1965-03-03

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises from the fact the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss La-Marsh) misled the house, intentionally or unintentionally, at yesterday's sitting. On the orders of the day, I directed the following question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson):
Can he tell the house whether there is any special reason why the French version of the report of the special joint committee which studied Bill No. C-136 during 51 sittings is not yet distributed, when we are almost through with that measure?
The Prime Minister answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I do not think this comes within my responsibilities, but I will be glad to look into the matter.
The house again in committee, I directed the following question to the minister, as reported on page 11887 of Hansard:
Furthermore, as I pointed out, we do not have the French version of the report dealing with the study made by the committee where some of us brought forth our suggestions.
The minister answered as follows, as reported on page 11888 of Hansard:
I should like to say, however, that if the report of the pension committee to which my hon. friend has referred is the report of the special committee on the Canada pension plan, it has been reported in both French and in English and circulated to all hon. members.
I maintain that the said committee reports have not been printed in French or, at least, have not been circulated to all hon. members, for I have here a reply from an employee of the distribution section who wrote to me as follows yesterday:
The French version of the report of that committee has not yet been received. We have only received No. 1 concerning sittings of November 24, 25 and 26.
I would therefore ask the minister, if her statement is correct, to send us the French
20220-754J
version of all committee reports before consideration in committee of the pension plan is resumed. If she made a wrong statement yesterday, I would ask her to make the necessary correction.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that if we do not have those committee reports in our own language while we are considering this bill, we do not have in our hands the necessary and essential implements for such consideration, and are thus greatly handicapped.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that for a man who does not have the essential implements in his hands my hon. friend has been speaking quite often on the bill in the last few days. However, I should like to say that if I indicated the proceedings had been delivered in French and they have not, I apologize for being in error. But it is quite true that it is not part of my responsibility to have anything to do with the tabling or printing of anything emanating from that particular committee. If my hon. friend was present in the house earlier in the week he will recall that a question was asked by another hon. member, and it was made clear shortly thereafter that it is the chairman of the special committee whose responsibility this is. The government has no power whatsoever and no responsibility with respect to such printing.



BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Pennell.

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

Mr. Nasserden: Would the government give consideration to the granting of a pension to the widow and children of the vice president of International Firearms ComDanv Limited. Mr. Leslie McWilliams and the master gunsmith, Mr. Alfred Pinish, who were shot to death on August 20, 1964, by an alleged

Questions
gang of terrorists whose purpose was to secure arms and ammunition for use in an attempt to overthrow government?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: It has not been the practice for the government to grant pensions to the widows or children of crime victims in such circumstances and the government regrets it is unable to consider the granting of such pensions in this particular case.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF BROADCASTING ACT
Mr. Orlikow: Has the government received representations from the board of broadcast governors asking for amendments to the Broadcasting Act of 1958, which would give them the necessary power to instruct radio and t.v. stations which are not living up to B.B.G. directives with regard to broadcasting to follow these policies outlined by the B.B.G. or to give the B.B.G. greater powers to discipline radio or t.v. stations or to give the B.B.G. power to rescind licences where directives have been ignored?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of Slate):: This government has received no representations from the board of broadcast governors covering the matters raised in this question. It should be stated, however, that the committee on broadcasting, headed by Mr. R. W. Fowler, have solicited and received from the board of broadcast governors their views on many aspects of broadcasting regulations. Discussions between the members of the board and of the committee on broadcasting have also been held.


POLITICAL VIEWS OF CIVIL SERVICE APPLICANTS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is it the policy of the civil service commission to question applicants about their private political views when conducting oral interviews for summer employment with the commission?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have been given the following answer by the civil service commission: No.


* DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLAGS RECOMMENDED AND PROCLAIMED
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): Why is the design of the flag that was proclaimed officially on Monday, February 15, 1965, not exactly the same as the one adopted in the House of Commons and which had been chosen by the special committee on the Canadian flag?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The design of the flag that was proclaimed officially on Monday, February 15, 1965, is the same as the one adopted by the House of Commons and recommended by the special committee on the flag. The sixth report of the special committee did not define the shape or prescribe details of the maple leaf. The photograph that was distributed to members during discussion of the sixth report was an illustration of the type of flag the committee recommended. The final design of the maple leaf was to provide maximum recognition, visibility and balance.


CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYEES, YOUNG OFFENDERS PENAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees were Involved in the construction of the young offenders penal institution as of February 15, 1965?
2.	What is the estimated number of employees that will be required at the height of construction of the institution and at what date does the contractor consider this point will be reached?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: 1. 141.
2. Approximately 400. This point will likely be reached mid-August 1965.


PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS TO VANCOUVER FIRMS
Mr. Basford: For the fiscal years ending in 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962 what contracts were awarded by the Department of Public Works to Dawson Construction Limited, or Dawson, Wade and Company Limited, or Dawson and Hall Limited, Vancouver, B.C., for work in the Yukon or Northwest Territories, and what are the amounts and details of any such contracts so awarded?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Questions
Fiscal year
Location
Project
Amount
Awarded to
1957-58 Dawson, Y.T.
1958-	59 Yukon Territory...
Yukon Territory... Watson Lake, Y.T.
1959-	60 Whitehorse, Y.T...
Whitehorse, Y.T.. Whitehorse, Y.T..
*
68,761
32,207
1,009,495
60,753.40
1960-	61
1961-	62
.Construction of RCMP detachment quarters (for Department of Justice)
.Construction of Tatchun river bridge
.Construction of Yukon river bridge
.Construction of RCMP detachment quarters (for Department of Justice)
.Construction of Protestant residential 1,452,833.70 school and R.C. residential hostel, including principal's residence and staff residence (for Department of Citizenship and Immigration)
. Construction of federal housing for 1959-	276,864.88
60 and four unit apartment building.
.Repairs and alterations to nurses aid	-
residence and nurses aid building:
Alterations to plumbing	3,929
Removal of kitchen cupboards, etc.	951.38
Alterations to classroom	900
Nil Nil
Dawson and Hall Ltd. Vancouver, B.C.


TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS TO VANCOUVER FIRMS
Mr. Basford: For the fiscal years ending in 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962, what contracts were awarded by the Department of Transport to Dawson Construction Limited, or Dawson, Wade and Company Limited, or Dawson and Hall Limited, Vancouver, B.C., for work in the Yukon or Northwest Territories, and what are the amounts and details of any such contracts so awarded?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Air services branch of the department awarded one construction contract in the name of Dawson and Hall Ltd., Vancouver, in the summer of 1957. This contract covered the construction of one single dwelling C-36, one maintenance garage and related work for the Department of Transport at the airport and one detachment quarters for the R.C.M.P. at the village of Teslin, Y.T.
The tender of Dawson and Hall Ltd., the lowest of four submitted, was accepted in the amount of $212,479 and the work was completed in June of 1958.
Departmental records do not indicate any other construction contracts awarded in the Northwest Territories or Yukon Territory
to the firm names listed for the fiscal years ending 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962.


AMBASSADOR TO VATICAN
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Does the federal government intend to appoint an ambassador to the Vatican?
2.	If so, when does it intend to do so?
3.	If not, for what specific reasons does it not intend to do so?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, you did not
call question No. 2,746; I might answer it now.
Mr. Speaker, the question of the appointment of a Canadian representative to the Vatican has been raised on several occasions in the house, the last time on May 22, 1964. There has been no change in the government policy since then.


* JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE-TRANSFER TO QUEBEC
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	Has the federal government handed over the Jacques Cartier bridge in Montreal to the Quebec government and, if so, when and on what terms?
2.	If not, for what reason?
Questions


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. No.
2. Under negotiation.


TRADE RESTRICTIONS ON CANADIAN SUBSIDIARIES OF U.S. COMPANIES
Mr. Herridge: Did the government receive any complaints or representations during the year 1964, to the effect that any Canadian subsidiary of a United States corporation has been unable to trade in full compliance with Canadian laws because of the extraterritorial effect of a United States statute and, if so, what was the nature of any such complaint or representation?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Several complaints or representations were received that Canadian companies were being indirectly restrained from export transactions permissible under Canadian law. It was alleged that the transactions concerned would have involved United States parent companies or United States executives of Canadian companies in offences under United States law.


IMPORTS OF DAIRY PRODUCTS, MEATS, ETC.
Mr. Doucetl: What was the quantity of imports in 1964 of
(a)	cheese (b) other dairy products (c) beef (d) lamb or mutton (e) pork, cured or fresh (f) chicken (g) turkey?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1964 import statistics on commodities specified are only available for January to
September inclusive:
Jan.-Sept.
Quantity
Cwt.
(a)	Cheese
Class 51-39 Cheese	 99,007
(b)	Other dairy products
Class 51-19	Milk, cream and by-products, fluid	
762"	51-29	Butter	
-"	51-46	Cream, powdered	
873"	51-59	Milk and by-products, condensed or evaporated	
12,132"	51-69	Milk, cream and by-products, condensed or evaporated	56,915"	51-99	Dairy products n.e.s	
6,628	77,310(c)	BeefClass	11-09	Beef and veal, fresh or frozen	
110,564"	13-09	Beef, cured (including	salted)	
90,470"	17-03	Corned beef, canned	
57,687"	17-09	Beef and veal, canned	n.e.s	
7,509	266,230(d)	Lamb or muttonClass 11-19 Mutton and lamb, fresh or frozen	
297,675(e)	Pork, cured or freshClass 11-29	Pork, fresh or frozen	
341,594"	13-29	Pork, cured (including salted)	
76,121"	15-19	Sausage, fresh or cured*	
1,534	419,249
(!) Chicken
Class 11-65 Chickens, not eviscerated	 -
" 11-68 Chickens, eviscerated	 29,164	29,164
(g) Turkey
Class 11-88 Turkeys, eviscerated	 50,003
* (chiefly pork)


BENEFIT TO CONSUMERS UNDER AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT
Mr. Mather: Has the government received a request from the Consumers Association of Canada urging that the automobile industry be kept under close scrutiny to ensure that Canadian consumers share in the benefit of the treaty affecting trade in automobiles and automobile parts signed between Canada and the United States on January 15 and, if so, will the government comply with this request?
Hen. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):
A request has been received from the Consumers Association of Canada asking the government to keep under scrutiny future developments in the automobile industry to ensure that consumers share in the benefits of the new agreement between Canada and the United States on automotive products. The government plans to keep developments under the program under review and will have in mind the interests of all groups who are affected by it, including Canadian consumers.
In this connection the press release issued by the government announcing the program contained the following statement:
The government will be keeping the program under close attention and is determined to deal effectively with any unforeseen contingencies which may arise whether affecting industry, labour or the consumer.


P.F.A.A. INSPECTION COST
Mr. Smallwood: What was the cost, per claim, of P.F.A.A. inspection in the province of Alberta for the years 1955-64 inclusive?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Cost per claim of P.F.A.A. inspection in the province of Alberta was: 1955, $2.51; 1956, $2.25; 1957, $2.42; 1958, $3.00; 1959, $3.71; 1960, $3.93; 1961, $4.53; 1962, $4.12; 1963, $5.46. Final cost figures for inspections with respect to the 1964 crop are not yet available. *


* TENDERS FOR WHARF CONSTRUCTION, GANANOQUE, ONT.
Mr. Alkenbrack: 1.	What are the names and business addresses of all the various tenderers for the recent construction (1964) of the Bay street wharf in Gana-noque?
2.	What are the separate amounts of each of these respective bids on the work?
3.	To what person, or firm, was the contract awarded?


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. G.
Questions
Crowe Construction, Box 1200, Picton, Ont.; Jean-Paul Richard Construction, Gatineau Point, Que.; Burprom, R.R. No. 1, Belleville, Ont.; Bar-Way Marine Ltd., Don Mills, Ont.; Alfred Srigley, Gananoque, Ont.; Robert D. Mackey Construction Co., Ltd., Brockville, Ont.
2.	$10,940; $11,530; $11,685; $17,820; $17,907; $21,645.
3.	Jean-Paul Richard, Gatineau Point, Que. Due to unsatisfactory performances by G. Crowe Construction on previous contracts, the department was authorized by treasury board to award the contract to the second lowest bidder.
*	INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST


FORMER MINISTER
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Did the Minister of Justice receive any communication from the minister of revenue, or any other minister in the province of Quebec, in or around January 1964, indicating that an investigation was under way regarding alleged wrongdoing of the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville? If so, on what date?
2.	Did the minister communicate the receipt of such communication to the Prime Minister? If so, on what date?
3.	Did the Minister of Justice receive a report from the R.C.M.P. dealing with the investigation of allegations against the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville? What was the date of the report?
4.	Were the contents communicated to the Prime Minister? If so, on what date?
5.	Were the contents communicated to the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville? If so, when?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.
3	and 4. The Minister of Justice received several reports from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as the investigation progressed. The first of these was in the second week of January, 1965, and the Prime Minister was informed immediately after his return to Ottawa on January 16.
5.	The contents of the reports were not communicated to the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville. He was, however, advised by the Prime Minister on January 18 and 20 of considerations relating to some allegations that had a bearing on the member's continuance as a member of the ministry.
*	USE OF FRENCH, CANADA HOUSE, LONDON


Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): Are Canada's two official languages recognized at Canada House in London and, if so (a) have any members of the mission staff shown rudeness by laughing at French Canadians who requested

Motions for Papers
that French be used at the mission (b) is it the government's intention to deal severely with these officers?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Yes. Two of the three persons at the reception desk at Canada House are bilingual. In addition, the high commissioner himself and three other officers of the Department of External Affairs are French Canadians. At least eight other members of the mission speak French.
(a)	Not to my knowledge. Following a letter published recently in a Montreal paper, the high commissioner himself conducted an investigation and came to the conclusion that the charges laid in that letter were unfair and unfounded.
(b)	Not applicable. Answered by (a).


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, motions 212, 215, 222, 223 and 225 are acceptable to the government.
Motion 214 is acceptable, subject to the usual reservations concerning the consent of the provincial government.
In the case of motion 221, I understand that the hon. member is agreeable to limiting his motion to the period since July 1, 1963. With the words "since July 1, 1963" inserted after the word "documents", the motion is acceptable to the government.
Will Your Honour please call motion 220. I ask that the remaining motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that these
motions be adopted subject to the reservations expressed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES, NATIONAL INDIAN COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 212-Mr. Howard:
That an order of the house do issue for a list of all moneys advanced, contributed, donated or otherwise provided to the national Indian council; and a copy of all correspondence in relation thereto; and a copy of the purposes for which such moneys were so advanced, contributed, donated or otherwise provided; and a copy of all audits relating thereto; and a copy of all correspondence and reports from the national Indian council as to the manner in which, in detail, the said moneys were expended.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 214-Mr. Douglas:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government of Saskatchewan and any minister of the government regarding the federal property and housing units at the Saskatoon airport since December 4, 1964.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 215-Mr. Douglas:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the rural municipality of Cory and any minister of the government regarding the federal property and housing units at the Saskatoon airport since December 4, 1964.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 220-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Indian band at Hay Lake, Alberta and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (Indian affairs branch) since January I, 1963.
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this motion with the hon. member who has moved it and have secured his agreement that we would accept it subject to the concurrence of the council of the band concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion subject to the reservation expressed by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
ESTABLISHMENT OF BRANCH OF MINT Motion No. 221-Mr. Bell:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence and other documents in relation to the establishment of a branch of the Royal Canadian Mint.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 222-Mr. Nugent:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, letters and/or telegrams

since January 1, 1962, between the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Pierre Gerrard regarding financial transactions and influence.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 223-Mr. Nugent:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence since July 1, 1964 to date between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and/or anyone else in the department and Senator Louis P. Gelinas relating to one Harry Stonehill.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 225-Mr. Coates:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, submissions and presentations exchanged between any minister or department or any executive assistant and Senator Louis P. Gelinas relating to Harry Stonehill.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of asking leave to move the adjournment of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Again?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen opposite say "Again". Every day kaleidoscopic changes take place which make this operation necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I move, seconded by Mr. Starr, the adjournment of the house in accordance with standing order No. 26 in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the great alarm in all parts of Canada resulting from slack or careless administration of justice and law enforcement by the present government, which requires immediate investigation and the broadening of the terms of reference of the Dorion inquiry to include an examination of all the sinister circumstances surrounding the disappearance of an international narcotics criminal, Lucien Rivard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: May I call upon the right hon. gentleman to discuss the urgency of this motion.
Administration of Justice


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the events are most recent. They have to do with the escape of Rivard last evening. So far as the administration of justice is concerned I say at once it falls within the jurisdiction of the province, but Rivard is in a particular position vis-a-vis the government of Canada. His extradition had been sought. He had been placed in this jail in Montreal to be held on behalf of the federal government until the determination of such proceedings as might be taken to prevent or accelerate his delivery to the United States.
It is not a question of criticism of the provincial authorities in any way. They were simply asked to keep custody of this person and to ensure that he was made available whenever his presence was required. In other words there is a responsibility resting on the Department of Justice. Rivard was their prisoner and they apparently did nothing to assure that this man, who had apparently exhausted every legal means to escape his responsibility to the law, was unable to take recourse to an escape from the jail. There was apparently no effort made by the Department of Justice to ensure that this man would be made available, and what has happened has resulted from a fantastic, even disgraceful caricature. People in the United States have always felt that the administration of justice in Canada was pure and undefiled.
I am not going into the evidence delivered before the Dorion commission, but from that we know this man tried every other means, and finally he chose a more direct means.
The federal government had a responsibility. They exercised it in so negligent a way that one of the worst criminals-and I say that if he is guilty of the offences charged against him in connection with narcotics- is free-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Are there still some over there who believe in this man?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Now we have two ministers joining the others over there who were interested in this matter. I say that this house and Canada have a right to know what took place here. It is urgent; it is necessary if Canada's high standards of justice are to be upheld. There is no other means by which this matter can be brought before the house; this is the only way in which it can be done.

Administration of Justice I say there is no higher degree of urgency than attaches to the maintenance of unpolluted justice; and in all the circumstances of this case an unsavoury mess has been revealed.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (President of the Privy Council):: The right hon. gentleman in discussing the need for urgency of debate, when he put forward his motion, began his remarks by identifying the subject matter as the escape of one Rivard from the jail in Montreal. He then went on to say-and I quote him because I wrote down his words-"I say at once the administration of justice falls within the jurisdiction of the province."
That being so, the right hon. gentleman was in fact telling you, Mr. Speaker, that he had no right to make a motion because it related exclusively to the escape of one Rivard from a jail which is not within the jurisdiction of this parliament or of the federal authority.


An hon. Member:: That is obvious.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member points out that this is obvious, and it is quite obvious. It is a matter completely within provincial jurisdiction. I can only say that this being the fact, any attempt to discuss it here on this procedure would be an attempt to pollute the administration of justice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Starr:: How can you pollute the polluted?


George James McIlraith: That is the very thing the right hon. gentleman referred to at the conclusion of his remarks, when he mentioned the need for unpolluted justice. I would content myself with that comment about the right hon. gentleman's remarks.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that Your Honour very seldom permits one of these motions for an adjournment, and under the circumstances that is understandable. However, I make a special appeal to Your Honour today on this particular motion because I am convinced that the people of Canada are perturbed and concerned about recent events.
I submit to Your Honour that this concern will not be removed merely by some questions on the orders of the day. The only way the minds of the Canadian people can be set at rest with reference to the Department of Justice and the conduct of the R.C.M.P. is by a full debate in this house in which ministers of the crown can state the facts and tell the people and the members of this house what has happened, so that


members in all parts of the house will be given the opportunity to ask questions and take part in the debate.
The President of the Privy Council has based his whole argument against the urgency of debate on the contention that this matter falls exclusively within provincial jurisdiction. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is a fallacious argument, and I say that for two reasons. The first is that Rivard was being held at the request of the federal government under extradition proceedings, he being wanted in the United States to face charges of dope smuggling. Surely this is a matter of federal jurisdiction. Surely this is something about which the federal government should be concerned. It is the federal Department of Justice who has a responsibility to the government of the United States to produce this man, not the government of Quebec. While it may be true that the province of Quebec had him in custody, they were holding him for the federal Department of Justice.
Under the circumstances I submit that this house has a right to know from the Minister of Justice what special security measures if any, were taken to make sure that this man would not escape. Particularly in view of the fact that evidence has been produced in recent weeks to show that this man was endeavouring to obtain bail, that he was prepared to jump bail, and that he had established bank accounts in various parts of the world to which he might go if he escaped from this country. All of this made it extremely important that special security measures should be invoked to make sure this man was kept in custody. We have the right, as has the country, to know whether the Minister of Justice and the R.C.M.P. instituted such special security measures.
The second thing we have a right to know, Mr. Speaker, is, what action was taken by the Minister of Justice and the R.C.M. Police to alert all detachments of the R.C.M.P. in various parts of Canada regarding this man's escape? At one o'clock today from Toronto the C.B.C. made the following announcement:
The escape last night was unknown to the police in metropolitan Toronto for almost four hours. The R.C.M.P. detachment in Toronto learned unofficially of the jail break at 9.30 p.m. when it was flashed on television two and a half hours after the escape. Police officials said the time lapse would have allowed Rivard to fly to Toronto and emplane there for almost any international point.
If that statement is true, Mr. Speaker, then this house has a right to an explanation from the Minister of Justice as to why, when an important person wanted in the United States

for dope smuggling breaks from jail, an alarm is not sent out to all points immediately in order that police might be on the lookout for him. If it is true that they were not notified officially for four hours and that they did not learn even unofficially of his escape for two and a half hours, then there has been, as this motion suggests, lax and careless administration of justice and law enforcement by the present government.
I express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that instead of the government arguing against urgency, the Prime Minister will rise and say that he welcomes a debate on the subject owing to the public concern which he must know is being felt from one end of Canada to the other. Because, Mr. Speaker, if Your Honour does not allow this debate and the government opposes the debate there will be a question left in the minds of the Canadian people regarding the lack of special security measures and failure to take prompt steps to make sure that this man was apprehended immediately after his escape. I think no one can sum it up better than the premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, who said "There's something screwy here".


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, this motion asking for the adjournment of the house is certainly of the utmost importance.
The day before yesterday we agreed to postpone a debate on events related to these same matters in view of the fact that the Dorion inquiry is still going on. We believed then that we would have to repeat and discuss the same thing. But today the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) informs us that the matter comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial judicial authorities. It seems that putting Mr. Rivard under arrest is a federal matter but putting him in jail becomes a provincial matter.
That happens quite often. When someone is charged with murder, he is put somewhere under the jurisdiction of the federal government and before he is to be hanged, he is taken to a provincial jail and brought back to Bordeaux.
A few months ago we witnessed the escape of the Sefkind brothers who managed a bankruptcy amounting to several millions of dollars. We witnessed also the escape of Mr. Hal Banks, and the federal authorities never could tell us how Banks had succeeded in leaving the country or where exactly he had crossed the border.
20220-755J
Administration of Justice
And today a junkie who had been arrested and refused bail has managed to escape from Bordeaux jail. Mr. Speaker, it is not always easy to escape from Bordeaux, but apparently, according to the information we got yesterday and today, it was relatively easy for Rivard to do so.
The federal government tells us it has nothing to do with that. Well, some dangerous people are now at large. Is Rivard now in Canada or did he get to Mexico during the night?
Rivard has escaped. He threatened everybody-for instance, the brother of the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau)-to set his underworld organization after one and all. He even threatened to kidnap or mistreat his children.
Does Canadian justice exist only for a certain group in Canada? Are the Minister of Justice and the Canadian government not responsible for protecting society from individuals like Rivard, Banks and others? In my opinion the Canadian government should look into the facts respecting those escapes.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the motion submitted to you establishes the urgency of the matter. Rivard's escape is not a matter that comes under the sole jurisdiction of the province of Quebec; it also comes under federal jurisdiction. When a national bandit is imprisoned somewhere, it seems to me that if the R.C.M.P. is able to arrest him, it should also be able to prevent his escape from the country or from a Canadian prison, whatever its location.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the escape of a prisoner is sufficient reason to adjourn the business of the house. Mr. Speaker, we have heard several arguments in favour of the adjournment of the house to have explanations given on how Rivard managed to escape and what mistakes were made by those who were appointed to guard him.
Bordeaux jail comes under the Quebec provincial police, but the arrest of Rivard is the federal government's business. I feel that the Canadian government should show immediately that it intends to do everything it can in that connection.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) has moved the adjournment of the house so that we may examine the Rivard case and widen the terms of reference of the Dorion commission so that it may consider what has happened.
In my opinion, the motion is contradictory. If the case is to be submitted to the Dorion commission, it is certainly not very urgent

Administration of Justice and does not warrant the adjournment of the house. On the other hand, if we widen the terms of reference of the commission, the Rivard case will be considered. Consequently, in view of the motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition I would suggest that the terms of reference of the commission be extended to include looking into the activities of federal and provincial police forces in Canada and into the handling of some information by certain people which resulted in the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) having a complete top secret file in his possession.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is still more important for the administration of justice in Canada than to know how Rivard managed to escape.
In view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition asks us to broaden the terms of reference of the Dorion commission, he himself recognizes that it is not so important that we should adjourn the business of the house just to study the Rivard case. Therefore I submit respectfully that we can wait for the results of the Dorion inquiry, especially if its terms of reference are broadened so that it may find out everything which is wrong in the administration of our police force, at both the federal and the provincial level.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the argument advanced by the President of the Privy Council went merely to the question of the jurisdiction of the provincial government in this matter. It contained the suggestion that the administration of justice in this matter was solely within the purview of the provincial authorities. I suggest to that hon. gentleman that this is the responsibility of the government of Canada, in so far as this matter relates to the United States, and as to the whereabouts of this man Rivard. Therefore this falls strictly within the jurisdiction of this house.
We must also consider one other matter. Certain steps are alleged to have been taken.
I understand that cabinet ministers have held press conferences. Perhaps these cabinet ministers should tell this house what was done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps following a full and frank statement on the part of these cabinet ministers in respect of what has been done, this house will be satisfied. This is what we are trying to obtain.
tMr. Chapdelaine.]


An hon. Member:: That is what parliament is for.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is for this reason this motion has been made. There is no other way open to this house to discuss this matter.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I completely refute and reject the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. The escape of this man, and the circumstances surrounding it, should be discussed now. We are not dealing with the escape of an individual who is charged with the theft of an automobile, as the hon. member for Sherbrooke would have us believe. The man in question has been charged by a friendly government with a very serious offence. Many circumstances surround his detention, and at the present time a national inquiry is taking place in respect of those circumstances. He has now escaped. Surely the circumstances surrounding his escape go beyond the circumstances which might surround the escape of an individual who was charged with the theft of an automobile. I agree with the hon. member that we should not adjourn the house for a special debate every time an individual escapes from custody, but the man in question is in a special category, and circumstances are involved which make it absolutely mandatory that this house obtain that information from the ministers concerned at this time. Surely this body is as important as any press conference.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to make one very brief comment. A statement appears in today's issue of the Ottawa Journal to the effect that justice minister Favreau was to make a full statement on the escape of Lucien Rivard at the opening of the house this afternoon. I do not know where the Journal obtained that information, but if the minister contemplated making a full statement, as this report suggests, I am sure he recognized the importance of this issue to the public of Canada and that an acceptance of this motion now before us certainly would give him an opportunity to make that statement for which we are waiting, as are the people of Canada.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonion-Slralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief at this time. In respect of the question of urgency, I should like to point out that the motion deals with the Dorion inquiry, and that subject would have to be dealt with at an early stage before that inquiry has completed its work. I suggest the most urgent aspect of the subject is that this escape has just oc-

curred and, after all the other shocks the people of Canada have had to absorb in connection with the administration of justice, this has again shaken the people. The only method by which the confidence of the people of Canada in the administration of justice in this country can be restored is the one suggested by this motion; that this house take up this matter immediately and hold a full discussion which will at least offer some hope that the people of Canada will again believe that parliament considers the administration of justice in Canada a serious matter.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to become involved in the kind of arguments that have already been put forward, but I should like to call Your Honour's attention to a seldom used part of standing order No. 26, under which you are called upon to make a decision. May I read the sentence or two I have in mind. They are at the end of section 3, in the form in which we are using it under this session's temporary rules:
If Mr. Speaker rules that the proposed matter is in order, and of urgent public importance, he reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house. If at this point objection is taken. Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and if 20 or more members rise Mr. Speaker calls on the member who has asked for leave.
For obvious reasons that portion of standing order 26 is seldom used, but I have known it to be used in the house when to the occupant of the chair the case seemed to be a borderline one. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if there is any doubt in your mind about the urgency of this matter you leave it to the house in this way; that you rule it is a matter of urgency, and if there is objection from any quarter of the house to your allowing the motion you then find out whether there are 20 members who believe this matter should be proceeded with.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake SI. John):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the arguments set forth a little while ago by my colleague from Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapde-laine), that if we are to adjourn the current business of the house to discuss the escape of a criminal or a prisoner, this may occur quite frequently.
However, I would like to make a slight distinction. I recognize that, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) stated, the Rivard case is a very unusual one. Personally, I would be inclined to think
Administration of Justice it might be possible to gain something by having a debate, but I have some doubt. I wonder whether we now have enough details to inform Canadians who are worried, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) stated a moment ago.
I can understand the Canadian people being concerned, I am too. But would a debate in this house now and during the rest of the afternoon throw light on the situation and reassure the people in any way?
With the information made available to us last night in respect of Rivard's escape, we can only assume that there might have been a conspiracy between members of the Liberal party, but it remains an assumption, for we have no proof, Mr. Speaker. Now, suppose there were a conspiracy or some assistance on the part of the Liberal party to favour, in some way or other, Rivard's escape, would that clarify the matter before the country? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.
In any case, if we must have a debate on this matter this afternoon, I would ask the Minister of Justice if he would be prepared to accept the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), that the terms of reference of the Dorion inquiry be extended to include the investigation of his own statements of last Friday and of the case of Rivard, who has just escaped, as well as sources of information in the R.C.M.P., so that all the circumstances may be brought forward.
Mr. Speaker, I would be very much interested in having access to the secret files of the R.C.M.P. in order to find out what is going on in other departments and other provinces besides Quebec. Dirty things are going on in the province of Quebec, I agree, but similar things are probably going on in the other provinces of Canada. There seems to be a conspiracy to keep those things quiet elsewhere but to have them splash in the case of the province of Quebec. I would be very much interested, as was the hon. member for Yukon, in obtaining information on investigations made by the R.C.M.P. in other provinces besides Quebec. Undoubtedly, there are bandits in the province of Quebec, but I would like to know if there are none in the pure western provinces, in the pure city of Toronto, for instance.
I would ask the minister to broaden the terms of reference of the Dorion inquiry in order that we may know how the members of parliament can obtain information from

Administration of Justice the R.C.M.P. so we can conduct our own investigations.
Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, should the government be disposed to broaden the terms of reference of the Dorion inquiry so as to include therein the behaviour of the Minister of Justice, the behaviour of the Prime Minister himself, the escape of Mr. Rivard, and also the leaks which occurred in the case of the R.C.M.P., I would be willing to agree-and I believe that my colleagues would agree also-that we discuss the Rivard case this afternoon.
This may somewhat delay the discussion on the pension fund, but it will not cause harm to anyone.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to point out the significance of a debate like the one being proposed this afternoon. It has been stated that the urgency of this debate is not only derived from the fact that a certain individual has escaped from prison, but from the general atmosphere that permeates the country today, following repeated escapes in almost similar cases.
Everyone seems to recognize the importance of this debate to a certain extent, since no one, up to now, has argued against it. Not only has no one argued against it, from any corner of this house, but the matter has been considered serious enough, in view of the exceptional circumstances of this escape, to mobilize all the police forces of this country.
In opposing this motion, the leader of the government invokes but one argument namely that this falls under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec.
But the offence committed falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The police forces involved were federal forces, and all proceedings in this case were instituted or taken by the judicial authorities of the federal government.
That is why I am wondering why, in a special case like this, the federal government always seems to shun its responsibilities, put the blame on someone else, always throws the responsibility on someone else and never assumes it itself.
Under the present circumstances, the government leader only endeavours to throw the responsibility on the authorities of the province of Quebec, while he has his own authority. Why does he want to shun his responsibilities? Is it because there are individuals involved who were important contributors to
IMr. Lessard (Lake St. John).]

the electoral fund? When I see the government constantly avoiding its responsibilities in such cases, I can only believe that they were friends of the present government, and that is why I believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The last remarks made by the hon. member for Lapointe are altogether irrelevant to the motion of urgency before this house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that it would be to the great advantage of the Liberal party if they accepted this debate, if they gave their side of the story and if they indicated the circumstances of the escape, so that the public might be in a better position to form an opinion on the administration of justice in this country, as well as on the motives and the reasons of the government in this matter, so that we might have a clearer view of the circumstances surrounding all those somewhat odd escapes at the present time in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would like to hear from the Minister of Justice on federal responsibility, as to whether this-


Some hon. Members:: Urgency.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may, I should like to point out citation 100, paragraph (1) Beau-chesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
The definite matter of urgent public importance for the discussion of which a member may ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 must involve the administrative responsibility of the government.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May we get some clarification of your ruling, Mr. Speaker? Do I understand the Minister of Justice is now going to speak on the matter of urgency or is he going to speak on the subject matter of the motion itself? If he is, then the rest of us have the right to discuss the same matter. May I ask Your Honour if you will make it clear what it is the Minister of Justice is now going to be allowed to discuss? Is it merely the matter of urgency or is it the matter of the administration of justice? I submit that if he is going to discuss the administration of justice, then the whole subject should be open, and a full debate should be held.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Naturally, I was calling upon the Minister of Justice, if he felt so inclined, to discuss the question of urgency. A discussion of anything else would open a discussion of the general question.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, we face quite a dilemma indeed when, on the one hand, opposition members say: Well, will the Minister of Justice rise in his place? And as soon as he is asked to rise, other opposition members say: Well, why is he going to speak now?
Mr. Speaker, as you very well indicated, there are two requisites for the motion to adjourn the house to be received:
The first condition is that of relevancy. Is it a matter concerning the federal jurisdiction?
The second, of course, even when relevancy is recognized, is as to whether or not there is urgency.
As regards the first question, I thought, and I still think, that the statement made by the leader of the government should hold and be accepted for this reason. I think that if the house should venture, not to try to obtain information on the escape of Rivard, but to discuss circumstances surrounding his escape, there would be a great risk, without knowing all the facts, and within a forum which is different from the forum having jurisdiction, to make a judgment that would be unfair, uninformed, in brief, not enlightened on the administration of justice in the province-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the argument of the Minister of Justice is not dealing with urgency, and it is not even dealing with the responsibility of the government. It is just a general argument as to whether or not this is a proper motion. Certainly Your Honour has suggested before that we should be confined to the question of urgency. You then invited the Minister of Justice to broaden the discussion and talk about the question of the government's responsibility. Neither the question of urgency nor Your Honour's invitation to the minister go far enough to allow this general discussion on the merits of the motion itself.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understood the Minister of Justice, he was discussing whether or not the motion itself, in his opinion, was in order, and that is something with which the Chair is very much concerned.
Administration of Justice [Translation]


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, let me state right now to the house that as soon as I was informed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Favreau: -of the escape last night, I contacted the attorney general of the province of Quebec and following that communication, Quebec's attorney general contacted me at noon. I am therefore in a position to inform the house-and this is related to relevancy and jurisdiction-that last evening, throughout the night and this morning, under instructions from Quebec's attorney general, an investigation was in progress at Bordeaux jail-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Freedom of speech.


Michael Starr: What other freedoms have you got?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman says "Freedom of speech", but it does not mean freedom to abuse the rights of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: You asked the hon. gentleman to discuss the question of urgency, and now he is trying to explain what he tried to explain last evening in that dual show of "Jack and Guy" on television to the Canadian people. The question before you is, is this a matter of urgency and is it something that can be dealt with by parliament? What the hon. member is trying to do is to give us a re-run of his television debut last evening as the minister of Dragnet.


Guy Favreau: I think the right hon. gentleman just put forward the best argument against his own motion to the effect that nobody in this house has a right to infringe the privileges of this house or any other house or jurisdiction.


An hon. Member:: What has that got to do with it?


Guy Favreau: Unless the right hon. Leader of the Opposition does not want to hear it, I think it is my duty to inform the house-


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a point of order. I do want to know the facts, and they are trying to cover them up.

Administration of Justice


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I should like to speak to the same point of order. I think it is most improper for Your Honour to allow the Minister of Justice to start arguing the merits of this motion. You invited the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to speak to the question of urgency and you restricted other members to that subject. Then, you opened it up for the Minister of Justice and you are allowing him to speak to the merits of the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is giving his own opinion. It is up to the Chair to decide what is in order and what is not in order. I do not accept the last statement from the hon. member.


Guy Favreau: I was trying to tell the house that the attorney general of the province of Quebec, quite aware of his responsibilities and his jurisdiction, when the sitting of the legislature was resumed today at 2.30 p.m., was going to make a first report about the facts and circumstances surrounding that escape.
I shall try to get this first report of his investigation up to now and I will table it in the house.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Colin Cameron: I am, sir. I am rising on a point of order to suggest to you, with the utmost deference, that you really must assume your responsibility and decide whether there is to be open debate on this or whether there is to be mere discussion of urgency. It is not fair to the other members of the house to allow this procedure to continue any longer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I recall the hon. member making similar statements a few days ago, which I think were subsequently not necessarily borne out. It is up to the Chair to assume its own responsibility, which it is trying to do.
It is true that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) is a member of the house with no greater rights than any other member, but he is a member with particular responsibility, and it does seem to me that several members this afternoon have asked for some sort of explanation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: -as to the urgency-


Michael Starr: No-after allowing debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is trying to decide what is in the general interests of all members of the house as to whether there should be a long, detailed debate, whether the matter is so pressing and so important that the ordinary business of the house should be set aside. To that degree it seems to the Chair that it was entitled to listen to a few remarks from the Minister of Justice, not necessarily in explanation but as to urgency and the degree of responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is apparent to Your Honour that the Minister of Justice is not confining himself to urgency and, as you yourself have said, the minister is now embarking on an explanation. It is completely erroneous for Your Honour to suggest that members have asked for an explanation. Members have asked for a debate, not an explanation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to cut this short. I am prepared to reach a decision on urgency. Would the Minister of Justice deal with the question of urgency so that I can make my decision?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to conclude my few words on the question of relevancy, because this is the first question. Under the Penitentiary Act-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to read one or two other sentences from section (3) of standing order 26:
If Mr. Speaker questions the urgency of debate with respect to the proposed matter he may invite members to speak on the question of such urgency.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Pickersgill:: It has been read once.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no reference in that to relevancy or jurisdiction or content-just urgency. Let me go on:
Any ruling made by Mr. Speaker after listening to argument on the question of urgency shall not

be subject to appeal, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 12(1).
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are operating under a new rule. We have been getting along fairly well under it, and it provides that there are no appeals, provided discussion is limited to urgency. But if you invite discussion on relevancy or jurisdiction, and make a ruling on that basis rather than on the basis of urgency, then that provision against an appeal would not apply.


Mr. Monteith:: Absolutely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be well to follow the text of the standing order literally.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the point of order raised not only by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) but also by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I listened to the statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) and all during it he was not at any time talking about the merits of the particular motion. All he was saying, and all he ever got a chance to say-and this pertained directly to urgency-was that the facts surrounding this particular case were not available to this house and could not be discussed intelligently; that the facts were in the possession of a legislature or jurisdiction outside this jurisdiction.
That is quite different from what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said when he stood up and discussed the merits of the case, went into a broadcast he heard from the C.B.C. and made allegations about delays in investigating. Then he had the audacity to stand up, not only he but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and challenge the very limited remarks of the Minister of Justice. This is a double standard stifling to anyone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I think I may say without fear of contradiction that the matter has a certain amount of difficulty. In any event, I would like to refer hon. members to citation 71 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, subsection (6):
In all matters of doubt, the Speaker will consider attentively the opinions of members of experience-
And it goes on to say in the last line:
In doubtful cases, he will be largely guided by circumstances.
Then if hon. members would refer to citation 100(6) they will see it says:
Administration of Justice
The Speaker's duty with regard to a motion to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, under standing order 26... is confined to determining as to whether, in the first instance, a motion so proposed is in order. There his responsibility ends. There is a further question as to the propriety, or desirability of discussing a matter of such grave importance. That is for the house to decide.
In the circumstances I propose to follow paragraph 3 of standing order 26 which reads in part:
He then hands a written-
Speaking of the right hon. member in this case.
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
I propose to read this motion and see whether the right hon. gentleman has the leave of the house or not. It has been moved by Mr. Diefenbaker, seconded by Mr. Starr:
I ask leave to move the adjournment of this house in accordance with standing order No. 26, in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely: the great alarm in all parts of Canada...
Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the right hon. gentleman leave to move this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
And more than twenty members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Diefenbaker, seconded by Mr. Starr, moves that the house do now adjourn.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for
clarification on one point. We asked for Your Honour's decision as to whether or not this matter was in order. You have the burden of being required to make that decision. I am not aware of such a decision having been made.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought it was perfectly clear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was in the reading out of the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I had referred hon. members to citation 100(6) and I had indicated that in my opinion the motion was in order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Administration of Justice


Mr. Speaker:: It then follows:
The Speaker, having found the motion in order, may submit the question: "Has the honourable member leave to proceed?"
We did that. The citation continues:
If objection is taken the Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places. If more than 20 members support the motion, the Speaker calls upon the honourable member to propose his motion.
This was the procedure followed.


George James McIlraith: My concern arose from the fact that I did not hear Your Honour's determination. If your determination was made, then of course the procedure is correct.


John George Diefenbaker: The motion which I now move and which you accepted, Mr. Speaker, is based on the need for a discussion of events which have taken place culminating within the last 24 hours, events which reveal a laxity and a carelessness on the part of the government of Canada which are inexcusable.
In the course of the motion I asked that the whole matter of the escape of the elusive Mr. Rivard should receive the attention of the Dorion inquiry since, after all, this is a matter which affects Canadians everywhere. We can disagree on a subject of economics. We can disagree on matters of national growth. But we in this house must, I think, be accepted as believing that the wells of the administration of justice, not only those which come within the jurisdiction of the provinces, but in addition those which are the responsibility of the federal Department of Justice, should remain clean and undefiled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am surprised that the Prime Minister did not see his way clear to rise in his place immediately and make this debate available. Certainly there is no matter of greater or more transcendent importance. I intend to restrict myself very carefully so that I do not go into the evidence which is being placed before the Dorion commission. But is it not a strange thing-and today there was an example of this as I was interrupted by hon. members opposite-that when the name of Rivard is mentioned you get a reaction in the government ranks among the backbench members. They seem annoyed that matters such as this should be brought up. After all, Rivard was apparently one of the pampered persons; he enjoyed a freedom in custody since June last which I doubt has ever been equalled in Canada.


I think it was the Minister of Justice who said-and I am sure he was not thinking of his own administration: "The government of every people at certain times in their history is in the hands of near madmen."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: He was quoting Ribot but he adopted the thought as that of the Minister of Justice. He went on to say that what we need in this country was clear and firm orientation. Well, I should like him to follow the admonition of the scripture- "Physician, heal thyself"-before reading lectures to others.
I intend to refer to one or two other matters that the minister dealt with in the course of this address, since they are so applicable to the events of today. Is it not a strange thing, an amazing commentary on the Minister of Justice and on other ministers in the government, that one man, one thug, on the basis of what is generally known and now proven last evening, should receive such comfort from a government. And this has been so all the way. I am not going into any of the facts-the 20,000 facts. I simply point out that never before has a Canadian government shown such large solicitude for an ordinary thug-no, not an ordinary one, an extraordinary one; an international one.
There has been before the government since June, and earlier than that, the knowledge that the tentacles of an international crime syndicate have forced their way into Canada. Narcotics is a traffic which ought not to commend the solicitude of members of the government or of parliamentary secretaries or executive assistants. The minister told us: "Why, after all, this comes within the jurisdiction of the government of the province of Quebec and at two thirty this afternoon the attorney general of that province is going to speak". The minister and this government-and I am not separating the minister from the rest-cannot escape the responsibility which rested on them, the need to exercise care to assure that where-ever this man was kept in custody, there he would stay. What happened yesterday? He had $2,000, it is said, on deposit with the warden. Well, he got it back yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Guy Favreau: Would the right hon. gentleman allow a question? Will he not in justice and honesty tell us what is the connection between what has taken place in the prison,

Administration of Justice
that question of the $2,000, and federal anyway. These people talk of honesty and jurisdiction?	credibility.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman would just maintain that equanimity which he has not shown up to now I will certainly clarify that situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Physician, heal thyself.


John George Diefenbaker: There they sit, the
Minister of Transport and the Minister of Justice. Last night they appeared as a t.v. duo. It was really a wonderful performance. It sounded very much like "Positively, Mr. Gallagher; absolutely, Mr. Shean".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Indeed, a wonderful
performance.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This must be another "edition", because I was not on t.v. last night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Another vision.


Mr. Pearson:: Double vision.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all I have to say is this, that the two hon. gentlemen appeared for the edification of the nation. I took it that they had been on t.v. because they had been on radio. If the people did not receive the t.v.-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Since the right hon. gentleman has made one false statement already will he check his facts before he perpetrates a lot more on a public that is unfortunately still apt to believe him, despite the fact that he has just lied to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Graffley:: Withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker, I leave that with a government which has falsified the facts in this case and deceived the house. Both the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister deceived this house.


Some hon. Members:: Resign, resign.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to all hon. members that we try and keep this debate relevant to the matter under discussion.


William Heward Grafftey: Withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I never ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) to withdraw anything, because no one believes him


George James McIlraith: A subject you do not know anything about.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not include the secretary of state in my reference because he has a good reputation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is not the secretary of state. You are just confused.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman
points out that he is not the secretary of state. All I have to say, Mr. Speaker, is that these ministers are changed around so frequently that you do not know which portfolio they occupy. Is it not a strange thing, Mr. Speaker, that this is a government that has forgotten so much? They forgot that there was any suggestion of a payment of $20,000. The Prime Minister forgot this. Talk about a selective memory. The Minister of Justice on November 22 last, when the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was speaking, said that no member of his department was in any way involved.


Mr. Nielsen:: An absolute lie.


John George Diefenbaker: Then three hours later he had to step down and tell the facts. Why all this concealment? All I have to say is this, that it is a strange commentary on a government that a thug in the international narcotics racket should receive such pampered solicitude on the part of this government.
This man Rivard had pursued the regular means to get out of jail-habeas corpus and one thing and another. Last evening he escaped from jail. Therefore the government owes a duty to the people of Canada to tell them what it did to assure that this man would not be able to escape. The government knew he wanted to get out. It also knew that money was no object. As a matter of fact he has been doing everything he can to get out all through these months, and the government has known that.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that to Rivard these words come back and apply:
Stone walls do not a prison make,
Nor iron bars a cage;-
That is provided you have friends.
I ask, how did he get out? Mr. Banks got out of Canada and today he is serving his sentence outside of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: On a yacht.

Administration of Justice


John George Diefenbaker: Also, a member of
Rivard's gang or mob, one Tremblay, was transferred from a B.C. prison to a Quebec prison because Rivard asked for this. That shows the influence of this man Rivard. He speaks to the government and says: "I want this man Tremblay down here; he does not like the salubrious climate of Vancouver, he prefers to be in eastern Canada." It is very funny. I could go on and talk about Joe Bonanno and also Stonehill; the list is a long one.
Why did these things happen, Mr. Speaker? Why is this man free today? The government of Quebec has no responsibility in the matter. They are the custodian, as trustee of the government of Canada, of this man. It is a very strange commentary on this government. After all, the Minister of Justice in one of his speeches talked of purity and so on, and he said that as far as he was concerned he was going to establish in Canada an honest party for honest citizens. I wonder whether Rivard read these immortal words:
Clans, cliques, cabals, oligarchies and intrigues will have no place with us.
And also these words:
Old time ward-heelers will either reform or get out.
But he got out.


Mr. Rheaume:: Out of jail.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know whether or not this gentleman read those words but he certainly qualified as a ward-heeler and got out. What we need, said the minister, is a vigilant conscience. That, Mr. Speaker, is all we are asking this government to have, and it has not shown in recent weeks the possession of this desirable ingredient of good government.
Then the Minister of Justice went on to say:
Finally, this party will not resemble that fabled bird, the phoenix, which rose sporadically from its ashes.
This man did not rise from his ashes, but he did rise, and get. And what do we get from the government? Not an opportunity to discuss the matter; nothing excepting a desire to prevent discussion. This whole business makes a caricature and a mockery of Canadian justice. Because, Mr. Speaker, you and I know that it is not only necessary that justice be done but that it appear to be done.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: You have to learn that yourself.


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. lady only started as a law student I am speaking over her head.
Let me say this. This problem and the events of the last few months reveal such a disregard of political morality on the part of this government as to shock the public conscience. This episode is the culminating event. This man just walked out. He left. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, anything more dastardly than one who participates in the demoniacal traffic in narcotics that destroy the souls of men? He is not a small racketeer, not an ordinary dispenser of a few packets, but a millionaire dispenser.
The United States government has tried to get them over there, and has been trying since June. I should like to know what assistance they have received from the Minister of Justice and what this government has done to assist.
Sir, we want to get to the bottom of this unsavory mess. We want the minister to tell us the story and let us know exactly what the situation is. We want to know whether he, as the minister, and his department have taken every precaution to make sure that Rivard would be made available for trial.
According to the radio, his co-conspirator of last night mentioned: We ought really to call on the attorney general of Quebec, we are right close by. I want to inform the minister that that is one person they would not have called upon because the attorney general of Quebec, both as a prosecutor and as a judge, has shown Canadians what a true administration of justice is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: All we are asking is that some of that will rub off on the Department of Justice as now administered by the present minister. That is all we are asking.
Sir, these are the things we want to know. We do not want the answers given to us over the radio or otherwise than by the minister. I am informed that very recently some of the ministers have decided that they might make a very good appearance on television. My information is that the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) was invited by the chairman of the national film board to preside at a premiere in Quebec of a national film, but did not do so when he found out the title, "The Early Furniture of Quebec".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we want to know what happened in this case. We want

to be assured that this kind of thing is going to end and that the Rivards will not become the anointed of this nation. No matter what one's political faith may be, no one wants to see a mummified spectacle made of the administration of justice.
All the minister suggests is that the responsibility is that of the province. As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) has said, that is not an answer to the question: What did you do, and what action did you take in order to assure that there should be no travesty, as there has been in this case?
Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to hearing the explanation on the part of the government. What will their answer be? Do not try to suggest to us that it is the responsibility of the provincial government, because this was a man that the United States had asked for, and he has been charged with a federal offence. This is the responsibility of the federal government and Canadians want to be assured that men who move in high places shall not be assured of being above the law.
I am not condemning the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) specifically, but his whole government has shown a weakness and disregard for responsibility which cannot do anything but shake the faith of the people of this country, and also shake the faith of those people in the United States who have learned that we in this country administer the law fairly and squarely.
I want to add one more word.


An hon. Member:: Resign.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to hear something said by the government on behalf of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and in this regard let us not hear any more of this shilly-shallying, pusillanimous wording. This force must be assured of the fullest cooperation that its reputation demands, and under no circumstances should it be used for any political purpose. I hoped that it might have been possible to discuss some recent events in this connection, but they are now before the Dorion commission. However, I do say this; I am concerned as to the degree to which this government is allowing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force to be placed in a position which it in no way merits, without having the opportunity of defending itself. I am concerned about this force being placed in a position of becoming an instrument to explain away the
Administration of Justice forgetfulness of a minister or a prime minister.
Sir, I am glad the opportunity has come to say these few words, because we can now look forward with anticipation to the assurances that the minister gave when he made his speech on February 10 last before the reform club of Quebec city. We want to find out whether or not in respect of all decisions this party will be a model of liberal democracy, and whether or not clans, cliques, cabals, oligarchies and intrigues will have no place, and ward-heelers will either reform or get out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Two members are now on their feet, although the hon. member for Greenwood was first to rise. Perhaps courtesy demands that the Minister of Justice now be heard. I ask the hon. member for Greenwood whether he will allow the minister to proceed at this time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I did wish to ask certain questions of the minister, but I am ready to defer if he desires to proceed now.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to sincerely thank the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for allowing me the opportunity to address this house in respect of the matter in question. If the information I make available fails to answer the questions he has in mind, I assure the hon. gentleman that I will be pleased to provide him with the information he desires, to the extent I have such information in my possession at this time.
Sir, at the risk of being discourteous to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), I wish to advise you that I shall not embark upon the same terrain upon which he has ventured, and I shall refuse to use the type of insinuating and smearing remarks that he has used.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Read your speech of February 13, if you want a lesson.


Guy Favreau: I shall attempt to be factual. Speaking of being factual, Mr. Speaker, among all the accusations, innuendoes, questions and insinuations that this government, in relation to the detention of Rivard and his escape, may have been remiss in the discharge of its responsibilities, it is of interest to note that at no moment has the right hon. gentleman even indicated what those respon-

Administration of Justice sibilities might have been and in what fashion they may not have been discharged.


William Heward Grafftey: They are obvious. Do you have to be told your duties?


Guy Favreau: Once more, Mr. Speaker, we have heard that endless series of questions which, of course, do not call for any answer, because the one who asks them knows himself that no answer can be given to his questions because they correspond only to insinuations, innuendoes or completely unfair explanations.
The Leader of the Opposition has not told us and will not tell us, you can be sure, with respect to the detention of Rivard, which obligation or responsibility the Minister of Justice of Canada, the police or the federal government had. Finally, we will never get an answer to this question, because the Leader of the Opposition knows that in this case, as far as Rivard's detention and escape are concerned, there cannot be, neither legally nor in fact, any federal responsibility whatsoever.
Now, I do not want my words to be interpreted as suggesting that the provincial government did not discharge its own responsibilities. I am dealing with jurisdiction, and my words should not be distorted to suggest directly or indirectly that I made an accusation or some implication as regards the discharge of his duties by the attorney general of the province of Quebec. No, I deny it even before anybody attempts to insinuate that.


Mr. Valade:: Who is responsible?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, we will know who is responsible when the attorney general of the province of Quebec has completed his inquiry in respect to the circumstances of the escape. Only then can we know exactly if any responsibility can be attributed to someone and to whom-but not before then.
Mr. Speaker, the person who claims that he proclaimed the bill of rights is the first one who is endeavouring, since several months, to pass a judgment without taking facts into consideration, and to condemn before the courts have even rendered a Judgment. What good is a bill of rights, tens of thousands of copies of which were distributed under the signature of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, if this leads to the kind of situation we have today, to speeches such as those we heard a while ago?


Georges-J. Valade: This is poor.


Guy Favreau: There has been an insinuation to the effect that Rivard has been pampered while in prison, that Rivard since his first arrest and detention has been pampered, that Rivard's extradition has been delayed in undue fashion. This is one more of those charges which, made in fact for political purposes-


William Heward Grafftey: Tell that to the United States authorities.


Guy Favreau: -and I say right away they are ill founded-constitute an unfair and unjust indictment and charge against judges who are not present in this chamber, against persons charged with the administration of justice who are not present in this chamber.


John George Diefenbaker: Sheer nonsense.


Guy Favreau: The right hon. gentleman wants the facts. He must remember that Rivard's extradition, which was requested in June of last year, was followed by committal for extradition by a judge of the Quebec superior court in September of last year. This, of course, was of no importance to the right hon. gentleman and he did not care to advise the house of it. These are the facts. Why did he not tell the House of Commons? Why did he have to hide these things?


John George Diefenbaker: Why the $20,000 offer?


Guy Favreau: Another thing he forgot to tell the house, even though it is of some importance that we know the truth so that the facts may not be distorted and even though it is also a matter of public record, is that Rivard brought a habeas corpus application, which application was dismissed on January 29, 1965. Was Rivard pampered? Will the right hon. gentleman suggest that the Department of Justice had anything to do with the matter while the case was under advisement? Will he suggest-I deny it at once-that the judge who had the case under advisement intended to pamper Rivard in any way or to give him some preference and that the judge was in a conspiracy with the Department of Justice to do so?


Michael Starr: Why did it take nine months?


Guy Favreau: Of course he did not like to tell the house, because it would go in the press and the people of Canada might find out.


John George Diefenbaker: Lamontagne said he was offered $20,000.


Guy Favreau: On February 11 of this year Rivard, the pampered criminal, the person who is supposed to have been pampered by the Department of Justice, made a further application by way of habeas corpus to a judge of the Quebec court of appeal. Judgment on this application was reserved, not by the Department of Justice, not by the government of Canada but by a duly constituted Canadian court, a court which, whether or not the right hon. gentleman likes it, followed the due process of law. To make the record complete-


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: He got away.


Guy Favreau: -it must be added that at the time of Rivard's escape judgment had not been delivered in the second application for habeas corpus, so it cannot be said that I knew about the judgment. These are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and I say that with these facts in mind the right hon. gentleman, if he has a minimum of a sense of justice at all left in him, if he knows what the bill of rights means, should withdraw what he said in his speech.
Now, I want to come back to this question of responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and the charge that we have allegedly failed to discharge that responsibility. If the right hon. gentleman cared just as much for his reputation as a lawyer, which he is, as for his popularity as a politician, he would have recalled that under the Penitentiary Act penitentiaries are institutions of detention for people sentenced to two years or more by a judge. Penitentiaries, under the act, are not used for the detention of persons for interim or short term custody. Furthermore, being a former prime minister of this country, a former head of the government, he should know that extradition prisoners are always held in provincial jails.


An hon. Member:: Held, how long?


Guy Favreau: Now, Mr. Speaker, under whose jurisdiction are provincial jails? In the province of Quebec, as in all the other provinces of Canada, they are, and it is nearly humiliating to have to repeat this to the right hon. gentleman, under provincial jurisdiction. More particularly, provincial jails in the province of Quebec, and here I am proud to agree with the right hon. gentleman, are under the jurisdiction of a man whom, I am proud to say, the right hon. gentleman described as follows a few minutes ago: "The attorney general of Quebec, both as a judge and as a minister, set an example that must be followed." Well, Mr. Speaker, in so far as the detention of a man detained in a provincial jail is concerned, if one relies on the discharge of his functions by an attorney general
Administration of Justice who, both as a judge and as a minister set an example that must be followed, is that, on the part of the Minister of Justice of Canada, failing to discharge his own responsibilities?

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is high time in this chamber to stop using parliamentary immunity in order to make insinuations which cannot be justified by facts-


John George Diefenbaker: There is no insinuation; it was gross negligence on your part. [Translation]


Guy Favreau: -to connect to a so-called sensational proposal a lot of unrelated circumstances, without saying whether or not the issue comes under the government, and to imply in a vague but obviously dangerous way that the government is responsible for the whole affair, that the situation is the result of some sinister plot hatched in the night by the Minister of Justice, members of the government, a certain criminal and all the judges in Quebec and Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What a fantasy.


Guy Favreau: Is that not what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition implied in the speech he has just made?
Still in this connection and as far as the discharge of our responsibilities is concerned, as soon as it learned of Rivard's and Du-rocher's escape yesterday, the government immediately took appropriate action to extend its fullest co-operation to provincial and municipal police authorities.


William Heward Grafftey: Too late.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say that early in the evening-


William Heward Grafftey: Too little, too late.


Guy Favreau: -I got a phone call from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who, as a citizen, was at least as concerned about the matter as the Leader of the Opposition, believe me.
I immediately got in touch with the R.C.M.P. which had just heard the news. Photographs, for the purpose of identification, were being prepared to be distributed by the R.C.M.P. to all the police forces in Canada who would need them. Moreover, the R.C.M.P. was already contacting its detachments including those responsible for airports and all federal properties.
As for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), he had, without loss of time,

Administration of Justice got in touch with the authorities of the two great crown corporations responsible for transportation. He also took the necessary steps so that every airport be informed and warned to check the flights in order to prevent, as far as possible, Rivard from taking a plane to proceed on his escape.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I interrupt the minister to ask him if he could tell us the hour at which the R.C.M.P. detachments were alerted and the hour at which railways and airports were alerted?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say, in all fairness, that this went on generally between nine and midnight last night. If I am not mistaken, the department was informed about nine o'clock.
Now, I have here a brief note written by my parliamentary secretary from a telephone call by Deputy Commissioner Bingham; it reads as follows:

That he, Assistant Commissioner Bingham, was notified at home at 8.35 p.m. by Assistant Commissioner Bordeleau of the Montreal detachment. Bingham ordered Bordeleau to get out an account of the facts and descriptions of the two men by telex at once. The Ottawa telex was received at 9.46 p.m. Any delay was due to preparation of descriptions, but when received by R.C.M.P. detachment this was in turn disseminated to all subdivisions and to local police authorities.
Bingham notified the F.B.I. liaison officer here and notified R.C.M.P. liaison in Washington for information of the bureau of narcotics. Files here in Ottawa were referred to and all available information on the two escapees prepared and sent out.


John George Diefenbaker: What time was that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister would he also give us the hour at which Rivard escaped? Is 7.20 the correct time?


Guy Favreau: The matter was on the police telex at 9.46 p.m., and the right hon. gentleman and all members of the opposition may take for granted, in view of the manner in which this work was done, that the R.C.M.P. dealt with this matter in its usual efficient and rapid manner.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I repeat the question I asked the minister. Can he give us the official hour at which it is estimated Rivard escaped

from Bordeaux jail? I believe the newspapers said 7.20 p.m. Is that the correct time?


Guy Favreau: I told the house that the attorney general of Quebec was expected to make a report this afternoon. I have given instructions to obtain a copy of that report either by phone or telex. There were variations in the reports last night as to the exact hour or moment of the escape. I would much sooner rely on that report to determine for the purposes of the house exactly at what time the escape took place.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a further question? Would the minister please inquire as to why it was that the R.C.M.P. telex message went out at 9.46 when I personally was able to hear the details of this thing on C.B.C.-F.M. network at about 9.12?


Guy Favreau: I said the R.C.M.P. was notified in Ottawa at 8.35 p.m. and the descriptions had been prepared and placed on the general telex at 9.46 p.m. I think this is not only pretty good but very efficient work.


Michael Starr: Two hours and 20 minutes later.


Mr. Benidickson:: No, less than an hour.


Mr. Robichaud:: Check your arithmetic.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it is now quite clear that these same hon. gentlemen of the official opposition, who a few minutes ago were complaining about the fact that the R.C.M.P. was not sufficiently supported or maintained, are now those who decry the R.C.M.P. for having done its duty last night.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mind what you say, because that is going to bounce right back in your teeth.


John George Diefenbaker: That is completely false.


Guy Favreau: Now, Mr. Speaker, I was going to add that during that period, between nine o'clock and let us say, eleven o'clock, but mostly between nine and ten o'clock, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration also had a conference with the director of immigration and instructions were given that all ports of entry be notified, that all immigration stations, including those at the airports, be notified and put on the alert, and that communication be established with the United States authorities.
All the resources of the R.C.M.P. are maintained at the disposal of all concerned for the purpose of determining the whereabouts of Rivard and of ensuring his arrest. Full co-ordination has been effected and estab-

lished between the R.C.M.P., the provincial police and the municipal police corps, and this house may be assured that so far as federal jurisdiction is concerned nothing has been, nothing will be and nothing is being left undone to ensure that the ends of justice be fully pursued and obtained.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only say, once and for all, because there must be a stop to this deliberate shifting of one's ground, that if the federal authorities took it upon themselves, either in the case of Rivard's custody or that of any person doing a term of less than two years in provincial jails, to intervene as far as their custody or their detention is concerned, it would be an encroachment- and the opposition knows it-upon the rights and responsibilities of the provinces under the Canadian constitution.
What is being implied, after all, is that the federal government should have surrounded Rivard's guards by men of its own. Probably the Leader of the Opposition would have wanted a cordon of provincial guards, then a cordon of federal law officers and finally a further cordon of international policemen which would watch over everyone.
In conclusion, I must say that, in the administration of justice, this government acts as honestly as the Leader of the Opposition did when he was at the head of the government. I feel I must repeat that, because the right hon. gentleman claims that we have made mistakes.

It is all very well to imply that this government has delayed in certain cases the administration of justice. But the Minister of Justice may have wanted to consider in certain cases whether or not it was desirable either to take proceedings or to lay an information.
I am not implying that there was any impropriety in their time when the same thing was done, because each time the attorney general of Canada decided either not to prosecute-


An hon. Member:: Under whom you served.


Guy Favreau: I am proud to have served under him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who was prime minister then?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Guy Favreau: Maybe, on the suggestion of a member of parliament, he was called upon
Administration of Justice to make up his mind that either a prosecution was not advisable because the ends of justice would not be served in the circumstances, or even that a charge, let us say for forgery, ought to be withdrawn.
He did so in what I think was the full discharge of his responsibility, and I do not intend to accuse the previous government of having failed in this responsibility or of having been dishonest toward the people of Canada by accepting that state of affairs. But we should demand that the same fairness of judgment should be exercised in our case as in their case. That is all.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You cannot expect that from them.


Mr. Ricard:: You might as well shut up.


Guy Favreau: I will call attention to one forgery case where a charge was made and a parallel case of conspiracy instituted-the case of Buddy Leeds. A letter dated August 17, 1960, was signed by Walter Dinsdale and it was subsequently filed and tabled in this house. It is addressed to the executive assistant to the minister of justice, Ottawa, Canada. It reads-and one will find on all sides personal convictions which lead to the discussion with the minister of justice-"Dear Jim-". The writer is addressing Mr. James McAuley, the executive assistant to the minister:
Re: Buddy Leeds
I have had an opportunity to catch up on local developments on the Buddy Leeds case. His lawyers are still convinced that the only possible charge against him is altering a few documents which were never used.
What is forgery if it is not altering documents for the purpose of their being used, even if they are not used? The letter goes on:
My own personal contacts with Buddy convince me that his part in immigration cases has been merely to assist his fellow Chinese citizens to bring in dependants within the terms of the regulations.
Because of his high standing in the community a petition is circulating on Buddy's behalf. The case has been remanded twice now. What would you suggest as the best solution to the dilemma?
If I were like the right hon. gentleman I would ask: What was the dilemma?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Was he offered a $20,000 bribe?


An hon. Member:: Ask Walter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Administration of Justice


Guy Favreau: The letter goes on:
Must it proceed to preliminary hearing? If so, there is every possibility it could be dismissed for lack of evidence.
These are words which we in this house should never forget and which the Leader of the Opposition should never forget-"there is every possibility it could be dismissed for lack of evidence".


Mr. Churchill:: Are you making a charge?


Guy Favreau: I will proceed-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister permit a question? Is he making a charge or is he just smearing-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Guy Favreau: Then we read this:
The whole episode has not served to enhance the government's reputation in these parts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: It had nothing to do with dope smuggling.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Smuggling was the charge.


Guy Favreau: Then it says:
I hope the police haven't been too over zealous in this case.
The next sentence in the letter will show why he hoped the police would not be over zealous. He expresses it in these words:
We don't want to get the reputation of operating a police state.
Any advice you could offer would be greatly appreciated.
I do not know what advice was offered, but the charge has been withdrawn, one year later.


Mr. Winkler:: Good.


Guy Favreau: There have been other cases. There have been a few; quite a few.


John George Diefenbaker: You were the deputy at the time.


Guy Favreau: You were the prime minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You were the prime minister administering justice. You forgot it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Withdraw that remark.


Guy Favreau: The Leader of the Opposition, who should know about government organization, tells me I was the deputy minister at that time. Whether I was the deputy or the assistant deputy changes nothing with regard to ministerial government and government responsibility.
[Mr. Monteith.l


William Heward Grafftey: That is why we think you should resign.


Guy Favreau: There is one thing which is to my great satisfaction. No officer of the Department of Justice-and if I had to suffer for this I would maintain that standard which is not the one which the right hon. gentleman is now suggesting-will-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman spoke of my standards. Let me say to him that his and mine are not the same, and he has proved that today.


Guy Favreau: Well, Mr. Speaker, as to behaviour in this house at least, I am happy with that admission that our standards are not the same.

I cannot do better than to point out once more that while Rivard was in jail pending his extradition, the government was right in respecting the constitution and then in depending on the administration of justice in the province of Quebec by the man who, I am proud to repeat it, was described a little earlier by the Leader of the Opposition as a public man who, while on the bench and since he became a minister, has set an example in every respect.


Mr. Baldwin:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Guy Favreau: Yes.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is it not the fact that under the provisions of the Extradition Act the primary responsibility, and the ultimate responsibility, for the federal government to honour its obligations to the other contracting parties lies upon the government, and pursuant to section 25 of that act lies specifically upon the minister the duty to deliver the prisoner when asked for by the officers of the country demanding him?


Guy Favreau: 
Mr. Horner (Acadia):: What does all this mean to the Liberal party's slush fund? That is the question in the minds of the Canadian people. How much did the Liberal party make out of this?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I regret, first of all, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) should have spent part of his speech on this occasion on making an attack on the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) for something that happened a long time ago. I do not think that is a subject matter in this discussion and I think the Minister of Justice does himself no good by calling the kettle black, if that is what he is trying to do.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the core of the minister's speech in this house appears to be this. In fact, I took down the exact words he used. He said that the federal authorities are neither legally nor in fact under any responsibility whatever in respect to the escape of Rivard. I want to suggest to this house and to the minister that he has misunderstood the scope of his responsibility in this matter. I want to suggest that both the law of the country and the extraordinary circumstances of this case imposed a special degree of responsibility upon the minister and his department; and I have yet to hear, from what the minister has said, what are the facts which enable us to determine whether or not that responsibility has been discharged.
Now, what is the nature of the responsibility according to our law? First of all it is perfectly clear that this man was arrested by reason of the Extradition Act, which was passed by this parliament. That act is based upon treaties with foreign countries and imposes an obligation upon this country to see that those who are suspected fugitive crimi-
Administration of Justice nals are made available to the administration of justice in other countries.
It is perfectly true, as the minister has said, that it is up to a judge of the court to determine whether a prima facie case exists. But I call to the attention of the minister section 19 of the Extradition Act, which reads as follows:
Where the judge commits a fugitive to prison, he shall, on such committal,
... (b) transmit to the Minister of Justice a certificate of the committal-
And so on. So that the statute requires the minister to be informed of a committal to jail.
I will not read all the other sections but I will make reference to the point made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to show the obligation existing under section 25. That section says:
Subject to this part, the Minister of Justice, upon the requisition of the foreign state, may, under his hand and seal, order a fugitive who has been committed for surrender to be surrendered to the person or persons who are, in his opinion, duly authorized to receive him in the name and on behalf of the foreign state-
It is perfectly true that the committal is to a provincial jail. It is also perfectly true, as the minister says, that the responsibility for custody then rests upon the authorities who administer that particular jail. But I suggest that there is the underlying authority of the Minister of Justice throughout, in cases which involve extradition, to interest himself in whether or not the conditions of custody are adequately carried out. I suggest that the circumstances in this particular case impose a special duty upon the minister.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what are the circumstances? The circumstances are that this man was connected, or alleged to be connected, with a dope ring of organized crime in America. I presume the minister knows that these people have tremendous funds. They are completely unscrupulous. They use methods of bribery, corruption and violence. They corrupt police officers, jailers, and where possible even politicians. It is not only that this man was therefore in a category very different to any ordinary criminal, but that he had resources and a background, as far as one knows. We are not condemning him now because we have not heard his case, but there was a prima facie case against him, as being connected with this sordid, sinister gang of international criminals. Therefore, I suggest there was special reason to be careful in this case.
What was the next reason? The next reason was that through evidence before the Dorion commission, the R.C.M.P. made known
11950	HOUSE OF
Administration of Justice that this man was desperate to escape extradition to the United States. As far as the prima facie evidence goes, at any rate, he did not even stop short of offering $20,000 to be given by a special assistant to the lawyer acting on behalf of the United States. The prima facie evidence is that this man had the money and was ready to produce it, and that whatever happened he was desperately anxious to avoid justice in the United States of America. Surely, Mr. Speaker, ordinary prudence would require in a case of this sort and under these special circumstances that some special steps be taken to make sure that this man did not escape from justice in this country.
The questions I wish to ask the minister are these. Were any special precautions regarding the custody of Rivard recommended to the authorities of the provincial jail? Were the provincial jail authorities warned of the likelihood of an attempt by this man to escape? Were the circumstances which I have outlined and which were known to this government brought to the attention of the jailers? Did the R.C.M.P. ever consider taking special precautions, and I am not talking about a cordon standing around watching to see whether the provincial men were doing their job. What I am suggesting is that the R.C.M.P. realizing the seriousness and the importance of this matter, might very well have offered co-operation to make sure that this especially dangerous criminal, under these special circumstances, did not become a fugitive from justice. Was the R.C.M.P. requested to offer that co-operation and was that co-operation given? Was anything done other than just relying, as the minister does, on the fact that there is supposed to be some provincial responsibility in this case? I suggest there was mixed responsibility, federal and provincial responsibility. Did the federal government discharge its obligations simply by sending him to a provincial jail? I will agree that in a normal case that might have been a perfectly reasonable course of action. Under different circumstances it might have been reasonable to send him to a provincial jail and rely on the provincial jail to use adequate precautions to keep him in custody.
But, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the particular facts of this case required some particular attention, and I wonder if such attention was given.
In concluding what I have to say about this matter, and I have no desire to detain the house much longer, I would suggest that the circumstances surrounding this case re-


quire an explanation. There is a disquiet in the country and I think the reason for this disquiet is that it seems sometimes that this government does not understand what it is dealing with when it is dealing with organized crime. This is not small-scale petty crime in respect of which ordinary methods are good enough. What I fear is that if the government appears to be incompetent in dealing with organized crime, Canada itself will appear to be incompetent I am not suggesting that all was not done by the minister that ought to have been done, or that all that ought to have been done was not done by the R.C.M.P., but unless the minister can explain to this house whether any special precautions or efforts were taken, or any special warnings given to the people dealing with this case, he will not have discharged the responsibilities that rest on the shoulders of federal officers who are responsible to the United States of America in matters of extradition, such as exist in this case. Do we want to become the laughingstock of the United States because we cannot detain criminals, especially of the type involved in things like dope rings?
Those are the matters which are disturbing the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and nothing I have heard as yet from the minister satisfies me that there has been an adequate answer.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak this afternoon with the authority of a member of the legal profession, but certain things in regard to this case are obvious to the general public, and I feel I must make use of this opportunity to emphasize this very tragic state of affairs which has allowed a criminal such as Lucien Rivard to escape, as he did, from Bordeaux jail. That state of affairs is similar to the tragic state of affairs which allowed a man such as Hal Banks to escape from this country at a time when he was under a cloud. He had been under that cloud for some considerable period of time. Something must be wrong when this sort of thing can happen.
How careless could the custodians of Bordeaux jail have been to permit such a man as Rivard and his companion to slug a single guard and go out either through five steel gates or over a 25-foot wall and gain their freedom? Certainly everyone in Canada was aware that these were hardened, dangerous and experienced criminals. We have only to read the Dorion commission inquiry reports to understand that Rivard would stop at nothing. He endeavoured to bribe his way

out of the situation he was in when he was wanted by the United States authorities, and having failed in that regard he then threatened the life, or had the life threatened of the man he attempted to bribe. That is public knowledge.
One need only look at the press account of what actually took place last night to appreciate the character of this man. He stopped a car and talked with the driver Mr. Bourgeois. He was suave enough to talk on an intimate basis with the man as they drove three miles over the streets of Montreal. Before he ordered the man out he gave him a two-dollar bill for taxi fare from that point to the man's place of employment, and promised that he would phone the man at his office within the hour to tell him where he would find his car. Mr. Bourgeois, the man who owned the car, arrived at his office where he had to do some overtime work, and about seven fifty, according to this report, he received a phone call from Lucien Rivard who stated that his car was located at Fleury and Montee St. Michel. At that point Mr. Bourgeois called the police.
We must only look slightly further to find that Rivard's wife had visited the jail yesterday, had requested and obtained $2,000 which had been placed in safekeeping there after having been found in the possession of Rivard when he was taken into custody last June 19.
I am surprised because of these circumstances, and I do not think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) can just shrug his shoulders and say, "we have no responsibility" particularly in light of the questions which have been asked by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).
One need only read a little more of this article which appears in today's Ottawa Journal to find out that there had been a battle at Bordeaux jail among five prisoners who had been drinking homebrew, which apparently they had made at the jail. The article states:
Among the prisoners who were transferred to cells in downtown Montreal was Robert Collin, charged with capital murder in the death last September of nightclub doorman Rocky Brunette. Also charged in the case is Robert Gignac, another witness in the Dorion inquiry.
These are some of the things that cause us to wonder just what is taking place. It is not good enough for the government and the Minister of Justice simply to shrug their shoulders and say this is a provincial responsibility. Certainly it is, but here is a man who is wanted on a matter that concerns the fed-
Administration of Justice eral government and which involves most serious charges.
So I say it is imperative at this point that all of our security forces, city police, provincial police and R.C.M.P. in co-operation with the security forces of the United States and those of any other country where this man is likely to go must be brought into play, and everything that is humanly possible must be done at this time to bring him back into custody. I do not think it is good enough to be told today in the house that approximately four hours after the break was made the R.C.M.P. in Toronto were officially informed about it. I was in Toronto last night when this whole thing was taking place and returned on the 10.40 flight. Everybody knew about it because we heard about it when we reached Toronto airport and we also heard about it when we arrived at Ottawa airport. The newspaper people knew all about it because there were several of them at the Ottawa airport who were departing on the same flight to go to Montreal to cover the story. So I say that something certainly must be done to assure us and the Canadian people that the administration of justice and the keeping under detention of those who are charged with breaking the law are carried on more effectively.
I come back to the situation in the house this afternoon. We have laid aside the normal business of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance which you, Mr. Speaker, have recognized as such. Apparently this has been justified because there is concern in all parts of Canada regarding the carelessness of justice and law enforcement officials which has resulted in the escape from Bordeaux jail of Lucien Rivard. We are concerned that this should have taken place. More than that, I think the people of Canada are concerned about the whole matter of the integrity and honesty of people in public office, whether they are in this house, whether they are charged with the responsibility of law enforcement or charged with the responsibility of administering justice. We have read so much about this whole matter relating to bribery, coercion, dishonesty and moral laxity, because for months now it has made the headlines in our newspapers and has given genuine reason for everyone to be concerned.
It is also true that the government has a specific responsibility to clarify the charges that have been made at the earliest opportunity. They have not always done so, but it was for this reason that the Dorion inquiry was established and has now been conducting

Administration of Justice its investigations for several months. Because of the Dorion inquiry we are handicapped in demanding any debate in the house because we do not have the information which is necessary for us to debate the matter intelligently. It is good that the matter has come to the attention of the house in this way, that certain questions have been asked and that the responsibility in this matter is being pinned directly on the government and the Minister of Justice.
On the other hand, it is not good enough that we just take advantage of the opportunity for debate to carry on a show in the house because I do not think this will accomplish anything at all. This is the reason why we felt we were not justified in taking the time of the house to debate a matter about which we really did not have the necessary information, and could not obtain it because of the matter already being under consideration by the Dorion commission. I say it is not good enough to make the house even more of a political arena by trying to manoeuvre into a better tactical position. This is not good enough whether it is done by the Leader of the Opposition or whether, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has said, an attempt is made to deal with other events which make the situation even more dirty and do not clarify the Rivard matter or clarify the situation in relation to the responsibility of the Dorion commission.
I agree that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) certainly has not been very fair nor maintained the standards he should have in trying to bring up a letter written some four years ago by the member for Brandon-Souris which was confidential and private and perhaps in the light of the circumstances did not have very much wrong with it. This is not why we are having this debate. The reason we are having the debate is to try to place a little more emphasis on the situation and, if possible, throw some light on the Rivard matter.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Robert Norman Thompson: Therefore I say that we must make sure that our remarks at this time refer to the situation before us. Some members of the Conservative party are telling me to sit down. I think I have just as much right to speak as they have and I also say that I think they might be polite enough to extend me the respect that I give them when they speak.


The second part of the motion before the house deals with the necessity for the broadening of the terms of reference of the Dorion inquiry to include an examination of all the sinister circumstances surrounding the disappearance of international narcotics criminal, Lucien Rivard. I think this is very important. I think it is the responsibility of the government to widen the terms of reference of the Dorion commission so that the fullest investigation and report can be made with regard to this whole matter. If the government does not do so it is again not facing up to its responsibility. That is why in my opinion the Minister of Justice should take heed of the second part of the motion.
I emphasize again that the Dorion commission must have its terms of reference broadened. As I understand the situation, there is no real problem in doing this. When the original terms of reference were spelled out on November 25 there was some discussion which resulted in the terms of reference being amended by the privy council on November 27. That amendment changed and broadened the terms of reference but I will not take the time now to place them on the record. I say this is necessary not only because of the new developments involved in the escape of Rivard and all its implications, but so that Mr. Justice Dorion can have the necessary authority to investigate in such a way as to bring the facts before the public. He has already told the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in a communication addressed directly to him that he does not have the authority in his present terms of reference to carry out the fullest investigation.
One of the things about which we have a great deal of reason to be concerned at this time is the work of our own security agencies. It is only a few days ago that I asked in the house whether or not the Minister of Justice would consider bringing in a white paper, or at least authorizing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to publish certain information in regard to the security of this country, which would inform the Canadian people of what is taking place. We have too many instances in which there are subversive activities actually being carried on in this country which not only affect the security of this nation, but affect the security of the United States. If the security that is necessary for the R.C.M.P. to carry out its own responsibilities is not there, how can we expect to have a satisfactory situation so far as security in the country is concerned? It is for this reason there is a good deal of information that should be brought to light with regard to the very

breach of security that resulted in the appointment of the Dorion commission.
I respect the traditional right of all members of this house to not have their sources of information exposed. It is something that is absolutely essential if we are going to carry on our work in the proper way. On the other hand, if we cannot rely upon our own administration, whether it be in the Department of Justice or whether it be within the security forces themselves, then we do not have security in this country. In closing, therefore, I would urge the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister to take immediate action to broaden the terms of the Dorion commission so that commission can carry out the necessary investigation in its fullest aspects and bring to light every facet of the problem we are involved in discussing this afternoon.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, for the past six months, we have had everything we could have wished for. This week, we have the Lucien Rivard case. With his escape, he once more attracted public attention, and particularly the attention of members of parliament. Today, we can read on the front page of newspapers that this escape has astonished and shocked the Canadian people, the press and newspapermen across Canada. One front page headline reads:
This is hard to take.
In giving explanations in the house this afternoon, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) has rather tried to avoid his responsibilities. His explanation and arguments are more or less sound, especially when he says that if he were to listen to the Leader of the Opposition it would perhaps be necessary to have R.C.M.P. officers all around the Bordeaux jail and have city policemen all around those officers and, furthermore, provincial police officers all around the latter.
I think that under the circumstances such arguments coming from a minister assuming the heavy responsibility for the administration of Canadian justice before the nation, are childish. That is why I say we have had for the past six months everything we could wish for. Today, the Canadian people as well as members of parliament have cause to be confused.
All of us find it hard to understand yesterday's escape. From the various press infor-
Administration of Justice mation available, we can see how easy it was for Lucien Rivard to make his escape from Bordeaux jail.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I do not usually interrupt, especially when the hon. member for Shefford has the floor, but would he permit a question?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Of course.


Guy Favreau: Does the hon. member think or can he tell, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, whether it was the right and the duty of the federal authorities to interfere with detention in a provincial jail?


Mr. Prud'homme:: Yes, answer that.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the Minister of Justice by a question. Did the Minister of Justice take all necessary steps in the Rivard case, in order to prevent his escape? Because, if we consider the circumstances in which Rivard could escape Canadian justice, while he was in the custody of the provincial authorities, there is ground to fear that other inmates, other criminals who will certainly have some day to answer charges before federal justice authorities, will be able to escape also. Now, in view of such a situation, one is entitled to wonder if the necessary preventive measures were in existence.
Did the Minister of Justice inquire of the justice authorities in the province of Quebec, in order to take all necessary steps to prevent criminals like Lucien Rivard to escape federal justice as easily, while they are in the custody of the provincial police?
Do we have to conclude that this is the kind of co-operative federalism which for six months they have been preaching to us and trying to force down our throats? Is that the co-operation existing between the federal and provincial authorities? Is that co-operation of such a kind that we are no longer protected against criminals?
Today, the people of Quebec are wondering what kind of protection they have against those criminals living in Canada. What protection do we have when small time thieves or criminals, after they are in custody, cannot easily escape justice, but in the case of a criminal such as Lucien Rivard, it is easy for him to run away from the police and escape from Bordeaux jail? I recall that in the past, it was no easy job to escape from jail, because there was then discipline and surveillance. But our present Minister of Justice or the department of justice in the province of Quebec, if-

Administration of Justice


An hon. Member:: It is easier to escape.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Yes, it is easier because there is no discipline, no watching, judging from these latest events-


George Albert Proud: Would the hon. member allow a question? Could he answer yes or no? Could you yourself explain what is the responsibility of the federal Minister of Justice in the province of Quebec?
Can you explain, in the province of Quebec, the responsibility of the Minister of Justice in this matter which comes under provincial jurisdiction?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I have an easy explanation. It is co-operative federalism which allows such criminals as Lucien Rivard and others to escape.
Mr. Speaker, the people in Quebec must be protected, now more than ever. In view of the latest developments, are they adequately protected to justify the expenditure of millions of dollars for the administration of justice in Canada? We have received complaints in the past and the latest events cause us serious misgivings.
The Minister of Justice tells us: Stop your innuendoes, stop making accusations at random, stop speaking on behalf of your constituents. It is now useless to make innuendoes, because we now have the facts. And that is why we must ask the Minister of Justice this afternoon, in view of Lucien Rivard's escape, to take the necessary steps in order to prevent the escape of other prisoners. They are dangerous people who know the law and have money. What will we look like tomorrow morning before the American government which wants to jail Lucien Rivard and question him about dope smuggling?
Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing political events and people have trouble understanding what goes on behind the scenes. On the other hand, if we knew all those who contribute to a party's election fund, we could explain more easily today a lot of things which we cannot explain to the people. We know that there is an election fund at the disposal of the old parties and especially good unknown subscribers who need protection.
Let us stop making innuendoes. But the Minister of Justice does not tell us who has contributed to the election fund of the Liberal party, and maybe if we stopped making accusations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Rosedale.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, and I rise to ask the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), since remarks have been made in the house in his absence concerning the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), if he will defer for five or ten minutes until I can put the other side of the story on the record on behalf of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris who is unavoidably absent from the house today. In all fairness I think the hon. member might permit that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) should himself come before the house if he wants to put those circumstances before it. I would like the opportunity to debate-


Erik Nielsen: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: It is not a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: It is a question of privilege. We have heard a good deal about codes of ethics and proper conduct in this house, and it is not my understanding that members are commented upon in their absence, but that has been done today by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) in his remarks about the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. I am prepared to confine my remarks entirely to the remarks of the Minister of Justice concerning that member, if the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) will simply yield the floor for five minutes for the purpose of doing that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, the Speaker usually recognizes this side and that in rotation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is the second allegation this afternoon from the hon. member. I have recognized in turn the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), who proposed the motion, and then in sequence different spokesmen for the different parties. We have now made the circuit. After all, the Minister of Justice was under attack and surely he is entitled to speak. We have made the circuit and we are now coming back.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Fisher:: On the question of privilege-


Erik Nielsen: On my question of privilege-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: A filibuster to keep the government from speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member for Port Arthur on a point of order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I thought the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was raising it and I just want to make sure that I get this question of privilege on the record. I intended to present it earlier but decided to let this debate take place and bring it up tomorrow, but because the issue has been brought up, at least in a peripheral way, I want to get it on the record.
I certainly feel I have a genuine question of privilege so far as the means and the way in which this information relevant to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) has been brought before us and into the record of the house. It is quite apparent that only through the collusion-and I use that word collusion-of officials in the minister's office, or through the collusion of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald), could these Liberal members of parliament be given the information that enabled them to put the questions on the order paper.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it is universally accepted in this chamber, where we are all peers, that no member, even is he is a supporter of the government, has any greater advantage in terms of departmental files or departmental correspondence than any other member. It seems to me that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) and the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) have no more right to be privy to information that is in the departmental files than I or any of my colleagues have.
The question of privilege I am raising, and so far as I am concerned it has got to go to the committee on privileges and elections if we get the answers I think we are going to get, is a question to the Minister of Justice: Did you or did your parliamentary secretary, or did any of the executive assistants in your office open up information in the files in order to inform backbenchers who support your government about correspondence that is in those files?
That is the question of privilege and, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned it is now 20220-756
Administration of Justice relevant in view of the way in which the minister used that particular letter this afternoon, and in view of the fact that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) brought up a question of privilege that seems to dovetail right into it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am surprised the hon. gentleman did not bring up the same point about the information the hon. member for Yukon produced last November.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, of all the red
herrings one might expect, that is it, and it needs to be nailed right now. There is nothing the hon. member brought up last November that came through the machinery of the order paper or, so far as we know, through a departmental office.


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege, I think in all fairness since the matter has been raised by the minister in what he termed a reply to a question by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, it was a most vicious and cowardly attack on a member who is absent, and surely someone on this side of the house has a right to get up and speak for him.
Now that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) has involved himself I want to put on the record, on behalf of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris-


Guy Favreau: On a question of privilege-


Erik Nielsen: I have not finished with my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I appreciate the intent of the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon, and perhaps we could settle this issue. Was the Minister of Justice rising on the same question of privilege?


Guy Favreau: I had a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: I did not complete my question of privilege, and since it has been broadened by tire Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) through his interjections concerning information which he said I put on the record last November I want to make it quite clear, despite all these assumptions that have been made by hon. members opposite and elsewhere, that not once has any suggestion come from this side of the house that I had any access to mounted police files. All the assumptions have come from the other side, and in making those statements the Liberal party and its members have degraded the R.C.M.P. as a force in this country. That is what they have done.


George James McIlraith: What about the photostat of the McIntosh letter?

Administration of Justice


Erik Nielsen: I did not hear that.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member tell us about the photostat of the McIntosh letter which he produced last fall? Would he tell us just how he got that original letter to photostat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The original question of privilege dealt with the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and I would hope we could keep our discussion to that.


Erik Nielsen: I was not the one that broadened it. It was the Minister of Transport and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), but I do feel in fairness that if I give the assurance to the house that I am prepared to confine my remarks to the answer on behalf of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, the answer to the rather cowardly manner in which the Minister of Justice attacked him, I should be given that opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) referred to my conduct in reading the letter from the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


John George Diefenbaker: You have just made a cowardly attack on him.


Guy Favreau: I must say two things.
First, 1 am not the one who chose the date when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) moved the adjournment of the house. Furthermore, the tone of the debate was set not by myself but by the Leader of the Opposition.
The hon. member for Yukon did not say- and evidently will never say-that I made no comments regarding the conduct of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris who sent that letter. I merely read before this house a letter which is part of the public record and which was tabled in this house.
Furthermore, I said that neither the hon. member for Yukon nor the Leader of the Opposition would have dared to admit that, even if the situation was the same, the then minister of justice, when he decided to take action concerning this file, acted according to his conscience, and others must not be charged with less honest motives when in


even more favourable circumstances they endeavour to do their duty.


John George Diefenbaker: They did not have $20,000.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on a point of order. Whether or not there is a valid question of privilege affecting the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, that hon. member will have the opportunity of raising the matter at the first moment on his return to the house.
I rose to speak on the subject which the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues were so anxious to discuss earlier this afternoon and this will be the only opportunity I shall have to speak on it. May I suggest that rather than be interrupted by all these questions of privilege I be allowed to proceed? As to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur, if that is a proper question of privilege it should have been brought up at the earliest possible opportunity, that is at the commencement of the sitting. The hon. member did not do that and I therefore suggest there is no question of privilege before us.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am prepared to move a motion in connection with my question of privilege. I want to give the minister an opportunity to reply to a direct question. I want to ask the minister this-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think the house would wish to give me an opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does seem to me that a question of privilege should be raised by the person concerned at the first opportunity. The person concerned is not in the chamber. As a matter of courtesy, one or two hon. members have endeavoured to do this on his behalf.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am not doing this on behalf of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris; I am doing it on behalf of all the members of this house. I can put it in a nutshell. There are two questions on the order paper. Question No. 2,766 in the name of Mr. Macaluso is one. It reads;
Is there any record of representations having been made by any person or persons, outside the Department of Justice, to the Minister of Justice or his office or the Department of Justice in the Buddy Leeds case-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must appreciate that there are five minutes remaining in this afternoon's debate. He

could easily refer to the number of the question without reading it in detail, and make his point.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to give notice that I intend to move that this question be considered tomorrow during the orders of the day. I consider it is very important and I will see that there is a motion before you, Mr. Speaker, so that the whole house can vote on what I consider to be most disgraceful behaviour on the part of the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Heward Grafftey: One blunder after another.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 
William Heward Grafftey: Tell that to the United States authorities.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The United States authorities understand this perfectly well even though the hon. member may not. By a law of this parliament, the Extradition Act, it has been decided that the trial of persons against whom extradition is claimed shall be carried out in provincial courts. The constitution of Canada declares also that prisoners while awaiting trial are to be held in provincial prisons.


John George Diefenbaker: "To be held"; note that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out that this means it is the provincial institutions which have been given responsibility by this parliament for, first of all, trying the question of extradition and, second, for holding the person concerned while under trial.
The hon. member for Shefford has suggested that the federal government should authorize a royal commissioner under the federal Inquiries Act to inquire into the administration of justice by the provincial governments. This sounds very strange coming from the hon. member for Shefford; it sounds very strange coming from a colleague of the hon. member for Portneuf or the hon. member for Lake St. John to suggest there is anything wrong with the administration of justice by the authorities in Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


William Heward Grafftey: Where do we get with "I suggest"?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is not the responsibility of the federal government to try these individuals. This has been a completely spurious point raised by the Leader of the Opposition who has himself acknowledged that; he is not even in his place at the moment in this debate.


Mr. Crouse:: You are a cheap politican. You just thump the table.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am very glad to say that, it being six o'clock, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2.30.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
20220-756J
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 4, 1965