1964-10-07

Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members of this house and you, sir, as the first commoner. On Monday last you, Mr. Speaker, in your usual scholarly and gentlemanly manner ruled on a motion under standing order 26 to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. The matter in question had to do with the alleged mishandling of the Hal Banks affair by the Department of Justice. In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you had this to say after quoting a number of precedents-


An hon. Member:: Page?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Page 8725.
I am informed today that the estimates of the Minister of Justice will be before the house on Thursday and that, of course, will provide an opportunity for a full discussion of this matter.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are away on necessary business of state, with the Prime Minister either in or approaching Charlottetown, it seems to me we could have a much better, fuller and more authoritative discussion on their return. Therefore, with regret, I cannot accede to the request of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Later that day the Leader of the Opposition, speaking to a number of his supporters and admirers in Westboro-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -female, I might add-had this to say, and I am quoting the right hon. gentleman because I have checked with Peter Jackson, the reporter for the Ottawa Journal-


Mr. Grafftey:: Get on with it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: He says that in essence these are the words used by the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. gentleman said the whole affair would be aired in the Commons on Thursday after efforts to bring it
to the floor were blocked by the Speaker earlier on Monday. I draw attention, Mr. Speaker, to the word "blocked".


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Concise Oxford dictionary which we use in the House of Commons defines the word "blocked" as meaning "obstructed". It is my opinion that the Leader of the Opposition owes an apology to this house and to you, Mr. Speaker, for charging that you had obstructed the proceedings of this house.
I therefore move, seconded by my hon. friend from Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis):
That the house agrees the assertion of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that the ruling of Mr. Speaker on Monday, October 5, in respect of the motion to adjourn the house under standing order 26 was an obstruction of parliamentary procedure and constitutes a breach of the privileges of the house and that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition be asked to make appropriate amends.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: If the hon. gentleman had communicated with any person who was there -and I repeat "any person who was there" 

that person would have said that such a statement was never made, either indirectly or at all. I said that you had ruled, Mr. Speaker. The word "blocked" was never used. I can understand the use of the word "blocked" on the part of the hon. gentleman. In his case "blockhead" is another word which might have been used.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The right hon. gentleman is indulging in his usual abusive tactics. I want to say this. I contacted the writer of this article, who says these were the words used by the right hon. gentleman. If they were not, then I believe the member of the press gallery in question should be brought before the house to explain.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I am called upon to rule
whether or not there is a question of privilege. The incident is one in which the Chair is supposed to be somewhat involved. In view of the explanation given by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that no affront

Inquiries of the Ministry was meant, and that perhaps one should not be too thin skinned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



MR. LESSARD-C.B.C. INTERVIEWS WITH MEMBERS OF FLAG COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to denounce something that took place this morning which in my opinion was an insult not only to all the French Canadian members of the house but to all French Canadians in Canada.
During the press conference the special committee on the flag held this morning the journalists and the radio and television commentators were given the opportunity and the privilege of seeing an array of the flags the committee has received, and were able to ask questions to which, of course, they did not get the answers they had hoped for. They also questioned some individual members of the committee.
The C.B.C., a crown corporation, was represented, but its English speaking section only. On several occasions the technicians filmed a close-up of certain members of the committee, that is, four members out of five from the Conservative party, six members out of seven from the Liberal party, but no member from the splinter parties and, particularly, no French Canadian member, that is, five members out of five who sit on that committee.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, this shows how little respect the C.B.C. has for justice, and it confirms the opinion of several persons who claim that some degree of discrimination exists in that corporation.
Several members of this house voiced their consternation at what is happening at present in the province of Quebec, and concerning those demonstrations against confederation and the way the French Canadians are treated as such.
This instance, by itself, is insignificant. But when added to thousands of other similar instances which are more or less an insult to the French Canadian population of this country, it explains, I believe, why French Canadians are dissatisfied with confederation and the Anglo-Saxon group.
Being financed through public funds, a good deal of which are provided by French Canadians, the C.B.C. has a great responsibil-

ity in the present economic and social climate and that crown corporation is not true to its obligations in my opinion, when it fails to foresee circumstances like those of this morning.
I hope the Secretary of State, who answers to this house for that irresponsible organization, will see to it that there is no recurrence of such incidents; otherwise, certain acts will be doubly justified.


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say first of all that I do not agree with the hon. member when he suggests that the C.B.C. is discriminating against French Canadians.


Mr. Caouette:: It definitely is.


Maurice Lamontagne: However, I can assure the hon. member that I will inquire about the reasons why representatives of the French network were not present at this morning's interviews.


Marcel Lessard: That will not correct this morning's blunder, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEDURE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to present in English and in French the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth reports of the special committee on procedure and organization.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give notice that on Friday of this week, on behalf of Your Honour's committee, I shall move concurrence in the eleventh report which you have now tabled.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give notice that on Friday of this week, on behalf of the special committee on procedure and organization, I shall move concurrence in the thirteenth report which Your Honour has just tabled.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Caouette: 1.	What is the number and amount of all contracts awarded by Defence Construction (1951)

Limited in each of the past ten years (a) to contractors throughout Canada (b) to contractors in the province of Quebec?
2.	How many contractors who were awarded contracts in the last ten years went bankrupt while fulfilling such contracts and what was the amount of the losses incurred by them (a) throughout Canada (b) in the province of Quebec?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: In
so far as Defence Construction (1951) Limited is concerned, the answer is as follows:
1. (a) Throughout Canada
April 1	to March 31	Total ValueYear	No.	($000)1954-55	602	100,7491955-56	472	136,8141956-57	394	116,2341957-58	290	47,4911958-59	389	92,4971959-60	334	60,4851960-61	332	59,2371961-62	421	99,4181962-63	252	30,8041963-64	320	25,601(b) In the province of Quebec	1954-55	150	38,1081955-56	119	62,7861956-57	97	17,8721957-58	67	7,7551958-59	89	31,0351959-60	82	49,3151960-61	75	14,1631961-62	92	11,9771962-63	42	2,0651963-64	61	7,2992. The crown company does	not maintainrecords to supply information this part of the question.	in answer to


NEEPAWA, MAN.-DISPOSITION OF C.N.R. ROUNDHOUSE
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has the Canadian National round house at Neepawa, Manitoba, been sold or leased?
2.	If so, to whom, on what terms and conditions and to what account has any revenue from such sale or lease been credited?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	The roundhouse at Neepawa and part of the surrounding land have been sold.
2.	The land in question is considered as industrial property and in such cases the railway industrial development and real
Questions
estate officers seek primarily to interest new railway freight traffic producing industries in locating in these areas, at the same time securing market value by way of consideration or rent in the case of a lease. The sale was made to a Mr. Wm, G. J. Tinkler of Winnipeg. It has not been company practice to disclose terms and conditions of such transactions.


FEDERAL WHARVES, SAINT JOHN RIVER
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	How many wharves are owned by Canada along the Saint John river and its tributaries?
2.	What are the locations of these wharves?
3.	How much money has been spent on the maintenance and repair of these wharves in 1963 and 1964?
4.	Are these wharves readily adaptable to use by small non-commercial boats?
5.	What publicity does the government give to the existence of these facilities in tourist literature?
6.	How many of the wharves contain facilities for fuel, water, garbage disposal and other amenities?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Sixty.
2.	Location of wharves:
Saint John river, 37. Barkers, Bedford, Brown's Flats, Burton, Burton court house, Carpenters, Carter's Point, Colwell's Days landing, Evandale, Fox's, Fredericton, Gage-town, Gerow's, Glenwood, Hampstead, 2- Maugerville, McAlpines, McGowan's, Oak Point, Oromocto, 2-Palmers, public landing, Queenstown, Sand Point, Scovils Point, Tay-lortown, Upper Gagetown, 2-Upper Maugerville, Westfield, Whites Bluff, Wickham, Williams, Wilmots.
Kennebecasis river, 1. Rothesay.
Belleisle bay, 4. Earle's, Hatfield's Point, Jenkins Cove, Long Point.
Washademoak lake, 8. Akerley's, Cambridge, Cole's island, Heustis landing, Humphrey's, McDonald's Point, Mott's, Webster's.
Grand Lake, 7. Chipman, Douglas harbour, Newcastle, The Range, Waterboro, White's Cove, Young's Cove.
Jemseg river, 2. Lower Jemseg, Upper Jemseg.
Oromocto river, 1. Oromocto (high water).
3. Funds	spent on maintenance	and repair:1963-64	Wickham	$1,587.69Waterboro	165.80$1,753.491964-65	Wickham	10.00Chipman	600.00Websters	70.00$ 680.00
Questions
4.	The following 26 wharves are readily
adaptable for use by small non-commercial boats:	Barkers, Bedfords, Brown's Flats,
Chipman, Colwell's, Day's landing, Douglas harbour, Evandale, Fox's, Fredericton, Ge-row's, Maugerville, McGowan's, Oak Point, Oromocto, Public landing, Queenstown, Rothesay, Sand Point, Upper Gagetown, Westfield, White's Bluff, Wickham, Williams, Wil-mots, Gagetown.
5.	The Canadian government travel bureau does not publicize individual non-commercial wharves in its tourist literature. Inquiries received in the bureau seeking information on such facilities are referred to the provincial tourist bureaux for whatever action is necessary. General publicity is given in tourist literature as to the availability of such facilities but it is not directed to one particular area, the purpose being to make it known that such facilities do exist across Canada.
6.	Wharves having facilities:	Evandale,
water and fuel. Oak Point, fuel.


CARVING OF BLANK STONES, HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. MacLean (Queens): Is it planned to complete the carving of the blank stones in the House of Commons chamber before 1967 and, if so, have the designs to be carved been decided on and by whom?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: No carving work is planned on these blank stones prior to 1967.


RESEARCH INTO MENTAL RETARDATION
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Is the government conducting or supporting research on the causes of mental retardation and, if so, at which institutions and under whose direction is such research being carried out?
2.	For each of the last five years, what has been the cost to the government of such research?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Federal assistance under the national health grants in support of research which may provide some information on the causes of mental retardation is being made available as follows:
Dalhousie University, Doctor W. A. Cochrane; McGill University, Doctors T. Rasmussen, F. C. Fraser and G. B. Maughan; Ste. Justine hospital, Montreal, Doctors B. H. Doray and R. A. Ayotte; Montreal children's hospital, Doctor D. V. Bates; University of Western Ontario, Doctors G. H. Valentine, C. Buck and W. C. McMurray; University of

Toronto, Doctors H. C. Stancer, D. E. Can-nell and W. Kalow; Queen's University, Doctors R. Ginsberg, M. W. Partington and A. M. Bryans; Hospital for sick children, Toronto, Doctors D. M. McLean, P. E. Conen and P. R. Swyer; University of Manitoba, Doctor K. L. Moore; Saskatchewan training school, Doctor W. A. Zaleski; University of Alberta, Doctor D. Gibson; University of British Columbia, Doctors W. C. Gibson, T. L. Perry, J. R. Miller, H. G. Dunn, and S. Segal; Victoria College, Victoria, Doctor W. H. Gaddes.
2.	1959-60,	$158,753;	1960-61,	$219,548;
1961-62, $241,528; 1962-63, $246,731; 1963-64, $248,374.


EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE FOR RETIRED ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
Mrs. Jones: Is the government giving consideration to assisting members of the armed forces in finding suitable employment within the civil service upon retirement, especially those with wartime service in Canada only?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence does maintain counselling services to assist long service personnel on retirement to make the transition to civilian life. Civilian and civil service opportunities are made known to qualified individuals. Liaison has been established and maintained with the civil service commission and other government departments with the object of informing departments of qualified service personnel available for particular openings. No distinction is drawn regarding wartime service in Canada or abroad within the Department of National Defence.


PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH GRANTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What psychiatric research projects being conducted by the universities, governments, and private foundations are being financed by federal health grants for the current year?
2.	What is the value of each grant?
3.	What is the total value of these grants for mental health research being done in each province?
4.	What is the total value of these grants for Canada?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. Under the mental
health grant the Department of National Health and Welfare allocated funds in 1964-65 toward the conduct of research into the prevention and treatment of mental illness and for the promotion of mental health in Canada

at various Canadian universities, hospitals and other health agencies.
2.	Forty nine research projects are being supported in the present fiscal year. The values of the grants vary from $100 to $102,341.
3.	Newfoundland, -; Prince Edward Island, -; Nova Scotia, $10,252; New Brunswick, -; Quebec, $252,663; Ontario, $219,937; Manitoba, $22,830; Saskatchewan, $117,768; Alberta, -; British Columbia, $81,156; Northwest Territories, -; Yukon Territory, -.
4.	$704,606.


INCLUSION OF RAIL SIDING, WHARF CONSTRUCTION, NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	With reference to the tender call, "Tender for terminal development construction of a public wharf, at North Sydney, Nova Scotia", which closes at 3 p.m. September 30, 1964, is a rail siding included in the department's development plan and, if not, was this rail siding included in the plans when drafted initially?
2.	Has the Minister of Transport received a communication from Mr. H. Moraze, president and manager of the Flotte Administrate des lies St. Pierre and Miquelon, indicating in such a communication that a rail siding is necessary on a public wharf at North Sydney, as without this facility it would not be feasible for his government to continue using this port and what reply was given Mr. Moraze?
3.	If a rail siding is not included in the present plans for which tenders close on September 30, 1964, will consideration be given immediately to the inclusion of a rail siding on the proposed public wharf for the port of North Sydney?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1. A rail siding is not included in the department's development plan, and was not included in the initial draft of plans.
2.	Yes. Mr. Moraze was advised that under the existing plans for additional facilities to handle increased services to Newfoundland it would be necessary to relocate the public wharf, and that on the new location it would be difficult and costly to provide a rail connection. It was pointed out that other rail facilities are available in the vicinity.
3.	See answer to part 2.


RESUMPTION OF AIRPORT SERVICES, BOUNDARY BAY, B.C.
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to resumption of airport facilities and services at Boundary Bay, B.C. airport?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No.
Questions


ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ADJUSTING STATUS
Mr. Mather: Since the August announcement of the policy of termination of amnesty respecting illegal entrants to Canada, how many persons have come forward to adjust their status?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: From August 14 to September 25, 1964, 2,787 persons have indicated a desire to make statements in connection with their immigration status.


HARMFUL EFFECTS OF DRUG PHENACETIN
Mr. Mather: If, as reported by the U.S. food and drug administration, the drug phenacetin in excessive doses can be harmful to kidneys, is consideration being given to requiring labelling to that effect?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes. Consideration has been given to requiring a warning statement on drugs containing phenacetin and such warning statement will be announced to the trade shortly.


NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TRAFFIC SAFETY
Mr. Mather: Having in mind the 26 per cent increase in fatal vehicular traffic accidents during the first quarter of 1964, claiming 781 lives, is consideration being given to calling, under federal auspices, a national conference to promote traffic safety?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Canadian highway safety council held its 10th annual conference on highway safety in May, 1964. These annual conferences are attended by leaders from insurance companies, oil, rubber and automotive industries. Persons concerned with safety programs in federal, provincial and municipal government departments also participate.
Assessment is made of traffic accident trends, and courses of action are planned. The proceedings are published listing the transactions of the various working committees.
The federal government, through the Department of National Health and Welfare, gives financial support to the Canadian highway safety council. Close liaison is maintained between Department of National Health and Welfare staff and the council. Under these circumstances no consideration is being given at the present time to calling under federal auspices any additional national conference to promote traffic safety.

Questions


FABM CASH INCOME
Mr. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe): What is the farm cash income, by provinces, for the first six months of 1964, as compared with the same period in 1963, taking into account the revision in income from dairying recently published by the dominion bureau of statistics?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Farm cash income by provinces, January to June 1963-641
1963	1964
(thousand dollars) Prince Edward Island 12,967 15,284		
Nova Scotia	20,352	19,296New Brunswick	20,877	22,773Quebec	206,801	203,409Ontario	469,596	437,111Manitoba	111,294	128,309Saskatchewan	293,117	460,889Alberta	237,768	295,879British Columbia	56,016	56,424Canada2 3	1,428,788	1,639,3741	Excludes supplementary payments.2	Excludes Newfoundland.


UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS CALCULATIONS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Are rates of unemployment calculated routinely for any major Canadian industrial centres and, if so, for which ones?
2.	On what basis, and at what intervals, are such calculations made?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Rates of unemployment are not calculated routinely for any major Canadian industrial centres.
2. Not applicable.


CANADIANS OVER 65 IN URBAN AREAS
Mr. Coates: 1.	What proportion of Canadians now over 65 years of age are living in areas classified as urban?
2.	What has been the percentage change for this group between 1951 and 1961?
3.	How many Canadians 65 years of age or over now live in centres of 10,000 or more?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. In 1961, 69.6 per cent of the total population, 65 years of age and over, lived in urban areas.
2. The proportion of the total population 65 years of age and over living in urban cen-
[Miss LaMarsh.l
tres increased from 62.6 per cent in 1951 to 69.6 per cent in 1961, an increase in the proportion of 7 percentage points.
3. In 1961, 794,067 persons 65 years of age and over lived in urban centres of 10,000 and over.


PROVINCIAL ALLOCATION OF STUDENT LOAN FUNDS
Mr. Cantelon: 1.	What were the quotas under the Canada Student Loans Act allocated to each province?
2.	How much money has each province used?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. The Minister of Finance stated the provincial quotas in the House of Commons on September 21, 1964, Hansard, page 8237.
2. This information is not yet available. [Text]


I.J.C. STUDY OF RICHELIEU RIVER WATERWAY
Mr. Pilon: Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to state whether the international Joint commission has completed the study on the proposed Richelieu river waterway?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: The international joint
commission established the international Champlain waterway board in October, 1962, to conduct the necessary economic and technical studies regarding the proposed Richelieu river waterway and it expects to receive the board's first phase or feasibility report in June, 1965. When it receives that report, the commission will be in a position to consider the nature and timing of its own report to the governments of Canada and the United States.


DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT LOAN FUNDS, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Bell: What has been the distribution of funds under the Canada student loans plan in New Brunswick among the different educational institutions?


Lawrence T. Pennell: This information is not yet available.


FATAL ACCIDENTS IN HOMES
Mr. Mather: 1.	How many fatal accidents have occurred in Canadian homes in the past five years?
2.	What percentage of these involved children?

Business of the House
Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): 1 and 2. Fatal accidents occurring in the home, Canada 1959-63:
Total
(all ages)	Under	1 yr.No.	%	No.	%1959	2,185	100.0	439	20.11960	2,235	100.0	420	18.81961	2,338	100.0	453	19.41962	2,326	100.0	404	17.41963	2,205	100.0	408	18.5


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Langlois: 1.	With reference to post offices in the constituency of Megantic (a) who authorizes purchases such as soap, brooms, towels, etc. (b) for how many years in advance of requirement are such purchases authorized (c) from which supplier or suppliers do the various post offices make their purchases?
2.	For the years 1962, 1963 and 1964, what did the purchases made by each of the various post offices amount to and from which supplier or suppliers were these purchases made?
3.	Are the post offices allowed to buy items required for the maintenance of buildings, such as soap, brooms, box locks, heating oil, towels, etc., in the municipality where the building is located?
Total
1-4	yrs.	5-14	yrs.	0-14	yrs.No.	%	No.	%	No.	%259	11.9	153	7.0	851	38.9273	12.2	135	6.0	828	37.0261	11.2	139	5.9	853	36.5291	12.5	160	6.9	855	36.8241	10.9	166	7.5	815	37.0
used for the guidance of the minister. However, I have told the hon. member that so far as the working sheets and the spread sheets which we use in computing the changes in the cost of living are concerned, we would be glad to show him those. I ask him therefore, on that basis, whether he might withdraw the motion.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, on the understanding that those documents which are not privileged will be shown to me, I am prepared to withdraw the motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Return tabled.

John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, will you please call motion No. 167. I ask that motion No. 168 be allowed to stand.



CALCULATION OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS TO ESKIMOS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 167-Mr. Rheaume:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all studies, reports, memoranda and other documents used by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to determine that food prices throughout the eastern Arctic and northern Quebec had decreased during the past two years for purposes of calculating schedules of social assistance payments to Eskimos.
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have had question No. 1,453 on the order paper under my name for the last three months. I was informed yesterday by the hon. gentleman that to answer this question would cost the government a great deal of money. The answer to this question was known to me before I put it on the order paper, but I wanted that answer confirmed by the government. If the government does not feel like doing that, then I am willing to drop the question.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring to question No, 1,453, the first part of which reads as follows:
How many tax dollars have been collected each year in each province by the federal government during the past 20 years?
Affairs and National Resources):	Mr. Speaker, some of the information asked for in this motion is clearly privileged, and I have communicated with the hon. member in this regard. I think it has always been accepted by the house that the exchange of information or advice between a minister
The difficulty in trying to give a precise answer to that question in this: In the case of corporation income tax it is difficult to ascertain from which province the tax has come, so one would not know to which province to allocate particular tax revenues.
and his employees is privileged, because it is Mr. Speaker: Withdrawn.

Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



HAL BANKS-SUGGESTED APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I must first say to the Prime Minister that we are glad to see him back in the house after his participation in the welcoming ceremonies at Charlottetown.
I should now like to ask him whether he has been made aware of what apparently is general information, that when Hal Banks disappeared from Canada he took with him most of the books of account, ledgers and payroll sheets of the S.I.U. If such is a fact, would the Prime Minister now consider setting up a commission to investigate this whole question of the disappearance of this gentleman, Hal Banks?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, may I thank my hon. friend for his kind welcome to me on my return to the house. Perhaps I will not be misunderstood when I say that be it ever so rowdy, there is no place like home.
I am afraid I have no information as to what Mr. Banks may or may not have taken with him when he fled this country rather than go to jail, but I understand there is to be a discussion of this matter during the afternoon. Perhaps consideration of the other point of his question could be reserved until after that discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister look into this allegation as to the disappearance of these documents and papers, because I think this would be most material in view of the maritime board taking charge of these things?


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into this matter if it is not cleared up during the discussions.



SUPREME COURT DECISION RESPECTING REPRESENTATION AT HEARINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the decision which has been handed down by the supreme court reversing the decision of a Quebec court relating to the right of persons to be present or represented by counsel at investigations into their financial affairs, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice, in view of the fact


this appears to be a very serious infringement of a commonly accepted human liberty, whether he is planning to introduce legislation to counteract the effect of the decision handed down yesterday.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: In
view of the fact that yesterday I was attending a constitutional conference, and that other duties prevented me from scrutinizing the text of the judgment, all I can say today is that I plan to study the judgment and to consider seriously the matter that has been raised in the question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister why the government appealed the decision of the Quebec court, which seemed to be a proper and valid decision, that a person whose financial affairs were being investigated had a right to be present or to be represented by counsel? The initiative apparently came from the federal government, which appealed this decision of the Quebec court.


Guy Favreau: There are, of course, many factors involved in the answer which have not been brought back to my attention at the moment. I shall take the question as notice and give an answer on Monday.



PROCEDURE RESPECTING COMPLAINTS AGAINST BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister report to the house on the procedure persons should follow who complain against trustees in bankruptcy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely this is a question for the order paper.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact the meetings with the attorneys general of the provinces have been concluded and that there are numerous newspaper reports commenting on the results of the conference, does the Minister of Justice have a statement for the house concerning the decisions that were reached about the repatriation of the constitution?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the conference of federal and provincial attorneys general is not over. We sat during Monday, October 5 and half of yesterday. The conference adjourned at noon yesterday until Tuesday, October 13, the day preceding the meeting of the Prime Minister and the premiers to consider the report which we are to submit to them.
I must say that a communique was issued under the responsibility of, and with the agreement of, the attorneys general. This communique reports, and the house may take my sincere word for it, that great progress was made. As proof of their hope to conclude the matter successfully next Tuesday, all the attorneys general, in spite of the distance some of them reside from Ottawa, have agreed to come back on Tuesday to conclude the matter.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
With reference to the minister's statement, and more specifically to the press release which followed the conference, could the minister tell us what proposals the government intends to submit with a view to clarifying paragraph 1 of section 91, as mentioned in the press release?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, all the participants in the conference-as it will readily be understood-have agreed that it would not be in the interest of the discussions to divulge where these stand, seeing we are in the very middle of the conference which will close next Tuesday.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Has an agreement been reached on the necessity of clarifying or modifying this clause in the constitution?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think that if my hon. friend reads the press release he will find that it is self-explanatory and, in this connection, I must say that we are in the process of discussing this aspect of the matter.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to
Inquiries of the Ministry the Secretary of State, the minister in charge of the inquiry on bilingualism and bicultur-alism.
Could he indicate whether he will consider the suggestion made in Toronto yesterday by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bal-cer), with the approval of his leader, with a view to converting Ottawa and the federal district into a region where both nations would be on an equal footing and administered by a council with equal French and English representation?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the political organization or reorganization of the national capital and the federal district does not come under my jurisdiction.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Is he in a position to give us some explanation concerning the civil servant of the national printing bureau who, when a telephone call comes from French Canadians, answers in saying: "Another fanatic who wants to speak French"?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, following the question asked by the hon. member last week, inquiries were made at the queen's printer's office concerning the civil servant of the national printing bureau, Mr. Deavey, who, answering the telephone, was said to have made the following remark: "Another fanatic wants to speak French."
Mr. Deavey spoke that way in front of his fellow workers in the distribution division-the majority of them are French speaking-with whom he enjoys a most friendly relationship. His remark was made in fun, in all good faith, without any desire to offend anyone, and he had no idea that he was heard by the lady at the other end of the phone.
I would like also to point out that Mr. Deavey is of French and English descent, that he understands French well, although he is not at all fluent in that language, and that he regrets what he said and the results of that incident.

Inquiries of the Ministry



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister explain to the house a statement he made at the turkey growers' convention in Winnipeg about a month ago? The statement was that no importations of turkeys had been made into Canada during the previous two weeks. This was before the convention. Since the convention live turkeys from the United States have been coming into Canada to the extent of about a third of a million pounds. I suggest to the minister that if he wants to protect the Canadian turkey growers he had better step up the tariff on live turkeys by 3 or 4 cents a pound. This would save the Canadian turkey growers from going broke.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member has made a statement, and it is inaccurate at that. I have explained this situation many times. I said that turkey imports into Canada had practically dried up. As a matter of fact, the day I was in Winnipeg there were some large turkeys coming into one plant. This is one of the few plants in Canada into which they are coming. Nevertheless, there is protection of 7J cents to 8 cents a pound and we feel, in the light of other things that are going back and forth between the United States and Canada, this is ample protection. I repeat that we are watching this situation closely and there is no dumping of turkeys on the Canadian market.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: May I ask a supplementary question. I should like to suggest to the minister he had better get himself-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roseiown-Biggar):: supplementary question to the question asked by the hon. member for Huron. This is the statement the hon. member said he would hand to us as soon as he got it. It reads- and I quote-
The next move is up to Mr. Hays. Also he has not as yet explained concerning his statement at the Winnipeg convention that the situation was levelling off with no imports in the previous two weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What is the question, please?


Clarence Owen Cooper: Thank you, sir.
The total that has come in since September 1 according to reports of his own department now add up to nearly one third of a million pounds.
My question is this. They have come in at the rate of one third of a million pounds since September 1. These are the figures from the hon. gentleman's own department.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Clarence Owen Cooper: Why? That is my point. Since September 1 these imports have been coming in. Does the minister call this a levelling off period?


Harry William Hays: I should like to take this question as notice. I would be glad to give the hon. member all the details as far as turkey imports are concerned. I have not heard from the association. As a matter of fact I have written three letters asking them to forward their suggestions, but as yet no reply has passed over my desk.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the widespread concern evidenced by all member firms of the fisheries council of Canada, including the members of the Nova Scotia fish packers association, over the proposed relaxation of existing laws which would permit the landing of fish by foreign vessels in Canadian ports, will the minister tell the house when we may expect the report of the interdepartmental committee on foreign fish landings, which I understand has been set up to deal with this problem?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the landing of fish from foreign trawlers is prohibited under the Fisheries Act, but following representations received in recent months from foreign interests for permission to land and process fish on Canadian soil, an interdepartmental committee was asked to study the effect such action could have on the fishing industry in general. I am asking the committee to report as soon as possible.

Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



ONTARIO-APPLICATION RESPECTING PROPOSED NUCLEAR PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Ontario asked me a question related to an application made by Ontario hydro to the atomic energy control board. I informed him that an application had not been received as of the date he suggested, but I find my information is not entirely precise. An application was received by the board, in the absence of the chairman, on September 8 and is now under consideration.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for saying this, and I hope a decision will not be delayed.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and stems from the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday, to the effect that the treaty rights granted the Indian people could be upset by the provisions of the Migratory Birds Convention Act. What legislative steps do he and the government propose to take immediately to restore the traditional, constitutional right of the Indian people to hunt, trap and fish on unoccupied crown land?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the judgment is being examined at present, and after that examination it will be possible to announce what steps, if any, can be taken.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Can the Prime Minister advise the house what steps he took in relation to the commitment he made on May 31, 1963, that the royal proclamation of 1763 and its provisions for the Indian people would be maintained?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to look into the matter, Mr. Speaker. I am not familiar with all the details.



TORONTO-STATUS OF PERSONS CONCERNED WITH NEWSPAPER STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he has completed his investigation into the I.T.U. matter in Toronto, particularly with reference to people from outside Canada who are working for the papers; and, if he has completed his investigation, can the house have a report?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will have these documents tomorrow in order to report to the hon. member in this regard.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Following his speech in Montebello, would he tell the house which new steps he intends to recommend to the government to control the monopolistic or restrictive practices, as he suggested in his speech?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that if I had presented those specific views through an amendment to the restrictive trade practices legislation, that would have represented the government's views. But I can assure my hon. friend that what I did was not to announce measures, but to set out principles I always supported in the past and which are very dear to me. One of those principles consists in determining, in the field of control, whether a wider use, to put it that way, could not be made of the federal jurisdiction in the field of trade and commerce.
It is one of the things I am now considering.
I also mentioned the possibility of considering whether in future a more frequent use could not be made of measures like injunctions, which are not necessarily related to the text, in criminal matters against some people, which would perhaps make it easier to check those practices.
8836	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: As a
supplementary question, would the Minister of Justice advise whether he is studying the possibility of amending section 34 of the act and the setting up of an advisory council, as sought by the hon. member for Ontario in the house, I believe on September 15?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in view of the studies which have been made under section 34, and in view of the material at my disposal, I do not believe it would be necessary to appoint a committee of inquiry, although internally the matter has been the object of a relatively long study by officials of my department and other officials of government, and I shall complete my own consideration of the matter very shortly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether his speech at Montebello can be taken to be in agreement with what is said to be the commonly held view of the officials of the Department of Justice, that the Combines Investigation Act is no longer of any value in dealing with problems of monopolies and mergers, and that some other type of legislation is necessary? If that is so, does the minister intend to introduce some type of legislation next session, if not this session?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend will agree that it would be improper for me to refer to the views of the officials of the department on such a matter that may be concerned with policy, but these are definitely my own views, and in the light of what I have said I intend to ascertain what might be done in the direction I have indicated.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Because there seems to be some confusion on this matter I would like to ask the minister if it is not a fact that it is not a question of any distinction between the jurisdictions of the federal government and the provincial governments, but rather the interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada of the words "virtually eliminating all competition"?


Guy Favreau: No, Mr. Speaker. What I was referring to was the possibility of not necessarily having to deal with restrictive practices, or at least some of them, as being criminal offences, and the possibility of ascertaining to what extent one may legislate under the heading of trade and commerce to establish procedures extending to a broader scope of practices which, in certain cases,


would not brand as criminals those engaged in practices which may be found to be restrictive.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister referred to his own opinions, can he tell us whether his own opinions are not in accord with the official views of certain other people in his department?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is surely not in order.



INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
QUEBEC-DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRIES On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, before directing my question to the right hon. Prime Minister, I hope you will allow me to point out to the house that I received a reply to question 1,807 from the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production. This answer is in excellent French, and even if an English keyboard typewriter was used, the writer was tactful enough to mark with a pen accents on the vowels requiring them.
I wish to congratulate the minister for the thoughtfulness shown with regard to the questions we are directing to him.
Here is the question I wish to direct to the Prime Minister.
Has any agreement been concluded between the Canadian government and that of the province of Quebec so as to facilitate the establishment in the province of Quebec of assembling plants for the Peugeot and Renault cars?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not familiar with that matter but I shall look into it right away, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry.

Could the minister tell us whether he has received from the Dominion Tar Company a request for tax exemption, within the development program for designated areas, for the purpose of building a pulp and paper plant in Chapleau county? Could he also tell us whether such a request was accepted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is surely a question for the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENTS TO BANK ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the hon. gentleman would tell the house whether he intends to bring forward shortly legislation concerning amendments to the Bank Act, and if such legislation will contain a change in the ceiling on interest rates as recommended by the royal commission.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I am hoping the government will be ready to bring in legislation amending the Bank Act and that this measure will receive the prompt attention of the house. It would be inappropriate for me to give advance information as to what that legislation might contain.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: have a question for the Postmaster General. I wonder whether the Postmaster General would investigate a report in today's Globe and Mail that surveillance peepholes are being built into the men's washrooms of the new federal post office at Fort William. If the report is correct-and I hope it is not- will the minister issue immediate instructions to halt such a manifest invasion of a citizen's right of privacy?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: In the first place, in departmental parlance these so-called peepholes are referred to as "observation niches or posts". I may admit that we have had communications with regard to these observation posts not only in Fort William but in one or two other cities. Their use in accordance with a practice which has been followed for some considerable time, and which is considered necessary by postal 20220-559J
Inquiries of the Ministry administration not only in Canada but in other countries.


An hon. Member:: A shocking thing.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If the hon. member will come to my office I will be glad to give him further information.


Mr. Fairweather:: I don't dare go anywhere any more; you may be watching me.



WHEAT-POSSIBLE SALES TO EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on reports by the London Observer service of another year of poor crops in eastern Europe. I wonder whether the minister would care to comment on a report in this morning's Globe and Mail that all the eastern European countries except Rumania would soon be looking for further imports of flour and grain.
Can the minister tell us exactly what negotiations are going on with countries in that area with a view to extending sales of Canadian wheat this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I reported to the house earlier this session, we have already sold to those countries more than we had expected them to buy during the early part of the period covered by their agreements. We are in continuous contact with those countries through the Canadian wheat board which is, of course, responsible for the sales, and I am satisfied that if these reports are correct-and I hope they are, from the point of view of Canadian wheat prospects-we shall get our full share of the business that is going.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I direct this question to the Secretary of State, and ask him whether his attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the Globe and Mail this morning under the heading "CTV Scores Beat". It has to do with the broadcast of Her Majesty's arrival in Ottawa next Sunday and it states.

Supply-Justice
among other things, that the C.B.C. has shown a curious tendency to downgrade the Queen's activities.
Would the minister bring to the attention of the C.B.C. that because the corporation is not broadcasting the Queen's visit "live" on Sunday evening upon her arrival, the only people who will be able to see what is going on will be the 75 per cent who could use the private CTV facilities? Would the minister also bring to the attention of the C.B.C. the fact that Canadians everywhere want to see this visit of the Queen to Canada's capital, and there is no reason why there should not be a live showing rather than a postponed production?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Lamontagne: I have not seen the article in question, but I will be pleased to convey to the C.B.C. the views of the right hon. gentleman.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Can he give the house the assurance that at the next federal-provincial conference on taxation, scheduled to take place on October 14 and 15 next, consideration will be given to means of cutting taxes instead of studying ways to increase them?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not certain whether the hon. member is serious. In any event, perhaps he would put his question on the order paper.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
Legal and other services-
1. Administration including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or other dependants of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,109,600.
Guy Favreau: The estimates of my department are being called today as a result of a procedure which was adopted in this chamber on Monday,

October 5, when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition moved the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a matter which, he alleged, was of urgent national interest, namely the way in which the present government has dealt with one Hal Banks.
I cannot refrain from making a special reference to the fact that such a motion should have been made on that particular date. It would be a refusal of duty on my part not to make a special note of the courtesy and the admirable sense of courage shown on that day by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Lambert:: Oh, shame.


Guy Favreau: There were three members of the government who were likely to have to answer the very serious accusations which he made and intended to press on that day. These were the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Labour and myself, in my capacity as Minister of Justice. It is interesting to note that this particular day was chosen when the Prime Minister was attending the ceremonies in connection with the arrival of the Queen in Charlottetown-


Norman Platt Lambert: Do not be so cowardly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Imputing motives.


Guy Favreau: I am just stating facts; I am not imputing motives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Favreau: This was also a day when the Minister of Labour was attending the official opening of the British Columbia institute of technology and when I, for that day and the beginning of the following day, was chairing the conference of attorneys general sitting in the west block to try to arrive at a formula to provide for the amendment in Canada of the constitution of Canada.


Norman Platt Lambert: You want to see what your pals did in the past.


Guy Favreau: Let not the right hon. gentleman state that the matter in his opinion was urgent on that particular day, because on the preceding Friday he had gone a long way toward trying to make a great deal about the fact that a Toronto reporter was alleged to have spoken to Banks on a yacht in New York harbour. I wish to note this because I do not believe it would have been fair to press any of the accusations the right hon. Leader of the Opposition made on that day, at a time when it was known that neither the Prime Minister, nor the Minister of

Labour nor myself would be here to defend either ourselves, our respective departments or officers.


An hon. Member:: Or Banks.


Guy Favreau: Four charges or accusations were made against the government with relation to the matter of Hal Banks, to whom the right hon. gentleman once referred as being a demagogue in Canada. The first one- and this is one which I think ought never to have been made or entertained by a man holding so high an office as that of leader of the official opposition and who was once the prime minister of this country-was a direct accusation, without verification, against a minister of the crown to the effect that he had misled the house in making a statement. The statement referred to was that made and repeated by me, that my department or the officials under my jurisdiction had in fact requested the F.B.I. to investigate the whereabouts of Hal Banks and to report to the R.C.M.P.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I have asked myself for some moments whether it was even dignified on my part to try to give the house facts and dates in support of the denial of such an accusation. But I think that because the matter has been in the papers and has reached the news it is important that this house should ascertain when the information was requested. First I must say that on August 18, 1964, the R.C.M.P. contacted the liaison officer of the F.B.I. by telephone requesting the information which I told the house later had been requested. On the same date-


John George Diefenbaker: What was that information?


Guy Favreau: Information as to the whereabouts of Mr. Banks.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A reporter found him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Favreau: On August 18 a letter was written to the F.B.I. liaison officer by the R.C.M.P. in Ottawa. On August 25 a second letter to the same effect was written, seeking information from the F.B.I. On August 28 the F.B.I., through its liaison officer, acknowledged the last letter. Let it not be said, Mr. Chairman, that the R.C.M.P. could have gone to the United States and itself pursued there an investigation. This, as everybody knows, in accordance with international practice, would be absolutely unthinkable and unacceptable. The investigations which the
Supply-J ustice
F.B.I. intends to pursue in Canada are pursued by Canadian authorities or police, usually through the liaison officers of these police forces. There are in that way exchanges of information going on throughout the year.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, will the minister, having referred to these two letters of August 18 and 25, table the letters so we may see what he asked for?


Guy Favreau: Well, Mr. Chairman, that is about the most appropriate question that could have been put. It is much more appropriate than were the accusations of the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Is his conscience bothering the minister?
Som hon. Members: How about you?


Mr. Macdonald:: You don't have a conscience.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would answer one question at this stage.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Chairman:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not think the minister heard me, Mr. Chairman. Would the minister answer one question now?


Guy Favreau: We will see what the question is.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This question is very
simple. I have been listening to the minister with great interest but would he explain at this stage why the recognizance bond did not carry a term as a condition, taking all the circumstances into account, to the effect that Banks should stay within the jurisdiction?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman may be assured that if he is patient with me I will get to that point, not right away but in the course of my remarks, which I intend to make in the order I have planned.
I have here a letter dated October 5, 1964 from the deputy commissioner of the R.C.M.P., Mr. J. Lemieux, in which all the information is given and in which he refers to the correspondence to which I have made reference. I ask for permission to table that letter which is addressed to me.
The second-

Supply-Justice


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister goes on, may I say that the letters I want to see are those of August 18 and 25. What do those letters contain?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Respect the rules.


Guy Favreau: If the right hon. gentleman is ready to state that he does not believe the report which has been made to me by the R.C.M. Police and in this respect insists on production of the correspondence sent and received by the R.C.M. Police-although he knows it is against the practice of the R.C.M.P. to produce copies of any correspondence-he can take the responsibility therefor and I shall make the necessary inquiry to seek their agreement for production of such copies.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, let it be made clear immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has referred-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The Leader of the Opposition on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said that the two letters to which I referred were sent. He now endeavours to raise an alibi and hide behind the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Having referred to these letters the minister does not want to produce them, for reasons which naturally are very appealing. Why did the minister refer to these letters? He now says he does not want to produce them.


Guy Favreau: I told the right hon. gentleman that, knowing what is the practice, if he wanted to take upon himself the responsibility for stating that he does not rely on the report which has been made to me by the R.C.M.P. deputy commissioner which I have just tabled and which describes the correspondence, and if he wishes to have copies of the actual correspondence tabled, I would attempt to obtain copies and file them, but under his own responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has referred
to these letters. He acted on his own responsibility and we want to see what those letters contain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We will not have this sort of evasion.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, in view of all these interruptions I should like to say I wish I could use with as much authority as he often does certain of the expressions which the right hon. gentleman uses to make fellow members sit down, so that I could continue my own speech.
The second allegation which was made by the right hon. gentleman and which he insisted ought to be discussed even in the absence of the appropriate minister was to the effect that the government made a deal with Banks to allow him to leave the country smoothly thus, in his words, flouting the course of justice. This, of course, relates and could only relate to the way in which my department under my responsibility has dealt with the Banks matter following the time of his conviction, and from the moment he appealed his conviction for conspiracy in relation to the Walsh beating. I do not think anyone believes that I have to deny such imputations so that everyone will know and be confident that they do not conform to reality and are completely contrary to the truth and to the facts. However, I suppose that for the purpose of the record I owe it to this government and to this house to repeat for the purpose of the right hon. gentleman-


John George Diefenbaker: For the purpose of answering the labour leader who said that about you.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Order. Why do you not
observe the rules?


Guy Favreau: -for the purpose of the right hon. gentleman matters which I have already put before the house which do not seem to have been well understood and therefore need to be repeated.
When Banks was convicted an application was made for his release on bail. Under section 587 of the Criminal Code he applied through his counsel to the chief justice of the court of appeals of the province of Quebec seeking the fixing of bail in his case. Counsel was instructed, and the instructions which were given to counsel representing the federal government and the counsel representing the attorney general of the province of Quebec were to oppose completely the fixing of bail so that Banks would remain within the jurisdiction of the court and attend the hearing of his appeal.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, it would be out of proportion with reality and completely illogi-

cal, once the government had attempted to take the necessary steps so that Banks might even be forced to remain in jail until his appeal had been disposed of, to say or to imply that there has been some kind of a shady deal or arrangement between the Department of Justice-because that could be the only possible department-and Banks, so as to make sure that he could leave the country very discreetly and thus flout, as has been suggested, the course of justice. I say that the very first step taken by the government of opposing any bail in the case of Banks pending his appeal completely denies any accusation or suggestion or innuendo to the effect that he would have been either pampered or assisted in leaving the jurisdiction of the courts of this country.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, would the minister allow a question?


Guy Favreau: I am sorry, but I prefer that you ask your questions later.


John George Diefenbaker: This is just a simple little question. Why did counsel for the crown not advise the chief justice-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did counsel not advise the chief justice that this was not an extraditable offence?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order.


Guy Favreau: The hon. gentleman will have ample opportunity to make more of his gratuitous allegations later on.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you not inform the court of appeal that it was not an extraditable offence?


Guy Favreau: The attitude taken by my department and by the department of the attorney general of Quebec was taken not only in an attempt to act passively, but to make sure to maintain Banks within the confines of the court's jurisdiction. Counsel was instructed to request that if the court felt as a matter of justice it ought to fix a bail bond, the amount of the bond ought not to be less than $50,000. Again the government has acted towards Hal Banks in a way which is directly opposite to any so-called co-operation, pampering, or assistance in his flouting the course of justice in this country.
What is more serious than the accusations made by the right hon. gentleman against any member of parliament or of government is the implication on the part of one whose profession is the law that one of the greatest
Supply-J ustice
judges in this country has, in disposing of the matter of bail in the case of Banks, acted in a way which was contrary to the interests of this country. I deny that completely.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege, and throw that accusation back into the teeth of the hon. gentleman. What I said was this. This government and its counsel failed to inform that eminent judge of the fact that the charge of conspiracy was not an extraditable charge. A judge must accept what counsel places before him. I made no such allegation against the chief justice of Quebec and I want to make that very clear. This is simply a smokescreen on the part of the government to conceal its failure to give adequate information to the chief justice.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Those remarks may well be a clarification of a statement made previously by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, but I do not think there is any question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: I refer to an erroneous statement about an allegation made against the chief justice.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, as a new member of parliament I have a lot to learn from the right hon. gentleman about the method of inserting remarks in the record, contrary to the rule, during the course of a statement being made by another member. I did not precipitate this discussion, Mr. Chairman, but I have attempted to make the situation clear.
The question of fixing bail under the Criminal Code and most lawyers are aware of this fact, is essentially one for the court to decide in its discretion. It is all very well for the right hon. gentleman, by hindsight, to say that not only should we have objected to any bail or bond being posted, or insisted on a very high bail, but that we should also have instructed counsel very specifically to inform the chief justice of the province that the offences were not extraditable, and that if the chief justice dared to fix bail he would have to share in the responsibility for Mr. Banks fleeing the country.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: You allowed him to get
away. You answer that.


Guy Favreau: You would not like this answer twice.
I hold great respect for the chief justice of my province, who was appointed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition when he was in office, and who should perhaps be congratulated in that regard. On the occasion of that appointment I remember very clearly

Supply-Justice
writing to one of my predecessors, Hon. Davie Fulton, indicating that normally one would congratulate the appointee, but that in this regard, as a member of the bar of Quebec, I felt I should extend congratulations to the minister of justice.
It is that judge, Mr. Justice Tremblay, whose judgment is being questioned, and whose exercise of discretion is put into question by the hon. gentleman. That judge, when looking at the offences charged, knew just as well as anyone else in the courtroom that they were not extraditable. Surely he exercised his discretion in the light of all the circumstances. I wish to repeat that this decision, rendered in those circumstances was a decision which could be expected as being fair on the part of the judge who made that decision on that particular day.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question?


Guy Favreau: I would much prefer you to do so at the end of my statement.


Paul Raymond Martineau: My question relates to what the minister has just said.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, it is not only the question in relation to the posting of bond in the case of Hal Banks which is of such great interest to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition referred specifically to the fact that in the bond there was no prohibition which would have prevented Hal Banks from leaving the country pending the proceedings. The hon. gentleman's statement would not really be believable if it were not written in Hansard at page 6000. He referred to the contents of the bond posted by Banks, without of course having taken the very ordinary precaution of looking into the matter. Sometimes when you look too far you are prevented from making a certain assertion because at that moment you know the allegation is wrong.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman
looked far enough when he charged him with a non-extraditable offence.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; I have to interrupt the minister because his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that he should continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Favreau: I thank hon. gentlemen for allowing me to continue and I will not abuse the privilege. I may have another chance to rise at the end of the questions. The right hon. gentleman said that the alleged clause relating to preventing Banks from leaving the country was removed from the ordinary bond form. I showed the bond form, which I think has now been tabled, to the right hon. gentleman afterwards. I challenge anyone to tell me that there has been the slightest deletion from that bond form, let alone the deletion of a condition which would have assisted Banks in leaving the country. Just as the bond form, which we have been accused of tampering with has not in fact been tampered with, in the same manner the so-called deal which we are alleged to have made with Banks not only has not been made but it could not be made. The reference to it is contrary to all the facts as they exist. It could not possibly have been made in the light of these facts and I say that if it exists, then it exists in only one place, and that is in the imagination of the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a question of the minister? He said he would answer questions at the end of his statement. Is it not the duty of crown counsel to make all the necessary representations so that the chief justice, no matter what his juridical science may be, can determine whether or not a bail bond should be granted, what the amount of it should be, and so on? Should the judge not be acquainted with all the consequences of bail, particularly in this case of Banks?


Guy Favreau: My hon. friend has just stated the normal functions of the normal crown attorney. I am not going to ask him a question, but I am quite sure that throughout his life as a crown attorney, and he was a very good crown attorney, he never had occasion to tell a judge: Beware, this offence is not extraditable. This is not the normal thing to do because one expects the judge to know. I repeat, in spite of all the innuendos that are on the record, I am satisfied just as the citizens of the country are satisfied, that counsel for the crown charged with prosecuting Banks have done their duty, and only their duty.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I direct one further question to the minister? Would he deny that as late as a month ago his parliamentary secretary, who is sitting right behind him, said to a news commentator over the radio in refer-

ence to Banks, that extradition did apply and it would be used if necessary? Will he deny that statement is on tape at the present time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps on a question of privilege I could deal with this matter. I deny I made the assertion the hon. member has just made.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the members of the house and the public of Canada have been waiting for months for some answers to exculpate the government from this sad and sordid mess in which they have gotten themselves over Banks. Now they have been treated this afternoon to a tangled web of distortions and, in fact, fairy tales. The minister, try as he may, cannot get away from the facts which I will put straight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: You see, Mr. Chairman, how they believe in themselves; these infallible members over there believe in themselves merely because they happen to be sitting on the government side. They have not changed one iota since 1957 or prior thereto.
Before discussing the facts, Mr. Chairman, I want to state that there has been a serious point of order raised. The minister has referred to two letters, one dated August 25 and the other dated August 28, if I heard him correctly. He has referred to these letters in the debate. I believe the rules of this house require that they be tabled. I do not know what is in these letters. We have been given a partial explanation of what is in them by the minister. Since he has taken upon himself the responsibility to make a reference to those letters during the debate, then I believe the rules of this house require that they be tabled.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you steal them?


Mr. Winkler:: That is a Liberal tactic.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, and probably we should also make it a question of order. It does seem that the Liberal members, who have been silenced by their own party, do not want to allow the opposition to speak. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I could name the member if he wants me to, but when he states that the distinguished member now speaking should steal those letters, then he is imputing motives. I would say with greatest respect to you, Mr. Chairman, that we should ask for a little order and decorum, because if hon. members showed a little more respect perhaps parliament would 20220-560
Supply-Justice
receive more respect from the members of the press gallery and the public at large.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please.


Mr. Macaluso:: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman, I do not know whom the hon. member was pointing to, but I think he was pointing at me, and if he was doing so he was completely erroneous.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If the hat fits wear it, my friend.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I would invite all members to respect the usual requirements of decorum in committee and allow the hon. member to make his speech without interruption.


Erik Nielsen: This loud and raucous interference across the way really does not bother me at all, Mr. Chairman, because I have become rather used to it, particularly when the case is so strong against them, and when their own arguments are so weak that they have to pound their desks like the trained seals they are. What it amounts to-


Mr. Lloyd:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Here is the mayor of Halifax.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: He is not a trained seal.


John Edward Lloyd: I am not trained-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Edward Lloyd: I am not trained as a member of the bar, but I know most people in Canada would like to see less of courtroom tactics and more of reason in a properly disciplined parliament, and I would hope the hon. member could proceed that way.


Lucien Lamoureux: Obviously we will not make too much progress if we keep raising questions of privilege and points of order. I would invite all members to co-operate with the Chair and allow the hon. member for Yukon to continue his remarks.


Erik Nielsen: They don't like it, Mr. Chairman. They don't like being confronted with the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry if I hurt the feelings of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd). He is just a seal, untrained.


John Edward Lloyd: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman, as I understand the rules

Supply-Justice
inherited from the members of the bar, imputations should not be made as to the conduct of any hon. member. I suggest that the hon. member address himself to the facts and not be spinning a tale, a web of intrigue which he has constructed in his own imagination.


Erik Nielsen: To settle the question perhaps we could have the expert advice of the Minister of Fisheries on the subject, as to the classification of the hon. member.
As recorded at page 7960 of Hansard for September 14 the Minister of Justice, in reply to a question put to him by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, said:
I must say that although we have received lull co-operation from the United States authorities the latter have not yet been able to define the whereabouts of Mr. Banks.
There can be no question whatever but that the minister did in fact request the F.B.I. to investigate the whereabouts of Mr. Banks.


Mitchell William Sharp: Why didn't the Leader of the Opposition admit this, then?


Erik Nielsen: I will come to that. Now the press has come forth with stories purporting to emanate from sources within the F.B.I. which state the F.B.I. were not officially requested by the Canadian government to make any investigation as to the whereabouts of Mr. Banks. I believe those stories came out on Friday last.
The minister has made much about the timing of the presentation of the motion to adjourn the business of the house under standing order 26. That motion was presented at the first opportunity, and the reason it was introduced was because of a story appearing throughout the national press that a Mr. Todd, a responsible labour leader, had alleged a deal between the government of Canada and the S.I.U. with regard to the escape of Hal Banks.
That motion was presented at the first opportunity. It is regrettable that the minister and the Prime Minister were not here. Perhaps more ministers should have been here, because certainly more ministers would appear to be involved than the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice in this whole shoddy affair.
Here you have two forces, the F.B.I. in the United States and the R.C.M.P. in Canada, both backed by the full resources of their two governments, both unable to trace Mr. Banks; but a Toronto Star reporter does it in two hours. Here is the F.B.I. of the United

States, who laid Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson by the heels, unable to find Banks, and it was left to a Toronto Star reporter to find him inside a two hour investigation.
What is the minister trying to tell us? What is he asking the people of Canada to believe?-that these forces of justice, great and accomplished as they are and as they have proven themselves to be, cannot find a trace of the elusive Mr. Banks, but Mr. Reguly does it in two hours, and not a very strenuous two hours at that.
Is there not justification for coming to the conclusion that there has been some sort of deal between the government and Hal Banks?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not at all,-a lie.


Erik Nielsen: This is just one fact.


Guy Favreau: That is the type of mind you have.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I seldom take exception to any remarks made in the chamber, but one has been made just now which may find its way into Hansard and I would like the minister concerned, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who said "That is a lie" to assure me that he did not intend to impute any motives so far as I was concerned in regard to that statement.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mitchell William Sharp: This is contrary to the assertions of the Minister of Justice, whose word I accept.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sure the minister and all members of the committee know well there are some words that should not be used, and certainly one of them that cannot be used is to suggest that another member has lied. Actually we had this point discussed just a couple of weeks ago in committee, and if the word has been used, as suggested by the hon. member for Yukon, and if he requests that it be withdrawn, I am sure the minister would want to explain.


John George Diefenbaker: No, he wants to withdraw.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw his statement that the Minister of Justice is telling lies.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. That is not the Chair's understanding of the rules. The hon. member for Yukon, who has the floor, makes a series of assertions which are contrary to

assertions made by another member, and each, one is entitled to his own opinion, but I do not believe another member can assert one member is lying because he has contradicted a statement made by another member.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Erik Nielsen: I just want the minister to say he was not for a moment suggesting that I was lying. He may take exception to the statements which I made.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Chairman, I assert that the hon. gentleman's statements are contrary to what I regard as the truth uttered by the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I think the minister would want to co-operate with the committee and with the Chair, and if perhaps the word he used went beyond his thoughts I would ask him very simply to withdraw the word.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am very happy to do so. I would not offend my hon. friend-


John George Diefenbaker: No conditions.


Mitchell William Sharp: I withdraw the word.


John George Diefenbaker: That is better.


Erik Nielsen: I seldom take exception to words used but I would not want readers of Hansard, even though they are few, to get the impression that the minister used an expression he did not want to. It is my belief that the explanation offered by the minister is more an exercise in metaphysics than it is an explanation of the law. All we want, and all we have been asking for throughout these months, are the facts. But we cannot seem to get them from the minister. He says counsel appointed by the crown opposed bail. He is a member of the bar. Having read his biographical history I am sure he has wide experience at the bar and as Minister of Justice he is gaining it now, perhaps a little more slowly here than he did while in private practice. But he knows as well as I do and as well as his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs does, that in every recognizance crown counsel always makes certain that there is a provision in th bail bond which would prevent the accused from leaving the jurisdiction. Certainly that has been my experience in these matters against a background of some ten years prosecuting for the crown. It is not up to the judge to prepare counsel's case for him. It is up to counsel to make sure his documents are in order 20220-560J
Supply-Justice
before he puts them before the judge. Is it not natural that we who are familiar with the customary and usual practice in matters of this kind should wonder why this particular provision was left out on this occasion? Is it not natural that we should proceed from there to examine Mr. Todd's statement that there has been some sort of deal, or some connivance, between the government and Mr. Banks?


Guy Favreau: Would the hon. member answer a question? Is he ready to state that the form provided by the Criminal Code in the case of a bond posted on appeal contains a clause providing for the prevention of the appellant leaving the jurisdiction? Will he not agree that in the province of Quebec, in the practice of the court of appeal, the bond which was signed by Banks was the usual and common form continuously used in that province?


Erik Nielsen: The minister knows as well as I do that the procedure governing these matters is the one set forth in the Criminal Code of Canada and that it applies uniformly throughout the whole of Canada. It is no different in Quebec. It is the same as in any other province or area of Canada. The hon. gentleman knows, too, that fundamentally a recognizance is the same on appeal as it is on trial. He knows, also, that the provision as to remaining within the jurisdiction is a provision which is normally there before a person goes to trial or appeal.


Guy Favreau: On a question of privilege, that ought not to be left on the record uncontradicted. It is contrary to the practice in the province of Quebec and it is contrary to the facts.


An hon. Member:: There is no question of privilege.


Lucien Lamoureux: I recognize that. But the Chair has to listen to at least one sentence before forming an opinion. I am sure the minister realizes there is no question of privilege here. It is the minister's privilege after the hon. member has spoken, if he has an opportunity to get on record, to correct statements which he thinks are wrong. But there is no question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Well, the minister holds his view as to the practice and I hold mine. I dare say that a great many other lawyers in the country, including prominent lawyers in Quebec who have made certain statements on this subject to the press, hold views which are entirely different from those held by the

Supply-Justice
minister. But is it any wonder that since these views are held by a number of people we should ask that there be an inquiry to determine just how deeply the government is involved in these arrangements.
The crown, said the minister, opposed the bail application. But the crown did not, according to my information, advance any argument in opposition to bail being granted. The crown did not explain-as is the duty of counsel; not of the judge or the court- that the offence with which the court was dealing was a non-extraditable offence. This is a practice so common that there should be no need for it to be repeated to members of the bar who have any knowledge whatsoever of the practice which prevails. Counsel should have told the judge that the court was dealing with an accused person who was charged with a crime which was non-extraditable.
Why were such instructions not given to the counsel retained by the minister's department? Is it any wonder that in the absence of such specific instructions people come to the conclusions that they do with respect to these arrangements with the S.I.U. and with Banks.
I wonder, too, why counsel did not acquaint the court with the record of Mr. Banks-a record which I read into Hansard during the debate on the S.I.U. bill; a record which I described as being "as long as your arm"; a record which was appended to the order in council which was signed when Banks was admitted to this country by the Liberal administration of the day. Why was not the court informed of this record, -and why were these facts not placed before the judge so that he would be better informed and able to decide whether or not there was any likelihood of Mr. Banks leaving the jurisdiction? I dare say that had this record been produced to the court then, either this particlar provision would have been inserted in his recognizance or he would not have been granted bail at all.
The facts are these. Banks was granted bail in an amount of $25,000 for a five year conviction.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Those are the only facts so far.


Erik Nielsen: That is a cheap price to pay to get out of the country-$5,000 a year.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Especially if you are using someone else's money.


Erik Nielsen: Five thousand a year for freedom. And he was allowed-I use that word

"allowed"-to leave Canada by the fumbling and the bumbling, intentional or otherwise, of the government-a government for which the Prime Minister must take responsibility by reason of his position as head of the government, and for whose actions the Minister of Justice, together with his colleague the Minister of Labour, must also take responsibility. I do not know whether or not there are any other ministers there from Montreal. I do not know their backgrounds. But there have been some statements made with regard to radio tapes and the like which may arouse a little fear in the minds of some of those ministers and maybe in the minds of some backbenchers as well, and the thought that Banks would be a fine fellow to get out of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: No amount of squirming can cover up-


Mr. Greene:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I understand he alleges there was some sort of deal with Banks to buy his freedom at the rate of $5,000 per annum. I take it, then, that the hon. member alleges that the chief justice was in on this deal, as he would have to be if such a deal were made.


Erik Nielsen: This is a very clever but very shallow contrivance on the part of the hon. member who, I understand, had his fortunes changed by some sort of a deal in Ontario, to shift emphasis from the real issues which confront the minister and the government to some side track. All this is a red herring. The court and the judge have nothing to do but their duty, and their duty is to decide on the basis of material which is put before them by counsel, material which counsel has responsibility for producing pursuant to instructions.
What was counsel instructed to do in this case? Remain mute? To rise and say merely: "We oppose bail"? What arguments did counsel present? If none were presented, why the silence? All these interventions and smokescreens are merely designed to hide the facts. The fact is, and it is abundantly clear, that the Minister of Justice-and I do not know how many collaborators he may have had on the front benches over there- made it easy for Banks to leave this country.


An hon. Member:: Slander.


Erik Nielsen: And they may have had good reason for making it easy for him to leave the country. We have seen the material that

has appeared in the column of the eminent member for Port Arthur, saying that Banks was mighty cosy with the Liberal party; saying that he referred to the Liberal party as his Ottawa bureau. No wonder then, if these allegations are correct-about which the minister says nothing, nor any other cabinet member-there is some anxiety that not only he leave the country but stay out of the country.


An hon. Member:: Who brought him in in the first place?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Illegally?


Erik Nielsen: What the minister is saying in effect is that what the resources of the Canadian government, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, of the United States government and of the federal bureau of investigation could not do over three months was done by Mr. Reguly in two hours.


Mr. Bigg:: At the cost of $2 for a taxi.


Erik Nielsen: The minister is saying that this task of finding Mr. Banks was beyond the resources of these two governments and these law enforcement agencies. The hon. member for Renfrew South and the minister have been trying to foist the blame, deliberately, with regard to the bail application, on to the judge who presided over the court at the time the application was made. The minister had some rather critical remarks to make-


Guy Favreau: Several.


Erik Nielsen: -of the motivation of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, as a member of the bar, in making this statement. I put that same charge to the minister, because I say it is pretty shoddy tactics to try to foist the blame for the government's inadequacies, deliberate or otherwise, on to a judge. It was the minister's responsibility to instruct counsel properly; it was the minister's responsibility to see that Banks came to justice; it was the minister's responsibility to see that the court was properly advised by counsel instructed by his department.


An hon. Member:: It was the court's
decision.


Erik Nielsen: I hear an interjection that it was the court's decision. Naturally it was the court's decision; the court was the only agency that could make such a decision. It is a fact that it is the court's decision. But what is the court going to do if a plaintiff comes in and remains mute? Is the court going to give judgment for the plaintiff, or is
Supply-Justice
he going to decide the case on speculation which may or may not exist in his own mind? What is the court going to do with regard to a bail application if it is not told anything about the man concerning whom the application is made?


Eric Alfred Winkler: He had not thought of that.


Erik Nielsen: It is a very sad and sordid record that the government has in this regard. Its record and actions in this regard have tarnished not only the minister and the officials, whom he has not only the responsibility to direct but to guide, but they have tarnished the reputations and characters of the Prime Minister who leads this government and of the Minister of Labour; and, as I say, there may be other cabinet members involved as well. Only time will tell, and I wish Mr. Banks could tell.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He will talk, after the election.


John James Greene: You guys won't be talking in here after the election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: That is wishful thinking.


Mr. Hales:: You speak from experience, Joe.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, in closing these few words of reply to the minister's statement I want to say this to him. I have said already that counsel, if they did not bring these matters to the attention of the court, were improperly instructed and I think there are certain motivations in this regard that should be explained by the minister or whoever did instruct those counsel. I think the minister should explain just what representations were made by counsel to the judge. These are explanations that could have been made and could have helped clarify this situation; could have helped clear the tarnished image that the government has assumed as the result of the whole sordid affair.
But instead of adopting that course the minister adopted one of attacking the right hon. Leader of the Opposition for bringing forward the motion last Monday. It is my personal view, with which undoubtedly members opposite will not agree, that this government brought Banks in, approved his actions, and he was encouraged and fraternized with by the Liberal administration right up to its defeat in 1957. The Liberals were the people that brought him in. In fact, in order to accomplish this they twisted and altered and reshaped the Immigration Act and the procedures that were operable under that act.

Supply-Justice
This is what was done in order to bring in this gentleman who is now so elusive.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member put on the record the name of the minister concerned?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Who was the minister of the day?


Erik Nielsen: The former minister, Mr. Harris, was the gentleman concerned. He is the gentleman who, in accordance with my understanding of the facts-


John James Greene: Which is very limited.


Erik Nielsen: -brought representations to bear. The hon. member for Renfrew South can check these facts if he wants to be accurate himself, and if he thinks they are wrong he can rise in his place any time and correct me.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? I know the hon. member is very critical of the handling of Mr. Banks both before 1957 and since April, 1963. I wonder whether the hon. member could tell us in what way, between 1957 and 1963, the Banks matter was better handled than it was previously.


Erik Nielsen: There is one gentleman in this house who can do that much better than I, because he was an assistant deputy minister from 1955 to 1960-and he now occupies the portfolio of Minister of Justice. At the time he was an official of the department; he was undoubtedly acquainted with all the facts; he was undoubtedly acquainted with the advice given to the government of that day-and no one can tell me that a minister of justice, unless he has very good, substantial reason, is going to act without the advice of his officials.


John James Greene: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John James Greene: Is the hon. member alleging that the shortcomings between 1957 and 1963-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Put it on the order paper.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I think I should bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that his time expired a few minutes ago. I was giving him additional minutes; but I do not think they should be used up by answering questions.


Erik Nielsen: With the consent of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I might be permitted to continue.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I think we should extend the same courtesy to the hon. gentleman as was extended to me in regard to my speech.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to extending the hon. member's time; but this debate is only for this afternoon and I am sure the other parties in the house have speakers they want to put forward. If the hon. member is only going to be a few minutes, that is fine; but if he is going to take some time I think hon. members from other parties should be given an opportunity to take part in this debate.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I want to be completely co-operative in that regard. I think the matter is of sufficient concern and importance that the debate certainly should not end this afternoon and perhaps it might be carried on tomorrow; because I am going to move an amendment this afternoon in connection with these estimates and other parties in this house may wish to debate the amendment at some length.
I was speaking of the former minister, Mr. Harris, and the order in council which was signed and which admitted Mr. Banks into this country. There was appended to it a list of the convictions of Mr. Banks. Since that admission a long record of approval, of association and of amity between the Liberals and Mr. Banks has emerged. The latest episode is Mr. Bank's decamping under the noses of the government and under the noses of the most experienced law enforcement agencies.
Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but is it not curious that Mr. Banks, to use the word of the Minister of Justice, "discreetly" left the country? He discreetly left the country in a cream Cadillac with Quebec licence plates, loaded to the gunwales with all the records of the S.I.U., passing through the Canadian port of exit and the immigration port of entry to the United States.


An hon. Member:: They did not know it was he.


Erik Nielsen: No, they did not know it was Mr. Banks, although he had his Cadillac on parliament hill when the demonstration took place. I am sure the minister saw it then and also a good many members of the R.C.M.P. saw it as well. I say that no party could do more for a friend. This is a friendship which is undoubtedly reciprocated by Mr. Banks.

In the good old days of Liberalism before 1957 Mr. Banks had his Ottawa bureau functioning pretty smoothly.
A government which has this sort of record by association with this gentleman, with the complete mishandling of the affair which has allowed Mr. Banks to escape Canadian justice, brings serious doubt on the capacity of the Minister of Justice to retain the portfolio he holds. In our view the minister should seriously consider submitting his resignation to the Prime Minister. Perhaps he should follow the precedent of the previous postmaster general. Before the Norris commission Banks said he got along with the Liberals; that appears in the report. He got along fine with them. In addition to letting him into the country the Liberal government even sent him to the international labour organization convention at Geneva. What a representative to represent Canada in a discussion such as that.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I am sure the hon. member does not want-or perhaps he does-to leave such a falsehood uncorrected. He said the Liberal government sent Mr. Banks. The fact is the government accepted the recommendation of the Canadian trades and labour congress, now the Canadian Labour Congress, which nominated Mr. Banks to attend the convention. That is on the record.


Erik Nielsen: If this government does everything the Canadian trades and labour congress recommends, that is one matter. In 1955 the government paid Banks' way to Geneva to represent Canadian labour. He was sent over by the government because he was such a friend. I wonder at the degree of dignity and distinction with which Banks represented the Canadian government and Canadian labour while in Geneva. As late as 1963 in his report to the seafarers international union convention-this appeared in the column of the hon. member for Port Arthur-Banks attacked the Norris commission. He also attacked the previous minister of labour, now the hon. member for Ontario. He spoke very approvingly of the Liberal government, saying that the enemies of the S.I.U. were not finding the same willing ears as when the Conservative government was in power. That is what the friend of those opposite said.


Mr. Moreau:: He was wrong.


Erik Nielsen: Now we have the interprovincial member for York-Scarborough again.
Supply-J ustice


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is rising on a point of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, there is only about an hour and ten minutes left in this debate. While I think the hon. member is making a useful contribution I do not think he should be allowed to take up all the time. He has been speaking now for about 45 minutes and I think some other hon. members should also be allowed to take part. If the debate continues tomorrow he can speak again, but I do not think that the other parties should be shut out completely.


Erik Nielsen: I realize the quandary of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam but I certainly shared my 30 minutes with all the hon. members who interjected and made speeches during the time I have been on my feet. I do not think I have been speaking for 30 minutes but I will take my seat and move my amendment so that the committee might study it.
May I close simply by saying this, that the Liberals caused Banks to be charged. He was convicted and they let him go, to bask in luxury on his yacht in New York, a yacht which was provided by the S.I.U. for the purpose of Mr. Banks. And let us not believe for a moment that the S.I.U. would provide such facilities for Mr. Banks if he had lost all his usefulness to that union organization.
This raises another possible suggestion here, and that is: Has the control of the S.I.U. really slipped from Banks' hands?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is the question.


Erik Nielsen: The S.I.U. do not provide these facilities for nothing. Because of the manner in which the government has failed to act on this matter; because the minister has shown a singular lack of understanding of the function with which he is charged in carrying out the responsibilities of his office; because of the degree to which the law, good order and justice in this country have been dragged in the mire by the inaction of the minister and of the government as a whole, it is both my belief and the belief of a good many of us on this side that the minister is no longer fit to hold the portfolio of Minister of Justice. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South:
That vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice be reduced by the sum of $16,999,

Supply-Justice
That will leave by way of salary for the minister $1 per annum.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the only possible reason for spending a day or maybe two days in debating the now famous Banks case is that there is some reason for believing Mr. Banks still exercises part or all of the control, the evil control, over the waterfront unions that he exercised for many years. It seems to me that if we believe that, and I still believe he has a great deal of influence, we ought to look at the record of what has happened.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin my remarks by stating that I am not sure how I will vote on this amendment if and when it comes to a vote. Having heard the amendment I do feel it worth while to remind members of this committee about the claims of brilliance, competence and efficiency which were made by front and backbenchers on the other side, and claims regarding how they would run the business of this country smoothly, carefully and efficiently. We all remember the broken budget, and we are now faced with this situation.
I do not blame the present minister entirely for the situation which now exists because he did to some extent inherit this situation, but I do suggest that the former government could have acted during its tenure of office and clipped Mr. Banks' wings. Certainly the ordinary people of this country who become involved in minor difficulties with the law will not have a great deal of respect for the kind of justice we have in this country, in view of the manner in which Mr. Banks has escaped the penalties imposed.
Before dealing with matters which have been discussed today, I should like to refer to two statements made by the present Minister of Justice. The other night on a television program in response to the question as to why the former Liberal government had not deported Mr. Banks, the present Minister of Justice replied that the former minister of citizenship and immigration, Mr. Harris, had accepted the advice of the immigration appeal board which heard Mr. Banks' appeal. I checked my impression in this regard very carefully with others who had heard that response. Of course that is not a true statement of the facts. The immigration appeal board, set up to hear Mr. Banks' appeal and headed by Mr. St. Onge, a senior official of the department at that time, recommended that Mr. Banks be deported. The former minister, Mr. Harris, overruled that decision of the

appeal board in the last week he held that cabinet post.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege. The hon. member is referring to something which took place outside this house. While I realize it is not the practice of the hon. member to distort words and facts, and I know he did not intend to do so at this time, if he will recall correctly that interview on television he will realize I referred not to the immigration appeal board but to an inquiry made by the minister. Furthermore, one could hardly place any weight on that television interview because at least one third of my words were deleted. I do not think one should rely on that videotape program, because my remarks were taken out of their proper context.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, my relationship with the present Minister of Justice is such that I of course accept without question his statement that he did not say the former minister had accepted the recommendations of the immigration appeal board. However, I do not think it is important to my case whether the present minister made that statement or not, because the fact is that Mr. Walter Harris, at that time the minister of citizenship and immigration, did reject the recommendations of the immigration appeal board during the last week he held that cabinet position, and approved the granting of landed immigrant status to Mr. Banks. He did so I am sure with complete knowledge of a dossier on Mr. Banks, which related to Mr. Banks' life before he came to Canada.
Instead of granting that landed immigrant status to Mr. Banks by ministerial order, which is the normal practice, Mr. Walter Harris had a special order in council passed by the government, regularizing that status. In other words the whole cabinet became involved in this matter. The effect of this order in council was that Mr. Banks' landed immigration status dated back to 1952, instead of from 1954 when the case was finally disposed of by Mr. Harris. Had that not happened, I suggest it might have been easier to deport Banks when it was finally realized, belatedly, that he really ought not to have been allowed into Canada in the first place.
Mr. Chairman, one could cite incident after incident of this nature, and I am sure it is this type of thing which makes a great number of people in this country wonder about the close connections which existed between Mr. Banks and members of the former government, cabinet ministers and backbenchers, past and

present. That is the kind of common story which is circulating in every city in Canada, in newspapers, in the labour field and in the business community. I am not suggesting the minister is responsible in any way at all, but he ought to know that that is common gossip across Canada.
In discussing the prosecution of Mr. Banks several days ago the present Minister of Justice said that all the information required was available to the former government. It is not my job to defend the former government, but I think Mr. Banks' letter to the shipping companies, which came to the attention of Mr. Bernard Wilson, and through him to the former minister of labour, wherein he promised that the S.I.U. would indemnify the shipping companies if they were sued because they had not lived up to their contracts with other unions, could have been used to prosecute Mr. Banks.
The minister said that the former government did have all the information necessary to prosecute Mr. Banks. I have been informed by individuals who worked on the Banks case and know the facts, that while the Department of Justice did have a great deal of information including the testimony of Richard Greaves in 1958, and of Michael Sheehan in 1960, and knew that Walsh had been beaten in Owen Sound, it did not have evidence of any overt act in which Mr. Banks participated and for which he could be prosecuted. It did not have information or evidence linking Mr. Banks with this particular offence. In the opinion of the lawyers with whom I have discussed this situation, no charge could have been brought successfully against Mr. Banks until 1963 when the Department of Justice obtained the evidence from Mr. Bruce Smith, which he subsequently gave in court, to the effect that one of the persons present during discussions in Mr. Banks' office phoned him and asked him to establish the whereabouts of Mr. Walsh so that, as it later turned out, Mr. Walsh could be beaten. He testified further that he visited Mrs. Walsh, ascertained where her husband was in Owen Sound and communicated the information to people who went to Owen Sound and beat Walsh. Without this information the conspiracy charge certainly could not have been made to stand up. In fact, Judge Wagner devoted two pages of his judgment to Bruce Smith's testimony and to its importance.
I do not believe it is really of much value to say that the Liberal government or the Conservatives should have done it. In my
Supply-Justice
opinion, it indicates that both sides have been rather slow on the job. It has been stated in many quarters, and I think I am right in saying that at least one member of the board of maritime trustees has been quoted to this effect, that we are worrying too much about the whereabouts of Mr. Banks. This was before it was proven he was in New York. It is stated we were worrying too much about whether he had gone to-the United States or somewhere else. After all, these people said, the main thing is that Banks is gone and his position of influence in the S.I.U. has disappeared; the punishment of this Mr. Banks is not really very important. In fact, it has been said by some-people that it is a good thing to get him out of the country. Well, Mr. Chairman, one would think that Mr. Banks had been convicted and sentenced to five years in prison because he had violated a traffic law. We ought to keep in mind that Banks was sentenced to five years by Judge Wagner, who-is now the attorney general of Quebec, because the beating of Captain Walsh for which he was responsible was, and I quote from a newspaper report of Judge Wagner's charge,, a manifest act of gangsterism, agreed to, prepared, ordered, directed and supervised by Banks.
We should remember that this act of violence, of beating and gangsterism, is just one of hundreds of which Banks was accused in testimony before Mr. Justice Norris. If members of the committee are interested they can turn to the schedule prepared by Mr. Justice Norris on page 444 of the report,, and continuing for half a dozen pages, where they will find listed incident after incident,, name after name, of people who were beaten and beaten so severely that many of them were incapacitated and permanently damaged. I am not one of those people who believe that our system of justice will work if we depend only on punishment. I am one who believes in rehabilitation. Surely, if a person ever deserved to be punished for his-acts, it was Mr. Hal Banks. I suggest that when he can sit in the United States and thumb his nose at the Canadian people and Canadian justice, it is a disgrace not only to the government and the Minister of Justice but to the people of Canada as well.
I want to deal with this question of Mr. Banks and his presence in New York. It. is interesting that the Minister of Justice, day after day, and it seemed even today, talked about the alleged presence of Mr. Banks in New York. How much proof do we-

Supply-Justice
need? Does the minister have to see Mr. Banks in person before he believes that Mr. Banks is in New York? Surely that has been established. Since I came to this house I have not been known as the greatest admirer of the R.C.M.P. However, Mr. Chairman, I still retain some of the ideas that one picks up when he is young. One of the common ideas which the R.C.M.P. have not done anything to destroy-I think that is putting it mildly -is that the R.C.M.P. always gets its man. It seems to me incredible that the R.C.M.P. and their friends and colleagues in the F.B.I. of the United States, could not in fact find a man as easily identifiable as Mr. Hal Banks. I have great respect for the Minister of Justice. I do not have to look at the letters which he tabled. I take his word for the fact that he asked the R.C.M.P. to get on with the job. However, I cannot believe that the R.C.M.P. and the F.B.I. were told this was an A-l priority project. I cannot believe that if they had been told that they would not have been able to find Mr. Banks. If I believed that, Mr. Chairman, I would have serious doubts about the ability of both organizations. If I were minister of justice I would begin to think that perhaps we ought to reorganize the structure of the R.C.M.P. If they had been given instructions that this was an important matter, they could have found this man.
It was common knowledge in newspaper circles, it was common knowledge in the labour movement and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it was common knowledge amongst R.C.M.P. officers, that it was extremely likely-I think I am speaking quite cautiously-that Mr. Banks was in New York and, in fact, was in the section of Brooklyn in which the newspaper reporter found him.
I think this man is an excellent newspaper reporter, but I, for one, do not believe he is more competent, more efficient, than the highly skilled policemen in the R.C.M.P. and F.B.I. I say it is important that we have this discussion because I believe, as do many other people who have had some acquaintance with the S.I.U. and other seamen's unions, that Mr. Banks still exerts an important influence in the S.I.U.


An hon. Member:: Prove it.


David Orlikow: Well, Mr. Chairman, we will prove it as soon as the Minister of Labour will use the power he has to bring the board of maritime trustees before the industrial relations committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: Day after day, week after week, members of this house have been on their feet begging the minister, entreating the minister, imploring the minister to get the board of trustees before the industrial relations committee. I wonder what else we have to do? Who are these people? Are they gods? Are they completely independent people or are they people appointed by the government of Canada under an act passed by this parliament? They should have been here long ago.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: That is still not proving what you are saying.


David Orlikow: I hope the hon. member has the courage to get up and speak, but not on my time.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I will when you are finished.


David Orlikow: You can speak when I am finished.


Howard Russell MacEwan: That will be a real treat.


David Orlikow: It is easy to talk.


An hon. Member:: Pay no attention; he is a blabbermouth.


David Orlikow: I know he is a blabbermouth, and I am not worried about that. This is not the time-


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman. There is no member in this house who is a greater blabbermouth than the hon. member who is now speaking.


David Orlikow: That was neither a point of privilege nor a point of order, and I will give it the respect which it deserves, which is none at all.
This is not the time to discuss in detail what is going on in the S.I.U. I wish to point out to members of the committee that an election is now being held, approved and supervised by the board of maritime trustees, an election in which 10 of the 12 persons running for top offices were part of Mr. Banks' machine.


An hon. Member:: Prove it.


David Orlikow: The hon. member does not have to believe me. He can read the report of Mr. Justice Norris where the people now running for office are listed. These are the people who will be running the organization after the election. They worked with Banks before, and we have the greatest reason to believe they will continue to work with him.
Something else has come to my attention which the Department of Labour should investigate. The board of maritime trustees ap-

proved the sending of a number of Canadian seamen to a school in New York, at which they are supposed to learn the elements of democracy. The school is called the Andrew Furuseth school and is run by the S.I.U. of North America. According to the information I have, in the interval when Mr. Banks could not be found he was acting as a teacher at this school where Canadian seamen, liberated from his domination, were being sent for instruction. I suggest that the Minister of Labour get on the job.
In a recent edition of the Canadian Sailor, published by the S.I.U. of Canada, it was announced with great fanfare that the licence division of the S.I.U. was being cut adrift from the Canadian organization and that they were going to form an independent organization. Let us just look at that and see the control which Mr. Banks may still have.
What is happening is that they have applied for a charter in the Atlantic and gulf division of the S.I.U. of North America, which is also known as the brotherhood of marine engineers. It is a constituent part of the marine engineers beneficial association of North America, and I have been told, by sources which have proven very reliable up until now, that the marine engineers beneficial association, which is dominated by Mr. Paul Hall, the president of the S.I.U. of North America, will very shortly be run by one Mr. Harold Banks, so that the licensed seamen on the great lakes of Canada will again be under the domination of Mr. Banks.
It is for reasons like that that we are interested in Mr. Banks. We are interested in what happened. We are interested in why he is not serving the sentence which Judge Wagner thought he should serve. I place no responsibility for what happened in the past on the present Minister of Justice. I merely close by saying that there are so many rumours, so many allegations, so many vicious stories being carried from one end of Canada to the other about former ministers of the Liberal government, about former members and present members of parliament from Montreal, about the amount of money which the S.I.U. of Canada gave to Liberal election campaigns while Banks was in control-there are so many of these stories that if the Minister of Justice is interested, and I think he is, in the good name of parliament, in the good name of democratic government, in the good name of his own party, and if he wants to assure the public that these stories are not true, he ought to move very quickly to appoint a judicial inquiry officer who could
Supply-Justice
look into the whole story of the S.I.U. of Canada and of Mr. Banks, and make a report to the people of Canada which would for the first time make them feel justice is indeed being done.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: At the outset I wish to say we in this party are getting a little weary of having the pot call the kettle black and vice versa. We have listened for a number of years to the charges and countercharges being hurled by the Conservative and Liberal parties across the floor of this chamber. It seems when one party is in office members of the other in opposition seem to find a number of reasons why there is some dereliction of duty, and then when they exchange positions they argue the case from the opposite viewpoint.
We think the Minister of Justice has been a little less than frank and completely open during the past few days in some of the answers he gave to questions about Hal Banks. It does not seem credible that the minister could be completely unaware of the fact that Mr. Banks had left Canada. Furthermore if the minister had been in communication with the R.C.M.P. and the F.B.I. it seems hardly credible he was not aware Mr. Banks was in New York.
It can be accepted that the minister, perhaps, could not make an official statement respecting these matters, but in many of his replies he tried to leave the impression he was not at all aware of the whereabouts of Hal Banks. In such a situation, and considering the anxiety respecting this whole matter across Canada, it would be well for the minister to be a little more frank with parliament because I am certain he has the support of all parties in it, and the support of the vast majority of Canadians in seeing to it that the kind of gangsterism which is under review is stamped out.
I am not a lawyer and am not going to get into the so-called legal procedures that it is alleged should have been taken. My information is that crown counsel did ask Judge Wagner not to grant bail at all, and this would have had the effect-


John George Diefenbaker: Wagner had nothing to do with it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -of keeping Mr. Banks in custody. It seems to me this is as far as he could have gone, and that this was the maximum request that could be made. I am also informed that counsel asked that bail should not be set at less than $50,000, if bail were in fact granted. To suggest that

Supply-Justice
crown counsel was at fault when he did not remind the judge that extradition proceedings could not be taken with respect to the crime in question, does not hold a lot of weight with me because I am certain the judge must have been fully aware of that fact.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member permit a question?


An hon. Member:: He said he is not a
lawyer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I just want to put this question. Mr. Justason is crown counsel for Calgary appointed by the premier of Alberta. I have been in court with him on many occasions.


An hon. Member:: What is your question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't worry, you hounds who want to talk but will not make a speech. I know the hon. member is not a lawyer but does he not agree that it is the responsibility of counsel for the crown to set out the facts, and that on these facts a judge makes his decision-not on hearsay or on propaganda, which might be the kind of propaganda we read in periodicals and so on? It is on the evidence that a judge makes his decision, and without that evidence being before him how can he make a proper decision?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will get round to the hon. member's question in a moment. The point I was trying to make is this: If the Conservative party is now trying to hang its whole case on the fact that crown counsel did not advise the judge that extradition proceedings could not be taken, it is a pretty weak case. I say this because it is evident to anyone following the case that crown counsel did in fact ask that no bail be granted at all, so Banks would have been kept in custody-


An hon. Member:: Prove it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I cannot prove it. I have not got the transcript of evidence before me. But this has been stated in the house a number of times and I suppose it is as true as the allegation that this information was not made known to the court.
I think we must separate the two matters which are before the committee. One consideration before us this afternoon has to do with the fact that Banks was able to escape from Canada and avoid the punishment to which he was sentenced for the crime against Mr. Walsh and the beating at Owen Sound. The other matter which is of

interest to the committee and to the Canadian people is whether or not action has been taken by the government to ensure that there shall be no repetition of the incidents which have caused disruption of shipping on the great lakes-that there shall not be a perpetuation of the gangsterism which took place during Hal Banks' reign. I think we should be satisfied to some degree at least that certain action has been taken by the Department of Labour and by this house to have Banks removed from his position as president of the S.I.U. In consequence there has been reasonable peace on the great lakes during the past weeks and months.
But there are some disturbing rumours circulating, and the hon. member who spoke before me drew attention to some of them. They are to the effect that Banks may not have been removed far enough, as yet, from the labour scene. This is something which concerns all members of the house. As I said earlier, I do not intend to go over this whole question again, but I should like to review the record very briefly.
This crime of conspiracy for which Mr. Banks was convicted and sentenced related to an event which happened on August 18, 1957. If members will look at schedule 31 which was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North they will find numerous entries there telling how people were beaten, and so on. Then, if they look to the right of the page, to the column under the heading "Action Taken", they will find time after time nothing whatever was done to deal with these offences during all those years from 1957 to 1962 when these terrible crimes were taking place. Has the law, or have procedures taken under the law, been sufficiently changed that it is no longer necessary to have an inquiry by a royal commission before anything can be done about crimes of this sort? These beatings had been taking place over many years, yet there was apparently no civilian authority with sufficient resources, strength or jurisdiction to deal with them. If this situation has not been remedied, then the House of Commons has an important task before it to see that the law is enacted and administered in such a way as to enable us to deal with these crimes without, first of all, the necessity to appoint a royal commission to bring them to light, after which there are further months of waiting before any charges are laid.
In the course of his report, Mr. Justice Norris made a number of recommendations and, as we read at page 312, he says:

Local police forces are not equipped to deal with mass action by irresponsible persons. All police forces, federal, provincial and municipal should extend their efforts to the utmost in cooperation with each other-avoiding jurisdictional jealousies-to the end that there shall be certainty in the enforcement of the law and that respect for the law will be maintained. It should not be difficult by co-operation between all police forces to reach a common understanding as to action in connection with labour disputes. It might be that police officers should have some special training on labour matters.
I know of no action which has been taken by this government or by any other jurisdiction to carry out this recommendation. As I have suggested, we had to wait from August 18, 1957, when Captain Walsh was beaten, until July 17, 1962, before anything effective was done about it. If nothing has been done to change this situation there are obviously very serious weaknesses in the enforcement of law in this country. I am more concerned that these should be corrected than I am about whether Hal Banks is brought back to Canada or not.
We know Hal Banks has been sentenced to five years. I suppose two points of view could be taken. One would be that no man should escape justice and that we should have him back and compel him to serve his five year sentence. Afterwards of course he would have paid his penalty to society and would be free to get back into the labour movement, if it would allow him to do so. The other point of view which could be taken is that as long as Banks is outside Canada with this sentence hanging over him we shall probably be rid of him for life, as far as his entry into Canada is concerned. It is not easy to decide which of these alternatives is the more desirable. But we must take some action to see that there is no likelihood of these crimes of violence recurring, and it is the responsibility of the minister to see that his department, together with all the law enforcement agencies of this country is able to deal with gangsterism of the type which has been evident over the past seven or eight years.
I do not want to be too critical of any one. As I said at the outset of my remarks I am getting a little tired of hearing the kettle call the pot black. If we turn back to the debate of October 9, 1963 when the resolution to set up the maritime trusteeship was before the house we find that some interesting remarks were made by the former minister of labour, the hon. member for Ontario, who had this to say as reported at page 3372:
Supply-Justice
The Norris commission was set up at the behest and the demand of the Canadian Labour Congress because the situation on the great lakes was intolerable. It is obvious to everyone that no government could impose such an inquiry on unions without great criticism from the labour movement in Canada unless it were done at their request. The labour movement is suspicious of moves of this kind, and unless and until they themselves feel the time is ripe for such an inquiry governments cannot move in this direction.
Mr. Chairman, I contend that if crimes are being committed, if gangsterism exists-and I presume the former minister of labour knew of the situation prior to July, 1962-a government ought to have sufficient courage to take measures to deal with this lawlessness whether or not such action is pleasing to the labour unions. If the former minister of labour expressed the attitude which motivates governments when considering whether or not action can be taken in circumstances where labour unions are involved, I can only say we must demand a complete change and the turning of a new leaf as far as law enforcement in Canada is concerned.
What concerns me, Mr. Chairman, is that apparently it was this reasoning that kept the former government from doing anything about the disruption of shipping on the great lakes, and the gangsterism that was taking place there from 1957 until 1962. That is not sufficient reason, and in my opinion it was a despicable dereliction of duty on their part.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. I think the hon. member who now has the floor is speaking about two different matters altogether. The first one he mentioned was the setting up of the maritime trusteeship over a union in this country. The reasons I gave were quite correct; it had nothing to do with any prosecutions or any acts of violence being committed by any member of any union. At that time there was not any evidence available with which to make prosecutions and secure convictions; there was none. There was not sufficient evidence, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North said, upon inquiry to make any prosecutions of Mr. Hal Banks with regard to any rumoured assault or battery which may have been committed at that time. It was not until the Norris commission reported that, based on that report and the advice of legal counsel from Toronto, charges could be laid.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ontario is a little confused with regard to what I am referring to, and I will quote his words again. I was not talking about the

Supply-Justice
setting up of the maritimes trusteeship at all. I will quote his words to him:
The Norris commission was set up at the behest and the demand of the Canadian Labour Congress because the situation.. .was intolerable.
Then he went on to explain that no government, and I suppose he was referring to his own government, would have the courage -in this connection, Mr. Chairman, I will quote his exact words:
-no government could impose such an inquiry on unions without great criticism from the labour movement in Canada-
This is talking about the Norris commission and these are the words of the hon. member as reported at page 3372 of Hansard for 1963. Following that, if it had not been for that commission being set up I do not believe we would have yet reached the stage where we would have dealt with Hal Banks.


Michael Starr: I agree-because there was no evidence before then.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The fact remains that from 1957 until 1962, while there were dozens and dozens of assaults and crimes of all kinds committed on the lakefront and in the maritime areas in general, nothing was done. Even up until that time it is the statement of the former minister that until the Canadian Labour Congress was ready to accept this kind of inquiry-that is, the Norris inquiry- he did not have the courage to even initiate an inquiry.
We have the Norris recommendations. Some of them have been acted on; some of them have not. But if we are again moving into a situation where Hal Banks-and he is not the only one-is in fact going to have a great deal of influence and is going to be in a position where he can continue this kind of gangsterism, then we have the responsibility to change the law in some respects. 1 might also point out that one or two other things have not been taken care of by the present government, because at page 311 of his report Mr. Justice Norris says this:
I recommend that special counsel be appointed to review all the facts available with a view to ascertaining whether charges should be laid in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario against Banks, McLaughlin and others-
That has not been done up to this stage either. Banks has been charged, convicted and sentenced. McLaughlin, to my knowledge, has not been charged, and the others to whom Mr. Justice Norris referred have not been charged. We would like the minister to take the kind of action that will make it impossible for Banks, McLaughlin and the others

to whom Mr. Justice Norris referred to perpetuate their control over the S.I.U. and also their being in a position to engage in crimes of conspiracy, and so on.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say again that we should have united action in this matter from all parties in the house. I was rather proud of the House of Commons the day we passed the maritime trusteeship bill because there was almost unanimity that here was a situation that was intolerable so far as we were concerned, and we were prepared to deal with it on that basis, in spite of demonstrations that were taking place on the lawn outside the House of Commons and in spite of some fears with regard to what the labour unions in Canada might think of us. This is not a matter of whether or not you are in favour of labour unions and the work they do; it is a matter of whether or not you are in favour of enforcing the law and whether or not you are in favour of protecting people against this kind of gangster.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to impress upon the Minister of Justice that we think some progress has been made in cleaning up this mess, but that there is a great deal of work to be done. We would therefore urge him to get on with it as soon as possible and take into account some of the other recommendations Mr. Justice Norris has made.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow on right after the hon. member for Medicine Hat, in view of the references he made to the observations and recommendations of Mr. Justice Norris at page 311 of his report with respect to possible prosecutions. I think, in view of statements attributed to Mr. James Todd of the Canadian maritime union and repeated in this house by the Leader of the Opposition last Monday, it is desirable to set clear the record in respect of the prosecutions and action taken by the government following upon those recommendations.
The hon. member read part of the middle paragraph appearing at page 311 of Mr. Justice Norris' report and referred to the fact that Mr. Justice Norris recommended that special counsel should be appointed to look into the facts referred to and the evidence of assaults and other violence referred to by Mr. Justice Norris. Perhaps I might go on and read from page 311 where Mr. Justice Norris says:
In my opinion, the available evidence is such that the actions of these persons, upon proof of the facts,-

I would lay stress upon those words:
-are outside the exemptions provided in sections 409-411 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Counsel should also consider the evidence to ascertain whether charges should be laid against Banks and others for conspiracy to commit indictable offences, particularly in connection with acts of violence such as the beatings of Walsh and others. Consideration should also be given to prosecuting Banks and others under section 4, subsection 4, of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act on the grounds of intimidation and coercion.
I would like to refer to the fact that following immediately upon this recommendation the former minister of justice, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, announced to this house on July 18, 1963, that two eminent counsel-and if I may say so, perhaps the two most eminent counsel in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec-had been retained by the government for the purpose of examining those charges. I would refer to the fact that the crown retained Mr. John J. Robinette, Q.C., of Toronto, a former treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada and a man who occupies perhaps a pre-eminent position at the common law bar. The crown also retained the leader of the Quebec bar, Mr. Jean Martineau, Q.C., who was then the batonnier of the bar of Montreal. These two gentlemen were immediately retained for the purpose of examining the evidence given by various parties in respect of offences and other matters to the Norris commission, and they were also retained to advise the R.C.M.P. on additional investigations that should be carried out.
Following on this appointment the two counsel considered at once not only the broad recommendations but some other factual and notorious matters which had come to the attention of the crown in respect to the activities of Banks. I observe that the special crown counsel specifically recommended that conspiracy charges should be laid not only against Banks but also against Richardson and Carsh, the two other accused in connection with the Walsh beating. The conspiracy charges were laid on October 23 and on November 5 Banks was arrested. Subsequent to this, on May 1, 1964, Banks was convicted of these charges.
Let me also point out that the crown counsel, after very extensive investigations of the evidence and other matters, arrived at the conclusion, on the basis of further investigation by the R.C.M.P., that charges should be laid against Banks in connection with the beating of one Richard Greaves, and in due course these charges were laid against Banks and others for conspiring to injure and
Supply-Justice
commit assault upon Greaves. These charges have yet to come up for trial.
I would also point out that extensive examination was made by counsel into evidence based on the various financial records and accounts of the misuse of funds which Mr. Justice Norris had referred to in the course of his report. It was the opinion of the crown counsel that there was not sufficient evidence adduced either from the investigations or before the Norris commission, or from the report of Mr. Justice Norris himself, to justify prosecution either for theft or embezzlement. Let me repeat for the benefit of the committee that this was the recommendation of the two most eminent members of the bar in Ontario and Quebec.
At the same time the two counsel were also invited by the government to consider charges on a broader basis against Banks and his union associates. In the course of the recommendations of Mr. Justice Norris he suggested that a general charge might be laid against Banks and others with regard to the pattern of beatings and intimidations which is so graphically set out in schedule 31 to the Norris report. It was the conclusion of the counsel in this particular respect that once again there was insufficient evidence available to support a general charge of that kind.
The two counsel were specifically invited as part of their responsibilities to consider the incidents arising out of the affairs which came very close to us here, the appearance of the seamen on parliament hill. As a result of their investigations they recommended that a charge be laid against Banks, McLaughlin and others in respect of the walk-off from the ships. That particular charge comes up for preliminary hearing in a matter of a few days.
What I should point out, and what perhaps is not evident to members of the committee who are not members of the legal profession, is that none of the charges which have been laid and which were laid on the recommendation of counsel were in respect of extraditable offences. In fact, none of the specific charges referred to by Mr. Justice Norris in the passage to which I have just referred were in respect of extraditable offences. The only charges which seemed to offer any reasonable prospect of successful prosecution were in respect of theft and embezzlement; and it was the specific finding of counsel that no effective charges could be laid and they recommended against such charges being laid. These were the only possible charges which in fact would involve extraditable offences.

Supply-Justice
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would wish to counter most strenuously the assertion made by Mr. James Todd of the Canadian maritime union that the crown only chose those charges which they knew were not extraditable. The crown chose those charges upon which there was available evidence and upon which, on the advice of very eminent counsel, there would seem to be reasonable prospect of successful prosecution; and I would point out that the crown, on the basis of the advice and assistance of those counsel, have had particular success in several of those prosecutions. Therefore I would say that the charges made by Mr. Todd and which were repeated in the house by the right hon. gentleman in support of the application he made to move the adjournment of the house were completely unfounded. They appear to have been made on a misunderstanding by Mr. Todd of the actual terms of the Norris report, and they were evidently made by Mr. Todd without any knowledge or realization at all of the available grounds for prosecution under the Norris report.
I think it should be amply clear to all, Mr. Chairman, that the crown should not be laying charges where there is no evidence to support them. Widespread investigation by Mr. Justice Norris, with the assistance of many others, including people in the shipping industry and in the unions, was made concerning the events surrounding the operations of the union, but these investigations failed to disclose any evidence on which to found a charge. I think this committee should summarily reject the innuendo involved in Mr. Todd's statement that only special charges were laid.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That was the commissioner's job.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let me point out to the hon. member that under the order in council appointing the commissioner the commissioner was to make widespread investigation into all the operations surrounding the St. Lawrence and great lakes seaways, including the operations of the S.I.U. and the activities of Mr. Banks. It is in respect of these that Mr. James Todd suggested there was a selective laying of charges. I say to the hon. members of this committee and to Mr. Todd that that is a completely false allegation and one which no responsible labour leader could in all conscience make.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How many labour leaders are responsible?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, I will not develop the suggestion of the hon. member for Bow River.
This afternoon we heard from the hon. member for Yukon, who made what seemed to me a large number of innuendos about people on this side of the house and about the manner in which this case has been handled. I hesitate not one moment to reject them as completely untrue and as being a completely unfair and twisted statement of what has taken place on this matter. Let me refer in particular to the point the hon. member made about the statement made earlier by the Minister of Justice. The hon. member suggested that in some way it was a neglect of duty on the part of the minister that there was no provision in the bail bond recognizance that the accused should not leave the jurisdiction. I have had occasion to speak previously in this regard. I have also had occasion to speak to it in response to the Leader of the Opposition, on which occasion he read into the record the wrong form used in these cases. I would point out to the hon. member, as I pointed out to him then, that it is not true to say that there is any customary form under the Criminal Code which is used for this purpose on appeals and which includes such provision in a bail bond recognizance.
I would also point out that whatever may be the practice in other provinces in this country, and whatever may be the practice in these matters as opposed to the substantive law, the practice of the courts varies from province to province. It is not true to say that under the rules of the courts of the province of Quebec it is customary to have any such form of recognizance at all. I would point out-and here I am really retailing the opinion of the eminent counsel who have been advising the crown-that I am advised that it is not and has never been the customary practice in the courts of the province of Quebec to include any such provision in a bail bond such as that referred to by the hon. gentleman.
We have heard a great many wild and unfounded statements both inside and outside the house retailed by members of the house and also members of the press. One of them which I would reject most strenuously, and one of the imputations made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, is that in some way the R.C.M.P. should assume the responsibility for the fact that the federal bureau of investigation of the United States were unable to locate Hal Banks. I point out,

as the minister pointed out in his introductory remarks, that it would not, either in accordance with international law or in accordance with sound practice, be proper for the R.C.M.P. to engage in investigations with respect to a Canadian citizen in a foreign country, and more particularly in the United States. One can imagine the storm that would be raised in this house if the reverse situation took place, and the F.B.I. carried on such an investigation in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Is the F.B.I. that bad?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That may be a good question, but I do not think it is fair to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, after following their instructions and requesting the assistance of the federal bureau of investigation in this regard, that they should be required to bear the onus, which some hon. members would like to put on them, for the non-discovery of Banks. As the letter tabled by the minister very aptly discloses, the R.C.M.P. were instructed, and followed up those instructions, to request the assistance of the F.B.I. in locating Banks. If the F.B.I. did not or could not do so, I do not think the responsibility should be placed in any way on the R.C.M.P. I think I may be joined by many members of this house in saying that we resent the imputation of incompetence, which has been made by some hon. members opposite, in respect of the R.C.M.P.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we should perhaps bear in mind just exactly what the situation was at the conclusion of the former government's tenure in office, or even before the publication of the Norris report and the commencement of action by this government. We should bear in mind that Mr. Banks was in strong control of the seafarers international union, free of any kind of prosecution for the various offences that had been taking place during a period of five years of a reign of terror on the Canadian great lakes. No action was taken at that time by the government then in power to prevent him from carrying on with those particular activities.
Mr. Chairman, it might be useful to make some reference to schedule 31 of the Norris report, and more particularly to the sad category of assaults and other violence which took place during the course of office of the government of hon. gentlemen opposite. I refer particularly to schedule 31 at page 444 and following of the Norris report, which lists incidents of assaults, beatings and terrorism, commencing with the beating of Captain Walsh on August 18, 1957, and further inci-
Supply-J ustice
dents on November 6, 1959, January 30, 1960, August 1961, October 31, 1961, April 26, 1962, April 28, 1962, April 29, 1962 and so on, page after page. These incidents include intimidations, beatings, telephone threats and har-assments. What did hon. gentlemen opposite do about that situation then? The response of the former minister of justice was just a shrug of the shoulders and the statement that they could not do anything about it because it was beyond federal jurisdiction.
I should like to refer hon. members to schedule 15 of the Norris report and appendices at page 407, which is a letter from Mr. E. D. Fulton, the then minister of justice, which in part reads as follows:
As I explained to you in my previous letter, the constitutional and legal position is clear that the primary responsibility for the maintenance of law and order and the protection of property rests with provincial authorities.


Mitchell William Sharp: Who said that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is what Mr. Fulton said. He then continued in this letter as follows:
The acts complained of are in the nature of offences against the Criminal Code and any investigations and prosecutions in respect thereof are matters to be undertaken by local police authorities and provincial crown attorneys.


An hon. Member:: Who drafted the letter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It does not matter who drafted the letter. Who signed the letter?
This is a new Tory theory of constitutional responsibility in Canada, in which they take no responsibility. This is a new theory not of constitutional responsibility but of constitutional irresponsibility.
May I recall, Mr. Chairman, that when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office they were quick to take the credit for anything that took place, such as for the sale of wheat to China. In that regard the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, at great expense to the taxpayers, flew out to Hong Kong after the contract was negotiated, for the purpose of pushing the civil servants into the background and taking credit. However, when it comes to a question of accepting responsibility, as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has said, "No, we are not responsible for that letter, just because my colleague signed it".


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make it clear that I am not yielding the floor, but simply allowing a question.

Supply-Justice


Douglas Mason Fisher: I cannot understand how you nan accuse the Conservative government of having responsibility. If that is the case, why do you not read into the record what Hal Banks himself said about the Liberal party, the Conservative party and other parties?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for Port Arthur appears to be very much persuaded by statements made by Mr. Hal Banks. He is the man he would rely upon in this regard. At page 249 of the Norris report Mr. Justice Norris has this to say about that supporter of the hon. member's case:
Banks is capable, decisive, egocentric, intolerant and ruthless. He is of the stuff of the Capones and the Hoffas of whom the dictators throughout history, from the earliest times to the totalitarians, Hitler and Stalin, are prototypes.-In his mouth, the use of the word ''democracy'' is sheer blasphemy. For him the "big lie" and the failure to remember are ever-ready weapons and shields.
That is the witness the hon. member for Port Arthur calls upon to support his case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I only have a few minutes left and I think I should be allowed to complete my remarks.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: This afternoon during the proceedings of the committee of supply the Minister of Justice presented a letter for tabling. With the permission of the house, the Chair will regularize the proceedings by having the letter tabled now. Is it agreed that the letter be now tabled?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, during the debate this afternoon I raised a further question concerning the minister's reference to letters of August 15 and August 28, and I suggested that by the rules of the house he is obliged to table them also. I am wondering whether Your Honour will now make a ruling.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I said that I would not affront the R.C.M.P. Perhaps I did not use exactly those words, but I said I would not accept the implication that their report should not be accepted, and then asked for leave to table that report which you now have in your hand, and which is in fact a letter from the R.C.M.P. to me.

I also said I would attempt to obtain leave to produce copies of the two letters referred to in this report, if my hon. friends on the other side of this house would accept the responsibility for insisting that I do so. I am not asking for the tabling of them.


Erik Nielsen: Speaking to the point of order, I may say that the rules of the house are specific. The minister made reference to the letters and by reason of that fact I believe he is required to table them.


Mr. Speaker:: My intention has been drawn to standing order 59, paragraph 4, which reads:
The chairman shall maintain order in the committees of the whole house, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the house, on receiving a report thereof.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask what Your Honour intends to do concerning the question of order relating to the tabling of the two letters referred to by the Minister of Justice on his responsibility?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a matter for the committee. I read paragraph 4 of the standing order to indicate this. It is now after six o'clock, and I intend to leave the chair.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice hides again.



PROCEDURE


Mr. Speaker:: If I could have unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports, I should like to present the fourteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill:: I wonder if, for the convenience of hon. members, we could ascertain the business of tomorrow? The Acting Prime Minister promised we would have the estimates of the Department of Justice up on Thursday, and that was confirmed by Mr. Speaker himself when this was discussed on Monday. I presume we shall continue with this debate tomorrow.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I said, when I was asked the other day, the Minister of Justice would introduce his estimates for the purpose of this particular item not later than Thursday; that is what I said.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, no.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My hon. friend and I do not quarrel about things like this. Hansard has what I said.


Gordon Minto Churchill: When we looked at Hansard,
I almost raised a point of privilege to inquire whether or not Hansard had been altered. The statement was on Thursday, and Mr. Speaker, as reported on page 8725 of Hansard said:
I am informed today that the estimates of the Minister of Justice will be before the house on Thursday-
This was the understanding in the house at the time.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My hon. friend does not want to create a situation which does not exist. Later in the afternoon I went to the hon. member for Bow River, the Leader of the Opposition was not here, and told him about this. He did not have any authority to act for the Leader of the Opposition, but would take note of it. There is nothing out of the way in the situation.


John George Diefenbaker: So there will be no
mistake about what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said the other day, he said this matter would come up on Thursday; that is what he said.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentions, he did speak to me. He said it might not be possible Thursday and he would bring it up Wednesday. I said Wednesday was a short day and I had no authority to speak for the party. He said well, likely it could go on on Friday. The fact is we have been cut off, silenced by choosing Wednesday.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I do not want to intervene. Surely, the parties can get together and reach an agreement on this matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is true
that the minister for external affairs (Mr. Martin) stated a few days ago that we would discuss on Thursday the Hal Banks affair.
Tonight we did not reach a definite conclusion, and that is what Her Majesty's loyal opposition wishes us to know. Then, when can we further discuss the case of that individual? That is what I would like to find out from the Minister of Justice or the minister for external affairs.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, knowing my hon. friend, the member for Villeneuve, I am
Business of the House
convinced that, were he aware of what I will say in a few seconds, he would not continue this discussion in the absence of the minister, particularly after the charges made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
It is evident that, if such a statement was made by the Secretary of State for External' Affairs, there was a misunderstanding, not exactly between us, but there was a lack of precision in stating the business of the house.
Tomorrow I shall be away from Ottawa on official business.


David Réal Caouette: Not political business?


Guy Favreau: No, not political business. [Text]


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister be available on Friday?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes.


Guy Favreau: I will be available on Friday. I will try to tell the right hon. gentleman what he is doing when he is putting that question. It would be so easy now for us to have the balance of the debate on the balance of my estimates.


An hon. Member:: When?


Guy Favreau: I did not plan to be here on Friday, but I will be here. There was a serious reason for me not to be here.


Mr. Smith:: You are the house leader; why should you not be here?


Guy Favreau: I will announce the government business that has been planned. I could undertake to bring my estimates next Wednesday if it is agreeable to the house.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a point of order. If there is no more co-operation than that on the part of the government, I will not argue it at all. We are prepared to take it on Friday because he is going to be away tomorrow. There is a motion before the house which deserves the earliest consideration of the house, and Friday is that day. It does not in any way incommode the minister.


Guy Favreau: The right hon. gentleman has lost his sense of proportion, his sense of relativity and his sense of distinction between the time when he was prime minister and the time he is Leader of the Opposition.
Tomorrow we will deal with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. They will be followed by the estimates of the

Business of the House
Department of Defence Production, those mates will be followed by a discussion of the estimates which are left to be discussed, estimates of the Department of Forestry. After that, we will be dealing with the it being eleven minutes after six o'clock unemployment insurance commission under the house adjourned, without question put, the Department of Labour, and those esti- pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, October 8, 1964