1966-03-14

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday and Friday last, during the discussion on certain aspects of what has come to be known as the Munsinger case, I announced the willingness, indeed the desire of the government to set up a judicial inquiry which would go into this case, into the statements that had been made concerning it, into the allegations that had been made.
I did so believing this would be the best way to deal with this matter, and the house will recall that there was a good deal of support for this idea in principle. There was also strong opposition advanced to it in certain quarters. Those, Mr. Speaker, who supported this procedure as the best way to deal with this matter made as a qualification or a reservation to their support that the terms of reference of any order in council setting up a judicial inquiry should be wide enough to deal with all relevant aspects of the situation.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
It also was urged that we should proceed as quickly as possible to deal with this matter, if the commission was to be set up. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that we have dealt with this matter as quickly as possible, that an order in council has been agreed on and I hope it can be tabled during the afternoon. We shall institute a judicial inquiry into the statements that have been made, and they are given in considerable detail in the order in council. I think they cover all the relevant facts, and I believe they meet the points which have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite, that the inquiry must be comprehensive. The inquiry, Mr. Speaker, will be conducted by Mr. Justice Spence of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if I may say one word more, that we are in an unhappy and distressing situation was made apparent by some of the very moving speeches made last Thursday and Friday. Indeed I think it is accurate to
say we are in a frightening position so far as parliament is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, this is no sudden development; it is the culmination, I believe, of a long period of sessions of this house carried on in an atmosphere of extreme partisanship, and at times of bitterness and tension or suspicion. This has been all the more difficult to change for the better because of a parliamentary situation where no party has had majority after three elections in four years-


An hon. Member:: That has nothing to do with it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and because of a national situation where forces of regionalism, nationalism and division, which were bound to make more difficult the position of any central government, have been strong in this country. Mr. Speaker, I make no attempt to assess the blame for this situation; but I state as solemnly as I can that tf we cannot in this house do something effective, and do it well, to change an atmosphere and attitude which disgraces parliament and demeans democracy, we all will have betrayed the trust and hopes of those who sent us here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This parliamentary deterioration over the years has taken place at a time when our country, as it approaches the centennial anniversary which should be a time for pride and thanksgiving, is faced with less of confidence than anxiety, with social, constitutional, racial and economic problems of a difficulty and complexity unequalled in our history.
Mr. Speaker, I can only plead that we show our awareness of this by a new resolve to face up to our duties as parliamentarians and as Canadians, constructively and generously, by dealing now with the important matters that must be decided in this session of parliament, so we can serve the people of our country who have sent us here for that purpose, and for that purpose alone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. On several occasions in the last ten days I have publicly stated that I did not
March 14, 1966

Administration of Justice know a person by the name of Olga Mun-singer. A person by that name is now reported to have said that she lunched with me twice, seven or eight years ago. She may well be right. Although I still do not recall knowing any person by that name, I have examined the pictures of that person in the Saturday newspapers and I believe I recognize the woman pictured there. I make this statement, Mr. Speaker, to prevent anyone from being misled by my previous statements, made without the benefit of information now available.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a further point abundantly clear. The real and only issue which arises from the charges made last week by the Minister of Justice both inside and outside this house, is the security of the nation. That is the overriding consideration, and I hasten to assure the house that at no time has my personal conduct jeopardized security. I defy the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to say that I ever did anything to jeopardize or affect the security of my country. I challenge them now to stand up and say that I did.
Subject always to the nation's security and welfare, who my acquaintances are or may have been, or who the acquaintances of any hon. member of this house are or may have been is not a public issue. Mr. Speaker, Canadians everywhere have viewed the recent debate in this house with grave concern. I hope this statement will assist in restoring public respect for and confidence in this house and its members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, as has just been said, this parliament is at a crisis, a crisis which calls upon all its members to think first of the institution and not of their personal or partisan position. This I intend to be the guiding principle in what I have to say this afternoon. But I have some things to say which I think the house is entitled to hear and which may cast some light upon the situation, light which will help us to sort our way out of the situation on the one hand and avoid falling into such situations again on the other.
With the principles as stated by the Prime Minister a moment ago as to the position of parliament, I fully agree. With the approach stated a moment ago by my colleague the hon. member for Northumberland, we all agree. But it must be said, sir-I shall return

to that theme at the close of my remarks-that one could have wished the Prime Minister had not given such belated recognition to that principle.
It must be said also that the situation in which we find ourselves today is clearly and entirely the result of its having been brought on deliberately, and by the deliberate policy and course of this government over the past week or 10 days. In some of the remarks I have to make I find myself in a distasteful position because they reflect upon the office of the Minister of Justice; but it is inevitable that the matter be put in its proper context. They reflect also upon the Prime Minister and his conduct; because not only, I assure you, do I realize that the government have placed themselves on trial but they have placed parliament on trial, and they have brought us close to the ruin of this institution.
What is happening? What are we seeing in the attempt that has been made and the attempt that it appears is still being made? I suggest to you, sir, that we are seeing something attempted which we have never seen before in the history of any major, successful democracy; a witch hunt against former governments and their leaders, a witch hunt which might be acceptable on the basis of some form of tribal rite but which one would have hoped was below and behind the stage to which this country of Canada has progressed; a witch hunt carried out on the basis of security matters.
Challenges have been hurled across the floor of this house: "If you don't be quiet about the matter you are speaking of now, I will expose the files." Sir, who can this help? It can help only the enemies of the state. It can only do damage to parliament and to the parties involved, who should be here on the basis of their desire to serve the state.
We see a witch hunt on the basis of evidence slim and shoddy. What is being asked but the trial of a former Prime Minister; "open up the files. Expose everything you can find and we will put him on trial and we will get him." That is what they said over there, and said deliberately and not accidentally; "Put him on trial, not in parliament. Put on trial all those who were members of the former government. Not in parliament, no. We will not answer in parliament, where charges should be substantiated. We will not even make the charges in parliament. We make them outside and then we put them on trial in another forum even while parliament
March 14, 1966	COMMONS
is sitting. We will not allow them to know what the charges are here. We will not allow them to see the flies and the records upon which, it there is any basis, these charges must be based."
Sir, I find it difficult to find words to describe what has been attempted. This invitation for the next government elected, when we are that government, to hunt through the files to see whether we can find anything embarrassing to members of the former government, will be rejected by us. Who of us would be so conceited as to say that there could never be found anything to embarrass us? But democratic government will not work on that basis. As I say, if this course is persisted in we are facing the ruination of our system and of this institution.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what are the allegations that have been made? They involve the privileges especially of members of the former government, though of all members of the house. Are they allegations which are being made in the heat of the moment? Or are they being made as the result of a deliberate decision backed up by the whole government, and backed up with the authority of the Prime Minister? They are in that second category. The practice which is now being followed constitutes an invitation to reply to the threat, now being implemented, by saying that we will tell all we know. Sir, we will not. We will not follow this tactic. However, let me remind the Prime Minister that when we assumed office there were plenty of security files. Let me remind the Prime Minister that never once did we mention them, and we do not intend to do so now.
Mention of the Munsinger case by name was first made in this house on March 4 by the present Minister of Justice. Even then he used the wrong name. That mention, sir, was not accidental. It was not done in the heat of the moment as the result of a sudden provocation. All along a deliberate course has been followed, the background to which was revealed by the Prime Minister on Friday when he clearly proved that the government had long ago decided they were going, to paraphrase his words, "to teach the opposition a lesson no matter how disastrous the consequences".


Lester Bowles Pearson: When did I say that? Would the hon. gentleman quote my words in that respect?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The words about provocation are to be found at page
DEBATES	2615
Administration of Justice 2547 of Hansard for March 11. I have them before me. The Prime Minister said:
I have before me a great many clippings of statements made by members opposite about cleaning up the mess, prosecuting wrongdoers and international crime getting into the office of the Prime Minister-all that kind of thing. Were names named then? Of course they were not. We have been subjected to this kind of treatment now, for too long over here. And reputations have been ruined over here.
Then he went on:
Now those gentlemen on the other side of the house who have been so free with their accusations over the last few years are getting a little of it, and they don't like it.
Now, sir, I would ask whether words could more clearly establish that this course was deliberately embarked upon and that it had the approbation and support of the Prime Minister. Nothing, sir, could more clearly prove that accusation than the words he uttered on that occasion. Of course it has been deliberate.
It has been mentioned outside, and I will mention it here, that some eight days before, when the case was first mentioned on Friday, March 4 by the Minister of Justice, I was asked to go to the office of the President of the Privy Council to discuss the matter of the Spencer case. In the course of the conversation that ensued I was told in effect that if we persisted in discussing the Spencer case, and persisted in the course of asking for a judicial inquiry, members on that side of the house-on the government side would feel impelled to name the Munsinger case.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Fulion:: I said to him at that time that members of the government must accept responsibility for their own actions, and we would accept responsibility for our present and previous actions. I said at that time, "Surely this sort of thing must and should be ended by your following the proper course, the course of appointing a judicial inquiry to remove the cloud that hangs over the head of your own Minister of Justice, of whom it has been said by Mr. Spencer that the Minister of Justice, did not dare to prosecute because if he did, heads would roll."
I invited the President of the Privy Council to end the kind of discussion that had been going on-to end it and to end the possibility of this name-calling process by appointing a judicial inquiry that would end the discussion and remove the cloud. That, sir, was not done. The debate continued, and was followed up with the naming of the case in this
March 14. 1966

Administration of Justice house by the Minister of Justice some eight days later.
I was invited to convey this information to my leader, the Leader of the Opposition. I did not do so for eight days, and I did not do so as a result of a deliberate decision, a decision that I would not be a purveyor of threats of that kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Ross Fulton: I did not mention the matter to the Leader of the Opposition, until the morning of Friday, March 4. I told him then that because of the course the debate on the Spencer case was taking, and because of the mention of myself, in the position I had formerly occupied, I felt that I, too, must enter into the debate, that there were certain things that should be said. I told him then that I felt if the debate was to continue there was a possibility that the Munsinger case would be mentioned. But I also said that I felt the Spencer debate should continue; and if it did, we had nothing to be ashamed of.
The Leader of the Opposition agreed with me. The debate continued. The case was mentioned. After the case had been mentioned I then identified to the Leader of the Opposition personally the cabinet minister who had uttered the threat.
Now, sir, on that basis and on the basis of the fact that even after that, when the Spencer case was disposed of on the basis that it would be referred to a judicial commission of inquiry as we had been asking, one would have thought that matters would resume an even keel. We all thought and we all hoped that the atmosphere would be such that this parliament could carry out the business which it has met here to accomplish.
Instead of that, on Thursday or Wednesday of last week-


An hon. Member:: Thursday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -the Minister of Justice resurrected the whole matter and went far beyond that situation by giving a press conference. The press conference was on Thursday of last week. Sir, press conferences do not take place by accident. They are arranged. There is some suggestion that the Prime Minister did not know about it and was astounded and appalled, but he has adopted it. He has adopted it and is backing up the tactics of his Minister of Justice, tactics which are bringing this parliament to the verge of ruin. And what is more important, sir, the Prime Minister in

fact brought the matter to the level of partisan politics and issued a challenge to the opposition, as reported in Hansard, page 2547, to make the matter of the Munsinger case and the government's handling of this situation the subject matter of a vote of non-confidence on the supply motion that was to have come in today. The Prime Minister therefore has so far adopted and approved of everything that has been done in this connection on that side that he has invited us to make it the subject of a motion of non-confidence.
Sir, I am not going to attempt any prediction of what will be the outcome of that challenge, or of the supply motion when it comes. I think, however, I can properly say, as the Leader of the Opposition said and as I have said also in connection with the threat of exposure, the so-called threat of exposure, that this party does not succumb to threats of blackmail of that kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Ross Fulton: We are not going to be trapped or forced or pushed in any way into any improper course by the threat the Prime Minister held out when he spoke of making this the subject matter of a vote of nonconfidence. We are going to follow a course, a responsible course, of declining the temptation to reply in the same tactics. We are going to follow the responsible course of doing everything we can, faced though we are with a government whose tactics have deprived it of the respect of the members of the house, to make parliament work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Ross Fulton: Now, sir, what are the allegations that have been made. I have not seen the proposed terms of reference for the judicial inquiry into the Munsinger case. I do not know whether they will be satisfactory or not, if a judicial inquiry is to be set up at all. However, the fact of the matter is that allegations have been made and discussed in this house. In my view it is doubtful if the damage can be repaired simply by referring the matter to a judicial inquiry.
The Minister of Justice has alleged a breach of security in connection with the Munsinger case, a case in which I was involved, a case handled by the government of which I had the honour to be a member, and he has alleged breach of security in such a way as to place all former members of that government under suspicion, and to place myself as former minister of justice in a
March 14. 1966	COMMONS
position where, by inference, I have been careless and have been party to carelessness and mishandling of a security case.
I have read carefully the press reports of the press conference, and what the Minister of Justice has said since, mostly outside this house. I do not think anyone would disagree with me when I say that a careful examination of these reports establishes what his allegations are, what his insinuations are, and therefore establishes clearly and precisely what it is that he must prove in order to substantiate these charges.
I want to summarize the proof that he is called upon to give in order to substantiate these charges, and then deal with the file and the facts in order to show that he is completely incapable of substantiating any of them. Here is what he has to prove, sir. First, that "two or more ministers" were improperly involved with Mrs. Munsinger and that their actions in that involvement had been such as to be "definitely" a security risk to Canada.
Second, he must prove that the file turned over to the Minister of Justice by the R.C.M. Police in 1961 was "a bona fide security case".
Third, he must prove that a breach of the national security or some other offence was indicated in the file, thereby imposing a duty on the Minister of Justice to refer the file to the legal advisers in the Department of Justice.
Fourth, he must prove that Mrs. Munsinger was known to have been employed and to have been active in espionage work before coming to Canada.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Those are the things he has to prove with respect to the general allegations. I shall deal a little later with the proof he must bring with respect to his allegation against the Leader of the Opposition.
I shall deal now with the file and the facts as established by the file. I have asked to see the file-to see the file as it was when I dealt with it. This has been refused.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


James Ross Fulton: Administration of Justice
So, sir, this reasonable request that I be allowed access to the file so that I might speak from a recent, immediate review instead of a recollection of five years ago, is refused with no adequate reason assigned.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course if there is a judicial commission the file must go to it, but allowing me to inspect it for the matter of an hour is not going to interfere with that. The only inference to be drawn from the facts is that it is all right for the Minister of Justice to make charges and accusations and innuendos without ever looking at the file, but it is not all right for the member of the opposition most immediately involved in this aspect of the case to look at the file before he replies. We are not to see it. The only inference to be drawn, and I do draw it, sir, is the inference that the file, the facts contained on the file and the facts surrounding the file refute the charges made by the Minister of Justice, and the government opposite know it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Ross Fulton: I suggest, sir, that the course followed by the Prime Minister in that refusal is the course of a man deficient in courtesy and courage.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. Would he think it would be proper for me to use information gained from this file in support of any statements I might wish to make in the house concerning this matter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would expect, but apparently it is too much to expect, that the Prime Minister or any one undertaking to make statements about the Munsinger case would look at the file before he did so, so he would know whether his statements are accurate or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not, of course, suggesting that facts which it is improper to reveal and information it is improper to give be given, but we are entitled to discuss this file and see what it establishes within the realm of protection of police procedures. This I am denied. I hope the Prime Minister has seen the file. Obviously the Minister of Justice has not although he, as Minister of Justice, had the full right and authority to call for that file at any time, and should have done so before he made these statements.

It is a sorry situation, sir, when we have it now revealed by the attitude and the words of the Prime Minister that they prefer to make charges based on ignorance, and to smear reputations without examining documents rather than take the normal precaution of seeing whether there is any foundation in fact for what they are saying.
I am, then, in the position, sir, where I have not been able to review the file as I would like to, but nevertheless I am clear in my recollection of certain salient points and, within the limits of what it is proper for me to disclose, I intend to state what I recall of the report and the circumstances under which it came before me.
My recollection establishes that the Minister of Justice cannot substantiate his charges and cannot prove things that he is called upon to prove. My statements are made on the basis of my recollection of a report which I have seen. The minister made his statements without ever having seen the file.
The report before me in 1961, on the basis of my recollection, contained no suggestion that there had been any breach of security. It did not suggest that any security information had been sought by Mrs. Munsinger or conveyed to her. It did not allege or suggest that any offence had been committed in connection with security or any other field within federal responsibility. It did not allege or suggest any offence by any member of the federal government.
It did not state that Mrs. Munsinger was or had been engaged in espionage activities. It did not allege or suggest that she had cultivated the acquaintance of anyone with a view to obtaining security information. It did not state that she was employed by any embassy, nor was she so employed.
The activities which led to the compiling of the report which came to me had not originated as the result of any concern with security. The police had not been investigating Mrs. Munsinger with respect to security. They knew of her in other connections and checked on her from time to time in that respect. It was as a result of one of those checks that the report in question arose. It did not suggest that any person in the federal government was involved in those other areas or connections. I repeat, it did not suggest that any offence had been committed by any member of the federal government.
March 14. 1966

[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
With respect to the question of whether Mrs. Munsinger was ever engaged in espionage activities, I have said that my recollection of the file is that there was no such allegation. Certainly she never spied in Canada. I, of course, cannot prove of my own knowledge that she never spied before, but I can refer to press reports of investigations made since the Munsinger case came before the public. I refer to the Toronto Telegram of March 12 this year, page 19, which reads as follows:
Justice Minister Lucien Cardin said Thursday that Gerda Munsinger "had at one time been employed and worked in espionage work."
However official sources in Germany, the United States and Canada do not confirm this.
From Washington, Gordon Donaldson reports:
"Neither the CIA nor FBI would say they had any record of espionage involving Mrs. Munsinger."
From Bonn Alfred Schroeder cabled:
"German Central Counter Intelligence Agency does not have Munsinger record. They are emphatic that if Munsinger was engaged in espionage and later left Canada the German agency would have received advice from Canadian authorities if she returned to West Germany."
And this, to the consternation of the Minister of Justice who said she had died, is where she turned up.
From Ottawa, Ron Collister reports:
"The R.C.M.P. refuse to confirm that Mrs. Munsinger was a security risk nor will they even discuss the case-
Quite proper under the circumstances.
"However, Mrs. Munsinger was not considered a security case when she arrived in Canada in 1955 or she would not have been allowed to enter the country."
Now, sir, that is the statement of the facts based upon my recollection of the file, and it refutes absolutely the charges and innuendos with regard to security and the existence of any evidence of any offence so carelessly thrown out by the Minister of Justice. It is clear, then, that there being no breach of security or other offence reported upon or suggested, there was no obligation, occasion or common sense in my referring the report to the legal advisers in the Department of Justice for an opinion.
I may say, sir, that in any other case where it was proper to do so, whether or not the report included names of those near the government, I invariably did refer them for an official legal opinion and advice. But these were cases where offences existed or were alleged. That was not the case here.

Administration of Justice
Having concluded, as he obviously did, that he was and is unable to substantiate the slanderous security aspects of his charges, the Minister of Justice then sought to reduce the count. By his letter to the Prime Minister, read into Hansard by that gentleman, by the Prime Minister, on Friday last, he tries to confine the poison to an allegation that the Leader of the Opposition was guilty of improper conduct when Prime Minister in that he failed to lay the file on the case before the legal advisers in the Department of Justice for their advice and that this constituted mishandling of the case. He concluded his letter by saying:
"I have made and make no other charges."
Sir, that last sentence is just not true. His other charges stand, they have not been withdrawn nor has an apology been tendered for them, and he is convicted by his inability to prove them. But what are the charges now levelled against the Leader of the Opposition? I have given the reasons why it was not necessary, indeed was not appropriate, for me to refer the matter to the department. What possible reason was there for the then Prime Minister to do so? No offence was charged or suggested in the report. Was the Prime Minister under any possible obligation to ask the legal advisers to comment upon a report not involving any legal issue? I should think that responsible civil servants-this is the only kind we have in the Department of Justice, and I should think they are sick at heart right now as a result of the conduct of this minister and this government-would properly resent being asked to pry gratuitously into private lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We can leave that sort of thing to the present Minister of Justice, who prefers to do it publicly and invites parliament [DOT]-well, I say no more there.
Sir, that is the factual statement I wished to make to this house so far as my recollection of the file and the circumstances surrounding it are concerned. What is the situation with which we are left? Well, unless the minister withdraws and apologizes, then of course we are left with his allegations on the one hand and mine on the other. I have no hesitancy or fear with regard to what any examination of the file will establish in respect of the fairness or accuracy of my recollection.
March 14. 1966

Administration of Justice
There is one other thing I think I should say with regard to the file which I believe I omitted, and that is in respect of photographs. I have said that the aspects about the file which I have placed on the record I recall clearly. I do not recall any mention of photographs. If there were any I did not see them, nor was it suggested I should see them. I did not show any photographs to nor discuss photographs with any other person.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are left in the position where the government has decided to set up a judicial inquiry. The judicial inquiry, I suggest, will be left-unless the minister apologizes-to examine the truth or otherwise about the minister's allegation with regard to two or more privy councillors and Mrs. Munsinger. It will also examine the truth or otherwise of the minister's accusation that the case was mishandled by the then Prime Minister, and will establish the accuracy of all the other specifications in the charges made by the minister.
But no judicial inquiry can do anything to repair the damage that has been done to parliament this past week. An anxious and worried country wants to see, and is entitled to demand, that parliament get on with the pressing business of the country. To do so, we have to restore to this house an atmosphere of reason.
I dislike quoting myself, but two years ago when I spoke on the subject of "Getting Things Done In Parliament" I said this:
If parliament is to get things done, there is required, I believe, an atmosphere, a certain mental disposition on the part of parliamentarians and their leaders. This mental disposition will recognize that the institution will work only if there is mutual respect, and hardly at all if there is mutual contempt. The Canadian parliament has on occasion risen to great heights. Most of the time, despite the temptations and the frailties to which all humans and therefore all human institutions are subject, it has carried on the business of the country in a way that has done real credit to it and to Canada.
There will always be controversy in this house, sometimes heated controversy, and this is as it should be; but the ugly atmosphere which was created in this parliament last week must be purged if the effectiveness of the institution is to be restored. How is this to be done? The Minister of Justice has a great opportunity to act as the catalyst to restore such an atmosphere and to perform a service to the institution and the country. He can do so by resigning his office now.

In dealing with this question I am reminded of a statement by Walter Lippmann which I take the liberty of quoting:
"-though public officials are selected by the voters, or are appointed by men who are elected, they owe their primary allegiance not to the opinions of the voters but to the law, to the criteria of their professions, to the integrity of the arts and sciences in which they work, to their own conscientious and responsible convictions of their duty within the rules and the frame of reference they have sworn to respect."
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In other words the primary duty of an office holder is to the office he holds. I cannot see how the Minister of Justice can claim to have any respect for the office he holds in view of what he has done to it.
So far, he has made a blanket accusation of immorality and of a possible breach of security against two or more former ministers whom he refuses to identify, thereby placing a whole group of hon. men and hon. members under the shadow of suspicion. He steadfastly refuses to identify the men he has in mind, or to substantiate his charges. In such an atmosphere parliament cannot work effectively, no matter how many judicial inquiries may be appointed.
For the good of parliament, and to enable this institution to get on with its work in an atmosphere that is cleansed of the bitterness of the past week, the minister should now prove his willingness to put his personal feelings aside and resign his office.
In resigning he can add to his own stature and restore some of the stature that parliament has lost as a result of his conduct; and at the same time-and I say this because I feel very deeply indeed about the position of responsibility of the Minister of Justice-the Prime Minister should dissociate himself and the government from the conduct that has taken place during the past week.
I suggest that if the minister will not resign the Prime Minister should dismiss him from the cabinet. If the Prime Minister cannot bring himself to do this then I suggest-Mr. Speaker, I think the inference of what I have to say is obvious, and in order not to do anything further to exacerbate opinions here I will leave it to the Prime Minister to get the message I am implying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear, t Translation]


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances and in view of the days I spent in the
March 14, 1966	COMMONS
house, in a certain atmosphere, I would have preferred not to be called upon to take part in this debate. Unfortunately, a short while ago, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), former Minister of Justice, dragged my name into the debate in a way which compels me to set the record straight and clear up any doubt with regard to the circumstances under which the Munsinger file was mentioned in the house by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin).
I must say right away that, when the Minister of Justice challenged the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) to put on the record in detail the way he handled the Munsinger affair, the atmosphere in the house then was such that the minister did so under such provocation that, under the circumstances, it was not humanly possible for him to hold back.
And the Minister of Justice cannot be blamed for having done so in the circumstances.
I was surprised this morning, and shocked also, in view of the past relationship which existed between the former Minister of Justice and myself, in view of the memories I still have about the years I had the pleasure of working with him; I must say that I was shocked to read in a newspaper this morning that he had allegedly stated, in Vancouver I think, that in the course of a conversation I had with him, I had tried to blackmail him and members of the official opposition.
I must say at this point that this is not true and that I never threatened the former Minister of Justice to drop the name Munsinger in Parliament if the manoeuvring and discussions surrounding the Spencer case did not stop.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, and I am not afraid to say it-I think that it is all to my credit to have done so-it is true that I suggested to the hon. member for Kamloops that we should have a conversation about the Spencer case. It is true and it took place about two weeks ago, as he said in his statement.
On the other hand, the circumstances which led me to do that are not those he indicated and it is the first time, I think, that I hear the hon. member for Kamloops speak in a manner that is reminiscent of the one sometimes used by an hon. member opposite.
I said at the beginning of our conversation-and that is one of the reasons why I was shocked and surprised-that, excluding the Leader of the Opposition, whom I did not
DEBATES	2621
Administration of Justice want to see, he probably was the only member of the house with whom I could, as a member of the Privy Council-and I told him so very clearly, speak frankly.
He did not refuse to see me. In the circumstances, at no time did he ask that the discussion we were having be held any other way than under the seal of secrecy of the Privy Council.
This morning, I learned that he decided to betray the secret and make public, not the substance of our conversation, but the fact that we had had one. Substantially, my only comments were as follows, and here I shall say it in English:

"I want to see you to appeal to your sense of fairness and of justice."

I told him that himself, as former Minister of Justice, and the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister of Canada, must have realized how difficult at times and fraught with responsibilities and consequences were the decisions a Minister of Justice and a Prime Minister had often to make about records involving the security of the state.
I reminded him that in the Spencer case, as in others, the good faith and the judgment of the Minister of Justice and the government had to be relied on with regard to the decisions called for.
I told him, it is true, to keep in mind that the Spencer case, in which the Leader of the Opposition seemed bent on destroying the Minister of Justice, was insignificant compared to other records with which himself and the former Prime Minister had to deal, among others, the Munsinger case. It is actually true. But there never was any question of revealing the record.
It is being suggested this afternoon that there was some kind of a plot or agreement between the present Minister of Justice and myself so that I should threaten the former Minister of Justice. I say once again that this is untrue.
I said that the opposition can attack the Minister of Justice by creating confusion as has often been done when we were held responsible for the St. Gilles murders, as it was almost done at a given time against the government.
But I said that to use a security case in an attempt to destroy a Minister of Justice was
March 14. 1966

Administration of Justice extremely unfair and I reminded him that I was appealing to his sense of fairness to try and convince the Leader of the Opposition, if he deemed advisable not to resort to this type of tactics. But never, never was there any question of making public the Munsinger file. And then, I suggested an appeal also to the sense of justice of the Leader of the Opposition.
His last words-I remember that the door of my office was already ajar-were these:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.) tEnglish]
"I'll talk to him if it can help."

He apparently did not feel the Leader of the Opposition could be convinced by an appeal to his sense and spirit of justice.
Mr. Speaker, when two contradictory versions of certain facts are given, other facts outside the conversations must be checked in order to determine which of the two accounts of such a conversation is in accordance with the facts.
The first thing I wish to say is that there was so little agreement, understanding or consultation between the present Minister of Justice and myself to bring about the conversation I had with the member for Kamloops, that the Minister of Justice was not informed that I wanted to have this conversation and I state before this house that he was still unaware of it on the very day the present Minister of Justice, under pressure from the Leader of the Opposition, said in the house-it was eight or ten days later, I think-that he called on the Leader of the Opposition to put on record his own handling of the Munsinger affair.
On that day, the Minister of Justice was not aware of the conversation I had had with the member for Kamloops. If that amounts to an attempt at blackmail, say there must be a lot of it, but not in this case.
Now, I have no wish to rehash the past, but I think that had I wished to use for blackmail the Munsinger affair, which seems to frighten so much the official opposition, I would have done so in other circumstances, a year and four months ago, when for a month I was crucified by the Leader of the Opposition and the member from the Yukon. It would have been easy, then, had I wished to use blackmail. And when would I have used it? Possibly before, possibly during and after the

Dorion inquiry, had it been in my character either to seek vengeance or to blackmail the opponents, on the basis of facts I was aware of, for I was aware of them at the time.
Well, that is when I would have done it and I think, Mr. Speaker, it will be recognized that, in the first place, there were no discussions between the present Minister of Justice and myself concerning the conversation I intended to have with the hon. member for Kamloops and that, before this day, I never mentioned it. And I dare any member of the opposition to say that I might have mentioned it. Never did I refer to the Munsinger case and the truth is that when I saw the hon. member for Kamloops, it was, as I said before, to appeal to his sense of justice, in which I always believed until this afternoon, when he publicly distorted our conversation.
My intention was to speak to him as a member of the Privy Council. That was, in my opinion, another proof of the confidence which, as he knows, I never stopped having in him.
It was another proof of that feeling of loyalty which I had always kept for him, since I had left the Department of Justice, a loyalty which as a matter of fact brought upon me certain remarks from politicians who felt that I was making too many favourable comments about my old boss, the former Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Kamloops.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I shall not let myself be dragged into a discussion on the merits of the case. The government's conscience in that regard is clear. I belong to a government which decided that a judicial inquiry would be held. The Prime Minister had just announced the institution of such an inquiry.
In fact, he has just announced the appointment of a prominent judge of the Supreme Court of Canada as chairman of this commission. In the circumstances, I am duty bound not to refer to the merits of the file, but, I repeat, I wished to correct the impression which may have been given, and I wish to tell the house again that I have never, but never, threatened the member for Kamloops.
I repeat, I merely appealed to his sense of fairness.


Right Hon. J. G. Die-fenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise
March 14, 1966	COMMONS
for the purpose of going into detail in connection with this matter. This afternoon we have seen parliament at its best in the speech delivered by the former Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: In careful, measured
tones the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) placed the facts before this house and the country. It is not for me, after almost 26 years in this chamber, to apologize for any action taken during the period I was Prime Minister or at any other time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I love this institution and every thing it stands for. In the course of debate we often say things that in the light of subsequent events we might not have said. Those are the spontaneous ejaculations of strong men having strong opinions and I have never objected to that at any time. I, however, have had the experience that was had by Arthur Meighen and R. B. Bennett, who made it possible for the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to be what he is today, and George Drew

[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, the Prime Minister was one of those who stood about the Bennett throne and received appointments. I have had their experience in campaigns of malice and destruction. Does, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) say to me that when a Prime Minister finds any shortcomings amongst his ministers which are not offences against the state, he should turn the file over to the Department of Justice? This is not the way parliament works. We have had the answer today. The file has not been made available to the hon. member for Kamloops. Why did the Prime Minister not deliver it to a Privy Councillor, a Privy Councillor who had the responsibility for the Department of Justice and who says security was not violated?
However, these facts have been bandied about. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) says that he knew about this a year and a half ago. If there was any offence against security, why was not something done? The other day, when the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) was speaking, he received from the President of the Privy Council a suggestion about the Muns-inger case. I saw him turn and heard him say, tell him about that. Oh, yes, I did.
DEBATES	2623
Administration of Justice


Guy Favreau: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: I saw him and I heard
him. On several occasions this sword of Damocles was held over my head. Then, I should like to contrast the attitude of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the former Minister of Justice with the attitude of the President of the Privy Council. You cannot build parliament that way. There has been a continuous course of attempting to expose and discredit me in a personal capacity, and when I say that I speak with the authority of the Prime Minister. I recall a speech he made on my birthday in 1962. After all, one does not forget these anniversaries as one gets older.
On that occasion, he said: We do not need to spend much time in the coming campaign in exposing and discrediting Mr. Diefenbaker and his government; that has been done. They have attempted to discredit, undermine and destroy. Finally, as a last resort, the President of the Privy Council came to the conclusion that they did not want this Spencer case dealt with because they knew that heads would roll, according to Mr. Spencer's statement as reported in the press. They thought there was only one way to do it, and that was to hold over my head the threat that I would be destroyed by something they had.
I was not here last week. I announced that I would be away on Thursday following the passage of the estimates. Thursday and Friday were going to be devoted to such noncontroversial subjects as the setting up of committees. I let everybody know I was going. Finally, when I arrived at a point on the north end of Vancouver Island from which there was no possibility of getting back-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They laugh. Last evening we heard one of the proponents of Liberalism, Mr. Fraser, say that I could have returned. He always turns up on the C.B.C. for the purpose of explaining, in a nice way, the government's position whenever the government is in difficulties. He did so again last night. As soon as I received this word, I did everything to get back. I was told I could not get back to Ottawa before Friday afternoon, and I thought that was too late. The parliamentary proceedings were under way. I did not know parliamentary life, and I did not know this sort of thing could continue for two days. It never had before.
March 14, 1966

Administration of Justice


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The voices indicate the guilt. They know. During the two days I was away parliament almost fell to pieces. I have an unfortunate failing, being unable to hear about 75 interjections at one time. The fact is, I have made myself perfectly clear. I unequivocally repeat now that there never was a question of security in connection with this matter. What did they do? They smeared. Today my colleagues look at one another and they say, is it you? Is it you? This is fascism, Mr. Speaker, at its worst.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: In other words, they knew that they had something; for what reason were they keeping it? Was it something to use on a future occasion? This is the only possible explanation. If there had been any interference with the security of our country, they would have revealed it. However, they kept it in cold storage, in their hearts. Mind you, this statement does not cover all the Prime Minister's colleagues. The fact that a great diplomat is supporting this kind of thing surprises me beyond anything. Throughout all the years we have crossed one another, I would not have expected to see the time when he would stand up in the house and accept this kind of thing.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
What was the explanation today when he opened his remarks? He said that we have difficulties in our country in connection with national unity. What has national unity got to do with this question of charging various members of the Privy Council indiscriminately with wrong-doing approaching treason? One of our colleagues has passed on. Today he has been mentioned as one of those two or more. He is referred to as one of them; and his son, an hon. member of this house, has no right of action. There is no action that a son, however honourable be his father, can take to preserve the reputation of his father. That was the situation in the Gladstone case.
What is the measure of the smear and innuendo? I am not going to talk about lack of courage in what they do. Instead of standing up in the house and saying "These are the people"-and I would admire him if he were to do that, though I have no reason to expect him to do so-the minister remains silent.

Then the government had to work out a way whereby they could get the matter before parliament, and they chose the letter way. As long as the Prime Minister has been in office he has followed the course of writing letters to people or having people write letters to him. He has these penpals, and there have been several of them. I can just imagine him, Mr. Speaker, sitting around the table with his cabinet, and saying: "Now, how about a letter? You tell me about it, and I will tell them in the house". I can imagine the Minister of Justice saying: "I cannot tell them myself because I would lose my hide, so I can write you and you can tell them".
The Minister of Justice gave a press conference. That must have been arranged beforehand; nobody ever produced a press conference like this one without some activation. Did the Prime Minister know of this press conference in advance? I was informed that the Minister of Justice left the cabinet meeting that morning before he called the press conference. I go away to the hinterland to enjoy the salubrious atmosphere of northern British Columbia, and suddenly I get a telegram.


Mr. Winch:: Do not call that the hinterland.


John George Diefenbaker: If the Prime Minister knew about this-and there has been no denial-then it is one of the most terrible things in public life. If he did not know, then he should have fired the minister within 24 minutes of his finding out about it.
When this case was first mentioned I told him to go ahead and threaten. I said let us go into the whole field of security-and I will be dealing with that in a moment too. But the government did not institute an inquiry; they held off. According to Richard Jackson, they "dropped a bombshell".
The Ottawa Journal for March 10 outlines how serious the situation is, and indicates that the minister said that the Munsinger case was worse than the Profumo scandal. Possibly the Minister of Justice knows about that. Then the Journal goes on to report that the justice minister then said:
In some ways it was worse.
The report asked whether there had been an actual security leak, to which the minister replied:
I don't know-but there definitely was a security-
-leak.


Guy Favreau: You mean security risk.
March 14, 1966	COMMONS


John George Diefenbaker: Yes-a security risk. Then he said she was dead and buried. What a resurrection, Mr. Speaker? Within a matter of minutes she had turned up. Does this not indicate that there is something wrong in the Department of Justice if this person was in any way considered a risk? In West Germany, where they are naturally fearful of this kind of thing, she was able to continue working for several years without being identified until one of the stellar newspapers was able to locate her.
Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, smear, slime and insinuation against two or more former ministers. I believe that according to those in official circles they now number four. Did the minister dare stand up in the House of Commons to say this? Not he. He wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, in which he said:
My dear Prime Minister:
On Friday, March 4th, as recorded on page 2211 on Hansard I stated that the Leader of the Opposition "was accusing us of hiding the truth, of hiding evidence from the committee."
I added that he was "the very last person in the house"-
-and so on. The letter continued:
To this the right honourable gentleman replied "I am not worried. Have your commission look into it. Put it on the agenda".
I have subsequently indicated that the Leader of the Opposition had failed to place the file on this case before the law officers of the Department of Justice for their advice-
I would ask the Prime Minister whether he finds shortcomings in his ministers. Does he ever have any complaints about them? To those that write in slanderous terms, does he say "I think this is a slanderous suggestion and I will turn it over to the law officers of the crown"? If we are going to start this, Mr. Speaker, we will destroy democracy; because all of us know, human nature being what it is, that we have to meet face to face from day to day, and these things are never brought out.
Then the minister went on to say in the letter:
I have alleged that the Leader of the Opposition mishandled this case and that he failed to seek the advice of the law officers of the Department of Justice.
The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has answered that once and for all. Then the letter concludes-is it a postscript?-in this way:
I have made and make no other charges.
DEBATES	2625
Administration of Justice
What of his statement, Mr. Speaker? What of his two press conferences? What of his allegations, his smear, scuttlebutt, slander and smut?
Instead of coming before the house the minister writes a letter to the Prime Minister and says: "You are of age; tell them about me". This, Mr. Speaker, is the most unusual thing that has ever taken place in this house in all my years in public life. They have made their examinations under a microscope.
I do not say that everything I did was right, but what I do say, Mr. Speaker, is that what I did was honest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: When we came into
office, Mr. Speaker, it was immediately suggested that we might look over the records of the cabinet. After all, they had had their divisions in 1955 and 1956. But I said, not one look or one peek; not one file and not one examination. That is the British tradition, and I followed it 100 per cent. I do not say that I would not have liked to know some of the observations made by some hon. gentlemen sitting opposite when they were on the treasury benches in regard to some matters, but that is not the British tradition. We do not snoop.


Mr. Byrne:: Except Nielsen.


John George Diefenbaker: We do not slither. Not one examination was made of one line, either indirectly or at all, by me or by anyone on my behalf. Nor was any report thereof given to me. To do otherwise is to undermine the very essence of our democracy.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, had there been any evidence that the security of the state was undermined, what would be the proper course to follow? I go back to 1957. I am not going to refer to the case, because I do not want to resurrect the name, a tragic name which will affect the wife and family of the individual in question and exacerbate their natural feelings. However, I am going to read what the present Prime Minister said on page 3493 of Hansard, for April 12, 1957:
It has always been a principle and I think, a correct principle, of our security investigation that we would not deal publicly in connection with a security inquiry with the details of any allegations made, for the reason that the details of a man's private life should not be the subject of accusation and rebuttal in public. The reasons behind this principle are I think obvious; it might well do far more harm than good, to the man in question, and it might cause results which would be unfortunate to all concerned without being of any assistance whatever to security.
March 14, 1966

Administration of Justice
There was no security involved in this matter; that has been made clear and made abundantly clear by the hon. member for Kamloops. If there had been, the Prime Minister of Canada, a diplomat, Her Majesty's minister, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for External Affairs at the time in question, enunciated the proper course to be followed.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say more at this time. I do not know what the terms are, but I do point out this: This is a matter that cannot be shelved by the executive to the judicial, to get rid of a matter that affects the rights, the privileges and the prerogatives of members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all. What a court or what a judge might look at is not the criterion. The criterion is, so far as members of parliament are concerned, that we in the discharge of our responsibilities do these things; we bring about, in a continuity of discussion the preservation of freedom and the assurance of the preservation of the state. That is our responsibility.
The judicial inquiry is set up to do what? To try me on the basis of a letter written to the Prime Minister that the Minister of Justice did not have-well, I do not want to use the word that might be used to describe that. As a matter of fact, when I think of some of the statements made here I begin to think that we are living in a new age of palaeontology-political palaeontology-the invertebrate age, which is government without a backbone.
Instead of standing up and saying, "This is it" he writes the Prime Minister and says, "This is what I want you to look into. I do not want you to look into what I said, the allegations that I made, or the infamous suggestions I have spread about. I do not want you to look into that. I just want you to look after him. That is all."
Mr. Speaker, I shall have more to say when we have available to us this order in council.
Now I come to one concluding reference, and it has to do with parliament. I started off by saying that I love this institution. Our debates are not acrid. Eggshell sentimentalities in the House of Commons are foreign to the British house. I could give quotation after quotation to illustrate the power of invective. As a matter of fact, Lord Hailsham who gave up his title, who is now Mr. Quinton Hogg,

said that invective was of the essence; it is the tool of debate.
Mr. Speaker, think of the great debates in the British House in the last 15 years between Aneurin Bevan and Sir Winston Churchill. They did not regard things said in the course of debate, things which were strong, powerful, and sometimes overwhelmingly unjust, as personal things. Those things did not interfere with their friendships. They had that sentiment for parliament; that creation of the English and the French, and for the first leader of our Mother of Parliaments, Simon de Montfort. What about that concept, Mr. Speaker? Think of the occasion, Mr. Speaker, when Sir Winston Churchill made his speech in the House of Commons, I think in the year 1951, when he was followed by Mr. Aneurin Bevan, when Mr. Bevan said, "Mr. Speaker, I shall puncture that bladder of falsehood with the poignard of truth." There were none of these eggshell sensitivities that we are starting to display.
Mr. Speaker, I think of an occasion that I have never forgotten. It was at a dinner at 10 Downing Street. A lady, Mrs. Chamberlain, was sitting beside me. My wife and I were the guests. My wife sat to the right of Prime Minister Macmillan and to her right sat Sir Winston Churchill. He was very happy that evening and I finally forgot myself to say to Mrs. Chamberlain, "He is very happy tonight. He does not usually come out any more." She said, "I am so glad. If it had not been for him we would not be here."
Of all the expressions of viewpoint, Mr. Speaker, after he had been driven from his position of Prime Minister, the one that sums it up best is a short speech by one of the most famous of British parliamentarians, Cromwell, who said, "In the name of God, go." Sir Winston Churchill had been driven out. He took his place in the opposition front benches and there were bitter words.
I visited that British House over and over again. I saw it in 1916, in the month of December, when Churchill got up to speak and the house emptied. They would not listen. I saw it again in 1936. It was an adverse house. Those were the times of the clashes between Baldwin and Churchill. But they maintained the one thing that is essential to the preservation of parliament and everything it stands for. What they maintained is that while one may disagree and strongly disagree, and while we have a responsibility as members of the opposition to bring out that which is wrong and have it cleared
March 14, 1966	COMMONS
away, at the same time it is not in a personal sense and it must not be. I think of the way in which Sir Winston Churchill behaved after the war, when he was driven from public life. That is what everybody thought. He was voted out. The crowds turned out in 1945 to see, but not to hear. They turned him out.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Attlee took his place, the man who had been deputy prime minister, and as leader of the opposition he said harsh things of Attlee.
I saw something of the grandeur of parliamentary life just a year ago when the Prime Minister and I were representatives for Canada at Sir Winston's funeral, outside St. Paul's cathedral. The Prime Minister indicates he saw it too. The little man Attlee, the man of courage, the pacifist who joined in 1914 and refused to carry a revolver, who used nothing but a cane and won the D.S.O. doing it, after all the bitterness, there he was sitting on the steps leading up to St. Paul's honouring his great political adversary in death. We have got to catch something of that in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I rue the future of our country if this kind of thing goes on. This parliament is dead unless we resuscitate it-dead. I remember the great debates when I first came here. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) and I are among the few still here who came in at that time, and may I say we are looking forward to years of further service. We came in at that time and there were tremendous debates, strong, powerful, often violent, but we did not lose a sense of proportion. We dared not do this.
Mr. Speaker, this institution must not fail. Without it there is no freedom. We are here today not only as the custodians of the present and the inheritors of the past but, Mr. Speaker, we are as well the hope of this institution's future. Let us get to work on the many issues facing Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Freedom comes first
before economic welfare, and we fought the battle of freedom on the Spencer case, however much we disagreed. We have the terrible issue facing Canada today of the highest cost of living in our history. We have got to do something about it. We have an ever increasing adverse balance of payments situation. We have a Bank Act that has to be placed in effective shape if the economy of
DEBATES	2627
Administration of Justice this nation is to be assured. We have to tackle redistribution. We don't want another election under the old system. We don't want the Prime Minister rushing out into the night saying, "I want a majority." We want none of that.
We want action and leadership from the Prime Minister of Canada. That is what we ask for, and that is the reason I point this fact out to him that, with all the respect I have for him and his contribution, it will always be a matter of wonder to me that, when mention was made of the Munsinger case, a large measure of applause came from him, not once but twice. I say to the Prime Minister that that to me was a revelation which from this moment on I will eradicate from my mind, but it is something that is indicative of a state of mind that is not in keeping with the traditional greatness of this chamber.
Mr. Speaker, let's go to work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will neither be as long nor as entertaining as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), but I think I shall be much more to the point.
I would like to tell hon. members of this house that I, and all the members on this side of the house as well as members on the other side of the house, are concerned, and very much concerned, about what is happening to parliament. However, what has occurred is that the hon. members opposite only today are beginning to wonder what has happened to parliament.
For the past several years there has been introduced into this House of Commons a procedure, a strategy which, in fact, is destroying parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) a little while ago spoke of trials by witch-hunt, accusations and insinuations. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we have been fighting against. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition speaks of the resurrection of parliament. Before parliament can be resurrected we must rid ourselves of this type of insinuation and accusation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: This type of thing was particularly evident, I think, in the debate on the
2628	COMMONS
Administration of Justice Spencer case. At that time there were provocations of all types which, in fact, brought out the word Monseignor, and it was not planned because, if I had planned it, I would have said Munsinger, not Monseignor. And, Mr. Speaker, I can give the house my word that this had not been a planned method of bringing out this case. I am not saying that I had not thought of it before or that I did not know of it before, but I had not intended to use it at that time.
There is also this point, Mr. Speaker. I have been accused of being a coward, afraid to get up, and of having chosen a moment when the Leader of the Opposition had gone out fishing, in order to make my statement. This is what the Leader of the Opposition stated I did. Well, Mr. Speaker, I had mentioned the Munsinger affair while the right hon. gentleman was sitting right in front of me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: And how am I to know-I am not that much interested in the activities of the right hon. gentleman-how am I to know he is going fishing? How was I to know where he was that Thursday morning? I had what is called a press conference to explain my withdrawal and my resumption with the government, in connection with the Spencer case. The press asked many questions of me-


John George Diefenbaker: Did the Prime Minister know you were going to do this?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker, the real point at issue is this: I have charged the Leader of the Opposition with having mishandled this case, and he has stated today that there were no aspects of security in this case. 1 want that to be remembered. I actually charged him with this, and I also had the courage to put my seat on those allegations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: And if the right hon. gentleman wishes to put his seat on the results of the judicial inquiry, then we will know who has courage, and who has not, in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I have also been accused of being afraid to name members of the house. Believe me, I was not afraid and, as a matter of fact, one of the members has already been mentioned. But I do not believe that is the right thing to do. I do not believe it is right to bring out in public the names of people

DEBATES	March 14, 1966
such as this, and if there are other names involved in the file-and believe me, I can tell the hon. member for Kamloops there is such a file-if there are other names then let these names be given to the judges in a judicial inquiry. That is the best, the proper and the fairest way in order to deal with this matter.
The Leader of the Opposition, in a great gesture-and it was quite funny-was asking, "Is it you-is it you"? The right hon. gentleman knows who it was.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: He has seen the file.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, and ask the hon. minister to mention the two or more cabinet ministers here and let us have no more of these innuendos.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The right hon. gentleman has seen the file; he knows the Privy Councillors. All he has to do is tell us which ones of these Privy Councillors had nothing to do with it. This is what he should have done in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, had the Leader of the Opposition acted properly in the first place, then the Privy Councillors would not have been put in the predicament in which they are. The Leader of the Opposition is the one who is solely responsible for that position of the Privy Councillors.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Speaker, would the
Minister of Justice repeat the rest of the charges he gave to the press, and we will find out how honest he is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am just wondering whether hon. members would expect the Speaker, at this time, after the speeches which have been made and the very crucial or difficult moments we have lived through the last few days, and today, to remind hon. members that a number of motions were made on questions of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, before you rule, something was said a moment ago which I simply do not think can go by. I am astounded, dismayed and sickened to hear a person who occupies the position of Minister of Justice assert the proposition that all he has to do-and still suggest that his conduct is perfectly right-is to issue a general smear affecting some 26 people, and that then the way to clear it up is for the Leader of the
March 14, 1966

Opposition to say who is not affected by that smear.
I never have heard such an appalling proposition, and I want to make clear my resentment and heartsickness in hearing a so-called Minister of Justice suggest such a thing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The hon. member for Kamloops says he is sick of it all. Is he saying now he is sick of having a judicial inquiry into something?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to hon. members that this is the type of exchange which led us to such serious difficulties last week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Last week I had before me a number of questions of privilege that were raised one after the other, all of them followed by motions which, after very serious consideration, were ruled out of order by the Chair. This afternoon hon. members raised questions of privilege which I consider very serious and on which I was not asked to rule because no motions were made.
The situation with which I think we are faced now is that there are these questions of privilege not followed by motions which were acceptable to the chair, and I think we should return to the normal business of the house.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, since the matter of privilege before the house is one I raised, and since the suggestion of the government is one which we already have said we would go along with-dispose of the matter by a judicial inquiry, provided the terms of reference are acceptable-and since the government has indicated such an order in council is in existence, I think, with the unanimous consent of the house, we should have that order in council before us now, so that we can determine whether or not the terms of reference are indeed acceptable on the basis of the question of privilege that was raised.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no difficulty about this. If there is unanimous agreement of the house that this order in council be tabled, it
Administration of Justice will be tabled. However, I am wondering whether we are going in the right direction if we ask the house to suspend its consideration of business while the order in council is being studied. May I suggest to all hon. members, after what has been said this afternoon and after the concern, so genuine I am sure, which has been expressed about the importance of resuming the normal business of the nation, that we should, not having given the right hon. Prime Minister an opportunity to table this order in council, resume the consideration of the normal business of this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last to disagree with suggestions on your part, but on this matter the privileges of this parliament are at stake. The government, by executive order in council, has seen fit to prevent a discussion in the House of Commons of a privilege, which must be the privilege of parliament.
If we are going to give away some of these privileges for an order in council in respect of which we have no information, then we would be doing to parliament something which is retrograde and detrimental to the privileges and rights of members for this and future generations. I do not know whether it would be possible to go on with private members hour at five o'clock-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: -but I do wish to say- and I do not want to do anything to hold up the house-that I do not intend to rely on an order in council which I have not seen and in respect of which I have no idea concerning its contents, the only information being that with regard to the judge who will preside thereover. This is an order in council that is designed to destroy individuals who have held the prerogative rights of parliament. This matter is far more serious now than it was, in view of the last remarks made by the Minister of Justice.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can help in this respect. I am extremely sorry I did not have the order in council to read when I made my first statement. I can appreciate the desire of hon. members to have an opportunity to study it. It could be tabled on motions, and then perhaps we could go on with the ordinary business and resume, if desired, at eight o'clock, a discussion of this matter after members have had a chance to study the order in council.
March 14, 1966

Administration of Justice


Erik Nielsen: Your Honour, since I made the suggestion, you might permit me to make an observation. When Your Honour ruled, when I raised the matter of privilege a few days ago affecting a certain member of this house, Your Honour in your ruling observed that the house and the house alone is master of its own privilege and must dispose of it. That suggested to me, sir, that neither the executive, Your Honour, nor any other individual could do this, but only the house. Therefore, I believe that until the question of privilege is disposed of by the house, it does not lie within the prerogative of the executive to do so.
I suggest, to clarify the matter at once, that the house could give unanimous consent; and then I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops and the Leader of the Opposition, and others, knowing what they expect should appear in the terms of reference, would not take but a moment to examine them. I would suggest that perhaps we should have these terms of reference before the house now and dispose of the matter.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an observation with regard to the procedural position before the house. As suggested by the hon. member for Yukon, it is correct that the house is master of its own privileges, and the traditional way in which privilege has been disposed of in this chamber is through a motion.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
For various reasons it has been impossible for hon. members to formulate a motion which would dispose of this matter to the satisfaction of the house. We understand the reasons, and I agree that the traditional method is not appropriate here. The only point I am making is that while we admit the difficulty, it seems that at some point it will be necessary for the house to admit that we must go back to the ordinary business of the house, unless a motion is before us by which we can dispose of this matter.
I think the suggestion made by the Prime Minister, is a good one, that he table the order in council giving the house an opportunity to consider it while we are dealing with the ordinary business and, if necessary, resume the debate at eight o'clock this evening, at the point at which we now are. I agree to that suggestion, but I want to reserve my rights to point out, when we resume, that unless a motion is formulated by which the

house can deal with this matter the Chair will be expected to direct us again to the business of the house.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, on this point I should like to state that I gathered from the remarks of the Prime Minister, whenever he has risen to discuss this question of privilege and the motions, which were found to be out of order, that we were trying to find a solution to deal with the problem. The Prime Minister has referred to the setting up of an inquiry, but it is my thought that when the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon it was his contention that the proper method of dealing with this was by his putting forward a motion to set up an inquiry, which would be debated in the same way as any motion the house might find acceptable on this question of privilege. It is my understanding that the Prime Minister is suggesting that we are all interested in the terms of this inquiry and the terms of reference as suggested by the leader of the N.D.P. and other parties. I have heard nothing so far from the Prime Minister which would indicate that he has changed his feelings, as indicated by his remarks during the last couple of days. The suggestion is that he put forward a motion which the house will debate so that we can settle the question of privilege, as well as the motion, in a way satisfactory to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps to bring this to a conclusion let me say that all we want to do is preserve our rights on the question of privilege. I suggest that the government proceed with orders of the day and then, without actually moving to go into supply, we adjourn until eight o'clock, and then return to this matter of the privileges of parliament at exactly the point we have now reached. It was very clearly stated by the leader of the N.D.P. that he insisted, as I insist with some right, on the fullest examination of the terms of reference, because in accepting them we want to protect our most precious and priceless right, the ancient prerogatives and privileges of parliament.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: For the sake of clarity, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he envisages that when we come back to this matter of privilege at eight o'clock, if there is any further question of privilege then, after a study of the order in council, the matter of privilege would be regularized by some motion?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not given consideration to that matter. The hon. member is an
March 14, 1966

expert on the rules, but I personally do not know what the implications are, and the matter will have to be considered.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, would the house leader answer my question? Is it the intention of the government that the motion now envisaged will be moved in respect of the question of privilege, so that we can discuss it at once when we return at eight o'clock? If the house leader would answer this question it would make this matter much more simple so far as we are concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed by all hon. members that we will proceed with orders of the day, and that having completed the routine business the proceedings will be suspended until eight o'clock, with the understanding that we will proceed with private members business at six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: At eight o'clock we will resume this debate at the point we have now reached. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my understanding, of course, that there is agreement that the order in council has been tabled by the Prime Minister in order that hon. members may have an opportunity to study it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-142, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Canadian ships in coasting trade).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, very briefly let me say that the purpose of the bill is to provide that no passengers or goods will be transported by ship from one place in Canada to another place in Canada except by a Canadian ship. The secondary effect of this will be an incentive for our own shipbuilding industry.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Question of Privilege [Translation]



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Real Caoueiie tVilleneuve) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-143, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Caoueiie:: Mr. Speaker, since 158 members of all parties in the house have filed objections to the passage of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the purpose of this bill is to suggest that the matter be referred to a special committee of the House of Commons which will lay out new electoral boundaries and submit to Your Honour a report on the readjustment of boundaries of every constituency included in each of the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVILEGE-MR. ALKENBRACK-CONGRATULATIONS TO &quot;BOBBY&quot; HULL ON NEW SCORING RECORD

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to point out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am aware of the very important question of privilege the hon. member wishes to bring to the attention of the house, but I think he should first ask for leave to revert to motions. Knowing what the question is, I am sure hon. members will agree.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Your Honour. I should like to ask for unanimous consent to revert to motions, sir.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, sir. I rise on a question of privilege regarding a matter of national interest.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Saturday night in Chicago that great Canadian "Bobby" Hull of the Chicago Black Hawks scored his 51st goal of the current hockey season. In doing so he has established a new all-time record for total goals scored by any player in the playing season of the National Hockey League and has set other records supplementary thereto.

March 14. 1966
Questions
Mr. Speaker, I know that you and all hon. members of this house congratulate Mr. Hull, who is a resident of Sophiasburgh township in Prince Edward County and a constituent of mine in Prince Edward-Lennox, and we join with Mrs. Hull and their family in recognition of this great occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member propose to introduce a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his question of privilege has been noted by the house and we all appreciate the interest that he takes in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Now that we have reverted to motions we might hear from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand).



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies, one in English and one in French, of the second report of Mr. Joseph Sedgwick on immigration. This report deals particularly with appeal courts, ministerial discretion and with a few other subjects of general interest concerning immigration.
This report had been requested by the Prime Minister last year, I believe, and has just been published.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. minister have the leave of the house to table the said document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25.00 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of a pension of $25.00 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of pensions of (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (d) $50.00 to

$59.99 per month (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (g) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (h)	$90.00 to $99.99 per month (i)
$100.00 to $124.99 per month (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 per month and over?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	392.
2.	2,283.
3.	Amount of Pension	Number$ 25.01	to	$ 29.99	76430.00	to	39.99	1,53040.00	to	49.99	1,19550.00	to	59.99	94260.00	to	69.99	87570.00	to	79.99	91380.00	to	89.99	93890.00	to	99.99	967100.00	to	124.99	2,555125.00	to	149.99	2,344150.00	to	199.99	3,627200.00	and over	4,808
In a number of cases the amounts of pensions paid by Canadian National Railways do not represent the total pensions payable to employees for railway service. Pensions payable by the C.N.R. to international employees (service in both Canada and the United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities payable under the U.S. Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act for service performed in the United States. For example, in the group receiving pensions of under $25 from the C.N.R., there are sixty-eight former international employees who also receive U.S. Railroad Retirement or Social Security annuities in respect of C.N.R. service rendered in the United States. The balance of this group consists of employees who elected early retirement (before age 65) with reduced basic ($25) pensions, and employees who had very short service and small contributions.


SPECIAL PLANNING SECRETARIAT, PRIVY COUNCIL
Mr. Ormislon: 1.	What are the names, classifications and salaries of all personnel working under the director of the special planning secretariat of the Privy Council?
2.	Which of these positions were filled by C.S.C. competition?
3.	Which of these positions were filled by order in council appointment?
March 14, 1966

4.	Which of these positions are seconded and what were their salaries prior to secondment?
5.	Did all positions and classifications in (1) above have C.S.C. and treasury board approval prior to appointment by governor in council?
1.	Name
J. R. Coulter W. A. Dyson P. F. Girard D. R. Richmond R. I. P. Vachon
Mrs. M. Coutu Miss C. D'Arcy Miss H. Fortier Mrs. A. Roche
* Salaries shown include recent Civil
Questions


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Privy Council office, the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Finance, Treasury Board, as follows:
Classification	Salary*
Administrative Officer 7	$13,038
Welfare Administrator 5	11,978
Administrative Officer 6	9,508
Privy Council Officer 5	13,038
Industrial Development and	
Production Off. 3	11,342
Stenographer 3 (Secretary)	4,056
Principal Clerk	5,616
Stenographer 3 (Secretary)	4,524
Stenographer 3 (Secretary)	4,056
Service general salary revision.	
2.	The following positions were filled by competition: Administrative Officer 7, J. R. Coulter; Privy Council Officer 5, D. R. Richmond; Stenographer 3 (Secretary), Mrs. M. Coutu; Stenographer 3 (Secretary), Mrs. A. Roche.
In addition, the commission approved the transfer of the following:	Administrative
officer 6, P. F. Girard; Principal clerk, Miss C. D'Arcy; Stenographer 3 (secretary), Miss H. Fortier.
3.	None.
4.	W. A. Dyson and R. I. P. Vachon whose salaries were as shown in (1) above.
5.	The classification of all positions in (1) above was approved by the Civil Service Commission prior to appointment.
The establishment of positions of personnel working under the Director of the Special Planning Secretariat of the Privy Council has been approved by the Treasury Board.


USE OF DIRECT TELEPHONE LINES FROM OTTAWA
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Does the government of Canada maintain a direct telephone line from Ottawa to Toronto and, if so, are members of Parliament permitted to use this telephone line free of charge?
2.	Does the government of Canada maintain a direct telephone line from Ottawa to Montreal and, if so, are members of Parliament permitted to use this telephone line free of charge?
3.	Does the government of Canada maintain direct telephone lines to other cities of Canada
and, if so, which cities, and are members of Parliament permitted to use such lines free of charge?
4. If not, are there plans to give comparable advantages to members of Parliament enjoyed by Toronto area members of Parliament?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1, 2 & 3. The government of Canada has arrangements entered into last year between the Department of Transport on behalf of the government as a whole and the Trans-Canada Telephone System, under which, in return for an over-all monthly payment apportioned among departments, special long distance telephone service is provided to all departments and agencies to all points in Canada available on the direct distance dialing system through leased circuits, without individual call charges being assessed.
The Speaker read and laid before the House on January 31st extracts from the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy held on January 25, 1966, as follows: (a) That this direct long distance telephone service will be available to all members of the House of Commons on a 24 hour basis for outgoing calls originating in Ottawa to points which are served by the direct distance dialing system, when such calls are made through the special operator over the leased circuits; (b) That, with a view to treating all members equitably, the members of the House of Commons will hereafter be reimbursed for charges in connection with their telephone calls originating in Ottawa to places

March 14. 1966
Questions
in their own constituencies which are not available on the direct distance dialing system.
4. Members of Parliament from all constituencies are placed at the same advantage as regards expenses of telephone calls to their constituencies. As regards the convenience of placing calls, this depends on the extent of automation of the telephone networks involved in the connection.


DYNAME CORPORATION
Mr. Keays: 1.	Did the government request Dyname Corporation to make a study and report on winter skiing at Mount Logan?
2.	If so (a) what were the conditions of the request (b) who are the directors of Dyname Corporation (c) who are the major shareholders of Dyname Corporation (d) what amounts of moneys were paid or are to be paid to the said corporation (e) is their study and report completed?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Department of Forestry and my department as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) To engage the contractor as a research consultant for the purpose of preparing an economic study and a program of development for a tourist resort area in the region of Mount Albert and Mount Logan, (b) Messrs. Claude Robillard, President, 51 Belvedere Rd., Westmount; Fernand Cadieux, Executive Vice-President, 5018 Victoria
The following statistics show changes in debt during 1960-1965:
Source: Dominion Bureau of Statistics,
Consumer Credit	4. o
Corporate Bonds Outstanding 7.4 New mortgage loans approved by lending institutions on new non-farm residential construction	. 7


STAFF INCREASES FOLLOWING DEPARTMENTAL REORGANIZATION
Mr. Fulton: With respect to the program envisaged in the reorganization of the cabinet, the transfers of 
Avenue, Montreal; Marc Lalonde, Secretary, 425 St. Joseph Blvd., West, Montreal; Bartlett Morgan, 3466 Peel Avenue, Montreal; Peter M. Pitfield, 9432 Gouin Blvd., West, Pierrefonds; Germain Cadieux, 4047 Ven-dome Avenue, Montreal, (c) The information is not available; (d) $48,000; (e) Yes.


FEDERAL AND PRIVATE DEBT INCREASE
Mr. Mather: 1. What, in dollars, was the increase in the federal debt in the period 1960-1965?
2.	What in the same period was the increase in private debt?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	Gross public debt as at March 31, 1965, $26,574.2 million; Gross public debt as at March 31, 1960, $20,986.4 million; Increase in gross public debt 1960-65, $5,587.8 million.
2.	Figures showing changes in private debt from 1960-1965 are not available. The Royal Commission on Banking and Finance estimate private debt (business and personal debt) for 1961 and 1962 to be as follows:
December 31st 1961	1962
(Billions of Dollars)
Business	13.1	14.5Trade Debt	5.4	5.4Mortgage Debt	12.4	14.0Other Personal Debt	5.0	5.335.9	39.2some of the major components of	private
Bank of Canada.
As at December 31 (Billions of Dollars)
1961	1962	1963	1964	19654.3	4.8	5.3	6.2	7.17.3	7.9	8.2	8.9	10.01.1	1.0	1.3	1.5	1.7
duties between ministers and departments, and the creation of new departments, all as effected and/or contemplated by the order in council in that regard passed on December 22, 1965 (a) was any estimate made of the increased numbers of positions in the public service of Canada which would
March 14. 1S66

be created to implement the said program and, if so, what was the total number (b) what was the estimate of the total annual cost of filling such positions (c) what is the number of such additional positions for each new or reorganized department (d) what is the estimate of the cost of such new positions for each such new or reorganized department?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question 387 is as follows:
The transfers and rearrangement of duties and functions made by orders in council passed on December 22, 1965, involved only existing duties and existing staff. As a result of the transfers, there are likely to be rearrangements of functions among personnel in the departments affected but the net effect of these adjustments cannot yet be foreseen. The same is true of future adjustments of establishments which may result from the future development of policies as a consequence of the reorganization. The answer to part (a) of the question is therefore no, and
(b)	is not applicable. The answers to (c) and (d) will not be available until new establishments have been devised and approved for the departments concerned.


CATEGORIES OF POOR PERSONS
Mr. Caouelte: 1.	What distinction does the government make between a poor person, a destitute person, and an indigent person?
2.	In what income categories does the government place a poor person, a destitute person, an indigent person, and a well to do person, respectively?


John Ross Matheson: 1. The government does not make any official definitions distinguishing between persons who are poor, destitute or indigent.
2. The government does not assign income categories to degrees of poverty since many factors, in addition to income, determine whether a person is considered to be poor.


TRANSFER OF TELEVISION CHANNEL 3, BARRIE TO TORONTO
Mr. Rynard: Does the application made for moving channel 3 from Barrie to the Toronto area include an application for an increase in output power for the station if moved?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The application by Ralph Snelgrove Television Limited for
Questions
authority to establish a television broadcasting station at Toronto on Channel 3 is predicated on an effective radiated power of 78,600 watts (video), 39,300 watts (audio). The present effective radiated power of Station CKVR-TV, Barrie is 100,000 watts (video), 50,000 watts (audio).


APPLICATION FOR TELEVISION CHANNEL 5
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Has any application been made by any person for television broadcasting on channel 5 in the following areas (a) Barrie (b) Orillia (c) Midland?
2.	If so, by whom has such application been made?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2. The application has been submitted by Ralph Snelgrove Television Limited.


APPLICATION FOR SATELLITE TELEVISION TRANSMITTER, MUSKOKA DISTRICT
Mr. Rynard: Has any application been made for the operation of a satellite television transmitter in any of the following areas (a) Barrie (b) Orillia (c) Midland?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No.


RESTORATION OF LOUISBURG FORTRESS
Mr. Priilie: 1.	Was the chief architect of historical monuments from France invited to Ottawa recently to discuss the restoration of the fortress of Louisburg?
2.	If so, did the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources issue a press release on the occasion of the visit of the French architect?
3.	What were the names of all archaeologists employed during 1965 in connection with the restoration of Louisburg?
4.	Which of these archaeologists are no longer employed by the department?
5.	In each case why was the employment terminated?
6.	Of those archaeologists employed at Louisburg in 1965, and still on the staff of the department, which ones have been transferred to other duties?
7.	Were the ovens in the basement of the chateau at Louisburg destroyed and, if so, on whose orders?
8.	Have the UNESCO recommendations concerning the safeguarding of the beauty and characteristics of historical landscapes and sites been drawn to the attention of the persons carrying out the restoration?
9.	What precautions are now being taken to ensure that no parts of the original structure will be destroyed in the course of restoration?
10.	Are there description placards in both French and English on all artifacts displaced in the museum?

March 14, 1966
Questions
11.	How many historians capable of writing brochures and historical reports in French will be employed at the Louisburg site during 1966?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Mr. Maurice Berry, Architect en chef des monuments historiques from Paris is retained under contract as the general architectural consultant of the Louisburg Restoration Project. In this capacity he was in Ottawa recently to discuss problems relating to the reconstruction of the Chateau St. Louis.
2.	No.
3.	E. McM. Larrabee, J. D. Swannack, Jr., B. W. Fry, I. C. Walker, J. O. Vogel, J. P. Marwitt, R. B. Lane.
4.	E. McM. Larrabee.
5.	The initial phase of the project's archaeological investigations called for an overall excavation of the Citadel complex. To coordinate the efforts of the professionals employed at this task, a senior archaeologist was attached to the project. The second phase of the archaeological work (which has now begun), entails excavations of specific areas best handled by small groups each under the direction of an archaeologist whose responsibility will include the elaboration of a final report relating to the specific area excavated. Since the present nature of archaeological effort does not require a co-ordinating senior archaeologist, the co-ordination now exercised is through the park superintendent, the need for the services covered by the contract with Mr. Larrabee no longer exists. His contract was therefore not renewed.
6.	Mr. J. D. Swannack Jr. and Mr. I. C. Walker recently won promotional competitions and will be employed by the Canadian Historic Sites Division in Ottawa.
7.	Research indicates that the so-called ovens were never fully functional and were abandoned by the French prior to the period to which the Chateau is being restored. While a comprehensive record was made of those remains of the structures deemed original, officers responsible for the management of the project decided that retaining them in the restored Chateau would not contribute to the interpretation of the site and would lead to substantial unnecessary expense.
8.	The Natural and Historic Resources Branch is very much aware of these UNESCO recommendations and subscribes to them in the context of Canadian requirements.

9.	The restoration is predicated on the principle that original parts of the structure will be retained and integrated into the reconstruction wherever such is consistent with public safety and long term conservation. This principle has been basic to the project since its inception and as a result precautionary measures, such as mortar stability tests and controlled exploration of key areas, are an integral part of the reconstruction procedure. The poor quality of the original mortar, centuries of frost action, and the British demolition in 1760 by gun powder, are factors which prevent retention in several instances.
10.	A large number of the description placards are in both official languages but a shortage of competent staff to ensure translations has slowed down the process.
11.	While the total complement of historians to be employed at the Louisburg site is dependent on recruitment now underway, the goal is to have a 50 per cent French language capability.


AIR CANADA SERVICE, OTTAWA TO NORTH BAY AND ROUYN
Mr. Lefebvre: 1.	Has the government studied the possibility of extending Air Canada service from Ottawa to North Bay, Ontario, and Rouyn, Quebec?
2.	If a study has been made (a) when was it made, and (b) what were its findings?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. No. Air Canada provides a daily service between Ottawa and Rouyn, using Viscount Aircraft. Service between Ottawa and North Bay is via Toronto.
2. N/A.


FOREIGN BUILT VESSELS UNDER CANADIAN REGISTRY
Mr. Smith: From January 1, 1965 until January 31, 1966, how many foreign built vessels trading in Canadian waters were brought under Canadian registry, and of such vessels, what was (a) the date of Canadian registry (b) name of ship owner (c) vessel name (d) former port of registry (e) tonnage (f) country, and (g) year of building?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: From January 1, 1965, to January 31, 1966, a total of 35 foreign built commercial vessels were registered in Canada, particulars of which under (a), (b), '(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) are as follows:
(a)	(b)	(c)
Date
Reg'd.	Owner	Vessel Name
(d)
Former Port
(e)	(f)	(g)
Tons	Year
Gross	Country	Built
8 Feb. Canadian Dredge & Dock Co. Limited.. Derrick No. 2.
15 Feb.	Windsor Trading Company Limited	
Windsor Trader...15 Feb.	Gallantry Fisheries Ltd	
Zebrula	23	Feb.	Fishery Products Limited	
Zurich	18 Feb.	Vancouver Tug Boat Co. Ltd	
V.T. No. 152	1 Apr.	Alphonse Bouchard	
Nelson B	15 Apr.	Fishery Products Limited	
Zaandam	21 May	H.B. Dawe Ltd	
Cupids	13	July	Bonda Draggers III Ltd	
Bonda III....7 Sept.	Misener Enterprises Ltd	
George M.	Carl...10 Sept.	Comet Enterprises, Bermuda	
Shelter Bay...10 Sept.	Comet Enterprises, Bermuda	
Thorold	13	Sept.	Comet Enterprises, Bermuda	
Outarde	13 Sept.	Upper Lakes Shipping	
Goderich	13	Sept.	Upper Lakes Shipping	
Ridgetown	14	Sept.	Hindman Transportation Co	
Parker Evans	14	Sept.	Hindman Transportation Co	
Howard Hindman15	Sept.	Hindman Transportation Co	
George Hindman..15	Sept.	Hindman Transportation Co	
Ruth Hindman...15 Sept.	Hindman Transportation Co	
Helen Evans	28 Sept.	Tartan Seafoods Ltd	
Kpeshie	.28 Sept.	Tartan Seafoods Ltd	
Pawnpawn	15 Oct.	Northland Shipping Ltd	
Island Prince....25 Oct.	H.B. Dawe Ltd	
Domino Run	_28 Oct. Fred Vey	
Laureen G	5	Nov.	Euclide Bouchard	
Conrad Marie. ...25	Nov.	Norlake S.S. Co. Ltd	
Manitoba	15 Dec.	Upper Lakes Shipping	
Wiarton	28 Dec. Labrador S.S. Co. Ltd	
Pointe Noir	6	Jan.	Evans McKiel	
Concrete Carrier.10 Jan.	Leadale Shipping Ltd	
Leadale	24 Jan.	Winona Steamships Ltd	
Hillsdale	24	Jan.	Redwood Enterprises Ltd	
Westdale	26	Jan.	Redwood Enterprises Ltd	
Grovedale	26 Jan.	Redwood Enterprises Ltd	
Parkdale	U.S.A. (Unreg'd.)	203	U.S.A.	1961Dundee	706	U.K.	1951The Hague	312	Holland	1958Dutch (Unreg'd.)	667	Holland	1965U.S.A. (Unreg'd.)	U.S.A.	1945Newcastle	553	U.K.	1949Dutch (Unreg'd.)	667	Holland	1965Grangemouth	681	U.K.	1940Dutch (Unreg'd.)	227	Holland	1962London	.... 10,418	U.S.A.	1922Hamilton (Bermuda)	7,774	U.S.A.	1907Hamilton (Bermuda)	7,841	U.S.A.	1917Hamilton (Bermuda)	7,438	U.S.A.	1906London	7,907	U.S.A.	1906London	7,637	U.S.A.	1905London	7,815	U.S.A.	1908London	6,966	U.S.A.	1909London	6,962	U.S.A.	1914London	7,074	U.S.A.	1910London	7,534	U.S.A.	1906U.K. (Unreg'd.)	335	U.K.	1961U.K. (Unreg'd.)	
335	U.K.	1962Oslo	1,782	Norway	1958Liverpool	857	U.K.	1946Seattle	26	U.S.A.	1955Leith	749	U.K.	1953Wilmington	
6,127	U.S.A.	1907New York	8,829	U.S.A.	1907Hamilton (Bermuda)	
9,171	U.S.A.	1926U.S.A. (Unreg'd.)	
38	U.S.A.	1945Hamilton (Bermuda)	
7,073	U.S.A.	1910Hamilton (Bermuda)	
6,866	U.S.A.	1908Hamilton (Bermuda)	
7,584	U.S.A.	1905Hamilton (Bermuda)	
7,367	U.S.A.	1905Hamilton (Bermuda)	
8,947	U.S.A.	1910March 14, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES
March 14, 1966
Questions
C.M.H.C. REGULATIONS RESPECTING	former employee of the public service of Canada
APARTMENT FINANCING	at Fort Churchill?


Mr. Smallwood: 1.	Did C.M.H.C., within the last year, direct any change in the regulations so as to provide funds for financing housing blocks or apartments and, if so, when?
2.	Have any loans been made on the basis of such regulations and to whom?
3.	Were any such funds loaned to the York Trust Company and, if so, how much and when?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


FREE COPIES OF &quot;HANSARD&quot;
Mr. Caouette: Does the government intend to grant the request of every citizen who wishes to receive regularly a free copy (one per family) of the official report of the House of Commons Hansard, and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, when will the government do so?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Under existing government regulations, authorized by TB 477983, dated April 6, 1955, and amended by TB 477983-1, dated May 6, 1955, no provision is made for the free distribution of government publications, including Hansard, to every Canadian family. These regulations do specify, however, that such material is provided free to a variety of institutions across the country, including all public libraries at which they are available to the general public.
Furthermore, pursuant to an Order of the House of Commons, dated May 28, 1948, each Member of Parliament may have as many as 16 copies of Hansard sent free of charge to residents of his constituency.
Above this free distribution, any citizen who so desires may subscribe to Hansard at an annual cost of $3.
The government is not at the present time giving consideration to possible changes in these regulations. Amendments such as suggested by the hon. member for Ville-neuve could involve an additional cost to the public treasury of as much as $10 million per year.


DISMISSAL OF B. ANDRUNYK, FORT CHURCHILL
Mr. Brand: What were the circumstances surrounding the resignation or discharge of Mr. B. Andrunyk, a


George James McIlraith: Mr. Andrunyk resigned voluntarily and registered as a reason on his notice of resignation: "For personal reasons".


DEMURRAGE ON BOX CARS, WEST COAST
Mr. McLelland: 1.	Are there demurrage charges leveled against the Canadian Wheat Board for grain that is on track waiting to be unloaded at west coast ports?
2.	How much grain was on track waiting to be unloaded during the strike at the Vancouver ports which took place from June 2 to August 13, 1965?
3.	Were the railway companies given remuneration or concessions of any kind for box cars loaded with grain waiting to be unloaded at the west coast ports from June 2 to August 13, 1965 and, if so, how much?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture and Finance as follows: 1. No.
2.	The Canadian Wheat Board does not have this information. Information not available as the Board of Grain Commissioners does not maintain specific statistics on quantities of grain awaiting unload at terminal positions.
3.	Not in so far as the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 66-T-609
Mr. Loney: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the candidates for Civil Service of Canada competition No. 66-T-609?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the successful candidate or candidates?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the Civil Service Commission:
1.	Having regard for the right to privacy of candidates and the possibility that the release of information could prove not only embarrassing but prejudicial to them, the commission holds in confidence information concerning candidates whose names do not appear on the eligible list.
2.	(1) Gazel, Janet Victoria (Mrs.), Kincardine, Ont.; (2) Bushell, Edbert Thompaon, Kincardine, Ont.; (3) Brocklebank, Kenneth James, Kincardine, Ont.; (4) Stewart, Anthony Duncan, Kincardine, Ont.
No appointment has yet been made. Competition was held to provide eligibles for future vacancies.
March 14, 1866


AIR CANADA-MEMBERSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Caouette: Is Air Canada a member of the International Air Transport Association and, if so, (a) what is the amount of the membership paid to this organization (b) how is that amount arrived at (c) how many representatives does Air Canada have in this organization and how many of them are French-speaking Canadians and how many are English-speaking Canadians (d) what are their respective functions and remuneration on the various committees or boards of this organization (e) what is the role played by Air Canada in this organization (f) what is the total cost to Air Canada of its participation in this organization (g) has Air Canada exerted any pressure with a view to giving a French name to this organization (h) what steps does Air Canada intend to take with a view to giving a French name to this organization?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes, Air Canada is a member of the International Air Transport Association, (a) For the year 1965 Air Canada paid $70,370 in dues; (b) Membership dues are calculated on the basis of a formula whereby the total budget of the International Air Transport Association is prorated among its members in proportion to their international operations, measured in terms of tonne-kilometres.
(c)	No permanent representation is involved but special meetings are held from time to time. IATA has a number of specialized committees such as legal, technical, etc., the make up of which is reviewed annually. Serving on these committees, Air Canada has at this moment six people, all of whom speak English and one of whom speaks French. In addition designated personnel of Air Canada represent the company's interests at traffic conferences, and on various ad hoc committees.
(d)	The function of personnel of Air Canada designated to one of the committees is to serve, as a committee-man, at the meetings of that committee, usually one per year; no remuneration is paid to these personnel with respect to their service on an IATA committee.
(e)	The same as that of any other of the 99 member air carriers, i.e. to serve on functional committees, and convey its views to traffic conferences.
(f)	The total cost to the company with respect to participation in IATA is $70,370 in membership dues, plus the travelling expenses of its personnel attending committee meetings and traffic conferences.
Questions
(g)	and (h) The organization represents many countries and many languages and not just English or French although it has official names in French and Spanish as well as English.


C.M.H.C. LOANS FOR N.H.A. MORTGAGE BLOCKS
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has C.M.H.C. within the last year made any change in the regulations so as to provide funds for financing blocks of N.H.A. mortgages and, if so, when?
2.	Have any loans been made on the basis of such regulations and to whom?
3.	Were any of such funds loaned to the York Trust Company and, if so, how much and when?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1,2, and 3. No changes in the regulations were made by CMHC within the last year so as to provide funds for financing blocks of NHA mortgages. However, Section 11 of the National Housing Act permits CMHC to make loans to the holders of insured NHA mortgages taken in respect of loans made for housing. The purpose of this section of the Act is to encourage the banks, insurance companies, trust companies and other financial institutions to make NHA mortgage loans and to invest in existing mortgages, and to promote the development of a secondary market for NHA mortgages. To this end, those lending institutions and other dealers in mortgages which have made or purchased NHA mortgage loans are able to pledge them at any time with CMHC as security for short-term loans.
It would seriously inhibit the achievement of these purposes if any financial institution making use of the borrowing facilities provided in the Act had to expect that such information would be made public. Consequently, it is considered not to be in the public interest to provide information concerning any institution which may have borrowed under this legislation.
There can be no objection, of course, to making available information concerning the total amount of loans made under Section 11. During the year 1965 and up to the end of February, 1966, loans totalling $29.95 million have been made; repayments amount to $11.5 million, so that the total loan amount outstanding at February 28, 1966, was $18.45 million.

March 14, 1966
Questions


VISITORS TO HALIFAX CITADEL
Mr. Forreslall: How many visitors registered at the Halifax Citadel in each of the following years: 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?


Arthur Laing: 1.	1955-56,
121,213;	1956-57,	213,860;	1957-58,	234,000;1958-59,	137,259;	1959-60,	190,383;	1960-61,204,677;	1961-62,	229,677;	1962-63,	243,609;
1963-64, 192,286; 1964-65, 213,212; 1965-66 (to January 31, 1966), 203,915.


AIR CANADA ROUTE, MARITIMES TO NEW YORK CITY
Mr. McCleave: Have attempts been made to extend the Air Canada direct routes between the maritimes and Boston to New York city and, if so, with what results?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Air Transport Board advises as follows: Route No. 3 in Schedule II to the Canada-U.S. Air Transport Agreement provides for service by a Canadian Airline between Halifax and the co-terminals Boston and New York. Air Canada has been designated by the government of Canada to operate this service, but due to paucity of winter traffic will not be operating it again until mid-June.


C.B.C. COVERAGE OF LAGOS CONFERENCE
Mr. MacEwan: In regard to the answer to question No. 216 and the C.B.C.'s coverage of the commonwealth conference in Lagos, Nigeria, what was the total exposure and air time of the material used for the C.B.C.'s four radio and television networks, and what was the individual air time and exposure for each of the four networks?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that 80 minutes and 32 seconds of program material was broadcast on the four CBC networks as follows: Radio: English Network, 38 minutes, 15 seconds; French Network, 15 minutes, 10 seconds. Television: English Network, 20 minutes, 25 seconds; French Network, 6 minutes, 42 seconds.


ANTI-POLLUTION DEVICES FOR AUTOMOBILES
Mr. Graffiey: 1.	Is the government aware that a recent United States government order has directed that all cars by 1968 be equipped with smog control and antipollution exhaust features?

2.	If so. is the government considering similar action for all cars produced in or imported into Canada, and has it been in contact with representatives of the automobile industry in this regard?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secreiary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question No. 799 is as follows:
1.	Yes. The Department of National Health and Welfare is keeping in close touch with proposed United States federal standards for control of air pollution from vehicles. These standards are still subject to modification.
2.	Officers of my department have been in contact with representatives of the automobile industry with a view to determining the feasibility of equipping Canadian cars with pollution control devices.


POST OFFICE SITE, CHRISTMAS ISLAND, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
With reference to securing the site for the Christmas Island post office, what owners of properties were interviewed and by whom?


George James McIlraith: Departmental Representative R. H. Chislett interviewed the following property owners: Allen J. MacNeil; Neil D. MacNeil; Mrs. Margaret MacNeil.
ANNIVERSARY OF MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY *


Mr. Dinsdale: What steps is the government taking to suitably commemorate the fiftieth anniversary on August 16, 1966, of the signing of the migratory bird treaty between Canada and the U.S.A.?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	The occasion will be suitably marked by a special publication issued by the government.
In addition, the chief of the Canadian Wildlife Service will attend and participate in a special ceremony in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the migratory birds treaty. The ceremony will be held on March 15, 1966, at the annual banquet of the North American Wildlife Conference to be held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


CHURCHILL. MAN.-DIVERSIONARY CHARGE ON GRAIN
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is a diversionary charge made on all grain shipped through the port of Churchill?
March 14, 1966

2.	If so (a) what Is the reason for and amount of the charge (b) what has been the total amount of this charge each year since 1950?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	Under the terms of a handling agreement negotiated annually with all elevator companies a diversion charge is paid by the Canadian Wheat Board on wheat shipped by elevator	companies	from	their country
elevators directly to the Port of Churchill for export.
2.	(a) The diversion charge paid by the Canadian Wheat Board since 1950 has been 1J cents per bushel. A diversion charge is a charge assessed by an elevator company when grain shipped from one of its country elevators	is diverted	from	that	company'sterminal elevator to another destination. Elevator	companies	consider	that theircountry and terminal elevators operate as an entity, and terminal revenues are an important factor in determining the basis upon which country elevators can be operated. Therefore, it has been a long-established trade practice that when a company loses terminal handling on grain as a result of the diversion of a country elevator shipment to a destination other	than	the	company's
terminal, a diversion charge is assessed to compensate for the loss of terminal earnings, (b) The total amount of diversion charges paidby the Canadian Wheat Board in respect of grain shipped in each navigation season through Churchill is as follows:
Churchill Shipping Seasons	Diversion Char on Country Shipments Dirf to Churchill
1950	$101,615.48
1951	132,312.53
1952	129,560.76
1953	168,208.86
1954	185,490.29
1955	206,648.03
1956	247,816.37
1957	245,536.58
1958	282,259.25
1959	325,575.17
1960	269,310.28
1961	275,183.66
1962	302,032.29
1963	341,486.56
1964	323,259.98
1965	295,367.89
Questions


PUBLIC WORKS ACTIVITIES, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works plan to construct any new wharfage facilities in Cumberland county during the fiscal year 1966-67?
2.	Is it the plan of the Department of Public Works to carry out any repairs to existing facilities owned by the federal government in Cumberland in the fiscal year 1966-67 and, if so, at what location and of what will the repairs in question consist?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public
Works): 1. No.
2.	No.


'PENSION PLAN DEDUCTIONS FROM MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS
Mr. Forbes: 1.	Are contributions made to the Canada Pension Plan from salaries of municipal councillors, reeves, deputy reeves, and mayors of small municipalities?
2.	If so, has the government given consideration to the possibility that extra bookkeeping of relatively small salaries is involved?
3.	If so, has the consideration been given to the exemption of such salaries from contributions to the Canada Pension Plan?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question 871 is in three parts as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Not specifically, but no contribution is required if the amount of salary does not exceed the basic minimum annual exemption of $600 prorated for the pay period.


AIR CANADA POLICY RESPECTING IATA
Mr. Caouette: What is the policy of Air Canada with respect to the International Air Transport Association?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advise as follows:
Air Canada's policy with respect to the International Air Transport Association is to participate as a member in good standing in the work of the association, and to honour the practices set up by agreement among its member airlines.

March 14, 1966
Questions


HEALTH RESEARCH AMONG ESKIMOS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare conducted any fudamental research among Canada's Eskimo population on diseases such as (a) cancer (b) multiple sclerosis (c) coronary?
2.	Is the government considering expanding fundamental medical research among this ideal control group?
3.	If so, what programs are contemplated?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	By expansion of the Northern Medical Research Unit located at the Charles Camsell Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta.


FEDERAL BUILDING, AMHERST, N.S.- USE OF SANDSTONE
Mr. Coates: Is the Department of Public Works intending to have Wallace sandstone specified as a material in the construction of the new federal building in Amherst, N.S.?


George James McIlraith: The consultant architect recommends the materials to be used on the project for which he is retained. No specifications have as yet been prepared for this building.


RIDING MOUNTAIN PARK-ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
Mr. Forbes: 1.	Is it the Intention of the government to rebuild and blacktop No. 10 highway through Riding Mountain national park from the north gate to Clear Lake?
2.	Has provision been made for this in the 196667 estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
3.	If so, when will tenders be called?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	Provision for reconstruction is contained in long range planning for the park.
2.	No.
3.	Not applicable.


PRINTING DEPARTMENT-WAGES PAID
Mr. Ricard: 1. What was the total amount of wages paid to all the employees of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery for each of the following years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
[Mr. Byrne.1
2.	What was the total amount of wages paid to those among these employees who were working in production such as type-setting, printing press, bookbinding, during each of the years mentioned above?
3.	What was the total amount of wages paid to the employees in administration, such as office workers, during each of the years mentioned above?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. 1957-58, $5,990,523; 1958-59, $6,797,327;
1959-60, $7,076,674; 1960-61, $7,783,308; 196162, $8,131,234; 1962-63, $8,049,793; 1963-64*, $624,631; 1964-65, $880,032.
2.	1957-58, $4,757,056; 1958-59, $5,428,752; 1959-60, $5,661,538; 1960-61, $6,194,651; 196162, $6,443,266; 1962-63, $6,231,782; 1963-64*, N/A; 1964-65, N/A.
3.	1957-58, $464,189; 1958-59, $522,041; 195960, $539,207; 1960-61, $619,205; 1961-62, $641,657; 1962-63, $659,556; 1963-64*, $137,115; 1964-65, $166,134.
* C.G.P.B. (Printing Bureau) placed under Defence Production.


PRINTING DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL
Mr. Ricard: 1.	What was the total number of employees in the Department of Printing and Stationery for each of the following years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
2.	What number among these employees were working in production such as type-setting, printing press, book-binding, during each of the years mentioned above?
3.	How many of these employees were in administration, such as office workers, during each of the years mentioned above?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. 1957-58, 1,670; 1958-59, 1,735; 1959-60, 1,744;
1960-61, 1,818; 1961-62, 1,737; 1962-63, 1,686; 1963-64*, 168; 1964-65, 184.
2.	1957-58, 1,085; 1958-59; 1,127; 1959-60, 1,149; 1960-61, 1,385; 1961-62, 1,293; 1962-63, 1,247; 1963-64*, - 1964-65, -.
3.	1957-58, 585; 1958-59, 608; 1959-60, 595; 1960-61, 433; 1961-62, 444; 1962-63, 439; 196364*, 168; 1964-65, 184.
*CGPB (Canadian Government Printing Bureau) placed under the Department of Defence Production.


QUEEN'S PRINTER AND P.P. AND S.- COST OF PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Ricard: 1. What is the estimated cost of all the work and publications done under the authority of the Queen's Printer for each of the following years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
March 14. 1966

2. What is the estimated cost of the work and publications done in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery during each of the years mentioned above?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1. 1957-58, $14,406,777; 1958-59, $14,561,177; 1959-60, $15,341,328; 1960-61, $15,762,600;
1961-62,	$16,705,657; 1962-63, $16,481,746;
1963-64, $16,546,778; 1964-65, $13,930,783*.
*In addition to the above, there is an amount of $4,584,782 expended for forms, etc. which now comes under the authority of the Department of Defence Production.
2. 1957-58, $7,816,612; 1958-59, $9,029,271; 1959-60, $9,631,397; 1960-61, $9,874,928; 196162, $10,202,504; 1962-63, $9,709,872; 1963-64, $10,122,903; 1964-65, $11,177,181.


LABOUR CODE-APPLICATION TO FISHERIES DEPARTMENT VESSELS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Does the Canada Labour (Standards) Code apply to employees on vessels operated by the Department of Fisheries?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: The act does not apply directly to employees of government departments. (See House of Commons Debates Oct. 13, 1964, p. 8999). However, standards similar to those contained in Part II (minimum wage) Part III (annual vacation) and Part IV (general holidays) of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code apply to the public service.


ARMED FORCES MARRIED QUARTERS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1. How many units of (a) temporary and (b) permanent married quarters for Canadian armed forces personnel are there in Canada?
Questions
2.	Of this number, how many were occupied as of March 1, 1966?
3.	What is the average cost per month of accommodation, heat and electricity in one of these units?
4.	What proportion of the Canadian armed forces occupy federal government subsidized housing in Canada?
5.	On what basis are members of the Canadian armed forces selected to occupy federal government subsidized housing?
6.	How many members of the Canadian armed forces are now on the waiting list for such housing?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) 261; (b) 24,501.
2.	24,391.
3.	The estimated average recovery rate for all ranks is $96. per month. This is based on $80 for a private soldier to $130 for a Lieutenant Colonel.
4.	Subsidized housing is presumed to mean all forms of married quarters including rental agreements. On this basis 26 percent of the forces are affected.
5.	A qualifying point system based on years of service and number of children is used by the Canadian army and the R.C.A.F. The R.C.N. uses a first come, first served basis. However, as integration progresses, a common allocation policy will be instituted.
6.	8,254.


SALARY OF LEADING AIRCRAFTSMAN
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	What Is the salary, including allowances, of a leading aircraftsman radar technician with 12 years service?
2.	What is the salary, including allowances, of a leading aircraftsman driver (chauffeur) with 12 years service?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Maximum Monthly Rates
Married	Single
With Quarters Without Without Quarters	and Rations	Quarters
and Rations	provided and Rations
1.	Leading Aircraftsman (radar technician)
wth twelve years service	$408	$278	$343
2.	Leading Aircraftsman (mobile support
equipment operator) with twelve years service


$390 $260 $325 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
March 14, 1966
Questions

Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
What is the salary of a Department of Transport captain, flying Viscount aircraft, after 10 years experience in this department?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The salary of a Department of Transport Captain, flying Viscount aircraft, after 10 years experience in this Department would be the maximum of the Class-Executive Pilot 2-$15,370.


USE OF SAUSAGE FILLERS AND BINDERS
Mr. Enns: Is the use of cereals and legume products as binders or fillers in sausage and meat products regulated by the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if so (a) what is the nature of, and reason for, any such regulations (b) under what authority and when were such regulations adopted?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes; (a) The Food and Drug Regulations of the Department of National Health and Welfare define a filler and a binder for use in certain meat products and state the type and quantity which may be used. Provision is made for cereal binders and fillers but there is no provision for legume products. The purpose of such regulations is to control the type and quantity of these substances in sausage and meat products; (b) The regulations were enacted under the authority of the Food and Drugs Act of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the present regulations date from December 8, 1954.


HOUSING PROGRAM FOR SASKATCHEWAN INDIANS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Under the joint federal-provincial low income housing program which was initiated in April, 1965, on behalf of Indians and Mdtis in Saskatchewan (a) what are the names of the 12 persons who took possession of these homes (b) where are these houses located (c) by whom were they constructed (d) where were they constructed?
2.	Of the $35,000 loan provided for the construction of the 12 homes (a) what was the denomination of each loan (b) what was the amount in each case which was advanced by the federal government (c) what was the amortization period of the loans?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. (a) Of the 12 units at or nearing completion 10 are now occupied by persons of Indian

ancestry for whom they were intended. The remaining two units are not yet occupied. The names of the borrowers are being omitted as it has been traditional in the public interest not to disclose the names of individual borrowers under the National Housing Act as such information is of a personal and confidential nature, (b) Three of the units are located at Cumberland House, five at Buffalo Narrows, three at Ile-a-la-Cross and one unit at La Ronge; (c) The units were constructed under the supervision of the Department of Natural Resources, Province of Saskatchewan, using local labour, (d) See answer to (b) above.
2., (a) Loan amounts are based on final construction costs which have not yet been determined. It is estimated that the loans will be in one case $2,000 and in the other eleven cases $3,000 each, (b) The federal-provincial agreement provides that the Province of Saskatchewan shall pay all charges relating to these projects and bill Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the 75 percent federal share. The Province of Saskatchewan has not yet requested payment of the federal share of expenditure incurred to date under this program; (c) The loans are to be amortized over a period of 15 years.


FEDERAL GRANT, KINCARDINE, ONT.
Mr. Loney: What amount of grant In lieu of taxes on federal property was paid to the municipality of Kincardine, Ontario, for the year 1965?


Mitchell William Sharp: Annual Grant in lieu of taxes related to year 1965, $1,310.00; Grant in lieu of local improvement rates, $1,108.40; Total, $2,418.40.


GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BRANCH
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	How many persons are employed in the government annuities branch?
2.	How many persons are employed in the administrative branch?
3.	How many persons are employed in the sales branch?
4.	Are sales department personnel paid by salary or by commission?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. 208.
2.	139.
3.	69 persons engaged in the sale of government annuities-52 sales representatives and 17 sales office assistants.
4.	The annuity sales representatives are paid by commission; their office assistants are paid a salary.
March 14. 1966


FEDERAL LAND PURCHASES, SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN PROJECT
Mr. McLelland: How many acres of land have been purchased by the federal government to date in connection with the building of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 56,065 acres.


ALDRIN AND DIELDRIN-CHANGES IN REGULATIONS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Since January 1, 1966, has the Canadian government changed the regulations governing the use of the agricultural chemicals aldrin and dieldrin and, if so, what have been the changes and for what reasons were they made?


John James Greene: Yes, as the regulations pertained to the acceptance of these in fertilizers under provisions of the Fertilizers Act. Acceptance of fertilizer mixes containing aldrin or dieldrin for farm use have been withdrawn because these mixes have been shown to be ineffective in controlling pest insects, and to increase the potential for residues in crops.


CANADIAN ASSISTANCE TO VIET NAM
Mr. Faulkner: 1.	What assistance has Canada rendered to Viet Nam by way of financial aid, capital projects or technical assistance?
2.	Are there any Canadian medical personnel now serving in Viet Nam, and what plans does the government have toward contributing medical assistance to that country?
3.	What participation has the Canadian Red Cross Society taken in any programs of assistance to Viet Nam?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Canada has allocated $3,692,132 in assistance to Viet Nam since 1953 of which $1,694,632 has been made available during the past two years. Capital Assistance has been in the form of food aid, mainly flour, help with the construction of a sciences building at the University of Hue and laboratory equipment for the University of Dalat. Technical Assistance has involved the provision of five advisers in the medical and educational fields as well as the training in Canada of Vietnamese. Some 380 students from Vietnam have trained in Canada with 183 of this total presently undertaking studies in Canadian universities and technical institutions.
2. There are three Canadian doctors now serving in Viet Nam. Canada has also indicated
Questions
to the Vietnamese authorities that it is prepared to establish and operate a Children's Rehabilitation Centre in Saigon; Canada is also undertaking the construction of an extension to T.B. treatment facilities at the provincial hospital in Quang Ngai.
3. On its own initiative, the Canadian Red Cross has provided significant amounts of clothing for the victims of the war in Viet Nam as well as making substantial cash donations through the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Canadian Red Cross has also indicated its willingness to cooperate in any appropriate way with medical assistance to Viet Nam financed by the Canadian Government.


HALIFAX-OBSERVATION OF NATAL DAY
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Do any federal civil servants receive time off to observe either Halifax or Dartmouth Natal Day?
2.	Do any hourly paid employees at H.M.C. Dockyard receive time off to observe either of these natal days?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Yes.
2. Yes.


H.M.C. &quot;DOCKYARD&quot;, HALIFAX-APPRENTICES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many apprentices have been trained in each of the several shops at H.M.C. Dockyard in Halifax during (a) the last twelve years (b) the last eight years (c) the last four years?
2.	How many are presently "in training"?
3.	How many apprentices have left the dockyard for employment elsewhere after having completed or more than half completed their training during (a) the past twelve years (b) the past eight years (c) the past four years (d) the past two years (e) the past year?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1.	(a)	(b)	(c)Shops	12 yrs	8 yrs	4 yrsPlate & Boiler	26	19	10Shipwright	16	10	5Sheet Metal	2	1	1Machine Weapons	56	38	20Machine Mechanical	34	18	5Pipe Fitter	3	3	2Mechanical Fitting	10	10	4Pattern Maker Internal Combustion	1	1	0Engr	7	7	3Electrical	89	62	35169	85
2646
Orders for Returns

March 14. 1966
2.	90.	CENTENNIAL PROJECTS, ONTARIO
3.	(a) 121 (b) 82 (c) 40 (d) 17 (e) 5. 
Question No. 605-Mr. Marlin (Timmins):


H.M.C. &quot;DOCKYARD&quot;, HALIFAX-JOURNEYMEN EMPLOYED
Mr. Forreslall: What is the average age of all journeymen now employed at H.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax?
Answer: 46.


PENSION PLAN DEDUCTIONS FROM MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS
Mr. Hopkins: 1.	Are contributions made to the Canada pension plan from salaries of municipal councillors, reeves, deputy-reeves, and mayors of small municipalities?
2.	If so, has the government given consideration to the possibility that extra bookkeeping of relatively small salaries is involved?
3.	If so, has consideration been given to the exemption of such salaries from contributions to the Canadian pension plan?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Not specifically, but no contribution is required if the amount of salary does not exceed the basic minimum annual exemption of $600 prorated for the pay period.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: What is the total amount of expenditure of the federal government made as of this date, or undertaken, or planned directly or indirectly, in connection with Expo '67?
Return tabled.


DIRECTORSHIPS HELD BY MINISTERS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Are any cabinet ministers directors of any companies, corporations, etc., and, if so, what ministers, of what companies or corporations are they directors, and at what date were any directorships presently held by such cabinet ministers assumed?
2.	Did any cabinet ministers resign any directorships on being sworn of the Privy Council and, if so, which ministers, on what dates, and frcm what companies or corporations?
Return tabled.

1.	In which locations in Ontario have centennial projects been approved, and in each location, what is the nature of the project?
2.	In each case, what is the total cost of the project, and the shares to be paid by the province of Ontario, the centennial commission, and the local sponsors?
Return tabled.



INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare as minister for Nova Scotia. I would ask him whether an alternative date has been set for a future meeting with the parties concerned in respect of the Nova Scotia coal industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have ruled before, and I should like to reaffirm the ruling, that ministers must be asked questions in their capacity as ministers of the Crown. They cannot be asked questions as ministers for a province or an area. I should like to reiterate that ruling at this time, which is based on precedent.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, the precedent has already been established on any number of occasions, and most recently during the consideration of the estimates of the department of mines, when the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot hear an argument on this point. I have ruled on this matter and I can assure the hon. gentleman that there is no doubt in my mind that there is no way the business of the house can be conducted during the question period if questions can be asked of a minister because he is the minister representing Prince Edward Island, northern Ontario or eastern Ontario. It would lead to a very difficult situation. I can understand the position of the hon. gentleman, but during the question period at this time we cannot ask questions on this basis. The question the hon. member now has in mind should be asked of the minister who is responsible for the administration of that department.
March 14. 1966



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Then, Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I ask whether he is responsible for this press release:
Cambrian Construction Limited, Montreal, has been awarded the contract to build a Department of Transport air terminal at Sydney, Nova Scotia, at a cost of $1,270,000-
I would ask, what has that to do with his department-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has issued a press release-oh, I see it is a press release of the Department of Transport, so it is better directed to the Minister of Transport.


An hon. Member:: That is the whole point.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would put the Minister of Transport in the same position because I thought the Department of Public Works was responsible for these projects.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that an answer has been given today to question No. 11 on the order paper concerning pensions of C.N.R. employees, can the minister say whether the government is taking any steps to find ways and means to increase the pensions of retired C.N.R. employees?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I think the hon. gentleman knows that is a matter which is within the scope of the management of the Canadian National Railways. It is the kind of question which, I feel, should be directed to the management when the committee undertakes the annual review of railway affairs.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? I wonder if the minister is aware of the fact that the Prime Minister has been answering letters from retired C.N.R. employees indicating that this matter would be referred to the Minister of Transport for further consideration? Does he not give the consideration that the Prime Minister requests him to give?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am well aware of that and the Minister of Transport, in turn, refers them to the Canadian National.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it his intention to make representations to the Polish government so that they permit Cardinal Wyszynski to visit Canada next May?


Mr. Speaker;: Order. I suggest that the hon. member should put his question on the order paper.


NATO-REFERENCE TO POSSIBLE WITHDRAWAL OF FRANCE-REQUEST FOR BILATERAL MILITARY AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, although it directly concerns the Secretary of State for External Affairs as well. It is a follow-up question and relates to NATO. Since press releases continue to appear indicating that France may withdraw from NATO, does the Prime Minister have some word for this house with regard to just what is happening to NATO in so far as the relationship with France is concerned?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have received a communication from the French government on this matter. This communication is being studied by the Canadian government as well as by the other members of NATO who have received similar communications. We are concerting our consultations with the other members of NATO before we consider any further action. The matter is being considered by the NATO
March 14, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry council as well. Perhaps there will be something more to say about it in a day or two.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: have a related question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and a statement which he is reported to have made on Friday or Saturday night to the effect that Canada is seeking closer commercial and cultural relations with France. Does this statement presage a closer bilateral military alliance with France?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no connection, Mr. Speaker, between our desire to pursue a policy of closer cultural relations with France and other countries and any particular problem that we may have as a result of the position taken by the government of France regarding NATO arrangements.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is it not a fact that the French government has indicated to Canada, either formally or informally, its desire for bilateral military agreement to replace the present general NATO arrangement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no doubt about the position of Canada. We believe in collective security. We believe in the purposes and the objectives of the integrated structure of NATO. We have received a communication, as the Prime Minister has said, from the President of the French Republic. This communication has been addressed, either in the form of a letter or in the form of a note, to Canada and the other 13 NATO countries. We are in the process now of examining the note addressed to Canada. We are also consulting with the other countries on the NATO Council on this situation as it affects both them and us. We are studying the matter here, in Ottawa. When we are in a position to give a further report, it will of course be given to the house as early as possible.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to address a supplementary question either to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to the Minister of National Defence, but it arises out of the same subject. Will the government use the opportunity provided by the French announcement of its decision to make a radical change in France's role in NATO, to reconsider and renegotiate the Canadian military contribution to NATO?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: As I indicated during the debate on 
the estimates, the whole question of commitments for the next period is under consideration, and it will have to be considered in the light of developments now taking place.


Robert Norman Thompson: I have a further supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of reports that the 14 members of NATO other than France are planning to declare their own faith in NATO, what, if anything, is Canada doing about that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Consideration is being given by the other member countries in NATO to confirming our faith in the collective security aspects of NATO.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely, the minister is in a position to say whether Canada is giving any consideration to a bilateral agreement with France in connection with military affairs? I would think the answer would be an unequivocal no. I am surprised the minister is not more definite.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend had before him the information I have before me, I am sure his reply would be the same as mine.


OATS AND BARLEY-INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is he now in a position to announce the final payments for oats and barley?


Mitchell William Sharp: I was informed, just before coming into the house, that the submissions to council approving the final payments have now arrived from Winnipeg. I expect they will be acted upon immediately and the Wheat Board will be making its announcement in the ordinary way.


Edward Nasserden: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance? May I take it he will be making a complementary statement here in the house with regard to these final payments?


Mitchell William Sharp: I intend to follow the same practice as I followed in connection with wheat. I shall ask permission to table the order in council and the Wheat Board announcement the day the announcement is made, so that members will know what the Wheat Board has announced.
March 14, 196G	COMMONS


HIGHWAY SAFETY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Before I put my question to the Minister of Industry, I hope the house will allow me briefly to thank the Prime Minister for the kind words he directed to me in the house last week relating to automobile safety. I can only say that if we have made a little bit of progress in this regard it results from the fact the government has a real appreciation of the problem, and I have received at all times nothing less than sincere co-operation from the Minister of Industry, who is treating this subject in a bipartisan way. I should like to thank the Prime Minister for his kind remarks.
My question for the Minister of Industry is the following: In view of the fact senior spokesmen for General Motors a few days ago in the United States admitted putting investigators on the trail of one Ralph Nader, an outstanding spokesman for automobile safety, and in view of Mr. Nader's allegations that these investigators named by the industry harassed his private life, will the minister serve notice on the industry in Canada of an expression of the view of the government and this house, that such behaviour on the part of the industry in this nation will not be tolerated?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: think the house would agree that it would be highly inappropriate for this house, or indeed Canada, to comment on matters which are now I understand the subject of investigation by the United States Congress.


TELEVISION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has he received two telegrams containing 3,500 names of the residents of the County of Pictou, requesting that the regulations for alternative television be reviewed so that they can obtain C.T.V. coverage from Halifax? If so, can he give us any idea when the government will announce policy in this regard, after studying the Fowler Commission report?
DEBATES	2649
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have not any doubt that I have received the telegram. I am not sure I have seen it, but, as the hon. gentleman knows, I do know about this situation. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the hon. lady, the Secretary of State, to answer the question; but since the question was hypothetical, in perspective, I think the only answer I can give is that the government will make its announcement as soon as it has the opportunity to give the fullest consideration to the Fowler report, which we are seeking to do when we are not in this place.


Howard Russell MacEwan: A supplementary question. I think the minister said that he was not sure whether he had received the telegram. I understand that the C.P.R. telegram was 50 feet in length, so it must be somewhere in his office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It may be in the anteroom, because I am short of space.


COLUMBIA RIVER-SAFETY OF HIGH ARROW DAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in addressing a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs were assured that the High Arrow dam was a completely safe structure, would the minister inform the house why, in the report of the Columbia treaty permanent engineering board, which includes representatives of Canada and the United States, it is stated that the board does not accept direct or implied responsibility for the safety of the structures being built according to the Columbia River Treaty?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is anxious to answer it; it is quite an important question.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to
March 14, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. My question is based on the fact that the 90-day survey period agreed on between Atomic Energy of Canada and General Electric with a view to establishing a second heavy water plant has now elapsed. Can the minister inform the house where this plant will be located and when construction will commence?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, the last time I inquired negotiations were still going on. I will inquire again today and will give an answer tomorrow.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: direct this question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the rather numerous reports which are current about a special pay increase for pilots in the air sector of the defence forces, is the minister in a position to advise the house whether this is a fact and, if so, when he expects to make the announcement? I can assure the minister that this matter is causing a great deal of controversy and unrest in the forces.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this question has been under study for some time. It is a matter of government policy and will be announced in the usual way.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. In that case, will the minister explain to the house why certain commanding officers have held "O" groups and announced this to the personnel of their squadrons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot explain that.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance?
Did the minister or the government issue counter-guide lines to Canadian subsidiaries of American firms, and does the minister plan to make them known to the house soon?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I fully understand what the hon. member is asking. The whole question of policy with respect to the United States guide lines and their effects upon Canada and upon the sort of policies that Canadian subsidiaries ought to follow in these circumstances is being studied quite urgently by the government today. As the house knows, the United States made it quite clear that they do not expect Canadian subsidiaries to act as other than good citizens of Canada, and that will be the purpose of any instructions or guide lines which we ourselves would issue.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask this question because of the interest in it of people in Prince Albert, Saskatoon, Regina and so on. It is a question to which reference has already been made and is in connection with the termination of the air service between these various points in Saskatchewan and others.
Is consideration being given to having Air Canada provide this service? This area has had private air service and passenger air service over the years, so I am wondering what the minister has to say in this connection. The situation will be very serious if this service is removed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree that this is a very serious problem. The right hon. gentleman probably knows that one route from Yorkton to Saskatoon has I think, ceased to operate, because there was virtually no traffic on it.
With regard to all the other routes now being flown by TransAir, until there has been a public hearing the Air Transport Board has declined to accept their view that they should terminate the service. As a result of that public hearing the board might or might not approve their application. I may say that the government is also giving the most urgent consideration possible to the problem, not only of the regional carrier on the prairies but of the regional carriers in Canada, because
March 14, 1966	COMMONS
all of them have problems that are not dissimilar from that of TransAir. The suggestion of the right hon. gentleman will certainly be taken into account in that consideration.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house where and when this public hearing will take place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would have to inquire of the Air Transport Board before I can do that. I will be glad to do that unless the hon. gentleman would prefer to do it himself.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I directed a question to him on February 18 which he said he would like to take as notice. My question asked the Prime Minister whether the government had given any further consideration to the possibility of extending or re-establishing the roads to resources program. I am wondering whether he could now answer the question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I myself have become very interested in this. A few days ago I received a report on the present state of the roads to resources program, and I will be submitting recommendations to cabinet very soon.


SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister seen press reports alleging that permits for U.S.S.R. vessels passing through the St. Lawrence Seaway have been subjected to unnecessary delay? I am wondering whether Canada has authorized the movement of these ships through this international waterway in the usual manner?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there has been any unnecessary delay. The applications are being considered and I hope there will be a decision made very soon.
DEBATES	2651
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE


INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON BILINGUALISM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priiiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question to the Prime Minister on the subject of bilingualism in the public service. 1 wonder whether the Prime Minister could let the house know approximately when he will be making his statement on the subject.
The second part of my question is: Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether the interdepartmental committee studying this subject has received a report from the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism on the subject of bilingualism in the public service?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I had expected to meet last Friday with my colleagues and representatives of the civil service organizations, at which meeting we were going to discuss some points arising out of the interdepartmental report, as well as our own views on this matter. Unfortunately, because of developments in the house we had to postpone that meeting, but we expect to have it very shortly. After that meeting I expect to be in a position to make a fairly complete statement to the house on this very important matter.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence or the Associate Minister. Would either minister, or both, consider requests by former servicemen who are now thinking of returning to the services that the re-enlistment bonus should apply to them, having in mind that they have already undergone considerable basic training and the taxpayers would have the advantage of such a saving?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This question was raised at the time the bonus was announced, Mr. Speaker. These things were not included in the proposal. The question is being reconsidered and studied. I am afraid I cannot at this time give my hon. friend any indication of what the outcome would be.
2652	COMMONS DEBATES	March 14, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry THE BUDGET


INQUIRY AS TO PROBABLE DATE OF PRESENTATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, if he could possibly give the house any date as to when he is going to present his budget to the house?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, I regret I cannot give that date today, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on two occasions I have asked the Associate Minister of National Defence certain questions with regard to Halifax dock workers. May I ask him whether he now has the answers or, if he has not, whether perhaps the Minister of National Revenue has the answers.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago a number of questions were directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence as a result of telegrams received from the Halifax Dockyard Trades and Labour Council, telegrams expressing concern about a job evaluation program that was being instituted without consultation with representatives of the employees concerned.
In May, 1964, the preparatory committee on collective bargaining made recommendations to cabinet calling for major reforms in the systems of classification and pay applying to civil servants and prevailing rate employees. The recommendations urged that steps be taken to develop and introduce a new and improved system based on a relatively simple structure of occupational categories and groups, a system that might be expected to provide a suitable framework for the negotiation of pay rates in the contemplated collective bargaining regime.
The recommendations were approved in principle and referred to the Civil Service Commission, which was asked to undertake the very large and important task of implementation. In October, 1964, the Commission established for this purpose a new unit known as the bureau of classification revision.

Since that time, the bureau, with the cooperation and assistance of all departments, has made a good deal of progress. Most of the required work on the administrative and administrative support categories has been completed. Planning work on the remaining categories, including the operational category to which dockyard employees will be assigned, is under way. It is expected that the whole program will be completed during 1967.
The major employee organizations in the Public Service have been consulted at every step in the development of this program. I am informed that, as soon as its tentative plans for the operational category have been formulated, the bureau intends to consult as well with organizations whose interests are limited to specific occupational groups in this category. These organizations will include the Dockyard Trades and Labour Councils in both Halifax and Esquimalt.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the house, and through us the workers involved, that the plans will not be implemented until the bodies concerned have been consulted, as well as informed of the result?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the bodies concerned would be consulted at the appropriate stage.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence and ask him if he would consider, upon request from the Dockyard Trades and Labour Council, the facility of a meeting with him on the very urgent and important question being considered in Halifax.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: That I shall, sir.


INCREASE IN COMMODITY EXPORTS TO OVERCOME TRADE DEFICIT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On March 9, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) the minister indicated that in his discussions with the United States authorities, he was aware
March 14, 19G6	COMMONS
of Canada's payments deficit vis-a-vis the United States. The minister stated that Canada's sales last year increased by 13 per cent, to a point over the $5 billion mark. In view of Canada's imports reaching 17.1-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has been very lenient this afternoon, but my leniency cannot extend to the point of allowing this question.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, might I finish the question and ask the minister what positive steps he had suggested at that meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, which would also perhaps concern the Solicitor General.
Has the attention of the minister been called to what has been described as a three stage national crack-down on organized crime in the United States, in which the President of that country outlined detailed proposals for a national strategy against organized crime, welding together the efforts of local, state and federal governments-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. gentleman is making a statement. He is not asking a question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I will come to the question, by putting the basis for the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that questions should not be preceded by speeches, however short.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I will come to the question. Will the Minister of Justice study the President's proposals and adapt what is relevant to a similar war on organized crime and its causes in Canada?



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask the minister if he can furnish the house with any information
DEBATES	2653
Inquiries of the Ministry in relation to the truckers strike in the province of Ontario and the participation of this department, because I have learned of a very serious situation which may develop later on this fall in regard to rail users.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that is a double barreled question. Perhaps it would be easier to deal with the second part first. The hon. member and the house will be glad to know that I have issued an order directing that a board of conciliation be set up to deal with the requests of the railway unions. A communication to that effect went off several days ago to the companies and to the unions concerned.
With regard to the first part of the question, I am happy to say that the reports that I received recently are a little more optimistic, and that the parties have again resumed negotiations in the truckers strike.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the government house leader. Has the government yet reached a decision as to the manner in which the issue of capital punishment will be placed before the House of Commons, so as to ensure that a decision will be reached? If so, what is the decision, and when does the government intend to start the debate?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to the first part of the question must be no, in its final form. In view of the breakdown of the business in the house for some days, I should like to withhold answering the second part of the question until tomorrow.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronfenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Because of a number of requests, would the Minister of Finance please advise the house and the country when and where one can obtain the $20 gold mint sets as proposed by the former minister of finance in honour of our one hundredth birthday.
March 14. 1966

Television Transmission Facilities


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to make inquiries and to inform the house or the hon. member.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I shall try the second time. I wish to ask the Secretary of State a question of which I gave her verbal notice five minutes ago. Would the minister inform the house if she considers it proper that the Government of France through its ownership of Air France should sponsor broadcasts to privately owned radio stations concerning the happenings in parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the question itself is not proper. It is not properly put or asked of the minister at this time.
May I suggest to hon. members as most questions have been answered this afternoon, we might move to private members business.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 5.30 p.m. the house will now proceed with the consideration of private members business listed on the order paper, namely notices of motions. It is my understanding of course that this will be an hour period, and that the house would adjourn, or suspend its sitting at 6.30 after private members business has been discussed for one hour.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To resume sitting at eight o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: To resume at eight o'clock.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should take steps to carry out its duty to provide television coverage by immediately establishing transmission facilities in northwestern Saskatchewan, including Buffalo Narrows, Uranium City and on to Fort Smith, Hay River and Yellowknife.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This motion was called for the first time on March 7, 1966.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I present this motion to the house at this time. The vast areas of northern Saskatchewan and the whole of the Northwest Territories have been neglected for years, so far as television service has been concerned, and no doubt the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) will also wish to speak on this motion.
It is well known that the C.B.C. was established to provide a national service, but it has not done so. We are taking far too long to obtain that national service, and a large proportion of our population has no television service whatsoever.
All Canadians, and the companies they work for, pay taxes which help finance the C.B.C. When one looks at the wealth that comes out of our northern mining areas, including the wealth from the fishing and farming sectors, he can certainly see a great injustice. Some Canadians have no T.V. service at all. The C.B.C. cannot claim to be national; it can only claim to be regional, until the majority of Canadians are given T.V. service.
Some 60 per cent of the Canadian people have access to at least two T.V. signals, and the government is giving the C.B.C. additional funds to provide colour service for areas which already have a choice of T.V. signals. Many people who live all along our southern border receive additional T.V. service from the United States. Yet, as I say, many Canadians have no service. The priority must be changed.
The recent Fowler Commission report gave top priority to the extension of C.B.C. television service in northern and remote regions of the country. Also recently, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) said he feels T.V. service to northern Canada is crucial if we are to attract people and investment into our northern regions. Television service is also necessary to help keep families in northern Canada as it relieves social isolation and puts them in touch with the rest of the country.
Although these northern regions are remote and sparsely settled, they have old established communities and have contributed
March 14, 1966	COMMONS
much to the settlement and development of Canada. I might mention many of these areas were settled long before the turn of the century, and I think it is high time we gave consideration to that part of the Fowler report which says people in the north should have television service.
At page 189, under the heading "The Northern Service" the Fowler Commission report states:
Reference is often made to "the frozen north" or "the silent north" but, from our experience in relation to broadcasting, it would be equally apt to speak of "the forgotten north." Out of fifty-five briefs submitted to the committee, not one made any mention of the northern regions of Canada and their broadcasting needs. Broadcasting can do much to compensate for the sense of isolation that besets Canadians who serve their country in these vast and remote regions, and can contribute substantially to the development of the north in this way, as well as by fostering wider knowledge and interest among audiences at large. The C.B.C. officials in charge of the northern service are acutely aware of the importance of broadcasting for those who live in the north, and their views are supported by several directors of the corporation who made personal inspection tours in 1963 and 1964.
Until 1958, the only service available in the north was provided by the armed forces and the Department of Transport, with program assistance from the C.B.C. In fact, the oldest continuous program on C.B.C. radio is "Northern Messenger," which began in 1932 and broadcasts, each week throughout the winter, personal messages from family and friends to men and women isolated in the Arctic regions. A C.B.C. plan for radio service to the north, which was commended by the Royal Commission on Broadcasting in 1957, was put into effect in 1958.
At page 194, under the heading "Financial Provision" it is stated:
It is obviously more expensive, per capita, to provide broadcast service to the sparsely settled north than to the much more densely populated areas of southern Canada. The same applies to all other northern services: for example, the annual expenditure for each pupil educated in the Northwest Territories is now about $700, and Eskimo health services cost almost $300 a head each year. The annual cost of broadcasting to the north amounts to only $16 a head for an audience to whom the importance of this service is pervasive. For a total operating cost of $1.2 million in 1964-65, the northern service is making an excellent contribution to the development of the Canadian north and the well-being of its residents, which should be strengthened and fortified in the future.
The additional operating cost arising from our recommendations is estimated at $500,000 a year, and the annual budget for the northern service should therefore be increased to at least $1.7 million as soon as possible.
DEBATES	2655
Television Transmission Facilities I should now like to refer to a question that was placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormiston) and was answered recently by the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh). The question read:
What is the estimated cost to the C.B.C. of putting colour production and transmission facilities in place to provide for limited network programming and for full network programming (English network), assuming the 1965 proportions of network programs originating from Toronto and from regional centres are maintained?
I should like to read the answer in order to give some idea of what we are spending on this, though leaving people in the north without any service whatsoever. The answer reads:
A.	The estimated capital cost of C.B.C. colour production and transmission facilities to provide limited network colour programming in both languages is expected to be $15,000,000 by the beginning of 1967.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
B.	The estimated share of capital cost for full colour programming (English network only) is of the order of $30 million. This is a planning figure only extended to 1971-72. It is necessarily a somewhat arbitrary estimate because most capital colour facilities will be shared by C.B.C.'s national, regional and local program services and by English and French services at some locations. The C.B.C. has not been authorized to enter colour to the foregoing extent but colour requirements have necessarily been estimated in all plans for consolidation and replacement of equipment. The English network's share of these proposals and of the $15 million in A is included in the estimate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything particularly against colour television, but I do-think we would be greatly amiss were we to provide colour television to the 60 per cent of the population in that part of Canada which already has one to two or, as I said, more signals already available at the turn of a switch, when we think of this vast area which is fairly well populated, which has produced great wealth and where to a large extent these people are left without any effort being made whatever to bring television into these areas.
If we were to take a good hard look at the wealth which has been produced from the uranium mines in the Athabasca region alone and if we were to take a look at the amount of revenue that the Dominion of Canada has received in the form of corporation taxes, I think we would make a greater effort to make a start at least to bring television service to these people who are doing a great deal for Canada.
Thank you very much.
March 14. 1966

Television Transmission Facilities Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Denis.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Are not born prejudiced, but could easily be made prejudiced.

Well, those young people, when watching television, be it in Vancouver, New Brunswick or in Quebec, will realize that a language different from their own is being spoken and they will immediately understand the bilingual character of their country. That should strike our young people.
That is why the C.B.C. should extend its bilingual service throughout Canada as much as possible. Now, that requires huge sums of money. The corporation must enter immediately into the field of colour television. I am repeating myself, but I feel this is important. The C.B.C. should not be criticized for spending tremendous sums on the development of colour television. My hon. friend knows very well what happened in Toronto recently. That is a striking example of what could take place elsewhere. Indeed, it is claimed that if the Toronto area had been provided with a new television station, people in Toronto and the surrounding area would be prevented from watching their favourite American programs as they are doing now.
If our people start watching American colour television, you can well imagine what might happen. I know that my hon. friend is as worried as I am about that. The C.B.C. must undertake research in the field of television and radio in Canada. If the C.B.C. does
2658	COMMONS
Television Transmission Facilities not start competing right now with private American television, the situation will be deplorable. Therefore, it must spend the money it is planning to allocate for the development of colour television.
I do not think it can be blamed for that.
There is no doubt that if you examine the range of the C.B.C.-and it is a summary of the observations of the C.B.C.-it can be seen that it subscribes to the recommendations of the Fowler Committee, namely to extend as much as possible the television network throughout Canada.
Buit there again you must admit that it has become more and more impossible to reach some regions without spending a lot of money.
Each year, however, the C.B.C. spends larger sums of money-and I think that is what the hon. member for Meadow Lake wants-to serve those regions.
If you refer now to the remarks made by the minister responsible on Thursday night, March 8, as reported at page 2419 of Hansard, you will read this:
I have asked the C.B.C.-and the C.B.C., as members of the committee can imagine, is eager to comply-to give the government and estimate of the cost of doing something similar to that suggested by the hon. member for Churchill, namely, to put aside a fund so that the last big step toward the outer limit of practicability can be reached in an orderly way.
And I would say that applies to the hon. members for Churchill and Meadow Lake and to all hon. members representing regions in the North.
Then, the C.B.C. can lay out its priorities and make a start toward providing a national service which is received, if possible, in every Canadian home.
Of course, the minister said that unfortunately she could not tell hon. members when that will happen. The Cabinet is studying that matter which, of course, comes under general government policy and the conclusions of the Fowler report.
Personally, I succeeded in obtaining a seat on the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. I do not know whether my hon. friend is a member of that committee. If not, like all other members of the house, he can appear before it, once it is set up, and voice his recommendations. I am sure he will find sympathetic people among its members. Naturally, I cannot speak for the other members of the committee, but he may rest assured that I myself shall be most

DEBATES	March 14, 1966
interested in hearing his views and recommendations, that is, I shall try to find with him, under present circumstances, what would be the ideal solution and the recommendations to bring before both the C.B.C. and the government.
Of course, those recommendations will always take into account questions which people most often refuse to mention, that is to say practical matters, realistic questions, in short, those having to do with financial possibilities.
Naturally, one could perhaps adopt the theory of a certain political party in this house and say that it is humanly possible to serve, as I am sure it is, all the northern regions of this country and all others which are not served. But that is a financial question and it would seem that, at the present time, that is the big problem. As soon as we find the solution to it, I am convinced that it will be more logical to put the said resolution on the order paper.
Then, the hon. member and other members who are interested in the matter will no longer have any reason to be dissatisfied.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the debate on this topic but it is my duty to do so at this time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the question to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight is as follows: The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer), Agriculture-feed grain -charging of unreasonable prices.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):
That, in the opinion of this house, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should take steps to carry out its duty to provide television coverage by immediately establishing transmission facilities in northwestern Saskatchewan, including Buffalo Narrows, Uranium City and on to Fort Smith, Hay River and Yellowknife.
March 14, 1966	COMMONS
Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. gentleman that I would be very happy to be a member of the broadcasting committee. I should like to ask him a couple of questions if I may. Does the hon. gentleman not think we are neglecting the population of the north and northern development in hesitating to bring television into the north?


Marcel Prud'homme: If I may answer, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) but at this moment the time limit of 20 minutes has been exceeded in his case. It is not possible to recognize the hon. member unless there is unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I would ask whether the house gives unanimous consent to the hon. member for Saint-Denis replying to this question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to be an expert on these matters as is the hon. gentleman. I try to find the best solution to a difficult problem and the answer is that this is exactly the difficulty of the C.B.C. I am sure the C.B.C. is faced with three difficult problems that appear to be of equal gravity, if I may say so. These problems are: Areas not yet served, improvements to existing services, the replacement of obsolete or inadequate facilities.
These are the problems of the C.B.C. and I think they serve as an answer to the question. It is a difficult situation. We need more money to extend services. It is just a question of money and it is not a question of desirability. We all agree it is desirable. We all agree that these services should be extended. However, if we go as far as to say that we should not have colour television in Canada but rather should use all the money for the development and extension of television to northern regions not yet served, I think we are not helping our country.

We do not help our country to remain in a competitive position with the country to the south which invades us more and more in every field, radio broadcasting, television, culture, and even the newspapers.
DEBATES	2659
Television Transmission Facilities [English]
I have tried to give an honest answer to an honest question.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, has the hon. gentleman any idea of the wealth that has come out of the Athabasca region alone?


Marcel Prud'homme: I spoke about that a few minutes ago after listening very carefully to the hon. member. I said I agree that we do receive a great deal in the way of natural resources from this area and the C.B.C. should take this into consideration. I agree completely that the country as a whole receives much more than the country as a whole sometimes is giving back to the northern region.

The fact remains that it is a financial matter, that there are three main problems C.B.C. must face.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes and add a few words to what I already said on this subject a few days ago, during consideration of the estimates of the Secretary of State.
I fully agree with the motion of the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu), to the effect that any area which does not yet receive C.B.C. television coverage, should get it as soon as possible.
The motion of the hon. member for Meadow Lake reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should take steps to carry out its duty to provide television coverage by immediately establishing transmission facilities in northwestern Saskatchewan, including Buffalo Narrows, Uranium City and on to Fort Smith, Hay River and Yellowknife.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced-and we have seen again tonight-that no member in the house objects or would object to the passing of this motion. I assume that the member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) spoke on behalf of the Liberal party, and according to the answers given last Tuesday by the hon. Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), on that subject, I believe that the government would also agree to make this radio and television service available in every place where it is possible in Canada.
March 14, 1966

Television Transmission Facilities
I am a little surprised to hear the member tor Saint-Denis tell us that the main difficulties at the moment are especially financial.
Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to sending funds anywhere in the world, for the development of underdeveloped areas, the question of whether or not we have the money is never asked. It can always be had.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Meadow Lake when he says that all northern areas of all the Canadian provinces are underdeveloped regions.
What culture television can give them will be of great help, and will even contribute to developments right across Canada.
Southernmost regions have benefited far more from television. They have access to the C.B.C. network as well as to several private radio and television stations; they also have access to television from the United States.
Northern regions have no television whatsoever and C.B.C. reception is very poor.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the present government wanted to go to the trouble of doing so, it would find a way of financing the expansion into the north of the C.B.C. network to enable it to serve all the regions which are inhabited to a certain extent.
We are told it is going to be very costly. Still, the citizens of northern areas, such as the people of Chibougamau-Chapais in my area, have contributed through their income tax and other taxes to the financing of television network developments in southerly regions. It would be proper, now, for the other citizens of the country to help finance that C.B.C. development.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that no member would object if the government were to propose the allocation of the necessary funds for this development.
High-ranking officials of the C.B.C. tell us that it is physically possible to provide service in all areas of the north. Thus, the government need only make financially possible what is already physically possible and everyone will be satisfied.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take too much of the time of the house in debating this matter since the debate appears to be rapidly coming to a conclusion. I would be happy if the house would accept this resolution. I should

like to add by wholehearted support to the motion of the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu). On numerous occasions I have spoken in the house of the need for extending C.B.C. television services into the northern parts of our provinces and indeed into the Northwest Territories.
I was interested and a little surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I really do feel he is interested in this problem. He said it was a matter of financing and in a way he is quite right. He appeared to be wondering if the financing of this project was justified at this time and mentioned that these things would be discussed during the meetings of the Committee on Broadcasting. I am not a member of that committee at this time. I am interested in becoming a member of the committee, and I hope that by the time the committee meets I will have succeeded in becoming a member of it.
I should like to say to all hon. members of the house, particularly those on the government side, that this is an extremely important matter. As I mentioned the other night, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has finally recommended to the government that parliament provide the money necessary to extend this service just as they recommended the expenditure on coloured television. This expenditure would allow the corporation to complete the extension of service into areas now unserviced. I feel that this is the crux of the matter and that parliament at this session should provide sufficient money to allow the corporation to do this job. Every member should impress upon the government the necessity for parliament providing this money.
The Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) has said she has asked the C.B.C. to provide the government with an estimate of the approximate cost of extending C.B.C. television service to these areas. In its annual statement last year the C.B.C. stated the cost would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15 million. This may seem like quite a sum of money but recently we passed estimates containing a subsidy of some $96 million or $97 million to the C.B.C. The estimates with which we are going to deal later this session contain an appropriation of $110 million for the C.B.C. or almost $15 million more than the amount we just voted. Although $15 million may seem like a large sum of money we should stop and think of the hundreds of millions of dollars which have been spent in
March 14, 1S66
providing television to people who already enjoy it. I do not feel we should consider $15 million as an exorbitant sum to provide this service to the rest of the taxpayers of Canada.
I returned this week from a visit to my constituency. One of the purposes of my visit was to attend a meeting called by the chambers of commerce of northern Manitoba. The purpose of the meeting was to present further briefs to the government, the corporation and the B.B.G. requesting the extension of C.B.C. television services into these areas. At the meeting there were representatives of chambers of commerce in one constituency who live 500 to 600 miles apart. The meeting was well attended. These representatives met three weeks ago at another point in the constituency and in about two weeks they will be meeting again. A delegation will come to Ottawa-I do not know the size of the delegation but it will be about a dozen people-to try to impress upon the corporation, the government and the B.B.G. the necessity for this type of action.
In conclusion I should like to compliment the hon. member for Meadow Lake for bringing this resolution before the house. He has my full support. I hope all members on the government side will impress upon their colleagues the necessity for providing this money to the corporation to enable the corporation to do this job.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) upon the introduction of this measure. I believe he is attempting, through public address, to do what I have been working earnestly to do more or less privately. I find there is not a large number of members of the House of Commons who are concerning themselves with this problem. During the past three years I have undertaken to communicate with the C.B.C., the Board of Broadcast Governors, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the members of his cabinet in an endeavour to have a decision made to undertake immediately full television coverage for all taxpayers in Canada. I believe that I have met with some measure of success.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I should like also to compliment the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) since he has been consistently bringing this matter before the house. As I said, I believe I have
Television Transmission Facilities been somewhat successful in my representations. I must say that, knowing the members of the Fowler Committee, I made a practice of communicating rather frequently and asking them to make a recommendation to the government with regard to this matter. I believe my representations were somewhat successful because the Fowler Committee has made a recommendation that such coverage be undertaken by the C.B.C.
The hon. member's resolution requests that this parliament ask the C.B.C. to undertake this very expensive project. There is no question of course, that this means that over the next five years something like $15 million to $20 million will be required in order to provide television coverage only to communities of 2,000 people or more. This again falls far short of providing television coverage to all taxpayers of Canada but it is a step in the right direction.
This parliament and the government must make provision for the $15 million to $20 million that will be required. Much as we would like to, neither members of parliament nor the government can insist that the C.B.C. undertake this project. After all, it is an autonomous body which decides in its wisdom whether it will or will not provide the services demanded by the Canadian public. It seems to me it will require a special vote of the house to set aside a fund for this specific purpose, one not for the general use of the C.B.C.
I,	too, felt some consternation when the C.B.C. said-I have not heard any announcement by the government-that there would be colour television in Canada by October this year. When I was pressing the former secretary of state some time ago for a statement on the part of the government as to the intentions in this regard, he said that colour television would not have priority over extension of television service to the outlying districts of Canada. Undoubtedly because of pressure of other matters we have not had a decision either on the part of the government or on the part of the C.B.C. whether they intend to process these areas before embarking upon colour television.
I suppose most hon. members who have concerned themselves with this matter know that the C.B.C. has a formula under which it operates with regard to providing television coverage to outlying communities. It determines the cost per capita and from there it determines which area will have priority. It may be that an area of 3,000 population will

March 14. 1966

Television Transmission Facilities have priority over an area with 15,000 to 20,000 people simply by virtue of the fact that the cost per capita to bring in television service is lower.
It is not entirely a question of money even if we do embark upon this undertaking over the next year or two. Technical difficulties have to be overcome. Apparently procurement is one serious problem. Even if at this session of parliament we do, and I hope we will provide the money required by the C.B.C. to undertake this coverage in its entirety, this does not mean that this operation will be completed within a year or two. It also does not mean that people in the far-flung areas are going to be provided with television even if we do spend up to $30 million.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what is required at this moment is a determination on the part of the C.B.C., perhaps with the authority of the government, to undertake some research. Technical developments are taking place at a rapid rate, yet not rapidly enough to provide television service across Canada. It seems to me that at a time when it is possible to send satellites into space which can relay television from Europe to Canada, and knowing that satellites can be kept stationary in the sky, it should also be possible to orbit a space satellite which could be suspended in space over the central part of Canada to provide C.B.C. coverage to all parts of the country, into the mountainous valleys of British Columbia and even to the north pole. If we can send satellites into space to reflect television from Europe or from any other part of the world, then it is not an insurmountable undertaking to reflect television broadcasts in Canada. This would not be nearly so costly as providing a microwave system, land lines and so on to give television coverage across the nation.
I believe we have been moving too slowly. We have been thinking in terms of microwave systems alone. It may be there would be some serious objection from microwave companies who are already in the business of providing services from central telecasting areas right across the nation. Perhaps they would find themselves with a great deal of unusable equipment, but such are the circumstances of modern technology. I believe we should investigate the situation and provide the sum of money required for immediate and serious research into this matter in order that we may provide television throughout the entire nation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six thirty.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: In the meantime we should not stall any projects now being carried on to provide television coverage to smaller communities. I do not wish to talk out this measure, Mr. Speaker, so that is all I have to say at this time.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six thirty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. The time allotted to private members' hour is one hour and that time has not yet expired.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) for having introduced such a motion to give citizens in distant parts of the country who do not have television the advantages of this most important means of communication.
This motion reflects not only the wish of the hon. member and his fellow citizens in northwest Saskatchewan and others, but also that of several other hon. members and their constituents.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
The hon. member sitting beside the hon. member for Meadow Lake would also have many things to say on this subject because, like myself, he comes from the Gaspe peninsula. The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) could put on the order paper a motion written in exactly the same terms, except for the name of the place, since a large part of Gaspe riding is virtually deprived of television services.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) mentioned-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. As it is now six thirty, it is my duty to leave the chair pursuant to an order passed by the house this afternoon.
Accordingly, the house will adjourn until eight o'clock tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fine.


William Heward Grafftey: Have a good lunch.



SITTING RESUMED The house resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
March 14, 1966


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the position, we are at this moment back on the question of privilege and have before us what I call draft terms of reference, although the order in council has been passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is the understanding of the Chair that we are on a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Kamloops and more particularly on the terms of reference mentioned by the right hon. Prime Minister this afternoon.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is my understanding, Mr. Speaker. I call them draft terms of reference because I do hope that the government will be prepared to consider some amendments to these terms of reference, although I appreciate that the order in council has been passed.
Therefore, what we have to discuss are two things, as I see it: First, whether there should be a judicial committee of inquiry and, if so, whether and to what extent the terms of reference proposed are satisfactory. It is our position, Mr. Speaker, that we are agreed to there being a judicial inquiry into the Munsinger case but we are not prepared to forgo any of the rights and privileges of this house and its members, nor are we prepared to forgo the rights of members to discuss these privileges here in so far as they have been brought into question by the course which has been followed so far.
We have said, and I repeat, that we have nothing to be ashamed of or to hide in our handling of this particular case. I want to make it perfectly clear that we are not opposing or seeking to delay the constitution of the judicial committee of inquiry. I merely wish to make it abundantly clear that we reserve the right to express our opinion on the terms of reference and we do not admit that any judicial inquiry or any body can determine in any way the rights and privileges of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This house is the only body that can do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Subject to that understanding we are prepared to co-operate in expediting a
Administration of Justice satisfactory judicial inquiry. We are, however, very much concerned with the terms of reference embodied in this order in council.
Wishing also to expedite the day, the hour, the minute when this house will be restored to a position where it can deal with the business of the country, we suggest, subject to reservations I shall mention in a moment, that there be an all party committee to discuss the terms of reference which have been laid before us today to see if it is possible to arrive more closely, at any rate, to agreement than I regret to say is the case so far. I shall be outlining to the house this evening the reservations that we have with respect to the terms of reference and some of the things we think should be incorporated therein. Others in our party will wish to follow up in detail with respect to some of the matters I mention.
I wish to make it clear that we have decided that if the government is prepared to agree that there should be an all-party committee we will co-operate in that committee. I do not mean it to be implied that at the moment I sit down we shall have exhausted the matters that we at this stage wish to bring before this house as to the things that should be considered by that committee.
I want, next, to indicate some of the objections to the present terms of reference and the suggestions we have to make as to how they should be amended. First, Mr. Speaker, in our view the terms of reference proposed in the order in council are far too vague and do not reproduce in the least fully or accurately the full effects of the charges made and the innuendos raised by the Minister of Justice. It is our view that these charges and their accuracy should form the major portion of the investigation which the commission is asked to undertake, and with that in mind I want to refer to some of the specific terms which we think should be altered.
In the first place, we think that the reference to the letter from the Minister of Justice to the Prime Minister which was read into the record of the House of Commons on Friday last should be deleted from the terms of reference of the royal commission. We are of that view because the letter of the Minister of Justice was an exculpatory document, or an attempt at exculpation, and an attempt to deny that he had made far reaching and improper charges publicly into which this commission should inquire. We therefore object very much to the letter, and certainly the initial portion, being made part of the terms
2684	COMMONS
Administration of Justice of reference-especially being the initial or main portion. After all, Mr. Speaker, the letter seeks to narrow down the accusations of the Minister of Justice to an accusation that the former prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition, was derelict in his duty in not referring the matter to the legal advisers in the Department of Justice.
This is not really the issue before this house, nor should it be the issue before the commission at all. I have already dealt with the reasons the letter was not referred and I am not going to go into this again in detail tonight. I simply want to make clear one thing, that the former prime minister and I stand together in this matter. I received a report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The same day I referred it to the then prime minister. I did not wait until I met him some weeks later on a plane trip and then refer to it casually.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Smear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I told the then prime minister I wanted to see him. I said I had to see him on a serious matter. He said I was welcome to come to his office to discuss it, and to come right away. I went down with the file. We discussed the file and the surrounding circumstances. Those were the relationships that then characterized the administration of justice and the relationship between the minister and the prime minister. We did not operate in watertight compartments.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: What about February, 1963?


Edmund Davie Fulton: And that having been done-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why did you quit?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I say that with respect to this matter we stand together, and it is not the former prime minister who is on trial here-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Oh, it is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: "Oh, it is" I hear from over there. Now we have it. Now we know.


An hon. Member:: That is the little boy from Rosedale.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am afraid I did not personally observe the source of the interruption but I am told it was the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald). Well, sir, that may be the intention of hon. members opposite but we do not intend to allow this parliament to be prostituted by that kind of conduct


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

DEBATES	March 14, 1966


Edmund Davie Fulton: So I say that we object to the inclusion as the first portion, if indeed as any portion of the terms of reference, of the letter of the Minister of Justice.
Then, something that should be added to the terms of reference is a reference to the statements made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister, as reported at pages 2521 and 2532 of Hansard for March 10, where the Prime Minister made it clear that in his view what was important in the inquiry was whether or not this was a bona fide security case. At page 2521 the Prime Minister said:
I believe that there have been all sorts of statements made in the house this afternoon, and allegations made inside and outside the house. I ask the hon. member who was so very indignant a few moments ago because we would not do anything about it, if the government moved a motion in this parliament for the establishment of a judicial inquiry, which is what they wanted in the Spencer case and this is a matter which concerns security- would the opposition support it?
That statement, I submit, makes it clear that in the Prime Minister's view the important thing to be inquired into was whether the Munsinger case concerned security.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit me to ask a question? Would the hon. gentleman tell us if the file to which he has made repeated reference was a security file in the usual acceptance of that term?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was a confidential file, so marked, and it dealt with matters which were secret and confidential as between myself and the R.C.M.P. reporting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Exactly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And I said this afternoon that there was no charge or suggestion therein that there had been a breach of security. If my hon. friend, who has been a minister long enough to know better, does not know there are a number of things that come from the R.C.M.P. to the minister of justice which are so categorized and under that cover, which do not deal with security in the sense hon. members opposite have been trying to represent it, then he does not know what goes on in the administration of justice in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, I should like to repeat my question. I ask the hon. gentleman whether this file was what is normally referred to as a security file or did it refer to some other kind of thing that the R.C.M.P. was investigating?
March 14, 1966	COMMONS


James Ross Fulton: I have made my statement this afternoon. I would have liked very much to be able to see the file before speaking here today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Evasion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think my hon. friend has seen it, and I have made my statement. I am not going to go back on my statement, nor am I going to retreat from it, that the investigation which gave rise to the report I received was not initiated as the result of any security checkup in the proper sense of the word security.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What is the proper sense of the word?


John Ross Matheson: May I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kamloops has the floor.


David Lewis: May I ask the hon. member a question? I am not concerned with the politicking going on between the Minister of Transport and himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, sit down.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said about the questions that were asked of the hon. member for Kamloops but I want to ask him a question relating to his suggestion. Does his suggestion for the inclusion of the statement made by the Prime Minister add anything in his view to the statement now in the terms of reference about the circumstances that may have constituted a risk to security? I am seeking information. I am not trying to do anything else.


James Ross Fulton: I appreciate the terms of the hon. member's question and I assure him I will deal with that as I outline my suggestion with respect to the changes that should be made in the terms of reference.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question? Did the file come from the security and intelligence branch?


James Ross Fulton: I think, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious we are getting to the root of what has been going on here. It appears to me it becomes important for the Prime Minister to say what he means by security, in the context in which he used that word in relation to this case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That will be easy.
DEBATES	2665
Administration of Justice


James Ross Fulton: All I want is the Prime Minister's statement of March 10, to which I have referred at page 2521, made part of the terms of reference, because that was an allegation made by the Prime Minister that this was a security case.
We would also wish to have the statement made by the Prime Minister, reported at page 2532 of Hansard, made a part of the terms of reference and subject to the commissioner's inquiry. At that stage the Prime Minister was indicating he was prepared to adopt the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and he said, referring to the amendment:
It is that we should:
-take such steps as are necessary to establish a judicial injuiry into the security case referred to by the Minister of Justice and by the Leader of the Opposition on March 4, 1966, at Hansard page 2211-
The Prime Minister was prepared to adopt that as part of the terms of reference for the inquiry. In other words, in his view this was a security case and this is a matter we think the commissioner should be instructed and required to look into.
Then we think the terms of reference should be further amended by deleting the whole clause beginning about the middle of the Order in Council with the words:
-and into ail the statements of the Minister of Justice in a press conference on March 10, 1966-
And ending with the words:
-and that the case was not properly handled;
We think that sentence should be deleted-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Ross Fulton: -and that there should be substituted therefor some words which I will outline in a moment. The reason we think that deletion should be made and a substitution inserted is that in our view the words included in the Order in Council do not in the least accurately reflect the charges made by the Minister of Justice, and what we have here are words which contain refinements and important omissions and inclusions which would prevent the commissioner from getting to the root of the matter.
After all, this thing arose out of the charges made by the Minister of Justice. He said, and I have the press clippings here to substantiate it, that the case concerned not just involvement. What was implicit in the minister's statement was improper involvement, something entirely improper-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Quote it accurately.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Quote it.
2666	COMMONS
Administration of Justice Mr. Fulion: -and also that included in the involvement were two or more ministers, not just involvement with the said Gerda Munsinger but involvement which, in the very direct implication of everything the minister said, was improper.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Quote that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Quote that. Talk about smearing.


James Ross Fulton: Oh, yes, the minister said it was worse than the Profumo scandal. That is what he said, and there is no reference to that in the terms of the inquiry.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Just quote what I said. That will be sufficient.


James Ross Fulton: I will come to that. I have the press clippings here. He implied there was a security risk involving former ministers. Is that not improper involvement? Is all that he was saying that somebody knew Gerda Munsinger? Is that what he was saying? Of course it is not and he knows it. The inquiry should examine whether that improper involvement he was alleging was an involvement such that the actions of those concerned were definitely a security risk to Canada. "Definitely" is the word he used, but we find in the terms of reference the words "may have constituted a risk to the security of Canada". That is not what he said. I have the clipping before me:
"I don't know-but there definitely was a security risk."
He tells me to quote him. He nods now. He said it definitely involved a security risk. So that sentence should be deleted, because that is not the charge the minister made.
There should be substituted words to the effect: "and into all statements by the Minister of Justice in a press conference on March 10, 1966, and the implications thereof, and to ascertain whether there was evidence in the R.C.M.P. file laid before the government in 1961 to support the following findings:
1. That 'two or more ministers' were improperly involved with Mrs. Munsinger and that their actions in that involvement had been such as to be 'definitely' a security risk to Canada."
That is what we want the commissioner to look into.

DEBATES	March 14, 1966
"2, That the file turned over to the minister of justice by the R.C.M.P. in 1961 was a 'bona fide security case'.
3.	That a breach of the national security or some other offence was indicated in the file, thereby imposing a duty on the then minister of justice or prime minister to refer the file to the legal advisers in the Department of Justice.
4.	That Mrs. Munsinger was known to have been employed and to have been active in espionage work before coming to Canada."


An hon. Member:: Now we are getting to it.


James Ross Fulton: That is what we want the commissioner to look into, because that is what the Minister of Justice alleged outside the house. He apparently is nodding his head that these were the allegations he made.
Then, as I say, the word "may" is not acceptable. The word "may" must come out. His allegation was that the case was a definite security risk. The commissioner also should be asked to inquire into the question of whether the Munsinger case was worse than the Profumo scandal, another charge made by the Minister of Justice. He went down behind the desk for a moment but he has come up again.
Then there is another matter in respect of which it is essential that the commissioner inquire and which must be incorporated into the terms of reference if it is to be a fair and impartial inquiry and not a loaded one. That is the question-the Prime Minister laughs. Let him explain why this is omitted from the terms of reference. The terms of reference should also include a finding and report upon the conduct of the present Minister of Justice and his immediate predecessor who, although now asserting that the case involved a definite security risk, took no action in the case until it became a subject of political controversy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman another question? Would the hon. gentleman tell us why he took this file to the Prime Minister so precipitately if there was no security risk involved?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister who asked the question obviously does not appreciate the proper relationship between the Minister of Justice and his Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
March 14, 1966	COMMONS


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And in the light of the attitude revealed there I am not surprised that the administration of justice has been degraded to the lowest level in the history of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have seen too much of the results arising from the fact that the Minister of Justice and his Prime Minister operate in watertight compartments and wait until there is a casual reference made in the back seat of a plane in respect of something involving people next to government. I did not regard it as fulfilling my duty to my prime minister to leave him in the dark concerning things that were said.


An hon. Member:: About what?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am waiting to hear the Minister of Justice tell us.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You were the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There we have the same old implications.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 suggested when the hon. member took the floor that the purpose of the discussion was to consider the terms of reference of the proposed inquiry. I would ask the hon. member who has the floor to limit his statements to that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, sir; but I regret that I see the same implication as that raised by the Minister of Justice earlier this evening-"we make the smear; you do the explaining". What an appalling suggestion to come from the front bench of those opposite.
Then I think there should be included in the terms of reference of this commission the question of the circumstances surrounding the administration of Mrs.-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The admission of Mrs.
Munsinger.


Mr. Starr:: She was a security risk and you let her in and paid her way over.


Mr. Churchill:: Who was the minister of citizenship and immigration in 1955-the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let me fill in the ellipsis surrounding my words. The administration of the government of Canada at the time of the admission of Mrs. Munsinger was a Liberal
DEBATES	2667
Administration of Justice administration and Mrs. Munsinger was admitted under the aegis of my hon. friends opposite; yet, we are now told by them that Mrs. Munsinger was a security risk before she came.


An hon. Member:: In what year?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In 1955, I understand. Who was the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are now told-and it is one of the implications in the charge-that she was a spy engaged in espionage activities and there were security reports about her long before she came. Who let her in?


An hon. Member:: Let there be no mystery about that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Whom the cap fits, let him wear it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of personal privilege-
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that we are on the question of privilege. I have heard, during the last two or three days, members get up on questions of privilege. On Friday afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre raised a question of personal privilege when we already had a question of privilege before the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Am I being singled out for admonition?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest there is one question of privilege at the moment and that we should limit ourselves to that particular question. When we have settled that one perhaps we will go on to another, such as the one the Minister of Transport wishes to raise at this time.
I have given some thought to this and I suggest there is no basic difference between a question of privilege affecting hon. members of the house and a question of personal privilege. When the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre raised his point the other day I asked whether there was any distinction which would allow the hon. member to interrupt the question of privilege then before the house. In this regard I suggested to him at that time that we should limit our discussion to the question then before us, and I suggest again that we now limit ourselves for the moment to the question raised by the hon. member for Kamloops.
March 14. 1S66

Administration of Justice


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would_____


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I welcome your public admonition regarding something that happened the other day, but I hope you will add the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to this salutory admonition which you have uttered tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did not admonish the hon. gentleman in any way. I made an admission of ignorance on the part of your Speaker in that I wondered at the time whether the procedure followed should have been allowed. During the intervening days I have had an opportunity to look into the matter and I have satisfied myself that we should discuss and consider one question of privilege at a time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude in just a moment. I have raised certain matters which obviously are not welcomed by hon. gentlemen opposite. But I raise them in all seriousness as matters which we think should be included in the terms of reference or as alterations that should be made to those terms in order that we may have a thorough and impartial inquiry into this whole situation. We are anxious to have such an important and thorough inquiry made on a proper basis. We are prepared to join with members of other parties of this house in an attempt to work out such a set of terms of reference in order that an inquiry may proceed with all possible speed so that parliament may be allowed to get on with its business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising merely to give a personal explanation in respect of certain of the hon. member's statements.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can, of course, speak on the question of privilege which has been raised and I recognize him for that purpose.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will take only a few moments, sir. If this woman was admitted in 1955, as I am informed by the hon. gentleman she was, then I was the minister. I admit that at once as being a matter of record.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I made no accusation against you in that regard. You are the one who is making the accusation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member thought I was embarrassed. I was not in the least embarrassed. What I really rose to do was to ask if the hon. gentleman when he was considering this file, discovered whether or not this woman, who if she was admitted in 1955, by 1960 would in the normal course have been eligible for citizenship, ever applied for citizenship, whether she got citizenship and, if she did not get citizenship, why she did not?


James Ross Fulton: I do not recall, Mr. Speaker. The answers to those questions are all available to the hon. gentleman at this stage. I am only appalled that he did not ask the questions and get the answers before hon. members On his side of the house unleashed this appalling campaign in this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wanted to know whether the hon. gentleman knew the answers to my questions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I did know. I satisfied myself as to the background of this matter before I dealt with the file, unlike hon. gentlemen opposite.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for Kamloops whether the Munsinger file in his hands-


An hon. Member:: Who wrote your question out for you?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I am not completely clear about the question of privilege we are discussing at this moment. I say that because there is now some kind of attempt being made to set up a judicial inquiry to settle a question of privilege affecting members, which is a new departure from the ordinary method of handling such a situation. There is no precedent for this action in this house or in the British house so far as I could ascertain by my research.
I am particularly concerned about the terms of reference contained in the Order in Council. Until and unless the house agrees to refer this question of privilege to a royal commission or judicial body outside the house or the extensions of this house, which has never occurred in a case of this type in the past, there is only one place where it can be settled. A question of personal privilege must be settled by this house or by an extension of this house, such as the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
March 14, 1966

I know the difficult position you are in regarding this matter in deciding what is the correct action to take. As I understand the debate which has taken place during the last three days, and I have read those portions which I missed during the last part of last week, we have now reached a situation where by reason of events and the lapse of time there has been an acceptance of the fact that a prima facie case of privilege exists. If that were not so, surely we would not have spent three days on this subject.
It should not be necessary for any member to quote chapter and verse to other members of the house, but the burden falls squarely on the member or members who wish to raise a question of privilege to move a substantive motion if a prima facie case of privilege has been ruled to exist by the Chair. I should like to quote from page 134 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 17th edition, which states in part:
It is irregular to make a complaint unless the member intends to follow it up with a substantive motion referring to the matter-*
Mr. Speaker, the ministers of the former Conservative government have been complaining that they have a question of privilege; yet during the course of this entire debate respecting the question of privilege they have continued to prod-use whatever word you like-the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) into naming names. The Minister of Justice did not raise the question of privilege. Whether he wants to name these names or chooses not to name them is his prerogative. The members of the former government are those who feel aggrieved or abused by something that was said outside this house and they in fact have a recourse. They do have a remedy. They can raise a question of privilege in this house and ask Your Honour whether or not there appears to be a prima facie case of privilege. If you decide there is a case of privilege, then those members so aggrieved or abused are bound to move a substantive motion. In doing so they have the right to name the Minister of Justice and to refer specifically to the charges he made outside this house.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
At the stage we have now reached it is essential for any member, including the former prime minister, who feels he has been aggrieved or abused by the Minister of Justice in what he has said outside this house to
Administration of Justice get on his feet and move a substantive motion. In that motion they can, as I said, name the Minister of Justice as the person who has in fact abused their privileges. But it is not sufficient to suggest that the only way this can be done is by the Minister of Justice getting on his feet and naming names. What is more, we do not accept this completely new departure in dealing with a question of privilege, namely, to refer it to a judicial inquiry.
I suggest that it may be right and proper for the Governor in Council to pass a motion setting up a judicial inquiry to inquire into the matter of Canada's security, and if they wish they can confine it even more than that and set up this kind of an inquiry to inquire specifically into the matter of national security respecting the so-called Munsinger case. But I think we would be doing parliament a great disservice if we were to accept that this judicial inquiry is going to settle a question of privilege affecting one or more members of this house.
I am sure Your Honour has examined all the precedents and authorities, and I do not believe you can find any case where this has been done in the past. It must be settled in this house. Citation 107 of Beauchesne's fourth edition makes this fairly clear and there are also a number of other citations dealing with this point. Citation 107 says:
"Whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament, ought to he discussed and adjudged in that House to which it relates, and not elsewhere. Judge ought not to give any opinion of a matter of Parliament, because it is not to be decided by the common law"-
And so on. I simply want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that we are deeply concerned whether the result of this action is going to transfer to a commission outside this house the business of hearing the evidence and making recommendations respecting a matter of personal privilege. We do not believe this should be done. There is no precedent for it and I think it would be transferring from this house a great deal of the authority, rights and privileges that most of us are very jealous to guard and protect.
I shall say no more except that perhaps there could be an inquiry into security and the Munsinger case. But if it is a question of personal privilege affecting one or more members of the house it should be settled by the house and the proper way is for those who feel aggrieved to make a motion now and for this house to consider it and to refer
March 14. 1966

Administration of Justice it to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to deal with it in the proper and correct way.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes.


John James Greene: Inasmuch as this involves a security matter, or allegedly so, does the hon. member not feel it would be useful to have a finding of fact by a judicial inquiry, which would be one of the nature that hears security matters, and that the findings of fact by that judicial inquiry would then be the basis on which any action in respect of privilege is then taken by this house?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree that this is a possible subsequent action but I believe that the question of privilege should be referred to a committee of this house in the first instance. If that committee, in attempting to gather all the evidence and to assess it, finds it is unable to come to a conclusion without going into security files, it would then be right and proper for the committee to suggest that some evidence required to be given in camera before a judge who could look into the matter. But I do not believe that transferring it right from the floor of this house at this time to a judicial inquiry and asking the judge to decide on the matter laid out in the terms of reference is the correct procedure.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the understanding which was indicated by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) as to what is hoped for from the inquiry would be precisely my understanding and, I think, the understanding of most other hon. members. It seemed to me that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) said that he reserved the right, and other members of his party reserved the right, to deal with the question of privilege. That was one of the things he was reserving, namely, the right to raise the question of privilege again if the finding of fact by the commissioner supported the contention that such a question of privilege existed.
I rise to say a very few words on behalf of those of us in this party. Like all other hon. members of this house we had hoped, by the tone that was set this afternoon by all those who spoke, that the matter which had occupied our attention for two days last week was going to come to an end and we would be able to proceed with the business of parliament.

I am distressed, as I am sure all other hon. members are, that we now appear to be again on the brink of another scrap of very much the same sort as we went through on Thursday and Friday, only in a different framework, dealing with slightly different words but essentially the same scrapping across the floor that we had last week. Surely every hon. member here will have found last week end, as I found, by the numerous phone calls I received and which all those who went home must have received, that our constituents, the people who sent us here, cannot quite understand what much of the fuss is about. What they are wondering about is when we are going to get down to work on the legislation and on the issues which face this country and this parliament.
I ask all of us, Mr. Speaker, to avoid getting into the scramble and the mess that we were in last week. It will not take much to get us into this sort of mess once again. Suggestions that certain words are intended to hide things, counter-suggestions that somebody is afraid of something, and away we go once again into exactly the same morass in which we found ourselves for two solid days last week and in which we are still.
I think the hon. member for Kamloops made a good suggestion. I believe the suggestion would be more valuable if he and others had not proceeded to deal with the subject matter of his suggestion on the floor of this house. That is precisely the way to invite the sort of exchange that may have no end this evening and may go on, because we are still on the question of privilege. It seems to me that the suggestion the hon. member for Kamloops dealt with has obvious good sense and fairness. It seems to me that what he suggested ought to be accepted by representatives of the government as being fair and sensible. Other things that he suggested, if he will forgive my saying so, obviously do not have very much sense, a (8:50 p.m.)
For example, it does not make much sense to me to have a statement in the terms of reference to the effect that this was worse than the Profumo case. I should like to know by what criteria you decide the degree of the case between Profumo and somebody else-I was going to say the degree of odorousness of a certain situation. I do not know what the criteria are.
Similarly, it seems to me it is nonsense to talk about not very important words, if I may
March 14, 1968

say so with respect. They say they want to take out certain words and replace them by a statement the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made. In fact, the words in the proposed Order in Council say exactly the same thing, except I suppose you have the satisfaction of placing them in the mouth of the Prime Minister. You are not really asking for anything more.
It seems to me, therefore, that if we could re-establish some mutual trust-I was going to say if we could re-establish civilized behaviour between civilized people, Mr. Speaker-it ought to be possible for a small committee representing at least the government side and the official opposition, as well as other parties if they desire to take part, to arrive at terms of reference.
What I am pleading for, Mr. Speaker, is that we not take the rest of this evening, with the danger of it going into tomorrow, in arguing about why something was left out and something should be put in or making accusations as to why something was left out and counter-accusations as to why things were put in. As I have said before, if that happens we will be back in the same undignified, unproductive, negative battle in which we found ourselves last week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That does not follow at all.


David Lewis: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) says that does not follow at all. I have sat here so far this evening and I can say that has been the result. I have heard accusations hurled across the floor, and they will continue. I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the big parties here control the situation. I am asking whether we cannot be civilized enough to appoint a committee or to agree on a committee, if the Prime Minister will agree to have one. If he does not agree, if he rejects the idea, then hon. members on this side will be fully justified in criticizing anything they do not like in the terms of reference.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


David Lewis: That is right. If the Prime Minister says these are the terms and I will not meet with anyone to discuss them, then obviously the people who disagree with those terms must have an opportunity to say so. If the right hon. gentleman does agree to a committee, surely that is the sensible thing. Let us reserve any further discussion on the floor of this house for the time when we have either an agreement or something upon which the parties definitely cannot agree.
Administration of Justice
I cannot sit down, Mr. Speaker, without saying something which I am sure all hon. members have felt and which I have felt as I watched these proceedings as a relatively new member. Some of us may have said things that we may regret at some later time, but there is one person, it seems to me, who stands out for the patience and leadership he has shown. I refer to Your Honour and the way you have carried through these very difficult days of debate.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it should be remembered that the suggestion for the establishment of a committee to work out these terms of reference came from the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I rather hoped the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) would rise after the last hon. gentleman spoke. However, I should like to remind the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), in the event he may have forgotten, of the words of his colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), and of the words of his leader during the debate last Friday in this chamber. The hon. member for Greenwood said, as reported on page 2563 of Hansard:
I want to make it perfectly clear that in my view no judicial inquiry would make sense unless the specific persons charged with offences were named in the terms of the inquiry. I know that no judge would want to hear a blanket charge against 15, 20, 30 or 100 people. Who is to appear? Who is to be called? The minister will have the obligation later, if such an inquiry is granted, of stating clearly and specifically whom he is charging.
The hon. member's own leader, who was just as disturbed as the rest of us in this house at the trend this debate had taken as a result of the injudicious statements of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) and the lack of judgment shown by the Prime Minister in dealing with this matter, said, as reported at page 2602 of Hansard:
The reason this inquiry is being precipitated is that the Minister of Justice made certain charges outside the house. If there is going to be a proper inquiry, those charges must be contained in the terms of reference and the onus must be on the Minister of Justice to prove those charges-
For the benefit of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), who seems to have a warped sense of what is proper in connection with judicial procedure and matters affecting the fundamental rights of individuals called before judicial hearings, I emphasize these words:
-the onus must be on the Minister of Justice to prove those charges, not on the other parties involved to prove their innocence.
March 14, 1966

Administration of Justice
The leader of the party, of which the hon. member for York South has the doubtful privilege of being deputy leader, went on to say:
I am saying that the important thing in the terms of reference is whether or not there will be specific charges made by the minister, either by taking a transcript of his interview with the press and attaching it to the terms of reference contained in the Order in Council, or by having the minister rise in this house and repeat the statements he made at the press conference.
This is the hon. member's leader speaking. The leader of the hon. member's party is reported at page 2546 of Hansard as also saying:
The terms of reference will have to set out the charges made by the minister, not only in this house but outside the house.
This is a proper stand to take.


David Lewis: We still take that stand.


Erik Nielsen: It is a proper stand to take. I continue quoting:
The minister will then have to appear before such an inquiry and substantiate his charges, and place his seat and his portfolio at the disposition of that inquiry. The terms of reference of the inquiry must be such as to cover the charges which have been made, and the letter read by the Prime Minister from the Minister of Justice certainly does not cover the very serious allegations made by the Minister of Justice the other day-
Nor do these terms of reference cover those allegations. The leader of that party went on to say:
I suggest that the Prime Minister agree to an inquiry of which the terms of reference include the charges made by the minister outside the house-


An hon. Member:: They do.


Erik Nielsen: They do not, and I will point out to hon. members opposite who say they do that they do not, if they will be patient. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) shouts across to the hon. member for Kamloops, "what about the time you quit"? These interjections do not throw any light on the debate at all. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), interjected in the debate,-he is laughing now -"what about February, 1963", during the time the hon. member for Kamloops was speaking. Those were his words.


Mr. Deachman:: I never said any such thing. You have nine other fellows in mind.

[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: The leader of the New
Democratic Party, after referring to the fact that the charges made outside the house by the Minister of Justice should be included in the terms of reference as well as the question of privilege raised by members inside the house, went on to say, as reported at page 2546 of Hansard:
-that the terms of reference make it abundantly clear that it is the minister who has to accept responsibility for substantiating before the inquiry the charges which he has made.
There is what the terms of reference should include, Mr. Speaker. The terms of reference of a royal commission, for the benefit of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, must be subjected to the same tests as any other legal document dealing with the rights and liberties of any subject. One of the prime principles in the administration of justice in this country is that it is up to the accuser to prove the guilt of the accused, that a man remains innocent until he is proven guilty.
There are over 20 ex-ministers of the former administration who have been asked, by the policy adopted by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the government, to prove their innocence. What kind of twist to the administration of justice in this country is that, Mr. Speaker?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the hon. member a question? I would ask him whether or not the Minister of Justice has now named anyone or charged them with anything. Second, I wonder if he would tell the house whether or not he thinks that the Committee on Privileges and Elections could call the minister to ask him what he has to say about these press releases.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Justice has named no names. So far as the committee on privileges and elections is concerned, I think it is the consensus of this house, including the feeling of one who seldom has a consensus, the Prime Minister, that the matter should not go to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and for very good reasons.
In this case we are dealing with the terms of reference of a document purporting to set up an investigation into the conduct of various members of this house who are Privy Councillors, including the former prime minister of this country, as well as Privy Councillors no longer in the house, some of whom are alive and some of whom are dead. How in the world these latter can prove their
March 14, 1966	COMMONS
innocence I know not. That is precisely the effect of this document, and I would ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat how he would like to appear before the criminal courts of this country with the only allegation against him that he was charged, with nothing more being said.


An hon. Member:: How would you?


Erik Nielsen: I hear an hon. gentleman across the way asking how I would like to appear. I should not like to appear before any judicial inquiry on that kind of basis. I would want to know what it is the right of any subject to know, let alone a member sitting in this house who has had to suffer the blackening of his name in this kind of way, namely, what I am charged with. Otherwise how am I to answer?
I would submit, sir, that the tests dealing with the investigation of the conduct of a member are set down, as your Honour so rightly pointed out, by Speaker Michener in the ruling which was quoted by you both on Thursday and on Friday. What Your Honour and Speaker Michener said was this:
In my view, simple justice requires that no hon. member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the house or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
That is the situation. This is the principle which protects not only the rights of the members of this house but the rights of every subject of this country, indeed of any democratic country. It applies equally as well, sir, to the kind of device which has now been set up, as is set out, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. This Order in Council constituting what the government purports to call the terms of reference of a judicial inquiry is a most incredible hodge-podge of vague generalization, disconnected and unattributed charges, unspecified allegations of deeds committed by unnamed persons and based upon hearsay, information which the minister says he has been briefed on and which came out of a file he has never seen.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I have staked my seat on my allegations.


Erik Nielsen: Surely the Minister of Justice cannot overlook the fact that in this country justice is not administered on the principle that any person can be charged on the basis of hearsay evidence.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Just have the judicial inquiry and you will see what happens.
DEBATES	2673
Administration of Justice


Erik Nielsen: Are we establishing the principle that anyone can be called before the courts of this country on the basis of "Did you hear that so and so did such and such?"


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Just have the judicial inquiry and see what happens.


Erik Nielsen: Or is it the basic fundamental requirement of justice in this country that before any accused person stands to answer for his conduct he must know exactly with what he is charged and by whom? I ask, is that not the principle? On these terms of reference one may as well ask a judge to inquire into the content of the wisps of cloud floating over the Peace Tower. The only name mentioned in this document which sets up the inquiry is Gerda Munsinger. Does the Minister of Justice want to try her? This was, no doubt, the only name which the government thought safe to mention. The word "minister" or "ministers" does not appear in the Order in Council at all.
There is reference in it to a statement made by the Minister of Justice in a letter dated March 11, 1966 to the Prime Minister with reference to a case involving one Gerda Munsinger. This letter was read to the House of Commons on March 11, 1966. The first paragraph of the letter has no bearing on the subject matter of this inquiry and is already in Hansard. The first half of the second paragraph of the letter has no bearing for the same reason. The last sentence is an exculpatory sentence and surely should be deleted from any terms of reference setting up an inquiry because it interferes with the very thing which the judge has to decide for himself.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
That is the first head upon which this inquiry is to be set up. Yet nowhere in the letter referred to does the name "Gerda Munsinger" appear. It appears nowhere. There is a reference to a press conference which, as the terms of reference set out, included statements about involvement with the said Gerda Munsinger. It does not say whose involvement or what involvement or what was wrong in that involvement, assuming that any involvement took place. We do not even know that from the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Justice starts out by saying, "among other things." What other things are those? What other things are going to be charged by the minister? The terms of reference contain the words "statements about
March 14, 1966

Administration of Justice involvement". I think that we as members of this house, before we pass judgment on an Order in Council setting up such an inquiry, must expect answers to these questions.
Who was involved? Was it other women? Was it other men? What persons were involved? What were their names? What members of the house were there? What Privy Councillors? What Privy Councillors here? What Privy Councillors elsewhere? What ministers? Does it refer to ministers here or to ministers there? What Montreal underworld figures are meant, because they have been mentioned? What sports figures are meant, because they have been mentioned? Who else is there? What is the inquiry about? Whose conduct is the inquiry going to investigate? The Order in Council does not say. It contains a statement about failure to seek the advice of the law officers of the Department of Justice. It does not say who failed or why that advice should have been sought in the first place. It does not say why it was wrong not to seek advice because, of course, they cannot say that.
How were those unnamed persons involved? Everyone has the right to know with what he is charged. What about the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees)? He said he had lunch with Gerda Munsinger.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, yes indeed. Do the minister and the government want to know what was on the menu?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: Do the minister or the Prime Minister and the government want to call the bell captain to find out how large a tip was paid? What are we inquiring into?


An hon. Member:: Gerda.


Erik Nielsen: Any accused person has the right to know with what he is charged.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: That is where the government is prostituting the basic concept of justice in its terms of inquiry. The terms of inquiry go on to say that there were circumstances that may have constituted a security risk to Canada and that the case was not properly handled. The minister said, "I think there was a security risk." The minister said that it is a bona fide security case. Why is not that same positiveness expressed in the terms of reference in the Order in Council? Why is

there the use of the words "may have involved a security risk"?
The minister has made charges that there was a security risk involved. That is what he must answer to. The hon. member for Kamloops has said that there was no breach of security involved. It is upon that narrow issue that the minister must substantiate, as the leader of the New Democratic party and as we have said before, his charges before that inquiry. If the Minister of Justice fails to do so, then in keeping with his Prime Minister's own statement his seat is on the line.
Nothing could have been more categorical than those statements of the minister. Now they have been watered down to something which is hypothetical, to words such as "may"-"may have been a security risk."
How can a judicial inquiry investigate what might have been? How can any judicial body investigate a hypothetical situation? The inquiry has now invited us all to enter the never-never land of conjecture, hypothesis and imagination. How in the name of commonsense, I ask you, let alone in the name of justice, can an inquiry be set up on such a basis? There is not one hard, solid, factual proposition in the whole sorry mess which they like to call terms of reference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: Before I go on to discuss one or two terms in the terms of reference with which I take issue, I think it would be useful to read the terms of reference into the record:
March 14, 1966.
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise that The Honourable Wishart Flett Spence, Ottawa, Ontario, be appointed a Commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire fully into a statement by the Minister of Justice in a letter dated March 11, 1966, to the Prime Minister, with reference to a case involving one Gerda Munsinger, which was read in the House of Commons on March 11, 1966; into all statements concerning the case in the House of Commons on March 4 and March 7, 1966-
What about the statements that were made on March 10?


An hon. Member:: Read the next part.


Erik Nielsen: It also contained matters-


An hon. Member:: Read on.


Erik Nielsen: I will continue reading:
-and into all statements by the Minister of Justice in a press conference on March 10, 1966,-
That does not cover the statements made by the minister on May 10.
March 14, 1966


An hon. Member:: It does.


Erik Nielsen: Does somebody over there to my left say it does?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: Is that someone in the house?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member draw attention to any passage in Hansard on May 10 where the Minister of Justice is quoted.


Erik Nielsen: I beg your pardon. I meant March 10. I apologize. I shall be referring the hon. member to those pages in the hope that those statements will be included in the amended terms of reference. I continue reading:
-which, among other things, included statements about involvement-
There is nothing about improper involvement; it is simply involvement.
-with the said Gerda Munsinger, about failure to seek the advice of the law officers of the Department of Justice-
There is no allegation that it was the right thing to do, that it was the right thing to seek the advice of the law officers of the Crown on the part of anyone.


Guy Favreau: Ah, ah.


Erik Nielsen: On the part of anyone at all. I hear the President of the Privy Council saying "ah, ah," This has no parallel whatsoever in connection with the matter which brought about his sorry downfall.


An hon. Member:: Read.


Erik Nielsen: It has no parallel whatsoever. I continue reading :
-that there were circumstances that may have constituted a risk to the security of Canada and that the case was not properly handled; and to enquire whether the case was handled in accordance with the rules and principles normally applicable to persons having access to classified information-
What rules, Mr. Speaker? What principles and where are they? Where do we find them?
He who accuses must prove what he alleges. Let us have an accusation. I continue reading:
-and into all the relevant circumstances connected therewith, and in particular but without limiting the generality of the foregoing to consider fully all reports submitted to the government or any member of the government of the day and any evidence laid before them in connection therewith and any further evidence elicited by or laid before the Commissioner and to consider such other matters as may appear to the Commissioner to be relevant and to report thereon.
Administration of Justice
There is a reference to the rules and principles normally applicable to persons having access to classified information, and whether the case was handled in accordance with those rules and principles. By whom, Mr. Speaker? By whom? By the Minister of Justice. By the existing Minister of Justice? There is some doubt about that. Or does it means by the former minister of justice or by some clerk in his office? The minister shakes his head as much as to say "no".
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Let him say so in the terms of reference. Let him name the people who improperly handled this matter without having regard to the rules and principles applicable in this kind of case. Was it perhaps one or another of the deputy ministers of justice? Was it one of those individuals?
What about the rules and principles that are normally applicable? Where are they laid down? By whom are they set out. There is a further requirement in the terms of reference:
-to consider fully all reports submitted to the government or any member of the government of the day and any evidence laid before them in connection therewith-
Presumably "therewith" means any evidence in connection with the reports, but what reports? What reports are specified in the terms of reference? They say, "all reports submitted to the government or any member of the government". What reports about what? Reports by whom? Reports about whom?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Reports on immigration in 1955 maybe.


Erik Nielsen: There is also a requirement in the terms of reference to inquire into "all statements concerning the case in the House of Commons on March 4 and March 7, 1966." What about March 10? What about March 11? What about today? The minister made some very damaging statements in the house today.
Are the statements of the former minister of justice, the hon. member for Kamloops, not to be considered by the inquiry and only the statements of the Minister of Justice on March 4 and March 7? What of the statements about Privy Councillors made in the house and some outside it? Do they now appear before this inquiry? On what grounds? Does their appearance before this inquiry mean a confession or, to use the term in the terms of reference, an involvement?
2878	COMMONS
Administration of Justice That is precisely what it will be taken to mean.
Sir, I appeal to hon. members to accede to the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops because there is no one in this party, indeed in any quarter in the house according to my observation, who is opposed to an inquiry into this case. But is there to be no protection accorded to members of the house? Are they not to have the protection afforded under the ordinary law to the ordinary citizens of this country, because that is what is being denied by these terms of reference?
Are they to be summoned to prove their innocence of involvement, whatever that means, when there has been no specific statement that there was a security risk and when the Order in Council itself talks about a security risk that "may have been"? Is this a ground on which people can be summoned to appear and to defend themselves? This is merely a device by which members of the house, innocent or guilty, can be dragged down on unspecified charges, undefined allegations, and spurious and unfounded assertions. This is an action by the government to remove from parliament the disposal of the privileges of parliament and to use the machinery of justice to destroy the opposition.
This order is without parallel, sir, in the annals of any civilized country, in the annals of any democracy since the days of the star chamber, with no offences, not one single offence, being charged.


An hon. Member:: Oh, quit.


Erik Nielsen: An hon. member says "quit". That is his concept of justice.


Mr. Tremblay:: What is yours?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member asks what is mine. I will tell hon. members opposite what my concept of justice is. It is that no subject of this country, member of this house or otherwise, shall be dragged before any judicial body in this country and required to prove his innocence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Munro:: May I ask the hon. member a question? At any time during his past behaviour in this house prior to the last election and during the conduct of the election has he ever dragged down the reputation of hon. members on unspecified and unfounded charges?

DEBATES	March 14, 1966


Erik Nielsen: Here we go again-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: -with the deliberate misconstruction of hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: And they laugh. I say they can take part in this discussion and read what I said into the record. On page 4 of the report of the commission which was set up for the purpose of inquiring into the charges that I made in the house there is set forth what I said in the house at that time, something which the Minister of Justice in this case did not have the courage to do. I said on that occasion:
The executive assistant to the minister at that time, Mr. Raymond Denis, offered a bribe in the amount of $20,000 to counsel who was acting for the United States government on the bail application with the request that he would not oppose the bail proceedings-
That was a specific charge.


John Carr Munro: Now read page 10534 of the same Hansard.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member will have an opportunity to engage in this discussion. It was on the basis of the charges I made, the names I named, the dates and places I specified, and the sections of the Criminal Code I specified during those days of debate that that commission was struck, and also because of the questions of the leader of the N.D.P. There is no parallel between that case, where a member of the opposition was discharging his responsibility to expose what he had an obligation to expose, and this case where the Minister of Justice, a member of the treasury benches, makes unfounded charges against all Privy Councillors past and present, dead and alive. The terms of reference of this Order in Council do not specify. It does not say who is guilty or what they are guilty of or even whether there has been an offence of any kind or description.
It sets out in its own language the statements made by the minister at his press conference and alters the substance of those statements in order to remove responsibility from the minister. That is precisely what this Order in Council does. In its vagueness, its lack of specification, its failure to name names, to state any offence, and its deliberately vague and suggestive generalities, it represents the ultimate betrayal of every principle of human rights, the right of the
March 14, 1966	COMMONS
subject to know with what he is being charged, and it represents the perversion of justice to political ends. That is precisely what it does.
The hon. member for Kamloops has suggested an all-party committee to meet with representatives on the government side to consider these terms of reference, but one thing which we must not lose sight of, apart from all the other facets involved in this matter, is that it is a fundamental right of every individual in this country, of every individual in any democratic country, to have specified for him the charges which he must meet. Otherwise there can be no defence.
He must know. This group of Privy Councillors here and those absent, those with us in life and those not, must know by the accusations of those opposite who have made these charges, who it is that must stand trial. This is where the perversion of justice has taken place.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? I have been a little confused between his statements about respecting British justice in the conduct of a trial, with which we all agree, and his reference to other people having a relationship with Mrs. Munsinger, but surely he must distinguish between an inquiry and a trial. I do not think anyone is suggesting that a trial is being held here. Surely this is an inquiry to establish the facts to the satisfaction of all. I would be very glad if the hon. member could make this distinction between a judicial inquiry to ascertain facts and a trial, the nature of which he appears to have been describing.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: The applause the minister has received and the basis of his question indicates to me-


Mr. Tardif:: Answer the question.


Erik Nielsen: I will answer the question, and the hon. member for Ottawa or whatever district he comes from-Russell-should stand up and participate in the debate instead of interrupting.


An hon. Member:: He has not said a word in five years.


Erik Nielsen: I will answer the minister-


Paul Tardif: Do not call me the member for Ottawa. I am the member for Russell.


An hon. Member:: Nobody knows you.
DEBATES	2677
Administration of Justice


Erik Nielsen: I say in all seriousness to the minister that the terms of reference contained in this Order in Council, which sets up what purports to be a judicial inquiry, in effect set up an inquisition, because the minister surely must agree that before anyone is required to appear before any judicial tribunal-and there can be no argument about this being a judicial tribunal-rather than being required to appear on the basis of vague charges first of all the person has to know with what he is being charged.


An hon. Member:: Who is being charged?


Erik Nielsen: He is being charged, if you look at the terms of reference, in a very vague sort of way. Certainly he must know precisely with what he is being charged. That is fundamental. The President of the Privy Council adopts an expression as though to say it is here but it is not here. If he will recall the events leading up to other commissions and other orders in council which were drawn to inquire into specifics, into the conduct of specific ministers-


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, it was not.


Erik Nielsen: Into the conduct of a specific minister-


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.


Erik Nielsen: If you look at the order in council you will see it is there. That is the distinction.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another question? I do not think the hon. member has quite met my point. Is the hon. member suggesting that no one can be called before Mr. Justice Spence to give information which would lead Mr. Justice Spence to ascertain what the facts are unless a formal charge is made against that man, that is, that no person can be called as a witness to give information unless there is a formal charge? Is that what he is saying?


Erik Nielsen: Let us just refer to one other commission to draw an analogy to what I mean. I am suggesting to the minister and to the government which he represents that what must occur in these terms of reference is that persons against whom allegations are made must be named and that the allegations must be specific. The New Democratic party says the same thing.
If I might refer to the Order in Council setting up the Dorion inquiry, the minister will find that the conduct of a specific minister-and I will not name him for fear of
March 14, 1966

Administration of Justice offending sensitivities-was the subject of the inquiry.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read the Order in Council.


Erik Nielsen: That was part of the subject matter of that inquiry.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read the Order in Council.


Erik Nielsen: There were two Orders in Council. It is there. The minister knows it is there.


An hon. Member:: Try to sweep it under the rug.


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


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the master this afternoon, we have just heard the pupil tonight. The master still has some imagination, while the pupil has just repeated the speech he already made twice on Thursday and once on Friday.


Some hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: However, it is by repeating that we learn Mr. Speaker. Boileau said.
A hundred times consider what you've said;
Polish, repolish, every colour lay.
This only makes four times but through practice, I am not suggesting that the pupil will become as great as his master-that is difficult, because the master is a champion- but with time, he will learn.
I heard this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition state: There is no security case as far as we are concerned today, because the member for Kamloops has just proved it.
He posed as a judge, as the jury, then as the executioner, and he became the prosecutor, exactly what he always took exception to when the government refused to have an investigation made.
He decided that there was no security risk, but that is what we want to know.
A question was put a few minutes ago to the former Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), but he left it unanswered. What type of file was involved?
Why did we not get an answer? Was it a security case, a theft, a murder, indecent acts, or what? The member for Kamloops did not provide an answer.

[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Here is another question which has not been answered, Mr. Speaker. Why did the former Minister of Justice hasten to call the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister replied: immediately, in my office. I visualize the Justice Minister rushing down to the Prime Minister's office.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention to the fact that if the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is not here, he will not be able to say that he has gone fishing.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: He has gone to the R.C.M.P. to pay for your parking tickets.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, he blames the hon. Minister of Justice for his absence. He has gone fishing; but now he is not here, he has left of his own accord regardless of Standing Order No. 5.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He has gone to the R.C.M.P. to
pay for your parking tickets.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I can just see the Minister of Justice arriving at the Prime Minister's office. Everything is held up. The visitors will just have to wait. The door opens wide: come in, Mr. Minister of Justice. Really urgent, eh? Why all the rush?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: So you will not lose any time getting in the R.C.M.P.'s office.


Gilles Grégoire: What was the hurry, Mr. Speaker? A routine matter, we are told. Nothing urgent about it. We do not even know what was written in the file. We do not know the purpose of the file. They do not want to tell us. No inquiry was necessary.
Here, Mr. Speaker, are three thick volumes in which the Leader of the Opposition often asks: what are they trying to conceal? What are they hiding from us, Mr. Speaker?
And whoever analyses the gestures-and I noticed it this afternoon and that is why I say to the pupil that he has far to go before reaching the level of his master-whoever analyses the gestures of the Leader of the Opposition when he is speaking: he points out something with one finger only, not two, that is very good, and he says: We want an inquiry.
What is it hiding? What is hidden underneath all that? And notice the manner of speaking-I noticed it, and the pupil should also notice it-when there is a question, it is short and to the point; when there is an insinuation, it is long.
March 14, 1968

It goes this way and that way, Mr. Speaker, it never follows a straight line; it sails the dark waters of insinuation. It is masterful. The pupil should take note of that.
I think that for all of us, including the Liberals, the oratory of the Leader of the Opposition can be a lesson. I am sorry that we did not ask our students of "rhetoric" to come and hear a great orator.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) ask: But, who is mentioned? There is Mrs. Munsinger. But who else? Men? Women? Ministers? Former ministers? Members of parliament? Former members of parliament? Who?
There is one, Mr. Speaker, and there is no doubt in my mind, it is the former Prime Minister who acted improperly in a case concerning the security of the state. That is the heart of the matter. And in spite of efforts to hide and cover up the truth, it will always remain so for the one who blamed the government for acting improperly in other security cases. That will be the question. A man stands accused, the former Prime Minister, who would have acted improperly in a case concerning the security of the state. Nothing else is before Parliament at this time.
All devious means will be resorted to. Attempts will be made to divert our attention, as the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) tried to do this afternoon by mentioning an incident no one knew about, namely the interview he claims to have had with the president of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau).
My attention will not be diverted, Mr. Speaker, for a serious charge has been made. There has already been a case where the * security of the State was not dealt with as it should have, and the accused, in this instance, is the former prime minister.
Some claim this is hypothetical. Well, if it is, I know someone's chair, that of the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin), will be pulled out from under him. But, if it is true, then the seat of the present leader of the opposition will be thrown out into the river. It is as plain as that, Mr. Speaker.
Attempts were made to divert our attention. Was Mrs. Munsinger involved in spying activities before coming to Canada? That is not the question. Here is the question: is it a fact that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition mishandled a case where the security of the state was endangered?
Administration of Justice Mr. Speaker, there are so many things that we are bound to get confused. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition said on February 28, 1966, as can be found on page 1878 of Hansard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Lapointe, but may I point out to him that in the course of the speeches we just heard, hon. members tried to limit their remarks to the terms of reference of the Order in Council that has been proposed by the Prime Minister this afternoon. 1, therefore, invite the hon. member, to limit, if possible, his comments to that particular subject.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a while ago, the chair was occupied by someone else when the hon. member for Yukon spoke. I think that he did not dwell very long on the subject to which you would like me to limit my remarks. But what I would like to quote from Hansard is connected with the said matter.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition, as recorded on page 1878, left hand column of Hansard of February 28, 1966 speaking about the Spencer case:
I immediately add that when the government says security procedures might be revealed I accept that explanation, but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Can the hon. member connect his comments with the terms of reference. As he knows, we have had some difficulties these last days, precisely because it was very difficult to connect the members' comments to a specific question.
Quite happily, in my opinion, we have at this time something or a subject to which the hon. members may refer, that is the terms of reference contained in the order in council. I would, therefore, invite the hon. member to co-operate with his colleagues in the house, as well as with the Chair, to limit the discussions, at this time, to the main subject.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, very well. Now, the quotation I wanted to bring forward was a reference to a sentence of the former leader-the Leader of the Opposition who will be the former leader a little later-with reference to a judicial enquiry or terms of reference. However, I will be able to quote it later within the framework of the terms of reference under discussion at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I heard some people say that the terms of reference were not broad enough. I have here a certified copy, a true copy of the proceedings of a privy council
March 14. 1966

Administration of Justice committee meeting, approved by His Excellency the Governor General, on March 14, 1966, which gives the terms of reference.
On reading it over again, I wonder how anyone could think that the terms are not broad enough.
It is mentioned among other things:
-into all statements by the Minister of Justice-
"into all-", it is not said into a part of them but "into all". If there is something broader than the word "all", meaning comprehensive, well I would like to know what it is.
Further on, the press conference is mentioned in the following words:
all statements by the Minister of Justice in a press conference on March 10, 1966, which among other things included-
There is reference to what was included, but with no intention of limiting, it is said "among other things". "Among other things" is thus included in the terms of reference.
And further on, it says:
-statements about involvement-
This term of reference is not restricted, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, it is made as general as possible: "concerning persons involved in this case". This wording is very general.	'
Further on it says:
-as well as circumstances that may have constituted-
As one can see, dates, persons, circumstances are mentioned-
-and into all the relevant circumstances connected therewith-
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
There again, it is said:
-and into all the relevant circumstances connected therewith, and in particular but without limiting the generality of the foregoing to consider fully all reports submitted to the government or any member of the government of the day and any evidence laid before them in connection therewith and any further evidence elicited by or laid before the Commissioner and to consider such other matters as may appear to the Commissioner to be relevant-
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if there are not enough words in all this to satisfy the official opposition, nothing would satisfy them.
Then, I should say: the order is perhaps too general or too broad for them. The terms of reference are formulated in such general terms that they are afraid.

On the second page, the following is to be found:
The committee recommends further
1. That the commissioner avail himself of his absolute powers of appreciation-
This is not a relative power, Mr. Speaker, but an absolute power.
And, continuing:
-as to the procedure-
Mr. Speaker, is there a more general, a wider term than absolute? To my mind, there is none. Even absolute cannot exist on this earth, as is well known.
The order in council continues:
That the commissioner be authorized to exert all powers provided under section 11 of the Inquiries Act;
Once again the words "all powers" are used. This is a general, a wide term, and efforts are being made to restrict it, although it is provided for in an order in council passed March 14, 1966, today. And they refuse to accept those terms of reference.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to read a quotation which illustrates my thought and shows also that arguments such as mine have already been used. As is shown on page 1878 of the official report of the Debates dated February 28, 1966, the Leader of the Opposition said:
I immediately add that when the government says security procedures might be revealed I accept that explanation, but that does not justify the refusal to call together an inquiry presided over by a judge or judges sitting in camera.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we of the Ralliement creditiste have been asking for since the first day when this question of privilege was studied: a judicial inquiry.
On the same page, in the opposite column, the Leader of the Opposition said:
Who is hiding the facts here?
Today we can ask him the same question: Who is trying to conceal the facts? And that, when a judicial inquiry can determine the true facts and whether we are faced with an assumption or simply facts indicating that someone acted improperly in connection with the security of the state.
Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member for Yukon ask the Minister of Justice to set down his charges clearly and substantiate his allegations.
The inquiry will prove that; charges will have to be made at the time of the inquiry. We have always understood that when there
March 14, 1966	COMMONS
is a judicial inquiry, complete charges must be made. That will be done then; the house is not the place for doing so. We were told there was no danger, there was nothing to fuss about, that it was looking for a needle in a haystack. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it becomes more and more obvious that an inquiry is a must.
We note that the R.C.M.P. have a file on Mrs. Munsinger, a file deemed important enough by the then Minister of Justice that he felt inpelled to make an urgent call on the then prime minister. It is to be noted also that the Montreal Police have a file on the same person. Also, that the same person-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member now discussing the terms of reference?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, like several members who thought well to speak on the judicial inquiry itself, I take the liberty of speaking on the inquiry and on the terms of reference and the question of privilege which are being discussed today.
Not only has she a record with the R.C.M.P. and the Montreal police department, but she is reported in the newspapers as having been refused entry into the United States many years ago already.
Mr. Speaker, surely there must be reasons for that. If there are any reasons, then why seek to hide them? If all this was hidden for a long time, why continue to hide it, when the person in question has just stated that high-ranking underworld figures would want to kill her. She has a record in the underworld, she has a record with the R.C.M.P., she has a record with the Montreal police department, she was refused entry into the United States and in spite of this, she had access to the highest governmental authorities of the country. She was even seated at the head table during a fund raising dinner given by the Conservative party, at which the Prime Minister was the guest speaker. Mr. Speaker, I admit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member not feel that he is outside the scope of the terms of reference?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, you will
agree with me just the same that I am trying to prove that an investigation is essential. If, after all this, an investigation is not essential and when I see some members trying, by . camouflage and devious means, to prevent this investigation, I feel duty bound to prove that such an investigation is necessary.
DEBATES	2681
Administration of Justice
Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned on many occasions that the respect of democratic traditions must be restored in this house. We agree with this. But first of all, some light will have to be thrown not only on some events outside this house, but also on certain events which took place in this house in the past two or three years.
I think that the inquiry which has been set up will allow to throw this light. Charges have been made. The main one deals with the part played by the former Prime Minister in a matter of security of the state. We must know the facts, and in full. This being done, about all the inquiries which have been requested-here I want to join the members for York South (Mr. Lewis) and for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), who mentioned it-we shall have to go back to the business of the house, to apply ourselves to legislate for the good of the Canadian people. Numerous pieces of legislation have to be passed, which have not yet been considered. This will have to be done and I believe that all the members must make it their duty to put an end to this as soon as possible, in order to go back to the business of the house. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might have the indulgence of the house for one minute to make an appeal that we get back to our normal course of work tomorrow and deal with some of the business on the order paper. This order in council which has been passed and which has set up the commission, which is comprehensive in its terms, which is meant to be reasonable and not provocative or offensive in its language, will, we believe, because this not a trial but an inquiry, make it possible by its terms of reference for the commission to get to the root of the matter, and we believe that the commissioner should be given an opportunity to get to work as quickly as possible and complete his work as quickly as possible. I have not time to make the statement I would like to have made and to explain what I had in mind in drafting the Order in Council in the terms and in a way which we hoped would have met the points raised by hon. gentlemen opposite as well as other members of this house-


Some hon. Members:: Yes, you have the time.
March 14, 1366
2682	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Lester Bowles Pearson: -but I would hope that we would abandon this particular question of privilege, go ahead with the inquiry and above all get back to the work of this House of Commons.


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon North and Victoria):: Who disrupted it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister whether he would accept the suggestion for an all-party committee to see if we can arrive at agreement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Order in Council has been passed. We think it is a good and reasonable Order in Council and we think it should be carried out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A fixed position.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think the remarks the Prime Minister has just made point out the arrogance of this government in trying to force down the throats of members of the house the government's will. I think we should have an opportunity of discussing this matter. We want to hear what objections he has to the suggestions that have been made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps we could take a supply motion tomorrow. Then we would be getting on with the business before us and my hon. friend would be allowed to discuss the matter on a supply motion to his heart's content and within the rules.


Michael Starr: So far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of this house and any suggestion of his-


An hon. Member:: Move that tomorrow.


Michael Starr: -has no merit whatever.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. According to the
provisions of provisional standing order 39A, a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been moved at this time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, when I asked my question of the [Mr. Pearson.)
Minister of Agriculture last Wednesday I was not satisfied with the reply. I gave notice of my intention to raise the subject after ten o'clock. Of course, between that day and today we have come through a very strange, esoteric kind of debate about the privileges of members of parliament. It seems a strange contrast now that we should be discussing as the first item of business after that debate the subject of feed grain supplies and feed grain prices in eastern Canada.
On Wednesday last the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to my question, stated he was aware of the fact certain areas in eastern Canada were suffering from a shortage of feed grain supplies. He seemed to indicate, although he did not say so directly, that he was aware of complaints about high prices being charged farmers of eastern Canada for their feed grain supplies. I have received information to the effect that in some instances farmers are being charged as high as $6 per hundredweight for screenings. Unless my information is incorrect, this seems to be an almost incredible price to charge for this commodity.
Without going into all the details, Mr. Speaker, I should like to hear from the minister just what information his department has on feed grain supplies in eastern Canada. Is the situation as bad as the price of $6 per hundredweight would seem to indicate? If it is, what immediate plans does the minister have in view for alleviating the situation?
I know the minister said on Wednesday that the government had certain proposals under study and legislation to establish a feed agency for eastern Canada would be introduced.
This might be very effective in the long run, but what about the immediate situation? The minister's reply was not very satisfactory on that point. There is one other aspect of the matter of which the minister should be apprised. There have been offers from certain parts of western Canada to ship feed grain direct to the areas which are so short but apparently because of legal obstacles and laws and regulations having to do with the Canadian Wheat Board and the grain trade it is not possible for direct shipment to be made. Yet in some ways this would perhaps be the most expeditious way of dealing with the problem.
I would ask the minister whether it is so difficult to look into this matter with a view to waiving the legal and regulatory requirements. Surely a case can be made from time to time for waiving the requirements of the
March 14, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	2683
law in order to take care of unusual and emergency circumstances. On that last point I hope the minister will have something specific to offer.
It is a fact that in the 1930's when western Canada, was going through the worst drought and grasshopper damage known, shipments of vegetables and other foodstuffs were made directly from the rural people in eastern Canada to the rural people in western Canada. This was greatly appreciated at the time, and I know that some people in western Canada have after all these years tried to reciprocate and have shown their concern and their willingness to help out. However, they have been prevented from doing so by red tape and the requirements of the law. They have asked why it is not possible for the government to waive these legal requirements to help farmers in eastern Canada to get out of the blind they are in so far as feed grain is concerned.


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. member for bringing forward this question at this time because it does provide the government with an opportunity to enunciate some of the programs which have been put into effect to alleviate the feed situation in eastern Canada.
The matter of feed grain prices is one which is regularly raised. As indicated by the minister and as stated in the Speech from the Throne, legislation is to be brought before the house for the purpose of establishing a feed grain agency which will be charged with the responsibility of acting in this area of federal interest.
Answers have been given to questions on feed grain prices. They are to be found on page 2278 of Hansard of March 7, 1966. These are the only official statistics available on the retail prices of feeds. They are reported by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and illustrate the provincial average prices in Ontario and Quebec before the drought assistance program became operational, and the prices at January 1, 1966.
The question is asked, "Has the crop loss assistance program led to the increase in
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion prices?" We know that there were crop losses in eastern Ontario, for example. The two governments are providing assistance in feed purchases. The rate of assistance is $30 per ton for grain and the expenditure could reach $12 million in Ontario. This would mean the purchase of 400,000 tons of grain in that area. Since there is this program there is a greater demand for feed, and to this extent there could be an upward pressure on prices.
However, if there had been no program it is likely that many cattle would have been sold and there would have been less demand for feed and less pressure on feed prices. One can readily judge which is preferable from the standpoint of maintaining herds and farmers' means of income.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The provinces administer this program and request the co-operation of feed dealers in the redeeming of coupons. They register those dealers who wish to co-operate and thus have control over them. Indeed, quite apart from this factor price control is in the hands of the provinces except in situations such as wartime.
The question has been asked: what is being done to meet the problem of feed grain prices? First, $21 million has been provided to pay freight and storage assistance. Second, $16 million is being provided to match $16 million from the provinces as assistance in the purchase of feed by eastern farmers. Third, action has been taken by officials in the feed grain administration in the Forestry Department which has resulted in reduced rail rates to large areas of the Maritimes and negotiations are continuing on other areas. Fourth, in addition we know that the supply of grain is quite good in the east and is about 11 per cent greater than a year ago, and last spring there were significant quantities left in the east after the opening of navigation.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.16 p.m.

Tuesday, March 15, 1966