of the bill has been met, that is that the marriage did take place and it was between the petitioner and the respondent. There is proof of the consummation of the marriage also in the fact that there were three children born of this marriage. To the extent we are permitted by the rules to make reference to these children, I would read from the evidence on page 10. Mr. Usher, who is of the city of Montreal and who was counsel for the petitioner, asks certain questions which are as follows:
Q. Are there any children issue of the marriage?
A. There are three children.
Q. Would you state the names and ages, please?
The names of the children are given and the ages also, the ages being 31, 27 and 11. Then following that there is some reference to the fact the eldest child is married and the second child is living and employed in California. The youngest child, age 11, is living with the petitioner and has lived with her and remained in her custody ever since birth.
There are extensive questions here with respect to separation proceedings. There is a question asked by Mr. Usher which appears on page 10:
Q. Is it not a fact that we instituted separation proceedings for you before the superior court in Montreal shortly thereafter?
He means shortly after a quarrel between the witness and her husband in 1957. She answered, yes.
Q. And has he ever returned to the home-
Then, Senator Roebuck says:
Is that mentioned in the petition?
Mr. Usher replies:
No, sir, the petition was taken out prior to the introduction of the legal proceedings.
There is some reference to support, which relates to the separation proceedings. The witness is asked:
Q. Was he supporting you at the time?
A. He was supporting me partially. I had to work because there was not really enough money to live on.
Q. And after he left was he sending you any support?
A. He only paid the rent because he was, of course, obliged to.
Q. And is it not a fact that by judgment of the superior court you were awarded the custody of the child,-?
A. Yes.
Q. And an alimentary allowance of $75 a month for the maintenance of your child?
A. That is right.
There is some doubt, I might say here before proceeding into the evidence, whether or not this alimentary allowance was for the
Private Bills-Divorce
child or for the wife. Some reference to that will come along in a moment. The next question is:
Q. Has he been paying the $75?
A. Sometimes, and sometimes not; very frequently not.
Q. And is it not a fact that you have had to contact our office on numerous occasions to jog your husband's memory to pay this amount of $75?
A. Yes.
Then, Senator Roebuck makes some additional inquiries. He says:
Before we leave this, Mr. Usher, I should like to ask a few more questions.
Q. You got a judgment against your husband from the court ordering him to pay you something and I think you said it was $75 a month for the support of the child?
A. Yes.
Q. And was there anything for your support?
A. None at all,
Q. Did you ask for it?
A. No.
Then, Mr. Usher assisted the committee, not by asking questions but by offering information with respect to certain legal procedures and functions of the superior court relating to the separation proceedings and allowances. He explained this to Senator Roebuck. I made reference to this before, but there is additional comment by Mr. Usher on page 12 with respect to the payment of the allowance.
I think it would be well for the committee to have an understanding, if it does not have it already, of this particular circumstance which exists in the province of Quebec. I do not know whether it exists in other provinces. In any event, it was new to me when I read the evidence and found that it existed. I think it would be somewhat enlightening to other members of this committee, if not for particular use in this instance then for use later on when similar questions arise. Mr. Usher, starting first at page 12, gave some additional information in answer to a query by another hon. senator. He said this:
Senator, probably I would be better able to answer that question. Under our jurisprudence, once there is a divorce the obligation to support the wife ceases-
This is what I was saying earlier, as you will recall, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the case with which we have just dealt. The quotation continues:
*-but the obligation to support the child remains. If there is a judgment rendered by the superior court of Montreal awarding alimony in favour of children a divorce in Ottawa does not affect that, because it is not an alimentary payment to the wife. Mr. Justice Mackinnon, I think it was, in around the year 1952 or 1953 rendered a judgment to that effect, that a divorce does not affect the alimony payable for children.
So presumably the child, who is now 11, will be financially provided for to the degree or to the extent of $75 a month regardless of

Private Bills-Divorce
whether or not this particular petition for divorce passes this place. I would assume that the lad will be fairly well looked after because additional evidence given by the petitioner, upon questioning by hon. Senator Roebuck, was as follows:
Q. The lad is going to school, is he?
A. Yes, he is going to-
And she gives the name of the particular school. The questioning continues:
Q. Are there any difficulties at home? You are out working. How old is he, did you say?
A. He is eleven.
Q. Is there any trouble in regard to taking care of him?
A. No, his school is a private school, and they are permitted to stay for sports and other different activities until 4.30. We live fairly close to the school, and he walks home, and I am home at about five o'clock. I also have the principal of the school living with me.
I would point out that subsequent questioning indicates that the principal of the school is a lady also, so there is no problem there. Mr. Usher, counsel for the petitioner, indicates he is honourary legal adviser to this particular school and that Mr. Frosst of the Frosst Chemical Company is the chairman. Everyone seems to think that the school itself is an excellent one and that the child will get a very good opportunity for education there and that the payment of $75 per month will assist somewhat in providing for and maintaining the child.
There were some events leading up to their actual separation or their actual splitting up, as it were, which, according to the evidence, took place in November of 1957 and following that, as I say, these divorce proceedings were instituted as well as separation proceedings. Mr. Usher, again with regard to the events leading up to this separation, asked the following questions:
Q. Prior to his leaving in November, 1957-
That is the respondent.
-were there any indications of immorality on his part at that time?
A. Yes, there were. I was quite certain that he was taking out some other woman at the time.
Q. What led you to that conclusion?
A. Well, I found lipstick on his clothing, and later I had a servant to take care of my child as I was working, and she said she would have to leave because of his unwelcome attentions.
That same thing occurred with the second servant in 1956. I do not relate this in order to make reference to any immoral conduct on the part of the respondent at all but for two other reasons. One is to point out that this led to some strained relationships in the family. Also, the reference to the servants being employed in the house and the reference just prior to this to the amount of rent that is being paid, notably $160 a month, which is rather a large amount to pay for

rent for an apartment, would indicate that the family was fairly well off. I do not know for a fact whether or not this is so. I only mention the amount of rent being paid and the fact that the husband and wife were working-the husband being an artist and selling antiques and so on on an independent basis-as indicating perhaps that the welfare of the child will be-at least I hope so-properly cared for if this divorce reaches the stage of being passed.
There is evidence also that no connivance or condonation took place with respect to the adultery alleged or charged. Hon. Senator Roebuck asked some questions with respect to that matter as follows:
Q. That is, you have had no sex relations with him?
That is since November, 1957:
A. No.
Q. You are complaining of some acts of adultery. Did you ever encourage them?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever connive to bring them about?
A. No.
Q. Did you throw anybody in his way for the purpose of evidence in these proceedings?
A. No.
Then he asks about matters to which I referred earlier, about the child going to school and so on. So far as collusion is concerned, there is no evidence of it but I should say there is evidence to the contrary. However, there are some strange things again when it comes to proof of adultery. I must make rather extensive reference in this instance to the evidence that is here. It is lengthy evidence. It is lengthy as compared with evidence that we have read with respect to other cases. In order to prevent myself from being accused, as I have been on other occasions, of selecting evidence to show a particular case, I shall be obliged to give the full extent of it.
Mr. Ernest Gordon Etheridge, is well known to this committee-he is an old timer -handles some 50 or 60 divorce cases a year. I think it is 60 that he is investigating or has investigated for this particular session. He has quite a wealth of experience, I am sure not only in the field of how to present evidence, not only in the field of what evidence to obtain before it is presented to the committee, not only to have a complete and thorough understanding of the specific points which he will have to prove before the committee but I am sure he is well experienced also in the field of making arrangements for particular divorces in order to ensure that a couple is seen or caught, as the expression is, in compromising circumstances which could be grounds for proving adultery. In any event, Mr. Etheridge gave evidence, as found at page 13. To dispense

with the preliminaries-that is to say, about when he was engaged and so on-and to get into the picture, he starts with the results of their investigation. Mr. Usher asks him this question:
Will you tell the result of your investigation?
A. As a result of our investigation, on the evening of Monday, May 25, 1959, I took up observation with Mr. Paquette.
Mr. Paquette is the co-investigator in this case, I suppose.
From Crescent Street we could see Mr.-
Giving the name of the respondent's green Ford station wagon, the licence number, 1959 Quebec markers. The respondent's studio and his living quarters were all in the one civic number, and he gives the number of the street in Montreal. He goes on:
During the investigation Mr.-
Giving the respondent's name.
-would use the front entrance one time out of ten possibly.
So you can see they took up rather a long vigil at this particular place if they could determine that he used the front entrance one time out of ten. I assume they had watched him on ten different occasions when the respondent had come in or gone out. He goes on:
When he would arrive and park his car in a private parking place off the laneway between-
Giving the streets.
-he would leave the car there and would go up the fire escape to his living quarters on the top of the building. They would never go around the building to go in by the front. On this evening we were there at 4.30 and about five minutes after eight we saw him leave to come down the fire escape with this woman we had seen him with on many previous occasions.
I do not know what type of fire escape it is, not having seen it, but it plays rather an important role in this evidence before us because it is the way Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Paquette, I assume it is, came to find the evidence they did. He goes on:
They parked the car on Mountain south of St. Catherine and had supper at Dinty Moore's and then they drove off as if looking for somebody in St. Lambert, where they spoke to a policeman as if trying to find an address. They finally turned around, came under the Wellington tunnel, up Mountain street and reparked the car in this parking section behind-
Then he gives an address at Sherbrooke street west. I have not given the address of this particular place where adultery is alleged to have taken place as yet, but I would point out that there is an error here in the number of the address; I think it is an error. In one reference the parking lot in the area where they lived is given-and I will only use the number-as 1330. However, 79951-0-206
Private Bills-Divorce
when they came back again and made reference to the parking section the reference was to 1130. I assume that that is a typographical error or slip of the tongue on the part of Mr. Etheridge; in any event it is of inconsequential value to this particular case here. So they came back to this particular parking section and went up by the fire escape. Mr. Etheridge continues:
After a while we noticed everything was in darkness, about 11.15. We waited shortly until before midnight and we went upstairs by the fire escape, Mr. Paquette and myself, and when we got to the door at the top of the fire escape we knocked on the door.
The house had' been in darkness for some 40 to 45 minutes, according to the evidence. They went up the fire escape, which I am sure we will all agree is not the usual means of access to a person's residence, and knocked on the door. He goes on:
Mr.-
Giving the name of the respondent.
-came and looked out-
There is no hesitation. In some cases you will notice that they knocked quite a few times after the lights had gone out for some three quarters of an hour or half an hour before somebody came to the door. But in this case the plan worked perfectly. They knocked and he came to the door just as if this was the cue after they had come up the fire escape at midnight and knocked on the door. The respondent looked out and they identified themselves to him. They stepped into the apartment after they had identified themselves. Here, Mr. Chairman, is a strange situation, as you can imagine. It is midnight, the lights had been out since 11.15, and presumably you are in bed. I am not talking about you yourself, Mr. Chairman, but through you I am speaking to the committee. You are in bed and someone comes up the fire escape, which is a strange method of getting to where you live. They knock on the door. Two strangers identify themselves to you and they step into your apartment. Then you admit who you are. In this case the respondent admitted he was so-and-so, giving his name. He also admitted that the picture in their possession was of himself. The evidence goes on:
He had come to open the door wearing the lower part of pyjamas only and he had on slippers.
Then Senator Roebuck asks:
He was nude from the waist up?
A. Yes. The living quarters consisted of a small kitchenette plus a sort of double room. It was divided with columns which separated the living room and the dining room. In the north section which was to our right with the head of the bed facing Sherbrooke street, this woman who had given us her name as-

Private Bills-Divorce
Giving the name of the corespondent.
-was lying in the open studio couch on the side closest to the wall. We could see from where Mr. Lamartine had risen from his side of the pulled-out studio couch to come to answer the door.
Q. What was she wearing?
A. She was covered to the neck with a sheet. It was a warm night and there were no spreads or blankets on the bed-
And so on. Here again we are asked to accept point blank this sort of evidence. Two strangers come up a fire escape at midnight and knock on a door which is immediately opened. They walk in, identify themselves, show a picture to someone they do not know and who does not know them. He says, "Yes, that is I". He identifies the picture. Then they ask a woman who is in bed covered up to the neck with a sheet what her name is, and she without qualms or questioning says that her name is so-and-so. From the evidence we have read in other cases threats have been used, as they were in the last instance where the investigator said they had ways of making it tough for her if she did not tell them her name. We have had instances where the investigator has rifled through women's purses, in effect committing trespass, and in that case we might expect it. But in this particular case-


The Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


William Arnold Peters: Just one or two comments about this particular case, Mr. Chairman. In this particular case the lawyer, Mr. Usher, has done a service, I think, to the committee in his remarks regarding the connection between the House of Commons and a divorce granted in a legislative manner and those people in Quebec who were fortunate enough prior to their application to parliament to apply to the superior court of Quebec for relief for the female spouse and maintenance of the children. I think it is worth while to read what Mr. Usher said. He is asked:
Q. If you get this divorce is he bound to continue paying that $75?
Then Mr. Usher said:
Senator, probably I would be better able to answer that question. Under our jurisprudence, once there is a divorce the obligation to support the wife ceases, but the obligation to support the child remains. If there is a judgment rendered by the superior court of Montreal awarding alimony in favour of children a divorce in Ottawa does not affect that, because it is not an alimentary payment to the wife. Mr. Justice Mackinnon, I think it was, in around the year 1952 or 1953 rendered a judgment to that effect, that a divorce does not affect the alimony payable for children.
I am very pleased that Mr. Usher, a very competent lawyer, put this on the record, because I think it is advice that should be taken by those who are applying. In this case, as reported later on, it is evident

that there are three children of this marriage. One of them is grown up and married, the other has a good job and is living away from home, and the third is a young boy who is attending a private school. The father is now paying $75 for his maintenance, and because this has been taken through the civil court in Quebec he will continue to receive the $75 for his education.
I think it would be a pleasure to meet Mr. Usher because I was interested in the remarks he made in this case. The committee will remember that he did ask a question about the husband's conduct and the chairman, Senator Roebuck, had to point out to him that he was not to put answers into the mouth of the witness. I think this is a common court procedure, and we do not hold that against Mr. Usher though we commend the chairman of the committee for his vigilance and for asking that the question be reworded and that it should ask for an answer rather than indicate an answer. It is amusing to read what occurs as reported on page 13 when the committee was discussing the school the boy was attending.


Mr.   Usher@: I might say that this is an usually good school. It is probably the leading school in Montreal. That is the private progressive school of which Mr. Frosst of the Frosst Chemical Company is the chairman, and I happen to be honorary legal adviser to the school.
There is nothing like tooting your own horn. He was certainly doing that. He was giving full credit to the firm he represents, to the school, and to himself, as well as to Frosst chemicals, and I would say he did very well as far as the handling of this case is concerned with regard to the welfare of the young lad who is still dependent on the support he is receiving from his father.
I was interested in reading this case to note that once again we have the same kind of stereotyped evidence as has continually been given in the cases we have examined so far. The investigator in this case is a particularly well-versed man, Mr. Etheridge, who has the record in the Senate for presenting these cases. His record is high, and he is one of the top two or three detectives, but again we are asked to give credit to evidence the nature of which stretches our credulity. In this particular case they talk about taking up observation with Mr. Paquette. That particular answer continues:
From Crescent street we could see Mr. Lamartine's green Ford station wagon ... parked there. Mr. Lamartine's studio and his living quarters were all in the one civic number.
I notice that a great deal of questioning was done in relation to the studio and to the work of the respondent in this case. It is mentioned that he is an artist of one kind



I960

[Stage Direction]
or another. Senator Roebuck himself asked a question about his occupation when the committee was discussing whether the money was being paid for the support of the child. On page 11 the following appears:
By Senator Lambert:
Q. Is he an independent artist, or is he associated with a commercial art firm?
A. He is an artist, and he also has been selling antiques.
Q. But he is not attached to a lithographing firm or any commercial art firm?
A. No.
By the Chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. He just sells pictures?
A. Yes, portraits, and he designs.
Senator Lambert: He is an independent artist.
On reading this I am forced to come to the conclusion that some discussion of this case must have taken place prior to the examination, and to the evidence which was given according to the transcript, because why are all these questions asked about what type of an artist this person is, where he worked, whether he worked for a lithographic firm or a commercial art firm, and so on? I suppose the temperament of people who are artists in the true sense of the word must vary. An artist with one kind of temperament may paint landscapes; an artist who paints portraits may have a different type of temperament and, again, a further type of temperament may be found in an artist who works for lithographic processes.
Nevertheless, I fail to see why all these questions were asked about the type of art work which was done, unless they were intended to establish the personality and mental attitude of the respondent. When Senator Lambert ends up, he says: He is an independent artist. In fact, he was answering a question which had been asked earlier by Senator Roebuck, which gives me the impression that more investigation was conducted into this phase of the personality of the respondent in this case than appears in the evidence, and I am curious as to whether this was done before the hearing; whether Senator Lambert may have had some knowledge of this particular person or if it was one of those affairs which sometimes happen and in this case I presume the Senate committee sat around a few minutes before the session opened and discussed a number of things and exchanged some information. Sometimes members come to an arrangement about how far they are going in questioning and what would be acceptable as a cut-off as far as questions are concerned. In court cases, quite often, they decide what they will settle for. In murder cases the lawyers and the judge may sit down and agree they will settle for second degree manslaughter.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Has the hon. member one jot or tittle of evidence to back up such a 79951-0-2061
Private Bills-Divorce
serious statement? I know he would not wish to be unfair in this matter. Is there any evidence to support that allegation?


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: It is a most unwarranted reflection on the other place.


Mr.   Refers@: No. It is the questioning itself. It is odd questioning, and I will just read what was said earlier with reference to alimony. The committee discussed first of ail the proceedings in the Quebec court. The record continues:
Q. Is it not a fact that we instituted separation proceedings for you before the superior court in Montreal shortly thereafter?
A. Yes.
Q. And has he ever returned to the home-


Jacques Flynn: Is that mentioned in the petition?


Mr.   Usher@: No, sir, the petition was taken out prior to the introduction of the legal proceedings.
Q. Has your husband ever returned to your home since then?
A. No, he has not returned.
Q. Was he supporting you at the time?
A. He was supporting me partially. I had to work because there was not really enough money to live on.
Q. And after he left was he sending you any support?
A. He only paid the rent because he was, of course, obliged to.
Q. And is it not a fact that by judgment of the superior court you were awarded the custody of the child, Richard?
A. Yes.
Q. And an alimentary allowance of $75 a month for the maintenance of your child?
A. That is right.
Q. Has he been paying the $75?
A. Sometimes, and sometimes not; very frequently not.
Q. And is it not a fact that you have had to contact our office on numerous occasions to jog your husband's memory to pay this amount of $75?
A. Yes.
By the Chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. How far is he behind?
A. At the present moment he is one month behind.
Then they launched into a discussion of what kind of artist he is and they drew conclusions. I am not interested in this field but I do not think there is much connection between a lithographing firm, a commercial art firm, the selling of antiques and the work of artists as we know it. I may be drawing an inference that is not there but I am-


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Not even intelligent.


William Arnold Peters: -led to believe that there must have been some discussion beforehand about the kind of artist he was because the questions bear no relationship to those asked previously.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member suggesting that the Senate has cooked up the evidence in this divorce case? Is he suggesting that there

Private Bills-Divorce
was some impropriety on the part of the Senate in handling this case? If so, I think he should be compelled to state the grounds on which he bases his accusation.


Thomas Miller Bell: This is shocking.


William Arnold Peters: If the hon. member had followed what I was saying he would know there seems to be some questioning that does not have any beginning. It may be that the committee sat around with the lawyers beforehand and not necessarily discussed the case but made certain references. That is what I am suggesting. I point out that this is done many times in legal circles.


An hon. Member:: How would you know?


Mr. Aiken:: Name where?


William Arnold Peters: I say it is done.


Thomas Miller Bell: This is intolerable, Mr. Chairman.


Jacques Flynn: I must say that the hon. member is coming very close to making improper references to the other place. I agree that he may discuss the evidence but he is going further than that in suggesting things that are not at all supported by the evidence. Although some parts of the evidence may not appear to be relevant the hon. member by discussing them cannot make them more relevant than would appear in the evidence itself.


William Arnold Peters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I will drop the whole idea. I did not think it was relevant before and I do not think it has got any more so. I am not sure I helped it any, either.


Thomas Miller Bell: This is not funny, it is shocking.


William Arnold Peters: If we go on in the evidence we can see why the questions were asked. If he belonged to a firm that paid money by the month obviously he should be able to make the $75 payment but if he was selling something that may not be so easy.


Robert Hardy Small: Is the hon. member suggesting that he was probably selling pornographic art?


William Arnold Peters: It does not say that.


Robert Hardy Small: That is what the hon. member is trying to get at.


William Arnold Peters: No, I was not suggesting that. I was just wondering why the differences were indicated. It is of no importance to us whether the $75 is being paid because, as was pointed out, there is a right to collect it in the province. I am quite sure it will be paid. We are not changing that and I am pleased about it.
IMr. Jones.]
The evidence about the rent is not clear. She said he paid rent because he was obliged to. I would point out that he did not live there any more so he could not be obliged to. Senator Farquhar asked questions about this on page 11 as follows:
Q. You mentioned the rent. Is that included in the $75?
A. No, at that time he did not pay me anything until the court order, but he had signed a lease, and in Quebec you cannot move out until the lease is completed.
Q. How much rent was he paying?
A. I think it was $160 a month.
By Mr. Usher:
Q. That was in 1957?
A. Yes, in 1957. He does not pay any rent now. I moved from there to a less expensive apartment.
By Senator Farquhar:
Q. He just pays you the $75?
A. Yes.
Mr. Usher asked some very leading questions in this case. I assume he is a competent lawyer.


Robert Jardine McCleave: You called him one.


William Arnold Peters: He asked questions as follows:
By Mr. Usher:
Q. Prior to his leaving in November, 1957 were there any indications of immorality on his part at that time?
A. Yes, there were. I was quite certain that he was taking out some other woman at the time.
Q. What led you to that conclusion?
A. Well, I found lipstick on his clothing, and later I had a servant to take care of my child as I was working, and she said she would have to leave because of his unwelcome attentions.
Q. That was shortly prior to-.
A. That was in 1955. There was then a second girl, a second servant, in 1956 who had the same difficulty with him.
Before the end of this session it is to be hoped that we will have some of these investigating officers come up before us so we can inquire into their capabilities and the methods they use. The evidence here, as in some other cases, is, to say the least, surprising. Mr. Etheridge testified as follows:
During the investigation Mr. Lamartine would use the front entrance one time out of ten possibly. When he would arrive and park his car in a private parking place off the laneway between Crescent and Mountain street, he would leave the car there and would go up the fire escape to his living quarters on the top of the building. They would never go around the building to go in by the front.
From reading the evidence I have not been able to establish if he could get in by any other means. As the apartment was laid out this would be the door normally used. I continue:
On this evening we were there at 4.30 and about five minutes after eight we saw him leave to come down the fire escape with this woman we had seen him with on many previous occasions. They parked the car on Mountain street off St. Catherine and had supper at Dinty Moore's and then they drove off as if looking for somebody in St. Lambert, where they spoke to a policeman as if trying to find an address.

I suggest they should have had the policeman stop the car behind them and find out why they were being followed around the city, but they did not. I continue:
They finally turned around, came under the Wellington tunnel up Mountain street and reparked the car in this parking section behind 1130 Sherbrooke street west and went up by the fire escape. After a while we noticed everything was in darkness, about 11.15. We waited shortly until before midnight and we went upstairs by the fire escape, Mr. Paquette and myself, and when we got to the door at the top of fire escape we knocked on the door. Mr. Lamartine came and looked out and we identified ourselves to him and we stepped into the apartment after we identified ourselves, and he admitted he was Mr. Gert Lamartine and also the picture in our possession was of himself. He had come to open the door wearing the lower part of pyjamas only and he had on slippers.
Is this normal procedure, Mr. Chairman? If somebody raps on the door at twelve o'clock at night is it not normal to ask who is there? I doubt whether there are many people, even in those areas where it is normal to leave the door unlocked, who would get up in the middle of the night, open the door and welcome in somebody whom they had not seen before. Even if he identified himself, the identification he would have to use would be a detective's badge, a driver's licence or something of that nature. I would be surprised if they do not use some form of intimidation, because with their detective's badge, or whatever they are issued in the city of Montreal or in the province of Quebec for this purpose, unless they use some type of intimidation I would be surprised if they would be readily allowed in the apartment. I go on with the evidence as to what they saw in the room.
Q. He was nude from the waist up?
A. Yes. The living quarters consisted of a small kitchenette plus a sort of double room. It was divided with columns which separated the living room and the dining room. In the north section which was to our right with the head of the bed facing Sherbrooke street, this woman who had given us her name as Nanette Lalonde was lying in the open studio couch on the side closest to the wall.
When did she give them her name as Nanette Lalonde? From my reading of the evidence I do not find that they had contact with her previously. This was the first time they had spoken to this woman-it would appear that way anyway-and yet he said:
-this woman who had given us her name as Nanette Lalonde was lying in the open studio couch on the side closest to the wall.
This is not very good evidence. They knew the name of the girl and they say that she had given her name to them previously. If we assume that-we will give the benefit of the doubt to the investigators-they may have used the wrong tense or something of that nature yet it would seem that they were
Private Bills-Divorce
familiar with the name of this young lady before they entered the room. This might indicate that she was either well known as a woman of the street which would not form the basis of an adultery charge in this case, as people of that nature are taken care of by civil law, or that the evidence in this particular is not correct.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will the hon. member permit two questions? First, is there any evidence to suggest that she was a woman of the street? Second, has the hon. member read the evidence at the bottom of page 14?


William Arnold Peters: To answer the first question, I am not suggesting that. If I were suggesting that I would quote authorities to indicate that a divorce could not be granted if that were the case. I am not suggesting that.
To answer the second question, I have read the evidence on page 14 but the Senate committee had not heard the evidence given on page 14 when they were taking the evidence which appears on page 12. It would appear to me that you have to follow some pattern. What this witness is suggesting is that they knew her previously. We may even find it to be true that his partner had made inquiries. But in reading the evidence up to this point there is no indication that they had previously met her. I continue with the answer:
We could see from where Mr. Lamartine had risen from his side of the pulled-out studio couch to come to answer the door.
This is only an assumption; it is not a fact. It is an assumption that they could see from where he had risen to come to answer the door. They could not very well see that unless they had their eyes to the keyhole. They should have said that if they had. I would think that would be much better evidence than some of the evidence they have given. I continue:
Q. What was she wearing?
A. She was covered to the neck with a sheet. It was a warm night and there were no spreads or blankets on the bed, just the sheet.
By Mr. Usher:
Q. Was there any clothing about the place?
A. The woman's clothing was on a chair in the left-hand corner but we did not see any of Mr. Lamartine's clothing around at all.
Maybe he arrived from across the hall, or some place, in that kind of attire. If there were no clothes lying around and he went to the door wearing the lower part of his pyjamas probably he wandered in out of the hall or from some other place. I continue:
A. The woman's clothing was on a chair in the left-hand corner but we did not see any of Mr. Lamartine's clothing around at all.
Q. How many beds were in the room?
A. It was not a bed, it was a studio couch used as a bed.
Q. The woman you saw in the bed, was she Mrs. Lamartine who is sitting here?

Private Bills-Divorce
A. No, I am seeing Mrs. Lamartine for the first time.
Q. But she is not the woman you saw in the bed that night?
A. Definitely not.
This is the kind of evidence we continually get. Why did they not ask where his clothes were? These people are willing to search purses and steal nameplates oil doors, and do a number of other things. They threaten people and yet they did not look around to find out whether his clothing was there. Why did they not ascertain that? Why did they not see whether there was another door leading into that room because it would appear from the evidence that the only way you can get into that apartment is by way of the fire escape. It was a very small apartment. It would seem that is the door they used, the one that leads in off the back entrance. I continue with the evidence. Mr. Paquette, who has appeared on a number of occasions, was also questioned as to the events that evening.
Q. Were you in the company of the previous witness, Mr. Etheridge, on the night of May 25, 1959?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Would you look at this photograph already filed as exhibit 2 and state who that is?
A. I know this man as Mr. Gert Lamartine.
Q. Will you tell the committee what occurred on that evening when you obtained access to the premises of the respondent, Mr. Gert Lamartine?
A. We went up to his living quarters by the rear entrance that night, it was 11.50 p.m., to the same door as they went in previously during the evening. Mr. Etheridge knocked at the door and it took a minute or two before Mr. Lamartine came to the door. So we identified ourselves and we went into the kitchen. And after that we went into this room which is the living quarters, and in that apartment there was an open studio couch where we noticed a woman about 35 years old was lying in bed. Mr. Etheridge showed him the picture that he had in his possession and he admitted that was his picture, and he asked the woman in the bed what her name was and she said it was Nanette Lalonde.
It is surprising, Mr. Chairman, that this answer should have come from the assistant because he says that Mr. Etheridge showed him the picture that he had in his possession and he admitted that it was his picture, and he asked the woman in the bed what her name was and she said it was Nanette Lalonde. On the previous page of the testimony, the testimony of Mr. Gordon Etheridge, he said that she had previously given her name. Let me quote it:
-this woman who had given us her name as Nanette Lalonde.
In other words, Mr. Etheridge is indicating he had been previously introduced to this lady and now his partner is saying that Mr. Etheridge asked her what her name was and she had told him.
Q. What was she wearing?

A. She was covered up to the neck with the sheet.
Q. Did you see any of her clothes in the room?
A. Her clothes were on a chair beside the bed.
Q. What was Mr. Lamartine wearing?
A. The lower part of his pyjamas. We told Mr. Lamartine that Mrs. Lamartine was taking divorce action against him. Then, we took a sketch of the place and went out.
This is the type of evidence which, I would suggest, leads to only one conclusion and that is that this divorce evidence was framed. The whole thing worked out very well because the particulars had been agreed upon and the access to the apartment was of the easiest sort. In this connection I should like to ask the sponsor of this bill if he will accompany me to the Lord Elgin or Chateau Laurier, and at 12 o'clock we will rap on all the doors along one hall to ascertain how many rooms there are to which we gain access. Let us see how many people even ask us who we are or what we want. I am quite sure we will have the private detective from the hotel follow us and throw us out before we even get to the second door. I have been thrown out of better hotels than they have in Ottawa on various occasions, anyway.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will the hon. member permit me to decline the invitation? I do not mind being thrown out of high class hotels, but not under those circumstances.


William Arnold Peters: This is in the interests of research. I am sure that if we rapped upon the doors of 10 rooms we could not get into more than one. We would probably find that there was only one person in the room. We will not find one situation of this type. If there are any of these situations in the better class hotels in Ottawa tonight we would not be allowed in those rooms. I am quite willing to try it. In every case we have handled lately there is a rap on the door at one o'clock in the morning, the door opens and somebody is invited in. They must be very hospitable in Montreal. I hope to go down to Montreal this week, and I hope that what I read here is true because I am going to see for myself. This comes under the heading of research. If it is this easy to make friends and carry on a conversation with people at one o'clock in the morning, when they are engaged in something that is a criminal offence-well, it seems to me that this just does not happen. I am quite sure it does not happen.
I believe that we have here another case in which the evidence has been prepared. I have no particular objection to this divorce being granted, but I have every objection to the members of this committee being used in this particular way. I have satisfied myself from reading the evidence that the only

child who is under age is being taken care of properly and I think the wife can take care of herself. It has been pointed out that the respondent is not a very good artist. He does not work steadily and he has had trouble paying the $75.


Jacques Flynn: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-40, for the relief of Larry Orsa-Mr. McCleave- Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Frank Howard: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I had better make sure that I return the notes from the last case so I will be relating my notes to the evidence that is before us and not to some other petition. I do not know that it would make much difference, in any event, because most of these cases are of a stereotyped nature, as has been ably demonstrated by the hon. member for Timiskaming, and as has been shown in practically every bill with which we have dealt up to this time. The evidence is obtained in a certain, set pattern, and the case before us is no exception except that the investigators in this instance really got their wires crossed when it came to giving evidence of what they had seen at the particular place where the adultery was alleged to have been committed.
In this instance the couple were married on February 14, 1953 and the adultery is alleged to have taken place on June 20, 1959. These allegations are shown in the petition, and proof of the marriage is given when the petitioner is shown a document which he identifies as his marriage certificate. In this instance we will not run contrary to the ruling of the Chair and the rules of the committee in so far as the discussion of children is concerned because there are no children as a result of this particular marriage. I assume that since that is the case we will have to come to our own conclusions as to whether or not the marriage was consummated. There is some comment in the evidence about that.
Some strange things did take place. I should like, if I may, to make reference to some of them by reading the evidence and relating portions of the evidence to other portions of the evidence concerning the circumstances and relationships between the husband and wife. The petitioner is being
Private Bills-Divorce
questioned by Mr. Usher, who is counsel in this instance for the petitioner, and they talked about the husband and wife living together. This continued from the time of the marriage until April, 1957 and then Mr. Usher says:
Q. What happened then?
A. Well, we were quite happily married until the year 1957, but previous to the day she left me life was quite different at home so I did not have the affection I used to have before. She used to come in quite late at night and I tried my best to help her and to see what was going on. She was carrying on night after night coming home later from work. She used to work for her father to which I objected and she said I am just helping my father, but I realized that was not right because she was coming late at nights and giving me all kinds of excuses and I tried to find out where she was going and she was not going to the movies where she said she was and therefore I asked her what was the matter. Then in April one day she said "I am going to tell you frankly I don't love you any more, I don't want to be with you, I want to leave you". 1 said, "Well, after all, it has been four years we spent together and now you want to leave me". She said, "1 am sorry, I don't love you any more, I don't want you any more". I said, "Listen, let us do something to help ourselves, I was good to you, what is the matter?" And she said, "I am sorry but that is it". The next day when I came back from work the lady took all her belongings and she left home.
This is only part of it, but here there is an indication that the petitioner, prior to the wife leaving home, was concerned and wanted to effect a reconciliation. There is evidence about it later on, too. Another question is asked:
Q. Did you later find out where she went to?
A. Yes, I phoned her father at his residence and asked him where she was.
So apparently her father had told him where she was because he answered the query by saying yes.
Q. Did you later find out where she went to?
A. Yes, I phoned her father at his residence and asked him where she was.
Q. Did she ever come back to the home since then?
A. No, sir, I asked her several times to come back but she did not want to.
Q. What eventually developed?
There is more reference to these attempts to effect a reconciliation.
A. Well, I had been calling her up several times to come back and to help me in the house, and all she said was that she did not want to talk to me, that that was the finish. I called her several times more in 1958-
You will notice the use of the words "several times" in both years, I assume in 1957 and in 1958.
-and asked her if she wanted something in the way of help but she said, "I am quite happy and I am working and I don't want anything from you."
Later on the chairman, Senator Roebuck, made some inquiry about this self-same subject matter as follows:
Q. You had a number of conversations with her. Did she ever tell you what she was doing?

Private Bills-Divorce
A. No. She said she loved somebody else and she did not want to be with me any more. I asked her who is it.
Q. Did she tell you who it was?
A. No, she would not tell me.
Q. Or where she was living or what she was doing?
A. No, she would never tell me, she said, "Don't bother me and don't call me any more."
Then they make reference to collusion with which I will deal later on but at this stage I want to confine my remarks to this bit of evidence here. You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that the petitioner says that on a number of occasions-several times in 1957 and several times in 1958-he phoned her or called her, that he phoned her father and from her father found out where she had gone. We assume that he found out where she was living or where she was working or something of that nature. As I said, he called her several times wanting to effect some reconciliation, wanting to see whether the difficulties could be smoothed over. But then when he is asked by Senator Roebuck whether he knew where she was living he Says, "No, she would never tell me where she was living or what she was doing". It seems a bit odd that a person who is this much concerned-and I am not suggesting there is anything untoward in his evidence or in the manner of the presentation of it- who phoned her father and discovered where she was living, and had phoned her several times over a period of two years, should turn around and say that he does not know where she was living or what she was doing, -and that is what his evidence is here-that she would not tell him. If a person is that much interested in and that desirous of effecting a reconciliation of a disrupted marriage such as this man has been, and phones her several times and knows where her father is, it seems strange that he was either unable or unwilling, whatever the case .may be, to take the next obvious step and find out where she was living or where she was working. However that may be, this is the evidence that is contained here.
I should now like to turn to the evidence about adultery. Mr. Gerard Daigneault and Mr. Jerry Brault are co-investigators in this particular case. They worked together and discovered that certain things existed. Starting at the bottom of page 11 Mr. Daigneault was asked some questions by Mr. Usher, counsel for the petitioner:
Q. I understand you were engaged to investigate the conduct of the respondent in this case,-?
And the name of the respondent is given.
A. Yes.
Q. Will you look at this picture filed as exhibit 2 and state if you recognize the person shown in it?
A. That is Mrs.-.

And he gives the name of the respondent. Q. Will you tell the committee the result of your investigation?
A. Our services being retained by you during the middle of May, 1959, at which time you furnished us with that photograph here and also gave us some particulars, and 1 found Mrs.-
And he gives the name of the respondent. -to be living at-
And he gives the particular address.
-with a man.
Then the chairman, Senator Roebuck-a dear friend with whom I have had some conversation in the newspapers and probably will have some more-says this:
Wait a minute. That is a conclusion that you are drawing.
Then the senator asks this question:
Q. You found her living at-.
And that particular address is given. The question continues:
Tell us what you saw and heard.
A. As a result of this investigation, on June 20, 1959, at approximately 11.30 p.m., accompanied by Mr. Brault, we both proceeded to-
And this particular address and apartment number are given.
-where after knocking on the door a few times-
I notice that he is a little bit more up to date than are some of the other people. He has to knock a few times in order to get an answer.
-the door was opened by a man and at that time he was wearing blue pants and the top of his underwear and black shoes.
This colour combination had some relevancy-the blue pants and the black shoes- with which I will deal later on.
I identified myself to him and asked to speak to Mrs.-.
And the name of the respondent is given. The witness continues:
This fellow could not understand English very well and I asked him what nationality he was afterwards and he told me, Greek. So finally by asking him and showing him the picture we understood each other. So I walked into the apartment and there on an open studio couch used as a bed was Mrs.-
And the name of the respondent is given.
-lying on the righthand side of the bed. I asked her if she was Mrs.-
And he gives her married name.
-and she said yes, she was, and I showed her the photograph and she identified the photograph as of herself.
Then Senator Roebuck asked this question: Q. She identified it as hers?
A. Yes, as her photograph. I told her she would be hearing, and I told this to the man too, from the real husband's attorney in the near future. I asked the man for his name and he answered-

And he gave them a name, the name ol the corespondent.
Q. Did he spell it for you?
A. That is the way he gave it to me.
I therefore assume he did not spell it. Then Mr. Usher asked the condition of the respondent.
Q. What condition was she in, what clothing was she wearing?
A. When I spoke to her in the bed and she sat up she had on the upper part of blue and white pajamas.
If you will allow me to transgress for just a moment, I should like to ascertain whether this is what Mr. Brault discovered also, that she was wearing blue and white pajamas. From a quick look it does not seem as though he noticed what she was wearing. In any event, there was only one bed in the room. It was a one-room apartment. It was a studio affair that opens out into a bed. This was at 11.30 in the evening and there were only a few clothes that they noticed. Then Mr. Jerry Brault was called as a witness and sworn and was asked these questions by Mr. Usher:
Q. Mr. Brault, were you in the company of the previous witness, Mr. Daigneault, on the night of June 20, 1959?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you look at this photograph which has already been filed as exhibit No. 2 and state who that is?
A. That is Mr.-
Then he gives the name of the petitioner. There must be something wrong here unless they got the photographs mixed up in this case also. I suggest that when you get up in your eighties it is possible for this to happen. Exhibit 2 is supposed to be a picture of the wife, yet Mr. Brault identifies it as a picture of the husband or the petitioner. This is not the only error or confusion which exists in his mind as to what occurred on that evening. He is asked:
Would you state what happened that evening?
A. I accompanied Mr. Daigneault-on June 20, 1959 on a Saturday night. Mr. Daigneault knocked at the door and a man came and opened the door wearing grey pants and the top of his underwear and brown shoes.
Here we have Mr. Brault, one of the investigators identifying the picture as somebody that it is not. We are not seeing too clearly. We have him giving us identification of clothing worn by the respondent, namely that he is wearing grey pants and brown shoes, when Mr. Daigneault, the other investigator, says he was wearing blue pants and black shoes. There is a mix-up as to what was actually worn by the individual. Then he goes on:
Mr. Daigneault Identified himself and asked to talk to him inside, so we walked in the room. Mr. Daigneault told the man that we wanted to see the
Private Bills-Divorce
woman who was in bed on the open couch. So Mr. Daigneault went beside the bed and asked the woman her name, and she admitted she was Mrs. -and admitted the picture in our possession was her picture.
I would assume it is a typographical error when he identifies the picture earlier as that of the petitioner, when it is in fact the picture of the wife. I do not think we can attribute to any typographical error the difference betweeen blue and grey and black and brown when it comes to identifying the clothing worn by the person who came to the door. Both these gentlemen, Mr. Daigneault and Mr. Brault, appeared as investigators and witnesses in a number of other cases, and in all probability they will appear as witnesses and investigators in a number of other cases as time goes on. They should certainly know if they are paying attention to what they are doing that they should develop their perceptibility and notice things they desire to notice about which they know they will have to give evidence if and when they appear before the Senate committee. Unless they have become so used to these particular cases being given just cursory examination in their passage through this house and the other place, and unless by habit they have fallen into error of being sloppy in their obtaining evidence-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I let my hon. friend go unchallenged when he made a very snide remark about the chairman of the committee of the other place, but I do not think it is justice that a gentleman in that house should put up with that sort of language. It is a definite breach of the rules of the house, because as the hon. member knows one must not reflect upon the conduct of people in the other place who are not, above all, here to defend themselves. Two very serious remarks have been made. One was a very snide reference to a person over the age of 80 and then a remark about sloppiness, and I hope my hon. friend will have the grace to withdraw both those statements.


Frank Howard: If I could speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that I made no reference to the chairman of the committee of the other place.


Robert Jardine McCleave: You did.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend says I did. He has had his opportunity to raise his point of order and speak to it. He knows the rules are such that he can speak again to the point of order. So will he let me finish what I am saying and we will go on from there, if he wants to go further, and get into more difficulty than we are already. I made no reference to that. I made reference to these

Private Bills-Divorce particular investigators being sloppy in the manner in which they obtained and presented their evidence, because as my hon. friend from Halifax knows, and as every hon. member of this committee knows, this is the first time that an extensive examination has been made by members of this house of evidence of this nature.
I would think that if more careful examination were given by members of this house in committee of the whole or in the house itself to these bills when they came before it this situation would not have developed and investigators would be more on their toes when they appeared before the Senate committee to give evidence. There are cases where investigators-I am not prepared to mention their names at the moment but I have positive proof of this-have either made damned fools of themselves or perjured themselves. And proof is there by way of conflict of evidence.
That is what I meant when I said that investigators are becoming sloppy, and I think an extensive examination of the evidence in case after case will be an indication that if parliament is going to continue hearing these cases-and I say it should not; I think there should be some other method whereby these difficulties are resolved-they should insist on the investigators being a little more careful in the manner in which they obtain and present their evidence to the house.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, may I speak again to the point of order, which I thought we were on. Rule No. 35 of the standing orders of the House of Commons provides:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty... nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof-
The hon. member, in my submission, has offended twice against that rule and has not withdrawn gracefully or otherwise either of his remarks which he directed particularly against the chairman of the Senate divorce committee. We all heard him make reference to that gentleman a few moments ago and the record of Hansard will bear out that his remarks about sloppiness were not directed, as he said, to the detectives but to another house. In both instances I submit he is offending against rule 35.


Frank Howard: If I may make a comment, Mr. Chairman, I made reference to people over eighty, that is quite true. I would point out that this particular case was heard by the number one subcommittee on divorce. Present were the Hon. Senators Roebuck, chairman, Farquhar, Golding and Lambert. The ages of these gentlemen, which I have taken from the parliamentary guide, are as follows. Hon. Senator Roebuck is 82; Hon.


Senator Farquhar is 85; Hon. Senator Golding is 80; Hon. Senator Lambert is 75. So my reference to "over eighty" could apply to three of them. I made no specific reference to the chairman of the committee.
Second, if I could develop this point of order which has been raised, I say again and again that the manner in which the House of Commons has dealt with divorce petitions in the past, as every hon. member of this house knows, is to pass them en bloc 50 or 100 at a time without giving any consideration to them. It is true that we have a miscellaneous private bills committee and it is true that that committee considers the evidence before each case. How carefully they consider it I know not, but I would imagine-


Thomas Miller Bell: You never attend.


Frank Howard: I am not a member of the committee.


Thomas Miller Bell: And no other C.C.F.'er is.


Frank Howard: Thanks for the invitation. I will ask our whip to contact yours and I will become a member of the committee. I have never yet had an invitation to be a member. Oh yes, the hon. member may be used to rushing in where he is not invited, but I like to be invited. I thank the hon. member for the invitation and if the house is pleased tomorrow afternoon to pass a motion accordingly I would be pleased to sit on the committee.


Mr. Morris:: All you have to do is to ask your own leader.


Frank Howard: We do not work in the same way as you-"what the leader decides". We are individuals in a democratic party.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Why did you not get on the
committee?


Frank Howard: The more questions the hon. member asks, the more he indicates he knows little about the subject matter. There are only a certain number of members established for each committee and on that number depends how many members each party may have on that committee. We have two members on that committee.


Edmund Leverett Morris: You cannot persuade one of them to give you his place?


Frank Howard: I will try, because I have been invited to.


Jacques Flynn: I think I should deal with the point of order which was raised by the hon. member for Halifax. The rule is clear that hon. members may not use offensive language against either house or members

thereof. I do not say that a reference to the age of members of the other place is necessarily offensive, but there is certainly an implication, and I would say that the words used by the hon. member were not beyond criticism and I would ask him to avoid any reference to the other place. The evidence may be discussed, but I do not think the manner in which it is collected should be discussed.


Frank Howard: Very well, Mr. Chairman. I still think the evidence given by these persons indicates an extreme amount of sloppiness on the part of the investigators. I trust this observation will not offend the delicate ear of the hon. member for Halifax or yourself, Mr. Chairman. I admit that in the past I have myself been negligent in considering bills of this particular type. I have been negligent in my duty as a member of parliament. The first session I was here I became a member of the miscellaneous private bills committee, and when I discovered that the committee spent almost its whole time dealing with divorce I said: I will not have any part of that, because I do not think it is a proper function of a member to do so. Later on, I began to wonder. I thought: maybe I have been derelict in my duty in not dealing with these cases. I think most hon. members of this house have been derelict in their duty in not paying attention to the evidence before them on this subject. We are passing laws dissolving marriages and we should give them extensive study. A ridiculous situation arises if we do not give extensive study to these cases-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frank Howard: Suppose we do not give extensive study to this particular case, and the bill is passed. It becomes law, and the marriage is dissolved. What would happen if one year from now, for the sake of argument, one of the parties were to come along and say: this divorce was obtained by perjury? Do hon. members think parliament would then turn around and repeal the bill which was passed dissolving the marriage? What a silly situation we would face then. The marriage would have been dissolved, and if the parties concerned got married in the meantime then, legally, they would be married to two husbands or wives. That is why it is so necessary for this committee to give extensive consideration to these cases, and it is in stressing this point that I say once again that the two investigators in this particular case were very sloppy in their presentation of evidence, especially when one says the man involved was wearing blue pants and the other says he was wearing grey pants and brown shoes-
Private Bills-Divorce


Jacques Flynn: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


William Arnold Peters: Since the hon. member for Skeena was not able to complete the point he was making, I am happy to say something on this particular point in order-


Richard Albert Bell: In order to continue this sickening farce.


William Arnold Peters: That is a remarkable statement. If the hon. member wishes to say anything I should be glad to sit down and allow him to say it.


Richard Albert Bell: I am not prepared to say anything.


William Arnold Peters: You are not prepared to say anything at any time, so keep your mouth shut.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are a great example of parliament.


William Arnold Peters: Sitting right behind you.


Richard Albert Bell: I would not get down to the level of the hon. gentleman.


William Arnold Peters: I suggest the hon. member is low already.
In this particular case we have heard a discussion on the evidence which was given and the discrepancies which exist in that evidence. I do not believe the evidence should be stereotyped and that everybody should have it down pat and written out, but I think there are certain considerations that should be taken into account, and that there should be some agreement. The investigators had to establish certain things, and if they made a mistake in one particular, perhaps that was an honest mistake. But in this particular case it would appear that when they discussed what this man was wearing they tried as far as possible to avoid saying the same thing in any particular. In the one case, the door was opened by a man wearing blue pants, the top of his underwear and black shoes. The assistant, asked the same question, said the man came to the door wearing grey pants, the top of his underwear and brown shoes. The only agreement was that he was wearing the top of his underwear. I suggest that the colour of the shoes may have been difficult to determine, but it is surprising the investigators should have mixed up the colour of the other garments.
Moreover, they did not indicate that adultery had taken place or that any adultery was taking place. They ended by saying that the man could not speak English very well.


Richard Albert Bell: Sounds like the hon. gentleman.

Private Bills-Divorce


William Arnold Peters: That may be true, but I am at least capable of standing on my feet to say what I want to say, rather than sitting on my back end. If the hon. member would stick to finance, he would do a lot better.
They carried on a conversation in English, I presume. The evidence states, in a series of questions and answers by Senator Roebuck:
Q. You did not speak to this man at all about whether or not he was living with this woman as man and wile?
A. I did, sir, but actually I mean it was hard to speak to him because he could not very well speak good English, but I tried to make myself understood. When we left he told me that he had been living with her for the past five or six months.
I submit that that is the conclusion they came to; it is not substantiated by the evidence, and this evidence in the nature of things follows the pattern we have seen established in almost every case which has come before us in the last month or so. The transcript states:
So I walked into the apartment and there on an open studio couch used as a bed was Mrs. Orsa lying on the righthand side of the bed. I asked her if she was Mrs. Larry Orsa and she said yes, she was, and I showed her the photograph and she identified the photograph as of herself.
By the Chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. She identified it as hers?
A. Yes, as her photograph. I told her she would be hearing, and I told this to the man too, from the real husband's attorney in the near future. I asked the man for his name and he answered Jimmie Botsaris.
Q. Did he spell it for you?
A. That is the way he gave it to me.
By Mr. Usher:
Q. What condition was she in, what clothing was she wearing?
A. When I spoke to her in the bed and she sat up she had on the upper part of blue and white pajamas.
By the Chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. What was the condition of the bed otherwise?
A. The left-hand side of the bed had been occupied, the pillow had an impression on it; it seemed like somebody else had slept in the bed.
Even if we take the evidence at face value, all that the detective is saying is that the left-hand side of the bed was occupied. He is drawing a conclusion of his own not substantiated by fact. He does not conclude, and rightly so, that the bed was slept in by the man who was in the apartment at the time.
This is the stereotyped evidence given by the detective. If the man had stated that he had lived with the woman for six or seven months for the purpose of enabling her to obtain a divorce it is likely the Senate would not have granted it.
Late on Saturday night the second questioner knocked on the door and asked to be admitted inside and walked into the room. The man who answered the door probably

could not have said "Yes" or "No" because of his lack of understanding of English. The evidence continues:
I accompanied Mr. Daigneault-on a Saturday night. Mr. Daigneault knocked at the door and a man came and opened the door wearing grey pants and the top of his underwear and brown shoes. Mr. Daigneault identified himself and asked to talk to him inside, so we walked in the room. Mr. Daigneault told the man that we wanted to see the woman who was in bed on the open couch. So Mr. Daigneault went beside the bed and asked the woman her name, and she admitted she was Mrs. Larry Orsa and admitted the picture in our possession was her picture.
By the Chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. What picture is that?
A. The picture we had, exhibit No. 2. They both admitted they were living there for about six or seven months at the same address, and Mr. Daigneault asked the man's name, and he said: "Jimmy Bostaris." He had a hard job to talk English. Mr. Daigneault told both of them they would hear from her husband's attorney in the near future, and we left the house.
By Mr. Usher:
Q. How many beds were there?
A. One open couch which showed to have been occupied by two persons.
Q. It was a one-room apartment?
A. Yes, a one-room apartment.
This evidence would lead you to almost any conclusion you might wish to arrive at. There is prima facie evidence that the two people had been living together. The evidence could lead you to conclude that there was an arrangement between the parties and that there was collusion for obtaining the divorce. On the other hand, the evidence could also lead you to believe that the woman lived on her own. This detective has been involved in other cases where we have concluded there was collusion-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would my hon. friend permit a question? Would he name one instance. The hon. gentleman is very free in his use of allegations. I invite him to name just one instance. Smear, smear, smear.


William Arnold Peters: We have had a number of these cases in which Mr. Daigneault was involved. I suggest they have all been the same.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Name one instead of smearing; name just one.


William Arnold Peters: I do not keep the names of all past bills in my head.


William McLean Hamilton: You have nothing in your head.


William Arnold Peters: I am pleased to find the Postmaster General coming in with his nonsense. In view of the way he runs his department he is in no position to talk about anybody else. If he would look after the mail and prevent thefts he would be kept busy. I want to make it clear that I do not want to be Postmaster General-


William McLean Hamilton: Do not worry, you are getting further away from it every day.


Thomas Miller Bell: You will not even be a member of parliament for very long.


William McLean Hamilton: You have to be in parliament to be Postmaster General and you will not be here after the next election.


William Arnold Peters: Someone may push me into it as they did you. Perhaps my town will need to be represented as yours did. It may be.
The hon. member for Halifax has asked a serious question and I can give two or three instances. I would be happy to name cases in which Mr. Daigneault was involved. I will get the evidence and bring it to the house the next time we discuss these bills. I will be happy to present this information to the sponsor of this bill. I wish now to call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
house leader if there is any change in the order of business which was announced before the Easter recess?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no change. Perhaps I might repeat it for the record. I will name eight items for consideration this week: (1) Second reading of
Business of the House
Bill No. C-56, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act; (2) Second reading of Bill No. C-57, an act to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act; (3) the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister dealing with the tenure of office of judges; (4) the motion in the name of the Prime Minister to set up a select committee on the procedure of the house; (5) the motion in my name to set up a select committee to consider the national research council and other matters; (6) the budget resolutions; (7) the estimates of the Department of Agriculture; and if by a great stroke of good luck all this happens to be finished we would then take the estimates of the Post Office Department.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader if any provision has been made before the departure of the Prime Minister for the conference in London for a discussion of the question of apartheid as raised by the Leader of the Opposition?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, April 11, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister a question with regard to this. The Prime Minister said that after the Easter recess the government would give consideration to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. The thought at the moment is that on Wednesday an opportunity would be given for a discussion of that problem.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any employees of the Canadian National Railways been laid off in the Atlantic region since January 15, 1960?
2.	If so, (a) in what departments; (b) in what classifications; (c) in what places?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Canadian National Railways maintains a record of its employment level each month on the basis of a mid-month tabulation. The Atlantic region figures are: January, 19,230; February, 20,509. The figures for March are not yet available.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


CANADA YEAR BOOK
Mr. Pigeon: Since 1945, what have been the respective publication dates of the French and English versions of the Canada Year Book?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
The respective publication dates of the French and English versions of the Canada Year Book since 1945 were:
Year	English	French
1945		 Jan. 26, 1946 July 26, 1946
1946	
Nov.	18,	1946	April	29,	19471947	
Dec.	31,	1947	June	6,	19481948-49	
June	1,	1949	April	4,	19501950	
Aug.	25,	1950	May	14,	19511951	
Aug.	31,	1951	May	1,	19521952-53	
April 23,1953 Feb. 3, 19541954	
June 4, 1954 March 28,19551955	
Oct.	13,	1955	June	2,	19561956	
Jan.	25,	1957	Sept.	21,	19571957-58	
Nov.	17,	1958	May	5,	19591959	
Dec. 31, 1959 Now under
press


C.N.R. PURCHASES OF HEMLOCK TIES, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Does the Canadian National Railways purchase hemlock railway ties in the Atlantic provinces?
2.	If so, what quantity has been purchased in each of the calendar years 1958 and 1959?
3.	If not, what is the reason hemlock ties are no longer purchased?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister Transport):
The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	No. Purchase discontinued in 1959.
2.	1958-73,129; 1959-13,334.
3.	Treated hardwood ties have a longer service life.



MARITIME CENTRAL AIRWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 33 7- Mr. Cardin:
1.	Did an accident occur to an aircraft belonging to Maritime Central Airways near Issoudun in the province of Quebec? If so, on what date?
2.	How many persons lost their lives in this accident?
3.	Did a public inquiry of this catastrophe take place? If so, where?
4.	Who were the members of the board?
5.	What lawyers were retained on the part of the government?
6.	What was the amount of their account, including fees and disbursements, and has it been paid?
7.	What were the findings of this board?
8.	What action has been taken by the air transport board or the Department of Transport to put these recommendations into effect?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes, on August 11, 1957.
2.	79 persons, consisting of 73 passengers and a crew of 6.
3.	Yes, in Montreal.
4.	Mr. Lucien Beauregard, Q.C., chairman; Mr. P. E. Halsey and Captain C. D. Lamb, members.
5.	Mr. Ross Drouin, Q.C., and Mr. W. G. Stewart, Q.C.
6.	Mr. Drouin-$27,674.88; Mr. Stewart- $3,757.55. Both accounts were paid.
7.	The findings of the board of inquiry are listed on pages 32 and 33 of the report of the board which was tabled in the House of Commons on January 19, 1959 (sessional paper 181). On page 34 of the report the board also gave its opinion in regard to the cause of the accident, and pages 34 to 47 contain answers by the board to questions submitted by the Department of Transport. The recommendations of the board are to be found on pages 47 to 49.
8.	The following is a summary of the actions which have been taken by the civil aviation branch of the Department of Transport:
The suggestions put forward by the board that the Department of Transport consider licensing of air carrier dispatchers has been thoroughly investigated by the department, and the conclusion has been reached that licensing of air carrier dispatchers in Canada is not desirable at this time. This view is supported by the Canadian air line pilots association and the air industries and transport association.

The recommendation that the Department of Transport institute regulations with respect to limiting hours of duty of flight crews has been under consideration for some time by a committee representing the Department of Transport and the industry.
The board has noted that in the weight and balance manifest of CF-MCF, there was no allowance or provision for the weight of the various articles in the commissary such as food, drink, eating utensils, etc., and has recommended that "a proper allowance be made in the weight and balance manifest of the aircraft for every item on board regardless of its weight". Air carrier inspectors have been directed to ensure that adequate provision is made by the major air carriers under their jurisdiction for including such items as commissary, tool boxes, extra equipment, spare parts, etc., in the load computation.
The board has recommended that "in all cases of secondhand aircraft imported for commercial operations a close check be made of the standard of their previous maintenance and service, modification status and recording, major changes to role, weight and balance and that the said aircraft be weighed before being put into operation".
Before formal registration and issue of a Canadian certificate of airworthiness, the aircraft has to be examined by a Canadian aircraft maintenance engineer or approved maintenance organization and certified as airworthy and in compliance with the pertinent specifications. The weight and balance report is then examined by this department for approval or otherwise.

Mr. Argue: 1.	Was Mr. Rodolphe Tremblay employed at Usines Cherrier?
2.	If so, between what dates?
3.	What was his category and/or class as a painter, i.e. his qualifications?
4.	Has the Minister of Defence Production received a sworn statement by Rodolphe Tremblay and
Questions
Victor Martel concerning alleged irregularities at the Usines Cherrier of Canadian Arsenals Limited at St. Paul l'Ermite?
5.	If so, has an investigation been made?
6.	When and with what results?
Answer by: Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):
1.	Yes.
2.	June 17, 1953 and October 9, 1959.
3.	When hired, painter grade A. On release, painter grade 1.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	In February, 1959, as a result of which appropriate disciplinary action was taken.



USINES CHERRIER


Mr. Argue: 1.	How many painters by category (a. outside, b. inside) were employed at Usines Cherrier of Canadian Arsenals Limited on: (a) December 1, 1955; (b) December 1, 1957; (c) December 1, 1958; (d) December 1, 1959; (e) April 1, 1960?
2.	Were there any fluctuations in numbers from year to year of the number of painters (a. outside, b. inside)?
3.	If so, for what reasons?
4.	What is the seniority, category (a. outside, b. inside) and/or class, i.e. qualification, of each painter now employed at Usines Cherrier?
Answer by: Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):
1.	Note: Painters are not classified for inside or outside work.
(a)	December 1, 1955, grade 1, 8, grade 2, 15, total, 23.
(b)	December 1, 1957, grade 1, 6, grade 2, 2, total, 8.
(c)	December 1, 1958, grade 1, 7, grade 2, 2, total, 9.
(d)	December 1, 1959, grade 1, 4, grade 2, nil, total, 4.
(e)	April 1, 1960, grade 1, 4, grade 2, nil, total, 4.
2.	Yes, but no distinction between outside and inside painters.
3.	To meet varying work load.
4.	Seniority, one, January 1, 1946; one, January 9, 1947; one, April 25, 1949; one, May 14, 1951. Qualification, all four are painters, grade 1.



APPENDIX


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. President, Madame de Gaulle, distinguished guests, my first words must be to welcome you here as we gather to do honour to the President of France and I want to say to you at once, sir, within the hours that have passed since your arrival here, you must have felt the degree of Canada's regard and affection for you as the great leader of one of Canada's mother countries.
And most of what I say will be in the English language because I seem to recall that Sir Winston Churchill on a recent occasion when you conferred upon him the Cross of Lorraine stated that while in the days of war he did speak in French but the days of war were over and therefore he would only speak in English for the benefit of those that were listening to him. However, I do want to welcome you in a few words in the other official language.
(Translation)
Fifteen years ago the Canadian people welcomed the President of the provisional government of the French republic. Earlier in the war we had acclaimed the president of the French committee of national liberation. Today we welcome the President of the French republic and community. Now as before, however, it is to General de Gaulle that we offer our respect and admiration. We are happy to welcome you, as well as Madame de Gaulle who represents, in our eyes, the women of France with all their fine qualities of the heart and mind.
During those fifteen years France has recovered her elan; under your direction, France is a vital, dynamic and prosperous country which again holds the position she deserves among the great nations.
(Text)
Mr. President, when you visited London earlier this month Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, who is our Queen, said to you that Britain and France were joined to Canada and the United States by ties of history, culture and language.
May I illustrate how truly and unforgettably Her Majesty's words applied to Canada.
Only a few acres from where you sit now, Mr. President, walked the sons of France,
who more than three centuries ago began this nation's days-explorers like Samuel de Champlain, to whose memory stands a monument on a nearby cliff and missionaries like the immortal Jean de Brebeuf, who on his way to martyrdom camped for three days only a few miles from this spot; and those equally heroic souls, Father Gabriel Galena ent and Father Jogues.
These were the men, Mr. President-and there were many others-who brought to this land and carried to its farthest frontiers the eternal verities of civilization-the men who in regions of darkness and terror and awful solitude endured for France and their faith-the men of whom the historian Park-man wrote:
Men steeped in antique learning, pale with the close breath of the cloister, here spent the noon and evening of their lives, ruled savage hordes with a mild parental sway and stood serene before the direct shapes of death.
These were the men-the sons of France, of our first Canadian story-their treasurable contribution in our memories forever.
We remember, and will remember forever, that dread hour in 1940 when you, a lonely and desperate figure of destiny, clari-oned the world for France and for freedom- that clarion call which, as Her Majesty said truly to you in London, matched the winged words of Sir Winston Churchill.
And we remember, too, sir, how in the long dark days which followed, those days when liberty was under siege, those days which tried through and through every quality and mystery of the human spirit, you stood as France incarnate, the valiant trustee of her ancient glory.
There is our remembrance that in the soil of France tens of thousands of our sons rest in the quiet of God's acre-our sons who, in two world wars, went out from us into the night for freedom. In many hundreds of plots throughout the hills and valleys of France lie our dead, in resting places dedicated forever to their memory and cared for tenderly by the people of France.
Those are our memories. Those are the thoughts that come to us on this day. You have truly brought a new strength to France at home and abroad. By your compatriots

you have been entrusted with the responsibility of restoring the stability of the French state; through the courageous application of your powers, France is firmly embarked on a brilliant renaissance. You have opened the door to an honourable settlement in Algeria; and, in territories where the tricolor has flown for generations, you have been the builder of the community of independent states joined by a common loyalty to the traditions and ideals of democracy.
This visit is an important one in that it has provided an opportunity for a continuation of the discussions between us which began in Paris in November 1958. The intervening months have been fateful for our civilization. We are approaching a stage of decision, a time when the quality of leadership will be submitted to its sternest test. Personal contacts on the highest level have been multiplying since our last meeting and have been an essential preliminary to the formal meeting of chiefs of state and heads of government which you will attend in Paris a month hence. Although not a participant at the summit, Canada has none the less a vital concern with the outcome. We will be following with intense interest the discussions that take place and the decisions that are made.
Today in our discussions we have examined together the outlook for peace. You have learned something of the elements of our thinking on the great issues of foreign policy. None of them is greater than an end to the arms race with its financial burdens on national economies and all its grave dangers that armaments mean to peace. France and Canada are partners in the search for a disarmament agreement as members of the ten nations committee now meeting in Geneva. Our objective, as is your objective, is peace. I express the hope that if out of the summit comes a new understanding as between west and east and a realization that the insane waste of armaments must end, we may yet see the day when east and west may join together, join together in a major step forward, first in reducing armaments and secondly in raising the standards of men everywhere in a world offensive against poverty.
I can't express to you, sir, what this meeting has meant to my colleagues and myself, as you honoured us today by meeting with us in our cabinet. We will always have those disagreements, even the best families do, misunderstandings take place but above everything else, the leaders of the free world dare not forget that the consistent and continuing consultation at a high level is necessary at all times to assure the most effective cooperation and that unity which has been
so apparent during your visit here and meant so much to me, when you honoured Canada in November 1958, when my wife and I were with you in Paris.
Canada honours you as the wartime soul of France and a realistic and idealistic statesman of his country's restored strength and power.
For these reasons, Mr. President, because of what you are, what you have been, and what you represent, and because you come to us as a tried ally and friend, on behalf of the Canadian people I salute you with admiration, and for them say to you with the heart of all Canadians, "Vive la France".
Mr. President, you have our full attention. (Translation)
General de Gaulle: Mr. Prime Minister, the words which you have addressed to me have moved me deeply. In thanking you on behalf of France, I want to tell you of my own impression on coming in contact with Canada.
The first voice I hear in Canada is that of history. France will always pride herself in having brought to your soil, more than four centuries ago, the germs of civilizing progress and the breadth of the Christian spirit. If, later on, other developments and influences made their mark here; if there were rivalries, battles and dismemberments, nevertheless the seed sown by France in Canada grew strong, even though other harvests have also ripened. Briefly, just as one sees water plants rise to the surface, so I feel, rising from the depths of the past, all sorts of ties, attractions and similarities which draw the spirit and the heart of my country very close to those of yours.
This was made abundantly clear during the two world wars. How could we, Frenchmen, ever forget the talents displayed and the prodigious sacrifices of so very many of your soldiers during the first world war on the battlefields of Artois and Flanders, and the heroic ranks of those buried in the soil of France? How could we fail to bear in mind your exemplary participation, during the second world war, in the great battles of Normandy, of Picardy, of Belgium and Germany, which meant the liberation of Europe? How could I fail to keep alive the memories of the two visits I have previously made to Canada, one in 1944 when I saw you straining in your war effort; the other in 1945 on the morrow of victory; while you were already beginning to recover, and you were holding out the hand of help to a ravaged France? I cannot fail, in this regard, to hail the memory of Mackenzie King who led his country, while I was leading mine, through those glorious trials.

And now, how do you appear to us? Materially, a new country, of vast size, mighty resources, inhabited by a hard-working and enterprising people. Politically, a state which has found the means to unite two societies, very different in origin, language and religion; which exercises independence under the British crown and forms part of the commonwealth, which is forging a national character even though spread out over three thousand miles alongside a very powerful federation; a solid and stable state, as proven by the fact that, in the last twenty five years, only three Prime Ministers-my friends, Mackenzie King, Saint-Laurent and Diefen-baker-have headed its government; a state which, far from concentrating only on its internal problems, makes its voice heard and plays an active part in the great affairs of the world. Finally, on the moral plane, Canada appears to us as a people very sensitive on the one hand to an orderly society, and on the other hand to the liberty and dignity of men.
Therefore, be well assured that the country, the entity, the people that you are, arouse the highest interest, sympathy and confidence of France. Not only have Canada and France no dispute over claims or ambitions, no difference of fundamentals, but, on the contrary, the French feel in common accord with Canadians, both in their conception and handling of the problems of our times.
Moreover, France, a country with a thousand years behind her, is also a new country, a country finding herself again, reshaping herself, but whose stability and reviving strength underline still further her worldwide responsibilities, illuminate her idealthat of desiring for others the same selfdetermination that she wishes for herself, and which fortifies her resolve to form a vital part of what we, the free peoples, represent.
But what is our objective? In truth, it is peace, even though we realize that, to achieve it, we will have to travel a long and difficult road. In this regard, my country welcomes the approaching meeting of the heads of state commonly referred to as "the big four". France believes that there should first be introduced among these four states-and hence between the two camps of which they are the leading spirits-a relaxing of tensions. This implies the avoidance, at present, of any debating stalemate, and especially of any threat regarding, for instance, the problems of the German people. The matter also calls for at least a beginning to nuclear disarmament, starting with missiles and aircraft that carry atomic weapons, and over which mutual control is still practicable. Finally, there must be organized a basis of co-operation that will transcend political rivalries in the development of needy peoples.
At all events, France believes that the future of peace-and on this hinges survival-depends essentially upon the whole of Europe and upon America, which cradled modern civilization and are its fountainheads. France believes that the existence of opposing systems-assuming that the course of events does not narrow the gap between them-should not prevent peaceful co-existence, failing which nothing could, in the long run, save mankind. France hopes that, in going to the summit, she will enjoy the direct support of vigorous Canada, so worthy and able, and which she holds so close to her heart.

Tuesday, April 26, 1960