1966-03-10

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: I rise on a question of privilege, one which affects not only myself personally but a considerable number of other Privy Councillors both in the house and outside the house. It also affects every member of the house. I intend to move a substantive motion based on this question of privilege.
The question concerns the insinuations and allegations made by the Minister of Justice in this house on Friday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member the provisions of standing order 41-A. I will read the standing order.
Unless notice of motion has been given under standing order 41, any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.
I might mention that the hon. member did give me oral notice, which was brought to my attention before I entered the house, but no written notice was given to the Chair as required by the standing order. I suggest to the hon. member that in these circumstances no question of privilege can be raised at this time.


Mr. Nielsen:: Has Your Honour not received written notice on this matter from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a very embarrassing question. I myself did not receive such a notice. If the Chair could be given two minutes I will have the matter checked. This is the kind of thing which could happen even in the Speaker's office, I suppose; such a notice could have been sent without being brought to the attention of the holder of the office.
[DOT]	(2:40 p.m.)
I can only say at the moment, so far as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) is concerned, that he himself has brought to the attention of the Chair that before 2.30 he did not send written notice. Therefore, this applies to his case in any event; but I am having a search made in my office with regard to such written notice.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On the point of order you have raised, Mr. Speaker, while it is quite true I did not send you the written notice an hour beforehand, I did give you verbal notice. Under the circumstances it was virtually impossible for me to send the written notice because the information which I have subsequently secured, in regard to the press conference which the minister held this morning, came to me later than that.
In view of the importance of this matter and the seriousness of the situation, and particularly in view of the seriousness of the motion, which I now intend to read:
That the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In so far as the hon. member's question of privilege is concerned there is no doubt whatever that no written notice was given. The hon. member called the Speaker's secretary, who relayed a verbal message later on. The Speaker has been in his office since at least eleven o'clock this morning, if not before that, and written notice could have been given at any time between then and now.
The rule is clear, and it seems to me it is designed to cover the very type of instance which the hon. member is raising at the present time. But if there were unanimous agreement between all hon. members that we suspend the operation of this rule-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I appreciate that some hon. members will agree to its being suspended, but I suspect others will not.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: There was no opposition to it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear some nays.

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What are they afraid of?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I now have the report from the Speaker's office that there is no written notice, that no written notice has been found. This is the situation facing the Chair now.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you stated in the course of your remarks-and I do not want to quarrel with Mr. Speaker-that you were in your office from 11.30, on. That was not the case when I had a phone call put through to your office at 1.30, and I think, sir, you will have to hear me on that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The Speaker was in his office, and this is perhaps a little picayune in the sense that the Speaker took visitors to room 202 for approximately 25 seconds around, I would say, two o'clock. But the Speaker has been in his office, had lunch in his office, and worked in his office since approximately eleven o'clock this morning.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, without questioning your ruling in any way, and I recognize that under the strict application of the rules it is correct, I would make a plea to the house to give unanimous consent to have this matter heard now rather than delaying the hearing of it for 24 hours, or less than that, because I will certainly raise it tomorrow in any event.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair did what could be done in the circumstances. I was quite pleased and prepared to give effect to the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary North to invite the consensus of the house to waive the provisions of the standing order, but there was no unanimous agreement. The Chair has no alternative whatsoever except to turn down the motion of the hon. member. I assume he will give written notice in the meantime and a new ruling can be given then.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I just made an appeal to the house. I will now make an appeal to the Prime Minister that he agree this matter should be heard at the present time because it was only on the Liberal side of the house that there was any opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. That motion-


Mr. Siarr:: The Prime Minister sits silent.


Mr. Pearson:: Obeying the rules.
[Mr. Speaker.)


Michael Starr: Covering up behind the rules is what you have been doing.


Mr. Speaker:: The ruling has been made.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, so far as this is concerned, if this motion should be put tomorrow I trust that it will not be stated that according to the rules it was not raised in time.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there is no question about this. I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and I really do not think 24 hours would make that much difference. I myself would not raise that objection.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, it makes this difference that some of us have to sit in the House of Commons in the presence of somebody who is not a gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice now that I will raise this matter in an hour's time.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to give notice to the hon. member that he has to do it according to the rules.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker. The rule, No. 17, says:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
I received in my office, just at 2.30 p.m., the Ottawa Journal, which contains certain statements made by the Minister of Justice. That, sir, has come to my attention just within that time. Surely this is the proper time to raise a question of privilege based on these statements.


Mr. Speaker:: It is subject to the rule, and the rule does not allow the hon. member to raise it at this time. The rule is very simple and clear. I invite the hon. member to give written notice to the Chair according to the rule. Unless the rules are changed, they will not be interpreted in this way. This is the only way the Chair can look at the situation when the rule is clear and simple. I interpret it the way I see it. I would invite members of the house to follow the rule and give written notice such as is suggested by the standing order.
March 10, 1966

Presenting reports by standing and special committees.


Mr. Lamberl:: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that in so far as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is concerned, the matter has come during proceedings, and therefore, is not subject to the one hour rule.


Mr. Speaker:: This is an ingenious interpretation of the rules, but I suggest to the hon. member that he cannot interpret the rule to the effect that the matter involved is a matter having come out of the proceedings of the house when the house started at 2.40 p.m. and the only proceeding we have had-if that is a proceeding-is the very question of privilege. The hon. member cannot say he raises a question of privilege and therefore the proceeding has started. This would be circumventing the rule.
I again appeal to hon. members to accept the ruling of the chair and to raise the question at the first opportunity tomorrow.
Presenting reports by standing and special committees.
[ Translation]



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
First report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Loiselle.
[Editor's note: The text of the said report will be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Speaker:: Motions.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement concerning sewage treatment project loans under the National Housing Act.
To assist in the elimination or prevention of soil and water pollution-


Mr. Woolliams:: Get the Minister of Justice; he knows all about pollution.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: -and to help ease the serious unemployment situation that existed at the time, an amendment to the National Housing Act in December 1960 authorized Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make loans to provinces, municipalities or municipal sewage corporations. These loans were offered for projects consisting of trunk
National Housing Act
sewage collector systems, central treatment plants, or both, for the collection and treatment of sewage from one or more municipalities.
Under this provision of the National Housing Act, such loans are made in an amount not exceeding two thirds of the cost. They are made at a favourable interest rate, which is currently 5J per cent, for a term not exceeding the useful life of the project, or 50 years. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is also authorized by the said Act to forgive 25 per cent of the loan on the completion of a project.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Hon. members will perhaps recall that on August 2, 1965 the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) announced that certain measures would be taken by the government to stretch out the excessive demands being placed on the construction industry in 1965 and 1966. The government believes that one way to help bring about this result is to extend until March 1970, the period within which all such sewage treatment projects may be completed, in order to qualify for forgiveness of 25 per cent of the loan. Consequently proposals to amend the National Housing Act will be brought forward by the government within a few months, and these will include a recommendation to parliament to extend from March 31, 1967 to March 31, 1970 the time during which expenditures on such projects might qualify for forgiveness for part of the loan.
I trust hon. members will co-operate in helping to bring this announcement to the attention of municipal and other interested officials in their respective ridings, so they may know that it will not be necessary to meet the deadline on March 31, 1967.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the announcement with all the concentration we can muster under the circumstances. My first observation has to be that as a result of this stretching out, as I understood the minister's statement, there will be no incentive for our cities which are suffering from water pollution to press forward with their sewage disposal plants. If I am right in that interpretation I would suggest that in part this is a bad decision, and I say that for this reason. If this is merely a stretching out, one of the things it will have the effect of doing is slowing down the speed at which cities assume the necessary task of clearing up the pollution of our waters.

March 10. 1366
National Housing Act
There is another argument in this regard. When we attempt to apply restrictive acts to hold down inflationary pressures by applying this type of restriction across the country indiscriminately, we are actually giving the country what I would call a castor oil treatment.
In those areas and regions where there is no inflationary pressure a policy to stop inflation such as that announced by the minister should be applied according to where the need is greatest. In other words, we should have a regional policy of restrictive acts by the government in respect of fiscal policies to check inflation.
In conclusion, I should like to remind the house, in the event that hon. members do not already know, that this program regarding sewage disposal plants in cities is a program which we started and of which we are very proud. I hope the government continues it.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we listened with attention to the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) to the effect that the application of the act authorizing the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make loans to municipalities, provinces, municipal corporations has been extended until 1970.
I am grateful to the minister for sending me a French copy of his statement.
I would also like to tell him that we are happy that the application of that act has been extended until 1970, because I have been asking the government for several years now to help the municipalities as much as possible. On the other hand, we are not asking that they be helped by taxing them or charging them an interest rate which will increase considerably the debt they will contract with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
As an example, let us assume that the city of Rouyn borrows $100,000 from the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation at 5| per cent for a period of 50 years. This means that, in 50 years, the city of Rouyn would have paid, in interest only, the amount of $287,500 all the capital being due, that is $100,000, or a total of $387,500 for a $100,000 loan.
Now, we ask the government to study the possibility of interest-free loans to municipalities and provinces, so that these public bodies would pay once only for the

projects to be carried out within the limits of their jurisdiction.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of both the government and the hon. Minister of Labour to that point. I understand that this is just a question of sewage and waterworks, but there are other things to do in the municipalities.
In any case, we are glad that the government has agreed to extend the assistance to municipalities but let us help them without making them sink into unpayable debt.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the minister for giving us prior notice of this motion. We are also grateful that this further step is being taken to assist municipalities in financing a certain aspect of their capital development. We believe it is only a portion of the assistance which must be given to them but it is certainly a step in the right direction. We are glad the minister has seen fit to recommend it.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


Mr. M. L. Klein (Cartier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-141, to amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to animals and to human beings).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Milton L. Klein: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the section of the Criminal Code which makes it an offence to stage a fight between animals and between birds by adding the category of human beings so as to extend to human beings the protection now extended to animals.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and report upon divorce in Canada and the social and legal problems relating thereto, and such matters as may be referred to it by either house;
That 24 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the special joint committee, and that standing order 67 (1) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
March 10. 1966	COMMONS
That the committee have power to engage the services of such technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the inquiry;
That the committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses, to report from time to time, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee, and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting their honours to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it so advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed special joint committee.
Mr. Mcllrailh:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the report that charges will be laid by the Humane Society arising out of, as described, the sadistic and stupid cruelty in the slaughter of baby seals, will the minister assure the house that action will be taken to put an end to this inhumane and senseless killing?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member I wish to say that I understand there have been a few cases of cruelty to animals since the opening of the seal season on Monday last. I am awaiting a report from the S.P.C.A., the Humane Society's representatives, who were present during the whole operation. As soon as this report is received I intend to make a complete statement in the house on motions.
In the meantime I have instructed that action be taken to proceed with charges against those responsible for violations of the sealing regulations. I also wish to inform the hon. member that prior to the amending of the regulations there was no clause therein which prohibited the skinning of seals alive, if I may use that expression. I understand there have been some abuses this year by a few seal hunters and charges will be laid against them.
I repeat that I will make a full and complete statement on motions as soon as I receive the report.
DEBATES	2481
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of what has been brought up and factually evidenced on television- the minister himself was a witness-does he not think that the regulations must be tightened now?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, on two different occasions, in 1965 and again in 1966, I did indicate there was an intention to tighten the regulations because there was room for improvement. That is why we had representatives of the S.P.C.A. with us. We provided them with transportation to the sealing areas with a view to finding out what amendments can be made to the existing regulations so that no cruelty would take place in the killing of seals.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings.-way):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries whether or not he will now give consideration to finding a more humane method of killing these baby seals?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is exactly what I have just said I will do, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked the Minister of National Defence a question with regard to the Halifax dockyard and the job evaluation or classification program in progress there. He particularly asked the minister whether the employees there had been provided with certain forms and whether the government had refused to negotiate regarding job classification with the organization concerned. The minister said that he would take the question as notice. Would he now inform us as to his answer?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, so far as the determination of pay rates is concerned, I believe that is the responsibility of Treasury Board. As far as I know, what has been sent to the dockyard is a booklet describing the particular reclassification job which is being done. Now, I am supposed to receive this booklet at any moment, and at that time I will be in a position to give the answer I promised yesterday.


David Lewis: A supplementary question.
Would the minister undertake to look into
March 10, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry correspondence which passed between the department and the president and secretary of the Halifax Dockyard trades and labour council with respect to the job evaluation program and be prepared to tell us tomorrow whether what is indicated in this correspondence has now been abandoned?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I would be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question.
According to this morning's Le Devoir, the Prime Minister is getting ready to leave his post of party leader and Prime Minister within the next three months. Did he inform Le Devoir's editor of the fact? What is the truth about the report published this morning?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he cannot ask the Prime Minister whether a news report is true or not.


David Réal Caouette: Is it true that the Prime Minister intends to resign within the next three months?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would let me say that there is not a word of truth in that statement; it has already been denied.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does this applause mean that the mystical bond has been refurbished?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and is a follow-up of the question asked him yesterday regarding NATO. Has the Prime Minister received the message which the minister of information of the French government said he has sent Canada? If so, what are the expected actions of the government with regard thereto?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the communication from the French government was delivered to our embassy in Paris this morning and it is being cabled to Ottawa. As soon as it arrives-I expect later today-we will at once begin to give it the consideration that its importance deserves.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
, On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. Did the Minister of Justice state outside this house that he had certain facts and references in regard to a certain case alleged to have occurred during the term of the former government, and did he also suggest certain facts existed which were far worse than those of the Profumo scandal, implicating two members of the Privy Council? Did he make that statement outside the house?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I did inform members of the press that I learnt of the Munsinger case while I was minister in another department of government; that I did-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Which department?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I also stated files existed in connection with that particular case and that these files were not referred to the legal officers of the Department of Justice. I can also say that I am seriously considering making a judicial inquiry into the decision and the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition in that particular case. But I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this with the Prime Minister and with my cabinet colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He will pull the rug out
again.


Michael Starr: Make sure the chair is there before you sit down.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: However, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members of this house will refer to the words used by the Leader of the Opposition some time ago, they will find he said that he would welcome such an inquiry; and if that is so, then I think the inquiry should be set up.
March 10, 1966



PRIVILEGE


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the answer just given by the Minister of Justice I must rise on a question of personal privilege. My question of privilege concerns the matter just now under discussion, namely the insinuations and allegations made by the Minister of Justice in this house on Friday last in connection with the alleged Munsinger case, and the subsequent statements which he made at a press conference this morning to which reference has just been made.
The statements he made, as reported in the press this morning, are these, and I will instance only a few of them to indicate that a question of privilege exists. They are along the following lines:
Mr. Cardin said he understands the R.C.M.P. has a file on the case but that Mr. Diefenbaker never referred it to the law officers of the crown.
He himself had not seen the file but had learned a great deal about the case while he was in another department, presumably as Associate Defence Minister.


An hon. Member:: Hearsay.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, it is hearsay.
Justice Minister Cardin charged today that two or more former cabinet ministers in the Diefenbaker cabinet were involved with a former east German spy.
In a Southam news report there occurs this statement:
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Today, answering a barrage of questions on the Munsinger matter-it quite overshadowed his decision to resign his ministry, since withdrawn- Mr. Cardin asserted that though he had never examined the Munsinger file personally, he had heard of the case when he was associate minister of national defence.
In the front page of the Ottawa Journal which I have just secured, again it is stated, or reported to have been said by the minister:
-"the Munsinger scandal'' involving "more than one member of the Diefenbaker Cabinet."
And again he was asked:
-had there been an actual security leak?
"I don't know-but there definitely was a security risk."
He is again making allegations on this line.
The justice minister has yet to see the R.C.M.P. file.
Question of Privilege
Where then, did he hear of the Munsinger case, the initial word of which he exploded Friday in the Commons?
The answer is:
"At the Defence Department."
At the time it came to his ears he was associate defence minister.
Now, Mr. Speaker, all of these statements, allegations and insinuations made by the Minister of Justice have only and can have had only one effect, and that is to put every person who was a member of the Conservative cabinet of that period, which I understand is supposed to be the 1960 to 1962 period, under suspicion.
This is an extremely unfortunate situation for me and for every other person who was a member of that cabinet to find himself in, and I think there is no question whatever but that the statements the minister has made cannot be allowed to hang in the air and rumours, speculations and stories of all kinds to be circulated against all of the hon. members of the Privy Council who were members of that government. It is an intolerable situation and it is a particularly bad situation, I consider, from my own point of view, because the minister has now inferentially, or pretty directly pointed the finger really at the Department of Defence, because he said that it was from there that he secured the information.


An hon. Member:: Well now-


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is nothing to laugh at in this whole situation, Mr. Speaker. It is an extremely serious one, and one which I, and I know every other cabinet minister upon whom suspicion has been cast, feel extremely strongly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the minister having made these statements, as I say, the question cannot remain at that point. I wish to say, and I state very categorically, that until the minister mentioned this matter in the house on Friday last, I had never heard the word "Munsinger" or the name "Munsinger". I had never heard anything whatever in connection with that alleged case, and I am prepared not only to state that here, but to state it under oath in any inquiry of anything else which may be held in connection with the matter.
Now, I do not think that we can have the-we will say the undignified spectacle of every minister who was a member of that cabinet rising and being required, or having,

March 10. 1966
Question of Privilege
in order to clear his name, to make a statement along this line. And this is part of the intolerable situation which the minister has put the ex-members of that cabinet into by the statements which he has made. In view of this whole situation, Mr. Speaker, and in order that it may be cleared up definitely and that there may be an end put to the many rumours and speculations and what not which have run around the country as a result of this, I move this motion:
That the Minister of Justice be required forthwith to substantiate the charges made inside and outside this chamber which have reflected unfortunately and improperly upon members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, or alternatively that he be asked to submit his resignation and to atone by the forfeiture of his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Don't be suspicious.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is about time the Prime Minister opened the letter.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: He has not spoken with him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members realize, the first and perhaps most important duty that the Chair has in a situation such as this one, is to determine whether there is actually a prima facie case of privilege. Perhaps hon. members might like to say a few words about this matter, that a decision might be rendered.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I want everyone in the house to know, and I am quite sincere in this, that I feel very badly about the way things are turning out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: And I can also appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Calgary North and other Privy Councillors may have been offended by what I am alleged to have said.
If hon. members in the house will recall what I said on Friday they will see that I made no reference to any hon. member in this house. What I asked was-


Mr. Winkler:: That is not right.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -that the Leader of the Opposition express to the committee his actions in this particular case. Period. I said no more than that, and it is the right hon. gentleman himself, the Leader of the Opposition, who at a political party gave more information on the Munsinger case than anybody else.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are attacking him in his absence again.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The press itself amplified that far more than perhaps the Leader of the Opposition did or I did.


An hon. Member:: Who spread the rumours?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I did not at any time mention the details of the case, either to the press or to anyone else, except by confirming today what I already have confirmed in the house.
The hon. members in this house I think have a responsibility in this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I suggested a moment ago that the only question before the committee is the conduct, or the decision of the Leader of the Opposition in this particular case when he was prime minister. That is the point.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Who put the rumours in the press gallery?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: In having a judicial inquiry into the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition this problem could be solved. There are members of the Privy Council on this and on the opposite side of the house who in fact, I think, would like to have that conduct looked into.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I have suggested that this perhaps would be the best, the most honest, the most orderly and the most diplomatic way of solving this problem without there being any kind of aspersion cast on any hon. member.


Michael Starr: You have already done that.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The one thing that is in the minds of the people is to decide upon the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister during the Munsinger case.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about this morning?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Minister of Justice has now made some further allegations and suggested a further course of action. But those allegations and that suggested course of action do not excuse him in any way for the slur which he has cast upon me and other former ministers of the Conservative government, and it is this matter which is before the house at the present time. Irrespective of what inquiry may be set up, or anything along that line, I think the minister has placed himself in a position that he must either substantiate the statements he has made or resign, as called for in the motion I have made.
March 10. 1966


Erik Nielsen: The minister said a moment ago that on Friday he did not make any allegation against any one of the former cabinet ministers now sitting on this side of the house. That is not in accordance with the facts. At page 2211 of Hansard for last Friday, hon. members will find this recorded:
I repeat he is the very last person in the house who can afford to give advice on the handling of security cases in Canada.
The reference is to the Leader of the Opposition. Later on, in the same column, the Minister of Justice used these words:
I want the right hon. gentleman to tell the house about his participation in the Monseignor case-


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Erik Nielsen: I hear an hon. member saying "That's right". That is precisely the substance of the motion that is being made. I read on:
-to tell the house about his participation in the Monseignor case when he was Prime Minister of this country.
If that is not an accusation of participation involving a member of the former government-


George James McIlraith: Give us the page reference.


Erik Nielsen: Page 2211, the left hand column, two thirds down the page. Here are the words:
I want the right hon. gentleman to tell the house about his participation in the Monseignor case-


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the handling of it.


Michael Starr: Read Hansard.


Erik Nielsen: To the press, sir, the minister has charged that former Conservative ministers were involved with a former east German spy. He has said he would ask the cabinet to re-open the case. He has said there was an R.C.M.P. file-that he had not seen it, but was briefed on it. He has said that the Leader of the Opposition, the former prime minister, did not handle the case properly and should explain. He has said that the former prime minister never referred the matter to the law officers of the Crown. He has said that he learned about the case in another department. He has said the Liberals were tired of hearing the Leader of the Opposition insinuate that the government was plunged in scandals, and that the Liberals were going to fight back hard, using the same tactics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Question of Privilege


Erik Nielsen: He has said "We know she had been engaged in espionage prior to coming to Canada". He has said that more than one minister was involved. Indeed, some press releases are carrying reports that more than two ministers of the former government were involved. He has said that government action at the time was justified, but it is too late now, the girl being dead.
He has said he was not in a position to comment on whether there was a security leak. Nothwithstanding the fact that he has not seen the file, he has said his objective was to press the Leader of the Opposition to explain his conduct in not turning the case over to the law officers. He has said it was a bona fide security case, again notwithstanding the fact that he has not seen the file.
On the basis of these statements, and in order that we on this side of the house may be able to present arguments, and make the minister account for his irresponsible and despicable statements outside this house-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: -we urge that the motion be allowed, on the basis of the chronology which I have laid before Your Honour, which constitutes certainly one of the most serious and important cases of privilege ever to have come before this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: With regret as to what is being done to this parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: -I want to say that we in this party cannot blame the hon. gentleman on this side of the house who moved the motion which is now before us.
It seems to us to be a clear point of personal privilege affecting every member of the cabinet to which the statement of the Minister of Justice had reference. It would have been to expect more of them than one should expect-that they should sit still and fail to raise this matter which concerns their individual personal integrity and standing in the country as spokesmen for a political party.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


David Lewis: I do not care how many catcalls are made from the other side or from this side of the house. I say to you, sir, that it is a great and deep matter, and one for great and

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege
deep regret, that when certain unpleasantnesses in this house have at last come to a conclusion a member of the government should find it necessary to rake them all up again and start another unpleasantness over again and make this parliament, which has so terrible a responsibility at the present time in the world's history, a matter for laughter and sorrow on the part of the Canadian people.
I am not going to make a lengthy speech, because I want to make a suggestion to Your Honour and to members of this house that this matter is unpleasant and undignified enough without lengthy speeches or any elaboration of the unpleasantness and the indignities. I suggest we vote on this motion and after we have voted-I hope, in its favour-that we take the necessary steps to implement it in the proper way-and I hope this will be before some committee rather than on the floor of this house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: wish to support what has been said by the two hon. members who have just spoken, particularly by my hon. friend from Yukon, who outlined certain statements which the minister has made. The minister today made certain statements which seemed to contradict quotations which have appeared in the leading newspapers of our country. This is significant and it goes to the heart of this question of personal privilege.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
He has seen fit to hold two press conferences and when you analyse the headlines in the Ottawa Journal-no doubt similar headlines will appear in other newspapers-you will see he has made far worse and far more grave statements outside the house than he made inside the house. In addition, the fact that he was speaking outside the house makes the matter far worse than if he had made the statements in the house.
He has, according to the quoted statement in the press, implicated at least two Privy Councillors or more. He has said in the house once or twice-whether he has contradicted it I do not know-that there was no question of security in his mind. Yet outside the house he said, as quoted-and I suggest this is the most cowardly statement of all those he has made:
In some ways it was worse.
When asked if there had been an actual security leak he replied:
I don't know-but there definitely was a security risk.
(Mr. Lewis.]
Therefore he has by innuendo, using the former minister of justice's words, offended so far as the Privy Councillors of this house are concerned. He has dragged the House of Commons and parliament into the gutter. The other day he had a letter of resignation placed on the Prime Minister's desk-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -and the Prime Minister should have opened it because there is a great schism between the minister and the Prime Minister. I think the minister should get up and resign.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, you have asked for comments and advice with regard to a decision on whether or not there is a legitimate question of privilege before the house. I personally regret very much that this matter has been brought up in this way. Certainly it is not going to do anyone any good, let alone this house. Nevertheless the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Calgary North is in my opinion a legitimate question of privilege because it has to do with the integrity, yes, even the morality of men who are members of the Privy Council.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, without entering into any debate I wish to say it is our opinion that there is a question of privilege and that it must be allowed on that basis. I would only hope that this matter can be referred to a committee of the house. In that way we will be able to go on with the work that is before us and avoid taking a further part in dragging this house into the mud and mire, something that obviously is going to be involved in the situation we have before us now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Settle it right here.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of privilege is a legitimate one.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I do not write the headlines in the newspapers. The reason for my calling a conference was the numerous telephone calls I had from the press in order to explain the difference there was between my resigning and the decision I took not to resign.
During the course of the interview questions were asked about the Munsinger case and I did not say anything that had not already appeared in the press at that time. I should like to remind hon. members that during the course of the debate on the
March 10, 1966

Spencer case there were insinuations from all parts of the house to the effect that I was trying to hide something, that the government was trying to hide matters that were scandalous, that we did not want to prosecute Spencer because he would perhaps come out with the names of people whose heads would swim.
There were insinuations right and left. No one on this side of the house asked that there be charges made but we did, under the conditions that were asked for by members of the N.D.P., agree to a judicial inquiry into that matter.
In this particular instance I did not make any insinuations of any kind against anyone that had not already been in the newspapers. In the interests of the individuals concerned, in the interests of people who might be involved in this particular case, I suggest that the best, the most honourable and the most equitable way of solving this problem is as we did in the Spencer case, by having a judicial inquiry and having a judge report on the decision and the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition.


Michael Starr: You tell us now. This is the minister of mud.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Sirath-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard a more remarkable speech than that just made by the Minister of Justice. If I understand his argument correctly, what he says is that all he did was answer questions that the press raised. I think that the complete picture is that he threw out this suggestion on Friday, that the press took the hook and came to him and that he got the sort of headlines he was looking for. If this is not weaseling, I do not know what is.
The minister is getting now in this motion exactly what he wanted when he first raised the matter. The matter is getting nationwide publicity. If he is in charge of the ministry of justice he should have some concept of justice and should know that the reputation of men cannot be put under a shadow in this manner without the person who makes the allegations and raises them being prepared to back up those accusations. The suggestion of the Minister of Justice now is that this was accidental-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the views expressed by the hon. member.
Question of Privilege [Translation]
Does the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) wish to add something?


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, for our part we are not ready to add anything to the debate at this moment. We would have liked to know the views of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on the problem which is now being discussed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I am as aware as any other member of the house that this is a very serious and grave situation. I can understand the feeling of the hon. member who raised the matter in the way he has done and the motion he has submitted, and I can understand the feeling of the Minister of Justice after what he has been through in recent weeks in connection with a case in which there were many accusations and suspicions levelled at him.
But I should like, Mr. Speaker, if I might deal with the matter as a parliamentary one, and as the leader of the house because of my position as Prime Minister, to suggest to you, sir, in view of the seriousness of the matter I might be permitted to consult, which I would do without delay, with the mover of the motion and yourself to see how best the matter can be resolved immediately so that justice may be done.


Michael Starr: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question at this point, and I think it is a serious one. Does he think that the reflections cast on a large group of Privy Councillors in the previous government should remain unanswered for any time at all? Should they not be dealt with at once in order to remove the stigma from these people?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate the earnestness of the hon. member when he talks about reflections cast upon Privy Councillors because I know something about that myself. I have been told that crime entered into my office, and that kind of thing, and I know how he feels because I felt the same way in reverse.
I do not want to delay this matter. It must be dealt with, and dealt with immediately. I am asking for the privilege as leader of the house to consult with the hon. member who moved the motion and Your Honour, to see how it can be dealt with quickly and effectively.

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege


Thomas Miller Bell: Then vote for the motion.


Michael Starr: May I appeal to the Prime Minister again? Will he not prevail upon the Minister of Justice to reveal the facts now at this time in respect of this case? If not, we have no alternative but to ask that the'motion be put.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not an enviable position which the Chair is being placed in at the moment. I have been given an opportunity during the last hour or so to reflect on the very serious matter raised by the hon. member for Calgary North. I must point out that I regret very much his original motion could not be accepted because of a technical difficulty, and he gave written notice subsequently, at 2.40 or 2.45, which was about the time the motion would have been discussed in any event.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I am satisfied and pleased with the way the matter has come to a head. As hon. members know, the Chair is guided by citation 104(5) which says:
As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is thereby given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed, and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.
I expect it might have been argued, inasmuch as the statements were made on Friday last, that the matter was not raised at the first opportunity, but we are dealing now specifically with allegations as reported in a newspaper outside the house and the allegations repeated by the hon. member in the house. I am inclined to believe there is a prima facie case of privilege in this instance but I might point out to hon. members-and I am sorry I have to use the word "but"-that it does not necessarily follow that if there is a question of privilege the motion made necessarily is acceptable according to the rules, practice and procedure of the house.
What we are dealing with now is an accusation made by some hon. members against another hon. member. The subject matter which gave rise to the statements made by the Minister of Justice, which is in the background of what we are dealing with now, is an accusation made against the Minister of Justice-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: -and there is a suggestion that the Minister of Justice has in some way conducted himself in an improper manner. This is the only interpretation which can be placed on the motion put forward by the hon. member.
There are any number of precedents indicating what has to be done in such instances. I would refer hon. members in particular to the Journals of the House of Commons, Volume 105, 1959, at page 584, where the Speaker, who was faced with a somewhat similar case, was given notice and after lengthy consideration delivered a judgment which covered some four or five pages in the Journals. I might say that that Speaker had a considerable advantage at that time over the present Speaker. However, fortunately I can take advantage of his ruling and quote from it:
In my view, simple justice requires that no honourable member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the house or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
Then, further on:
In the case before us no honourable member has taken the responsibility of making a specific charge against the honourable member-
The motion I have before me says:
That the Minister of Justice be required forthwith to substantiate the charges made inside and outside this Chamber which have reflected unfortunately and improperly upon members of Her Majesty's Privy Council.
It is obvious that what we are doing in this motion is impugning the conduct of the Minister of Justice who himself perhaps impugned the conduct of other members but, as I have said, this is not what we are faced with at present. I am impressed by the suggestion made by the hon. members for York South (Mr. Lewis) and Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) who say that the proper course to take in respect of this type of matter is to refer the subject matter of the motion to a committee.
I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members Bourinot's fourth edition, page 162, where it says:
A reference to a committee is no doubt the proper procedure in all cases in which there are reasonable doubts as to the facts or the course that should be pursued, especially when it is necessary to examine precedents or witnesses.
I have given the matter very serious thought and have looked at it as objectively as I can. I can come to no other conclusion than that the motion as drafted now cannot be accepted by the Chair because it is too
March 10, 1966

general in terms and, according to precedents, does not specify the charge levelled against the minister. For this reason, while I agree with the hon. member for Calgary North that there is a prima facie case of privilege, the motion in its present form cannot be accepted by the Chair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, you have allowed the question of privilege and it can be further discussed even though you suggest that the motion was not put in the proper form. Am I right in that conclusion?


Mr. Speaker:: No. There is nothing before the house. I know the hon. member realizes this. There was a question of privilege which was not followed by a proper motion. There is nothing before the house and we cannot debate a motion which has not been accepted.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that before Your Honour's ruling the Prime Minister asked for permission of the house to discuss the matter with the member for Calgary North and Your Honour. I understood that what he wished to discuss was the question of privilege. Since Your Honour has agreed that there is a question of privilege, is there not some way in which there can be that discussion within the next half hour or so, reserving to the member for Calgary North the right to bring in at that point, if he wishes to do so, a motion worded in some other way?


Mr. Speaker:: No. There still is no motion before the house. There may be arrangements made by hon. members to have informal discussion as to how this matter could be proceeded with by way of another motion but certainly there is no motion before this house now. The decision I have reached is justified, I believe, by precedents and procedures followed in previous years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have never pretended to be an expert on the rules of the house. Probably what you have said may be correct on the basis of a literal interpretation of former rulings but I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Well, the only attitude or position I can take now is that any further discussion is a comment on the ruling of the Chair. There are other avenues open to hon. members. I am sure they can give the matter serious thought. I would suggest that further 23033-1581
Question of Privilege
consideration be given the matter in another light.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), that the Minister of Justice do resign.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot accept this motion. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a substantive motion and would require notice. It is not necessarily one which follows logically from the question of privilege, though I have some doubts now.
The Chair is being placed in a very difficult position at this point. If hon. members are going to bring in a series of motions until such time as they may be in a position to find one which will be acceptable under the rules, it is, I suggest, placing the Chair in an impossible position. If the hon. member now makes this motion I will ask, as I have the right, to have the opportunity to consider the motion before ruling on it.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in the name of reason, for the good of the house and likewise in the national interest I would suggest it is only right at this time, Your Honour having indicated that there are other ways this matter can be dealt with, that the suggestion be followed that Your Honour, the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Calgary North get together to discuss the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a matter which is for the consideration of the Chair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. We have been considering a matter of personal privilege raised by the hon. member for Calgary North with which you have dealt. I, sir, have a question of privilege which to a certain extent resembles that raised by the hon. member for Calgary North. I base my question of privilege on the statements made by the Minister of Justice in this house on Friday, outside the house yesterday and today and in this house today. If you take all his statements and examine them separately you cannot help but find that they cast a reflection on the members of Her Majesty's Privy Council, and I take objection to that.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member says he has a question of privilege which is somewhat like the one raised by the hon.

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege
member for Calgary North. I cannot find any difference at all between the hon. member's question of privilege and the one raised by the hon. member for Calgary North. I can see no point in every member of the Privy Council getting up at this time to raise exactly the same question of privilege. A ruling has been made by the Chair and I would invite the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to take into account that ruling and what has been said by the Chair.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, you are suggesting that members of the Privy Council should not raise this point. You acknowledged that the hon. member for Calgary North had a question of privilege and that question was settled, but I have a question of privilege too. The Minister of Justice implicated all members of the privy council who served in the cabinet of the present Leader of the Opposition. I happen to be one of those members of the Privy Council. You may have settled in your mind the question raised by the hon. member for Calgary North, but I have a case to put forward regarding the statements of the Minister of Justice which affect me as a Privy Councillor and affect every other member of the Privy Council. That is the question of personal privilege I wish to raise at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot agree with the logic of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. The motion which was made did not refer to the hon. member for Calgary North, it referred to the fact that there were allegations made affecting members of Her Majesty's Privy Council. The hon. member for Calgary North in his presentation never suggested that the allegations applied only to him. His mot'on and the arguments submitted in its favour during its presentation referred to a matter of privilege which affected all Privy Councillors, not just one.
It is obvious in my mind that the ruling which has been made in connection with the question of privilege and the motion of the hon. member for Calgary North applies in the same way to the question of privilege which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre may have. That earlier privilege and motion have been put to the Chair, considered and ruled upon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking to the motion which you ruled out of order. Unless I did not hear correctly, the hon. member for Calgary North raised a personal question of privilege. In speaking to

that question he said it affected all members of the Privy Council who had served under the former Conservative government. He then moved a motion with which you were not in agreement. I am not speaking to that motion, sir. I am raising a question of personal privilege which, as I have stated, is based upon statements made by the Minister of Justice and I demand my right to be heard. Freedom of speech is at stake in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: My suggestion to the hon. member is that there is no question of freedom of speech involved. We have spent over an hour now on a very important question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Is there a limit to the freedom of speech?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North was given every freedom to express his question of privilege and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had an opportunity to take part in that discussion. He was not denied the right to speak on that question of privilege. Certainly if the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Calgary North meant anything, it was meant to apply to all Privy Councillors. It applies to Privy Councillors on both sides of this house. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that there is a separate and distinct question of privilege in that he would be affected personally and distinctly from the hon. member for Calgary North. For that reason I cannot allow him to re-open the whole question at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you cannot deny an hon. member the right to raise a personal question of privilege. There is a question of privilege in respect of the statement made by the Minister of Justice to the effect that one or more ministers were involved. He said there were two or more ministers involved, as reported in some press accounts, and he has not denied that he has made that statement. Once he used the word "more" he made it all-inclusive, and there is a question of personal privilege in respect of every member of the Privy Council who wishes to raise it today. It does not matter how many other questions of privilege may have been raised. The fact that the hon. member for Calgary North said that these statements affected every member of the Privy Council does not prevent every member of the Privy Council from raising a
March 10, 19B6

question of privilege if he so desires. The purpose of my rising today is to raise such a question of privilege.
You asked me why I did not participate in the earlier discussion. The earlier discussion was on the question whether or not there was a question of personal privilege and some hon. members ranged over a wide field regarding this issue. That is why I did not participate. I knew you would rule that there was a prima facie question of privilege. This was obvious to everyone in the chamber. The matter of the motion is a different question. I suggest I do have a question of personal privilege. It may be very similar to that raised by the hon. member for Calgary North but it is equally important to me and to every member of the Privy Council. I am surprised that the members of the Privy Council sitting on the other side of the house are so disinterested in an issue of this kind they would not disavow the aspersions that have been made about members of the Privy Council in the statements of the Minister of Justice.


Michael Starr: Unless they are part and parcel of the whole situation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am astonished that the Prime Minister of this country wants to withdraw this issue from the house and present it to some sort of committee. It might not be debated again in this chamber. Let us settle it right here and now. Let the Minister of Justice name names and cases.


Erik Nielsen: Put up or stop fooling around.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Put up or stop fooling around.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Minister of Justice has pursued his normal course of attacking the Leader of the Official Opposition when he is not in this chamber. He did the same thing several years ago. That is the normal course he follows. The minister has cast aspersions on members of the Privy Council outside of this chamber and in this chamber and it is up to them to settle this matter right away. As was suggested earlier, he should disclose his facts here and now or withdraw the statements he has made.


Erik Nielsen: Or he should resign.
Question of Privilege


Gordon Minto Churchill: If this matter is referred to a committee it will go on for weeks and months, and smears, innuendos and McCarthyism will be spread right across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mark you, sir, this will be used by various people for political purposes to destroy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Liberals are laughing at this.


Erik Nielsen: That is typical.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is typical of them; it is typical of their attitude toward parliament.


Mr. Ricard:: That is their way of working.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They would like to have this serious matter brushed aside as carelessly as they have suggested, by sending it to a committee. The Prime Minister knows how serious this matter is.


An hon. Member:: He will not give an? leadership.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not agree with the Prime Minister on many things but he has given long service to this country. He is the head of his party and the head of this government.


Michael Starr: He is a member of the Privy Council.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Prime Minister was sworn in as a member of the Privy Council in England and he is a right hon. member. He knows that a slur cast on a member of the Privy Council should be resisted by the leaders of the Privy Council. In this House of Commons we have only two members who are right hon. members of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. They were both sworn in by the Queen and they have the title of right honourable. They know we look to them for leadership. When the advisers to Her Majesty the Queen are affected by a slur I should think that the Prime Minister would be the first person to resist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: As the hon. member for Calgary North said, members of the Privy Council sitting on this side of the house are not under any obligation to rise and say "I

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege
was not implicated." I am not doing it for that purpose at all. I do not care what these Liberals do or say about me. They have said everything in the past anyway so it does not matter. I do not care what accusations the Minister of Justice may make right at this very moment. But I challenge him to make his statements here in the house, not outside the house. He tried to persuade us that he made his statements on Friday and that he was not challenged. He did not implicate one or two or more of the Privy Council on Friday. He did not say in the house what he said outside or he would have been challenged immediately, and he knows it. That is the value of this debating chamber; this is where people are challenged immediately. How do you catch up with these outside stories? Is he going to rush to another press conference later today and give out a little more information, more innuendo, more scandal, more involvement? This is what he will be up to, this Minister of Justice who is supposed to sustain the law of this land and set an example.


Erik Nielsen: A fine example.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is my question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have been accused along with others by this Minister of Justice of having been involved somehow or other and I ask him-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Liberals laugh again. They think this is just nonsense. They will destroy parliament if we give them the opportunity. I hope we are here to prevent them doing so.


An hon. Member:: The minister laughs too.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I ask the Minister of Justice to get up in this house as a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council, make his apology to the House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: *-and withdraw the statements that he made outside this house. Alternatively, let him get up and make his accusations clearly and plainly right here and then let us see what happens.
I present this motion in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, based on my question of privilege. I think it must come to a decision of this house. It must come to a vote and not be shoved aside, shunted into some corner or

some committee. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr):
That the Prime Minister immediately call lor the resignation of the Minister of Justice on the basis of the improper conduct of the minister in the making of improper accusations against the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and all Privy Councillors in the former government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion which has just been submitted to the Chair by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is substantially the same as the one already before the Chair moved by the hon. member for Yukon. At that time I asked hon. members to give the Chair an opportunity to look into the situation further, because certainly I think it is not entirely correct to submit a series of motions to the Chair in such a very important matter, such a very delicate matter, and ask that a ruling be made, except when there is a very clear case.
It is my opinion that the first motion put before the house constituted a very clear case and by reason of precedents it was clear that the motion should not be accepted. May I suggest to hon. members now that I be given an opportunity to look at the motions made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Yukon. This is a request that is very reasonable and which the Chair is entitled to make according to practice. I trust hon. members will agree to give the Chair this opportunity.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, while you are looking at the motion might I be allowed to say a word on the necessity of dealing with this matter today, immediately, now. The charges and allegations that have been made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has had an opportunity to speak. I wonder whether there is anything he can now say that will add to what he has said on the previous motion. I am not being unreasonable at all or unfair, I think, to hon. members when I ask them to co-operate with the Chair. I believe that hon. members have a responsibility in this matter to co-operate with the Chair and I ask hon. members to co-operate with me in this regard. This is all I am asking at this time.


Erik Nielsen: With deference, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any opportunity at all to speak on the merits of the motions that have been made. I have only had the opportunity to speak on whether there exists a prima facie case of privilege. In the meantime the urgency of this matter, because these allegations of
March 10, 1966

the Minister of Justice are being spread all over the country, demands immediate discussion in this chamber. It is this matter about which I wish to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that there is urgency in this matter and I can assure the hon. member that I am quite convinced it is a matter of substantial and serious urgency. But, with respect, I do not think it should necessarily be settled within 30 minutes, within an hour, or immediately. As the hon. member says, the matter has been publicly referred to and has gained some prominence.
I doubt whether it will gain additional prominence if the motion of the hon. member is allowed to stand for a while. Again I would suggest that this be done.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Your Honour has said that this is a matter of importance and should be dealt with within a reasonable time, I wonder whether Your Honour would indicate to us how long it will be before Your Honour brings in a decision on the merits of the motions?


Mr. Turner:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that all hon. members agree on just how important the matter before the house is and how urgent it is, I wonder whether the Chair should be pressed into making an immediate decision-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: -because it is very important for the rules of this house that the right decision is made by the Chair. I would therefore urge hon. members to give the Chair a chance to make the right decision.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you have asked members of the house to give you some time to consider the two motions before Your Honour. May I respectfully suggest to you, sir, and to the members of this house that the proper thing to do now is to adjourn the house for an hour or so-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: -so that you may give this matter the consideration you think necessary and so this most unpleasant spectacle may come to an end. I would urge you, sir, and all members of the house to agree to an adjournment until six o'clock so that Your Honour may have the time, and everybody else may have the time, to go into this matter and to do it properly.
Question of Privilege


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: If there are problems about moving such a motion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to hear what the house leader has to say.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely it is only reasonable and right that in a matter of this importance, so difficult and complicated for the Speaker, he be given some time to decide what is the right course to follow. The hon. member opposite has said that this must be decided today, immediately, now. I recall the insinuations and the charges of arson, murder and bankruptcy and everything over the years, and the remedy for these charges was to set up a royal commission.


Erik Nielsen: Absolutely.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a matter that should be decided and decided quickly but surely, Mr. Speaker, you ought to be given some opportunity to look into this matter and surely, also, while that is being done the house can go on with the business before it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this house now stand adjourned until 6 p.m. this day.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Order. It is not debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George James McIlraith: May I ask-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member makes his motion may I ask him a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this motion is not debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the motion is not debatable. It is also not receivable at this time. The hon. member is now proposing a motion which is in the form of a superseding motion. There has to be something before the house before a motion to adjourn the house can be moved and at the moment there is nothing before the house.
The hon. member cannot, under the guise of a point of order, rise to ask the adjournment of the house. There has to be business before the house and a motion under consideration, followed by a superseding motion

March 10, 196S
Question of Privilege
asking for the adjournment of the house. My understanding of the expert advice I have received, advice which is always very useful in such instances, is to the effect that this motion cannot be moved now.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I thought the business before the house was a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I submit that whether or not the motion is in order the question is still there.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not. I have to add that not only can it not be done under the guise of a point of order but it cannot be done under a question of privilege.


Thomas Miller Bell: Surely Your Honour has looked at standing order 25 which reads:
A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance), shall always be in order-
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, "shall always be in order". The universal custom of this House of Commons is that a motion to adjourn can be received at any time, I submit with the greatest respect.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should have read the rest of the standing order. It continues:
-but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceeding has been had.
I really do not want to argue with the hon. member. The Chair should not be placed in the position where it has to argue on a matter such as this. I suggest that whenever there is a substantive motion before the house at a later hour during the day that motion can be moved. My understanding is that it cannot be moved now. I hope I have been well advised on this.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, if the motion to adjourn is not in order, I should like to speak to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and I should like to move a motion in connection therewith.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has heard the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre make a motion. He has moved a motion and the Chair has asked for the assistance and for the concurrence of the house to allow the Chair some time to consider the motion, as well as the motion moved by the hon. member for Yukon. Surely the hon. member does not want to move a third motion on the same question of privilege.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, surely the question whether the motion is proper does not end the debate. The disposition of one motion does not end the question of privilege. I would put that suggestion before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot agree with the hon. member. A question of privilege has been raised. The Chair rendered the decision that there was a prima facie case of privilege before the house, after which a motion was moved consequent upon the question of privilege. The only matter we can discuss now is the motion, if it is accepted by the house. The Chair has asked that the matter be held in abeyance. This is such a reasonable request that I would invite hon. members to grant it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, my point is that if the motion had been disposed of that would have disposed of the question of privilege. But since the motion was found to be not acceptable it does not dispose of the question of privilege. Therefore the question of privilege is still before the house, as is the action to be taken on it. We have two questions of privilege which in my submission are still before the house, one raised by the hon. member for Calgary North and the other by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. The motion moved by the hon. member for Calgary North was found to be out of order but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot agree with the hon. member's contention. My contention is that two very logical questions of privilege have been raised followed by motions, one of which is under consideration. We cannot completely forget the fact that these motions exist and are now before the house. They were regular motions. Whether or not they are acceptable or should be ignored is the question which the Chair would like the opportunity to decide. But certainly motions have been moved and seconded in both instances. I do not think we can make an abstraction of them and return to the question of privilege and discuss it further.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat that by finding the motion out of order you are killing off debate on the main subject? That practice could happen in the house at any time. A member could make a motion which is out of order so as to kill off debate. Certainly this does not dispose of the substantive question before us, and I wish to speak to that substantive question.
March 10, 1966


Mr. Knowles:: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would invite Your Honour to reconsider the position which you have taken in respect of Standing Order 25. Standing Order 25 is quite clear when it says that a second motion to adjourn cannot be made until some intermediate proceeding has been had.
Most of us here in this house are aware of the position. In 1956 this sort of thing was tried and we found out what were the rules. I submit that a motion to adjourn is in order at any time provided it follows some intermediate proceeding between the motion and the last time there was a motion to adjourn.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that an intermediate proceeding as defined in the authorities is something that is entered in the Journals. There will be an entry in the Journals for today that the house met at 2.30. Motions which have been made will appear in the Journals. I submit that the motion to adjourn the house till six o'clock comes after intermediate proceedings since the last time there was a motion to adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: I might say I am rather impressed by the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but there is another difficulty. By using the words "that this house stand adjourned till six o'clock this day" the hon. member has placed a condition on the normal motion so it cannot be moved in this way. It becomes a substantive motion and we would require notice of a substantive motion. If the motion were simply that this house do now adjourn I would agree with the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre that probably it could be moved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the interests-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member continuing to speak on the point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of parliament I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena:
That this house do now adjourn.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member rose on a point of order, and cannot, therefore put a motion. Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Fairwealher:: It is not debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has moved a motion while speaking on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Question of Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member had the floor on a point of order, which was the only way he could get the floor at the time. I am sure he will recognize that. I think the Chair has the right to recognize the Minister of Public Works on the point of order.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members will agree that there is a grave and serious matter concerning members of the house at the moment. That being so, I would point out that the Prime Minister, who has the senior responsibility in the house as leader, did make a suggestion a few minutes ago that was not accepted. In the last few minutes we have been in danger of getting away from the issue into procedural discussions and wranglings that really serve no useful purpose. I have a suggestion that I would ask hon. members to listen to and consider.
The business indicated for the house this afternoon was, I think I can properly say, three rather routine motions to set up committees-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


George James McIlraith: -and a small bill.


An hon. Member:: Order. There is a motion.


George James McIlraith: I would suggest that the house give the Speaker an opportunity to consider the grave matter that is before him relating to a motion on a matter of real substance and concern to the house, which I feel is the best way of doing it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order-


George James McIlraith: In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we could go along in the usual way-


Erik Nielsen: No. This is far too important.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a question of procedure.


George James McIlraith: -and consider the matters I have indicated-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George James McIlraith: -which are not of a very major nature.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George James McIlraith: I believe that that course of action would permit the house to consider the very important matter before it in a calmer and more careful way, and not prejudice it by means of an immediate consideration of-

March 10, 1966
Bank Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; order, please. The position of the Chair has now been reinforced by a citation from Bourinot's fourth edition, page 353, which the Chair did not have available before and which I now cite:
No member who rises to a question of order or privilege will be permitted to move an adjournment of the house or of the debate under the cover of such question.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in the same way as the hon. member for York South, rose on a point of order-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


Mr. Speaker:: -rose on a point of order. That was the only way that the hon. member could get the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no other way that he can be recognized unless it is on a question of privilege. That is the only matter that we have before us now.
This motion would be made or could be made if there was an item of business before the house and it would then become a superseding motion. Whenever the house reaches the normal business of the house and there is an item of business or a motion before the house, a superseding motion can be made by the hon. member who has the floor discussing the substantive motion, but not on a point of order. This, as I said, is the citation which unfortunately I did not have before but it is clearly before us now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You should have been here in 1956.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. I will move my motion when we get to the second reading of the Bank Act bill.



BANK ACT AND QUEBEC SAVINGS BANKS ACT


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Bank Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister like my motion?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have a very short speech to make.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre be now heard.


Robert Muir: You are not so sharp.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: No, no. Order.


An hon. Member:: There is a motion.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I proceed?


Some hon. Members:: No, he has not been recognized.


Michael Starr: Yes, he has. This is just manoeuvring around.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the bill before you-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mitchell William Sharp: -proposes to extend the charter of the bank-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, C. D. Howe.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. To be legal and to be right I think the Chair would have to rule that, the minister having the floor, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre cannot take the floor away from him for the purpose of moving-


An hon. Member:: You did not recognize him.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Chair recognized the hon. Minister of Finance he had the floor. I wonder whether hon. members heard me. As I said, if we are going to face this motion after the minister has finished his statement I am quite prepared to put it from the Chair now, that is, if the minister will relinquish the floor in favour of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. That would be my suggestion. We will have the motion, I assume, whenever the minister has completed his statement.
So if the hon. minister agrees I will read the motion.


Mitchell William Sharp: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler), moves that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre be now heard. Is it the wish of the house to adopt the said motion? All those in favour please say yea.
March 10, 1966


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Order. The question is as follows. Mr. Churchill, seconded by Mr. Winkler, moves: That the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre be now heard.

The hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) cannot take his seat once the question is put.

.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the house proposes to extend the charters of the Canadian chartered banks and of the Quebec savings banks until December 1, 1966, or 60 days thereafter if parliament does not sit for at least 20 days during the month of November, 1966.
As the house is no doubt aware, there were two extensions during past sessions of parliament to permit study of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance, popularly known as the Porter Commission. Under present legislation the charters and powers expire after the sixtieth sitting day of parliament subsequent to January 17, 1966. I have had some calculations made to determine on what date the 60 days would expire and I have been informed that they would probably expire around Easter time. Therefore it is of considerable importance to the business and financial communities of this country that there should be a further extension at the present time, and that is what this bill proposes.
Hon. members will notice that it is intended that the charters of the banks should be extended until December 1, 1966 unless, of course, there is not an opportunity to get the other amendments through, or in the event of parliament not sitting for at least 20 days during the month of November, in which case there would be an automatic extension.
It is my hope and my intention, Mr. Speaker, that the house would pass the present bill forthwith. In due course, and I hope fairly soon, I will be able to bring before the house the substantive amendments to the Bank Act, to the Bank of Canada Act, to the Quebec Savings Banks Act and to some other financial legislation, so that before December 1, when the charters of the banks would expire according to the legislation which I am now proposing, there would be time for ample and

careful consideration of the substantive amendments to the Bank Act.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I think the house will want to know about this because I imagine that there will be some questions during the discussion of this short bill and there will be some desire to know what progress the government is making on this very important legislation, namely, the substantive amendments that I hope to bring forward in due course in the next few weeks.
Hon. members will recall that my predecessor in office, the present member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), placed a bill before the house which died on the order paper containing certain substantive amendments to the Bank Act itself. The government is reconsidering the proposals that were put forward last year. May I at this juncture refer to a speech that I made to the Canadian Club of Toronto on January 3 when I was speaking about some of the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance during this present year. I said at that time:
Quite apart from the budget, there will be a substantial amount of financial legislation this year. The centrepiece, of course, will be the banking legislation, which includes both the revision of the Bank Act and the amendments to the Bank of Canada Act as well as other statutes.
I went on to say:
I am reviewing now, in the light of events and developments of the past year, what was put before the house last spring.
I said then:
I do not propose to make any comment on the substance of this legislation before presenting it to the house except to say-
1 felt the house would be interested in this if hon. members have not already seen it.
-that there will be some changes.
Then I added:
My own opinion is that our legislation should go as far as is practicable to strengthen public confidence in our financial institutions and to promote competition among them for the benefit of the public at large.
I should like to enlarge a bit upon these general comments that I made to the Canadian Club in January of this year and say that it is still my intention to place before the government, and I hope that the government will approve, changes to the Bank Act and to other related legislation that will accomplish the two purposes that I set forth in the speech to which I have referred, which I delivered to the Canadian Club at the
March 10, 1366

beginning of January of this year. The first, and I think an extremely important purpose in the light of recent events in this country is to strengthen public confidence in our financial institutions.
I know that all members of the house are aware of some of the events that have taken place in the last few weeks and months which have shaken public confidence in some of our financial institutions. I need not at this time recall the names. They are so well known as to require nothing but reference to the fact that there have been some institutions that have failed or that have had to be absorbed. Indeed, the governor of the bank has said that because of some of these events he had to take very special measures in the administration of monetary policy to maintain general confidence in the stability of our financial institutions. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when we do get into the substance of these matters the purpose of the legislation that will be brought forward will be to assure as far as is pract cable strengthened public confidence in our financial institutions.
The second purpose that I set forth at the beginning of January this year in my speech to the Canadian Club was that I thought our legislation should promote competition among our financial institut ons for the benefit of the public at large. It has seemed to me that this, in general, was one of the main conclusions of the Porter Commission on Banking and Finance that was conducted in order to prepare for these decennial revisions of the banking legislation. I do think that we should, in considering legislation that is to be in effect for the next ten years, do as much as we can to promote competition among those institutions.
The Porter Commission went to some pains to point out that some of our existing legislation does have the effect of limiting this competition to the detriment of the public. Therefore I feel that we should, in our legislation, be striving to put forward legislation that will promote healthy competition for the benefit of the public at large. The financial legislation that will be coming forward, and this bill that is now before us for second reading is the first of a series of bills, will be of the utmost importance not only to the business and to the financial community but also to the little man in this country.
It will be the purpose of this legislation to promote the welfare of everyone. The purpose of this legislation will not be to protect
Bank Act
the financial institutions. It will be to see that these financial institutions operate in such a way as to be of benefit to the population at large. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes I have seen suggestions that certain changes that are being proposed by various people they are sometimes attributed to the government although the government has not yet made up its mind on the substance of these matters-are somehow directed toward benefiting financial institutions. I should like to say as the Minister of Finance that my chief concern is the welfare of the population at large. I should like to see financial institutions operating in such a way as to be of the maximum benefit to the public at large.


Michael Starr: I beg your pardon?


Mitchell William Sharp: The financial institutions can look after themselves very well, and I would hope that our legislation will be of such a character as to promote the general welfare of the public. That will certainly be our purpose.


David Lewis: You are spinning it out admirably.


Michael Starr: You have 20 minutes to go.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure when I say this that I speak for all sides of the house and for all members.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister permit a question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Certainly.
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): Cn a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. minister could relate his remarks to the principle of the bill before us?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I withdraw my question because it is the same as the one that has just been asked.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that this is the first of a series of bills that will be coming before the house, and I thought it would be reassuring to the house when it is considering this first measure, which is for the purpose of extending the charters of our banks for a limited period-


Erik Nielsen: We know that. You have already said that once.


Michael Starr: Twenty minutes to go.


Mitchell William Sharp: -to know that we are seriously considering the nature of the amendments that will be coming forward and that will have to be dealt with by December 31.

March 10, 1966
Bank Act


Michael Starr: Would you say that over again? I did not get that.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: I know that it I had simply risen and said that this is a bill which is intended to extend the charters of the banks for a period up to December 1st hon. gentleman opposite would have said: He did not tell us anything else, he did not tell us whether it was the purpose of the government to bring forward anything further. Indeed, one of my colleagues told me he did not know whether the house would be prepared to consider the bill unless there were some assurance that we were intending to proceed with substantive amendments to the Bank Act and that these would be before the house in plenty of time to be considered before December 1, 1966. At one time I had the idea that it would be sufficient merely to say what is contained in the explanatory note in the bill. However, I have been persuaded otherwise.


Michael Starr: You mean you were persuaded at the cabinet meeting half an hour ago.


Mr. Chatterton:: Would the minister permit a question? May I ask whether the minister has enough verbiage available to carry him through to six o'clock and take the government off the hook?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure the hon. member knows that this is a subject of importance, and he would expect the Minister of Finance to deal with it thoroughly.


George Louis Chatterton: Would the minister permit another question? While he is dealing with it thoroughly, will he also deal with it well?


An hon. Member:: And intelligently.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am trying to deal with it thoroughly, well and intelligently.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are so many interruptions that it is difficult for the Chair to follow the minister's very interesting remarks.


Michael Starr: If the minister would speak to the subject they would be better.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair wishes to remind the minister who has the floor that he should refer his remarks to the bill before us.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is important, I think, that the house should have some idea of what the government is proposing to do by way of substantial amendments to the Bank Act

before this extension of the charters is approved. In particular the house should know that we are seriously concerned-


Michael Starr: Surely, Mr. Speaker, the minister does not think he can get away with this "malarkey" he is giving us now. This bill deals only with an extension of the charters of present banks for a time. It has nothing to do with what amendments may be made in the future. The minister should address his remarks particularly to the point at issue. We are prepared to pass this measure if he would keep his mouth shut and sit down.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Perhaps I might say a word on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Ontario. I assume that in the consideration of this matter the same interpretation of the principles of the bill would be made in relation to every speaker.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the Minister of Transport, I suggest that Bill No. C-3 is quite clear. Let the minister restrict his comments to the principle of the bill and we shall listen to him.
Now, in my opinion, he is out of order when he refers to other bills or when he is dealing with provisions of other bills still to be brought before the house. We shall discuss those bills in due course, when they come before the house.
At the present time, the minister should limit his remarks to the principle of Bill No. C-3, the purpose of which is to extend banking powers until November, 1966, or until December 1, 1966.


Mr. Lachance:: Still on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caou-ette), who has always been particularly interested in the problems created by the Bank Act, should be satisfied with the brief comments made today by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) about this bill.
Personally, since the bill has to do with the Quebec Savings Bank Act, I would be greatly interested to hear the Minister of Finance give us more detailed explanations.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lafontaine is showing that, for a lawyer, he is not too well versed in law.


Georges-C. Lachance: Surely as well as the hon. member for Villeneuve, Mr. Speaker.
March 10. 1966


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the minister knows the rules and can address his remarks to the principle of the bill before us. However, I might mention to hon. members that I well recall being in the Chair when a similar bill was introduced in a previous session and at that time a number of hon. members who are objecting at this moment to anything beyond discussion of the strict principles of the bill had no qualms about ranging far beyond those principles. At that time I tried, though without very much success, to restrict hon. members' comments to the principles of the bill. I am trying to do the same today.


Mitchell William Sharp: This bill is before the house, as hon. members know, because last year we were not able to deal with substantial amendments to the act before the session was over. What we have before us now is a bill to extend the existing measure for a further period of time.
As I say, I have been talking to some of my colleagues and one of them suggested to me some time ago that if I did not deal with the general intentions of the government in the field of financial legislation while I was introducing the present measure hon. members would complain that I had not dealt adequately with the subject and was hoping to get the legislation through without any discussion of the principles underlying banking legislation as a whole.


George Louis Chatterton: Which other cabinet minister suggested the hon. gentleman should give so much explanation of this bill?


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Would the minister permit a question? As the only principle involved in this bill is the question of time, I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to discuss this principle?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will be very happy to do so. The purpose of extending the act until December 1, 1966, was very carefully considered in the light of the time available. We considered carefully whether this would give sufficient time for the house and the committees of the house to deal with the financial legislation which is coming subsequently and which will amount to substantial amendments-[DOT]


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask another question? Does the minister think there will be an election before December 1, 1966?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a question of timing.
Bank Act


Mitchell William Sharp: While my remarks have been quite relevant, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that remark is relevant. Indeed, it has been found from experience that it is extremely difficult to forecast the dates of elections.


An hon. Member:: And the outcome.


Mitchell William Sharp: At any rate, one of the reasons for suggesting that the charters be extended to December 1-
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Cashin:: Would the minister permit a question? First, would he not agree with me that the hon. member for Royal, while otherwise intelligent, is lacking in a sense of humour? The real question I want to ask arises out of the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe and concerns the date of December 1, 1966. An interesting question has been presented to the house by the hon. member for Lapointe. It is a purely hypothetical question, but in the event that the country was in the midst of an election at that time when the bank-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will Your Honour intervene to prevent the hon. member and others like him among the government and its supporters from making a mockery of the rules of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is, of course, impugning motives, which he knows he has no right to do under the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: When a legitimate question is put to the minister and an hon. member has the floor it is not for the Chair to find out or guess why the question is being asked, and the hon. member for Yukon cannot suggest a question is being asked for any other motive than to obtain information.


Colin Cameron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Richard Joseph Cashin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order? There is an hon. member rising on a point of order and another on a question of privilege. Perhaps the hon. member for St. John's West might be given the opportunity to put his point first.

March 10. 1966
Bank Act


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of the remarks just made by the hon. member for Yukon who cast reflections upon my judgment and ability and, moreover, on my right. The other two may well be in question but my right to ask a question, which I believe is a serious one even though it may be hypothetical, is very much in order. It is right to the point of the particular legislation before the house. I might say I regret I do not have the experience that the hon. member for Yukon has and therefore I am unable to use the rules as skillfully as he-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest that the point be ignored-perhaps forgotten is a better word-at the moment. The hon. member for Yukon made a statement and the hon. member for St. John's West objects to it. It might be better for the proper conduct of business if we returned to the minister's statement.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I was rising on a point of order when you recognized the hon. member for St. John's West. My point of order is that the hon. member for St. John's West was not asking a question. He was intervening in the debate. Consequently, the minister has lost the floor and since the hon. member for St. John's West has now taken his seat it is your duty to recognize someone else.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot agree with the hon. member. The minister has the floor. He allowed a question, as is very frequently done, and if there were a suggest on that when hon. members allow a question they lose their right to speak I am afraid very few questions would be allowed. It seems to me we have followed the usual practice. I should like hon. members to cooperate with the Chair and allow the minister to continue with his statement.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member for St. John's West is indeed very pertinent to this legislation because the reason the legislation is drawn in this way is to provide that if parliament is not sitting in the month prior to December 1 then these charters are automatically extended. It is important to the house to understand this and recognize the principle that lies behind this bill. As I was saying


Mr. Ryan:: Would the minister permit
another question? With regard to the proposed section 6(b)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take the liberty of bringing to the attention of the hon. member that in the course of debate on second reading no reference should be made to specific clauses of the bill and he cannot ask such questions.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to put this question. I understand that under the B.N.A. Act parliament must be called within a year less a day. I should like to ask the minister whether under the proposed section 6(b) it could possibly be as late as January or February of 1967 that a bank could carry on the business of banking without anything further being done?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more appropriate if I were to answer that question when I wind up the debate on second reading because I am not quite certain I have understood the full import of the question. It may be an important question and I would not like to pass over it lightly.
The purpose in extending the period until December 1 is to enable the house and its committees to deal in as much detail as they wish with subsequent legislation when it comes before us. We had thought that perhaps we could make the date earlier than December 1, but because of the press of parliamentary business and the need on the part of the house and the community at large to have an opportunity of discussing the legislation in committee, we felt we should give the maximum amount of time possible by having this date of December 1. We thought about December 31, but it seemed to us it would be difficult under the circumstances to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for St. John's West about some emergency intervening. Therefore we felt the best possible compromise upon a date would be December 1, which is several months from now. I do not think this is any too much time and I do hope that the house will agree with the government that a date of December 1 is the appropriate date. It is as late as we can practically make it.
It gives enough time for the house and its committee to consider fully the financial legislation dealing with the Bank Act, the Bank of Canada Act, the Quebec Savings Banks Act and perhaps other financial legislation, because all of this must be considered as a package for the purpose, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, of strengthening confidence in our financial institutions and
March 10, 1966

second, promoting competition among them for the benefit of the common man. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Michael Starr: A disgraceful performance by the Minister of Finance.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), Health and Welfare-request for increased assistance for medical schools; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), Canadian Economy-steps to meet increase in cost of living; the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), Administration of Justice-Steven Truscott-request for investigation.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wahn for the second reading of Bill No. S-10, respecting Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the second reading of Bill No. S-10 for a purpose that will not take the house by surprise. I had thought that the hon. gentleman who had the floor just before six o'clock was making a speech that would end at 5.30 or 5.40 and that I would get the floor at that time. But since he kept going I have to rise on this bill for the purpose that the house expects me to fulfil.
It is our feeling that time, something about which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) was speaking, is needed by the government to consider this day's events, and time is needed by Your Honour to consider the important matters that Your Honour must consider. We think it would be better for parliament to
Private Bills
hope for a better day tomorrow than we have had today. We recognize, Mr. Speaker, that a motion such as the one I now wish to make-
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, I am sure, will recognize that he has the floor for the purpose of speaking about this bill and he should speak about it unless he wishes to make another motion. For the moment he has to limit his remarks to the bill before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think, rather than our spending time on this bill, it is more important that we give consideration to the points I just made. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), that the house do now adjourn.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It has been moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood, that the house do now adjourn. According to the terms of Provisional Standing Order 6(3), if any member objects to the taking of a vote at any time between 1.00 o'clock p.m. and 2.30 o'clock p.m. or between 6.00 o'clock p.m. and 8.00 o'clock p.m., Mr. Speaker shall request those members who object to rise in their places and if five or more members rise the taking of the vote shall be postponed.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: The vote is therefore suspended until eight o'clock p.m.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, do we understand that Your Honour will call for the vote automatically at eight o'clock in view of the objection from the government side?


Mr. Speaker:: This is my understanding of the rule, that the vote will be called at eight o'clock.


An hon. Member:: What are you going to do?


Mr. Hellyer:: We are going to vote this down and get on with the country's business


An hon. Member:: You are still in a mess.


Thomas Miller Bell: You will have to make a lot of telephone calls during supper.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments about the bill regarding the Interprovincial Pipe Line

March 10, 1966
Private Bills
Company. My purpose is akin to that achieved by the Minister ol Finance who succeeded in preventing a particular motion from coming to a vote. My purpose is that the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company bill likewise will not come to a vote because I do not think parliament should endorse the principle contained in the bill.
One of the contentions of the sponsor of the bill is that the legislation would be of assistance to the investing public, the reason being that if the stock split is permitted to go through the presumed price of the stock on the open market would be approximately one fifth of what it is at the present time and because it would be a lower priced stock it would therefore be more attractive to the investing public. How is this supposed to take place? Some years ago we had another bill which parliament dealt with regarding a stock splitting arrangement involving Trans Mountain Pipe Line Company. The information which we were given at that time by persons knowledgeable in the field of stock market activities was that when a stock split of this nature took place they could expect about a ten per cent increase in the number of shareholders and that after this 10 per cent increase in the number of shareholders took place-the 10 per cent increase, incidentally, would be an increase because of speculation based on an expected rise in the price of the stock itself-the total number of shareholders, following an indeterminate period, would settle back to somewhat the same number as before the stock split took place. The assistance to the investing public is only to approximately 10 per cent of the investing public, which I submit is a relatively insignificant part of the Canadian population.
Mr. Johnston, president of Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, told us a long time ago that from watching the movement of these shares and their sale on the stockmarket he knew that sales were between 700 to 1,000 shares a day. He went on then to say, and I quote from his statement in the proceedings and evidence of the standing committee: "I think that is probably a reasonably good average". So far as Mr. Johnston, the president of the company, was concerned sales of the stock on the market were at a reasonably good average. It seemed all right to him. It seemed that the investing public was exhibiting sufficient interest in the stock at a price of around $90, as it was then, and that sales achieved a reasonably good average.
How is this proposal going to be of help, as the sponsor puts it, to the investigating public? 
Is it going to be of help to the shareholders now such as Imperial Oil, Shell and B.A. Oil? If what we are told is the usual thing happens and the stock split goes through, the price of the stock on the market will be cut by five and there will be an almost automatic advance in the new price which will add to the advantage of those who are now stockholders and allow them, if they so desire, to divest themselves of the stock they now hold in anticipation of the 10 per cent increase in shareholders that may result from the stock split.
I suppose one can argue that this is a reasonable course to follow, but what prevented those who want to divest themselves of the stock now from selling it in the last two years when it was almost $100 a share? There was a reasonably good profit available for those who had bought it at a lower price. I do not know what it is down to but it is down now. When the hon. member introduced the bill the other day it was about $86. There has been some decline from what the price was a year or two ago when a similar bill was before us. Why is it that parliament at this juncture, as it was, before, should be asked to endorse a principle which will assist to bail out investors who may have bought the stock at a high price? We do not do this in respect of other companies.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
The normal course, as I understand it, is that if you buy stock on the market and it goes up and you sell and make a profit that is good for you but if you buy stock at a certain price and it goes down and you lose money then it is too bad. That is the way the ball bounces, as the common expression goes.
The small investor will not be in a different position after the stock split takes place from what he is in now. The whole question is related to investors having a certain amount of money to invest. If with that money they buy ten shares of stock at one price or 100 shares of stock at another price it does not make any difference to them because they still have a certain amount of money involved in an investment.
Mr. Johnston said when he appeared before the committee that at that time average sales ran between 700 and 1,000 shares and he considered that reasonable taking into account the price of the stock and the number of shares on the market. One would assume from that statement that there was reasonable activity in the buying and selling of
March 10, 1966

Interprovincial Pipe Line shares on the open market.
Mr. Johnston said that the investing public was participating reasonably which leads me to believe that perhaps there is something more behind this proposed stock split than a beneficent desire on the part of Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, Imperial Oil, Shell Oil and British American, all of whom are noted for their desire to help the investing public, to do just that. There must be something more behind this particular proposal than just that desire.
When the hon. member who sponsored the bill spoke on the day of its introduction he spoke in terms of the value of the stock on the market and said the present market price of Interprovincial stock at that time was $86. He quoted from a study of stock splits in postwar years published in the Analysts Journal. He also referred to some characteristics of procedures of common stock splits which appeared in the Harvard Business Review.
Mr. Johnston suggested that the New York Stock Exchange was officially committed to a policy of keeping individual common stocks at what it considered desirable price levels, and in this case "desirable" means low or medium priced. The object was to make for better trading and to attract small investors. He suggested that the exchange regards as the most desirable price level a range between $18 and $25. I assume the analogy is that the Toronto Stock Exchange should or does have the same principle and that it is just as desirable to do it there as it is on the New York stock exchange.
On the day Mr. Johnston made that statement I looked at the Ottawa Citizen of February 15 to see how many stocks there were in this desirable price range and how many there were above the $25 level. Apart from penny stocks, which probably do not enter the picture because they are in a different class and of a different sort altogether, there were many stocks on the Toronto exchange at the undesirable level.
The stock of Imperial Oil, one of the owners of the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company, was at the undesirable level of $53| which I presume is $53.75. That is a most undesirable situation. This company is imbuing one of its subsidiaries, if that is what Interprovincial Pipe Line Company is, with the concept that its shares are at an undesirable level while at the same time its own stock
Private Bills
is at an undesirable level, more than twice as much. General Motors Corporation is another undesirable company in so far as its stock is concerned. They were selling their shares on that day at the fantastic price of $113. That is an even more undesirable level than the shares of Interprovincial Pipe Line Company.
I could refer to a number of other companies whose stocks were in the undesirable range on that day but perhaps I should not take time to do so. To mention a few, there were several banks, Bell Telephone, B.C. Sugar, C.P.R. and a variety of other.


An hon. Member:: Put them on the record.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend asks me to put them on the record. If members wish me to do so I will but I do not think there is sufficient time at my disposal. This request comes from a responsible source so perhaps I should comply by referring to a few of them. Some of them I do not recognize but there is one referred to as Alta. G.P.C. with its stock listed at $97J. That is a little bit more undesirable than Interprovincial Pipe Line. The stock of B.C. Sugar was listed at $42, Bell Telephone stock was listed at $58, Bank of Nova Scotia stock was listed at $73 and Bank of Montreal stock was listed at $64. Perhaps that will suffice for the moment.
The point I want to get at is this. It does not seem to be a reasonable argument for the sponsor of this bill to say on the one hand that the price level of its stock, $86 as it was on that day, is an undesirable level when one of the owners of the company, Imperial Oil, also had its stock at an undesirable level. There must be something more behind this proposal than was stated by the then president of the company. I do not know whether Mr. T. S. Johnston is Still the president of the company but at that time he made a number of extremely interesting and revealing statements that I feel should give us some concern and cause us to wonder. He talked about philosophy, if there is any such thing in the stock market, in respect of small investors and their preferences as to what they would like to buy, in what lots and at what prices. Mr. Johnston in his laudatory remarks about the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company said that there was still a particular trend on the stock market which would indicate that companies do not wish to sell their stocks at a price too low or too high. He makes that statement as though the company had something to do with the setting of the price. I thought the price was set on the marketplace

March 10, 1966
Private Bills
by the investors or speculators rather than by any desire on the part of the company itself.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
He talks about surveys being made on the New York, Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges and others. He talks about popularly priced stock and says its range is $20 to $25. I might say that on the Toronto stock exchange on that day, February 15, there were not too many stocks in the popular price range of $20 to $25 compared with the total number of stocks listed.
Mr. Johnston went on to make a most revealing statement which I think deserves intense examination. In talking about stock in the popular price range he said:
This encourages wide participation by the Canadian stockholder and the Canadian public which, I think, is a most desirable feature. I think the public should participate to the greatest extent possible in any company which has been successful and has contributed something to the Canadian economy.
I have forgotten how many shares of this stock are on the market. I believe about 5 million shares have been issued out of a total number in the treasury of some 40 million. This leaves in the treasury of the company at the present time 35 million shares. If it is correct, as Mr. Johnston says, that the public should participate to the greatest extent possible in any company which has been successful and has contributed something to the Canadian economy, why does this company not take steps to issue some of the shares out of its treasury and broaden the participation? Why does it not draw many more people into the picture?
The financial survey of oils for 1965 gives the number of issued shares as 5,087,282 as at December 31, 1964. I gather nothing has been taken out of the treasury since then although there may have been. Do the directors of the company, do the boys who control and own it have any options to buy treasury stock at a set price? The usual course with regard to an option given to any official or director is that they have the option to buy the stock at a low price, which means that they put up very little money, become involved in no risk, sell the stock at the inflated price on the stock market and keep the change.
This is what happened with Trans Canada Pipe Lines. This is how a couple of people became millionaires overnight from an investment of $8. We should like to know

whether there is any activity of this sort taking place in the company or contemplated by it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for New Westminster.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If it is the wish of the hon. member to continue I am sure he will make a request to the house.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the house has requested that I continue beyond my time and I shall be glad to comply with that request.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon.
member wishes to continue he will make the request.


Frank Howard: If I shall have the unanimous consent of the house, which is required, I shall be happy to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for New Westminster.


Mr. Scott (Danforth):: Let the record show that it was the Liberals who refused consent.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in relation to the proposition that is before us in Bill No. S-10 respecting the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company. I believe the purpose of the bill is to secure from parliament approval to split the stock of the company five times, or to five shares of the value of $1 each. Those of us in the New Democratic Party object to this and have several grounds for so doing. In the first place, and in direct relation to the application before us, we have looked over the history of the company and its stock and find that the company secured consent by an act of parliament 17 years ago to transport oil in Canada. At this time I believe the company has some 3,500 miles of line in its operations.
March 10. 1966

The original capitalization of the company in 1949 was on the basis of $50 per share but even by 1952, if my figures are correct, the shareholders had approved a stock split to a par value of $5 a share. This company has a capitalization of 40 million shares and only 5 million of those shares are on the market at the present time. If the new, further split which is now sought is approved it will mean the company will have a capitalization, if my figures are correct, of 200 million shares.
The question that arises in our mind is: Why does the company want this many shares? Its stock, as was pointed out before, has been and continues to be an excellent, well supported investment. As a matter of fact, somebody has worked out that if you had bought one $50 share in this company back in 1949 and had stayed with it through the stock split that took place in 1952, the 10 for 1 split, and had reaped the $3.40 dividend paid per share last year, you would have received in dividends $30 a year up to this time for the original capital investment of $50. The stock is a very good one, so why change it or dilute it, especially when, if what is sought in the way of an additional stock split is granted, the company will have some 175 million undistributed shares in its treasury?
I would want to know a great deal more about the proposition before I would agree to it. That is in the first place, Mr. Speaker. In the second place I very much doubt the claim that is made as a basis for proposing this stock split and the proposition we are faced with in the explanation of the bill. This proposition is that the stock split is being sought in order to encourage Canadian investors to invest in a Canadian corporation. I think nobody would dispute the fact that the companies in Canada which actually own a great number of the shares of this company are in the main non-Canadian companies and are rather, United States controlled or owned companies. My understanding is that Imperial Oil, B.A. Oil and Shell Oil are not truly and completely Canadian concerns. I believe many hon. members would agree that what is owned is controlled. For example, what the Americans own in this country, which according to the latest figures I have is something more than 60 per cent of all Canadian natural resource industries, is certainly controlled and circumscribed by non-Canadian minds and hands.
Private Bills
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
The situation in this respect is something like the old adage of the iceberg. That part of it which is above the surface seems very massive and people think it is a tremendous size. Of course, Mr. Speaker, so it is; but actually it is only one-seventh of the great bulk of that structure which runs below the surface and actually determines the flow and the course of the iceberg which looks so large above the surface. I think that is the case also in the matter of Canadian industry, particularly in the matter of this application. Therefore, under these circumstances and believing as we do we just cannot be so naive as to take this prospectus at face value, and we in this group insist on continuing to examine the fine print.
I have another reason for objecting to the passage of this bill, at least till my grave misgivings about it are set at rest. The reason is that basically this is a transportation company, a private monopoly concern dealing in a business which affects several provinces and at least several thousands of Canadians. Actually it is not a business, any more than the post office or the streets or sewers are, which can be regarded as a competitive one. You cannot logically have several giant pipe line transportation companies running across the country competing with and duplicating each other. This just does not make sense.
Our feeling, Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances is that this company should be regarded as having something in the nature of a private monopoly function in what should be the public service or public monopoly field. I think that the parliament which originally granted this organization its rights was unwise in doing so. It seems to me, in the first place, that it was wrong for it to do so. Surely it should have been a publicly owned and operated concern serving the public interest, operated by and for consumers at the lowest possible cost to them.
So, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned I oppose the passage of this legislation and I would invite other hon. members also to take a very hard look at it or at least to ask for further clarification and explanation.


Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill and for very good reason. I know we may be accused by certain hon. members of taking perhaps an overzealous interest in these pipe line bills but I think I can demonstrate to yourself and to the house that bitter experience is possibly the reason we seem to be so

March 10, 1966
Private Bills
extremely interested. I should like to relate some experiences that make me feel that if closer attention had been paid to previous bills appearing before the house certain difficulties which confront us today would not now exist. Furthermore, if we provide this close scrutiny we may be able to avoid similar action in the future.
I have been receiving recently a tremendous number of complaints by consumers of natural gas. I grant you, Mr. Speaker, they are not in connection with this particular company or this particular pipe line, but I think there is great similarity between the two. What I want to demonstrate today are matters for which we should watch out while we have the responsibility of passing of bills of this sort in the house.
In the region from which I come there has been a tremendous and very unwarranted increase lately in gas bills. Therefore I proceeded to look into the matter to see what was causing it and I found that while everything was perfectly legal and aboveboard a very shady deal was being pulled off.
The information I got was that when this company received their original contract they contracted to supply a certain quality of gas to the consumers. I believe the figure was something like 1,000 b.t.u.'s per cubic foot of gas. During the period they were selling this gas and getting people to convert to gas they were shooting through something like 1,100 b.t.u.'s per cubic foot. After everybody had gone to the expense of converting to gas stoves, gas furnaces and so on the company then cut the gas back to the amount they originally contracted and guaranteed to carry. This may be quite legal so far as the supply of gas is concerned but so far as the sale of it is concerned it has been done under false pretenses. This is something that the members of this house should watch for when we consider such matters.
I am told, for example, that the profits of this particular gas company in the first six months of last year jumped 50 per cent. What is happening, of course, is that while the consumers are still paying the same price they were paying before they are not getting the same quality of gas and it does not perform the same function or serve the same purpose.
What happened after all this conversion had taken place and everybody had gone to the expense of installing gas furnaces, gas stoves, and so on, was that a plant was built

to extract butane and propane gas from the natural gas as it came through. This gas was sold at a handsome profit by the company which charged the same price for the gas they had previously charged. I am referring to Northern Ontario Gas which supplies the district from which I come. This is the sort of thing we have to examine very carefully, and it is the sort of thing we should try to prevent occurring in the future. I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether we have a quorum at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Under the Standing Orders of this house, if any member brings to the attention of the Speaker that there is not a quorum present the members in the house are to be counted. I shall therefore ask the Second Clerk Assistant to count the house.
And on the count being made, more than 20 members were declared to be present.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I declare the house properly formed. The hon. member for Timmins.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should point out to the house that the remarks just made are out of order. Members of this chamber may leave or enter the chamber when the count is being made.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, my opinion, which I have certainly expressed many times, is that it is a shame to take away the supper hour and to inconvenience the staff. I think that is one matter which should be looked into at the present time.


An hon. Member:: Work harder.


Murdo William Martin: I think it is the privilege of any hon. member to call the attention of the house to the fact that if we can muster only 21 hon. members out of 265 we need to take another look at the idea of keeping the staff working during the supper hour.


An hon. Member:: It is quality that counts.


Murdo William Martin: I did not hear the interjections. If hon. members have any questions to ask, I will be glad to answer them if I can.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think it might be well for the house to get back to consideration of the business before it, which is the bill.
March 10, 1966


Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I have not very much more to say. Possibly these interjections may have made my mind wander from the subject. I do think that we should bring these matters to the attention of hon. members so that they can realize the importance of giving a bill such as this the very closest scrutiny.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the bill and to introduce a motion which I think will give the house an opportunity to discuss what I think is a matter of great importance involving a very basic principle in matters of this kind. Before doing so I want to say a couple of words about the bill itself. I want to ask the sponsor, when he is winding up the debate and before we vote on the bill, which I presume will not be too long from now, to deal with some of the questions in the minds of some of the members of the house.
I hope that the sponsor of the bill will explain to us the necessity of a stock split when there are 40 million shares in the treasury unissued. The only reason we have heard from him is that the value of the shares is rising dramatically and therefore it is desirable to split them again. However, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the shares of a great many responsible companies stand at a much higher value than do those of the company now under consideration. The explanation for the split does not seem to be reasonable or not sufficiently reasonable to convince us of the merits of the split.
We do not really want to hold the bill up in any way. We want to pass it and let it go on to the committee so that all the details that are in our minds can be examined and all the questions can be answered. We want to expedite the passage of this measure.
One of the first speakers this afternoon raised what I think is the key issue in the bill, that is, that companies of this nature should not be privately owned. That is our judgment and perhaps we may be wrong. It seems to me, however, that this is a type of company which should be publicly owned and should not be left to ownership by oil companies as at present. We are not in favour of public ownership in all circumstances but certainly any company that is dealing with a natural resource of this type ought to be, in our opinion, under public ownership. We have had good experience of public ownership in Canada with operations such as the
Private Bills
Sarnia plant, Canadian National Railways, and particularly with Ontario Hydro, a publicly owned corporation which produces electricity at the lowest cost I believe in North America, the next lowest cost producer being the publicly owned Tennessee Valley Authority.
It seems to me that at some stage in our history we shall have to take a serious look at the whole business of pipe lines. All the experts say that before many years pass pipe lines will be an important method of transporting goods. We shall not only be transporting oil through the pipe lines but we shall be transporting wheat and a great many commodities, even consumer goods. Many things will be transported through pipe lines. It seems to me that pipe lines are of such vital importance to the coming Canadian economy that the interests of the public would be served much better if they were placed under public ownership.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, rather than dealing with the particular bill under consideration I should like to move a motion, with your consent. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer):
That Bill S-10 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the said Interprovincial Pipe Line Company be brought under public ownership.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I point out to the hon. member for Danforth who has moved this motion that I can immediately see two objections to it. The first objection to it is that the words "in the opinion of this House the said Interprovincial Pipe Line Company be brought under public ownership" are quite outside the principle of the bill now before the house. Again, in the second part I would think there are financial implications. For those two reasons I believe that the motion moved by the hon. member for Danforth is out of order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is a provision within the standing orders for a so-called reasoned amendment which permits the placing before the house of a proposition different from that which is contained within a bill itself. I cannot immediately find the provision in Beauchesne that deals with this. I looked for it and I could not find it. I must say that the motion by the hon. member for Danforth came to me as a surprise; otherwise I would have had more time to check. As I say, Mr. Speaker, there is a provision to the effect I have mentioned. I am sure that the Clerks at the

March 10, 1966
Private Bills
table would be able to provide us with the particular reference in Beauchesne. The effect of it is that it permits parliament to enunciate a principle or policy that differs from the one contained within a bill. I submit that the motion of the member for Danforth does precisely that. The motion offers the suggestion that the house should not proceed to pass the bill but should declare a policy or principle by way of a reasoned amendment that the company be put under public ownership. That is the motion. I regret that I am not able to give the reference in Beauchesne. However, I know that procedure similar to that has been followed on other occasions in the house and has been accepted by the house.
My colleague, the hon. member for Co-mox-Alberni, during the last session moved such a reasoned amendment with respect to a bill to establish an Indian claims commission, in which he said the house should not proceed to pass the bill but should develop a policy which differed from that set out in the bill. That particular so-called reasoned amendment was accepted by the Speaker at that time.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I very well recall during the last session of parliament moving an amendment to a motion for second reading. As far as my understanding of the rules goes, that amendment was on all fours with the one now proposed by my hon. friend from Danforth (Mr. Scott). There was some discussion at the time whether my motion was in order. I cannot recall the exact date. I do know that a member on the government side of the house raised the question whether it was in order and after some consideration of the matter it was ruled by the Chair to be in order.


Reid Scott: I just want to make a representation on one aspect of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the inference that this motion would in some way involve the expenditure of public funds. I hope you will reconsider this ruling because it is a common practice for members on this side of the house to move expressions of opinion which may or may not involve the expenditure of public funds.
We have often moved motions which, if carried, would involve a course of action necessitating the expenditure of public moneys, but it has always been my understanding that this is a proper procedure.

Before we moved this amendment we carefully considered the question of whether or not it would be in order. It was only after a careful search of precedents and a comparison between this motion and various others which the Chair has found acceptable that we drafted it in its present terms. I believe that if Your Honour would take this motion again under advisement and compare it with others which have been accepted in the past Your Honour would agree that it is a proper one, not one which should be ruled out of order.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Temiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on this matter. There is no question that if we were recommending that the government purchase this company there would be an expenditure of money involved. However, the amendment is carefully worded so that the government ownership could be established in other ways. This company is an efficient and wealthy company. There are many ways in which the government could assume control without making any financial investment in it.
In the present case this could be done by taking over the undistributed shares which are available at the present time. As my hon. friend from Skeena has pointed out, only some 5 million out of 40 million are outstanding at the present time. The rest are treasury stock. If the government were to decide to take it over by taking over these 35 million shares, it would exercise control and no expenditure would have been incurred.
I suggest there are a number of ways in which the intention of this amendment could be carried out without the government incurring expenditure. The amendment merely says:
-that in the opinion of this house Interprovincial Pipe Line Company be brought under public ownership.
This could be done if the government were to take control of the undistributed stock which the company holds. The argument that the exercise of control would involve the expenditure of public money is not necessarily sound. Moreover, as a result of action taken following other measures in the past the government has been able to obtain control over a company, or control during its operation of a short range program, without the expenditure of money. I would remind hon. members of the circumstances in which control was obtained in the case of the Canadian National Railway by issuing government stock and bonds to the Grand Trunk
March 10, 1S66

Railway at the time of the formation of the C.N.R. No large outlay of money was made, though it is true fairly large contributions were made later over a period of time.
Much of the government's contribution when the Grand Trunk Railway was taken over took the form of an assumption of responsibility for stock. In addition, large grants of land were made. Thus the government of the day was able to take over and finance the Canadian National Railway without spending large sums of money. I suggest that this amendment in its present form does not really call for the spending of money since it does not suggest how money should be spent, if it is to be spent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the considered opinion of the Chair that if the second part of this amendment were carried out there would be a financial obligation on the Crown. I would point out to the hon. member that in the explanatory notes to the bill the following statement appears in the first sentences:
The purpose of this hill is to divide each of the 40,000,000 authorized shares of the par value of $5.00 each of the capital stock of the company into five shares of the par value of $1.00 each.
In other words, the principle of the bill is a division of shares. May I quote from citation 203 (1), page 171 of Beauchesne, fourth edition.
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
I would also draw attention to what is said on page 527 of May, seventeenth edition.
The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion. The amendment must "strictly relate to the bill which the House, by its order, has resolved upon considering"-
In the case now before us the house is resolved upon considering the dividing of the shares of this particular company. The second part of the hon. member's amendment is not relevant to that principle. I therefore rule the amendment out of order.


Reid Scott: May I call it seven o'clock?
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being seven o'clock, the hour for private members' business has expired and the house will resume the business that was interrupted at six o'clock.
Bank Act



BANK ACT AND QUEBEC SAVINGS BANKS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for the second reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am rising again on the question of privilege that was raised before the house went on to consider private members' business, and before discussion began on the Bank Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before the proceedings were interrupted at six o'clock did not the Minister of Finance have the floor?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I had concluded my remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: I hope someone will inform the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that this matter is being discussed, since neither of them are in their seats at the moment. I am doing this because of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), was absent from the city and absent from the house when comments were made outside the house reflecting on his conduct as prime minister and because of the comments made this afternoon in the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is in some doubt as to what is the point of privilege being raised by the hon. member for Yukon. Does it deal with the bill before the house at the moment?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am availing myself of the first opportunity to raise a point of privilege which has not been raised specifically this afternoon, or this day, with respect to the Leader of the Opposition. He being absent I intend to raise this question of privilege not only on his behalf but because it affects the privileges of all members of the house. This being the first available opportunity to raise it, I propose to put it to you now, sir.
The Minister of Justice this afternoon made a statement not only-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. gentleman goes too far perhaps he would state what his point of personal privilege is.

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege


Erik Nielsen: If Your Honour will permit me, that is what I was proceeding to do. Beauchesne, citation 108(3) at page 98 indicates the importance of libels on members of the house. Beauchesne says that they have been "constantly punished," and further he says:
-the libel must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the house.
The Minister of Justice made charges, both in and out of parliament, which, if allowed to stand constitute a libel on the former prime minister of this country and every member of his government. He stated that the Leader of the Opposition had acted improperly in a security matter of which, because of his position as Minister of Justice, he is assumed by all members of the house to have particular knowledge.
Now, sir, I believe that this is a grave and serious libel, and that truth is the only defence to it. I say the minister, and this is the nub of the question of privilege, is called upon now to prove the truth of these statements in the house. It cannot be done by a committee. The charges were not made in a committee. They were made by the minister on his own responsibility, both in the house and outside it, in the enjoyment of all of his privilege as a minister of the crown and as a member of the Privy Council. He, and he alone, must accept the responsibility for the insinuations which he has raised and the charges which he has made.
All of these matters, as the minister pointed out, arose out of the consideration of his estimates and thus, "in the actual transaction of the business of the house." Some arose immediately and others were compounded by the minister's statements outside the house as well as by his further statements here today when he said, and he repeated, sir, that the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition should be the subject of a royal commission inquiry.
Having gone that far, and he took it upon his own responsibility to proceed that far, he is now, I submit, under an obligation, under a ministerial duty as a member of the government and as possessor of the portfolio which he holds, to go farther and to say upon what these basest of charges are founded. I say, sir, if he does not do this, which he has an obligation to do, then he must resign.
In further support of the question of privilege I raise, the responsibility of a member for his words is a basic principle of parliament. This principle must be enforced by

parliament; and it must be enforced I submit, sir, with or without a motion. The minister must answer for the words which he has used.
I hope, sir, that as a man of honour, as a man of integrity, he would not continue to hide behind the rules of the house, but that he would rise and detail his charges against a former prime minister of this country, charges which he made this afternoon and charges to which I refer this day at the first opportunity.
Now, sir, the despicable charges and the allegations which have been made by the minister outside the house, reflecting on the former Conservative government and upon the former prime minister today, carried by all of the nation's news media, are a matter of such importance, of such urgency that they demand immediate attention by the house.
We have witnessed today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp)-


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on the rules, but on a point of order I would just like to know whether it is in order for the hon. member to interrupt the normal business of the house in this way.


Erik Nielsen: I submit to Your Honour that a point of privilege always takes precedence over any point of order. This afternoon the Minister of Finance, and others, attempted to use the rules to delay the bringing of this very important and urgent matter before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; I have already taken the liberty of bringing to the attention of the hon. member for Yukon that he should not impute motives, and again I bring this to his attention. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), during discussion and consideration of an item of business before the house, made a speech and no hon. member, I suggest, can impute that the speech was made for any other purpose than to enlighten the house. The hon. member should not impute motives.


Erik Nielsen: Well, Mr. Speaker, anyone who was in the house this afternoon can draw his own conclusions on that matter.
That this matter is a matter of urgent public importance, and that it constitutes a dastardly reflection on every member of the former government, on members of the house who are privy councillors, and upon the Leader of the Opposition, there can be no doubt. It cannot be dealt with in any other way because the minister himself carefully
March 10, 1966

waited until his estimates went through before saying at a press conference what he did not dare say in this parliament.
The minister's action constitutes a breach of national security, and as such is a matter of urgent public importance and must be dealt with, I submit, sir, here and now. No other house business, no other matter of debate can take priority over the wholesale slandering, for that is what I submit it is, of a former government and a former prime minister by one holding the responsibility of a minister of justice. The minister has an obligation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; I heard the hon. member this afternoon when he made his first contribution to this debate and, raised the matter which he considered a question of privilege, which was followed by a motion. I find it very difficult to see any difference between the question of privilege he is raising at this time and the one he raised this afternoon.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I know he might argue now that we are dealing with a different privy councillor and that every single privy councillor has a separate question of privilege. This is probably the only argument on which he can justify his entering into a debate a second time; but I should like him to take account of the fact that he has already participated in this question of privilege. I suggest the motion very properly was allowed to stand for a short while. I think the hon. member would want to consider the possibility that the motion the hon. member has already moved should be considered by the Chair. If I may say so, he is trying to duplicate his personality in the house and say that he made a motion before on behalf of one privy councillor and that he could again make a motion on behalf of not this one but another one. I have some doubt whether the hon. member can make six speeches, each time on behalf of a different privy councillor. This is beyond my comprehension; certainly, it does not appear to be very logical. Therefore, unles the hon. member is making a different contribution from that which he made this afternoon, X doubt whether he has a real question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, since you raised the matter, and since Your Honour was not in the chair when I initially raised the matter this evening, I point out to you,
23033-159a
Question of Privilege
with deference, that I am rising this evening on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, who is not present in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to complicate things for the hon. gentleman, but I realize he is rising on behalf of another member of the house; this is the point I am making. He is rising on behalf of another privy councillor who may feel aggrieved by the remarks which have been made by the Minister of Justice. This was my point. I wonder whether the hon. member, after he has completed his presentation now on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, then might get up a third time and say that this time he is speaking on behalf of a third privy councillor. I doubt whether this can be done.


Erik Nielsen: I do not have to rise on behalf of any particular member of the privy council in this house. The only submission I have made to you this evening is on the basis that a prima facie case of privilege exists, and there has been no debate whatsoever in respect of the merits of the fundamental question of privilege raised which has to be decided by the house and, with great deference, sir, only by the house.
I am rising this evening at the first opportunity because the matter has not been placed before Your Honour previously. On this question of privilege, I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the words used by the Minister of Justice this afternoon when he suggested to you, sir, and this house that the conduct of the former prime minister of this country should be made the subject of a royal commission inquiry.
I submit, sir, that that is an entirely distinct and separate question of privilege which has arisen as a result of the proceedings this afternoon, and not as a result of any proceedings during the minister's estimates or anything he may have said outside the house; indeed, it is additional. The minister has simply dug himself in deeper by his remarks this afternoon. I say, sir, that he cannot hide behind such wholesale smears, slanders, and allegations without fulfilling the obligation he has to make known the full facts. He has that duty and that responsibility. He must make his charges, having gone as far as he was allowed to go this afternoon in this house and outside it. He is assumed, sir, by the public as well as by the members of this house, to be in possession of the facts and to be making charges based on substance. He must, therefore, state to the members of the house what

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege
those charges are. If he does not do that, sir, then he is under an obligation by our procedures to resign. That is the position in which he is.
Public life would be impossible, if a minister in full possession of his ministerial authority were able to make this kind of a charge about members of this house past and present, about privy councillors and about a former Prime Minister of this country without being required to substantiate and prove them. He must name names, and he must reveal the full circumstances. No more serious charges have been made by a minister in this country.
According to the press and the radio, the minister has involved, without naming them, members of the previous government, the Leader of the Opposition, privy councillors, and I think a woman whom he says was formerly involved in espionage in East Germany. He has stated there was a report on the matter on the files of the R.C.M.P., although he has not seen that report. He has stated that the case was a bona fide security case, although he has not said it very well. He has made the charge that the former Prime Minister did not deal in a proper manner with that case. How does he know, if he has not seen the file?
He has made these charges after his estimates were passed and at a time when he knew the former Prime Minister was absent from this city. The minister's conduct constitutes a deplorable dereliction of his high office and a dastardly attack on the former Prime Minister, a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council, and every member of the former Conservative government, some of whom are still sitting in this house and who are Privy Councillors.
I submit, to you, sir, and to the house, that this must be dealt with by parliament and must be dealt with by parliament immediately, because the shabby, sordid and underhanded action which it constitutes is one which must not be allowed to be interrupted by any other order of business. The minister now must back up in this house what he said to the press outside this house, and back up in this house the charges he made against the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon.
The Prime Minister of this country is not free from responsibility. A public action of this kind by a member of the cabinet must represent the considered determination of the government. The Prime Minister and the

government must accept the minister's action or repudiate it. The minister acted following a meeting of the cabinet.
The whole government is involved in a course which has been reprehensible. It is a course of action which has been cowardly, and it is a course of action which has been lacking in the most elementary sense of justice or responsibility. I hear members over there make remarks concerning past proceedings of this house with regard to myself when I brought certain charges.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Erik Nielsen: This is a question of privilege and surely it supersedes-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may raise his point of order.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, no remarks whatever were being made from this side of the house.


An hon. Member:: You just came in.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member is stating something about the proceedings in the house at the moment which is not true. There was no sound of interruption whatever.


An hon. Member:: You were only coming in.


Erik Nielsen: If an ordinary member of parliament had made such charges as were made by the minister this afternoon, and outside of this house, he would be required to substantiate them, and I am one who has particular knowledge. I see the Parliamentary Secretary laughing. He would be required to substantiate them. A minister's responsibility certainly is that much greater, and that responsibility does not cease once he leaves this chamber and holds a press conference. He has been meeting with the press and he has been giving out information in dribs and drabs, even prior to the allegations he made this morning.
The Globe and Mail this morning carries an interview with the minister in which he says "the Munsinger case is worse than the Profumo case". This statement is in the papers this evening in Ottawa.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
In what way is it worse? Profumo lied to parliament. Does the minister say that someone here lied to parliament? Does he say the former prime minister lied to parliament or that any Privy Councillor lied to parliament?
March 10, 1966

According to the press, officials of the minister's department a day or two ago were making available, to certain reporters, information directly from the file on this case. The minister says he has not seen the file. On what basis can be blacken the reputation of a whole government and a former prime minister? This, sir, is outright slander and it ill behooves the minister who holds the portfolio of justice to engage in such tactics.
In so far as the public is concerned, and in so far as parliament is concerned, the presumption is that when a minister of justice speaks he has access to full information. The whole weight of his office is placed behind the charges he has made. He must now substantiate them. It is his obligation as a minister, as a member of the government and as a man of honour and integrity, to substantiate the charges he made outside and inside the house against the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and other Privy Councillors, and remove the cloud that is hanging over the heads of some of the members of the previous government.
Mr. Speaker, if the minister is not prepared to do this he must resign. The minister's action in this case, his leaking of information to the press, his calling a press conference to place in the public domain suggestions, insinuations and allegations which he dare not make in this house, demonstrates his unfitness for the position he holds and his total failure to grasp even a glimmering of the responsibility of that position.
The minister cannot be allowed to get away with this kind of action. This parliament must not allow him to get away with this kind of action. To countenance the method he has used would mean that none in political life would be free from insidious and cowardly attacks, without substantiation, at any time. Parliament cannot, I submit, be reduced to that state.
This is not a question of supporting accusations, with respect to the comments of the Chair this afternoon, against a minister. This is a question of dealing with the fact that the minister both in this House and outside has made charges, insinuations and allegations affecting members of this House, namely, the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the former cabinet, some of whom are sitting here this evening.
The request before us raises an issue as to the responsibility of a member of this House to substantiate charges.
Question of Privilege


Mr. Duquei:: Did you, in respect of bankruptcies?


Erik Nielsen: My hon. friend is new in this house. The charges which I brought were made the subject of a commission, and I had the distinct honour of being in the presence of Mr. Justice Dorion prior to his findings.


Gérard Duquet: I hope you keep that honour.


Erik Nielsen: The question before us is one dealing with the fact that a minister, both inside this house and outside, made insinuations and allegations against the Leader of the Opposition and members of his former cabinet. He must substantiate the charges he made, just as those members on the other side obliged me to do with respect to matters raised in 1964. I submit that responsibility falls more heavily upon a minister, and heaviest of all on the Minister of Justice, since this is claimed to be a matter involving national security. Those are my submissions, sir. You have two motions before you and I am prepared to move a third with respect to this specific question of privilege that has been raised by me in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition regarding statements made when he was not in this house, nay even in this city to defend himself against despicable and insidious charges on the part of the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must say again that the essence of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yukon does not differ greatly from those raised this afternoon, inasmuch as we are dealing again with the same statements made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin).


Erik Nielsen: It is a new one.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon says it is a new one. There were certain statements made by the Minister of Justice in the house this afternoon. There may have been more made since then, but I have not heard of them. My understanding is that we are dealing with the statements made in the house this afternoon and that those statements were the subject of the discussion in the house this afternoon.
As the hon. member states, there are two motions now before the Chair. According to our procedures there really should be only one. However, as a result of the way things were taking place during the course of the afternoon, the Chair found itself in the position of having two motions. It would be highly irregular to entertain a third.

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege
I think the suggestion was agreed to by hon. members this afternoon that the Chair be given an opportunity, as is always given to a Speaker, to consider this serious matter and to look into the motions to see whether they should be received, whether they are in order and to render a decision to the house.
We must also take into account the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has put a motion to adjourn the house at eight o'clock for the precise purpose of giving the Chair an opportunity to look into these matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: In my view we should wait until the motion is put to the house. If the house is adjourned the Chair will then have an opportunity to think about all these things. I might say, to be very candid, that is what I would like to do. That is what I tried to do to the best of my ability during the dinner hour. I thought I would have an opportunity then to study these matters, but it was brought to my attention in the Speaker's chambers that a new question of privilege had been raised and it was suggested that I come back to the chamber. I apologize to the hon. member for Yukon if I was a few minutes late, but I did not expect this turn of events.
I think the situation is clear. There are two motions before the Chair. There was general agreement this afternoon that the Chair should be given an opportunity to look into them. The motion put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was put for that very purpose. It will be voted on at eight o'clock and if it is carried I will have the opportunity of looking into the matter so that I may render a decision tomorrow. If it is not carried, I hope I will still have a chance to return to my chambers to consider the very serious suggestions that were made this afternoon and this evening by the hon. member for Yukon. I believe hon. members have an obligation to the Speaker to allow him to study matters of this kind. I am not a learned member of this House of Commons. I have been here just a few years and I am guided by the older members and other experienced people who have been here for some time. They assure me that it is normal for hon. members to give their Speaker, the man they have elected to this job, an opportunity to look into this type of matter. If hon. members refuse to give me an opportunity to return to my chambers I will remain here but, as I 
have suggested, they have an obligation to give me an opportunity to study the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, the questions before Your Honour deal with whether or not the two motions are in order and, as I had the occasion to say this afternoon,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will just say one thing more. If the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) feels the Chair should not have the opportunity of returning to the Speaker's chambers to consider this matter, I will stay and listen to the hon. member.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I feel that you should have an opportunity, but I wish to say something about that opportunity. It is my view that the question of whether the motion is or is not in order does not dispose of the main question of privilege which was raised this afternoon, or the question of privilege which was raised this evening.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
There are several methods by which the house might deal with this question of privilege. Two motions are before Your Honour, either one or both of which may be found to be out of order, or Your Honour may decide that they are in order. With all due respect, sir, that does not solve the problem. That is only part of the problem with which the house is now dealing. I submit that had Your Honour ruled immediately and found one or other motion in order, it would not have finished the debate on the question of privilege; it would just have made sure that we knew exactly the procedure we were following in order to deal with the questions of privilege which have been raised.
I submit, with all due respect, that the decision the house arrived at this afternoon was that there was a prima facie case of privilege. The next step, since there is a question of privilege raised by an hon. member, is this: What is the best way for the house to deal with the question of privilege? I suggest, sir, that it is a transgression of the privileges of members of this house that we are now attempting to solve. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) found it necessary to raise a new one in order to revive the debate. I presume that in accordance with a strict application of the rules, I should speak only on the question of privilege raised by
March 10, 1366

that hon. member. However, since the question involves the privileges of many members it is certainly the most orderly and businesslike procedure to discuss the whole question, without undue regard for the niceties of the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: I point out to the hon. member that the rules are more than niceties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The rules have to be respected by every hon. member, including the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. There is one question before the house. The hon. member feels that he has a right to discuss it. I am not going to deprive him of this right, but I hope he will discuss this matter within the rules.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I assure Your Honour that I shall try and stick strictly to the rules. I was perhaps a little careless in what I said. What I meant to say was this. Since the various questions of privilege are so intertwined, it is difficult to restrict one's remarks and make sure that they apply only to the question of privilege just raised, rather than including the remarks made this afternoon.
The matter before the house as a question of privilege deals fundamentally, I think, with the responsibility of one member of this house toward another in the sort of remarks he can make and the sort of attacks he can make on another member either in his capacity as a private member, as a member of the cabinet or as the Prime Minister, depending upon the member's status at the particular time.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Yes, sir.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The hon. member referred to the fact that these statements were made in the house. Great attention has been drawn earlier today to the fact that certain statements were made outside the house today. Is it not a fact that any member who has cause to complain about statements made outside the house can resort to the courts?


Erik Nielsen: The question I raised involved statements made inside the house.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I thought I said "statements made inside and outside the house" because sometimes a statement made outside the house could only have meaning if it were made inside the house. You have to consider
Question of Privilege
it as a course of conduct followed between members of the house. I submit that the most serious question that we in this house have to consider is the responsibility-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I would prefer not to hear another argument from the minister at this time.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member answer the question?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I would prefer not to hear another argument from the minister at this time. I thought that he wished to put a question, but he made an argument. I trust that if he wants to take part in the debate he will grant me the courtesy of finishing my remarks about what I consider to be the responsibility here, and then we may hear from him. The responsibility of the Minister of Justice is, I submit, the business of everyone in this house and statements made by him concern the responsibility of all members.
I know Your Honour had considerable difficulty this afternoon and said that it was possible you might have question of privilege after question of privilege and we would not get very much farther. I submit the matter is so serious that it is the business of this house and is worth the time of this house, if necessary, to consider every question of privilege involved in the minister's action and deal with them one after another until the minister learns his responsibility to this house.
I submit that there are many questions of privilege that have not yet been raised by individual Privy Councillors. In addition, there are questions of privilege that can be raised by every member of this house if we take our duties seriously and take the words "responsible government" seriously. "Responsible government" implies that the government is responsible to this house. It is our duty as members of this house to make sure that the government acts in a responsible manner to this house.
The hon. member for Yukon pointed out very clearly the entire cabinet responsibility for the statements and actions of the Minister of Justice. The government now in power in this country is entitled to run the country only so long as it has the confidence of this house, and we have the right to support them and give them our confidence only so long as the government carries out its duties in a

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege
responsible manner. Let us consider just one statement made by the Minister of Justice today. I ask any serious-minded member of this house to try and tell me this is the statement of a responsible minister. The Minister of Justice makes the sort of allegations which leave many former cabinet members under a cloud. He places a serious smear on the reputation of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) by saying that he improperly used his office when Prime Minister. He tells this house that he learned something about this conduct, but has the effrontery while making these grave charges, and making sure that he hits the headlines both inside and outside the house by reason of his statements, to say there is an R.C.M.P. report that he has not even seen.
Would this not offend the sensibilities of any member who wishes to go back to his constituency and say that he has conscientiously carried out his duty as a member of parliament to make sure there is a responsible government in this country? Here is a Minister of Justice who takes that sort of action and blandly tells this house, to the applause of the Liberal backbenchers, that he has not even bothered to read a report which may clear up all those misgivings in his mind or may substantiate them. The Minister of Justice was invited by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to bring this report forward. He mentioned this last Friday. He has called press conferences. He has made these statements again today and tells us there is a report. Then he says he has not even seen it.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
I ask all hon. members of this house who believe in responsible government if they are going to abandon their duty to make sure the government acts responsibly. What hon. member on either side of the house would call this a responsible government? What hon. member would suggest there is more serious business for this house to consider right now than the conduct of this government? It is not just the Minister of Justice but also the Prime Minister and his cabinet members who are concerned. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the most serious questions affecting this house are those matters which go to the root of our system of government. Democratic government can only survive if you and I, the elected members of this house, are conscious of and conscientious about our duty to keep the government responsible to this house. We have a responsibility to those

who elected us. We have to answer. What did we let the government get away with?
I am submitting that when the government officially allows a minister to act in this manner, it is our duty to make sure that all else ceases till the position is made clear. I would move a motion now that we go into committee of the whole house if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) would like to bring the facts forward and explain them. In committee of the whole, witnesses could be brought before the bar of the house and examined. If the facts are such as alleged by the Minister of Justice-that the former Prime Minister mishandled his office-then obviously the Minister of Justice should take this course, and I want to give him the opportunity of so doing. When he makes such allegations he has a duty to this house to prove them.


Erik Nielsen: It is an accusation.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I would move the motion now if I thought there was any hope of the Minister of Justice complying.
As I understand the position on the other side of the house, it is that it is perfectly all right for Privy Councillors to live under the suspicion that perhaps they are the ones who behaved so very badly, while all the time the Minister of Justice has a file, which he has not bothered to look at, which would clear the matter up. It is perfectly in agreement with Liberal principles that those Privy Councillors should be stained in that way, shall I say. This is what hon. members opposite are saying.
I could raise a question of privilege of my own very simply. I come to this house as a member with a duty I want to uphold. I do not believe that my position in this house should subject me to the witnessing of the sword of insinuation or accusation being directed toward these Privy Councillors by the Minister of Justice. I could raise a question of personal privilege as to whether I, as an elected member of parliament, must sit in this house at the same time as another member of the house who acts in this way. I believe that would be a very proper question of privilege for the house to consider.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) seems rather amused at my statement. I suppose the question of responsible government is a laughing matter with the Prime Minister because we have certainly seen very little of it under his tenure of office. I hope that the Prime Minister, who speaks for a government
March 10, 1966

which seems to make accusations so easily and withhold the evidence, will tell us whether or not he is proud of that party of his which is going to back up this kind of action.
Individual hon. members on the other side who jeered so loudly this afternoon might rise in their places one by one and tell the house whether they really believe they are doing their duty to their constituents by backing a government which says it will smear people and not even bother to look at the evidence. The Minister of Justice says he has the files, yet he has not looked at them. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, making serious slanders in view of that statement? Can you imagine any responsible person asking a whole group of people to live under that sort of cloud of insinuation, while at the same time the admission is made that there is a file in existence which may clear up the whole matter, a file at which the Minister of Justice has not even bothered to look.
The question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, concerns responsibility to this house. The government is responsible to the house, and we as members are also responsible.


An hon. Member:: You mean irresponsible.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I heard someone say "irresponsible". Since the hon. member sits on the other side of the house I gather he is speaking for the Liberals. It is true that when you talk of yourselves you do talk of irresponsibility.
I am not satisfied with the action taken by the minister. I am not satisfied that in this case the action of the government constitutes responsible government. My duty, as I see it, as a member is to insist on responsibility from the government. If we do not get it I am going to do my darndest to get rid of the government. I will continue to fight because this is the No. 1 priority item.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I realize a bunch of trained seals are not very interested in democracy. They are willing to sit back, take orders, jump up and down, and so on.


An hon. Member:: You are one yourself.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I never was, nor will I be. I ask any one of those who have interjected to stand up and say they believe this a proper course of conduct for the minister to follow.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Question of Privilege


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The hon. member can have the floor as soon as I have finished.


Paul Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there is a question of privilege being raised. We have many questions of privilege before us at the moment, but we are dealing at the present time with the one on which the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) is speaking.

The hon. member cannot rise at this time when we are considering a question of privilege. If he is raising a point of order, I could recognize him. But we must try to dispose of questions of privilege seriatim.


Paul Langlois: I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out to hon. members-


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


Paul Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), has been inviting us in the last few minutes, especially those whom he calls the backbenchers, to express our views about the government's conduct.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I presume the invitation of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is mainly rhetorical. For the moment, I would suggest that we allow him to proceed with his remarks.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging that at least one of the backbenchers is apparently concerned with the responsibility of government, and we might look forward to his participation in the debate, instead of this wild desk pounding each time a scurrilous remark is made.
I will close with this observation. If this is responsible government I ask any member who can do so to explain to me how the conduct of the Minister of Justice can be called responsible. I would dearly love to

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege
hear that explanation. I would especially like to hear him explain how so many members of this house, Privy Council members, can be put under a cloud. The minister tells us he has a file on the matter which he has not even seen. How can that be responsible government? I certainly hope some hon. members will take this opportunity.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, a long time ago I learned never to speak at any length when I was full of indignation. Therefore, my words here tonight are going to be very few in speaking to this question of privilege.
There has been an unholy slander against a group of men who have served Her Majesty well in this country. The matter can be settled and it can be settled at once if the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) will act as a Prime Minister. I ask the right hon. gentleman for Algoma East to act as a Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question? What does he mean by "acting"? Does he mean recommending the establishment of a judicial inquiry into this matter?


Richard Albert Bell: The right hon. gentleman knows perfectly well what I mean. I want him to bring his Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) into the house and make him prove the charges which he has made against a number of people, or else resign his seat. Let the right hon. gentleman act as a Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would my hon. friend be satisfied with having the Minister of Justice appear before a judicial inquiry, together with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) and all those concerned with this matter? Is that what he means by action?
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: The rules require the minister to make his choice.


Thomas Miller Bell: Let him present the evidence in this house, and let us be the judges. We are the people who have been elected to be the judges of the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richard Albert Bell: I would, sir, move such a motion. Mr. Speaker, you have enough motions before you, but I will present to you what I think is the correct motion in this house, a motion that will show the moral indignation in this house, which should be felt by 265 hon. members. My motion is that the house do now resolve itself into committee of the whole in order that hon. members may have an opportunity to examine the Minister of Justice, so that he may advise the committee what evidence he has to substantiate the charges made inside and outside this chamber which have reflected unfortunately and improperly upon members of Her Majesty's Privy Council. In the event he fails to substantiate such charges then the hon. minister should be called upon to submit his resignation and to atone by the forfeiture of his seat.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Richard Albert Bell: That, sir, is the motion I am prepared to make in this house. I say to you, and I say to the right hon. gentleman from Algoma East, he has an obligation to do something to settle what has happened today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richard Albert Bell: He has an obligation. Let him live up to the tradition of his office. He is the fourteenth man to hold that office, and he is about to be the first man to disgrace the office if he does not do anything.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask my hon. friend a question. If there is a recommendation made in this house for the establishment of a judicial committee, to inquire into all these matters which have been talked about, will he support it?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker-


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, no-


Richard Albert Bell: I have the floor. I say that this has gone beyond a judicial inquiry. This is something the high court of parliament must settle, and I say that right here. Let us go into committee of the whole and let us allow the Minister of Justice to present his evidence now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Miller Bell: I will support an investigation in this parliament tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Beil@Carleion: Bring the Minister of Justice in here. Bring in the man who has not even reviewed the file. Bring him in, and let him swear to it. Let him tell his story. He has so cowardly fled from the chamber. And what has he been ready to do? He has been ready to smear men of honour, men who have served the crown well.
March 10, 1966


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Sir, may I ask the Prime Minister a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will allow the hon. member tor Ontario to speak.


Michael Starr: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of what he has intimated the government might be prepared to do, and would get support on, which is the establishment of a judicial inquiry, does the Prime Minister intend that the aspersions that have been cast should remain until the judicial inquiry meets, hears witnesses and brings in findings? Is this what he means?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is what he wants; to postpone everything.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I believe that there have been all sorts of statements made in the house this afternoon, and allegations made inside and outside the house. I ask the hon. member who was so very indignant a few moments ago because we would not do anything about it, if the government moved a motion in this parliament for the establishment of a judicial inquiry, which is what they wanted in the Spencer case and this is a matter which concerns security-would the opposition support it?


Michael Starr: May I ask this question of the Prime Minister, and I ask the Prime Minister if he would answer it for me? Does he intend then under this procedure to allow this stigma to hang over the heads of all those who were at that time in the government, until the findings are made? Does he agree that that should be the case?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if my hon. friend would consider some of the stigma that he and his friends have imposed on us in recent months, as a government, and whether he thought at that time there should be a parliamentary inquiry into the statement, for instance, of the Leader of the Opposition who said not very long ago, "A vote for the Liberal government will mean an open season for organized crime in Canada".
Did he ask for a parliamentary inquiry then?


Richard Albert Bell: Why does not the right hon. gentleman just act like an ordinary Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think possibly we have had a clear
Question of Privilege
indication in these last two or three minutes of what the real sickness of this parliament is.


Some hon. Members:: You. You.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You have a man who has the title of Prime Minister treating this house in a smart alec way on a very serious-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that there are institutions which have to be respected in this house, and I ask him to limit his remarks, as I have asked the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), to the question of privilege which was raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
There is a very special piece of business to be considered at the moment, and the rules of relevance insist that we should limit our comments to the matter now before the house.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think you are aware that the statement we are objecting to on this question of privilege was made by the Minister of Justice today who said in this house that the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition should be the subject of a royal commission. He stated that when he was minister in another department, which we have to assume was the Department of National Defence, he heard rumours or stories which he repeated today in his press conference outside the house.
My question is why, if the Minister of Justice has held these views for several months now, has kept this knowledge to himself for all this time, did he not do his duty when he was Associate Minister of the Department of National Defence and lay these serious charges then?
How can a man stand up and be credible in this house when he claims he has had this knowledge for many months, but has waited until today to use it.
I now charge this Minister of Justice with taking part-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to section (3) of Standing Order 6 it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings.
At 6.05 p.m. this day, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), moved:
That the house do now adjourn.
And the Chair having proposed to put the question thereon, more than five hon. members rose to object to the taking of a vote.

March 10, 1966
Division
Accordingly pursuant to Section (3), Standing Order 6, the vote on the said motion was postponed until 8.00 o'clock p.m.
The house is therefore deemed to have reverted to "private members' business" for such time as is necessary for the taking of the vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour?
Some hon. Members,: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed?


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Knowles) which was negatived on the following division.
[DOT] (8:00 pun.)
++YEAS
Messrs:
Aiken	Howe (Wellington-Huron
Alkenbrack	Johnston
Asselin (Charlevoix)	Keays
Barnett	Kennedy
Beaulieu	Kindt
Bell (Saint John-Albert)	Knowles
Bell (Carleton)	Korchinski
Bigg	Lambert
Bower	Lewis
Brand	Loney
Brewin	MacDonald (Prince)
Cadieu (Meadow Lake)	MacEwan
Cameron (Nanaimo-	Maclnnis
Cowichan-The Islands)	(Cape Breton South)
Cantelon	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Chatterton	(Vancouver-Kingsway)
Churchill	MacLean (Queens)
Coates	Macquarrie
Code	MacRae
Crouse	McCleave
Dinsdale	McCutcheon
Enns	McIntosh
Fairweather	McKinley
Fane	McLelland
Fawcett	Madill
Flemming	Martin (Timmins)
Forbes	Mather
Forrestall	More
Gilbert	Muir (Cape Breton
Grafftey	North and Victoria)
Grills	Muir (Lisgar)
Gundlock	Nasserden
Hales	Nesbitt
Hamilton	Nielsen
Harkness	Nowlan
Herridge	Nugent
Homer (Acadia)	Orlikow
Howard	Pascoe
Howe (Hamilton South)	Patterson

Peters	Simpson
Prittie	Southam
Pugh	Starr
Rapp	Thomas (Middlesex West)
Regimbal	Thompson
Ricard	Vincent
Rynard	Wadds (Mrs.)
Saltsman	Watson (Assiniboia)
Schreyer	Webb
Scott (Danforth)	Winch
Scott (Victoria (Ont.)) Winkler	
Sherman	Woolliams-98.
 NAYS Messrs:
Allard	Lachance
Allmand	Laflamme
Andras	Laing
Asselin	LaMarsh (Miss)
(Richmond-Wolf e)	Lamontagne
Badanai	Langlois (Chicoutimi)
Basford	Laniel
Batten	Laprise
Bechard	Latulippe
Beer	Laverdidre
Benson	Leblanc (Laurier)
Berger	LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Boulanger	Lefebvre
Brown	Legault
Byme	Lessard
Cadieux (Terrebonne)	Lind
Can tin	Loiselle
Caouette	Macaluso
Cardin	Macdonald (Rosedale)
Caron	MacEachen
Carter	Mackasey
Cashin	Mcllralth
Choquette	McLean (Charlotte)
Chretien	McNulty
Clermont	McWilliam
Comtois	Martin (Essex East)
C6t6 (Dorchester)	Matheson
Cote (Longueuil)	Matte
Cowan	Mitchell
Crossman	Mongrain
Davis	Morison
Deachman	O'Keefe
Dionne	Orange
Drury	Otto
Dube	Pearson
Duquet	Pelletier
Kmard	Pennell
Ethier	Pepin
Faulkner	Pickersgill
Favreau	Pilon
Forest	Prud'homme
Foy	Reid
Gauthier	Richard
Gendron	Rideout (Mrs.)
Godin	Robichaud
Goyer	Rock
Granger	Roxburgh
Greene	Ryan
Gregoire	Sharp
Groos	Simard
Habel	Stafford
Haidasz	Stanbury
Harley	Stewart
Hellyer	Tardif
Honey	Teillet
Hopkins	Thomas (Maisonneuve-
Hymmen	Rosemont)
Isabelle	Tolmie
Klein	Tremblay
March 10, 1966

Trudeau	Watson (Chateauguay-
Tucker	Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Turner	Whelan
Wahn	Winters-124.
Walker
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I was paired, Mr. Speaker. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, before we voted on the motion to adjourn, I was trying to make one or two points. I should like to repeat them in simple form. The first is that we have had a statement by the Minister of Justice that, by its very nature, puts all of us on the front bench of the Conservative party in a situation where we are guilty by association. This is pure, undiluted, plain and simple McCarthyism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The technique of McCarthy was to call for an investigation before his committee and name a whole series of suspects. Until those persons had given their evidence, until the report was received, they were guilty in the minds of many people. This government and the Prime Minister, by condoning the action of the Minister of Justice have laid themselves open to the charge of McCarthyism by every freedom loving person across Canada.
The second point I want to make on this question of privilege is that the minister, by his own confession, has stated that he obtained this information when he was in another department. He has only been in three departments. He was Associate Minister of National Defence, he was Minister of Public Works and now he is Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If he found out anything that in his opinion was close to treason when he was Associate Minister of National Defence, why did he not speak up then? If he had this information for all those months that he was Minister of Public Works and sat along with these others in the cabinet, why did he not speak up then? He has been Minister of Justice now for several months and he has not spoken, instead he waited
Question of Privilege
until the man he wanted to attack was out of his place in this house and out of the city.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Minister of Justice is like a sick animal in the forest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; I would ask the hon. member to keep in mind the proprieties of this house and to consider the expressions that he uses. There are some expressions that are not accepted as good, parliamentary expressions. I urge the hon. member to keep this in mind.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, there is an expression to the effect that when the bulls come into the pasture, the calves and the cows go to the corner. If the Minister of Justice takes offence at any of my remarks, he knows his recourse. This man, it is evident to all of us, feels hurt that he has been attacked in this house.


An hon. Member:: Persecuted.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: He feels hurt because things that have been said to him have hurt his sensitivities, and the only thing he can think of is to bite back.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: He forgets, in the rough and tumble of this house, who the man is who started this.


Some hon. Members:: Nielsen.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Minister of Justice sat on this side of the house and without provocation made certain statements. Now, when he is in the government and is paying the penalty for his rashness, he cannot stand up like a man and take it; he must bite back like a forest animal that has rabies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: But if an animal in the
forest has rabies-


Erik Nielsen: You put him out of his misery.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -and bites everything in sight, that animal, if it comes close to human habitation, is put out of his misery. The man who can put the Minister of Justice out of his misery is the Prime Minister. Just because the sensitivities of one small man in this house-

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege


Some hon. Members:: You.


An hon. Member:: And Nielsen.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -are hurt and his ego has been deflated, he does this awful thing. He charges many people with something he knows is not true. The minute the minister says "two or more cabinet members" he knows there must be some in that cabinet who are not guilty of the charge that he lays. All we ask him to do is name names and get us out of this position; suffer the consequences, be a man and resign his seat in the house.


Erik Nielsen: That is the position in which he is.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When this period of our history is written the Minister of Justice will not suffer; he will just be forgotten for his smallness of mind. But the man who has dragged down his party, his government and his country is the Prime Minister. Rather than face the fact which the country knows to be true, namely that his cabinet is divided, and get rid of those who will not behave as the custom of this house dictates, he will abide anything. From the action of the Prime Minister today, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be denied that he is the one who will pay the price. All he is doing now is trying to extend by a few hours, a week or maybe a few months his tenure of office. He does not dare take the long walk to the Governor General's residence.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I respectfully ask Your Honour whether a motion is before the house; and, if there is not, what are we now discussing?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member was in the house earlier this afternoon or this evening he will remember that the Chair expressed the opinion there were already two motions before the house, that there should not be a third one and that we should not be considering the matter any further. I asked for the assistance and co-operation of hon. members, but that co-operation has not been extended.
At the moment the house is considering a question of privilege which was raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The hon. member for Yukon made the point-and I respect the point that he made-that this was a separate question of privilege. He has spoken on the question and I had assumed that hon. members who have taken part in the

debate since then have been referring themselves to that question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yukon this afternoon.


David Lewis: May I raise a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way in which you or we can avoid spending any more time this evening in personal attack and personal dirt?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I know how you feel, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. gentleman who has just sat down is not under the charge that some of us here are. Let him go home to his wife and family and endure what we have to endure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: All they are interested in is ruining the reputation of others.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) has the floor.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was rising in reply to the statement by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who does not seem to appreciate that there is a matter of more serious portent here than the question of a few minutes of time. This is a matter concerning the rights of the members of this house, and the only place this matter can be settled is here in the House of Commons. It cannot be dragged out over many months in any long investigation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair would appreciate the co-operation of all hon. members to give an opportunity to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle to make his point. The hon. member for Bow River.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, you asked-


John Napier Turner: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) on a point of order.


John Napier Turner: I should like to put a point of order to Your Honour. I thought the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) quite properly asked what question was before the house. It was my understanding that you had reserved consideration of the two motions in order to decide whether or not there was a prima facie case. How is it that hon. members are now addressing the house on these motions at the moment?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, must we explain to every member who was not present before what has been happening here? Is everyone who comes into the
March 10, 1966

house going to ask what is happening so that they can be put in the picture? I suggest that the minister could have been here had he wanted.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the house is dealing with a question of privilege concerning the events of these past few days.
This afternoon I heard a former minister refer to the situation in which former Conservative ministers find themselves, with all the insinuations and implications made recently.
Perhaps they could be asked if what they have been doing for the last two years was not constant insinuations and implications.
I heard the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) say that he had never heard about the Munsinger case. It proves one thing: that the Leader of the Opposition did not keep his ministers informed when he was Prime Minister.
It also proves that the case was not investigated as it should have been and that it has not been completely cleared up, since the ministers were not even aware of it, except, as pointed out by the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette), the ministers involved at the time.
In my opinion, this matter should certainly be cleared up and the motion as moved this afternoon will not satisfy anyone. While you are going to consider whether the motion is in order, I should like to move an amendment so that you may consider it at the same time as the motion. You will then have all evening to decide if the amendment is just as regular as the motion. With your permission, I move the following amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member moves an amendment to the motion before the house, but it is clear that until that motion has been accepted, no member will be able to move an amendment.
An amendment to a motion cannot be moved as long as a motion is still before the house.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I shall simply outline the amendment to the Conservative motion I should like to move later, so that we may all be enlightened.
The amendment would be along these lines: That every word after the word "immediately" in the motion of the hon. member
Question of Privilege
for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) be deleted and replaced by the following: That the right hon. Prime Minister take such steps as are necessary to establish a judicial inquiry into the security case referred to by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) and by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on March 4, 1966 at page 2211 of Hansard, and which was also raised by the Minister of Justice in a press conference on March 10, 1966 and which was also referred to by the hon. member from Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) on orders of the day on March 10, 1966, in a question of privilege.
I submit that only a judicial inquiry into the whole Munsinger affair, can inform public opinion and show whether the Minister of Justice was right or wrong in raising a question of security which had to be in force at the time, and only a judicial inquiry will enlighten us on the role and the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition in the Munsinger case.
If the Minister of Justice is asked only to give all his evidence, everything cannot be aired. On the other hand, if a judicial inquiry is held, we will know precisely what was the role of the Leader of the Opposition at the time, whether he acted properly and whether he conducted himself as befits a Prime Minister.
If we were to ask only for a simple statement in the house, we would never have the whole story.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to have you take under advisement the advisability of the amendment I have moved, so that if this amendment is in order, we will have a judicial inquiry on everything that happened on that subject. I feel that a statement would satisfy no one.
In the last two years, the Conservatives have asked for a royal commission or a judicial inquiry at every turn. If it was a good thing each time they did the asking, so why would it not be as good a thing in this case? Would there be a double standard? If it was good in the Spencer case, why would it be bad in the Munsinger case?
I see that some Conservative members are in favour of holding a judicial inquiry in the Munsinger case.
Well, Mr. Speaker, then it would throw light on everything we want to know.
Mr. Speaker, I think that such an inquiry is needed. In view of the fact that a motion and an amendment thereto are before you,

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege
even though the latter is not official yet, I think that we could go on to something else.
Everything that will be said from now on will not be very useful. We might as well wait for the findings of an inquiry to know exactly what to think of all that.
That is why I feel that we should now go on to another item-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: -and really discuss the business before the house, because the people of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: -have had enough of that; they want a legislative program, they want to see some work done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the hon. member is getting farther and farther away from the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) tonight. If he wants to keep on talking, he should limit his remarks to that motion or to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yukon.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by inviting all hon. members to behave a little more intelligently and come back to what interests the Canadian people; a legislative program for the people, and put a stop to all that dirty and sickening business.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bow River.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I think perhaps I should put it before my hon. friend for Bow River takes the floor. I would hate to get into the middle of his speech.
Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from York South I am still concerned with what it is we are debating. Your Honour said a moment ago that at seven o'clock the hon. member for Yukon raised what he described as a new question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ever since then, except for the time that was taken on the vote, apparently we have been discussing that question of privilege.
I ask Your Honour this question. Is not our practice with respect to a question of privilege this: that an hon. member raises a question of privilege; he might get a bit of

support here and there, but at some point early in the proceedings the Chair decides whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege. If there is, a motion is put and then debate may take place on the motion. It seems to me, and I think this is what bothered my colleague from York South, that we are now having what sounds like a debate on the motion, but the motion has not been put. Do I take it that Your Honour has, by implication, suggested that there is another prima facie case of privilege? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we should have some ruling before we go on with the debate, which seems to be a debate on a motion which has not yet been put.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order raised, I refrained from moving the motion because of the two that are already before Your Honour. The motion that I had in mind moving was that this house call upon the Minister of Justice to substantiate the charges and allegations he has made against the Leader of the Official Opposition and members of the former Conservative government, now hon. members in this house.
It is quite a different motion than proposed by Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I would perhaps agree that the particular point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is well taken. I have brought it to the attention of hon. members before. From a procedural standpoint, we certainly do not appear to be operating according to the standard practice of the house. We have already had two questions of privilege which have been raised, and two motions which have been placed before the house. The hon. member took the floor on the third question of privilege, and we have had a debate sinGe then on that, or I assume on the same question of privilege.
Now to answer the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, there is not so much difference between this particular question of privilege and others raised earlier today that I can reach a different conclusion than that which I reached before, to the effect that there appears to be a prima facie case of privilege. This having been said, recognized and agreed, I wonder whether we can allow the debate to continue on something which we do not have before us: a motion. If the hon. member submits his motion we are in a position where we have three motions before us, and then perhaps we could discuss that.
March 10, 1966

This is the embarrassing position in which I think we have placed ourselves in the chamber. And this is why I suggested it would have been so much easier to have delayed the matter for a short while. I am not faulting any hon. member for this. I am saying that is the factual position at present.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I should like to suggest to hon. members, in view of the fact that we are in the same position as before, that we have these three potential motions, it would be so much easier to allow the matter to stand, to leave it in abeyance until we have a chance to look at the other two motions. This is what I hoped we would do and what I am proposing still hopefully to hon. members. I am hopeful that hon. members will agree with me that that is the best way to handle the matter.


Erik Nielsen: On the question of order, I wish to make one point, and it is this: my question of privilege raised this evening was confined to the statement made by the minister this afternoon in this house. It is my understanding, and it certainly was the situation in connection with the motion of 1964, that when a minister or an hon. member makes a charge against another hon. member of the house, he must substantiate that. That was the narrow basis in the privilege question and the narrow basis of my motion. If it will assist, I am prepared to put that motion now. I think Your Honour could also take that one under advisement.


Mr. Speaker:: I feel that the situation would not be any worse than it is now if we received a third motion. I would be glad to hear it, but the hon. member cannot expect that I will give him a decision on it right now.


Erik Nielsen: I have already read it to Your Honour. It is moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell).


Mr. Speaker:: As I said a moment ago if hon. members want me to put the motion I would consider it along with the other two motions. I recognize that the motion by the hon. member for Yukon has already been placed on the record. I suggest to hon. members that unless somebody has a completely new question of privilege to raise at this time, that we go on with other business.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask with the calmness which I actually do not feel if it is not possible to persuade the right
Question of Privilege
hon. gentleman from Algoma East to act like a Prime Minister in the settling of this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George James McIlraith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just for the sake of clarification, the hon. member for Yukon has been permitted to place his motion before the house without a decision being taken by yourself as to whether it is acceptable. That being so, what is the status of the proposed amendment that was indicated a few moments ago? Is it also to be placed before the house? I suggest it would have to be.


Mr. Speaker:: It is still lower on the totem pole. I would think that we should first consider whether any of these motions can be accepted, and if the motion is accepted, whether any member has the right to move an amendment.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order raised was not just from the hon. member for Yukon, who had a motion. As I indicated to the Chair, I also have a motion that I shall be prepared to move. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has a motion. However, I think the nub of the question, sir, lies in the suggestion by the Chair that a motion, if it be not in order would stop the debate.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I suggest to Your Honour that there are many questions of privilege which might be raised and many motions which might be put. It is my contention that though a particular motion by one hon. member has been found out of order, this does not dispose of the main point, that is, the question of privilege which has been raised. The Chair has already ruled that this is a question of privilege. The motion is only one solution, intended to show how we should handle this matter. Since there are so many possible motions it is my contention that even if one, two or even three motions were out of order, the ruling on the question itself does not prevent this discussion of the means by which the house should handle the question of privilege. It is, therefore, my contention that it was not necessary to move any motion. Indeed, it might be improper to add any motion to the order paper.
I did suggest to Your Honour that I really believed I was co-operating. There was no suggestion that Your Honour had to give a ruling on the first question before the debate could continue. But since the motion is a method of disposing of the question at the

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege
end of debate, Your Honour has time to rule on various motions and adopt any suggestions, and when the questions or privilege which have been raised are disposed of, I should like to have an opportunity to put my motion as well. I hope Your Honour will not feel that I was not trying to co-operate with the Chair when I spoke on this matter; I had that impression.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, since there are now three motions under consideration, I would like to move another one under standing order 24.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette);
That the orders of the day be now read.
Let us proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: We are already on the orders of the day. The hon. gentleman's motion might be a good motion for tomorrow, but not for tonight.
Does the hon. member for Rosthern wish to speak on a point of order?


Mr. Nasserden:: No, Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege itself.


Mr. Speaker:: I am asking the question because there are two hon. members seeking the floor, and if they wish to speak on a point of order I would recognize them first. However, I will call on the hon. member for Rosthern.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order about the same point of order raised a little earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). The discussion is allowed to go on. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) moved a motion which you took under consideration. You said that tomorrow you would probably give your ruling on it and since then the debate has been going on. If we are allowed to keep on discussing it, I think that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) also had the right to move an amendment. If you allowed the debate to continue on the motion, the hon. member for Lapointe had the right to move his amendment, so that it could be studied at the same time, and you could give your ruling tomorrow.

I think that the hon. member was perfectly right to move his motion, while the others had the right to discuss a point of order which you had taken under consideration.


Edward Nasserden: In rising to say a few words on this matter before us today I think we should remember what is before us at this time. The question of the privileges of the House of Commons is not something to be taken lightly, not only because of the rights of hon. members but because of the dignity of the Chair, as well. I wish to refer to Beauchesne citation 105 on page 96 where it is stated:
[DOT]-if a member should rise to complain of a breach of privileges of the house they have always instantly heard him. It seems that the first duty of parliament is to keep its privileges and no rule or standing order should restrain its conduct when it must vindicate its authority.
This refers not only to members of the House of Commons but to the Chair as well. Then on the following page we find in citation 106(2):
The dignity and independence of the two Houses are in great measure preserved by keeping their privileges indefinite. If all the privileges of Parliament were set down and ascertained, and no privilege to be allowed but what was so defined and determined, it were easy for the executive power to devise some new case, not within the line of privilege, and under pretence thereof, to harass any refractory member and violate the freedom of Parliament.
Today we have witnessed the spectacle of the Prime Minister and other members opposite pointing to the fact that the hon. member for Yukon has made charges in this house. This is one of the reasons they are raising their charges at this time. In other words, this citation is very applicable to what is taking place in the House of Commons today.
If we go on to consider citation 159(2) on page 134, we will find that it states:
A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House-


An hon. Member:: Read on.


Edward Nasserden: -unless he be prepared to lay It upon the table. This restraint is similar to the rules of evidence in courts of law, which prevent counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that It has not been contested, and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in.
March 10. 1966



We have two questions before us. One concerns what is alleged to have taken place four or five years ago. The other relates to what has taken place during the last few hours, the statements made by the Minister of Justice. The most important question before us at this time concerns the statements made by the Minister of Justice during the last few moments and in the last few hours. The minister has made charges against the cabinet of another day en bloc, with no regard at all for those who were innocent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some difficulty in following the hon. member. I gathered, when he got to his feet, that he wanted to refer to a question of privilege. I may say in passing that I am in full agreement with everything he has said and with the citations to which he has referred. I might add that it is in keeping with those citations that the Chair has tried, even gone out of its way, to give every hon. member an opportunity to take part in the debate today.
This having been said, we must recognize that we have to go back to something. Before the hon. member took the floor I believe we had agreed that the hon. member for Yukon would be allowed to present his motion to the Chair although it was not placed before the house. I assume the hon. member will now wish to address himself, perhaps, to a new question of privilege; but not, I suggest, to the one we have already disposed of to some extent.
I should put it this way: really we have nothing at this time before us, the question of privilege raised at seven o'clock by the hon. member for Yukon having been received by the Chair for the purpose of taking it into consideration. The hon. member has raised a question of privilege with which I am in full agreement.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
If he wants to raise another question of privilege he is free to do so, but for the guidance of the Chair he should state what it is he wants to speak about.


Edward Nasserden: I had very little more to say, Mr. Speaker, but I was trying to draw on the statement the Chair made a little while ago, in which you indicated you had not quite made up your mind this matter was of such urgency that the minister should make a statement to the house substantiating the allegations he has made. It is that point which I am trying to draw to Your Honour's
Question of Privilege
attention. I do not think in Your Honour's experience, or in that of any member of the house, we have ever had anything come before us that could be considered more urgent, especially when we think of the implications of the allegations made by the Minister of Justice, unsupported allegations, that touch on the morality and integrity of so many members of the house, and indeed touch on all members of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I have said many things today but one thing I hope I did not say is what the hon. member says I said. May I suggest at this point, since we have another 40 minutes to go this evening that we return to the order of business we had proposed to consider at seven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), that the house now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, there is a motion which has just been moved by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). I am leary about going back to Standing Order 25 which gave me some difficulty this afternoon, but perhaps this time my interpretation will be accepted. I understand the Standing Order requires that there be an intermediate proceeding and, to the best of my knowledge, since the last motion was made there has been no intervening procedure. We have been on the question of privilege, and I would like to hear hon. members on this point.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I see some hon. members looking at me with learned looks, and they might like to advise the Chair on this point. My view, and my interpretation would be that there has not been an intermediate proceeding. In view of this I do not think that the motion moved by the hon. member can be received at this time.


Frank Howard: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr, Speaker, because obviously we are not going to get any business done anyway.


Mr. Speaker:: We can call it ten o'clock if there is unanimous agreement.

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, may I suggest to Your Honour that since you have taken under reservation three or four separate motions, and since there is nothing properly before the house at this particular moment, we revert to the ordinary business and that you make such a ruling.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, when I raised this question of privilege this afternoon I thought it was a matter which could be resolved very early and in a straightforward manner. Since that time the whole thing has been completely confused by a large number of questions of order and by procedural matters of various kinds.
I suggest that the only way in which the situation we are in could be resolved at the present time is by the leader of the government, the Prime Minister of Canada, standing up and saying what action he is prepared to take in order to bring this situation to a conclusion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin Cameron: I presume, Mr. Speaker, we are now back on the regular business of the house, second reading of the bill moved by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp)?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, what I am concerned about is just what business are we on? If we are on the Bank Act I would like the Chair to indicate that.


Mr. Speaker:: That was the business called at seven o'clock when the question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Yukon. That is the business before the house, and if we agree that these several questions of privilege might be held in abeyance and reserved, we would return to that particular order of business, namely, the Bank Act.


Michael Starr: Well, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which is that this matter was brought before the house as a very serious matter to be considered by parliament and by the government. The Prime Minister has not seen fit to resolve this situation. He is letting the aspersions that have been made lie where they are, without any action on his part at aU.
A motion was moved earlier by members of the N.D.P. that the house adjourn. It was

defeated. Now, because this matter has not been resolved I see no point in continuing for the balance of the half hour that remains before ten o'clock. I suggest that for the sake of the orderly business of the house we call it ten o'clock in order to give Your Honour an opportunity to resolve the motions which you have under reserve, and an opportunity for the government to make some definite decision.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member realizes there was a division in the house just a short while ago on a motion to adjourn the house and the majority of the house decided that we should not adjourn. It certainly is not for the Chair to go against that decision of the house. If there is unanimous agreement by hon. members, we could adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not. This has already been considered. There is no unanimous agreement, and so we have before us at this moment a particular item of business, the Bank Act.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
You have ruled that the motion for the adjournment of the house put forward by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) was out of order because we had not gone on to another matter.
Now, if I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put his motion for the house to adjourn at six o'clock while we were discussing Bill No. S-10, introduced at the beginning of the private members' hour, that is at six o'clock.
Since then, the private members' hour has expired and at seven we returned to the orders of the day, that is to the motion for second reading of Bill No. C-3, an Act to amend the Bank Act.
A moment ago I asked that we return to the orders of the day and you told me that we already were on the orders of the day, therefore on Bill No. C-3. Since the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put his motion while the motion for second reading of Bill No. S-10 was before us and since the other motion concerning Bill No. C-3 was introduced, I should like to draw to your attention standing order 25, which says:
A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) shall always be in order, but
March 10, 1966

no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceeding has been had.
Well, we have been having an intermediate proceeding. We were examining Bill No. S-10 when the hon. member tor Winnipeg North Centre introduced his first motion. We are now discussing Bill No. C-3, brought forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp). So when the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi moved his motion, it was another proceeding of the house.
Therefore, in the circumstances, inasmuch as everybody wants to end this sitting tonight and as this will lead nowhere, I think I should point out to you that the motion of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi was moved on another proceeding, for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved his motion at the time of the motion on Bill No. S-10, and the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi moved his on Bill No. C-3.
Therefore, in the circumstances, I suggest you cannot help but declare the motion of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi in order and proper; it should be put to a vote immediately without debate, pursuant to the Standing Orders of the house that we all have at hand.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had understood that Your Honour had made a ruling that these remarks were not debatable. If that is the case, then I will take my seat at once, but if the argument put forward by the hon. member for Lapointe is to be heard, I would like to point out to Your Honour in respect of that argument that we were not permitted at seven o'clock to proceed to another matter. Therefore, there has been no intervening procedure because the time has been taken up with discussion about something that was not before the house at all.


Gilles Grégoire: We were back on the orders of the day at seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly to the question of privilege which is before the house tonight or which I understand-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have a point of order at the moment. As has been indicated to the hon. member, I have considered the circumstances and have considered the Standing Order.
Question of Privilege


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the same one affecting Standing Order 25?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It has to do with the business of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a point of order which is being considered now. We are considering the point of order raised by the hon. member for Lapointe who, I appreciate, wanted to be helpful; but I wonder whether we have achieved this result. The only thing the Chair can say is, viewing the situation at this time and considering what was before the house, the Chair reached the decision that the motion could not be received.
I suggest to the hon. member that I could not change this decision at the moment and, unfortunately for him, according to the new rules, this cannot be appealed. I am sorry if a mistake was made, and I hope no mistake was made; but so many things have been going on that it was not clear to the Chair whether we were on a new order or whether there was an intermediate proceeding. I believe there was not, and this is the basis on which the ruling was made by the chair.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Right Hon. the Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that while I was out of the house for a few moments I was asked by the hon. member who raised this matter first this afternoon whether I would state my position and that of the government in respect of the matter as it has developed, and as it has developed during the day.
The house will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this afternoon I did make a proposal which I thought would enable the house to get on with the business of the house while this matter was discussed outside. This afternoon I suggested that Your Honour, the hon. member and I might discuss, and settle as best we could this very serious-and I believe I called it a very grave-matter while the house went on with the business on the order paper. That suggestion was not acceptable to the house, because the debate continued.
Since that time various suggestions have been made as to how this matter can be dealt with. So far as the government is concerned,

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege
I think the sooner we can agree on a procedure to deal with it, the sooner we will get back to the business before us in the House of Commons.
This evening, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe made a proposal in the form of an amendment to a motion, which amendment I think was not officially before the house, because you had not ruled on it; but it was an amendment to a motion which has been before us. That amendment, the details of which I do not have with me, would provide for the submission of this question to a judicial committee for examination.
Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to read the amendment. It is that we should:
-take such steps as are necessary to establish a judicial inquiry into the security case referred to by the Minister of Justice and by the Leader of the Opposition on March 4, 1966, at Hansard page 2211-
At which time, I might interpolate, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said- and I hope I am paraphrasing correctly-that he would be glad to have a commission of inquiry into this matter.


An hon. Member:: That is not what he said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then the amendment goes on:
-referred to by the Minister of Justice in a press conference on March 10, 1966-
At this conference the Minister of Justice-and I hope I am correctly paraphrasing his remarks-said he would have no objection to such an inquiry into this matter. Then the amendment goes on:
-and referred to in a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Calgary North at the commencement of proceedings this March 10, 1966.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this amendment covers the situation very well. So far as the government is concerned, not only would we accept an amendment of this nature, if it were properly put before the house, for a judicial inquiry, we would welcome it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Prime Minister has accepted the proposition I made a little while ago that he should make a statement in respect of what the government was prepared to do in connection with this matter. I should like to point out to him and to the house, however, that in this matter I think time is of the essence. If there is going to be a judicial committee which will take two or three weeks to set up and which will then drag on for several weeks before

there is any clearing of the names and reputations of myself and the other members of the government of 1960-62, then I say it is not good enough. I think perhaps this might be the best way to deal with this matter, but I would like to be assured that this inquiry will be started immediately and that a report will be brought forward without a great many delays, so that the present situation will not continue to exist.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend has asked me for certain assurances in this matter, and I can understand his anxiety to have these assurances from the government. I can tell him this, that last Friday, I think it was, we agreed in respect of a judicial commission of inquiry which was pressed for strongly by the opposition, and within four hours, Mr. Speaker, we had that commission set up with a judge appointed and with terms of reference. I assure my hon. friend I will try to be equally quick in respect of this commission.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the reference which the Prime Minister had to the recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition in respect of an inquiry is to be found at page 2211 of Hansard of last Friday, where his words are set out in the left hand column:
I am not worried. Have your commission look into it. Put it on the agenda.
We all know what he meant by those words; we were discussing a particular inquiry at that time into security matters involving the Spencer case. The other barrel that was fired by the Prime Minister and his Minister of Justice was into security procedures.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
That was the other rug that was whipped out from under him. A judicial inquiry cannot remove from a member of this house, let alone a minister of the Crown, the responsibility of substantiating his charges.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: Only parliament can absolve a member of that responsibility.


An hon. Member:: What are you trying to hide?


Erik Nielsen: When parliament allows that to happen parliament ceases to exist.


John Napier Turner: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? In respect of the charges the hon.
March 10. 1966

gentleman brought against the former minister of justice, did parliament make a decision or was it made by an independent inquiry under the presidency of Chief Justice Dorion?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: I intended to mention that precedent myself, had the Minister without Portfolio not raised it for me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: Sir, parliament has a precedent in the occurrences of November of 1964 when those opposite demanded that charges be made when I raised the matters of that day. Those charges were made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They were not.


Erik Nielsen: They were made and as a result an inquiry was set up.


George James McIlraith: No.


Erik Nielsen: That, sir, is the case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Greene:: Did you put up your seat?


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Agriculture has mentioned the very point at issue here, and the very point which parliament must deal with in regard to the words of the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Agriculture asks whether I put up my seat. Let me say that I understood all along that my seat was at stake.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: You refused to lay charges.


Mr. Mackasey:: Would the hon. member not admit that the minister of immigration was completely innocent of his charges?


Erik Nielsen: This is another error perpetuated by the deliberate misconstruction by members on the other side of the house. There were no charges made against the Minister of Immigration, at any time, and if the hon. member for Verdun will check the debates of November 23 to November 25 inclusive he will find that on not one, on not two, but on three or four separate occasions I said at that time that I was casting no aspersions on the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: You need only check the record.
Question of Privilege


Richard Joseph Cashin: On the matter of privilege, I suggest you check the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Go back to Joey.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: You better go back to fishing, Cashin.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are-


An hon. Member:: Let's not talk about fishing. We have caught a big one now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me we are getting away from whatever it was we were supposed to be discussing tonight.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I submit that I have defined the issue that parliament must decide on its own accord. When any member, let alone a minister, makes a charge against another member, our practices and the practices followed at Westminster demand that the member substantiate them.
I should like to refer to another question before you, Mr. Speaker. You have ruled that a prima facie question of privilege exists and this places you in a very difficult position in not dealing immediately with the motion founded upon that case. I am not for a moment suggesting that Your Honour should not be given all the time necessary for a decision to be reached, but to accept as a general rule the principle that extensive time be taken, and I am not casting any reflections when I use that term, in order to determine the validity or non-validity of a motion, particularly when the motion or motions relate to a question of privilege as important and as urgent as this one, it seems to me that parliament itself is precluded from proceeding to dispose of the case until such time as a ruling is made.
We are now in the position of having three motions all revolving around an incident which you, sir, have ruled constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege. That being the case, and the prima facie breach of privilege having been adjudicated by you, sir, parliament must not be unduly impeded in dealing with it.
I should think, sir, that of the three motions, Your Honour might be prepared to deal with at least one, particularly the last one that was introduced, namely that a member who makes charges in the house must substantiate them and stake his seat on the

March 10, 1966
Question of Privilege
outcome. That is a well established principle and should be followed, particularly when the hon. member happens to be a minister of the Crown, and particularly because these charges affect a former prime minister, all of the present members of the Privy Council and those members who were part of the former government's administration.
Regarding the case now under discussion in which a member has made charges, I point out that strictly speaking no motion at all is required since the responsibility of the member making charges is well known and has been supported by Speakers throughout the years. The simple fact is that having made charges a member is obliged to substantiate them or give up his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: That is the position in which the minister finds himself and that is precisely the issue which parliament, not an inquiry, must decide.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: There is nothing to prevent the minister at this very moment from stating the details of his charges, the evidence upon which they are based, the names of the people involved, how they are involved and all the circumstances. The minister owes this not only to parliament but, as a man of honour and integrity, he owes it to himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite obvious that the members opposite do not want an inquiry into this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I should like to ask the hon. member for Yukon whether he can tell me what charges I made against the Leader of the Opposition or what charges I made against any member.


An hon. Member:: All of them.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Which one?


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicloria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) will read the Journal of this afternoon he will find on the front page that he is recorded as stating that ministers were involved. He will find that a member of the press gallery then queried "ministers"? The minister is reported as having replied "Yes, ministers." He then is reported as having added the word "Plural". If ever there

was a question of privilege and justification for demanding that the minister substantiate his statement, this is it. The hon. member for Yukon has suggested he should do so in justice to himself. I am one who has quite a high opinion of the minister, but that high opinion is rapidly disappearing today as a result of the things he has been guilty of since this morning.
I suggest to you, Mr. [DOT] Speaker, that you should not be splitting hairs about the rules and procedures when the reputations of a large group of people sitting in this house are at stake.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) got to his feet this afternoon and, as I interpreted his remarks, referred to this matter as a little difference of opinion between parties and suggested that a bit of controversy exists.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we may have our differences but I have never yet, in the time I have been here, known a minister or a member to make statements to the press that reflected on the honour and integrity of other members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh John Flemming: The Prime Minister laughs. I say that he is treating this matter as a great big joke. This is no joke.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: Therefore, in my opinion and to the extent that I happen to be personally involved-


An hon. Member:: Aha.


Hugh John Flemming: This is no joke; this is precisely the point. It becomes the duty of the Prime Minister to say to his Minister of Justice, "Prove what you have said". That is his duty. But the Prime Minister proposes to appoint a commission and the commission will sit for some time and consider this matter. As has been stated this evening, during that whole period of time the reputation of a number of people will be in jeopardy. Therefore I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister has no choice in this matter.
The Prime Minister must of necessity demand that his Minister of Justice prove what he has said. We should also have the answer to this question: Was the Minister of Justice,
March 10, 1966

when he had the interview this morning with the press, speaking for the government or was he speaking for himself?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: Is it usual for ministers of the Crown to call in-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: He is not a usual minister.


Hugh John Flemming: -the press; and is it usual to hold press interviews without consulting the Prime Minister?


An hon. Member:: Sure.


Hugh John Flemming: If it is, I say that the government is in pretty much the same position as the Minister of Justice, if they knew he was holding this interview and had some knowledge of what he was going to say.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They are a party to it.


Hugh John Flemming: In my opinion, the Prime Minister is doing a great disservice to this country if he does not demand that the Minister of Justice get to his feet just as soon as it can possibly be arranged and give to this house the basis of the statements he made this morning to the gentlemen of the press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Come on, get up.


Robert Muir: Pearson, show some leadership, will you?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I endeavoured to rise to speak to the question of privilege and I was denied the opportunity because it was said we were dealing with a point of order. I do not know where we are now, but I trust I can speak to the question of privilege at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are only four minutes left, so I suppose there will be no difficulty in allowing the hon. member to speak for the last few minutes. I have some qualms about whether there is a prima facie case of privilege in the matter raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), but there is so little time left that I am prepared to allow the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) to speak.
Question of Privilege


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I rise, Mr. Speaker, because during the course of the day certain gentlemen of the press have been asking whether I was involved in the Munsinger case. I make that point to reinforce the statement already made by my colleague, the hon. member who is my deskmate, and because I believe an accusation has been made against certain hon. members which puts a blanket of suspicion over a good many members of the House of Commons.
I also rise in my place because this is the second time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is so much laughter coming from the Liberal side of the house that I can hardly hear myself speak.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They are irresponsible over there.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This is the second time that I have been attacked in the house by a Minister of Justice and charges have been made along these same lines. It seems to me that there is some conspiracy going on in the government ranks, and the close cohesion of the Liberal backbenchers in their noisy, vociferous response to everything that comes from the government side tonight substantiates that viewpoint. Before I was attacked in the house I had intimation from an honourable minister of the Crown that they were going to attack me, they were going to get me and other hon. members of the former Die-fenbaker government.
The first intimation I had that I was going to be attacked was a question put on the order paper by the hon. member for Hamilton West. I believe a statement must be made, an accusation having been made in the house, that pinpoints the specific charges, otherwise the only conclusion to which I can come is that the grand conspiracy to engage in a wholesale witch-hunt and character assassination on the part of the government is still under way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I know it would be unusual, but we are the master of our own rules and regulations and if the house desires to give unanimous consent we could pass a resolution at once which would enable the government to set up this committee immediately.


Some hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: No.
2536	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. Lambert: The house will determine whether that shall be done.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, that is about the most nonsensical suggestion I have heard from the Prime Minister over a good many years. Let me just draw Your Honour's attention to this fact-


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that it is ten o'clock.


Erik Nielsen: Not yet.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought there was one minute to go.


Gilles Grégoire: Ten o'clock. Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty to bring to the attention of hon. members that in accordance with the provisions of Provisional Standing Order 39A a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore the question is that this house do now adjourn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Provisional Standing Order 39A deemed to have been moved.

William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the drama and emotion that surrounds the house at the present time, I hope that the plea I have to make will not fall on deaf ears. Last week I asked the government whether any representations had been put before them to the effect that this country of ours, Canada, was faced with an imminent crisis relating to the shortage of doctors. Your Honour very wisely ruled that because the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare were before us, the question was out of order at that particular time.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) subsequently asked the government whether in its opinion Canada was faced with an imminent crisis because of a shortage of doctors. The hon. member askea what the government was going to do about it. He documented his case, but at no time to my knowledge during the discussion of his estimates did the Minister of National Health 
DEBATES	March 10. 1966
and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) deal with this pressing problem that is now facing our nation. While the Minister of Industry has jurisdiction over, and reports to the house in relation to research grants to the medical council, I felt that in this instance, because of medicare plans etc., my question should be directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I believe most sincerely, sir, along with other hon. members such as the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), that this country is facing an imminent crisis relating to a shortage of doctors. Canada is running out of doctors, and unless immediate action is taken we shall be faced with a real crisis within two years. Already in smaller centres there are no replacements for the old family doctor who passes on. Last year hundreds of qualified applicants were turned down at our medical schools. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that in 1965 these schools turned out approximately the same number of doctors as ten years ago. In 1965 we had 1,000 medical graduates, but 400 of them left the country.
Some time ago, because of dissatisfaction with conditions in their native land as a result of socialized medicine, many doctors were coming to Canada. This situation has now changed. Not only do we lack medical schools but, as the hon. member for Simcoe East so well documented, some of the existing schools recently barely met proper accreditation standards.
Let me point out to you, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and to the Minister of Industry, that even today Canada ranks only twentieth in the world in its ratio of doctors to the total population. Today we have 1,000 teachers in our medical schools. If we want to maintain present standards until 1970, and excluding all considerations relating to medicare, we need 2,000 teachers and more schools. Yet our teachers as well as our doctors continue to move away and emigrate to the United States of America.
Why is this, Mr. Speaker? I do not intend to provide the whole answer tonight, but one major reason lies in the fact that more research is being done in medical schools in the United States. The federal government of the United States is responsible for 90 per cent of the financial support given to research in these medical schools. Last year United States federal assistance in this regard amounted to $1,300 million, while in the same year Canadian federal assistance to medical
March 10, 1966	COMMONS
school research amounted to approximately $15 million.
I know this is not the only answer, but who can wonder at the fact that our medical teachers continue to emigrate? I say the exodus must be stopped. I have pointed out that four medical schools-the hon. member for Simcoe East also pointed this out-are having a hard time to meet proper standards.. Surely this is an urgent question and relates to federal assistance to research.
I finish by saying that while our medical schools should re-evaluate their policies-I am not just blaming the government for this, and blame is not something we want to discuss tonight-the federal government should increase greatly its assistance to medical research in Canada. For example, the province of Ontario has a five year plan amounting to $300 million for the enlargement of existing, and construction of new medical schools. I contend these schools will be mere shells unless we have the teachers to staff them.
Along with the hon. member for Simcoe East, who has led this discussion, I say that excellence of research attracts teachers. The difference between excellence and crisis is realistic federal expenditure. The government at Ottawa must announce a drive-as the hon. member for Simcoe East has often said, a crash program-for medical manpower. I say to this house and to the people of Canada that the crisis is nearer at hand than we think.
It is a sad thing, Mr. Speaker, that when I have put questions like this on the orders of the day they have been ruled out of order just because we were discussing estimates. We were discussing estimates and the Speaker had every right to rule my questions out of order at the time. But because the government did not take up this matter on estimates, I am obliged to bring it up again at this time.
I am sure that many members of parliament in this house feel strongly about this, and have their feelings aroused.
I only hope that questions of this nature are going to occupy this Canadian House of Commons in the days to come. What, Mr. Speaker, could be more serious for this great, young country of ours than a shortage of doctors? I am not saying that there is any blame involved. I should like to say to the government that I believe one, and only one part of the answer is a realistic federal expenditure to our medical institutions for
DEBATES	2537
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion research in order to rectify this grave problem.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the government has been giving careful study to the Gundy Report as well as to a series of earlier reports concerned with increased federal assistance to the development of people involved in providing medical care.
The announcement of the Prime Minister concerning a health resources fund of $500 million, which will be put into effect retroactive to January 1, 1966, as soon as the necessary legislation has passed this house, should constitute an important step in this direction. It is being worked out in close consultation with the provinces and institutions concerned. This fund, together with other types of increased federal assistance to universities, such as medical research, will be an important initial step and one that will undoubtedly be reviewed periodically in the light of the results being achieved.



CANADIAN ECONOMY-STEPS TO MEET INCREASED COST OF LIVING

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, last Monday in this house I asked this question of the Prime Minister to be found on page 2290 of Hansard:
In view of the fact that this is consumer week and that the Prime Minister has personally endorsed it, is the right hon. gentleman planning any action this week to check the rising cost of living?
I received the brush-off on that question, and I have received the brush-off on a number of occasions when I have sought to bring attention to the way the living costs in this country are going up.
I, along with a great many other people, am concerned deeply over the lack of interest shown by the government every time this question is raised in the house. Other hon. members have brought it up over and over again, and each time they have been brushed off, and nothing has been done. I want to indicate that this is a very serious problem. The cost of living has reached an all time high in Canada.
Economists say that prices should not rise more than 2 per cent a year. Last year prices in Canada went up by 3.1 per cent. Included in the price rise were items such as food and housing. These are not luxuries. These are the bedrock essentials for families in this
March 10, 1986

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion country. Items which have gone up in price are protein foods such as meat, fish, chicken, which are essential proteins for body building. It is the fresh fruits and fresh vegetables which the Canada food rules list among the most important essentials for good diet in this country which have gone up in price.
Other foods which have gone up in price are butter and shortening. These are foods essential, as every mother knows, for building healthy bodies and strong nerves in their children and in other members of their families.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Each one of these food essentials is a "must" for children and adults alike. Yet already these things are beyond the range of low income families. I have had letters from women across this country in various provinces pointing out in despair that the price of milk has gone up to such an extent they can no longer afford to buy it in reasonable quantities. Bread prices have gone up. The price of oranges and the fresh fruits has risen until these things are completely out of the range of that quarter of our population which is living at the poverty level at the present time.
Yet the government is showing no disposition to do anything about this situation. Its only answer so far would seem to be an agreement to wait for a report of the Economic Council, a report which will not be available before the end of this year. This question of the steady, stealthy rise in the cost of living is becoming one of the foremost problems before this country, but we have been sitting here fighting about everything else under the sun without going anywhere near this issue, though it is vital to the needs of the low income group in this country. Any talk about a war on poverty is meaningless if we allow the cost of living to rise all the time.
What does the government intend to do about rising prices? This is what we want to know. Are hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches opposite going to wait for the Economic Council to report? If so, they are not heeding the warning of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development which issued a special report at the end of January about Canada, telling us we should do well to watch unnecessary price rises in this country and suggesting it might be well for this country to establish guide lines in this regard.

What we need now is something which the Consumers Association of Canada has been demanding since 1960, a department of consumer affairs which would be able to study this question of rising prices, a department which would be able to bring together organizations such as manufacturers, retailers, producers of household necessities, sales people and others and inquire about price rises and the reasons for them. We need a department to look after the interests of the consumers. It is long overdue.
We find the national president of the Consumers Association of Canada, Mrs. A. F. W. Plumptre, coming out with the following words:
Consumers today face many problems with the spending of their incomes-rising food prices, uncertainty about the cost of borrowing to buy on instalment plans, misleading advertisements and merchandising devices, inadequate labelling of goods, and in general a lack of information as to how to get the best value for their dollars-
We find the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) endorsing this consumer week which is now almost at an end. He said:
We in government appreciate and support the work done by the Consumers Association. We support the Association's renewed efforts to bring to the attention of more Canadians the many services and benefits they receive through the Association's efforts, and to increase membership in the Association so that those services and benefits can be broadened.
Then, when an hon. member rises in this house at the very beginning of consumer week and asks what the government intends to do this week, to mark consumer week, in order to check the rising cost of living, we find members of the government sitting there with smiles on their faces, saying no single word in reply.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker: is it not time something was done about one of the really important questions facing this country? Is it not time something was done to check the steady rise in the cost of living which has put the important things of life, the bedrock essentials, beyond the range of a good quarter of our population in a very large measure and which now menaces other sections of the population as well?


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is the policy of the government to ensure that relative stability of costs and prices is maintained in the Canadian economy. Such stability will help sustain the present economic
March 10, 1966

prosperity by keeping Canadian goods competitive in Canadian and foreign markets, and will help provide for a continued increase in employment and growth.
The government keeps close watch on movements in costs and prices. Recent movements in the consumer price index have reflected a number of special circumstances. For example, drought and other adverse weather conditions in many regions of North America have led to price increases in beef and pork, both in Canada and the United States. A substantial rise in automobile insurance rates, attributable to increased accident rates and larger average claims, has affected the index.
Medical insurance premiums were raised during the year, and these are reflected in the index. The prices of consumer services generally have increased more than usual. On the other hand, the price index for consumer durable goods, including automobiles, is actually lower than it was a year ago.
I should also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the recent unemployment situation. We are now happily experiencing the lowest unemployment rate in a decade, and in many areas of the country there is a heavy demand for skilled workers. In circumstances of strong demand, the need for restraint in prices and wage increases becomes greater, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has already urged such restraint upon Canadians.
So far cost and price pressures have not been general but have tended to concentrate in specific areas. In certain parts of Canada heavy demands have been placed on the construction industry. The government has taken steps to stretch out its own construction plans as a means of permitting the industry to accommodate others.
We have also had discussions with the provinces on this matter and we will be proposing legislative changes to allow provinces to continue to benefit from several shared cost programs by stretching out some of their construction programs. In this way, it is hoped that we will be able to maintain a steady and healthy rate of economic growth.
Naturally, the Bank of Canada takes account of the situation in regard to prices and costs in determining monetary policy, and what it has done has had the minister's approval. The government takes account of these factors in forming its economic policy and it can be anticipated that this, as well as

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion other aspects of the economic situation, will be taken into account in determining budget policies.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-STEVEN TRUSCOTT-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, the matter which I wish to bring to your attention this evening is based on information I have received from an authoress in Toronto who is preparing a book on the trial of Steven Truscott.
On Tuesday, June 9, 1959, a little 12 year old girl in the town of Clinton, Ontario, was brutally raped and murdered by strangulation. Upon reading the evidence of the trial court and events leading up to the trial, I am convinced this foul deed was the work of a yet unknown, physically mature, sex maniac. However, five months later, in October, a 14 year old male child, Steven Truscott, was tried in an adult court by a jury, and convicted. This child was forthwith sentenced and, I quote, "to be hanged by the neck until you are dead."
I ask hon. members is this not a grotesque display of our much vaunted British justice? Even if the child were guilty as charged, and I have very serious doubts that he is, is this not a terrible sentence to be meted out to a 14 year old, who would have to be mentally deranged to perform such a crime? There are many serious minded persons who have taken the trouble to read the trial evidence, and to read about events leading up to the trial, who share my view. Among them is Hon. George Wardrope, former minister of reform institutions in the Ontario government. Speaking to the Nipigon Board of Trade in his own constituency he expressed grave doubts of Steven Truscott's guilt. He had taken an interest in the boy who had an excellent record at the training school, and he had talked with him at some length.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Everything about the lad revealed a quite normal teenager and a nice boy. From the very outset the cards were stacked against this boy. The entire community had adjudged him guilty because they wanted to believe the murderer had been apprehended. The defence evidence was glossed over in the charge to the jury by the trial judge. The evidence against him was purely circumstantial. In effect, the only evidence was that he had been seen with the little girl on the handlebars of his bicycle while he had been taking
March 10, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion her to a destination which she had requested. This information Steven had volunteered before the body was found, and the finger of suspicion pointed at him.
Defence evidence which would have proven conclusively that Steven had left the little girl far from the scene of the murder, and a perfect alibi, was disallowed. Mr. Speaker, I personally am so convinced of this boy's innocence, that I am prepared, if necessary, to stake my seat in the House of Commons on the outcome of an inquiry, or a royal commission, that would examine all the circumstances of the conduct of all the persons involved in:
1. The investigation of the girl's disappearance; 2. The questioning of children at the R.C.A.F. station; 3. The interrogation and taking of statements from Steven; 4. The detention and examination of the boy; 5. All orders given to or by the police; 6. The taking, retaking and redrafting of statements from child witnesses; 7. The disposal of the case by Magistrate Holmes as juvenile court judge; 8. The dismissal of the defence appeal against that decision; 9. The preliminary hearing and committal for trial by Magistrate Holmes; 10. The publicity given the preliminary hearing; 11. The public attitude in Huron county that made the verdict a foregone conclusion in the minds of so many
people; 12. The preparation of witnesses and collection of evidence for the trial; and, 13. Finally, and in great detail, the conduct of the trial itself, including the roles of the judge, the prosecutor, the police officers, the three Crown doctors, and all other persons who took part in the proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, personally I have almost lost confidence in our jury system, if not in our legal profession and our doctors. I implore the Solicitor General to give consideration to setting up such a commission.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, personally I have not had an opportunity to read the book which I understand has not yet been officially released. I understand, however, that officials of the Department of Justice will be studying its contents very shortly.
Under the circumstances I hope the hon. member will acquit me of any incivility if I say it would be most inappropriate for me to make any comment. However, if he raises the question at a later date, I may be in a position to make a more precise statement.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 11, 1966