1966-10-12

Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Straih-*cona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members of this house. I am glad to see that the Minister of National Defence has taken his place, because the charge affects that minister.
My charge, Mr. Speaker, is simply this; that the Minister of National Defence has breached the privileges of this house by tampering with a witness in respect of the evidence to be given before a committee of this house, the witness being Rear Admiral W. M. Landymore, the committee being the standing committee on national defence, and the evidence in question being the admiral's brief presented to the committee on June 23, 1966.
Mr. Speaker, a brief resume of the facts I believe is necessary to establish a prima facie case of breach of privilege. For the purpose of the prima facie case I will deal very briefly with the events as I understand they occurred. The committee requested the presence of Admiral Landymore before it to give evidence in respect of his command; the admiral prepared a brief of the evidence which he thought was requested and which in his opinion was necessary to comply with the wishes of that committee.
The admiral was requested or ordered by the Minister of National Defence to appear in the minister's office prior to meeting with the committee for the purpose of having the minister hear that brief. The brief was presented orally to the minister in his office, and at the conclusion of that presentation the admiral was requested to leave a copy with the minister. Quite late that evening the brief was returned to the admiral, and when he checked it over he found that part of it had been taken out-four pages to be exact-and two pages substituted therefor. My instructions are that he saw the minister the next morning, at which time the minister indicated and defended the reason the brief was changed.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The admiral says he did not consent to the change in the brief and that the changes made were very substantial in that they related to the personnel question in the command. He indicated that not only were four pages taken out of the brief, but an accompanying chart and a graph were missing.
In my opinion the result of this was that an important part of the admiral's testimony to the committee was removed with some innocuous words substituted therefor. This deprived the committee of information which was absolutely essential if that committee was to give consideration to the points in respect of which it was meeting.
It is my contention, sir, that neither the minister nor anyone else has the right to interfere with a witness or the testimony he intends to give, and that this is sufficient to establish a prima facie case. I have some references as to the legal situation, but let me say briefly at this time that the charge is based on citation 308 of Beauchesne. Let me read the first sentence of that citation. It states:
To tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before either house or any committee of either house or to endeavour directly or indirectly, to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence is a breach of privilege.
That is the breach of privilege alleged, Mr. Speaker. If the Chair wishes further support of my argument I shall be pleased to provide it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. That hon. member referred to one citation of Beauchesne, and I should like to refer him to another, namely citation 104(5) which reads in part as follows:
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 ease that a breach of privilege has been committed, and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.
I should also like to refer the hon. member to page 378 of May's seventeenth edition, where the following is stated:

October 12, 1966
Question of Privilege
The matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity. A matter of privilege which claims precedence over other public business should be a subject which has recently arisen.
The older rulings applied a further condition, that a matter to secure precedence must be one of urgency. But this condition seems to have been waived, and later Speakers have satisfied themselves with insisting that a matter should be raised at the earliest opportunity.
A matter which occurred during the recess was refused precedence as a matter of privilege because it was not raised at the commencement of the session.
Similarly a matter concerning an article in a newspaper published on 6 May was refused precedence because it was not raised till the 14th and a speech reported on a Saturday because it was not raised until the following Tuesday. On the other hand, when special circumstances justified it, the Speaker has permitted a member to raise a matter on the day following the date of issue of the newspaper containing the article complained of.
These citations show how strict are our rules and precedents in connection with the necessity of raising a matter at the earliest possible opportunity.
The hon. member knows, as all hon. members know, that we have any number of precedents on this very important point. I have one before me, reported in Hansard of May 10, 1966, at pages 4923-24. On that day the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency raised a matter referring to a broadcast of the C.B.C. on May 5. The Chair ruled as follows:
Since this involves a matter which, according to the hon. member himself, goes back to Thursday last, I do not feel the question of privilege has been raised at the earliest opportunity. For this reason, I cannot find that a question of privilege exists in the circumstances.
The hon. member knows this question has been raised on a number of occasions in the current session. In particular the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Forrestall) raised this very matter in connection with a proposal for adjournment under standing order 26 on September 7 last, and on August 30, 1966 a number of questions were asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.
It is obvious that this matter has not been raised in the form of a question of privilege at the earliest possible opportunity. For this reason I must rule, not on the question of whether there is a prima facie case but on the point of order as to whether this matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity, and I suggest to the hon. member that he has not satisfied this requirement.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on that point of order? I regret that it had not occurred to me to give the Chair-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a very simple point. I see no purpose in reopening the question. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member. He has a matter which he considers of great urgency and I recognize, with him, that it is a matter of considerable importance. But to the Chair this is such an obvious point, namely that a matter has to be raised at the earliest opportunity, and it is one on which we have had any number of precedents. It has been raised by the hon. member for Halifax and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I do not think the matter can be reopened at this time as a question of privilege.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am sure I can satisfy the Chair that this is the earliest opportunity, and I should like to be heard on that point. I submit to Your Honour that the only point that has occurred to you so far is the lapse of time, and I should like to very briefly present to you argument in support of my contention that this is my earliest opportunity, by relating the facts.
First, I was not a member of the committee. Second, this is a very, very serious matter and a very important matter. It is a charge against a minister of the crown, that cannot be raised lightly. It is true there have been several references in this house to the Landymore testimony, but the minister has always given explanations which might or might not cover the situation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the only time I had an opportunity to check into this matter was when I became aware of the facts and convinced of the facts so that I had proof of statements made. Only at that time was it possible for me to raise the matter, bearing in mind the responsibility of a member not to raise such matters lightly and without investigation. I came into possession of evidence in this case only last week end when I went to Halifax and heard Admiral Landymore swear positively to the facts so that there was, then, evidence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It was at that point, and only at that point, that I had satisfied myself with regard to the possibility of raising this matter in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's anxiety to express his point of view on the point of order as to whether he raised the question at the earliest opportunity. My suggestion to him and my submission to the house is that it is not the sense of the rules
October 12, 1966

and the purport of the practices of this chamber that when after a month, two months or six months a member has satisfied himself that he has a good case he can come forward and raise the matter as a question of privilege.
I suggest to the hon. member that there is no precedent whatever that I have been able to ascertain or that I could quote in support of the hon. member's point of view. With regret I must maintain the ruling I made a moment ago, that this matter having been raised-and it is substantially the same matter that the hon. member now raises-and put before the house by way of questions, and particularly as a motion by the hon. member for Halifax under standing order 26, it cannot be considered now.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I believe I am entitled to present my case to prove to the Chair that this is the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, may I have a moment to speak on a point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister of defence is allowed to make a statement now, we will obviously have a debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The rule of the house is very clear and simple. I suggest to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that he is bound by it. This ruling is common practice, and I am sure that hon. members will want to respect it and abide by it. I am convinced it is the correct ruling under the present circumstances.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am bound by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I still think I am within the rule, and I think I can so persuade Your Honour. I believe it is one of the oldest rules in this house that a member cannot be deprived of his right to speak and to see whether he is within the rules, and I ask Your Honour for that right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course every member has the right to speak, but he can only do so within the rules. There are rules governing debate, rules which specify when a member can intervene, and these rules govern all members including the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I realize how important this matter is to him and how important it is to the Minister of National Defence, but if the hon. member thinks this is
Question of Privilege
a matter which should be considered by the house there are other ways of doing it. He can give notice of a motion which will be placed on the order paper. I realize this is not much consolation to the hon. member, but this is what the rules provide for. The Chair did not make the rules, but I am required to ask hon. members to co-operate with me to have them respected.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking to be relieved from the rules. There are very strict and stringent rules on how a member may rise in his place and take the responsibility for charges which are made in the house. These require extreme care and caution if the house is to consider them; they cannot be made recklessly. It is therefore the duty of the member to be very sure of what he is doing and not to make this kind of charge without proof. I have followed that rule, and I obtained the proof during the week end. I therefore thought it my duty to raise it in the house in this manner.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is reiterating his position. If parliament is to function at all, if this House of Commons is to operate in the way in which every hon. member wants it to operate-and I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona wants it to operate with order and within the rules which hon. members have established-1 would ask the hon. member to assist the Chair and to recognize that I have no alternative but to ask that we proceed with the orders of the day.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: May I then ask if Your Honour is ruling that having only obtained the evidence during the week end, and having to consider the proper form in which it should be presented and to make sure I had sufficient evidence to present to the house today, this is not the earliest opportunity and that I have no right after a delay of one day to make this charge bearing in mind my responsibility to the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege. With that respect to Your Honour which I have shown at all times, may I suggest to you, sir, that to rule out the motion to be made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona without a question of order having been raised by any member of this house was not giving the hon. member the right which he has to argue

October 12, 1966
Question of Privilege
before you make a decision. In this case, as soon as the general outline was given you rose immediately and ruled it out of order without permitting argument. On reflection I think you will agree this is something which does not make for the amenities which we expect in the House of Commons. I repeat that the right to be heard or at least to have one side of the argument placed before the Speaker should not be denied to any member of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There can be only one question of privilege at a time. We had a rather difficult experience just a few months ago and I hope we do not have to go through the same experience again. At that time I tried to establish the fact, on the basis of rulings made in days gone by, that there should be only one question of privilege. I suggest to the minister who seeks to speak now that he should not raise a second question of privilege.
There was a motion made by an hon. member, and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition very properly suggests that the Chair should have allowed more members to contribute to the point of order that the question of privilege was raised at the earliest possible opportunity. I did allow the hon. member who raised this point-after all, it is his motion-to express his views after I had made a preliminary ruling as to whether this matter had been raised at the earliest opportunity. What he has said has not changed my view.
Now, looking at this matter very objectively, I cannot see what further arguments could be brought in addition to those submitted by the hon. member. His argument is that he came upon facts in recent days, reached a decision and then raised his question of privilege. His suggestion is that this same point might be raised two weeks from now or two months from now by another hon. member who comes upon additional facts upon which he reaches his own personal conclusion.
This places the Chair in an extremely difficult position. I have made a ruling which I think is a fair one under the circumstances.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: 
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has repeated very forcefully the arguments he made to me a few minutes ago, and to which I listened for the second time with interest and attention. This is a question of judgment. Really, there is no hard and fast rule by which the Speaker can decide. The Chair has precedents to guide him. The Speaker must go by these precedents and follow the rules, and then he must form a judgment. I do not pretend that my judgments are right all the time. I admit that I have made my share of rulings which perhaps were not what they should have been; but I must go by the
October 12, 196$

judgment I form, and based on that judgment I have reached the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that this question was not raised at the earliest opportunity.
I must suggest to the hon. member that the decision of the Chair should not be changed at this time. The arguments submitted to me by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona have been taken into due consideration in arriving at my decision, which I should now like to confirm.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, your ruling cannot be challenged, of course, but I am wondering whether Your Honour has reflected on the fact that since rules are made for the purpose of expediting the work of the house, it should be possible to consider this question in a proper and orderly manner. I am sure you will agree with me that if I have not quite complied with the rules, I have been very close to doing so.
Since I have already put on the record my accusation against the minister I think it would be only fair to him to give him the chance to answer, because the matter is of such a serious nature. I do not think anyone in the house would be satisfied to leave the matter in this position, the minister having been charged with something, for which charge I am willing to take responsibility. Are we going to let the injustice of this situation prevail? Is this house to remain quiet without looking into it further, without giving the minister a chance to defend himself and let the house know whether the charges are responsible? I suggest that you do have the right to reverse your own decision if you feel like doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to advise the hon. member that I do not feel like reversing my decision. I realize full well the point raised by the hon. member, that we now have on the record certain charges, but they were there before.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The ruling has been made. If hon. members feel that the judgment of the Chair is at fault the rules are in their hands, and they can change the rules to make it possible to appeal decisions of the Chair. However, at the moment this is the situation with which we are faced. The very purpose of changing the rules in the way we did was to express confidence-again rightly or wrongly-in the Speaker's judgment. I have made my ruling and I shall have to confirm it.
Question of Privilege


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order which is based on a statement you made earlier to the house. Your referred us-


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: A point of order in relation to the Speaker? Never with respect to the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Winnipeg South Centre knows that I cannot accept a point of order which relates to the ruling which has already been made. That is contrary to the rules of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my point of order, which I have not yet expressed, is not with respect to your ruling. My point of order deals with this matter. I should like your advice. I should like to lay a charge against the Minister of National Defence on the ground of having misled the house, as it appears to me. The only information received by me to confirm this misleading of the house reached me yesterday at noon, and there was no chance to make adequate preparation for presentation yesterday afternoon.
Now, sir, the impression that has been left with the house is that on August 30, when questions were raised as to whether there had been deletions from the evidence given to the committee, the minister gave an adequate reply. This is exactly the point on which I should like to have some advice. As reported at page 7797 of Hansard for August 30 the hon. member for Vancouver East asked the minister:
-was anything cut out prior to the presentation?
The minister replied:
The admiral deleted from his original text two or three references to friendly nations which it was felt would have had rather serious consequences to Canadian external affairs had they been made to the committee.
I submit, sir, that he deleted, as we now know, four pages of text relating to the defence of Canada. That is the subject I should like to have the privilege of raising at my earliest opportunity, which is now.


Mr. Crouse:: Lied to the house.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Another Profumo.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What is now being raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is exactly the same point which was raised before.

Oclober 12, 1986
Question of Privilege


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The ruling I
have made on the motion presented by the hon. member tor Edmonton-Strathcona must apply to the matter now raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. My suggestion was not that the minister had given an adequate reply; I made no reference to this. My ruling was simply that this subject was raised and questions about it posed on a number of occasions by the hon. member for Vancouver East, by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Eorrestall). So the matter itself is not a new matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I raise
this point of order with you. At what stage in *the proceedings of this house may I lay a .charge against the minister for misleading the house when he said that the admiral deleted from his original text "two or three references", etc? I found out yesterday at noon that it was not the admiral who made the deletions but the minister, and the deletions were four pages of text. When can I raise that issue, Mr. Speaker? Can I raise it now? When is the earliest opportunity? I submit that it is today.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is false.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair cannot enter into argument with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I think he should not ask questions of the Chair, because that is not proper procedure in the house. I cannot answer these questions theoretically, in an abstract manner, the way they are being asked at the present time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then I give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I will raise this question at the earliest opportunity, which will be tomorrow.


Mr. Forreslall:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. .member would co-operate with me. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has now raised a different matter. We may go through all this again tomorrow, though X hope not.


J. Michael Forrestall: We will.


Mr. Speaker:: Quite possibly. But once again a ruling has been rendered, and I would now like to proceed with the ordinary business of the house.


Mr. Jack Mclnlosh (Swift Current-Maple *Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to co-operate

with Your Honour but my point is similar to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I think the ruling that you made was correct when you ruled that anything the admiral said was admissible. But as I understand the explanation of this, a charge has been made in connection with something the admiral did not say and why he did not say it, which I think is an altogether different question. One question is what he did say and the other is what he did not say. I think your ruling could stand but that you could also accept the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that this is a little too complex for my limited understanding.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	Has any request been received from the government of Quebec for assistance in expropriation of lands for the construction and improvement of Quebec highway number 8?
2.	If so, what is the nature of such request and what action has been taken thereon?
3.	If not, has the government taken note of published reports of statements by the premier of Quebec that the National Capital Commission should handle these expropriations?
4.	If it has, what action has been taken to verify these reports and with what result?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.
2.	The request was that the federal government participate with the Quebec government in the relocation of that section of highway number 8 from the Gatineau river to 1J miles east of the town limits of Aylmer and the construction of the highway to freeway standards as proposed in the Ottawa-Hull area transportation study of 1965. The work will involve expropriation of land by the federal government. Negotiations as to the extent of sharing are proceeding. An agreement has not as yet been signed.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.


PER CAPITA HOUSING INVESTMENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the last year for which figures are available, what was the total per capita investment in housing for the people of Canada?
October 12, 1966

2.	In the same year, what was the total per capita investment for Indian housing from Indian affairs branch appropriations, band revenues, and individual contributions?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Departments of Trade and Commerce and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1. Information is not available on the total amount of money invested in existing dwellings. However, according to the 1961 census of Canada, the median value of 2,154,692 owner occupied, single detached, non-farm homes was $11,021.
If the question refers to the total amount of money invested in new housing construction, conversion of existing structures into new dwellings, major improvements and alterations, but not repairs, during 1965, it is estimated at $2,133,513,000. On this basis and using the population estimate of June 1, 1965 of 19,519,000, the per capita investment in housing during 1965 would be $109.31.
2.	The total investment in Indian housing in Indian communities during the fiscal year 1964-65, from Indian affairs branch appropriations, band revenues and individual contributions was $25 per capita.


GIBSON INDIAN BAND FUND
Mr. Rapp: 1.	What was the original amount credited to the band of Indians on the Gibson Indian reserve at the time of sale of a portion of the reserve?
2.	What is the present amount remaining to their credit?
3.	What payments from said fund have been made each year since 1955 and to whom?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Since the establishment of the Gibson Indian reserve there have been the following land transactions from which revenues were derived and deposited to the credit of the band:	(a)
Transfer of 38.75 acres to Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario in 1932, $1,062.50; (b) Transfer of 98.40 acres to
Questions
Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario in 1941, $1,968. (c) Transfer of 8.93 acres to Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario in 1942, $178.60; (d) Transfer of 50.803 acres to the province of Ontario in 1958, $508.03.
2.	These amounts were not credited to a separate fund but deposited to the capital account of the band. As at July 29, 1966, the amount standing to the credit of the band in the capital account was $63,088.83. In addition, there was a balance of $10,695.33 at the same date in the revenue account of the band.
3.	As indicated above, the amounts derived from the foregoing land transactions were not credited to a separate fund but deposited to the capital account of the band, and it is therefore not possible to relate specific disbursements to specific credits.


RETIREMENT OF SENIOR ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
Mr. Harkness: 1.	Since January 1, 1965, how many officers of the rank of commodore and above in the navy, brigadier and above in the army, air commodore and above in the R.C.A.F., have ceased to be members of the permanent forces, or have been given notice that they would be retired, or have sent in their resignations?
2.	In each case, what is the name of the officer, the appointment held by him, his age and, where applicable, the number of years and months he would have to go to normal retirement age?
3.	In each of the above cases indicate whether the officer retired on reaching normal retirement age, whether he put in his resignation of his own volition, or whether he was asked to retire.
4.	How many officers of the ranks indicated in part 1 have been promoted in rank, what are their names, and ages as of the date of promotion?
5.	What will be the total amount of their pensions from the date of their retirement until their normal retirement date?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. From January 1, 1965, to August 30, 1966, 79.
2.	and 3.
8560

October 12. 1966
Questions
Length of time to Normal
Retire- Category ment	of
Name	Rank	Age	Appointment	Age ReleaseH. S. Rayner	.Vice Admiral	54T. B. MacLean	.Surg. Rear Admiral	54A. B. F. Fraser-Harris.	.Commodore	48H. L. Quinn	. Commodore	55H. V. Groos	. Commodore	53P. D. Taylor	.Commodore	55H. A. Winnett	. Commodore	52E. G. Foote	.Chaplain VI	55J. Deane	. Commodore	55H. A. McCandless	.Commodore	52J. B. Caldwell	. Rear Admiral	52A. G. Boulton	.Commodore	55C. J. Dillon	. Rear Admiral	55W. M. Landymore	. Rear Admiral	50M. G. Stirling	. Rear Admiral	51R. P. Welland	. Rear Admiral	49M. J. Jette	.Commodore	54J. M. Doull	.Commodore	50K. L. Dyer	.Vice Admiral	51D. W. Piers	. Rear Admiral	54H. G. Burchell	. Rear Admiral	55G. Walsh	. Lieutenant-General.	56R. W. Moncel	. Lieutenant-General.	50F. J. Fleury	. Lieutenant-General.	52G. Kitching	.Major General	55C. B. Ware	. Major General	53J. M. Rockingham	.Major General	54R. L. Purves	. Brigadier	54R. M. Bishop	. Brigadier	53J. S. Ross	.Brigadier	54J. A. W. Bennett	. Brigadier	54A. F. B. Knight	.Brigadier	55W. J. Moogk	.Brigadier	55H. A. Phillips	. Brigadier	55D. Menard	. Brigadier	52D. C. Cameron	.Brigadier	55G. C. Leech	.Brigadier	55G. J. H. Wattsford. . ..	.Brigadier	55H. E. Brown	.Brigadier	54F. E. Anderson	.Brigadier	54W. S. Murdoch	.Brigadier	54J. S. McCannel	.Brigadier	55J. R. Millar	.Brigadier	55K. M. Baird	.Brigadier	55C. R. H. Charlebois...	.Brigadier	55J. P. E. Bernatchez....	. Major General	54H. W. Love	.Brigadier	52J. B. Clement	.Brigadier	55J. B. Allan	.Brigadier	51E. Poole	.Air Commodore....	55V. Millard	.Air Vice Marshall..	54Chief of the Naval Staff	
9 mos. 5(c)Surgeon General	
5 mos.	4(a)A/CNS (Air & Warfare)	
6	yrs.	5(c)
7 mos.
DS N.D.C	
Nil	5(a)DG ROTP	
1 yr.	5(c)7	mos.COND	
Nil	5(a)COMSUPTPAC	
2	yrs.	5(c)8	mos.CHAP GEN (P)	
Nil	5(a)DCNTS	
Nil	5(a)DG Accounting Svcs	
2 yrs.	5(a)I	mo.DG Logs, Eng & Develop	
2	yrs.	5(c)
4 mos.
COMBRAX, ESQ	
Nil	5(a)Deputy CG	
Nil	5(a)CANMARCOM	
4	yrs.	5(c)
3 mos.
CANMARPAC	 2	yrs.	5(c)
11 mos.
DC Operations	 5	yrs.	5(c)
11 mos.
Sr. Naval Officer St. Lawrence River
Area	
3	mos.	4(c)Chief Sea Logs Group MATCOM	4	yrs.	5(c)
8 mos.
Chief of Personnel	 3	yrs.	5(c)
3 mos.
COMD, CDLS(W)	
lyr.	4(a)DG/Logistics/CTS	
Nil	5(a)Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. Nil	4(a)Vice Chief of the Defence Staff.	5	yrs.	5(c)CG	
2	yrs.	5(c)1	mo.GOC Central Comd	
Nil	5(a)Comdt NDC	
1	yr.	5(c)2	mos.GOC Western Comd	
2	mos.	4(c)SEC DS	
7	mos.	5(c)Director NDC	
1	yr.	5(c)
1 mo.
Comd East Ont Area	
2	mos.	5(c)Comd CAS Washington	
4	mos.	5(c)Comd NB Area	
Nil	5(a)Comd Camp Borden	
Nil	5(a)DGSA	
Nil	5(a)Specially emp CFHQ	
2	yrs.	5(c)
6 mos.
Comdt CASC	
Nil	5(a)Comd Alta Area	
Nil	5(a)MA Laos	
Nil	5(a)SMA Viet Nam	
11	mos.	5(c)DG Finance	
6	mos.	4(c)Comd West Ont Dist	
8	mos.	5(c)DSG (Admin)	
Nil	5(a)Chaplain Gen (P)	
Nil	5(a)DGDS	
Nil	5(a)Chaplain Gen (RC)	
Nil	5(a)VCGS	
1	yr.	5(c)DGPO	
3	yrs.	5()c
6 mos.
DOC Central Ont Dist	
Nil	5(a)VQMG	
3	yrs.	5(d)II	mos.AFHQ Chief Telecomm	
Nil	5(a)AFHQ Comptroller	
8	mos.	5(c)

October 12, 1966

Questions
Name	Rank	AgeJ. Millward	. .Air Vice Marshall..	54R. Cameron	. .Air Vice Marshall..	55J. Harvey	. .Air Vice Marshall. .	55M. Martin	. .Air Vice Marshall..	52R. Whiting	. .Air Commodore	55M. Lister	. .Air Vice Marshall..	54C. I-. Annis	55F. R. Millar	. .Air Chief Marshall.	58D. A. Bradshaw	. .Air Vice Marshall..	55C. H. Green way	. .Air Vice Marshall..	52R. H. Bray	. .Air Commodore	55G. D. Caldbick	. .Air Commodore	55J. A. Verner	. .Air Commodore....	52E. L. Gerow	. .Air Commodore....	55W. A. Orr	. .Air Vice Marshall..	54R. J. Gray	. .Air Commodore....	50M. M. Hendrick	. .Air Vice Marshall..	5561N. W. Timmerman..	. .Air Commodore....	53S. G. Cowan	. .Air Commodore....	55D. Gooderham	. .Air Commodore....	55G. H. Newsome	. .Air Commodore....	53G. H. Elms	. .Air Commodore....	53E. B. Hale	. .Air Commodore....	53C. W. Burgess	. .Air Commodore... .	52W. P. Gouin	. .Air Commodore....	55G. G. Diamond	. .Air Commodore....	53C. G. Ruttan	. .Air Commodore....	51
Appointment
Length of time to Normal
Retire- Category ment of Age Release
AOC/AMC	
MA to Cdn Del Paris	
CO NNRHQ North Bay	
DCP	
DC/CE	
CDR/ADC	
Chief Tech Svcs	
CDS	
AOC/1 Air Div	
Comd HQ NNR North Bay....
AFHQ/AMTS/CAE	
CFMS	
COS Trg Comd	
AFHQ/Chief of Finance....
AFHQ/Air Member Pers	
AFHQ/Comp/Chief Org & Manage...
AOC/ADC	
Dep Cdr NORAD	
Dep Cdr 29 NORAD Reg	
AFHQ/AMTS/CMAT	
DG Comm	
Air Member CDLS(W)	
25 NORAD Reg HQ	
Duty at AAFCE	
AOC/Trg Comd HQ	
Comd CDLS(L)	
AOC /ATC
Cdr Ottawa NORAD Sector..
6 mos.	4(c)
Nil	5(a)
4 mos.	4(a)
2 yrs. 4 mos.	4(c)
Nil	5(a)
2 mos.	4(a)
Nil	5(a)
Nil	5(a)
Nil	5(a)
2 yrs. 5 mos.	5(c)
Nil	5(a)
Nil	5(a)
2 mos.	4(a)
Nil	5(a)
6 mos.	4(a)
3 yrs. 1 mo.	4(a)
Nil	5(a)
Nil	5(a)
Nil	5(a)
Nil	5(a)
Nil	5(a)
Nil	5(a)
Nil	5(a)
Nil	5(a)
8 mos.	5(a)
Nil	5(a)
Nil	5(a)
2 yrs. 2 mos.	5(c)
4.	55. Vice Admiral R. L. Hennessy, 48; Rear Admiral H. G. Burchell, 54; Read Admiral J. C. O'Brien, 48; Rear Admiral J. A. Charles, 46; Rear Admiral D. McClure, 51; Rear Admiral S. E. Paddon, 49; Commodore R. W. Timbrell, 46; Commodore R. J. Pick-ford, 46; Commodore R. M. Battles, 48; Commodore A. G. Bridgeman, 48; Commodore R. V. Henning, 48; Commodore F. D. Elcoclt, 48; Commodore R. H. Leir, 44; Commodore H. A. Porter, 46; Commodore R. S. Stephens, 42; Commodore D. S. Boyle, 42; Commodore
D.	A. Collins, 46; General J. V. Allard, 53; Lieutenant-General F. J. Fleury, 52; Lieutenant-General L. G. C. Lilley, 53; Lieutenant-General W. A. B. Anderson, 51; Major-General M. R. Dare, 49; Major-General D. A. G. Waldock, 51; Major-General B. F. MacDonald, 49; Brigadier J. R. Millar, 55; Brigadier D. W. Cunnington, 50; Brigadier E. W. Henselwood, 51; Brigadier E. A. C. Amy, 48; Brigadier W. A. Milroy, 46; Brigadier W. K. Lye, 48; Acting Brigadier L. F. Trudeau, 52; Acting Brigadier J. W. B. Barr, 50; Acting Brigadier H. Tellier, 48; Acting Brigadier
E.	M. D. Leslie, 48; Acting Brigadier E. C. 23033-5411
Cowan, 45; Acting Brigadier B. J. Guimond, 45; Acting Brigadier S. C. Waters, 46; Air Marshal E. M. Reyno, 49; Air Marshal F. R. Sharp, 51; Air Vice Marshal F. W. Ball, 50; Air Vice Marshal F. S. Carpenter, 52; Air Vice Marshal R. C. Stovel, 45; Air Vice Marshal M. E. Pollard, 46; Air Vice Marshal R. J. Lane, 46; Air Commodore J. K. F. MacDonald, 49; Air Commodore R. A. Gordon, 48; Air Commodore E. D. Armour, 50; Air Commodore W. K. Carr, 43; Air Commodore D. B. Biggs, 44; Air Commodore G. J. J. Edwards, 44; Air Commodore E. S. Light, 52; Air Commodore W. J. Grant, 48; Air Commodore C. H. A. Thompson, 45; Acting Air Commodore D. W. Goss, 44; Acting Air Commodore R. P. St. John, 40.
5.	$811,011.00 approximately.


SENIOR OFFICERS ON ACTIVE SERVICE
Mr. Forreslall: What total number of officers with the rank of naval commodore, and other service rank equivalents by service, were on active service in the armed forces as at January 1, I960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966?

October 12, 1966
Questions


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associale Minister of National Defence):: 1960	1961	1962	1963	1964	1965	1966R.C.N.	23	19	21	23	24	22	20CA(R)	36	36	35	40	40	37	34R.C.A.F.	34	37	37	33	33	31	31Total	93	92	93	96	97	90	85


STEPS TOWARD UNIFICATION OF ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What steps have already been taken toward unification of the three armed services?
2.	Under what authority were these changes made?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	The integration of the armed forces of Canada under a single chief of defence staff, and a single defence staff.
2.	Bill C-90, 1964.


ARMED SERVICES CLOTHING
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the total cost of a new issue of clothing for the members of the armed services?
2.	What is the dollar value of the current stock of service clothing on the shelf?
3.	What will be done with the stock?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1.	A uniform jacket and trousers costs $40. An issue to each W.O.2. and below of the regular force would require approximately 86,000 uniforms and would cost $3,440,000.
2.	The dollar value of uniform jackets and trousers related to 1 above in stock is approximately $7,000,000.
3.	Existing stocks will continue to be used as required.


ARMED SERVICES EXPENDITURES ON CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
Mr. Forrestall: What are the forecast expenditures for capital equipment for the armed services for 1966-67 and 1967-68 as a percentage of the defence budget?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1966-67, 17.1 per cent.
1967-68 This can be determined when the 1967-68 estimates are tabled.


NAVAL EXPENDITURES ON CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What percentage of the naval budget was spent on capital equipment for the navy during 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67?
2.	What percentage is forecast for 1967-68, 1868-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. 1960-61, 15.9 per cent, 1961-62, 20.9 per cent; 1962-63, 21.8 per cent; 1963-64, 26.0 per cent; 1964-65, 24.1 per cent; 1965-66, 22.3 per cent; 1966-67, 28.5 per cent (Estimated) .
2.	Until government decisions on the estimates for the years listed are made known no forecast can be made.


NOTICE OF MORALE PROBLEMS, MARITIME COMMAND
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Was the Minister of National Defence advised, through proper channels, at any time by the commander, maritime command, during 1965 and 1966 that there were morale problems in his command?
2.	If so, what action was taken by the minister in this regard, or by his staff?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Yes.
2. Cognizance was taken of all points raised and the appropriate remedial action was initiated.


MEETINGS BETWEEN MINISTER AND ADMIRAL LANDYMORE
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Did the Minister of National Defence meet with Rear Admiral W. Landymore, commander, maritime command, to discuss command matters from the time he assumed command in 1964 until June 21, 1966?
2.	If so, on what dates?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1 and 2. Maritime command came into being on 17 January, 1966, and the Minister of National Defence planned to visit the command during the week of June 13, 1966. However, the trip was cancelled when it was learned that the maritime commander had accepted an invitation to be in Europe on official business at that time.


EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT OF DEFENCE MINISTER
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the name of the executive assistant to the Minister of National Defence?
2.	What are his qualifications?
3.	Is he now or was he at any time a member of the armed services of Canada?
4.	If so, which service and in what capacities and with what ranks?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. William M. Lee.
2.	Experience and knowledge as determined by the Minister of National Defence.
3.	Yes.
4.	Mr. Lee served in the Royal Canadian Air Force from 24 February, 1943, to 11
October 12, 1966

December, 1964. During that time he held the following ranks and appointments: Flying Officer, Aircrew Navigator (RAF-45 A.T. Group), Public Relations Officer-Central Air Command; Flight Lieutenant, Aircrew Navigator (later switched to Personnel/Pub-lic Information), Instructor at RCAF Officer Administration School, Public Relations Officer-Air Force HQs.; Squadron Leader, Deputy Director Public Relations-Air Force HQs, Defence Department Representative- Royal Tour 1951 (Press Arrangements), Deputy Director Public Relations, His Royal Highness, The Duke of Edinburgh tour of Canada 1954; Wing Commander, RCAF Senior Public Relations Officer-NATO Air Division, Europe, Director of Public Relations (RCAF) Ottawa, Co-Chief Press Officer, President Kennedy Visit to Canada (1961), Canadian Government Chief Public Relations Officer, NATO Ministerial Meeting (Ottawa 1963); Group Captain, Director of Public Relations-RCAF-Ottawa, Special Assistant to Minister of National Defence.


PREMATURE RELEASE OF ARMED SERVICES OFFICERS
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Prior to premature release and as part of the reduction of the armed forces, were officers asked to volunteer for premature release with a cash bonus as an incentive?
2.	If not, for what reason?
3.	Is the policy of premature release of officers with a cash bonus completed?
4.	If so, has this been officially promulgated to all officers?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. No.
2.	Officers who were released prematurely with financial benefits were selected for such release based on certain criteria which permitted the services to retain control of those considered for release.
3.	Yes, P.C. 1964-15/1239 dated 13 August, 1964, terminated on 6 May, 1966.
4.	Personnel in the rank of army captain (and equivalent) and below, including all non-commissioned personnel, were notified in May 1965 by general message. Other officers affected were notified individually.


SINGLE UNIFORM FOR ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Forreslall: Is it the intention of the government to have a single walking out uniform and rank structure for the three armed services by July 1, 1967?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Decisions will not be
taken on these matters until amendments to
Questions
the National Defence Act to be introduced at this session have been enacted.


DISCONTINUANCE OF ARMY COUNCIL
Mr. Forreslall: Has the army council in the national defence structure been discontinued and, if so (a) what was its role and purpose (b) on what date was it discontinued (c) what has replaced it?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes. (a) the co-ordination of the various activities of the Canadian army; (b) 1 August, 1964; (c) chief of defence staff and branch heads.


DISCONTINUANCE OF AIR COUNCIL
Mr. Forreslall: Has the air council in the national defence structure been discontinued and, if so (a) what was its role and purpose (b) on what date was it disbanded (c) what has replaced it?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes. (a) the co-ordination of the various activities of the Royal Canadian Air Force and to assist the chief of air staff in making decisions on matters of policy; (b) 1 August, 1964; (c) chief of defence staff and branch heads.


DISCONTINUANCE OF NAVAL BOARD
Mr. Forreslall: Has the naval board in the national defence structure been discontinued and, if so (a) what was its role and purpose (b) on what date was it disbanded (c) what has replaced it?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes. (a) the formulation of naval policy and the co-ordination of the activities of all branches of the Royal Canadian Navy; (b) 1 August, 1964; (c) chief of defence staff and branch heads.


RETIREMENT REQUESTS BY SERVING OFFICERS
Mr. Forreslall: Have any serving officers of the Canadian armed forces written to defence headquarters since June, 1965 asking that they be retired without loss of pension aid, if so (a) how many (b) how many such requests have been granted?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, however personnel statistics do not record the information asked in (a) and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information; (b) between June 1, 1965, and August 31, 1966, 259 officers were released without loss of pension/annuity. However, in some instances there would be a reduction

October 12, 1966
Questions
in the pension/annuity based on the number of full years by which an officer's age at the time of his retirement is less than the retirement age applicable to his rank. The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, article 10 (6) (a) (ii) refers.


RETIREMENT OF ADMIRAL BROCK
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Was Admiral Brock forced to retire?
2.	Has the Minister of National Defence visited Maritime Command Headquarters in Halifax since Admiral Brock's retirement and, if so, when and for what purpose?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Rear Admiral Brock was released 20 June, 1965, under the provisions of QRCN Article 15.01 item 5(c).
2. Yes, September 20-22, 1966, for the purpose of visiting maritime command.


PROPOSED NAME FOR UNIFIED FORCE
Mr. Forrestall: What title, if any, is recommended in the Hen-nessy and Anderson reports as the name of the proposed unified national defence force?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the reports referred to were the result of studies conducted at the instigation of the minister. The contents of such reports are considered to be privileged, and it is not departmental policy to make public such reports.


RETIREMENT OF NAVAL WHITE ENSIGN
Mr. Forrestall: Has the white ensign in the Royal Canadian Navy been retired and, if so (a) on what date and under what regulation (b) why was this step taken?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes (a) On the 15
February, 1965, by order in council 1965-250, dated 11 February, 1965. (b) To conform with government policy that former service ensigns would be retired when the new national flag of Canada was proclaimed on the 15 February, 1965.


FREEDOM OF CHOICE FOR ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
Mr. Forrestall: In the proposed unified armed force, will officers and men now in the force be given an opportunity to decide freely (a) to enter into a new engagement or (b) retire voluntarily without pension or other penalty?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As stated at page 8127, official report House of Commons Debates, September 7,
[Mr. Hellyer.)
1966, unification cannot be accomplished until there is a further amendment to the National Defence Act. Terms and conditions of engagement in the unified force will be set out in the legislation to be introduced in parliament to establish a single force.


USE OF NAVAL CAP TALLY
Mr. Forrestall: In the proposed unified armed force, will the use of the cap tally with a ships name on it, worn by sailors in the Royal Canadian Navy, be discontinued?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As stated at page 21, in the minutes of proceedings of the proceedings of the standing committee on national defence, dated May 12, 1966, the subject of uniform is under active consideration.


EMPLOYMENT ON GREAT SLAVE LAKE RAILWAY
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many (a) Eskimos, and (b) Indians were employed during the construction of the Great Slave Lake railway to Pine Point?
2.	How many (a) Eskimos, and (b) Indians are employed on the railway at the present time?
3.	What is the total number of employees on the Great Slave Lake railway?
4.	What is the policy of the railway with respect to the employment of (a) Eskimos, and (b) Indians?
5.	Does the education branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources have a training program specifically designed to provide Eskimo and Indian students with the skills necessary for employment on the Great Slave Lake railway and, if so, what is the nature of the program?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Insofar as the Minister of Transport is concerned: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	A maximum of 30 Eskimos and approximately 75 Indians worked on the Great Slave Lake railway at any given time.
2.	There are approximately 24 Eskimos and 15 Indians employed on the Great Slave Lake railway.
3.	The total number of employees on the Great Slave Lake railway is between 350 and 360.
4.	It is company policy to hire qualified people without discrimination as to race, national origin, colour, religion or age. Employment applications from Eskimos and Indians therefore are treated in the same manner as are applications from any other prospective employee.
In so far as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned:
October 12, 1966

5.	The Great Slave Lake railway informs that it has provided a training on the job program for Indians and Eskimos who require further training to meet the needs of their specific positions; the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has provided specific assistance by selecting workers through its placement service and by advising on the problems of relocated employees. Training within industry is part of this department's policy because it meets the specific needs of the employer and the employee. In general, these workers have received training in heavy equipment maintenance and operation or general construction prior to this employment, but this may be considered
Questions
specific training only in terms of broad general coverage in an occupational area. Trainees were placed on wages as soon as they started employment and full costs of specific training were paid by the railway.


NUMBER OF RANKS IN ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Forresiall: How many ranks now exist in the (a) Royal Canadian Navy (b) Canadian Army (c) Royal Canadian Air Force?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The ranks for the Canadian armed forces are as listed in the table to Article 3.01 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders, i.e.,
Navy
Admiral of the Fleet
Admiral
Vice-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Commodore
Captain
Commander
Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant
Sub-Lieutenant and
Commissioned Officer
Acting Sub-Lieutenant
Midshipman
Naval Cadet
Chief Petty Officer,
1st Class
Chief Petty Officer,
2nd Class Petty Officer,
1st Class
Petty Officer,
2nd Class Leading Seaman Able Seaman Ordinary Seaman (having completed six months' service and the prescribed basic training)
Ordinary Seaman
Army
Field Marshal General
Lieutenant-General
Major-General
Brigadier
Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
Major
Captain
Lieutenant
Air Force
Marshal of the Royal Canadian Air Force Air Chief Marshal Air Marshal Air Vice-Marshal Air Commodore Group Captain Wing Commander Squadron Leader Flight Lieutenant Flying Officer
Pilot Officer Officer Cadet
Warrant Officer,
Class 1
Warrant Officer,
Class 2
Flight Sergeant
Sergeant
Corporal Aircraftman (all classifications)
2nd Lieutenant Provisional 2nd Lieutenant Officer Cadet Warrant Officer,
Class 1
Warrant Officer,
Class 2
Squadron, Battery, and Company Quartermaster-Sergeant and Staff Sergeant Sergeant
Corporal and Bombardier Trooper Gunner Sapper Signalman Private Guardsman Fusilier Rifleman Craftsman
(all classifications)

October 12, 1966
Questions


PROPOSED RANKS IN UNIFIED FORCE
Mr. Forresiall: Is there an establishment of ranks for the proposed unified armed force and, if so, how many ranks are established for the (a) navy (b) army (c) air force?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No.


OPERATION OF NEW OTTAWA RAILWAY STATION
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Is it the intention of the government to ask the House of Commons to give further consideration to Bill S-2 an act to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company?
2.	If not, under what authority is it proposed that the new Ottawa station and the approaching railway tracks and related facilities shall be operated?
3.	Have any new agreements between the National Capital Commission and the railway companies been executed?
4.	If so, will such agreements be laid on the table of the house and will such agreements require parliamentary sanction?
5.	Under what authority are the said station, tracks and related facilities now being operated?


George James McIlraith: 1. No.
2.	The Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are operating the Ottawa station, the approaching railway tracks, and the related facilities under their respective statutory authorities to operate railways and related facilities. It is proposed that this arrangement will be continued.
3.	On July 26, 1966, the two companies and the National Capital Commission entered into an agreement to transfer certain assets pursuant to paragraph 26 of the memorandum of understanding, dated October 17, 1963, in order to permit the railways to operate the new station and the approaching track and related facilities and to enable the commission to remove certain railway tracks.
4.	Such agreement does not require parliamentary sanction. It can be tabled in the house if the house agrees.
5.	Answered by 2.


ROGER FULTON-COMMUTATION OF DEATH SENTENCE
Mr. Cowan: Was a press release issued from the office of the Solicitor General on August 3, 1966, regarding the commutation to life imprisonment of the sentence of death imposed upon Roger Allan Fulton which stated in part that the Solicitor General disclosed "that there was before cabinet important medical evidence of a neurological nature obtained by the
[Mr. Cadieux.)
Department of Justice" and, if so, what are the names of the doctors who submitted the said medical evidence of a neurological nature regarding Roger Allan Fulton?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows. Yes, such a press release was issued. By well established constitutional practice the advice tendered to the Governor General in regard to commutation is regarded as confidential and not to be disclosed except in very exceptional circumstances. By the same token the medical and much of the other information obtained by the cabinet and which forms the basis of its advice to the Governor General is also received in confidence and, with rare exception, it is not the practice either to discuss such information or to disclose the sources of information in particular cases.



Mr. Cowan: Was a press release issued from the office of the Solicitor General on August 3, 1966, regarding the commutation to life imprisonment of the sentence of death, imposed upon Roger Allan Fulton which stated in part that and, if "in accordance with constitutional practice the Solicitor General did not disclose the considerations upon which the Governor in Council acted in commuting the sentence" and, if so, to what constitution does this press release refer and to what specific section of that constitution?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows. Yes, such a press release was issued. The expression "constitutional practice" used therein does not refer to an express section of any constitution, but the practice that has been established by the Governor in Council in dealing with capital cases and which has been recognized as good practice by successive governments. The expression "constitutional practice" has been used in the same sense by other ministers frequently in the past.


SUBSIDY PAYMENTS ON SMALL BOATS
Mr. Crouse: 1.	How many applications have been approved and what payments have been made, by provinces, of the 50 per cent small boat subsidy, relating to construction of small boats, 35 to 55 feet long, of "special design", as described on May 11, 1966, by the Minister of Fisheries?
2.	How many "special designs" have been sent out by the department to fishermen and how many provinces have applied?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1. Up to the present no applications
October 12, 1966

have been approved nor payments made under this program. However, discussions are continuing to be held with the provinces.
2. Four new designs have been introduced to the Atlantic fishery, although only two of these would come within the size range of this new program.


RE-ENGAGEMENT OF RELEASED AIRCREW
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Of the approximately 500 members of aircrew personnel released from service in the R.C.A.F. in the month of June or thereabouts in 1964, how many have been re-engaged and on what terms?
2.	Do these terms include the forfeiture or repayment of any regular or special benefits granted to them on release?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Sixteen, 11 were granted short service commissions and five permanent commissions.
2. Yes, order in council PC 1964-15/1239 of 31 Aug. 64 as amended by PC 1966-4/106 of 19 Jan. 66 made provision for the possible repayment of all or a portion of the special benefits paid to the officers released should they subsequently re-enroll in the Canadian forces within two years of the date of release.


RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS OF OFFICERS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many officers in the (a) navy (b) air force (c) army, have resigned month by month since May 1, 1966?
2.	How many officers in each of the services have asked to be retired at the discretion of the Department of National Defence and how many such requests have been granted in the said period?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. The following were released under Q.R.&O. 15.01 item 4-voluntary release:
RCN	CA(R)	RCAF	TotalMay 1966	7	11	26	44June 1966	19	15	41	75July 1966	40	7	25	72August 1966	12	17	43	7278	50	135	263
2. Personnel statistics do not record this information and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


PAYMENT OF TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS
Mr. Orlikow: 1. Has General Motors informed the adjustment assistance board that it will make the necessary 23033-542
Questions
agreement with the government of Canada to render the majority of its laid-off workers eligible for transitional assistance benefits?
2. Has the government yet reached a decision to revise the transitional assistance benefits regulations under the automotive program and, if so, will benefits be payable to all eligible workers affected by lay-offs caused by the agreement, without having to get the approval of the employer?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: This question falls into two parts. The answer to the first part of the question is no. The answer to the second part is no. The matter is under active consideration and any revision of the transitional assistance benefit regulations will be the subject of a government announcement, if such a revision is decided upon.


MANUFACTURE OF WHEAT FLOUR UNDER RUSSIAN AGREEMENT
Mr. Pascoe: 1.	Have any orders been placed with Canadian milling companies for manufacture and export of wheat flour under the latest Russian wheat agreement and, if so, what Canadian milling companies were given these flour orders and what quantities were specified in each order?
2.	What Canadian companies bid for all, or a portion, of the flour contract?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Canadian flour mill companies negotiate directly with the U.S.S.R. grain agency Exportkhleb for the supply of flour under a master contract concluded by the Canadian Wheat Board and Exportkhleb. The information requested in these questions is a private commercial matter and is not available to the government.


SALES AND EXPORTS OF WHEAT AND FLOUR
Mr. Pascoe: 1.	What was the total export of Canadian wheat flour during the period from August 1, 1965 to July 31, 1966?
2.	Did Canadian wheat flour go to Cuba during the above-specified period and, if so, what quantity?
3.	What was the total export of Canadian wheat flour during the period from August 1, 1964 to July 31, 1965?
4.	What was the total domestic sale of Canadian wheat flour for the period from August 1, 1965 to July 31, 1966?
5.	What was the total domestic sale of Canadian wheat flour for the period from August 1, 1964 to July 31, 1965?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Order for Return

October 12. 1966
	Wheat Flour cwt.	Wheat Equivalent bushels
1. Exports August 1, 1965 to July 31, 1966	15,669,130	36,038,9992. Quantity shipped to Cuba, August 1, 1965 to July 31, 1966	4.496,529	10,342,0163. Exports, August 1, 1964 to July 31, 1965	13,714,069	31,542,3594. Domestic disappearance*, August 1, 1965 to July 31, 1966	27,732,861	63.785,5805. Domestic disappearance*, August 1, 1964 to July 31, 1965	25,521,785	58,700,106
* There are no data available re domestic sales of wheat flour as such. Domestic disappearance is derived through supply and disposition calculations for wheat flour.


RETIREMENT OF GROUP CAPTAIN LEE
Mr. Lambert: 1.	What was the date of the retirement from the R.C.A.F. of former Group Captain Wm. Lee, presently special assistant to the Minister of National Defence?
2.	Was such retirement at the voluntary request of Group Captain Lee and, if so, what was the date of the application for voluntary retirement?
3.	If the answer to part 2 is in the negative, was the said retirement part of the program of compulsory retirement of certain redundant service personnel inaugurated in 1964?
4.	When emoluments, if any, whether of a general or special nature, were paid to Group Captain Lee on his retirement and in what amounts, and were any entitlements or payments made retroactive and to what date?
5.	Does former Group Captain Lee now receive payment of any service superannuation pension and, if so, what is the date of commencement of payment of such pension?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	11 December, 1964.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	September 1964, special benefit-$11,040. March 1965, $177.50 with respect to general pay increase for the period October 1, 1964 to December 11, 1964.
5.	Yes, effective September 1, 1966, in accordance with the general provisions of Bill C-193 which was given royal assent on 11 July, 1966.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Macquarrie: 1. Have any individuals and/or organizations protested the increase in fare on the C.N.R. ferries on the Borden-Tormentine rim and, if so, who are they?

2.	Was a resolution on this subject received from the Legislature of Prince Edward Island and, if so (a) on what date (b) was a reply sent and, if so <i) when (ii) what was the nature of this reply?
3.	On what date was Premier Shaw advised of this suspension of the increase in ferry rates?
4.	Will hearings be held in Prince Edward Island and, if so, on what date?
5.	Have any individuals and/or organizations in Prince Edward Island sent representations favouring the increase?
6.	Have the fares on any ferries in the Atlantic provinces been increased in the past three years and, if so, on what ferries and what were the amounts of the increase?
7.	Have the fares on any ferries in the Atlantic provinces been reduced in the past three years and, if so, on what ferries and what were the amounts of the decrease?
Return tabled.


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-236, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (appointment of judges).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members will agree that in Canada we have been most fortunate in the high quality of our judiciary and in the public confidence which it has earned. However, the Canadian Bar Association at its last annual meeting asked its executive to establish a committee on the judiciary to assist the government in carrying out its responsibilities in this regard, without interfering with its prerogative to appoint judges.
This bill proposes that the government, before making appointments, obtain the opinion of the legal profession as to the suitability and qualifications of persons being considered for appointment. In my submission this is
October 12, 1966

desirable if we are to preserve the high quality of our judiciary and the public confidence in, it which is so vital to our democratic system.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the adjournment of the house under standing order no. 26(2) for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the charge that the Minister of National Defence has breached the privileges of this house by tampering with a witness. That charge has been made public and has not been dealt with by this house, therefore resulting in continued injustice until the matter is cleared.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member enlighten the chair on the question of urgency of debate?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker. The urgency of debate is that the charge which has been made and the facts, if proved, go to the very heart of responsible government. They threaten the very existence, indeed, of much more than the usefulness of parliamentary committees. What is at fault here is the attitude of the minister who says that the government can do what it likes and that parliament is a rubberstamp, whereas the essence of our democratic system of responsible government means that the cabinet is responsible to parliament.
There is a duty on every member of parliament to make sure that neither the government of this country nor any minister of that government preempts the rights, prerogatives and privileges of this house. A minister must make information available to the house, and not hide it. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that making the series of charges public in this house at this time would have such a serious effect on the possibility of the continued existence of the democratic system as certainly to raise grave doubts whether under this government we are now enjoying anything that resembles responsible government.
If the people of this country are to have any confidence in our system of government and in the House of Commons, charges of this nature should not and cannot be allowed to 23033-542J
Motion jor Adjournment stand for a moment without being substantiated or cleared or at the very least investigated. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is intolerable to allow these charges to stand even for a few minutes. Since these charges go to the very essence of our parliamentary system and our system of responsible government, there can be no more urgent business for the house to consider. I submit that it should be taken up now.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address you on the question of urgency of debate. In our opinion this is a most urgent matter. A charge has been made-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: -which affects the integrity of the house. A charge has been made, and no doubt will be spread abroad, that a minister has misled the house, that a minister has tampered with evidence given before a committee of the house. I cannot imagine anything that ought to be cleared up quicker, if it can be cleared up. I am not suggesting for a minute that it cannot be. That will be a matter to find out.
I should have thought that the Minister of National Defence himself would be the first to say that this matter should be debated at once.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, many of the members of the house are earnestly anxious that the committees set up by the house should function effectively and should add to the strength of the parliamentary system.
If it should happen-and I do not suggest it has happened although the charge has been made by a member on his own responsibility who claims he has evidence-that a witness before a committee of the house has been tampered with, has been told to modify or change the evidence that he was presenting to the representatives of the house, then I cannot imagine a matter more urgent for our immediate consideration and I think we should immediately clear it up. For these reasons I support the motion and I urge upon you that it should be debated forthwith and dealt with just as soon as possible.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I think that after a motion has been presented to the house, with the hon. member moving it taking full responsibility for what

October 12, 1966
Motion for Adjournment he alleges against a minister of the crown, the accusations, insinuations or charges involved should be looked into by the house at the first opportunity.
We have no alternative but to rely on the words of ministers who give anwers to the house, and it is up to the house to take any corrective steps necessary in any situation that may have evolved which is not in accordance with the normal course. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has taken it upon himself to bring a charge or charges. He has made certain allegations. In such circumstances it is not the matter itself that must be considered urgent but rather, as Beauchesne states in citation 100(3), the question of urgency of debate.
One of the functions of a committee of the house is to enlighten hon. members. Witnesses appearing before a committee have a duty to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If the minister has in any way at all meddled with the procedures of a committee, if anybody has fooled around or prior to a committee meeting has pressured a witness to change his opinion, by force or any other means, it is the duty of the house to have an immediate investigation, an immediate debate on the matter and clear the air once and for all. I think a debate on this matter is urgently needed at the moment.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to separate the question of privilege raised a few minutes ago from the motion now made under standing order 26 because they deal with the same matter, and I submit that to some extent the argument as to the urgency or otherwise of debate gets very much involved.
Citation 100 in Beauchesne, which deals with the matter of whether or not a motion falls within the precedents for making a motion under standing order 26, says in paragraph 2 that the matter "must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention." Of course, as Your Honour well knows, urgency within this rule does not apply to the matter itself but applies to the urgency of debate. I think Your Honour will have to consider not whether there is urgency in the matter, not whether parliament should deal with it now or at some time in the future, but whether the urgency of debate is so important that all other matters shall be set aside and the debate sought shall be given precedence over any and all other public business that is before the house.

I suggest to Your Honour that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona defeats his own argument in that respect since he has claimed it took him many days to gather the evidence that he is now prepared to present to the house. I suggest that the argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to the effect that some five or six weeks have gone by since the question was first raised is also defeated by the citation which says that the matter must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I believed the minister for five weeks.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of whether this matter should be discussed in parliament. Hon. members, including the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, know very well that there are other avenues open to them in order to bring this matter to parliament.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: What are
they?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are other ways in which this can be done, with the proper notice given, etc., but what they are now asking is that all other public business, all other matters that within the rules have been brought before parliament, be now set aside so that this particular matter can be discussed. In the arguments advanced by those two hon. members they stated that a number of weeks have gone by during which this matter has had some public attention and therefore it does not all of a sudden become so urgent that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention. I suggest that this, and this alone, is the question Your Honour has to consider at this time.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I add just a few words to the arguments that have been made concerning the urgency of debate with respect to this matter. If my memory serves me correctly this is the first time I have said anything publicly on the present defence issue-


Mr. Graffley:: It is one of the few things the hon. member has missed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but I speak now as a member of parliament who is concerned over what has happened here today. Rightly or
October 12, 1966



wrongly, a member of the house on his own responsibility has made charges, has said he has affidavits, and has created a situation which it seems to me in itself argues that there is urgency of debate.
I also ask Your Honour to look very practically at the point just raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. He asked, what is so pressing that we should set aside all the other business planned for today?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Including medicare.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Starr:: 1968-maybe.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was interested in medicare.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Promised in 1919.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now I have heard everything. It was promised 47 years ago on August 6. The Liberal party wanted to do something about medicare then. Now, in a short afternoon, the Secretary of State for External Affairs says, "Do it today."
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us look at this seriously. It is now 3.31 p.m. We have not yet had the calling of the orders of the day and the question period, according to our rules, is to last for half an hour today. Then there is private members' hour at five o'clock. If you do a little arithmetic you will see that not more than 45 or 50 minutes remain today for the debate on medicare, and what has not taken place in 47 years is not going to be dealt with today in 45 minutes. I think the suggestion that this debate is putting aside all of the business of this house is a play on words. The suggestion simply is that we use the rest of the day to deal with a matter which has been raised today. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs is so concerned about medicare, I suggest that he put his weight behind that bill in its original form so that it will come into effect on July 1, 1967, instead of trying to prevent the house from hearing about this matter today as I think is its right.
There is not much time left today, and I think we should at least hear in full from the member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I do not know whether he is right or wrong, but he
Motion for Adjournment says he has affidavits and I think he should be permitted to state his case in full. I think also that the Minister of National Defence has the right and the responsibility to be heard in this house today. When you consider what has happened here today, I submit there is urgency of debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can hardly believe my ears that you would not let the medicare debate go on right now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair is trying to listen to the arguments which are being presented in support of the motion.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my viewpoint to that of others who have suggested there is in fact urgency of debate here. In respect of the original matter which is in issue I have no interest in the sense that I did not participate, but I was very impressed by one statement made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I call to my support in this the statement made in another building in this city earlier this week when a former member of this house, Miss Pauline Jewett, in addressing a certain convention, emphasized the tremendous importance in a parliamentary system of the committee structure, something with which I am in complete agreement.
Mr. Speaker, the house has constituted a number of committees and has delivered into the custody of these committees a number of tremendously important matters. There is the committee on consumer credit dealing with the cost of living, the committee on transport and communications which shortly will be dealing with the question of the new railway legislation, the committee on the Bank Act, and so on. I am not commenting on the truthfulness or otherwise, but the suggestion has been made that witnesses, whose evidence is material, relevant and very important, have had their statements tampered with. I suggest to this house and to Your Honour that this matter should be settled, that is, to what extent in the future are we entitled to accept statements made by those who are under the control or influence of ministers of the crown? To what extent are we entitled to accept the statements which they give in evidence and to what extent, when reports are made based on evidence given by such people, are we entitled to accept at face value those statements? I submit that this is a tremendously important matter and that if our committee structure is

October 12, 1966
Motion for Adjournment going to survive we must have some examination of this major issue so that the members of this house may know that evidence given in committee is untrammeled and free from prejudice and pressure.


Mr. G. L. Chalterton (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I say just a few words in support of the motion. A most important and serious charge has been made in this house that a minister of the crown has tampered with evidence given before a committee of this house. The question is not whether the charge is correct or can be proven. The charge has been made and this is the situation which faces the house now. It seems to me that the first person who should support this motion is the Minister of National Defence. Surely the minister would want the opportunity in this house today and not tomorrow to reply to this serious charge.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I would ask Mr. Speaker to take into consideration fully the complete relationship to committee discussions in the future of any witness who may appear before any committee so long as the present situation is left unanswered. The urgency of the matter has been dealt with by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his suggestion that there is very little time left in the house this afternoon.
In the light of these things, particularly the grievous nature of the charge against the minister, which is one in respect of which I join with the hon. member, I would urge that Your Honour give every consideration to allowing this motion to be put to the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, obviously no one is more interested than I in having these slanderous insinuations dealt with in a proper fashion and in a proper forum.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Then ask for unanimous consent to do it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This suggestion that we-


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege I ask the Minister of National Defence to withdraw that statement.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, I will not, Mr. Speaker. They are slanderous insinuations; that is all they are.


J. Michael Forrestall: 
Paul Theodore Hellyer: They are not. They should be dealt with in a proper way at the proper time, and no one is more in favour of this than I am. A debate this afternoon in this house is not the proper time. It is clear that the object of this exercise is merely to frustrate the business planned for this afternoon. It is an old Tory game and some of us are getting a little tired of it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona on a question of privilege. Before I recognize the hon. member I should like to remind hon. members taking part in this discussion that what they are to consider, for the guidance of the Chair, is the question of urgency of debate.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just suggested I have brought up a matter simply to impede the business of the house. That is imputing a motive and a very low one to a member who has been very careful in this regard to make sure that he had the proof and had personally investigated the evidence leading to this charge. I suggest that the minister is imputing motives and is also insulting the house by suggesting that a charge that he has interfered with a witness is not important. It is more important business than the other. It may be unimportant to the minister whether a witness tells the truth-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking on the question of urgency at the time I was interrupted by my hon. friend. I was going to suggest, in view of the fact that some months have passed since this alleged situation occurred, that the proper place to debate this matter is before the standing committee on national defence following the introduction of the legislation, and that suggestion has been made before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I make that suggestion because I do not think the alleged facts as presented here today can be separated from other facts and questions that will no doubt be considered at the time that committee meets. I think this matter should be considered in a forum where-
October 12, 1966


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton South is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, the minister is now deliberately ignoring the rule about which you have just reminded him and others, that he must speak only as to the urgency of debate.
While he is on his feet perhaps he would like to make a charge of slander and innuendo against the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Will he make that charge? Will he stand up as the hon. member has done in this house? If he does not intend to do so, then let him speak about the urgency of debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Let me remind the hon. member that he should address the Chair.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made suggestions which involve my personal honour, and for that reason I am perhaps more interested in this question than anyone else in this house. For that reason I feel that this question should be dealt with by that committee in the proper form and manner rather than by a debate in this house which could make no determination or decision.


An hon. Member:: If you are so innocent, let us debate it now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is not the time or the manner in which we should debate a serious allegation of this kind. I think it should be considered by the committee, and I hope that at that time, if the alleged facts presented to this house today are proved to be false, the hon. member will resign his seat in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I take full responsibility for my charge and I hope the minister will realize the importance of my proving it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has the floor.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As far as I am personally concerned, this matter can be dealt with by either committee. My only reason for suggesting that it be dealt with by the defence committee is that there are related matters which should be dealt with at the same time.
Motion for Adjournment I believe that those people who have made charges, including the hon. gentleman opposite, should appear before that committee to give testimony and to subject themselves to cross-examination in order that we may make clear to the people of this country the exact nature of these charges.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In order that you
may tamper with the testimony.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and because this matter is some months old, I think a debate this afternoon would be inadequate.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Macleod is rising on a question of privilege.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I suggest that the minister is trying to mislead the house by suggesting that this matter is some months old. We have heard what the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona said, namely that he did not have this information until yesterday or the day before. Apparently the only one who knew about it, prior to then other than the admiral, was the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my opinion that there is no question of personal privilege at this time.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: There certainly is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is charged with the difficult responsibility of ruling on this matter, and it is my opinion that there is no question of privilege.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that what he is now attempting is to present an argument. I assume that in due course he will have the opportunity of doing so. At the moment the Minister of National Defence has the floor.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion on which the allegation is based was made in July and has been public knowledge since that time. In view of the fact that this matter has been discussed in the press and in this house on a number of occasions since July and in view of its serious nature, it is my belief it should be dealt with by a committee of this house. The committee which I believe

October 12, 1966
Motion for Adjournment should be seized with this matter is the committee on national defence. That is the course I would recommend.


John George Diefenbaker: Right away?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If it is felt that the committee on privileges and elections should deal with this matter, I have no objection because I want to clear my name, which is more precious to me than anything else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, in the five years I have been sitting in the house I have often heard requests for inquiries information, but it is the first time, as far as I know that a formal charge has been made against a member of the cabinet-the first time in five years. It is not an inquiry which is asked for at the present time. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) has laid a formal charge against the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer).
In view of the fact that such a thing happens very seldom, namely that a formal charge is laid against a minister of the crown, then it becomes an urgent matter which should be debated forthwith.
When the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona raised the question of privilege a little earlier and laid his formal charge, and even after you had rendered your decision, Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, the Minister of National Defence had at that time the right, under the standing orders of the house, because it was for him the first possible opportunity before a formal charge, to rise in his turn on the question of privilege and to deny the whole thing. He did not do it, he allowed the charge to be made. And again during those last few minutes, he has been asking that the matter be referred to a committee saying that the matter dates back a few months.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that this matter does not date back a few months. Must a problem exist in fact when rumours start making the rounds or only when the rumours are substantiated?
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona stated today only that he has evidence to substantiate those rumours which have been circulating. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the first possible opportunity is not when the rumours start but when a man has the evidence. If charges were to be laid each time a rumour starts, it would be unthinkable for

the man who wants to make a charge but lacks the time to get the necessary evidence and it would become unbearable for those against whom a charge would be laid.
I think that the first possible opportunity exists not when rumours start circulating but when evidence is produced to show that they are accurate and justified. And it is only today, it is only since the beginning of the sitting that such evidence has been laid before the house. Until now, there were only rumours. And I always refused to believe them as long as a formal charge had not been laid and evidence produced.
Therefore, the first possible opportunity is today, not before. Therefore, it is not a problem which dates back a few months, it is a problem which arose at the time when the evidence was laid before us.
Now, about the urgency of debate, Mr. Speaker. It is that there will be other committees sitting this afternoon and tomorrow morning and tomorrow afternoon.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Will members attend those meetings while thinking: This committee may not be serious; how can we be sure that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has not altered the evidence of witnesses at the committee on consumer credit? How can we be sure that in the committee on the public service of Canada, which is sitting at present, the Minister of National Revenue and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Benson), has not altered the evidence given by witnesses? Is it possible from now on for committees to sit unless a clear and specific explanation is given about the problem raised?
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the committees cannot sit as long as this matter has not been threshed out and the sittings of committees are still more urgent than the debate on medicare this afternoon.
The urgency of the debate Mr. Speaker. The word urgent is an epithet. Now, if it is an epithet, it is relative. Einstein in his theory on relativity states that everything is relative even the Absolute.
Can the debate taken in its present context he deemed to be really urgent? Let us consider the item on the agenda this afternoon: medicare. Now, we have been told that medicare would not come into effect before the 1st of July, 1968. Is it therefore so urgent to discuss medicare? Which matter is more urgent?
One which may be passed this afternoon and shelved for a year and a half or another which questions the integrity of a minister of
October 12, 1966

the crown and the efficiency of committees. If we look at the terms "urgency of debate" in connection with the problem before us this afternoon as concerns other debates which may also take place this afternoon, well then I believe the urgency of debate applies not to medicare but to the attempts to determine the truth concerning the formal charge made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent). Therefore, if we consider the expression "urgency of debate" in connection with other discussions which are to follow, then the urgency of the debate must be applied to the motion put by the member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, and also to rectify somewhat the fact that I should not want to see a precedent being created, since this is not the first opportunity we have to discuss the matter, I believe that the debate on the question facing the government should be allowed.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that affects the privileges of the house and I would hope that the Prime Minister, as the minister responsible for the preservation of the rights of parliament, would speak up and assure us that regardless of the attitude and stand taken by the Minister of National Defence this matter is one that cannot be postponed until legislation is introduced in connection with armed forces unification or integration but should be dealt with now. Every opportunity has been given to the minister to have the committee on defence meet immediately. That would cover the situation very well. Why wait until months hence? Why wait until legislation has been introduced in respect of this program? Why not meet this situation now? There can be no possible reason for any extension of time.
This is one of the matters that above all transcends every consideration of party relationship or party antagonisms within the house. The question arises whether the evidence given in a committee was free, uncontrolled, undirected and unsuggested. If we cannot accept the evidence given in committees, that is the end of the committee system.
I feel that the Prime Minister should now take this matter in his hands and without regard to the attitude of the minister should determine it once and for all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Motion for Adjournment


John George Diefenbaker: What can be more urgent than the preservation of the integrity of committees of parliament with regard to the evidence that is presented to them? Mention was made that this matter goes back a long way. I always accept a minister's word. This is something that, regardless of our differences, must be accepted. However, today we have had an hon. member rising and stating that he has an affidavit in his possession which indicates that the evidence given by the admiral of the eastern command was altered by direction or action.
I suggest the first thing that should be done is for the government to table the evidence which the admiral was going to give and, second, the revised and expurgated edition. I dislike repetition, Mr. Speaker, but I say that unless members can depend on the answers given in the house or the evidence given by witnesses in committees, then our parliamentary system is gone. I asked the minister on August 30-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With great deference I take the liberty of interrupting the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to remind him that what I am attempting to do at the moment is to obtain advice as to the urgency of debate in view of the motion made under standing order 26 by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what I am doing, building the argument as to why this matter is urgent. There cannot be anything more urgent in parliament than the preservation of the prerogatives and rights of parliament and the assurance that the evidence given by witnesses will not be altered in substance or in fact to meet the needs of a government or a minister of the government. I asked the following question on August 30, and this indicates the urgency, sir. It is recorded at page 7797 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister of defence a very simple question. Did he read the-copyright story by Admiral Landymore which appeared in the Toronto Star on July 23 and which reads as follows:
"The section on personnel-wherein I described the actual state of affairs in my command-was. thoroughly censored and rewritten-
The excuse given me for the censorship was that the minister wanted to take a positive approach to the hearings and that mine was too, negative."


Michael Starr: That is a shame.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I asked:
Is this true or is it not?

October 12. 1966
Motion for Adjournment
The minister replied:
So far as my giving instructions is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is not.
That statement on the part of the minister represents the facts, so why not have a discussion on the matter? We now have before the house the allegation that there was tinkering with the evidence, that pages were deleted and others substituted while in the possession of the minister. Can there be anything more serious to the future of democracy under our parliamentary system than the suggestion-even the suggestion-that this has taken place?
Surely the Prime Minister, being the custodian of the prerogatives of parliament, should rise and say: This matter will receive attention; we are not going to wait until months hence to meet the desires of anybody in this house for postponement. This matter is of first importance. It cannot be brushed aside by the simple statement, "Well, this is not the fact." It must be met; otherwise parliament will be a caricature. When a minister makes a statement, that statement must be the truth when it represents not an argument but a statement of fact.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Today we heard the allegation made by the hon. member for Ed-monton-Strathcona that Admiral Landymore has produced an affidavit in addition to his copyright article. Why did he do that? Not to prevent the House of Commons from discussing a matter of transcendent importance to the security and integrity of members of parliament.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, if members of the opposition would be willing to formulate a charge that I tampered with the evidence of the committee and that I misled parliament, I would be pleased to ask for unanimous consent of the house that that charge be referred at once to the committee on privileges and elections. This would be done on the clear understanding that the person making the charge would place his seat in jeopardy if the charge is proved to be false.


Michael Starr: Will the minister resign if found guilty?


Mr. Ricard:: Stand up and say it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the minister did not hear the charge I have already levelled on my responsibility and standing in my place as required by the

rules. I will read the charge to him again and I intend to follow it with a motion that it be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. I do not think any charge could be clearer than this one. It is that the Minister of Defence has breached the privileges of this house by tampering with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before a committee of this house, the witness being Rear Admiral W. M. Landymore, the committee being the standing committee on national defence, and the evidence in question being the admiral's brief presented to the committee on June 23, 1966.
With regard to the seriousness of the offence, I have looked at the rules, Mr. Speaker, and I find that whenever a charge is made and proved false it is up to the house to decide what the punishment should be. I have little doubt that the house regards this charge as very serious. That is why, before making this very serious charge, I was very careful to make sure that I had evidence. In fact, having obtained this evidence I would have been negligent and derelict in my duty if I had not brought it before the house.
We are now in the position, Mr. Speaker, that if Your Honour's ruling on my question of privilege had prevailed it would have been most unfair if I had not been allowed to present part of my argument or all of it, just as it would be unfair to the minister if he were not given time to reply to the charge. I was going to suggest what the minister has already suggested, that in justice to the minister it is not a just solution to leave the matter as it is with only half the argument on the record, and I do not think any member in the house would stand in the way of a just and equitable solution to this matter which can only be achieved by allowing a complete hearing of the charges for which I am responsible and a hearing on the minister's action for which he is responsible.
I would therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed, that you request unanimous consent of the house to the raising of the question of privilege and that you allow a full discussion of it together with the motion that it be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. I would be content to allow this matter to go directly to the committee on privileges and elections without further debate.
Either way, Mr. Speaker, I do think that a request for unanimous consent to discuss this very important question of privilege would meet with the approval of the house because
October 12, 1966

I do not think any member would wish to be in the position of only hearing one side of the case or only hearing the accusations made against the minister without giving him a chance to defend himself. Would Your Honour ask for unanimous consent?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question on a point of clarification? Would the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona explain to the house what he means by "tampering with a witness"?


Michael Starr: Let the minister wait until the matter gets to the committee.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I think the minister is perfectly correct in asking that, Mr. Speaker. The word "tampering" may be a trifle technical.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And also a trifle evasive.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: It includes several things, among others the background of what I have alleged. If the minister wishes me to change the motion to make sure I am not being evasive I would be prepared to do so.
The minister is entitled to know exactly what I allege. I allege that Admiral Lan-dymore had prepared a brief which it was his intention to present to the committee, having been ordered to prepare one and to present it to the committee on his responsibility that the minister caused him to come to the minister's office and present it orally, I believe, to the minister, that the minister is responsible for the fact that the brief was left in his office to be reviewed by him and that it remained there for several hours, that it was returned to Admiral Landymore and a change had been made in it without Admiral Landymore's consent, which change came to his notice only upon examining the brief. I allege that four pages of that brief had been taken out and that two pages were substituted. It is only within the minister's knowledge whether he did that personally. I say it is his responsibility because this brief was in his office and he is responsible for the actions of his officials. Therefore the word "tampering" which the minister wishes defined means in this case the taking of a brief and changing it.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The pages are long but the house may want to have it read. The minister is right that nebulous terms should not be used in this allegation and I want no misunderstanding of what I mean by the phrase "tampering with a witness".
Motion for Adjournment


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member would have to be more precise than that. He would have to charge that I censored testimony or that I was directly responsible for having information changed improperly. Under the law of this country my officials report to me and I report to parliament. I want a specific charge made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether Your Honour could refer citation 308 to the Minister of National Defence so he can see that "tamper" is a word which has been used in the British House of Commons since February of 1700 every single year without exception, and has also been used in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is as long ago as medicare.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I can only meet the objections of the minister and then wait for the house to give unanimous consent to this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the house is the master of its own rules and procedures. All members can agree to whatever they wish to agree concerning the running of the business of the day. It is up to hon. members to give unanimous consent. The Chair, of course, is in the hands of the house. What the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is now suggesting is, I assume, that we abandon the motion which he made under standing order 26 and that we revert to the question of privilege which he raised earlier this afternoon and obtain the unanimous consent of the house to proceed with that question. Is my understanding correct?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that unanimous consent to revert to the question of privilege would afford full opportunity to debate the matter and to hear the minister's answer. I suggested that I would amend the motion if that is the only way left, but if you allow us to proceed with the motion then only half the case will be presented and I do not think it would be fair to anyone. That is why I asked you Honour whether we could first try to get the unanimous consent of the house to revert to the question of privilege which I raised at the beginning of this session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? If the suggestion to revert to the question of privilege is not accepted because

October 12, 1966
Motion for Adjournment unanimous consent is not given, would we not revert then to the motion to adjourn the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course there is no difficulty about this. I have a suspicion that unanimous consent will not be obtained. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is a fair one and I will ask the house whether they wish to give effect to the suggestion of the hon. member that there should be unanimous agreement of the house to revert to the consideration of the question of privilege raised earlier to day by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. speaker, I think it has been agreed by all members of the house that this charge is a very serious one which impugns the honour and honesty of a minister of the Crown and that it should be formulated in an appropriate resolution and submitted to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons, which is the committee on privileges and elections. If that can be done, there will be no delay in having the committee deal with it. This is a serious matter. In fact, I cannot ' imagine any matter more serious. Surely, therefore, the wording of the charge against the minister should be made known to this house in writing so that it can be looked at. Perhaps the hon. member, who has been very fair in his references to the desirability of having the charge specific, could put it on the order paper tonight and then we will look at it and will give unanimous consent to proceeding with it at once.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But, Mr. Speaker, to put a charge before us orally now when we have already begun to argue about the meaning of certain words in that charge is hardly proper. The hon. member who is making this charge has been much more fair in this matter than some of his colleagues. The hon. member has already admitted that the words "tampering with a witness" could be interpreted in various ways. They could be interpreted as improperly interfering with a witness. Surely, therefore, it is important to have this charge formulated in writing before the house, and I give my assurance to the hon. member that if that is done there will be no delay. We will ask unanimous consent to have it submitted to the appropriate committee to deal with it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The situation is such that there seems to be a little misunderstanding of what is meant by a charge.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are right.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The charge is tampering with a witness; perhaps interfering with a witness is another way of putting it. I have carefully explained what it consists of and what the evidence is upon which I am relying. Surely in a charge I am not supposed to put forward all the evidence and have this be the charge which I have to prove.


Michael Starr: Read it out.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Charge me with censorship and stand the consequences.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I have said I have evidence to substantiate a charge of breach of the privileges of the house. I would be quite content to have it deferred until tomorrow if the minister wants an explanation of it. However, the charge is complete as it stands and I think it is clear as it stands. I have further clarified it by giving some of the evidence on which it is based.
I am sure the minister does not expect me to say that the minister did certain things within the confines of his office. All I can go on is what I have been told in the affidavit which Admiral Landymore was prepared to swear. I cannot say what went on in the minister's office or who did it. I know it was his responsibility but I do not know who did it. I have gone as far as I can go. I say there has been a breach of the privileges of this house and those are the facts upon which I rely and which I think prove that charge. I think we can bring evidence to prove the result, and it is the result that shows there was tampering with the evidence while it was under the minister's control. Further than that I cannot go, Mr. Speaker. I do believe it would be unfair to suggest that I can go any further without having personal knowledge. I wonder whether we cannot proceed on the basis of reverting to the question of privilege so that these things can be gone into in detail? I am certainly going to take my full responsibility.
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): There has been a great deal of discussion this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, part of which has been heated, starting off with a charge of impropriety against the minister in relation to certain evidence given before a committee. I will not go through the different
October 12, 1966

procedural points that have been raised during the course of the afternoon, for we are now talking about referring the matter to a committee.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: No.


George James McIlraith: I understood that to be the point of the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. If I am correct in that assumption, it seems to me that the house requires to know the precise language of the charge so that the house can pass upon it. It seems to me also that the charge is of such a serious nature that its form and the reference to the committee should not be something haphazard. The house should not be asked to give unanimous consent to some vague, nebulous proposals which are not clear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the minister permit a question at this point?


George James McIlraith: I wonder if I could make my point and then I will be glad to take the question? The essence of a charge of this nature, whether or not there was improper conduct on the part of a minister, is the language used. The difficulties of the language, must be apparent to all hon. members who have heard the exchanges between the hon. member who raised the matter and those members on this side who asked him questions. In all the circumstances the only proper procedure as I see it is to have a charge precisely drafted and laid before the house. A precise motion could be made and consideration could be given as to the committee to which it should be referred. We have the Prime Minister's assurance that when that is done there will be no delay of any kind in having the matter proceeded with immediately. Surely any lesser method is going to be a careless abuse of the rights of parliament, the very thing about which hon. members are complaining.
There is one other small point. The hon. member has made repeated references to and has quoted from an affidavit. He is, of course, obligated to table that affidavit. I assume that will be done in the ordinary way, since he has quoted from it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: May I-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to what has been said
Motion for Adjournment by the Minister of Public Works, surely the responsibility for the wording of the charge and the responsibility for drafting the motion referring this matter to the committee on privileges and elections lies exclusively with the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona who is making the charge.


George James McIlraith: Exactly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I see no reason why we should be arguing about the terminology of the motion or why the government should try to get its finger into the pie.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps the hon. member will permit a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not interrupt the minister. May I make this point, Mr. Speaker. If Your Honour had decided earlier-I am not quarrelling with your decision-to allow the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona to proceed with the question of privilege, then he would have moved a motion setting forth the charge and placing whatever documents he has at the disposal of the house. The house could then have chosen whether or not to refer that motion to the committee on privileges and elections.
It seems to me there is no need to wait until tomorrow or to have a conference about the wording. If the house is unanimous in agreeing to revert to the question of privilege, and if His Honour is willing to recognize the opinion of the house in this matter and withdraw any objection to allowing the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona to move his motion and make his statement, the house could then decide whether or not it wants to pass the motion to refer the whole question to the committee on privileges and elections. I see no reason at all why this matter has to wait until tomorrow or why we have to have an extended debate on it. The hon. member can make his speech when he lays the charge and move his motion and the minister can make a reply at that time if he chooses. The house will then decide whether or not it is of sufficient importance to refer the matter to the committee on privileges and elections.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question in order to clarify his remarks? Would he not agree it would be preferable, before the house reverts to the question of privilege, if we were told the precise charge the hon. member wants to make? What he appears to be saying now is something less than that kind of charge with

October 12, 1966
Motion for Adjournment which the house should concern itself; yet the discussion this afternoon was about something of the utmost seriousness, the very type of thing with which the house should concern itself.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, from listening to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona I understood him to charge that a minister of the crown had tampered with the evidence of a witness who appeared before a committee of this house. I do not think that we should have any part in helping the hon. member to draft his motion. If the member has a charge to make, let him move his motion. If the house thinks that the speech he makes in support of that motion contains sufficient information to warrant an investigation by the committee on privileges and elections, then it can pass the motion. If after listening to the hon. member the house does not feel that he has sufficient evidence to warrant referring the matter to that committee, it can refuse to pass the motion. But I do not think it is our responsibility to start drafting such a motion or to find out from the hon. member what is in his motion before he is allowed to move it.
According to the rules of the house, the moment the Speaker says that there is a prima facie case for moving a motion of privilege the hon. member has the right to move it without anybody knowing what is in the motion. All I am suggesting is that the hon. member be given that right and be given it with unanimous consent.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. In recalling the events of the afternoon I think that had we started with the understanding we have now reached the very course which is about to take place would have been followed. I have no idea what the hon. member's statement is going to be, but I believe he is prepared to move his motion and to present the evidence which will be before the house and before the committee.
May I recall to the house the words of the minister in recounting that this matter has been public knowledge for a long time. If it had not been for the members of the press gallery, we would not have known in July what had taken place. Only now has the member been able to produce the evidence. I would appreciate very much his being given the opportunity to move his motion, and then the committee can deal with the matter as they desire.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there is a significant difference between what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is suggesting the house should do and what has been suggested by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence. What they suggested was that if they could see the motion they would undertake to proceed with it at once and refer the matter either to the defence committee or to the committee on privileges and elections for consideration. That, Mr. Speaker, requires unanimous consent.
The procedure suggested by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam when he says that the hon. member has the exclusive right to draw up the charge and to lay the charge he wants to make is predicated upon whether or not he can do it in such a way as to establish a prima facie case. If he can then it is, of course, his exclusive right to move his motion. But that does not mean he has the assurance that he will receive unanimous consent to send the matter to a committee.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there is a distinct difference between accepting a motion from the hon. member for which he alone takes full responsibility, with unanimous consent being given to send it to a committee, and the other course of action wherein he would first of all have to establish a prima facie case in order to put the motion before the house. In addition, having listened to his argument members of this house would not necessarily give him unanimous consent but would be given the opportunity of voting on whether or not the motion should be referred to the committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because the consequences of this matter are of such serious nature we have to be careful that we do not confuse what can be done by unanimous consent and what can be done in the normal course under the rules of this house.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I think I can clear up a couple of misunderstandings, particularly the misunderstanding of the hon. member for Medicine Hat and the matter raised by the Minister of Public Works.
First, as to the charge the word "tamper" is used because it is the word in citation 308 of Beauchesne, the rule which I am accusing the minister of transgressing. I am using the exact word used in the rule because I thought there was no surer way of having precision in the charge.
If it would help, Mr. Speaker, may I say I have looked up the word "tamper" in the
October 12, 1966

dictionary and I have here a couple of definitions. It means "meddle with; make unauthorized changes in; exert secret or corrupt influence upon". The word "bribe" is in the definition too. There is certainly no suggestion of any bribe here, but the definitions "meddle with" and "make unauthorized changes in" encompass the acts to which I have referred.
Second, I have drawn up a motion but I am not asking for unanimous consent to move it at all. As I understood it, the only reason the Speaker ruled me out of order today was not that I had not made a prima facie case which would normally allow me to raise a question of privilege but that I had not come within the time limit rule.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have suggested to the house that the best way to achieve justice in this matter, so that everyone may be fully heard as they should, is that the house bend and disregard the time limit rule for the purpose of this debate. This would place me back in the same position I would be in having just completed establishing a prima facie case, the Speaker having ruled that I did have a question of privilege. I could then proceed with my question of privilege, present the evidence which I have to the house and my motion to refer the matter to the committee on privileges and elections for consideration. I think that would take care of the situation and I would still be in the same position. A simple request for unanimous consent to allow me to present my motion of privilege at this stage would take care of everything.
(Translation)


Mr. Real Caoueile (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the charges laid by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) are quite definite, that the wording is sufficiently clear for all the ministers to understand their nature, and the hon. member has been pleading all afternoon to prove his charges against the minister. But the minister, in an attempt to defend himself, has twice asked the member for Edmonton-Strathcona:
"If the charges are not proven, are you willing to resign, or stake your seat on the issue?" Those are the suggestions made by the hon. minister.
Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the whole matter being referred to the committee on privileges and elections; or to it being discussed this afternoon. But I urge the hon.
Motion for Adjournment Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) to do exactly what he wants the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona to do, that is, if the charges are proven, the minister shall resign not only as minister but also as member of the House of Commons.
Let there be justice for all.
Let those extremely serious charges be looked into by the house or by the proper committee as soon as possible.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) assures us that the committee on privileges and elections will deal without delay, today or tomorrow, with the matter if it is referred to it. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona asks that his question of privilege be discussed this afternoon. In either case, we will agree for the sake of unanimity so that the house may discuss the matter this afternoon or that the issue may be referred to the committee.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona would add to his motion: "and such tampering constituted improper conduct on the part of the minister in the performance of his duties as a minister of the Crown," I would agree that the motion should be accepted unanimously on our part. I would agree with the hon. member for Villeneuve, and I would put my seat on the line.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the unnecessary addendum. For the minister to suggest that tampering with a witness, which is a breach of the privileges of this house, is not right and then to say that it is improper for the minister to do so, is meaningless. I do not know what he means. The words are redundant. The charge says that-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They are not redundant because "tampering" is so broad that it could include scratching your back. I suggest that if the hon. member would add the word "improperly" to that motion, that would be most acceptable. If the hon. gentleman would be prepared to add that, it would be satisfactory.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we are out of order and getting nowhere. We are still supposedly discussing the matter of urgency of debate on the motion to adjourn the house to debate a matter of public importance. It seems to me that if the minister


$582 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
Oclober 12, 1966
Motion for Adjournment wants to amend any motion referring certain matters to the committee on privileges and elections, the time for him to do that is when the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has moved his motion stating the question of privilege and his charge and asking that the whole matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. At that time the minister could move any amendment he wishes and the house could decide whether or not it wanted to accept the amendment. If we are to resolve this matter, the sooner we agree unanimously to revert to the question of privilege to allow the hon. member to make his motion, the sooner we shall have something definite before the house.
Mr. Pickersgill:: Could I ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, if he thinks that there is in the motion, as it has been represented to us, a real charge of impropriety? All we are asking on this side of the house is that there be a definite charge of impropriety. If the hon. member will add the words that the Minister of National Defence has suggested or if he will add the word "improperly" or "improperly tampered", either one of those, then we shall grant unanimous consent at once not merely to debate the question but to send it without delay to the committee on privileges and elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the Minister of Transport is now asking a question of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona wants to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. This is getting confusing.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think I asked the first question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has the floor.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thought that the charges, as made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, constituted impropriety. All I know is that Citation 308 says that tampering with a witness is a breach of privilege. If the hon. member can substantiate the fact that there has been tampering with the evidence of a witness, I am prepared to support the motion. But there is no point in discussing this when we have no motion before us. When the hon. member moves the motion, if the house gives him unanimous consent to do

so, I shall be prepared to listen to what evidence he has.
I have no foreknowledge of what the hon. member is going to say. I should like to listen to him and listen to the minister make his explanation. If after listening to both of them I feel that this matter warrants further investigation, the calling of witnesses and the examination of any documents the hon. member may have, then I shall be prepared to vote for the motion. On the other hand, if after listening to both sides I think there is no impropriety I shall be prepared to vote against the motion. Surely we ought to proceed in an orderly way and have something before the house.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: May I ask the minister whether a specific charge of breach of privilege, consisting of tampering with a witness, is not a direct allegation of improper conduct?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not the way you defined it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether all hon. members want the Chair at this point to express a view?


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in the argument that has been made there is something that is not quite correct. The minister first of all suggested that this matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections or to the committee on national defence. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona seemed to agree to that. Now the minister asks that an amendment to the motion be brought in to indicate to what degree he may have tampered with the evidence in question. With all respect, I say that it is not for the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona to say to what degree the minister did that. That is why we in this party want this matter finished. This is the first time that the Liberals have suggested an amendment which would put them in the soup. I think we are out of order and we ought to get a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously
there can be no unanimous consent to suggestions made by hon. members. Is there unanimous agreement to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to be very fair and give hon. members on both sides an opportunity to express their views as to whether
Oclobei 12, 1966

there is unanimous agreement to reverting at this stage to the question originally raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Ed-monton-Strathcona.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give consent to reverting unless the hon. member is willing to indicate that he will put forward a serious motion rather than a spurious one. If he will undertake that, I shall be pleased to give consent. That will not be as imprecise as this veiled situation is this afternoon.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Is the minister serious about the amendment? He said, referring to the charge, that it was in performance of his duties as a minister of the Crown. I take it he does not want to be tried on his conduct as a member of this house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Change it to "as a member of this house".


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are not willing to make the charge.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is required to rule on the question before the house, which is whether we should adjourn the business of the house to discuss the matter we have been discussing for the last hour.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, before we do that may I say a word? I have not said anything so far. Regardless of how the Chair rules, I should like to direct my remarks to the right hon. Prime Minister as leader of the house and Prime Minister of this country and ask him, in view of the serious charges laid, whether he will not take it upon himself to give direction and leadership to the house by saying that this matter will be referred to the standing committee on national defence on Monday in order to clear away the charges which have been made this afternoon and so that his minister will not be left with a dark cloud hanging over his head?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. member in question will put his charge in a form which is considered by the Speaker as indicating a breach of privilege which should be investigated, and if the hon. member will stand by his charge, we will see that that charge is dealt with at once.


An hon. Member:: How do you want it spelled out?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If there is no unanimous consent today the hon. member can follow
Motion for Adjournment the rules of the house, put his charge in writing, put it on the order paper, and the Speaker will decide whether or not there is a prima facie case.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The Chair has raised a nice question-
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The ruling which I have to make now is whether there should be an adjournment of the proceedings of the house to consider a matter of definite and urgent importance, according to the terms of standing order 26. The effect of this adjournment would be to allow a debate until five o'clock because, according to standing orders, an adjournment debate at this time does not dispense with private members' hour, and I think hon. members will agree with me it would be just a bit out of place and improper to grant an adjournment for a 15-minute debate.
In any event, if I require an authority to support my view that there should not be an adjournment, there was a ruling made in the house earlier this session-I will not say on the same question but on a similar question-at which time it was ruled that there should not be an adjournment.
Hon. members know, and I have said this before, that it is only in extreme circumstances that an adjournment is granted. It has not happened more than a very few times in many years that the business of the house has been adjourned. It may well be that this is a type of question which justifies an adjournment, but I have before me a motion in particular circumstances and I do not think that I can grant it in view of these circumstances.
One point I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members is citation 100 (9) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, as recorded at page 91 of that work, which states:
-matters of privilege or order, or matters debatable only upon a substantive motion, cannot be submitted to the house under this standing order.
If the hon. member is right then he has a question of privilege, and according to this citation the Chair cannot grant an adjournment of the house to consider a matter which the hon. member says is a question of privilege and, as he has said himself, there has been no ruling from the Chair to the effect that there was no question of privilege.
The ruling was based on the point that the question had not been raised on the earliest possible occasion. In view of this I cannot

October 12, 1966
Motions for Papers
accept the motion but I would like to suggest, if this would be helpful to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, that in view of the fact that he has a motion-it may be a motion of privilege; I am not saying that it is and I am not saying that it is not-I believe he should consider the possibility of submitting this motion to the Chair. It would then be placed on the order paper. I would be pleased to discuss the matter with the hon. member and I think he should give some thought to this possibility. The hon. member may not feel that it should be done in this way and I respect his views, but certainly it would have the result of bringing the matter before the house for eventual resolution by hon. members.
If hon. members feel we should go on with orders of the day, for the 15 minutes remaining, then I shall call orders of the day.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 153 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning the consent of other governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 153 shall be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, will you please call notice of motion no. 163? I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


CANADA-WEST INDIES TRADE AGREEMENT, 1925
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 153-Mr. McCleave:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house copies of all notes, documents, minutes or other documents or correspondence exchanged between the government of Canada and governments of members of the Commonwealth Caribbean conference regarding article VII of the Canada-West Indies trade agreement of 1925.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 163-Mr. Peters:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all reports, records, documents, tenders and contracts involved in the demolition and rebuilding of the dock at Dawson Point on lake Timiskaming in the riding of Timiskaming between the district

office of public works, individuals and other persons and the Department of Public Works at Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May this one stand as well, Mr. Speaker?
Motion stands.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we might have been dealing with medicare today and I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether representations have been received from the Canadian Association of Optometrists for inclusion in medicare, and whether the government will give favourable consideration to the inclusion of optometrists who are legally and academically qualified in all provinces and whose services today represent 65 per cent or more of all the eye examinations in this nation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, representations have been received. Those representations would involve an important change of policy in respect of the proposed legislation and the matter is under consideration.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the minister not consider this profession an important enough segment of our national health program to be included in the scheme?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly regard this profession as being very important but it is another matter, within the terms of the policy already established, whether it can be included. It is not really a question of the profession itself. It is the question of services by this particular profession which is under further consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: As a further supplementary question, what is the difference between the inclusion of optometrists and having oculists included? What is the difficulty there?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think, Mr, Speaker,
there is a great difference.


John George Diefenbaker: What is it?
October 12, 1966


Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: As a further supplementary, is the minister aware that in many regions of the country only optometrists and not eye doctors are available for patients, and is the government giving consideration to this fact when dealing with the matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I appreciate the point make by the hon. gentleman. Members of this particular profession have put forward their views with respect to the coverage of services rendered by their profession. The matter is under consideration and I hope when we get into committee on the bill it will be possible to make a clear statement on the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Favourable?


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Will not consideration also be given to the inclusion of chiropractors and their services within the terms of the bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have tried to be a bit lenient with this series of questions but I suggest that we appear to be dealing with a matter which some day will come before the house and perhaps these questions should be reserved for that time.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on September 2 the Minister of Finance said that the government was studying the Donald report on the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia and that when the report was brought down it would probably be accompanied by a statement from the government regarding what it was going to do. I want to ask the Minister of Finance how soon we may expect a statement from the government as to what financial assistance it is going to give to the coal industry and whether it is going to carry out the commitment make a year ago for the provision of some $25 million to rehabilitate the coal industry, particularly in Cape Breton?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when I made my earlier statement the government had been considering whether it would be issuing a statement at the same time as the release of the Donald report. Subsequent discussions led us to the conclusion that it would probably be better
Inquiries of the Ministry lor all concerned if the public had an opportunity of reading the report before a statement on policy was made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister how long the Donald report has been in the possession of the government and how soon the government expects to make its statement regarding financial assistance to the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia?


Mitchell William Sharp: The report has been in the hands of the government for some time and was not tabled until it was printed, but there has been no delay in the tabling of it. I expect the government will be in a position to make a statement on its policy soon but I cannot predict the exact date.


Malcolm MacInnis: Before asking a supplementary question may I make the observation, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the leader of the N.D.P. has been reading my mail. However, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of his government to stand by the word of the former minister of labour, of the Minister of Transport and of himself by making available to the Nova Scotia coal mining industry the $25 million which was promised, including the $10 million contained within that $25 million for the opening of a new mine at Lingan? The Prime Minister's word is on record in this respect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that when the policy is announced before long it will be seen that we will warrant the congratulations and good wishes of my hon. friend.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. It is a follow-up again to the question asked by the leader of the New Democratic Party of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance indicated that the Donald report has been in their hands for quite some time. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to explain why, when I asked on May 30 whether the government had received the Donald report, his answer at that time was that it was expected later in the week. Under what process could a report to be delivered later in the week come into the hands of the Queen's printer and be in the hands of the public in May, 1966?
Ociober 12, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we received the report in the manner described. It has taken considerable time to have it translated and made available.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and is based on the reply given by the Minister of Finance to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Who is to finalize the policy pertaining to the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia? Is it going to be the public or the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The government announces the policy, but surely my hon. friend will agree that the public should have the opportunity to make its views known on a matter of this importance when consideration is being given to it by the government. Surely that is the purpose of a democracy.


Robert Muir: That is a very good point, Mr. Speaker. Since it is a fact that it is now away over a year since the hon. member for In-verness-Richmond said there was going to be $25 million made available to the coal mining industry, with $10 million allotted to a new mine, when are we going to get some action?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In respect of a policy of such importance involving such expenditures of money, and a policy which we hope will be in effect for many many years, surely the hon. member will agree that it is wise to take the necessary time to make sure that it is a right policy.


John George Diefenbaker: Why announce the policy if it is not a right policy?


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that the public, which has a real interest in the Nova Scotia coal industry, is very much aware of what the situation is? Is the Prime Minister not aware that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, within the last two weeks in the constituency of Inverness-Richmond, restated the promise to give $25 million to the coal industry, including $10 million to open the new mine at Lingan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure my hon. friend will be very happy about the policy when it is announced.


OLD AGE SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PENSIONS On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that our senior citizens have been writing us to ask when the government will raise the pension for the needy by $30 to bring it to $105 a month, can the minister tell us when the government will proceed with this increase?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At this session, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker.
Will this old age pension be retroactive? Will there be a prior date or will those pensions be paid to the aged from the date of enactment?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is now anticipating the consideration of the legislation he has just referred to.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not the one who anticipates, but rather it is the old people of Canada who are anxious to get their pensions as soon as possible.


CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO ELECTION LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Now that the report of the committee on election expenses has been tabled in the house, when will this report along with the Canada Elections Act be referred to the committee on privileges and elections so that the desirable amendments to the Canada Elections Act can be made before the next time we need the provisions of this statute?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is desirable that this be done without delay. We will be discussing the matter tomorrow morning in cabinet and will endeavour to get it before the committee
October 12, 1966	COMMONS
without delay because it is very important that it be considered and action taken on it before the next election.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.


FARM MACHINERY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the inquiry concerning the cost of farm machinery will take some time to complete, according to the minister's statement in the house, would it not be possible in the meantime for the minister to bring in legislation whereby machinery companies cannot increase the price of farm machinery during the inquiry period?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the inquiry I understand that these machinery companies have been co-operating very effectively with the commissioner in his investigations, and I hope that in the same spirit the companies, in view of the inflationary problems with which the country is faced as well as the inquiry, will refrain from increasing prices prior to the determination of the inquiry. In respect of the question of current prices and whether there are current increases which are affecting the price of farm machinery, it certainly would be my view that a company should refrain, if at all possible, from increasing prices until we have the commission's report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the minister made any representations to the farm implement companies along the line he has just suggested?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I have had no representation or suggestion that price increases are mooted, but if I find they are I certainly would be prepared to make such a representation to the companies.
DEBATES	8587
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE


MEDICARE-REASONS FOR POSTPONEMENT OF INTRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of National Health and Welfare formally has approved of the postponement of medicare, I should like to ask him whether the postponement was partly due to a lack of medical personnel to carry it out satisfactorily and, as the leader of the New Democratic Party said a day or two ago, was it partly because of representations from provincial governments and provincial premiers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The reasons for the deferment have been stated in the house by the Minister of Finance. These are the reasons which account for the deferment.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for York-Humber asked me a question about commutation and I misunderstood him. I thought he was referring to the last commutation where there was a unanimous recommendation of the jury for mercy. In reading Hansard this morning I realized that he was referring to the second last commutation where there was no such recommendation. I apologize to him for having misunderstood his question.


HISTORIC SITES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In view of the fact that the minister, last Thursday night, notwithstanding his wishes, did not have time to finish his remarks on the memorial to Sir Alexander Galt, would he inform the house today of the nature of his project?
October 12. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should put his question on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: With regret I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that it is five o'clock and the house will now have to proceed to consideration of private members' business which is listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I crave the indulgence of the house while I give an answer to an urgent question that was asked yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed? ,


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN DAM CONSTRUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West yesterday asked a question as follows:
Did Premier Bennett of the province of British Columbia ask the federal government for financial assistance toward the cost of the construction of the dams being built under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty? If so, what was the federal government's response to his request?
The Prime Minister was asked this question without notice and said he was unaware of any such request. Mr. Speaker, I should correct this immediately with the following reply. On September 16 Mr. Bennett wrote to me to confirm certain fiscal requests he had submitted at the tax structure committee meeting on September 14. These include two items relating to the construction of hydroelectric developments: first, $30 million requested on behalf of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority resulting from increased costs of the Columbia river dams due to the imposition of the 11 per cent federal sales tax after the signing of the agreement and, second, government of Canada credit to be made available to the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority for its large capital construction programs. In such instances the government of the province of British Columbia would be willing to guarantee any borrowings involved.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In acknowledging this letter on September 23 I said that these requests would be taken into consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was any figure named with reference to the amount of credit asked?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as second assistant house leader perhaps I should ascertain whether or not hon. members would like to use the rest of our allotted time to proceed with government business so that we may accomplish something today.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's rigidity in opposition to the will of parliament and in view of the fact that this suggestion is the brainchild of the Minister of Transport, I think we should proceed with our normal business.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Private members' notices of motions-Mr. Rapp-
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of appointing a royal commission to investigate the increased costs of farm machinery across Canada, in relation to the price of farm products.
Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw this motion because the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) has already seen fit to appoint a royal commission to investigate farm machinery prices.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Private members' notices of motions-Mr. Smith-
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of having the unemployment insurance regulations amended to provide that barbers renting chairs from owners be classified as self-employed people as this is the case under the Income Tax Act.
[Mr. Allard.)
October 12, 1966
Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) has instructed me to ask that this motion be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the authority of the house to withdraw this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of setting up a special committee to study matters relating to the import, export, production, sale and purchase of firearms, and that this committee should study the advisability of amending the Criminal Code, section 82 and the following sections with regard to offensive weapons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to point out that the notice of motion includes the word "export" and that as Canada is obviously not a firearms' exporting country, I think it would be reasonable to delete the word "export" from the motion.
Newspapers reported recently, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, deemed it would be necessary for the federal government to exercise a more rigid control over the ticklish problem related to firearms. Moreover, the announcement came at the same time that President Johnson was also considering requiring from Congress tighter regulations in regard to the same problem.
Canada, Mr. Speaker, must not wait until a slaughter like the one in Austin, Texas, happens to solve such an urgent and complex problem.
I have studied this problem since the assassination of President Kennedy, and on January 20, 1966, I had the honour of presenting in the House of Commons the notice of motion which you have just read.
Since then I had the privilege of discussing it with many French-speaking and Englishspeaking Canadians; a private television station, Tele-metropole, on channel 10, even invited me to explain to the people my views on the control of firearms in Canada.
I can assure you that the comments received are favourable and that most people
Criminal Code
would be glad to see the Criminal Code amended so as to allow government control of firearms.
Indeed, it is the duty of the federal government to protect society with the means under its jurisdiction, of which the Criminal Code is one. It is also the duty of the federal government to co-operate with police forces in Canada and with financial institutions and particularly banks which spend millions of dollars each year on their own security. It is up to the federal government to take all the necessary steps to stop the crime wave which not only causes tremendous financial losses but also costs many human lives.
According to the daily bulletin of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, volume 24, number 231, dated Thursday, December 2, 1965, the number of people against whom charges are laid has increased from 389,326 in 1962 to 453,136 in 1964.
These figures speak for themselves and show clearly that the federal and provincial justice departments must join forces to fight this incredible increase in crime. Obviously, an increasingly closer co-operation between the services responsible for law and order is necessary and the fight against crime should be given priority by governments at all levels.
However, I should like to draw the attention of the house to offences reported by police involving the use of offensive weapons.. This DBS report shows that such offences are increasing. In 1962, 2,608 offences were reported, 2,900 in 1963 and 2,938 in 1964.
Offences do not tell of course the whole story as far as offensive weapons are concerned, because in many cases the offence will be classified under a different heading,, for instance, robbery with violence.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
And at present, statistics do not show separately the crimes committed with offensive weapons. While the minister responsible for statistics is here, I would like to call his attention to the fact that the statistics, at the present time do not show separately the crimes committed with offensive weapons.
A statement prepared by the Montreal police shows that between 1950 and 1957, the average yearly number of hold-ups in Montreal was 225, whereas in 1964 and 1965 it was 793 and 603 respectively.
The 1961-1964 edition, published in February 1966, of the book containing statistics on homicides shows that the number of homicides committed with firearms has increased from 84 in 1961 to 105 in 1965.

October 12, 1966
Criminal Code
Moreover, Mr. Justice Lazure said, a few years ago, that 75 per cent of crimes are committed with firearms, and this single remark could justify the remarks which are about to follow.
From those statistics, one could draw a lesson which can be summarized thus: prevention is better than cure.
Prevention in the field which concerns me would be a complete revision of the Criminal Code as far as importation, production, sale, purchase and possession of firearms are concerned.
This motion, Mr. Speaker, does not pretend to settle all the problems in that field. Before translating it into definite legislation, all persons concerned and all experts should be called upon to express their opinions: police chiefs, attorneys general, rifle clubs fish and game associations, collectors, manufacturers and dealers. However, this is a start since I am asking the government to control firearms from importation or manufacture to final sale.
The act which should normally follow this motion should restrict the use of firearms, which is much too free now, by setting up a systematic control, not only over the sale and purchase of firearms, as I said a while ago, but also over their manufacture and repair.
The act could and should provide that whoever has firearms in his possession should have a licence and that whoever manufactures, repairs, purchases or sells firearms, wholesale or retail, in Canada or on foreign markets, must keep proper and complete records of all operations concerning those firearms.
This motion will, I trust, draw the attention of the public on the problem. I hope that to help me in the task, intermediary bodies, newspapers, radio and television stations, in one word, all information media will also draw the public attention on this urgent and complex problem. It requires the full co-operation of all levels of government, the population, the police forces and the financial institutions.
Already in 1960, the federal government proceeded here with the consideration of the problem of firearms. A non official committee was entrusted with considering the provision of the Criminal Code concerning firearms; that committee was composed of representatives of the legal branch of the Department of Justice, the Department of National Revenue, the R.C.M.P. and the Canadian

Association of Police Chiefs. It considered the matter with great care but the department did not proceed with certain recommendations because opinions were divided and, in some cases, contradictory. It has now been inactive since fall 1963.
But as this committee could not agree and reach majority conclusions and since this is a complex, huge, important and urgent problem, I think it would be better to set up a special committee of the house to deal with it, as was done in the case of the committees on pensions and the flag.
As I mentioned earlier, this committee could call as witnesses experts and representatives of public bodies interested in this ticklish subject, such as members of the Wildlife Federation, representatives of hunting, fishing and shooting clubs, collectors of ancient weapons, representatives of the law at all levels of government, law enforcement officers, weapon manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, customs officers and prison wardens. The report of this committee could serve as the basis of a bill concerning sections of the Criminal Code dealing with firearms.
I think the federal government should seriously consider the restriction of the right of any citizen to possess or use firearms and the amendment of sections of the Criminal Code dealing with the control of firearms. The press and justices of assize courts as well as magistrates of police courts are complaining against the fact that practically anybody, even very young persons, can today purchase firearms. Public opinion has been aroused and people request that concrete steps should be taken to limit the right to own firearms and that it should be made more difficult to obtain permits.
The rate of crimes involving armed aggression which I mentioned earlier shows that criminals can too readily secure firearms without abiding by regulations, that is the Criminal Code or the Customs Act. This can be explained by four factors.
First of all, there are thefts in stores selling firearms and there have been thefts in barracks. There is also the illegal importation of firearms from the United States where the firearms business has even a freer hand than in Canada. Incidentally, I was pleased to learn through the press that senator Thomas Dodd's committee has been doing a tremendous job in urging the American government to exercise a strict control over firearms.
There is also a lack of control in the sale of firearms from the wholesaler to the retailer
October 12. 1966

and, finally, it is easy to modify firearms which are not affected by the restrictions described in sections of the Criminal Code dealing with registration of certain types of weapons.
In December 1965, Mr. Leo Lavoie, general manager of the Provincial Bank and vice president of the Canadian Bankers Association voiced vigorous protest against mercy granted by the authorities for armed offences in the following terms:
Chartered banks are fully conscious of their own responsibilities with regard to security within their respective branches. It seems, however, that the continuous increase in the number of robberies in certain parts of the country and the more frequent use of firearms could be attributed to sentences obviously not proportionate to the seriousness of crimes committed with the help or the use of lethal weapons.
And a little further on-
-the presence of a revolver should surely be admitted as proof of intent to make use thereof.
Exactly, what is the definition of a firearm? Section 98(b) of the Criminal Code gives the following definition:
"Firearm" means a pistol, revolver, or a fire arm that is capable of firing bullets in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger;
As we can see, this definition does not apply to a large number of firearms which are automatically left out of this definition found in section 98(b).
The police in particular have made several suggestions aimed at solving the problem, among which I have selected a certain number which could be the object of detailed study on the part of special committee, which I suggest should be set up. This committee could consider the advisability, in order to provide more efficient control, of deleting from the Criminal Code sections 82 to 98 inclusive, dealing with offensive weapons, and of drawing up special legislation with regard to all types of weapons. This law could contain regulations concerning standards for owning, storing, importing, manufacturing, selling, purchasing, which could be amended according to circumstances by the Minister of Justice without having to go through the house, just as we have a special act, the Explosives Act.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Among these regulations, there should be one grouping fire arms into two well-defined categories. First, weapons of restricted use and requiring the issuance of a permit and compulsory registration; second, prohibited weapons.
Criminal Code
Provision should also be made for more severe and even drastic penalties for people convicted of an offence against the new act.
The law should provide for imprisonment without the alternative of a fine. Today, our courts impose a minimum fine in the case of every person caught in possession of firearms without a permit. The penalty provided should be more severe than it is now and the judge should also have power to order the firearms confiscated for good. Sentences should be served separately instead of simultaneously.
The whole section of the Criminal Code dealing with the issuing of permits should likewise be reviewed. In the case of criminals already possessing a police record, firearms permits should undoubtedly be refused.
The permit itself should constitute a proof of authenticity and it should be impossible to print such a permit without having the necessary paper, as is required for the printing of paper money or voting ballots. The form used at present can be printed by anyone in the trade. It goes without saying that the form should be bilingual, instead of unilingual as at present. The applicant for a permit or the purchaser of a firearm should be required to identify himself fully and completely, so as to ensure that the permit holder or the owner of a firearm is actually the same person entered in the records. A full investigation should be conducted regarding every applicant, even though it may involve some delay in the issue of the permit.
Nowadays, armed convicts with a heavy past and extensive criminal records can stroll about the streets. The applicant for a permit should sit for an examination proving his knowledge and his ability to handle firearms, just as a person who wishes to drive a car must do so, before obtaining a permit.
Section 94 of the Code authorizes the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. and the attorney general of a province to deliver such permits. Since section 94 authorizes the attorney general of a province to deliver permits in a province, the authorization granted to the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. is restricted to the issuance of interprovincial permits as in the case of employees of shipping companies. The local registrar of firearms has now a discretionary power for the issuance of permits.
Fortunately, in Quebec, the issuing and renewal of permits are subject to very strict regulations and I believe that a permit should be required for any firearm, even for sports.
8S92

October 12, 1986
Criminal Code
It should also be prohibited not only to saw off the barrel of a firearm to less than 20 inches, but also to alter firearms to specifications other than those of the manufacturer. For instance, the "FN" rifle, which can now be purchased without a permit, can be altered by inserting a small piece of cardboard of the necessary thickness to produce a submachine gun. Recently another type of gun was put on the market, the "Enforcer". This firearm is described as a pistol in catalogues, but its operation requires both hands, and a slight alteration is all that is required to make it into a submachine gun.
Why are some companies allowed to make rifles with barrels shorter than 20 inches since such firearms are prohibited by the Criminal Code. The legislation dealing with the import of firearms should also be revised in order to avoid a conflict of authority between customs officials and provincial police forces.
The new legislation should control firearms at the source, either at the import level or the production level. The makers of firearms should be forced to get a special permit. They should also be compelled to keep a detailed record of their sales and to make a monthly report to the authorities concerned.
Retailers should be forbidden to have in stock firearms other than those covered by a permit in Montreal, in Quebec city and in Eastview, where firearms were stolen in retail stores, criminals got their hands on automatic rifles, submachine guns and automatic revolvers.
If such firearms are completely prohibited, Mr. Speaker, how is it that dealers are authorized to sell them? Stores doing business in firearms should be forced-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Two more minutes, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, stores dealing in firearms should be required to take greater safety measures to protect their premises. They should be required to send the police a monthly report

indicating clearly the names and addresses of those who bought firearms. At present, they must keep a register to which the police has access whenever it deems it advisable.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the persons who supplied me with the information on which I based my observations, namely Hon. Claude Wagner, former minister of justice in Quebec, Mr. J.-A. Robert, director of the provincial police, Mr. Roland Perron, deputy chief of the Montreal police, Mr. George Shea, secretary treasurer of the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, Mr. J.-G.-R. Senecal, of the customs division, Mr. W. A. McGill, head of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, judiciary.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on this motion. I wonder where the former speaker was raised to have put forward such a proposal in the hope that this house would support him. He has not defined what he means by the control of firearms except to say that special permits should be issued and monthly reports made. Let me tell him that I have used firearms ever since I was old enough to pack them, and it is the privilege and the requirement of sensible people in the west to have firearms in their homes for the shooting of hawks, gophers, coyotes and predatory animals. The hon. member thinks that amendments should be made to the Criminal Code which would deny us freedom in the use of firearms. When our children are old enough we buy them a .22 and take them out to shoot gophers. We teach them how to handle firearms and we teach them safety methods. We teach them that whenever they have a gun in their possession they must never point it at a person but always toward the ground. These things are drilled into our young people and their friends. We have been brought up with firearms. I say this about the common run of people.
The second point I wish to make is that what the hon. member proposes to do by amending the Criminal Code will not stop anyone from being shot or murdered. He is mistaken and is jumping to conclusions when he thinks that this is the way to stop people from being shot. Before this debate is over he will be made to realize that his is a fallacious argument and that other means should be sought. I think the hon. member was not too far off the track when he spoke about the education of younger people in the use of firearms.
October 12, 1966

Another point is that in our area the shooting of partridge, pheasants, ducks and geese brings in thousands and thousands of dollars. The same is true of big game. Many people engage in this sport and they buy firearms for this purpose. We all have firearms and we use them to have a little fun and pleasure. It is part of many citizens' desire to go out and get a moose or a deer. Is the hon. member going to deny them that pleasure? Will he make them sign something every month that they have a firearm? Will he end sportsmanship in this country under the guise of trying to stop murders committed by people in the possession of firearms? You just cannot do it. You are on the wrong track in what you are seeking to do. You are following a will-o'-the-wisp. You are looking at a simple way of doing it and the way you are suggesting will not take care of the situation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
A sportsman has the right to exist. The government has a right to the revenues that are obtained from the sale of firearms for sporting purposes. I should not like to see this parliament be so stupid as to pass a law that would forbid the sportsmen of this country the right to be sportsmen. I happen to enjoy the privilege of hunting when I have the time. Hundreds and hundreds of people all over the west do the same thing. If my friend is from one of those eastern cities in which somebody gets a gun and shoots somebody, I suggest that changing the Criminal Code will in no way curtail that. You can put all the laws on the statute books that you want, but these people who want to shoot other people will get guns to do it. The thing to do is to use education to train people to use weapons correctly. A certain amount of training for sportsmen and other people is absolutely necessary.
I can give my hon. friend an illustration. In the Arctic, at Aklavik, the people carry guns all the time but nobody ever gets shot. In the Mackenzie River delta the people shoot millions of muskrats during the wintertime. In order to save the fur of the muskrat you have to be able to shoot the muskrat right through the eye or through the head. In the public school at Aklavik the principal who is called "Moose"-he is a real man and does a good job of teaching the children-conducts target practice in the basement of the school in order that these people will be able to shoot muskrats through the head and thus have these most valuable pelts. I just mention this 23033-543J
Criminal Code
one illustration. Go anywhere in the Northwest Territories and you will find people using guns. They must carry guns. This gentleman here in the back row would have them report once a month and if they did not report once a month he would say they were violating the Criminal Code.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Would the hon. member give me a chance to explain? I think there is one part of my statement that was not understood. I mentioned that every month the manufacturer or dealer in firearms should report, not that the people possessing firearms should report. This is quite different.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Well, one regulation leads to another. What you are aiming at is an inventory of all weapons. I see the hon. member who represents the constituency west of me laughing.


Mr. Byrne:: I said it was a good pun; he is aiming at something.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I doubt it. The hon. member for Kootenay East, who represents the riding just west of me, knows very well what the people of his riding would think about this piece of legislation. They would not care a damn about it. They do not want it. They would not be long in telling him so either, because they are used to firearms. The hon. member for Kootenay East has used firearms to shoot bear, moose and other animals in his part of the country. He goes shooting ducks once in a while. Yes, perhaps he even shoots the bull. However, he would be the last one to want this type of legislation.
People have written to me about it and that is why I have taken the trouble to speak on this measure. One person at Okotoks, who has been a sportsman all his life and has been engaged in the sale of firearms, has written to me on many occasions about bills such as this. I hope this is the last one that will be brought before the house. I have referred these letters to the Department of Justice in order that they may know what the people of the country think. We do not want to penalize everybody because someone thinks that what he is proposing is going to correct a problem. Nobody wants to see the shooting of other people. Nobody wants to see the use of firearms abused, but at the same time what the hon. member is proposing will not solve the problem.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words on this bill but I should like to begin by saying

October 12, 1966
Criminal Code
that I have some measure of sympathy for the argument advanced by the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc). At the same time, I find that I am in some agreement with the remarks, though perhaps not the manner in which they were advanced, of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt). I say that because certainly anything that this house can do within reason to eliminate the misuse of firearms should be done. If amendments to the Criminal Code are a way of doing it effectively, then I would have no objection to that.
However, I have to say that I do not believe the kind of amendment advanced by the hon. member for Laurier will in fact do anything at all to eliminate the misuse of firearms. There is no disagreement about the fact there is a problem that should be dealt with, but the imposition of severe restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms is not going to do it. I challenge the hon. member for Laurier to produce any statistics to indicate that a firearm purchased from an authorized and licensed dealer has been used by some person to commit a murder or otherwise used in a criminal act.
I think it is a fact that in most cases firearms which have been used for criminal acts have been stolen weapons. Putting this restriction on a large part of the Canadian population is certainly not going to get at the root of the problem, which is to stop the theft of firearms and the misuse of them thereafter. If we are going to accept severe restrictions upon dealers and purchasers of firearms, such as those that have been outlined, I hope we can be given an argument that carries more weight. An argument in the same vein could be advanced, for example, with regard to the sale of automobiles. They kill far more people than firearms and do so consistently every week of every month of every year. There are pieces of equipment or devices commonly used by large numbers of the Canadian population that are extremely dangerous if misused.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member has had the opportunity of bringing before the house some of the problems involved in connection with the misuse of firearms, I hope he will be unable to convince members of the house that even a small measure of correction of this misuse can be found in bringing in this severe restriction and imposing it upon hundreds of thousands of Canadians who buy firearms and use them properly.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) I too was a gopher shooter in my boyhood days. I recall very clearly the days I spent in the fields around Crown Hill just outside my home town of Barrie. However, let me say at the outset that the motion moved by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) is, in my humble opinion, a very timely one, and I congratulate him on bringing it forward at his first opportunity even though he may have preferred to be with his delegates and constituents listening to the big and little guns of the Liberal party which are still firing over at the Chateau Laurier.
With increasing population and development in our cities and towns there is added opportunity and temptation to commit crimes of violence. I submit that a review of the law with respect to the carriage, possession, custody and other aspects of firearms and other offensive weapons should be made during the life of this parliament. However, I do not think that all members would agree that a special committee should be formed.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I think that the subject matter of this motion should be referred to the existing standing committee on justice and legal affairs. I feel that it is exceptionally well equipped under its chairman, the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron), to deal with a subject matter of this kind. While I think there is need for the suggested review, I do not believe there should be any radical disarming of our solid citizens and police officers across the nation.
Police officers in England are not armed but in that country a different situation obtains. They have there a few lonely stretches but they are few and far between. In Canada we have vast areas of uninhabited country consisting of bush and swamp, areas that a man would be foolish to traverse or to inhabit without firearms to defend his person, his family and his possessions.
Furthermore, there are many species of deer, rabbits, varmints and pests that need to be harvested annually or at least occasionally to keep them under control. Perhaps the constituency of Macleod does have a gopher problem, but we all know that Australia certainly has a rabbit problem and that in New Zealand professional hunters are employed all year round to keep the ever-abun-dant deer population from destroying farmers' crops. They are a real menace there. We do not have to go to the cost of controlling
October 12. 1966

our wildlife when animals become pests in this country.
Again, there are many sportsmen in Canada who have proven that they are experts in the use and control of firearms, for example, in trap and skeet shooting on ranges, and in all forms of hunting, whether it be bird, big game or varmints. I submit that these men are foremost in good citizenship and conservation projects and, when need be, in the defence of their country.
I would hate to see any law passed, Mr. Speaker, which would deprive the farmer or the sportsman of his right to possess and to use legally a legal length rifle or a shotgun. I also think there are others who are entitled to use firearms, such as a banker in a small village who might need a pistol or revolver in his branch for protection. I am sure there are many cases where it would make common sense and would be advisable to issue permits for firearms, both short and long.
The present law relating to offensive weapons can cause serious problems to innocent Individuals as the law now stands. I recall a case I handled some years ago where a Hudson Bay factor travelling by train to Toronto happened to open his suitcase in the train to show something inside it to a person with whom he had become acquainted. In doing so a pistol came into the view of some of the passengers on the train. A lady on the train became quite excited and called in the railway police who arrested this factor.
The fact is that this person had been in the north for so long that apparently he could not quite make himself understood in his nervous condition. He was arrested and charges were laid under section 82 of the Code and I believe also another section. He was pretty well hounded by a combination of railway and other police, taken to court and put to a very expensive defence. His only mistake was that he failed to realize when coming from the far north to the south of the country that there would be a different application of the law and probably in a moment of forgetfulness he had put the pistol which he needed for his own protection in the north into his suitcase, though not having a permit to carry it. That is the kind of trouble that he got into. So I would submit there are one or two aspects of the law as it now stands which could be criticized, altered and improved.
I recall that during the last war a problem arose over thefts of firearms from manufacturers such as John Inglis and other small
Criminal Code
arms plants. A few of the people who worked in these plants would steal parts of firearms which would be assembled outside the plant. I recall that the police had quite a problem with this sort of thing for some time after the war. I know of one man who was slain by such a weapon.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
There is no question in my mind that the indiscriminate distribution of firearms, including defensive weapons, is a bad thing for this country. I recall that after the last war my brother brought back from Germany a Schmeiser, which I believe is sort of a German submachine gun. It is a rapid-fire weapon. Shortly after the government passed a regulation requiring people holding such weapons to divulge that fact. The R.C.M.P. attended, and with considerable regret we saw this war trophy leave our home. But we recognized that that weapon could be stolen and that it was in the best interests that the government's regulation be carried out.
The regulation of firearms in Canada is not in the hands of the federal government. Gun licences and permits are issued by provincial authorities and certain other aspects are controlled by them. In looking into this situation, therefore, it would be necessary to consider the rights and interests of the ten provinces.
Witnesses as to the modern state of affairs in government circles and in police, military and sporting circles, with respect to the question of firearms and defensive weapons, should welcome the call to arms discussion which I hope the hon. member for Laurier has initiated.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on this motion. A consensus has arisen about this matter to the effect that in essence some consideration should be given to revising the rules concerning firearms but that the hon. member who sponsored the motion has gone much too far.
This question has been discussed on a large scale in the United States because of the unfortunate assassinations there. There has been resistance to changing the rules governing firearms for the very reasons which have been given by hon. members, namely, that the use of firearms in itself is not illegal and that we should not assume that licensing weapons will eliminate their illegal use. Those, I think, are proper assumptions to make. We know very well that anyone bent on assassination, illegal activity or violence

October 12, 1966
Criminal Code
can obtain and conceal a weapon. In fact, in some cases this is done so that identification will not be too easy.
I do not think that the immediate objective of preventing crime or reducing the number of violent crimes would be met by what the hon. member has suggested. Since the hon. member put this motion on the order paper we have had an incident in this house. I am sure that had he put the motion down after that incident be would have included a reference to explosives. Following the incident here we found that explosives were extremely easy to obtain without licence, and apparently without difficulty. I think this shocked many people.
The second point arising out of that incident was that the man in question was encouraged to do what he did by having spoken to someone who suggested that it would be very easy to throw dynamite or a bomb into this house. There is something to be said, therefore, for a form of licensing which will will not make violent weapons so easy to use. The hon. member has brought before the house a suggestion meriting consideration, but I do not think anyone feels that we should go as far as he suggests.
To bring my remarks to a conclusion, may I summarize. First, I think there should be a better system of licensing offensive weapons, not for the purpose of eliminating them or reducing their numbers or use but merely so that it will be known where they are. Second, the use or ownership of such weapons should not be limited. Finally, in connection with and in addition to licensing, instruction on safety measures ought to be given.
I think that the bringing of these questions before some interested body would be well worth while. I am not sure that a special committee is the proper place. I think that this sort of thing should originate with the Department of Justice and the Attorneys General. The government on its own responsibility should bring in legislation. Following that, I suppose the matter would be referred to a committee.
I feel that we are doing too much by way of committee work on some matters that are strictly for the administration of justice to deal with. In this case I believe the better thing would be for the government to ask the
Minister of Justice to consult with all the persons interested, the Attorneys General, sportmen's clubs and so forth, so that some consensus will be reached about what is actually required in order to bring in legislation.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker as I do not believe in the principle that a bill or a motion should be talked out, I shall forego my right to speak.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I concur with the hon. member that too many bills in this house are talked out. However, we have before us today a motion which, as has been pointed out, is somewhat imperfect. The hon. member who has introduced it also has a bill on the order paper. I presume there will be an opportunity of discussing the specific suggestions at the time it is debated.
With respect to the motion I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) is excellent. I am glad he has not taken the attitude of airily dismissing this problem in the way the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) did. I think the matter should be carefully examined to make sure that better safety measures are found. This is our first concern. I believe it ought to be examined in the Department of Justice. When the hon. member for Laurier brings forward his bill I hope at that time it will appear in the interests of this house and of all citizens of Canada that it be referred to a committee, perhaps to the committee on justice and legal affairs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to ask the acting house leader what the business will be for tomorrow.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, we shall again attempt to call item 82, commonly known as the medicare bill.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 13, 1966