1966-05-03

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MOTHER OF THE YEAR

Mr. J. Russell Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to call the attention of the house to the presence in the gallery of Mrs. Jeanne-Pauline Beaulieu who was chosen mother of
the year for 1966.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gerard Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
presented the first report of the standing committee on veterans affairs and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, members have been inquiring about the dates and the agenda of the federal-provincial conference to be held in Victoria as part of the commemoration of the centenary of the union of Vancouver Island and British Columbia.
I should now like to advise the house that the conference will open on Thursday, June 16 and continue on June 17, and if necessary on June 18. The conference was originally scheduled for the first week in June. It subsequently became evident, however, that the dates suggested were not in fact convenient to all governments concerned, principally because of provincial elections. The proposed new dates have been established in consultation with Premier Bennett and have been accepted by all the other provinces.
The main item of business on the agenda will be the question of federal assistance to university education. I hope to be able tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, to table copies of the correspondence exchanged with the provinces regarding this conference.



HOUSING


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement on a matter that has precipitated a number of questions and observations in the house during recent weeks, and to which the government has given most earnest and continuous attention. I refer to the difficulty being experienced by Canada's house building industry in obtaining an adequate volume of mortgage funds.
It is now apparent that the flow of institutional mortgage investment has declined sharply, yet a substantial demand for new housing exists. This demand is more acute in some designated areas, in new resource-based communities and certain other areas. To assist in some measure in relieving this situation, and in an effort to ensure that the most urgent needs are met, the government has determined upon the following action.
As I have affirmed on more than one occasion, the government is taking, and will continue to take every step necessary to ensure a program of direct mortgage loans by Central Mortgage and Housing at the same level as that of last year when, including the fall program, loans for approximately 31,500 houses were approved. This will ensure a minimum house building program in 1966 within approximately 15 per cent of the 1965 total.
Having given this assurance, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to make it clear that it is not the intention of the government to make up all the deficiency which has arisen in the supply of mortgage funds. The amounts involved in this announcement here are approximately $450 million. I might say it is my own personal view that, since merchant builders are building with the hope of profit, they should intensify, they must intensify if they need help, their search for other sources of mortgage moneys. They cannot expect the government completely to solve such problems for them.
In view of recent developments, including the budget, one thing is certain, Mr. Speaker. The government does not propose to finance a program of model homes this summer with

May 3. 1966
Housing
direct speculative loans made by a government agency. Such a program would be directly contrary to the government's objectives in restraining the level of construction.
I wish to conclude this short statement, Mr. Speaker, by reiterating a further assurance that I and other spokesmen for the government have given on many occasions, namely that there will be no diminution of the funds made available by the government to assist in meeting the housing needs of lower income and elderly persons and families in Canada. Funds have been provided to support programs of public housing and projects for elderly persons to the full extent of the demand for such worthy endeavours.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked a number of questions about this matter. I know hon. members in all parts of the house, including the Prime Minister, have been receiving strong protests from, I think, every province in this country regarding the serious situation resulting from the action of this government with respect to housing loans. It is a very serious matter and one that affects Canadians as a whole.
The minister has endeavoured to sweeten the pill by the words he added at the end of his remarks, to the effect that there would be no diminution in the funds made available by the government to assist meeting the housing need of lower income and elderly persons.
However, this announcement today seems to be a modern exemplification of the old adage that the mountain in labour brought forth a mouse. I underline that fact that it was not a house. All we have is a generalization that does not meet the situation in any way and which will result in widespread disappointment.
Today I received a copy of a telegram sent to the Prime Minister which summarizes the situation. I am not going to read it all. It is from the president of the National House Builders Association, and it states:
Reports received today from member associations indicate further disruption and curtailment of employment due to lack of mortgage funds. Examples Winnipeg quote layoffs by quality builders 120 shop labour. Other typical layoffs 30, 35 and 15 respectively. Lakehead quote six builders report reductions in carpenter and labour force from 322 total to 57. Victoria quote 75 carpenters unemployed as compared to 14 this time last year. Calgary quote most home builders laid off approximately 10 per cent trades. About 75 per cent will have to be laid off in approximately 1| months. Ottawa quote Ottawa builders alarmed over prospects for next three

month period. Montreal quote curtailment in excess of 70 per cent. Hamilton quote survey of eight builder firms indicate average layoffs of 38 men per firm-
What has happened is that the government refuses to act. Interest rates have climbed to inordinate levels. Eight per cent is the rate that is being charged in many places if there is to be any borrowing at all. Altogether this is a most disillusioning and disheartening statement. It does not indicate the serious concern the government ought to have given to this question.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the statement of the minister I would certainly echo some of the words of the leader of the official opposition. To say that this statement is a disappointment is putting it mildly. I cannot really believe that the approach it indicates represents the thinking of the minister himself who, I had felt, was far more cognizant of the building industry in Canada and who understood its problems far better than this statement would indicate.
Let there be no misunderstanding about it; this is merely a statement by the government to the effect that last year's program will be repeated. Indeed, the total program will be approximately 15 per cent or more below that. It seems to me fatuous to suggest to builders that the government does not intend to take any real responsibility for the shortage of money, and to tell the builders that they should intensify their search for other sources of mortgage funds.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The minister is well aware that it is the government which sets the N.H.A. interest rate. Now he intends to dispose of any responsibility for seeing that mortgage funds are available at the interest rate which the government itself has set. There are simply no other sources of funds to which to turn. Builders under the N.H.A. are sitting with four, five or six refusal letters in front of them from the insurance companies stating they simply will not lend any further this year. It is silly to suggest that builders should keep looking when there is no where to look.
The fact of the matter is that because of the limited rate-and I am not suggesting it should be raised-N.H.A. institutions are simply out for the rest of the year. The sources which have funds are going to lend where they can make the most money, and no one will blame them for it. But there is a duty on the government which sets this rate to see that the National Housing Act functions. The
May 3, 1S66

government has, in effect, already set aside the recommendation of its own Economic Council which calls for a continuing rise in the number of housing units being constructed.
So this announcement, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, means nothing. It will do nothing to correct the shortage of housing. In effect it underlines the truth of something the opposition has been saying for the last three or four years, that this government has no housing policy. We have no idea of its aims in this field, or of the amount of housing Canada needs, or where it is to be located or how people can afford to pay for it, or where the necessary finance will be obtained. Housing is treated merely as a tap to be turned on and off for the purpose of producing employment or economic expansion. There are no goals. There are no objectives. There is no housing program under this government.
But maybe it does not matter that a lot of our people are inadequately housed or lacking proper facilities. I suppose the really important thing is to get back to the basic national objective of this parliament; back to the spies charging each other, the character assassinations and the old personal feuds and vendettas.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinie):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of September 1965, the Department of Trade and Commerce issued a press release in Ottawa announcing that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had decided to finance a housing project in Great Britain. It was announced that over a hundred houses would be built in Great Britain and financed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation of Canada.
Today, it is announced that Central Mortgage and Housing have no more money to lend to Canadians. In Great Britain, everything is fine, but restrictions are being applied in Canada. Furthermore, the minister says that the house builders should not expect the government to solve their problems for them. But the problems have been brought about by the government. The government placed an 11 per cent tax on building materials. The government have brought on the problems now facing the building industry.
After the government have created problems, they wash their hands of them. They say they will not solve "your problems" and
Housing
the minister adds that such a program would go directly against the government's objectives-I repeat "would go against the government's objectives in restraining the level of construction." The government's objectives are to restrain the level of construction.
We are told that Canada is a progressive country, a developing country; we are told that the future belongs to Canada and to Canadians but, on the other hand, we are told that one of the objectives of the government is to restrain the level of construction. To what purpose? To prevent progress in Canada. If the country is developing, why are efforts being made to halt this development?
The government cannot be censured too much for seeking to restrain construction in a country as young and as wealthy as ours. No, the government will never be blamed as much as they deserve for that. Besides, it is an inevitable result of the last budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) who prefers to restrain the economy of the country rather than to progress along with it.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, within the framework of what has been stated government policy I suppose the statement that has just been given to us by the Minister of Labour offers some little hope; but I must reiterate what has already been said, that it certainly is not adequate to meet the needs of the country. It is quite contrary to the recommendations of the Economic Council, which stated that the number of housing units should continue to increase not only to meet the needs of the economy but also to meet the needs for housing.
The very acute situation that exists in Canada, more so in some parts of the country than in others, so far as the shortage of mortgage money is concerned, does not arise because there is not a sufficient money supply. It is simply because of government policy. It is government policy today that is creating the shortage of funds.
We agree with the Minister of Labour that at this time it is not the government's responsibility to supply money for speculative capital, but the fact is that the private source of capital is not there any more, the money just is not available. It is for that reason that this sector of the house building industry is not going forward as in previous years.
The minister's statement is entirely inadequate to meet the needs of the country with
May 3. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry respect to assistance from the government. There is not only the need for the provision of more direct money, but because of the complete inability of the private sector to supply building funds, interest rates, where private money is available, are now more than 8 per cent. According to reports the other day the cost of a $13,000 home has risen to $15,000. This is the kind of difficulty which the house building industry and the home builder face.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, though we can say we are grateful for small mercies, government policy which has given rise to this situation should be corrected.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Mr. Cameron (High Park) (chairman of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs):: That the first report of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, presented to the house on Tuesday, April 26, 1966, be now concurred in.


Mr. Cameron (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the motion standing in my name be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On the order:


Mr. Hales (chairman of the standing committee on public accounts):: That the first report of the standing committee on public accounts, presented to the house on Wednesday, April 27, 1966, be now concurred in.
That the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, presented to the house on Wednesday, April 27, 1966, be now concurred In.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, because of the time allotted to the supply motion I would ask that the two motions in my name be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with one Eerik Heine, a Canadian citizen regarding whom libelous

statements have allegedly been made by the C.I.A., the central intelligence agency of the United States, and disseminated throughout Canada to Estonian groups. These statements were to the effect that Heine was or is a communist agent.
I should like to ask the minister whether the Canadian government has sought information or made representations to the government of the United States regarding C.I.A. activities among immigrant groups in Canada; are such activities being carried on and, if so, are they being carried on with the cooperation and consent or permission of the government of Canada?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, this matter is being discussed with the government of the United States, and until those discussions have been completed I would prefer to withhold my reply.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of his message to the world veterans federation urging that there be universal membership for the United Nations, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether this means that the Canadian government will instruct its delegation to the United Nations to support the admission of mainland China.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it always has been the position of the Canadian government that the membership of the United Nations should be universal, and that there are disputes, and will be disputes, in the world which cannot be resolved or even assisted by the United this ideal soon will be realized, but there are not members of the United Nations. We hope this ideal soon will be realized, but there are certain conditions which have to be fulfilled before the membership of any particular country can be approved in the United Nations. I am thinking now of the government at Peking, and I understand discussions are going on at the moment with a view to that matter being considered at the next meeting of the assembly. I cannot add anything other than that statement.
May 3. 1966	COMMONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question. Since this matter might be facilitated if Canada followed the example of Great Britain, France and many other countries in establishing diplomatic relations with mainland China, are any steps being taken by the Canadian government at the present time to recognize mainland China and establish diplomatic relations with that country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; I cannot add anything to what has been said previously in respect of the establishment of diplomatic relations by Canada with the government of Peking.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister what are the conditions; would he elucidate. I think he has gone a long way further on this occasion than previously. What are the conditions? He mentioned the government at Peking, and I wonder whether he meant the government at Taiwan as being the area regarding which the conditions would be imposed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have gone any further on this occasion than in the past when discussing this matter. One of the conditions for the entry of the Peking government into the United Nations would be the extent of the area covered by the writ of that government as a member of the United Nations, and the undesirability of taking any action which would establish the rule of the government of Peking over the people of Formosa without their consent.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Is it a fact that Communist China was recently invited by the Canadian government to open a trade mission in Ottawa and what was the reaction of Peking on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that the question is in order.
[English1


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; I do not know of any offer of that kind.
tTranslation]


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, it seems that an answer has been given to the question, but I do not believe it was in order.
DEBATES	4621
Inquiries of the Ministry EDUCATION



RESPECT FOR PROVINCIAL RIGHTS IN FORTHCOMING DISCUSSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering why questions based on the Prime Minister's speech to the world federation of veterans were ruled out of order yesterday, yet are in order today."]
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister announced that the main question to be considered at the federal-provincial conference in June will be assistance to university education, can he assure the house that exclusive provincial jurisdiction over education will be respected at that conference?
[English1


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the constitutional position undoubtedly will be respected.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In that case, may I ask him what the federal government will be doing at a conference dealing with education.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of his statement on Saturday night, when he called for a cease fire or a more normal armistice agreement in Viet Nam; in view of the statement by President de Gaulle on Sunday that there was nothing which could be done in Viet Nam at this time, and the statement today by U Thant, the secretary general, that there is nothing the UN can do in respect of the Viet Nam situation, is there any comment from the Prime Minister regarding the statement from Peking that his proposal is nothing more than an American hoax?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will agree that questions to the Prime Minister or the government asking whether they have any comment to make about a statement which has been made outside the house cannot be asked. The hon. member may wish to rephrase his question.
May 3. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question by asking the Prime Minister whether there has been any further contact with the UN or the international control commission in the efforts of Canada to bring about some kind of solution.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My statement on Saturday night certainly was not in any sense a United States or Canadian proposal; it was made in the light of the activities that are now going on with respect to a role for the international control commission in bringing about a negotiated settlement, and it was made also in the light of the discussions with the secretary general of the United Nations and others.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the likelihood that the military escalation on both sides in Viet Nam may seriously jeopardize the efforts to which the right hon. gentleman referred a moment ago in respect of the international control commission, would he consider making representations to the administration in the United States to the effect that they reconsider the decision, reported in today's newspapers, to accelerate their military participation in Viet Nam?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, in a matter of this sort I think it is dangerous to rely on reports which appear in the newspapers before one has had a proper opportunity to examine their full import. In a matter of this sort I do not think conclusions should be drawn from such stories until there has been the fullest opportunity to examine all the circumstances.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I did in fact send notice of the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but this arises out of the questions which have been asked of the Prime Minister. As the hon. member for Red Deer said, the secretary general of the United Nations is reported to have said, after discussions about Viet Nam with General de Gaulle, that for the time being he did not see any possibility of a new initiative on the part of anyone. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the light of this report, whether he believes the proposals of the Canadian government to use the international control commission to bring about negotiations to end the
[Mr. Speaker.)
conflict in Viet Nam can serve a useful purpose.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been dealt with in part by the Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman will recall that I indicated to the external affairs committee on Thursday last that we did not believe the time was opportune for calling a Geneva conference. I believe that what the secretary general had in mind was mainly related to that, but I can say that the difficult situation attending the possibility of calling such a conference in no way interferes with the Canadian proposal that there is a role for the commission to play in probing and seeking to narrow the differences between both sides. As a matter of fact, as the Prime Minister said, the secretary general strongly concurs with the ideas we have for the role of this commission in the circumstances prior to the calling of a general conference.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering why questions based on the Prime Minister's speech to the world federation of veterans were ruled out of order yesterday, yet are in order today.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour based on a report that the Canadian brotherhood of railway, transport and general workers has refused to endorse the nominee of the Minister of Labour, Judge Craig Munroe, as chairman of the conciliation board. What is the position now taken? Will the minister insist that Judge Munroe be chairman of that board, or will he submit another name for consideration?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad this question has been asked. There are actually three conciliation boards. The requests from the railways and the unions regarding the chairman of the first two boards both called for Mr. Justice Munroe. It was following those requests that the announcement was made.
In respect of the third dispute, where conciliation has been requested, no approach has been made to Mr. Justice Munroe. Consideration will have to be given to the fact that
May 3, 1966

the parties involved have not been able to agree on a chairman, and the minister will have to accept his responsibility in this regard.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION OVER MANPOWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Is the hon. minister acquainted with the statement made by Premier Jean Lesage to the effect that Quebec intends to exercise sole jurisdiction in manpower matters; is he willing to accept that stand in the formulation of his federal policy on manpower?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have read, like everyone else, a press report and as the matter is most important I shall wait till I have seen the text of Mr. Lesage's statement before making any comment whatsoever.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the hon. minister?
Can he tell us when he intends to study the statement made by the Quebec premier, and when he intends to make his comments on it?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I can get a hold of the text and have a chance to read it.


Gilles Grégoire: May I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. No. I believe the question the hon. member has just asked was possibly or probably out of order. I do not think it should have been allowed and I would ask the hon. member not to continue with that type of question.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry relating to a subject on which he has been keeping the house informed from time to time. Has the minister
Inquiries of the Ministry any further information to give the house about the recall of defective Canadian cars in Canada?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated the other day, the principal motor car manufacturers have been undertaking to recall all motor cars manufactured in Canada with defects, as they are doing in respect of those manufactured in the United States that have defects. If the hon. member would like a rather more detailed report I will be glad to see that one is provided to him.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture based on a report that the Charolais cattle, which have been quarantined since last autumn, are to be released today to the respective owners across Canada, and that these cattle will be kept in quarantine for an additional 90 days by those owners. Is the minister absolutely certain that these cattle are free of foot-and-mouth disease and that this disease will not be spread to other cattle in Canada as a result of this action at this time?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, these cattle have been under close quarantine at Grosse lie for the prescribed period of time. Out of the total of 113 head quarantined at Grosse lie, 109 have been released. Of the others one died, two reacted to T.B. tests and one reacted unfavourably to foot-and-mouth disease testings, but did not have foot-and-mouth disease. These are very stringent tests in regard to this disease and a further period of observation is necessary merely to assure that these very stringent tests are repeated, in order that we may be satisfied that everything is in order.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that these cattle will be quarantined by the owners, will there be any government supervision and tests made during that period of quarantine, and will the cattle be released when it is absolutely certain they do not have this disease?


John James Greene: That is the practice, Mr. Speaker.
4624	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: I have a further supplementary question. Can the minister say whether any of these cattle are eventually destined for shipment to the United States?


John James Greene: Once the cattle are clear of quarantine, being the property of the purchasers they will be disposed of as the purchasers see fit. If they are admissible to the United States they may be sold there.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister consulted with the United States department of agriculture in order that there will be no repercussions to our exports of Canadian cattle to the United States?


John James Greene: We have received no objections from the United States in this regard. I believe that when this program was entered into it was done with consultation with United States authorities.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since Health Minister Steuart of the province of Saskatchewan said at North Battleford that the serious problem of water pollution in the North Saskatchewan river is the responsibility of the federal government, when may we expect some action from the government on water pollution?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This appears to be a very general question and I do not believe it should be asked at this time.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: With all due respect, sir, this is a matter of some urgency, because unless something is done immediately these people along the North Saskatchewan river will have to drink water throughout next winter which is certainly unfit for human consumption.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would like to debate the matter on the adjournment motion.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister

DEBATES	May 3. 1966
of Mines and Technical Surveys where the Donald report is.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: It is on its way, Mr. Speaker.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the answer, if the minister gave one.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is on its way.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he has an answer now to the question I asked last week.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked last week whether checks had been completed concerning the importer of mislabelled drugs, and whether the importer had been delisted as an authorized supplier of drugs to Canada's armed forces.
The answer to the first part of the question is yes. Further checks have been completed, and the department has been advised that the firm in question is no longer in conformity with the Canadian government specifications board standard on the manufacture, control and distribution of drugs for supply to agencies of the government of Canada, including the Department of National Defence.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, asking him whether the government will give consideration to the implementation of a policy such as that announced by the Shah of Iran under which an amount of money equal to one day's expenditure for defence would be allocated to the United Nations campaign against illiteracy.


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be placed on the order paper.
May 3, 19G6



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) brought to the attention of the chamber a rather unhappy story which was headlined in the Toronto Telegram, asking for information. The information I have for him is nothing particularly new, but I thought it should appear on the record after yesterday's query.
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that it has noted the story published in the Toronto Telegram, which contains serious allegations. The matter has been referred to the Department of Justice, and on the advice of the department, because of the reference to the use of drugs, the C.B.C. has asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to conduct a full investigation.
I am further advised from sources outside the C.B.C. management that Mr. Leiterman and Miss Fox have instituted action and served notice of libel against the Toronto Telegram in respect of this story.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister, but I heard that release on the radio this morning.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Labour a question with reference to his announcement this afternoon. Can we interpret the announcement as meaning that under direct lending the same number of mortgage loans will be available, as distinct from the same amount of money?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The same number of mortgage loans will be available in order to provide a minimum of 31,500 houses. Apart from the guaranteed loans, these are direct loans.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the 31,500 refer to new loans to be made this year?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It refers to direct loans to be made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In giving out these N.H.A. loans, will areas with outstanding development of extensions, such as university communities, be given special preference?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Again, Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have this question asked. This does not apply to housing for university areas at all; that is covered by special legislation which was passed in this house in 1964, and the funds were provided in the 1965 amendments. This type of housing, as well as housing for the elderly and lower income people, is in addition to the 31,500 direct loans.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour if the 15 per cent decline which he anticipates is to be in the private mortgage fund area of housing and, if so, whether that 15 per cent decline is based on an estimate after a survey among the insurance companies and lending institutions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts whether the type of question which is now being asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and other similar questions which have preceded it, should be accepted. It seems to me that if we get in the habit of allowing hon. members to ask a series of questions on announcements made on motions by the ministers, we will have daily debates on these announcements. It seems to me also that the information the hon. member is seeking now is not so urgently required that the question should be allowed at this time.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry.
Could he inform the house concerning a $2.7 million contract awarded to Canadair, in Montreal, to build a new vehicle and could he say whether this vehicle will be used by the Canadian Army.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would like to put his question on the order paper.
May 3, 1966

Morality in Government



The house resumed from Monday, May 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fairweather.



MORALITY IN GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT-NEED FOR REFORM

[Stage Direction]
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I feel I should begin by expressing my regret at not being here yesterday to listen to the speeches of the mover and seconder of the amendment. I must confess that my regret in that regard has been mitigated somewhat by the opportunity of reading the speeches in Hansard.
I shall do my best, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the facts of the situation which, according to the statements made in the house yesterday, have brought about this amendment. I recognize at once that I am handicapped in approaching this task; I must be handicapped in the eyes of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) at least because according to him I have now reached my second childhood and should not be talking about things like this especially since, in his elegant words, I am at the moment bug-eyed from reading about sex.
I listened, Mr. Speaker, on Sunday night to the hon. member talk on television about improving the character of politics and the atmosphere of parliament. This is the kind of language about a prime minister in this country, whoever he may be, which, of course, elevates political life in Canada. I warn my hon. friend that if he is not careful he will soon rival the picturesque and at times offensive extravagances of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton).
The mover of this amendment said the institution of parliament is on trial, and he is quite right. It is indeed and in many ways not mentioned by him yesterday. In moving this amendment he was not, of course, dealing with those ways. There is a relation between amendments and these other pressures on parliament which in my view are weakening it as an institution. One of these pressures is our ability to get things done, to adapt our procedures to the requirements, and the struggle in this regard is often referred to as a deterioration of parliamentary action and parliamentary atmosphere, which is not in any sense peculiar to Canada.
[Mr. Speaker.)
All those who have been reading the London Times and other United Kingdom papers in the last week or two will have noted that they have been philosophizing about the opening of parliament in that country after the last election and the work which is before it. They have been expressing doubts about the ability of the mother of parliaments to deal with all the important matters with which it should be dealing. I believe that we can adapt ourselves to these changes, but to do that we have to change ourselves and yet change in a way which will not betray but will retain democratic elective control over the executive and protect always the fundamental rights of the individual against the executive or against anybody or anything else.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I am just as concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the preservation of the rights of parliament and of the individual as any member in this house. I share that concern, I am sure, with all members of this house. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has cited as evidence of his uneasiness, which has resulted in this amendment, certain things that have been going on in a royal commission of inquiry. In producing his amendment and bringing his subject to our attention, he did not wait until that inquiry was completed, until all the evidence was in and the examination of witnesses or re-examination of witnesses was completed. He based his motion on one day's evidence and made statements about that evidence which I consider to be tendentious, and in my view he has drawn some unwarranted conclusions from that evidence.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his friends, having interpreted this particular piece of evidence as they saw fit and I or any other member of the government having said nothing about it in the house in answer to questions because Mr. Speaker ruled the questions out of order, complain that, in his words, an unnamed spokesman for the government dared to give another interpretation in defence against distortion and misrepresentation of the position as we see it.
The hon. member is concerned, he says, and I know he is because he has given evidence of this over the months and years he has been in political life, about morality in government. So am I, Mr. Speaker, and I think I have shown my concern. I wish the hon. member had been able to postpone his expression of this concern in this particular instance until the evidence was in. The hon.
May 3. 1966
[Stage Direction]
member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), who seconded the motion, made certain remarks which I am going to quote:
-I am going to deal with. . . the violation of the rights and privileges of private members in this house.
I shall tie that into the tactics that have been referred to whereby the R.C.M.P. has been used to investigate the background and past activities of hon. members for the sake of personal persecution, blackmail or for whatever the purpose might be.
This is a statement made by my hon. friend about the R.C.M.P. and its investigations. If this were so, Mr. Speaker, the investigation into this particular case which is before us, the Munsinger case, was conducted not by this government but by one of which he was a member in the course of the legitimate discharge of their responsibilities for security and administering the law but not, I am sure, for the purposes he mentions.
Perhaps my hon. friends could remain quiet for a few moments while I continue my speech. They will have an opportunity to participate.
Mr. Dinsdale:: Since the Prime Minister has made remarks with reference to me may I ask, did he or did he not ask the R.C.M.P. for this information?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my hon. friend will wait he will find out.


Michael Starr: Yes or no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He will find out. My hon. friend in his remarks did not say that. He said:
I shall tie that into the tactics that have been referred to whereby the R.C.M.P. has been used to investigate the background and past activities of hon. members for the sake of personal persecution, blackmail or for whatever the purpose might be.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is what the amendment says.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It does, and I shall deal with it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Don't take my words out of context, as you have done in many instances.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Don't take my words out of context.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to remind hon. members that the right hon. Prime Minister has the floor and should be allowed to make his statement.
Morality in Government


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the case we are considering, what is known as the Munsinger case, the R.C.M.P. were used exclusively in the investigations for the legitimate purpose of security. They had no other purpose in their actions and it would have been intolerable if there had been any other purpose. The operation of the police as a security service has only one purpose, that is, the defence of the country, and any interfering with any person must never go beyond that fundamental purpose, the defense of the country against subversive activities within and from without. These activities have nothing to do with a man's politics or morals or actions except when they are related to this primary security purpose.
I want to say a word now about a question that has been raised, though it was not raised in the debate yesterday but outside the house, about the propriety of the use by one government of reports and information bearing on the operations of a previous government. There are many reports and documents and, indeed, the great majority of reports, documents and records are quite proper to be brought to the attention of a government even if they concern activities during a previous administration. This is done and has been done since confederation as a normal aspect of governmental administration. Administration records, including inquiries and investigations and reports, can be used in this way except, and the exception is a very important one, memoranda to the cabinet, to cabinet committees, and records of discussions of the cabinet or cabinet committees they cannot be properly used. These cabinet papers may not even be seen by the successor government. Letters of understanding to this effect were exchanged when governments changed in Canada in 1957 and again in 1963. Cabinet and cabinet committee material will not be produced for a successor government by the secretary of the cabinet even if, which is inconceivable, a minister or prime minister should ask for it.
Other records are of a different character. In the Munsinger case, for instance, it was quite proper for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in their investigation to secure any immigration records concerning this case that covered the period of the previous Liberal government, and to show them to any minister of the succeeding government, and for that government to use them in the proper way. Such information and reports can be examined in this way, can be used in debate

May 3. 1966
Morality in Government or discussion, even if they concern the actions of a preceding government-if they are of a kind that can be properly used and if they deal with matters pertaining to the current administration. The nature of the information, the nature, not the time covered by it, is a governing consideration.
The orders for the tabling of papers prove this every day in the week in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. In this session the opposition have demanded not only agreements concluded with other governments, provincial or foreign, but they have asked that discussions and working papers leading up to these negotiations be made public. This is quite a proper use of reports, inquiries, memoranda, files and so on, whatever previous period they cover, if they could properly be used in any period. It is quite proper to ask for and to see reports of police inquiries that have been made.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This is done by every government. It was done by me not very long ago, Mr. Speaker, in the case of Victor Spencer, with the knowledge and approval of the opposition. The reports in this case also covered a period when we were not in office.
Would it not have been perfectly proper for me to have seen these documents even if a member of parliament had been mentioned in them as having intervened? There was no such mention, Mr. Speaker, but if there had been such mention, in my view it would have been perfectly proper for me to examine these documents.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the principles in regard to the use of material of the kind I have been discussing, and I have followed these principles in the situation under consideration to which reference has been made, though it is not specifically referred to, of course, in the amendment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me look at the amendment. It reads as follows:
This house strongly deplores and condemns this government's actions in having the R.C.M. Police provide information to the government as to the past conduct of all members of parliament generally, a course of action which would destroy the independence of all members and undermine the institution of parliament.
That might well have been the result, Mr. Speaker, if that had been the action which was taken. But the R.C.M.P. were not asked by me or by any one else to provide information to the government as to the past conduct of all members of parliament generally. That

would indeed be an indefensible and shocking request which would go against all the rights of parliament and the rights of the individual; it would be a quite improper use by the executive of the powers of the police. But as 1 say, that request was not made.
Nor would it ever be made, Mr. Speaker, by any government of which 1 was the head. Our record as a government in defending the rights of parliament and the rights of the individual is a good one, and I do not propose to be apologetic about it any way, shape or form.
Within a few months of taking office, Mr. Speaker, we examined security regulations, the conduct of security investigations and the procedures of security investigations. We examined them and we altered them in the interests of liberalizing-and I use the word with a small "1"-the regulations to bring about greater protection of individual rights.
We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, with parliamentary and individual rights and parliamentary and individual privileges always being respected by government. We have already altered, as I have said, our security procedures to strengthen safeguards. A statement in great detail was made in this regard by the former minister of justice and by myself in this house in 1963. We are now in the process, which 1 hope will become completed very shortly, of setting up a royal commission to examine into general security procedures, which will include the conduct of inquiries. I think that will be a step forward too.
Now let us look at the particular situation at the end of November, 1964 which, while not specifically mentioned in this amendment, was undoubtedly in the minds of those who moved and seconded the amendment. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I asked for the results of inquiries that had been made. I did not ask, of course, for inquiries to be made. I asked for the results of inquiries that had been made in regard to particular conduct and dealing with particular matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Which ones?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad, if my right hon. friend will contain himself-


John George Diefenbaker: I want to get the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted at my right hon. friend's determination to get the truth, and I think he will get it. As
May 3, 1968

Disraeli once said to an interrupter in the British House of Commons: "Truth travels slowly, my friend, but I think it will reach even you in time".


John George Diefenbaker: That quotation has been used over and over again over the years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps my right hon. friend will just contain himself for a short time and then he will be able to spend the rest of the afternoon speaking, and I know how he loves to do that.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the evidence here.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What concerned me, Mr. Speaker, at the end of 1964 and what I sought, was information as to the extent to which over a period of ten years there had been political intervention or attempted political intervention in police investigations, in the administration of justice and in our processes of law, to determine to what extent there had been abuse of position.
At that time-most hon. members in this house ought to remember this because they were here-very serious allegations were made to the effect that a minister had intervened for political reasons in a police investigation. At that time there were allegations that at least one member of parliament had attempted to intervene in the administration of justice. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I had learned that my own parliamentary secretary had made certain telephone calls, and on learning that this was so I called him in and received from him first hand evidence of his indiscretion; and I asked him to resign that afternoon and to inform the house that very day. I did so not because he was guilty of wrongdoing, but because he had left himself open to the charge of improper exercise of authority in his position.
At that time, Mr. Speaker-I have the record here but I do not want to take up too much time of the house by putting examples on the record-there were allegations of pressures brought to bear on members of parliament by criminals, by the underworld. At that time we were setting up the Dorion inquiry. All these allegations and disclosures were made and continued to be made for months after this period until we reached the point where my hon. friend, from Brandon-Souris, who himself spoke last night, said that there was a lack of integrity in high places in the government. That was a very mild statement compared with other things which were said about us afterwards and during the election campaign.
Morality in Government
At that time the Leader of the Opposition said that this house, as the supreme court of parliament, has the right to know that justice is administered without fear or favour, that it has the right to know that the administration of justice shall not depend on the persuasion-he meant political persuasion, I suppose-of alleged wrongdoers, that it has the right to know that it will not be strangled by the concealment of facts.
This, Mr. Speaker, was the background to the request which I made. All of these allegations and charges worried me as they must have worried every other member of parliament. But perhaps they worried me most of all. That is why I asked for information, if there was any such information, about other cases which were in any way similar, or which were related to these charges in which members of parliament were involved.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I thought I had to know the nature and the magnitude of this problem. It was my duty to make inquiries and to try to find out. I was as deeply disturbed as any member of this house by the disclosures of pressures on members of parliament by dubious and, at times, criminal elements. I was deeply disturbed, as it was my duty to be, by the allegations which had been made. Was the situation regarding interference by members of parliament as bad as was being painted? I decided to try to find out from the facts as disclosed in the record.
So I asked, Mr. Speaker, not for any new inquiries to be made, not for the police to report on or look into the private conduct of members of parliament, not to search for personal scandals, but to give me a record whether there had been in the past the kind of contact with dubious and criminal elements now charged, reports of which had been increasing month by month. How deep did this sort of thing go? Was parliament becoming a victim to criminal pressures? That was demanded by the opposition: that we investigate, that we look into these matters.
My request, Mr. Speaker, and I made it, was not for information about the Munsinger case. I have learned since that at that time many people apparently knew something about the case. Apparently rumours and gossip were rife even then. I knew nothing about that case. I had never heard the name so I could not possibly have had this case in mind when I made this inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

May 3, 1966
Morality in Government


Lester Bowles Pearson: That happens to be the literal and absolute truth. My request, Mr. Speaker, was not for information about a particular case. My request through the Minister of Justice, whom I consulted first because he was the minister responsible for the R.C.M.P., was that the R.C.M.P. search their records and give me evidence, if there was such evidence, of other cases, beginning with the government, that they had investigated in which members of parliament, whether ministers or not, were in any way involved or mentioned in connection with this kind of thing. I wanted to get information on the nature and the magnitude of this problem. It was my duty to try to secure that information and to make sure, Mr. Speaker-and I have witnesses to this statement and to other statements I have been making because these meetings were not held in the presence of only one person-that the request for the records, which I claim to be a perfectly proper procedure in the circumstances, covered a period when both parties were in power. I asked those who had compiled the records to go back ten years, so that it would not look as if I were just delving into the records of the previous government's time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friends may scoff at this sort of thing. Perhaps it is not the kind of procedure they would have followed if they were asking for records.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My own notes, made at the time-and I made notes at the time, and of the discussions I had with the commissioner of the R.C.M. Police and the secretary of the Privy Council who was present-made my own purposes quite clear.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question of the Prime Minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: Did the R.C.M.P. give to the Prime Minister other files at that time besides the Munsinger file?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am just coming to that.


Mr. Churchill:: How many have you got?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a laughing matter to my hon. friend but it will not be, as the matter develops.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not a laughing matter.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my first request was made toward the end of November. The commissioner of the R.C.M.P. has indicated it was December 2nd that we met. He told me at that time that he had conducted a search and had looked into the records and that there was only one case of any significance at all, although he mentioned two or three that were quite inconsequential in which an hon. member's name happened to be mentioned in a very inoffensive or innocent way. There was only one case, so he told me, of any significance or consequence, in the inquiries that had been made in which an hon. member was involved. I found this report, Mr. Speaker, very reassuring indeed in respect of the involvement of hon. members generally in the kinds of things which were being talked about at that time and have been talked about, indeed, subsequently.
On this particular case the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. left a memorandum with me. It was not a file. I have never seen the file in this case and I have never asked for it. I saw a memorandum made by the police or a copy of it, a precis, if you like. This copy of the memorandum or precis of the file was left with me by the commissioner. The Clerk of the Privy Council, who is the chairman of the security committee of the government, was present when I received this memorandum. I studied that memorandum that evening, December 2, and I realized at once its importance from a security point of view.
Surely there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, in the minds of hon. members that this particular case was an important one from a security point of view. That is the consideration that mattered in this case and the only consideration.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You took no action.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was the only consideration that mattered. This is a far cry from the picture that has been painted by some hon. members, by some persons outside the house and by this amendment, of the Prime Minister asking that the private lives of all members of this house be investigated.
At the beginning of December, Mr. Speaker, as I considered it to be my duty, I advised the right hon. Leader of the Opposition about my great concern in respect of the one case that had been brought to my attention and about the situation generally. I told him about the information I had been getting and about my reasons for making the inquiry. Having also advised him that there
May 3. 1966

was only one case reported to me of any substance or consequence, and that that case gave me very great concern because it affected the security of our country, I asked him if he had anything to add to the information given to me by the R.C.M.P. as he was the prime minister at the time. I considered, Mr. Speaker, that that was the right course of action to take in the circumstances.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The next question concerns allegations that I personally or, if you like, as Prime Minister, kept possession of the R.C.M.P. Munsinger file from December, 1964, until the beginning of April, 1966. I have already pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that at no time has the R.C.M.P. file in this case been in my personal possession. All I had was a memorandum, a precis of the file. I did not keep that memorandum on my desk, as has been alleged, or in my files, as has been suggested in comments here and in the press. I turned it over, immediately I read it, to the chairman of the government security panel for safekeeping, assuming it would either be returned by him to the R.C.M.P. or would be locked up by him in a safe in the Privy Council office. And that is where it was. The Clerk of the Privy Council, who as I have said is chairman of the government security panel, did lock it up in a safe and the memorandum remained in that custody until the R.C.M.P. sent for it early in April by messenger-not to my office, because they knew where it was, but by a message to the Privy Council office. That ought to dispose of that particular point, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: You hope it does.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope no one will accuse the secretary of the cabinet, Clerk of the Privy Council and chairman of the security panel, of acting improperly in retaining custody of a memorandum on an R.C.M.P. security file, the original of which was with the R.C.M.P.
I never used that memorandum. It was never circulated. So far as I was concerned, it did not deal with a case involving the private and personal activities of anybody; it was a serious security matter and it was considered by me as such, and only as such.


An hon. Member:: For 16 months.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was kept there for 15 months and if the hon. member will follow some of the evidence which is being given now, he will find out it was kept for longer than that in other places, before-
Morality in Government


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -but in circumstances very different from those which existed when the government had changed hands and the ministry had changed. Very different, indeed.
The next question concerns the allegation that I knew in advance that this matter was going to be thrown into debate, that the name Monseignor or Munsinger would be mentioned in this house, that this was all part of a carefully calculated plot and that I had been holding the document on my desk waiting to produce it as part of that plot. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) in March, after vigorous attacks against him, including personal attacks to which he was vigorously replying-having been called among other things a dwarf in giant's clothing-did, I admit, when goaded beyond exasperation, blurt out this name.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Don't ask us to believe that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not ask the hon. gentleman to believe anything because it would be quite impossible for him to believe anything from this side. He has been conditioned to disbelief for too long.
It has been said here and in some press and other comment-and I wish to repeat this-that I knew this was going to happen. Mr. Speaker, I had no knowledge, of any kind, that this name was going to be mentioned in any debate. That is my statement, and I stand on it and my reputation stands on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman who is scribbling notes down has undoubtedly put down: "Well, he applauded; he applauded when the Minister of Justice was speaking."
Indeed, I did applaud when the Minister of Justice was speaking. I applauded when the Minister of Justice was defending himself so vigorously against the attacks which had been made on him. I applauded when he suggested that the right hon. gentleman opposite was the last to criticize this government's handling of security cases. But if hon. members opposite will read Hansard-perhaps they have already done so-they will soon find out that the indications of approbation, as they have been called, were all before the word "Munsinger" was mentioned, not afterward, and Hansard, page 2211, March 4, 1966, will show that this was the case.

May 3, 1966
Morality in Government


An hon. Member:: You will have to do better than that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I heard someone say: "You will have to do better than that." What I am doing is telling the facts-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and if it can be shown that any statement I am making today is not a fact or that it is untrue, then 1 stake my reputation on that. I cannot do more than that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are many questions being asked in this house and in the press. Many of the answers to these questions will, I think, be given in the course of the inquiry which is now in the process of being conducted. Those questions which I have felt I could answer without infringing the responsibility of that inquiry, I have tried to answer, and I will summarize those answers in very simple language which will state my position clearly on this matter.
First, we should ask ourselves and have, indeed, asked ourselves: Has the R.C.M.P. ever been ordered by the Prime Minister or anyone on behalf of the Prime Minister to inquire into the private lives and activities of any member of parliament? The answer is, no.
Second, did the Prime Minister keep in his possession or in the files of his own office any report by the R.C.M.P. or anyone else on the Munsinger case? The answer is, no.
Third, did the Prime Minister have any knowledge of any kind that the name Munsinger was to be mentioned in any debate in this house? Again, the answer is, no.
Fourth, did the government, as the amendment before this house alleges, have the R.C.M.P. provide information to the government as to the past conduct of all members of parliament? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is, no.
I know that these questions and variations of them have been asked as a result of interpretations placed on evidence which has now been given before Mr. Justice Spence. As you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, and, indeed, as my principles dictate, I cannot discuss the evidence placed before that commission of inquiry. I wish I could and perhaps the time will come when I can. But the interpretation placed on that evidence to date has gone far beyond the evidence itself and questions are being asked concerning my motives and my
[Mr. Pearson.l
actions at the end of November, 1964, in connection with this particular inquiry. These I have done my best to deal with.
I submit that my motives in asking for that inquiry were understandable and were honourable and that this amendment, which is inaccurate and false in its very wording, should not meet the approval of the house. I ask the house to vote against it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the Prime Minister takes his seat may I be permitted to ask him a question which I think is important since all of us are trying to understand his statement fully? The Prime Minister said he kept notes of his conversation with the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. I ask the Prime Minister if the notes he kept confirm the statement which was made by the commissioner when he said, "I was then asked if I had any information indicating any impropriety or anything of a scandalous nature involving any member of parliament in any party over the last ten years." I want to ask the Prime Minister if that statement corresponds to the request Which the Prime Minister made to the commissioner, according to the notes which the Prime Minister has retained?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, they do not correspond, Mr. Speaker; quite the contrary. I am not quarreling and have no right to quarrel with the commissioner's evidence-I am not sure I should even comment on it-but if the commissioner is referring to personal improprieties and personal scandals, there is nothing in my notes to confirm that. If he was talking about scandal in the sense of the Rivard scandal, and at that time the word "scandal" was being tossed about in this house without any reference except to political scandal, if the commissioner was referring to that kind of scandal I was looking for that kind in the relation of members of parliament with government departments and their intervention on behalf of dubious elements. That is the kind of thing I was looking for because that is the kind of thing that was being talked about every day and with which we were being charged.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would accept another question. If the part he played in these matters is as pure and innocent as he indicates, how is it that the Minister of Fisheries on December 14, 1964, could approach me with a threat of dire consequences about something I had done
May 3, 196G

which he did not reveal to me and which, in the light of later revelations, could only come from these files that we are talking about?


Mr. Robichaud:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tried to make such an accusation last night which I denied personally, and again I would ask him to prove it.


Michael Starr: You are all denying everything.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my first reference will be one of agreement with the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on the statement he made early in his remarks regarding parliament. He pointed out that everywhere parliament is being judged, that criticism is strong of parliament, that this is nothing novel, that we in Canada face criticism and that in recent months there is hardly a newspaper in the United Kingdom that has not spoken out against parliament.
This has become a course of action. It has become a standard practice. This has been the situation throughout the years. Parliament has always been condemned but, strangely enough, parliament, condemned as it has been, carried out its mission in two world wars and preserved freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I think those who would change it and bring about an alteration of its mission, those who are everlastingly arguing that it should be reformed, fail to recall its functions, fail to recognize that while in the course of debate strong arguments are used all of us recognize that our political opponents are individuals who are trying to do what they can for their country, and we do not have recourse to secret police to undermine and destroy the reputations of our fellow members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I have before me a copy of the Daily Mail. I am going to quote only a very few lines in this connection from an article headed, "Reform It Now-The House of Decay, Incompetence and Fully Justified 111 Repute". The article says in part:
. . . the House of Commons is today in a state of decay incompetence and fully justified ill repute, worse than at any time since the worst days of George III.
Then it goes on to say that parliament, referring to the parliament of Westminster,
Morality in Government year by year is sinking in the general regard of the people. I do not believe that. I could not be more in agreement with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) when he spoke last evening. With his long years of experience and being now removed from politics-*


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -he was able to speak of parliament in an objective way and, indeed in a manner that indicated that he has not the eye or rather the ear of the Prime Minister, for the things that have been done cannot be laughed off.
The Prime Minister produced a chestnut regarding truth which has been used over and over again, usually in county councils. I am glad the Prime Minister found it necessary to resurrect it. We want the truth. We are asking for the truth. I listened to him today and I could not help but go back to that momentous day in April, 1963, when he said that what was going to come was "a time to excite the daring, to test the strong, and to give new promise to the timid". There was none of that today. There was an apologia, a speech that consisted in the main of confession with avoidance of responsibility. He has placed the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. in the dock and has in effect said of him that his evidence was false.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not true.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to make that very clear and I am going to quote from it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not true.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to generalize. I am going to quote from it.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Sir, I would have thought he would have risen and said-he couldn't have done it though well, we all in the course of life suddenly under the impetus of the moment act in a way which is contrary to our whole being. As a sort of revelation, the evidence before the commission shows that what was done, in spite of all the elaboration in words was calculated and contrived to annihilate political opponents, and this by a Prime Minister who talks of the new politics.


An hon. Member:: New, all right.


John George Diefenbaker: He wanted to use this as a club; that is what he wanted. He applauded the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) on two

May 3, 1966
Morality in Government occasions when the Minister of Justice was making the most ii'responsible statements last March. Sir, the Borgias used to poison their political adversaries. Today what has been done in this case has been to poison the arteries of parliaments probity.
The Prime Minister's speech was an alibi of tortured guilt. He was attempting to explain the unexplainable. The words he used bear no resemblance to the evidence given before the commission by the R.C.M.P. commissioner. It is very obvious that throughout the picture the Prime Minister was in the wings. The Minister of Justice struck. They decided on a policy of smear and run and then appointed a commission which the Prime Minister says protects the rights of individuals. I shall deal with that. It was not just a thing of the moment; it was not spontaneously aroused or provoked. It was a deliberate and planned campaign to destroy by inference, to befoul and besmirch by innuendo and thus bring about the destruction of political opponents.
The Prime Minister said he told me about this matter in the summer of 1964. He is wrong. No reference was made to it by the Prime Minister until I was ill, I think in February, 1965, when he wrote me. Oh, yes, there was a letter, but I do not have a copy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The letter was dated December 4, 1964.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not care what the date was.


Michael Starr: That does not means you mailed it.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister has forgotten. He knows that when it was delivered to me it was delivered to my home by a secret messenger.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Leader of the Opposition called on me on December 10 and talked about the letter.


John George Diefenbaker: 
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. The right hon. gentleman has stated that I sent him a letter which he received in February, 1965, and that he must have discussed it with me afterwards. I have a copy of a letter which was delivered to him and it is dated December 4, 1964. He called my office and discussed it and the security aspects on December 10, 1964.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister, who through the years has followed a course of endeavouring to bulldoze, brickbat and put fear into one's heart-when I discussed the matter with him said, "Forget about it". That is what he said. He never mentioned the matter again until it came up in the house. That is the old, old stunt of trying by underhanded means to put fear into the hearts of political opponents. That is what he did; yet he says he did not know anything about the Munsinger case. When the present Minister of Justice held this famous press conference there was an official from the Prime Minister's office present and a tape recorder from the Prime Minister's office. What was that for? Was that just prescience on the part of one of the employees or was it in fact with the knowledge of the Prime Minister?
I am going to deal with the sequence of events, because I am surprised to find the Prime Minister denying the record.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege-


John George Diefenbaker: Will the right hon. the Prime Minister take his seat?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a question of privilege, the right hon. gentleman has referred and I have referred to a particular letter marked "confidential" from one privy councillor to another. Would he agree to have the confidential character of the letter removed so that the letter could be tabled and made public?
May 3. 1S66


John George Diefenbaker: The right hon. gentleman says it was confidential and then in the house he related that he was in touch with me. What goes on? This is exactly the kind of insidious thing that the Prime Minister does. Indeed, all through the years he has been talking about destroying the leader of the Conservative party and on September 18, 1963, he said, "I think we have him about destroyed." I dislike bringing that up.


Mr. Favreau:: Where are you quoting from?


John George Diefenbaker: I dislike bringing that up. All we have to do is look at this speech. We can read exactly what happened. Let us find out the order. On November 23, 1964, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) made certain charges in the house. On November 24 Mr. Rouleau resigned. I do not know anything of the circumstances of that. Mention was made of it, but I seem to recall that the then minister of justice told the Prime Minister about the Rivard case back in September on an air trip from the Maritimes and he forgot about it. He put it in the outer recesses of his mind and forgot about it.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
On November 25 the first terms of reference in connection with the Rivard matter were presented and on November 27 the revised terms of reference were presented to parliament. This is all coincidence. The Prime Minister would have us believe that. He was apparently away for a few days on a trip, but then on November 29 or November 30 a meeting took place attended by the Prime Minister, the then minister of justice, the Clerk of the Privy Council and the commissioner of the R.C.M.P.
On December 1 assistant commissioner Kelly, who is in charge of security, brought the report on the Munsinger case to the minister of justice and on December 2 the file went to the Prime Minister. He now finds himself in the difficult position of having to explain why this whole matter took 15 months to incubate. The Prime Minister says that the report was not on his desk and not in his possession but in the possession of the Clerk of the Privy Council. Let us just follow the course of events. It was on March 4, 1966, that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) first mentioned the word "Monseignor" or "Munsinger" in this house. On January 31 and on February 28 the minister made oblique references to a case which occurred when the former government 23033-294
Morality in Government was in power. Just a few days before, according to a statement made in the house on March 14 by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) sought an interview with that hon. member and warned him about the Munsinger case and its implications, which would apparently be brought to light if the Conservative opposition continued to press the government about the Spencer case.


Guy Favreau: That is all wrong, of course.


John George Diefenbaker: The President of the Privy Council says this is all wrong. He is the last person in the world who should talk about wrong. All I wish to say in this connection is that it is a strange coincidence that just at that time, following the threat of blackmail made by the President of the Privy Council-described by the hon. member for Kamloops-things started to happen.
On March 9 the Minister of Justice in an interview with the Globe and Mail said that the Munsinger case was worse than the Profumo case. On March 10 he held a press conference and revealed information of a security nature affecting the reputation of the former government. That is a strange coincidence when one considers the course of events I have mentioned. This information was available but withheld to be used at a time when it would be most effective. On March 10 the Prime Minister said there has been a stigma placed on the Liberal party. The Minister of Justice gave us to understand by his attitude and his actions that they had something they were going to spring. The evidence about the meeting to which I referred indicates that the Prime Minister was aroused and disturbed and of course never thought he would be doing anything wrong to members of the house. He met with the Minister of Justice, the chairman of security panel and the commissioner of police. Today the Prime Minister avers that we must be very careful to say nothing against the R.C.M.P. I say that the Prime Minister endeavoured to use the R.C.M.P. as a political police force, which is something that will be resented by all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Why were these four persons gathered together? They were not gathered together for the protection of the nation, they were not gathered together for

May 3, 1966
Morality in Government the betterment of the administration of justice. The only purpose they had in mind was to decide that the time had arrived when it was politically advantageous to bring this case to light. We should never have heard of the meeting and it would have been lost to posterity had it not been for the fact that an examination of the records brought it to light.
As the commissioner of the K.C.M.P related his story before the inquiry, he was asked whether this information regarding the Munsinger case had ever been brought to the attention of Mr. Chevrier when he was minister of justice, and the answer was in the negative. The same question was asked in relation to the present President of the Privy Council and the commissioner stated that the information was given to him on December 1, 1964.
It was on that date that the assistant commissioner, Mr. Kelly, according to the commissioner, was told by the Prime Minister, to discuss this case with the President of the Privy Council. We now begin to see the course. I should like to read what actually took place as reported in the press.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: This is what was reported in the press.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister say what has been reported by the press is not relevant? These reports relate to an open hearing, not a secret one. This is the one thing that came out into the open that would have been concealed if the attempts had been successful to establish secrecy in this commission. In that event the Canadian people would have received this story haphazardly. There is no false notion in this nation in respect of the political implications. The press of this nation is appalled that anyone occupying a high position such as the Prime Minister should be in the invidious position in which he now finds himself.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would-


John George Diefenbaker: Just a minute. The Prime Minister said he did not want to be interrupted and I do not-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: There is no point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is rising on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is a very simple one. The right hon. gentleman is purporting to read from a document and I think the house is entitled to know what the document is. I believe the right hon. gentleman said it was a press report. We should, therefore, know precisely what newspaper it is so that it will be identified and can be referred to by hon. members for the purposes of this debate which ends at 8.15 p.m. today. I hope the right hon. gentleman will give us that information because, and this is part of my point of order, sir, the right hon. gentleman must vouch for the absolute accuracy of the press report compared with what may be shown by a transcript of the evidence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the right hon. gentleman vouch for the accuracy of the report to which he refers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps there is a point of order in respect of the first question raised by the minister. However, I believe the second question is an inquiry rather than a point of order.


An hon. Member:: The Leader of the Opposition has found himself a sucker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. mem-er for Villeneuve wishes to speak to the point of order.


Mr. Caouette:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition is about to read a press report on the subject we are now discussing or on what happened during the inquiry.
Not so long ago, when it was discovered that Gerda Munsinger was actually alive in West Germany, Your Honour prevented me from reading certain newspaper articles, one of which was from the Toronto Star. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) does not have more privileges than any other member when it comes to quoting a newpaper article.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I intended to read from press reports, and I have never heard this practice challenged before. Certainly we have a revised version of things from the Prime Minister today who tried to explain the unexplainable. The Minister of Transport asked me to identify what I intended to read.
May 3, 1966

[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I am expected to give some brief comments on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve. If my recollection is correct, I was not in the chair when the point of order in question was raised, but my understanding of the rule is that it is permissible on the part of members to read newspaper articles provided they vouch for the correctness of the reports.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was going to read from a Canadian Press report and I do so accordingly as reported in the Ottawa Journal of April 29.


Guy Favreau: Are you vouching for its accuracy?


John George Diefenbaker: I shall not attempt to do what the Prime Minister did and say I did not say what I was reported to have said by the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. I intend to read first what the press reported and then, as I have been pressed to do this, I will also put on the record what was actually said.
Commissioner McClellan said the meeting was attended by then Justice Minister Favreau-who lost that portfolio after the airing of the Rivard case-and he believed, by Gordon Robertson, cabinet secretary. He testified-


John James Greene: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I believe you have ruled, if I understand correctly, that the evidence before the inquiry is not admissible in this debate and I suggest to Your Honour-


An hon. Member:: It is too late.


John James Greene: I know we have been hearing the wolves over there howling for three years and it has not got them anywhere yet. I wonder whether we could have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, rather than the cackling of geese over there.


Michael Starr: You are one of the geese, Joe.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John James Greene: I know that hon. gentlemen opposite are not too anxious to get the facts.


An hon. Member:: Look who is talking.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that Your Honour has ruled that the
Morality in Government evidence at the inquiry is not the subject matter of this debate and is not admissible. The right hon. gentleman is now trying to do indirectly what he cannot do directly, namely, he is reading from a newspaper which purports to quote the evidence at the hearing. I submit that he cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly because surely if the evidence is admissible at all we should have the evidence from the transcript first hand and not some newspaper report which purports to give the evidence. Your Honour has ruled that the evidence is not admissible and I submit with respect that the right hon. gentleman cannot do indirectly what Your Honour has ruled he cannot do directly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all I have to say in this connection is that the Prime Minister interpreted what Commissioner McClellan had said and what he must have meant when he said it. Now I am going to place on the record exactly what was said, and it will show that the Prime Minister distorted-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is now speaking on a point of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman seems to have completed his contribution on the point. I wanted to point out that I did not quote from the evidence. I was sorely tempted to do so but I did not refer directly to the evidence, either the transcript which I have or the evidence as it was reported in the newspapers. As I said, I would have been out of order had I done so.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton South on a point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am
just wondering what goes on in this house when the Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order and yet the Prime Minister continues to talk.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: Rap
him down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops.

May 3, 1966
Morality in Government


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the ruling which you actually made yesterday because it seems to me that this is what we should have before us and not an interpretation from hon. members opposite. What was said yesterday is found at page 4590 of Hansard, namely:
When I made my ruling a moment ago I said that there was much merit to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River that certain decisions or bits and pieces of evidence which come out in the course of a hearing might not be of the essence of the matter which is before a royal commission or inquiry, and because of this we should not be precluded from discussing certain matters. I do not want to reduce this to the absurd but, for example, if in the course of his evidence a witness said that it was raining or was not raining we could not come to the conclusion that we could not discuss the weather in the House of Commons. In other words, there is a limitation in this regard. We cannot eliminate from our discussion in the house any evidence that is presented before a commission.
That is what Your Honour ruled.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would read the next paragraph of your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I would rather not hear it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think you probably would read it better than I would.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members to continue the debate on the point of order? Are there any further contributions?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously the point at issue here is the ruling made quite some time ago by Mr. Speaker Macdonald which I quoted on the occasion of the ruling I made yesterday, and it is to the following effect:
I would accordingly rule that it is not out of order to discuss transportation problems generally when such matters have been referred to a royal commission.
On the other hand, I would also rule that reference should not be made to the proceedings, or evidence, or findings of a royal commission before it has made its report.
This is a very restrictive ruling. I said yesterday that I did not want to use this ruling to preclude any discussion or reference to the Spence inquiry, and I believe I was as lenient as I could be in the circumstances in allowing the discussion which took place yesterday and also in allowing the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal. However, the point is still there that this ruling

exists. I believe it is a precedent by which I am bound and by which hon. members are bound.
While it is possible in my view to make reference in a general way to collateral matters, which I believe was the ruling I made yesterday, which may come up in the course of an inquiry, in my mind, there should not be a specific reference to the evidence itself. I did feel that in view of this ruling the right hon. Leader of the Opposition should not quote from the evidence.
The point raised by one of the members who took part in the discussion, that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly, is well taken. I believe it would not be in order to read from the evidence at the present time in the course of this debate in view of the ruling to which I have referred. I do not believe that this has been done by the Prime Minister in the course of his speech. If he did, I failed to catch it. I would invite the right hon. Leader of the Opposition not to quote directly or indirectly from the evidence which was taken in the course of the inquiry.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to keep within your ruling. However, I want to point out the fact that the Prime Minister has given an expurgated explanation of what actually took place and has interpreted what the evidence was. Now I want to place on the record the evidence which answers him 100 per cent. It indicates that the revelation which he made today as to what took place bears only a distant relationship to the truth. [DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster. Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister now rising on a point of order?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am rising on a point of order which has to do with a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. It has to do with a very fundamental practice in the House of Commons. As I understood the right hon. gentleman, he stated that a statement made this afternoon by the Prime Minister had a distant relationship to the truth. I should like to refer to citation 145 in Beau-chesne, Mr. Speaker, which reads as follows:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers in the Canadian Commons that a statement by an honourable member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted-
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that almost all of the statements that have been made by the
May 3. 1366

Prime Minister are statements in this category respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge and not within the knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition. A statement made, for example, by the Prime Minister that he had no prior knowledge whatever of the disclosure of the name "Munsinger" by the Minister of Justice is a statement respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge. It must be accepted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Read the rest of it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops, I will read the complete citation.
-but it is not unparliamentary to temperately criticize statements

Is it temperate criticism to say that a statement has a distant relationship to the truth?
-made by a member as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible.
I conclude the citation by quoting this sentence;
A statement made by a member in his place, is considered as made upon honour and cannot be Questioned in the house or out of it.
The Prime Minister has made a number of statements on his honour, upon which he has staked his reputation, and they must be accepted by the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They must be accepted by the house. If the right hon. gentleman refuses to accept the statements made by the Prime Minister, then he knows the course of action to take. I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in this particular debate this rule ought to be rigidly observed. We on this side of the house intend that statements made by a member in his place be considered as made upon his honour and they cannot be questioned in the house or out of it. I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he was certainly on the verge of transgressing, if not transgressing, this particular custom of parliament.


Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some inconsistency in the whole proceeding here. This debate is based on exactly what was said before the inquiry. If I recall correctly, a few minutes ago the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam quoted the whole statement from beginning to end
Morality in Government which was placed before that inquiry. I cannot see why the Leader of the Opposition, therefore, cannot talk about it since the whole debate is on that subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand the feelings of hon. gentlemen opposite because the Prime Minister chose to give his views as to what the evidence would have been if he had been the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. and had given the evidence as to the events. I was quoting from a Canadian Press dispatch.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster. Closure.


John James Greene: You have ruled this out of order-


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


John James Greene: -quite properly. The right hon. gentleman would like to get the evidence before this high court before it is all in before the tribunal. He does not want to hear the rest of the evidence of the commissioner. The rule is a very sound one because, of course, the witness has not yet been cross-examined. The right hon. gentleman does not want to wait for that. The rule is there for the very purpose of preventing half the evidence being discussed here before the whole of the evidence is discussed before the inquiry. Your Honour has quite properly ruled that it cannot be directly or indirectly discussed here until it has been heard in full before the inquiry. We cannot discuss half the evidence here, but the right hon. gentleman is transgressing the ruling. I ask the Chair to enforce the ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am a bit disturbed by the suggestion made by the hon. member for Megantic that the evidence which the Leader of the Opposition now wishes to quote and put on the record has already been quoted by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. If this was done, it escaped my attention. My understanding of what the hon. member said at the time was that it was a passing reference to this evidence in the same way as was done by the Prime Minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me absurd to deny any member the right to place on the record the

May 3. 1366
Morality in Government statement attributed by the press to the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. when it has appeared in every newspaper in Canada and has been quoted over every radio and television station. I submit, Your Honour, that you have permitted the Prime Minister this afternoon to give his side of certain events. If you deny members on this side of the house the opportunity to quote what the R.C.M.P. commissioner said about those events, you are certainly doing in reverse the very thing to which the Minister of Agriculture is objecting, namely, allowing one side of the story to be told and denying members the right to give the other side of the story by revealing the statement of the R.C.M.P. commissioner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, lest the house be beguiled by the rather beguiling suggestion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I think it should be recalled, as has been pointed out by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that the Prime Minister made certain statements of his own knowledge. There is nobody, except the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who can make statements of his own knowledge. I suggest that for a second person to take a press report which may or may not be an accurate transcript of the evidence and parade it in this house as though it were the direct knowledge of that person is a travesty of ordinary justice. It is for this reason we have the rule which Mr. Speaker Macdonald and His Honour have upheld. The rule was upheld a moment ago in response to a point raised by the Minister of Agriculture that the evidence could not be quoted directly or indirectly until all the evidence had been heard. This is exactly the same point Your Honour made yesterday in your original decision. It is clear and precise. I suggest that debate on a motion introduced by an hon. member who wants to restore the rights and dignities of parliament should conform to the rules of the house.


Michael Starr: I rise on the point of order. I have listened with interest to the arguments that have been put forward by members of the treasury benches. They claim that no evidence can be quoted in this house until all the evidence has been gathered. I am not going to quote from any authority or read any excerpts from rule books. However, logic and common sense, as well as a sense of justice, tell me that this evidence has been published day by day, word by word, in

newspapers across this country and has been commented upon by editorial writers. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we sit in this house as representatives of the people and find the government hiding behind a shield of rules and rule books. We are not permitted to bring this evidence out because some sort of closure is put on us. I suggest that we should have the same rights as any editorial writer or newspaperman who has written about, quoted word for word from, or expressed his opinions on, the evidence. But we are deprived of these rights, which I think is illogical, irrelevant and certainly is beyond common sense.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Ontario a question arising out of his remarks for clarification purposes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister addressing the Chair on the point of order?


George James McIlraith: Yes, and I wanted some clarification.


Michael Starr: The house leader is hiding behind a point of order in asking me a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George James McIlraith: I would ask the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the minister kindly address the Chair on his point of order?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to try to make myself heard over the din. The point I was seeking to raise was this. I did not understand one part of the remarks of the hon. member for Ontario, so I should like to ask for clarification of one short part of those remarks. If the hon. member is ready to accept a question I would be glad to put it. It is simply this. Is it the hon. member's argument on the point of order that we should seek to establish order and re-establish the dignity of parliament by disregarding the rule book?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, this is another piece of camouflage in the smokescreen put up by the government in connection with what is transpiring here in the form of a point of order and the opportunity of hon. members to say what they think should happen in the light of what some authorities say. There is a tremendous difference between this situation and the normal situation in this House of Commons, and the difference is this.
May 3, 1986



The argument put forward by the government in defence of the proposition that the debate should be confined within very narrow limits is that evidence such as this cannot be put before the house though it can be discussed outside. There is the great difference. This evidence has been published in papers across the country and yet we are not allowed to discuss it here.
I might make another point, Mr. Speaker, since you have permitted me to speak again. This afternoon the Prime Minister was given an opportunity to put his own interpretation on the evidence given by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is exactly what happened this afternoon and I think that threw the gates wide open. I do not think that any rule applies to the extraordinary circumstances in which we find ourselves.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, just to make our position clear I would suggest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that we should leave the matter entirely in your hands.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have been trying to obtain assistance from hon. members on the point of order which has been raised, which is a very serious one. I am wondering whether this is the point which the Prime Minister is raising at this time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. I have just suggested that as we have made our point we should leave the matter in your hands and the right hon. gentleman should be allowed to proceed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I will not take very long on the point of order, but it does seem obvious to me that we are going to be asked at 8.15 tonight to vote on the amendment to the motion which is based almost exclusively, it appears to me, on the testimony given by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Prime Minister gave his version today of the discussions he had with the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. and the instructions he gave to the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. I have listened very carefully to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, and it seems to me that his version is in direct contradiction of the testimony given by the commissioner of the R.C.M.P.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is not.
Morality in Government


David Orlikow: I wish the Prime Minister had himself quoted from the testimony and had said clearly and specifically that the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. was wrong or was misinformed or did not remember what had taken place, but the Prime Minister did not do that.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that to enable us to vote tonight somebody should put these quotations on the record, and I would ask the Prime Minister to answer the specific allegation made by the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. It may be that a narrow interpretation of the rules makes this impossible, but if that is the case the loser will be the Prime Minister because everybody in the country and every newspaper, Liberal, Conservative or independent, has taken the same interpretation. Therefore I appeal to the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers not to obstruct the introduction of this quotation but to co-operate, and I would ask the Prime Minister to make the statement and to give the answer for which the public are waiting.


Mr. McIntosh:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one question? Does the authority to which you have referred in making this ruling relate to a court of law in this country? I submit that a court of law in this country is not the same as a court of inquiry. I would suggest that if the authority referred to a court of law you would by this ruling be raising a court of inquiry to the same level as a court of law, and I submit those two bodies are not the same.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel the only thing I can do is again to quote the ruling to which I referred earlier. The point raised by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is that the ruling to which I referred, the ruling of Mr. Speaker MacDonald, relates not to a royal commission but to a court of law. It was the opinion of the learned Speaker that although we might discuss the matter in general we should not refer to evidence or proceedings before or the findings of a royal commission.
I very much fear I must ask for the co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition in paraphrasing the evidence in words which are somewhere between the two extremes, taking a middle course which might satisfy both the Chair and the members of the house. However, the ruling is there. I did not make the ruling but I am bound by it. It says clearly and specifically that when a royal commission is currently discussing a matter

May 3, 1966
Morality in Government hon. members in the course of debate should not quote or refer specifically to the proceedings or evidence. I do not think I have any authority to change that ruling. I believe hon. members should abide by this precedent which certainly is part of the rules of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can have no complaint about any ruling you make because you always try to be fair. However, that does not deny me the right to say that the reason the government do not want this evidence disclosed is that they are afraid.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This afternoon the Prime Minister decided to contradict the commissioner oi the R.C.M.P. He did that for his own purposes. He now wants to deny this house its right to know what the commissioner said. I will paraphrase, sir, as you suggest. I am now paraphrasing from the report in the Canadian Press: "I was asked if I had any information on my files of a nature which indicated impropriety or wrongdoing on the part of any member of the government-the present government. I then asked, if I answered that"-the commissioner did not say at that time what his answer was.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition indicated that he wanted to abide by the ruling of the Chair in that he would paraphrase the evidence, as I suggested. I have the impression that he is perhaps quoting it a little too closely. It is difficult for me to judge when I have not read the evidence. I do not know whether the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is paraphrasing or quoting from the evidence, but I take it that he is abiding by the Speaker's ruling.


John George Diefenbaker: You know, I never was very good in grammar and when it comes to paraphrases I have difficulty. I will proceed to say that the commissioner did not say at that point what his answer was, but he was then asked if he had any information indicating any impropriety or anything of a scandalous nature involving any hon. member of any party over the last ten years.


An hon. Member:: Scandal.


John George Diefenbaker: He was, of course, aware of the matters that were being discussed in the house and that they were the subject of gossip. In answer to a direct question of the Prime Minister he spoke in the affirmative.

He then referred to the Munsinger file, at which time the Prime Minister indicated that he thought he had better see it. That in general is a summary by way of paraphrase of the report in the Canadian Press on April 29, which I point out, sir, is in complete contradiction of the revised version placed before this house by the Prime Minister for his own purposes.
I now paraphrase the evidence that actually was given. I will paraphrase the page from which I cannot quote. It is page 331. A question was asked by Mr. Carson about what had happened on December 1 and December 2, 1964, with reference to a matter coming to the attention of the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council. He asked the commissioner if he had any indication of how the matter had come to the knowledge of the Prime Minister, to which the commissioner replied in the affirmative. He was then asked, and I paraphrase, as to the nature of this, and the commissioner went on to say in answer that from the questions that were asked he could give information.
Then he proceeded with his evidence, at which time Mr. O'Brien, counsel for the commission, thought that possibly Commissioner McClellan was disturbed that he might be disclosing something he should not disclose. Commissioner McClellan indicated that that conclusion by Mr. O'Brien was indeed correct at which time Mr. O'Brien stated, and I again paraphrase, that when he had first seen the commissioner he was in a position of some discomfort. The attitude of Mr. O'Brien was that he could see no reason why what took place between the Prime Minister and the commissioner of police should not be disclosed.
The commissioner then gave his evidence, which I paraphrase. The commissioner was called to the Prime Minister's office with the President of the Privy Council. He believed that Mr. Gordon Robertson, secretary of the Privy Council, was present. The commissioner was then asked by the Prime Minister if he had any information indicating that there had been any impropriety-and I do not know how to paraphrase this-anything of n scandalous nature involving any member of parliament in any party over a period of what he thought was ten years. That generally, I think, was the expression used. It must have been the expression used because the Prime Minister himself referred to ten years. He said that an examination had been made over a period of ten years.
May 3, 1966

The commissioner said that he was aware, of course, that the matters that were being discussed were, in part at least, subject to gossip. When answering that direct question before the Prime Minister he said, "Yes, sir," and he referred to this specific file, the Munsinger file. The Prime Minister then, according to the commissioner, said that he had better see it, and he saw it.
There is also the evidence, and I again paraphrase, that while this took place as far back as December 1 or December 2 of 1964 the file was delivered to the Prime Minister on this occasion and it was not an excerpt or anything of the kind, as he would have it today. A file was delivered. I did not say "the". I say "a file" was delivered to the Prime Minister. It was never seen again by the commissioner of police for a period of 15 months.
That, sir, is the evidence in paraphrase, and it answers the Prime Minister today when he comes before this house and leaves the impression, by what he says took place, that the commissioner's evidence was not in accordance with the facts.


An hon. Member:: It was given under oath.


John George Diefenbaker: That evidence was given under oath by the commissioner. I point out that circumstance. Instead of facing up to this, because he knows that is what was said by the commissioner, the Prime Minister comes to the house and produces a caricature of what took place. Sir, what we are facing is an interpretation of evidence that could not be misinterpreted if it could be read into the record of this house. The Prime Minister gave a misinterpretation of that evidence in order to get out of a position in which no prime minister has ever been in this country, of using the mounted police as "Pearson's political police" for his own purposes to destroy political-


Mr. Sauve:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot speak in too strong terms-


Maurice Sauvé: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr.   Kindi@: What is the point of order?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Maurice Sauvé: Is the Leader of the Opposition not in fact accusing the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. of having been part of a political plot?
Morality in Government


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is exactly what he is
doing.


Maurice Sauvé: If this is so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the minister kindly resume his seat? It seems that the point he is making now is a point of debate. If there is a point of order he should state it directly. What he is stating now is an argument, not a point of order at all.


Maurice Sauvé: Would the Leader of the Opposition allow a question at this time, because this is very important?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of
Forestry is rising to seek permission to ask a question of the Leader of the Opposition who has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: I think I have been very generous. I have been standing here now for over an hour and in that time I believe I have spoken for about 15 minutes because of the opposition of members opposite who are afraid to hear the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They have said that the truth will take a long time to permeate, but the truth will not take a long time to permeate if I can read the record.


Maurice Sauvé: I am asking the Leader of the Opposition if he will permit a question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister knows that the Leader of the Opposition has the floor and that if he is not disposed to allow a question-


Maurice Sauvé: I am asking the right hon. gentleman if he will hear my question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition, who has the floor, has indicated that he will not allow a question at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not dealing with shoes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Sauvé: On a question of privilege, I am asking a question directly related to this debate, one which is fundamental.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Morality in Government


Maurice Sauvé: The Leader of the Opposition is accusing the R.C.M.P. commissioner-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ask the co-operation of all hon. members and in particular the co-operation of the Minister of Forestry. He wishes to ask a question. According to our rules he cannot do so at this time. He may have an argument he would like to submit in the course of debate and he may have the occasion to do so later this afternoon or early this evening. But he cannot ask a question at this time and there is no question of privilege or point of order.


An hon. Member:: Did that sink in?


John George Diefenbaker: At the time of that interruption I was about to return to the statement made by the Prime Minister. He endeavoured to leave the impression that he acted altogether correctly, that it was proper to look at administrative records except, of course, memoranda from cabinet, cabinet meetings and the like.
Sir, what has been done here, according to the testimony of the commissioner of the mounted police, which I paraphrased, is that the Prime Minister is trying to rewrite in parliament the evidence which was given under oath before the commission, realizing that if that evidence stands his government is indicted of one of the most terrible offences of which any government could be indicted-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -namely, the assassination of the characters of members opposite for political purposes. Then the right hon. gentleman represents himself as being clothed in the garments of piety. He tells us he wants to see the rights of the individual protected. But by stealth, by snooping, he planned to use the R.C.M.P. with its distinguished record to do the kind of work that he wanted to do to destroy political opponents. Then, when he is faced with it, he smiles. He is pleased at his success. He is delighted. And he tells us about the new politics.
He has by his action in this regard committed a tremendous crime against parliamentary government. He has destroyed that something which brings us together in heated argument, but with respect. He brought this out because he wanted to find something which would destroy. For 15 months it incubated. There it was on his desk. If it was not there he may have put it somewhere else. I know I wish he had put it some place else.

May 3, 1966
But he had it there. Hon. members know the kind of thing: You be careful; I have something here; if you do not do what I want you to do, out comes Munsinger.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the right hon. gentleman admitting he had something to hide?


John George Diefenbaker: That is the last thing in the world the Minister of Transport should say. He and his friends are trying to hide the truth from the Canadian people as to the despicable tactics they used in this connection. Let that be clear. I did not want to say that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Carried away.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine. One could go back over the years and take up the records of our respective ancestors and all that kind of thing. We do not do that. Files disclose things but we do not want to hurt our political opponents in that way. I say to the Prime Minister that from the time he took office he examined every fine and word in my life-everything-with one purpose in mind. I do not want to go into personalities as to what happened. But you will remember, sir, that in 1962 they held a meeting and decided that the one person to be destroyed was Diefenbaker. They spread a story across this country that I was suffering from an incurable disease. It came from the front bench and I say to the Prime Minister: I know where it came from.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: I am supposed to accept that and not resent it. Well, they got their answer. They thought they could win an election with that kind of thing. Now, having tried for several years to bring an end to the leadership of the Conservative party, for the benefit of Canada-and I admire their freedom from partisanship in this desire-they resort to these tactics and use the police.
I am surprised-and I intend to say that I am surprised that the commissioner of the mounted police did not say, "No" to the Prime Minister. But it is not for me to judge. The Prime Minister asks, and when the Prime Minister asks the Biblical words are always true-"He shall receive".
He asked for this and he got it. He says: There is security of state involved. Where was the security during the 15 months he kept it under cover, only to be produced if needed?

May 3, 1966

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Is that security? He knew what the evidence was, and again I paraphrase that evidence. On January 19, 1961, the R.C.M.P. report was that it was becoming very apparent that this woman was not engaged in any intelligence operations and therefore was of no further interest to the branch and no further watch would be maintained.
The Prime Minister dug it up. He has the responsibility, no one else. He was assisted by those who for their own purposes would destroy. Now on May 3, 1966, when I want to produce what was said, the Liberals raise an unholy noise against it. They object. They are afraid of it.


John James Greene: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: No. At the moment I do not want any observations from Lincoln or his re-incarnation.
With all the power at my command I ask, can parliament condone this? If we can, then McCarthyism is in this land. It is worse than McCarthyism at its peak. McCarthy simply said, "You are guilty by association," and destroyed the souls of men. I wonder how many hon. members in this house would want to go back over the years and recall whether at one time or another they did not think a little differently than they do today.
I have had files before me-not from any source whatever, but knowing of them. There has been the evidence in Washington before the security committee of the United States Senate. But no, that is not the way we act in public life. Are the private lives of individuals to be dug up? Are we to start looking up the moral wrongdoing at any time of each and every one of us? Are we to start on that? That is what this thing will lead to. Who of us is without sin? Who of us can judge without being judged?


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to judge the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman tried to be a lawyer and he did not succeed, so he does not know anything about being a judge.
This is the danger of this thing. This is what parliament is going to vote on tonight, not on the self-serving views of the Prime Minister designed to place before parliament 23033-295a
Morality in Government a view that is the very antithesis of the evidence that was given. The Prime Minister laughs. He said that this is really nothing, but they are just taking reputations and destroying them. He could have got up to day and excused himself by saying, "We all do things sometimes when we get annoyed," but he did not do so.
The file lay around for 15 months. You can just see them there looking at it and asking, "When do we strike"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh yes, that is the way they operated. The Prime Minister laughs. I ask him, why did you keep it for 15 months? For decoration? He kept it there, according to the evidence of the commissioner, and returned the file after 15 months.


Michael Starr: Because they requested it.


John George Diefenbaker: I suppose they asked for it back. What were you doing with it in that time? We heard about it. It went from ear to ear-"We have got something; you wait, if you are not careful we will get you." You cannot build a parliament that way. That is why this motion is so important.
I am asking for the support tonight of all political parties in this house because, as we are now, unless you condemn this action, so will you be. There is no safety for any person or group. Each one of us, admitting the frailties of human nature, knows that if anybody were to dig into our records there would be something to find. That is why I say to those in all political parties that this is a principle above all else transcendent. Give me the resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They laugh over there. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Stewart) jeers when I ask for the resolution. Is this the new politics that would destroy? I have a high regard for the hon. gentleman but jeering of that kind does not add to it.


Mr. Stewart:: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, my amusement was not prompted by the right hon. gentleman's aside to his seat-mate. It was prompted by a remark made by the hon. gentleman who sits directly behind me, which I found very amusing.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry. I hasten at once to say to the hon. gentleman that I am

May 3, 1966
Morality in Government glad there are times for humour. The resolution is as follows:
This house strongly deplores and condemns this government's actions in having the R.C.M. Police provide information to the government as to the past conduct of all members of parliament-
What about you Liberal members? Have you got nothing in the closet? Watch out, because the Prime Minister asked that you all be looked into. He was not so sure of you either. I repeat the resolution:
This house strongly deplores and condemns this government's actions in having the R.C.M. Police provide information to the government as to the past conduct of all members of parliament generally, a course of action which would destroy the independence of all members and undermine the institution of parliament.
The Prime Minister ridicules that. I say no more about the resolution. We have established the facts. They tried to silence us. They tried to prevent me saying what is known across this country. I do not want to quote editorials but there are many. Here is one headed "Political Malice", and another, "A New Pearson". Men and women in Canada cannot understand it. In correspondence to me they say: This is not in keeping with the man we thought we had; we did not agree with his views, but that he would fall for this kind of thing, no matter whether activated by the President of the Privy Council or the Minister of Justice or any of the others, makes a sad day for parliament.
The Liberals have not come out yet with the argument that members have to be careful how they vote on this motion lest they defeat the government. Well, one of the great authorities in this country is Dr. Eugene Forsey-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister
smiles about that but Dr. Forsey is an authority on national and international affairs. This is what he says:
A fresh election now, on the old distribution of seats, would be the ultimate outrage. Until redistribution can come into effect, a few months hence, some means must be found to carry on-
Then he goes on to say:
Mr. Pearson could follow the example of Mr. Disraeli in 1868. Disraeli's government was defeated
April 30, 1868, by a vote of 330-265.On May 4,
Disraeli told the house that he had obtained the Queen's consent to a dissolution "as soon as the public interests will permit,"-
The government went ahead and carried on for several months. It got the necessary legislation passed and, indeed, dissolution did not take place until November 11.

[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Second, the government cannot rush into an election. The Prime Minister asked for the votes of the people of Canada so that he could get a majority and he did not get a majority. I prefer the objectiveness of Dr. Forsey to the uncertainty of the Minister of Transport.
The Liberals could simply resign (if they asked for an immediate dissolution, the Governor General would be bound to refuse, because of the redistribution situation). The Governor General would then send for . . .
The Leader of the Opposition
. . . and ask him to form a government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They wanted a majority and what did they end up with? A minority. I am just quoting from an authority and they do not like authorities. They do not like the truth given by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police any more than they like the objectivity of Dr. Forsey.
Then he goes on to say that if the Governor General were to take it that we could not form a government, even a caretaker government, he could call an all-party conference to consider letting someone form a coalition caretaker government from the various representatives in this house, who in a community of endeavour would have to carry on similarly to what was done in Australia and New Zealand. I point this out because that is all they have left.
What we have before us, Mr. Speaker, is an explanation from the Prime Minister which is not in accordance with the facts. This is the last chance for parliament. Are we to be puppets in the hands of a Prime Minister who keeps dossiers on members? I do not know who these members are but he has dossiers on two or three of them. Watch out. Some day they will be produced. That is the position today. That is the position in respect of which the Canadian people have the right to be disturbed and which should receive the condemnation of hon. members whatever their party in this House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister rise to ask a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise to ask the right hon. gentleman whether I might now ask the question I wished to put earlier. In view of the reference the hon. gentleman made to McCarthyism, would the hon. gentleman now make a public apology to the hon.
May 3, 1966

member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay)?


John George Diefenbaker: I never knew that shoes were connected with McCarthyism.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Matapedia-Matane is Mr. Tremblay.


Michael Starr: What apology do you want?


John Whitney Pickersgill: You might well ask.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Minister of Forestry rising to ask a question?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman this question which is a fundamental one in a way. If I understood the hon. gentleman exactly this afternoon, he said that the R.C.M.P. commissioner in a way-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this afternoon the Prime Minister presented his case for asking the house to vote against an amendment and since that time the major part of the opposition's time has been taken up with ministers and members of the government rising on points of order.


Michael Starr: The government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Irrelevant and meaningless questions have been raised and we have had no opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that we should allow the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to complete his point of order and I will then hear the question of privilege.


John James Greene: Let him state it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am glad the Minister of Agriculture recognizes who is at fault in this instance.
Members of the various parties, Mr. Speaker, have had no opportunity whatsoever to make a statement on their position in the light of the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon. With the very limited time we have left, it seems to me it ought not to be taken up by questions or points of order on this matter.


John James Greene: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member
Morality in Government for Burnaby-Coquitlam has any right to impute motives to any member of this house. If we feel the rules of the house should be abided by and wish to raise points of order in this regard, we have every right to do so without hearing the sanctimonious insinuations of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Does the hon. Minister of Forestry wish to ask a question?
I must remind him that he may ask it only if the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) permits him to do so, as part of his speech.


Maurice Sauvé: Will the Leader of the Opposition permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lapointe.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Several questions have been asked. The debate will be closed in 25 minutes and we did not have the opportunity to put in one word yet, nor has the party sitting on our left. What will happen if all the ministers ask questions? We cannot get the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. According to standing orders, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is allowed to speak without any time limit when he has the floor and, if he so wishes, he can accept, as an integral part of his speech, any question directed to him. I have no authority to prevent the minister from putting a question to the Leader of the Opposition if the latter accepts to answer it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supply motion is before the house, but not a word has been said about supply yet.
The government is seeking authorization to spend money, but nothing has been said about that.
When the estimates were considered last January and February, not a word was said about government expenditures or how the people's money had been spent. The Spencer case was discussed, then the Munsinger case, and now we are discussing the McLellan case. When we should be finding out how the people's money is spent, we are discussing all sorts of thing.
4648	COMMONS DEBATES	May 3. 1966
Morality in Government
We are supposed to be on supply, but we are discussing scandals, investigations and what not.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, $2,400 million are being paid to the federal government as taxes by the province of Quebec. And we have two days to discuss how these taxes will be spent.
What did we speak about? Not about supply at all, nor about the budget or estimates, but about other things. There has been mudsling-ing from both sides, and the people have not been mentioned.
What would happen, Mr. Speaker, if elections were called on the matter under discussion for the last two days? Well I, for one, would have to tell the people in Quebec: When we should be discussing how to spend your tax money, we talk about all sorts of other things. If the people were aware of what is taking place in parliament whenever the expenditure of the people's money is under consideration, I feel that the people would demand that we close up parliament.


Maurice Allard: It gets depressing.


Gilles Grégoire: It is depressing, as the hon. member for Sherbrooke has said.
Mr. Speaker, it never fails. We thought we were clear of that sort of thing for a month at least, but no. As soon as we finish with one, off we go with another. We did not initiate this. But why are we always forced into such discussions? Why can we not finally come around to legislating for the people, instead of spending our time discussing scandals and throwing mud at the next guy?
It seems simple to me, Mr. Speaker. We are on a supply motion. The discussion was initiated on one subject. An amendment was introduced and we are required to limit ourselves to that question. Nothing is being said of any interest to the people.
Do you not think there are many people in Quebec who want to separate from the federal government? Why? Just look at what is being accomplished in this parliament: 0.00.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke a long time. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) also. Has any mention been made of the peoples' taxes? No. It is becoming a habit, it seems. Unless there are changes, let us not be surprised if confederation does not long hold together, if the people become discouraged with its members of parliament. If this keeps up-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must also rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) may not relish the subject now under discussion, but under the rules, we are restricted in this debate to the subject matter of the amendment introduced in this house. I take it for granted that the remarks the hon. member for Lapointe is making are in the nature of a preamble to what he intends to say later when he comes around to the amendment, but I should like to point out to him that under the rules, he should discuss the subject matter of the amendment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, you have just confirmed my own findings. The rules are so poorly designed that if I want to speak at all, I am required to speak about scandal. You will have to admit that this is the final inconsistency and stupidity, to be forced to talk about scandals. Can we not say a few words about supply? Are we not on a supply motion? That is the main motion.
The amendment. Well, a Conservative member once again put us on this business of scandals and we have to talk about them. Mr. Speaker, the rules themselves require that. That is why I say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know whether I should intervene again at this time, but I shall point out to the hon. member that the rules provide, should he so wish, that he may speak to supply after tonight's vote.


Gilles Grégoire: That is the most logical thing yet, Mr. Speaker. Two days are provided to debate supply but in the final analysis, there is onlv one half hour after the vote, for discussion. That is marvellous. Out of two days on supply, half an hour is allowed, after the vote.
In the amendment, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is taken to task for asking for files on all kinds of things concerning the members of parliament in the last 10 years. The Prime Minister has told us his side of the story which differs from commissioner McLellan's. One of them did not explain himself well or did not tell the whole truth.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister rose to state: here is what I said. If he feels that commissioner McLellan did not tell the whole truth, it is his duty to discharge him. He has no alternative. It is either the Prime Minister or the R.C.M.P. commissioner who has to go. That is the decision facing the Prime Minister. If the R.C.M.P. commissioner has told the truth, the Prime Minister has to leave. If
IMr. Gregoire.]
May 3. 1968

the Prime Minister is telling the truth, then the R.C.M.P. commissioner has to leave. There is no other choice.
They cannot both stay because there would always be one of them who did not tell the truth, maybe not on purpose, but it remains that he would not have told the truth.
I was surprised to see that commissioner McLellan gave answers so quickly, even without being asked anything. From what I can see, questions were not even put to him and the R.C.M.P. commissioner gave answers, and quickly at that, apparently happy to do so. His attitude gave me the impression, and other members told me they had the same impression, that the R.C.M.P. commissioner felt that things had not been going too well for some time and took that opportunity to make some statements and say afterwards: Now, if the Prime Minister wants to discharge me, everyone will claim he is getting even and my position is safe.
That, Mr. Speaker, is an interpretation which is entirely logical.
Should the Prime Minister discharge commissioner McLellan, many people will say that he is getting even. And the commissioner is sure of keeping his post, or, at least, he wanted to make sure he would keep it that way. If you read the evidence over, you will see that the answers were given quickly, that the commissioner even anticipated the questions, that he gave the answers freely without even waiting for the questions. That is strange.
But on the other hand, all that was brought to light in order to distract attention from the Munsinger case, to put the blame on someone else. The Leader of the Opposition would be happy to focus on the Prime Minister the attention now centered upon him, to try to prevent the inquiry into the Munsinger case.
Mr. Speaker, the house or the Canadian people should not allow attention to be drawn off the main point, which is the Munsinger investigation itself.
As far as the other problem is concerned, the right hon. Prime Minister gave us explanations. He stated what he had said that day he requested the reports. As I said a while ago, this is inconsistent with what the R.C.M.P. commissioner said.
The Prime Minister knows very well now that there remains only one solution for him and for the R.C.M.P. He should not need much time to decide. I agree that the examination and cross-examination of commissioner McLellan has not yet taken place. If he
Business of the House wished to correct or justify certain answers he gave at that time, the Prime Minister would have a part to play. If his statement is corrected in the sense mentioned by the Prime Minister, the case will be settled; if not, the Prime Minister will have to dismiss commissioner McLellan.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Valade:: May I put a question?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the following questions will be discussed on the adjournment motion tonight: the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), External	Affairs-mainland
China-possibility of recognition; the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer), Agriculture-request for white paper on national policy; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Old Age Security-request for increase to $100 per month.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to the time of the vote which is scheduled for 8.15 p.m. today. In view of the fact there has been an important statement by the Prime Minister today, I am wondering whether the house would be amenable to the idea that each of the opposition parties be given an opportunity to make at least a brief statement. Perhaps we could have unanimous consent to postponing the time of the taking of the vote until the hon. member for Lapointe has completed his remarks and the leader of the Social Credit party and the leader of this party have had an opportunity of speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that we postpone the taking of the vote until nine o'clock so that the time between eight and nine could .be divided equally among those members.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?

May 3. 1966
Business of the House


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, if it is clearly-understood that when the hon. member for Lapointe has completed his speech the leader of the Social Credit party and the leader of the New Democratic Party will have an opportunity to speak and that the debate will then be concluded, we are agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that the understanding of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mongrain:: I rise on a question of privilege.
I should like to point out that there are two independent members in this house and that they too are entitled to have the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member against the motion which has just been made?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Yes, unless the two independent members are allowed to have the floor for a few minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to agree. On behalf of my leader let me say that I understand he intends to speak for not more than 15 minutes.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would keep my remarks within a limit which would permit the independent members to have their say as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the suggestion now that the two independent members will take part in the debate?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: We are asking that either one be given the floor for not more than ten minutes.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, what I meant to say is that we can still keep the nine o'clock deadline if we allow one of these members to speak, if that is your wish.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Lapointe will complete his remarks and that there will be one speaker for the Social Credit Party, one speaker for the

New Democratic Party and then the member for Trois-Rivieres? In any event, the outside limit will be nine o'clock so that the vote will be called for nine o'clock rather than 8.15.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, may we have the assurance that the independent members will not be allowed to go beyond that and that enough time will be left-what would happen if the N.D.P. member were to speak for three quarters of an hour, to say nothing of other members?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this shall be made an order of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Georges-J. Valade: I have a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot raise a question of privilege now; it is after six o'clock.


Georges-J. Valade: But this point has been before the house for the last ten minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it unanimously agreed that we sit after six o'clock to hear a question of privilege?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fair-weather.
Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Georges-J. Valade: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Before the House adjourned at six o'clock, I rose to ask
May 3. 1366

permission of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to ask a question. The occupant of the chair at that time did not recognize me. After this right was refused, there were five members who rose on questions of privilege or points of order. They were all recognized. I was deprived of my right, without any explanation from the Chair. I believe I have the right to put a question to the hon. member for Lapointe if he would allow me to do so. On this score I think my right as an individual member of parliament has not been recognized. I hope that I can now put the question, if the hon. member for Lapointe allows me to do so and if the Chair would recognize this right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will be pleased to recognize the right of the hon. member to put a question if the hon. member for Lapointe is willing to accept it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as I do not have too much time left, I would ask the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) to wait until I have completed my remarks. I will then be only too glad to answer his questions.


Georges-J. Valade: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I forgot to mention when I stated my question of privilege that the house did not adjourn until seven minutes after six. I rose at one minute before six, but I was refused that right to ask a question.


Gilles Grégoire: When I have completed my remarks, I will be pleased to answer the questions of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie.
Mr. Speaker, in his testimony the R.C.M.P. commissioner made a few statements provoking the ire or the anger of certain members of the opposition. This afternoon the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made a correction. If we accept his statement, then we will vote against the amendment; on the other hand, if we vote in favour of the amendment, we would be saying that the Prime Minister lied when making his statement.
Mr. Speaker, this is a poor situation, because not only have scandals been raised, but even the Prime Minister's word is being questioned. Of course, we do not have all the facts in this matter. There were witnesses to
Morality in Government the conversation between the Prime Minister and the chief commissioner of the R.C.M.P. The present President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) was there, and so was the secretary of the Privy Council, Mr. Robertson.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Obviously, if we had the opportunity, before the vote, to question those witnesses, we would have a better idea of what may have occurred during that conversation. But the vote will soon be taken and we will not be able to question the other witnesses. We must therefore vote on the amendment without having heard those witnesses.
Mr. Speaker, for the time being, I do not hesitate to say that, even though the Prime Minister is a Liberal, which may be a defect, on the other hand I believe what he said. I think he is an honest man and I do not hesitate to believe what he tells us. Just as I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that I did not doubt his word either. I have always respected him to the extent that, when he rose in this house to make as strong a statement as the Prime Minister made this afternoon, I always took his word for it, as I did in the case of the Prime Minister. Everything is based, as I said this afternoon, on accusations made on both sides. But when one considers who makes the accusations, the value of the argument put forward by the one who moved the amendment yesterday is reduced.
For two or three years now, in the House of Commons, a pretence is made at discussion in order to sully reputations. The opposition blames the government today for doing what it has been doing for three years. For instance, we saw the reputation of the member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) tarnished without his being even given a chance to justify himself and without his accusers being requested to retract their words.
Those who doubt other people's word are the first to object to light being thrown on accusations made against them.
I remember among other things-and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) must recall this-that he was once accused himself in this house of making false statements under oath. The hon. member for Yukon was accused of this before and he did not want the truth to come out in this regard; he did not want those who laid the charges to be in a position to prove them. Charges had been made against him that he had made false statements under oath. However, he did not want those who had made such charges to be
May 3, 1966

Morality in Government given an opportunity to prove them. He took advantage of exceptional circumstances to camouflage the affair. But we were not convinced by that. I, for one, was never convinced; I do not say he was wrong, but I know he avoided any clarification of that matter.
Those were serious charges, charges of having made untrue statements twice, under oath. The hon. member for Yukon, as I say, did not want light to be thrown on that matter.
Now, they are the ones who make accusations, who smear reputations, but when they are involved, they do not want any part of it. The hon. member of Yukon knows that I speak the truth. When he was offered to have the matter referred to the committee on priviliges and elections, he objected. He cannot deny that and he does not deny it. Besides, it is in Hansard; I do not know the date when this took place, but it is in Hansard.
What does this prove? Since mention is made of what detracts from parliament's reputation, I take the opportunity to point out this fact, after due consideration. In my opinion, the accusations made still remain. Indirect means were used to conceal those accusations, but they still stand. As long as the member for Yukon will not take it upon himself to refer the matter to the committee on privileges and elections, I shall have my doubts.
Mr. Speaker, if the member for Yukon wants to protest against this, he is free to do so. But he knows I am right and that he refused to deny the accusations made against him. He has nothing to answer to this.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a subamendment to the amendment of the member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), before my time is up.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That all the words after the word "That" be struck out and replaced by the following words: the actual operation "smear" which has been taking place for too long, should cease immediately and that parliament should proceed to a sound and honest legislation for the well-being of the Canadian people.


Georges-J. Valade: Does the hon. member allow me a question?


Gilles Grégoire: I shall conclude my remarks before answering the question of the hon. member.

We tried to draft that amendment in such a way that no one can accuse us of indulging in petty politics or taking a roundabout course.
We would simply like the house to express its wishes clearly today, because we are all tired of those endless discussions always bent on destroying reputations.
We would like to see an end to that and see the government concern itself from now on with legislating for the good of the people. Enough of personalities, let us concern ourselves with the people; they are waiting for us to legislate in their interest. I think that all parties in the house should agree on that. Let us bury the hatchet and work from now on for the good of the people.
It seems to me that, from all sides of the house, members should vote unanimously for that subamendment to put a stop to those slander campaigns and prevent us from losing more time as we have been doing for too long; from now on, let us legislate in the interest of the people.
The hatchet should be buried to allow us to work for the welfare of the people. It is time for the house to assume its responsibilities. A great number of bills are waiting to be considered and passed. The people are looking towards parliament and waiting for us to legislate for them.
We take money out of their pockets as taxes but there is never any time to discuss their problems.
Time is spent discussing all kinds of other things. That is what happened, as I said this afternoon, when the estimates were considered. Right now a supply motion is before us and what are we talking about? Scandals again.
It would be time to proceed with legislation. That is what the Ralliement Creditiste recommends.
I am convinced that a good number of people in this house will support us. Let us put a stop at last to those endless and useless fights and let us get to work and legislate to improve the lot of our fellow-citizens.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question which I have long wanted to ask him?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: Before the six o'clock recess the hon. member for Lapointe said that the Tories and the Grits were smearing each other over the Munsinger affair. Will the hon.
May 3. 1966

member for Lapointe admit that the first member in this house to mention the name of a former minister supposedly implicated in the Munsinger affair was none other than his present leader, the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette)?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If I named the minister mentioned, I never made any accusations against him, and I formally stated in this house that if this concerned only the private life of certain people, the federal parliament was not the place to name or accuse anyone. I did not make accusations against the minister in question, and the hon. member is the one to mention him.


Georges-J. Valade: Yet, you did mention his name.


David Réal Caouette: Of course, just as I can mention yours anywhere.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair would like to make reference to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). May I refer the house to citation 203, to be found at page 171 of Beauchesne's fourth edition.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: Are you going to give us a chance to argue on the validity of the motion, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to refer to citation 203(1) of Beauchesne's fourth edition. Before doing so, may I say to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), since time is limited, that my mind is made up as to the validity of the subamendment. I shall now proceed with my ruling at this time.
Citation 203(1) at page 171 says:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
May I go further and cite for hon. members citation 203(5):
An amendment was ruled out because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.
Morality in Government
It is the opinion of the Chair that the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is not relevant to the amendment and, second, that it raises a distinct question which can be considered only by a motion on notice. The Chair therefore rules that the amendment raised by the hon. member for Lapointe is out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a pity you did not ask the opinion of the house, because although I had read the two citations you quoted I wanted to give a third one which would have settled the matter. It was-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Order. The ruling has been given.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has already made a ruling regarding the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Lapointe.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate with a heavy heart because we in this party feel that parliament has had too much mudsling-ing, scandal mongering and character assassination over the past number of months. We should have welcomed having parliament get down to some of the fundamental matters which affect the welfare of this country.
However, the statement which was attributed in the public press to the commissioner of the R.C.M. Police, in a recent appearance before a judicial inquiry, is something, first of all, which affects the rights of members of this house, and secondly, affects the administration of justice. If the police can be used for political purposes of any kind, under any circumstances, then we have begun the destruction of democracy and the establishment of a police state.
It is therefore important that this matter be discussed. I only regret that some statement such as the one the Prime Minister made this afternoon was not made last Friday, because it is idle to argue that we ought to wait until the judicial inquiry is completed. This is a collateral matter. The statement of the R.C.M.P. commissioner was carried in every newspaper, over every radio, and on every television service, and it has already been judged in the court of public opinion.
The members of this house and the people of Canada were entitled to a clear and explicit statement from the Prime Minister about

May 3, 1966
Morality in Government this. Last Friday there was ample opportunity to make such a statement. It was not made.
There being only a few moments before the vote is taken, and some other hon. members wishing to speak, I shall make my remarks as concise and to the point as possible. The basic issue in this amendment is whether or not the Prime Minister asked the commissioner of the E..C.M. Police to ascertain whether he had any information on his files which would indicate any impropriety or anything of a scandalous nature involving any hon. member in any party, over the last ten years.
No one will question the right of the government to use files in order to take action against any member of parliament or against anyone else who has broken the law, or who is guilty of some misdemeanour. But what has alarmed the country, and what has disturbed and dismayed a great many Canadians is the possibility that R.C.M.P. files were to be used in order to intimidate or to blackmail members of parliament.
If that process were to be started with members of parliament, there is no reason why it should not be extended to candidates; there is no reason why it should not be extended to the presidents and secretaries of political organizations in the constituencies; there is no reason why it should not eventually be extended to looking at income tax returns or at any other type of documents which have always been considered confidential. Therefore the house and the country are properly exercised about the statement which was attributed to the commissioner of the R.C.M.P.
This afternoon the Prime Minister said that he had not asked for an investigation by the R.C.M.P. into any of the private improprieties, or into any of the things of a scandalous nature concerning the private lives of members of parliament. Mr. Speaker, I accept the Prime Minister's statement. I do not think we can have government in this country unless we are prepared to accept the statement of the Prime Minister made on the floor of the House of Commons.
However, when the hon. member for Lapointe says that anyone who votes for this amendment is saying that the Prime Minister lied, I want to take issue with him. While the Prime Minister denied asking for an investigation into the private peccadillos of members of parliament, he did say, as I understood him, that he had asked the R.C.M.P. commissioner to examine the files to see if
[Mr. Douglas.!
there were any improprieties, or anything of a scandalous nature respecting any members in any parties, over the last ten years, with reference to their public lives. That would be with reference to such things as intervening in matters havh-g to do with the Department of Justice, or with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, or with anything having to do with security. Mr. Speaker, I submit that while that is less reprehensible than asking the R.C.M.P. to look into the private lives of members, it is still reprehensible.
I should like to know, for instance, why the Prime Minister would ask for this information about members of parliament, going back over a period of over ten years. I should like to know what he proposed to do with this information. I should like to know what action he proposed to take on the basis of those files. If he were here and if he were prepared to tell the house that, we might understand his motives.
I do not for a moment question the Prime Minister's right to ask for any information that he can get regarding members of the cabinet and parliamentary secretaries because, with the collective responsibility of cabinet, he is responsible for anything they do and he must know everything about cabinet members that it is possible for him to find out.
Nor do I question his right, through the Minister of Justice, to say to the commissioner of the R.C.M. Police: "If you had information on your files regarding any members of parliament or anybody else on which you have not taken action because of political pressures in the past, I, as Prime Minister, am now authorizing you to take such action, and to take it into the courts, and to take it in the proper manner through the due process of law".
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
But, Mr. Speaker, I object strongly to the Prime Minister setting himself up as a judge and jury and having placed on his desk files collected by the R.C.M.P., and having discretion placed in his hands as to what use will be made of those files. If there is anything in those files which indicates that some criminal act has been committed, if there is any misdemeanor shown there, then the R.C.M.P. should have acted on them long ago. If the Minister of Justice wants to instruct the R.C.M.P. to take such action now he will have our full support. But surely it is an
May 3. 1966

entirely different thing for the Prime Minister of the country to go on a fishing expedition, to be poking through the political garbage cans of this country to see whether he can find something which has an unpleasant odour in connection with the public actions of members of this parliament. I say this is a very dangerous precedent which the Prime Minister has established by his speech today.
If the amendment is refuted, does it mean that this House of Commons is giving its assent to a new principle in government? Does it mean that future Prime Ministers will upon taking office have the full assent of parliament in instructing the head of the mounted police to begin curry combing the files to see whether he can find some morsel of gossip or some peccadillo which the Prime Minister can keep up his sleeve for future use?
I am sure the house is fully seized of the importance of the issue at stake. We have always prided ourselves, living in a democracy, that the administration of justice and the functioning of the police were free from political interference and partisanship-that if some person has committed a wrong the R.C.M.P. will consult the law officers to see whether or not they have a prima facie case. And if they have sufficient evidence to warrant the laying of charges, the person so charged will have the opportunity to defend himself in court through the due processes of law.
The moment we begin to destroy this basic principle of democracy, the moment we allow a prime minister, no matter who he may be or what party he heads, to begin collecting R.C.M.P. files for his own use, at his own discretion, we have taken the first step toward establishing a police state in this country.
I want to conclude by saying that I do not accuse the Prime Minister of lying. I am prepared to accept the statement he made this afternoon. I am saying that on the basis of his own statement as to the instructions he gave to the R.C.M.P. commissioner, he erred in giving those instructions and made a most unhappy departure from the long established principles of democratic government.
I want to say to the Prime Minister, or to his colleagues who can convey this to him, that if he is prepared to rise before this vote is taken and apologize to the house for the instructions he gave, and assure the house that this practice will not be followed and
Morality in Government that his apology will constitute a precedent against any future prime minister following such a course of action, then 1 am quite prepared to see this amendment dropped. But if the Prime Minister is not prepared to do this, 1 say that on the basis of his own statement to the house this afternoon he stands condemned of having given instructions for an investigation into the lives and activities of members of parliament which, if allowed to stand, will do irreparable damage to the democratic form of government in Canada.


Robert Norman Thompson: Not having had an opportunity to take part in this debate, particularly following the participation in it by the Prime Minister this afternoon, when he gave his explanation of the events which led to the charges contained in the amendment before us, I am grateful for the few moments available to me at the present time to set out the position of the Social Credit party.
I believe that we as members of parliament ought to be more concerned with this debate than with any debate which has arisen for a long time. It is not just parliament which is at the heart of this issue; it is the rights and responsibilities of every member of this house.
In the first instance, the principle stated in the amendment is a vital and basic principle of parliament. In my opinion it is not the prerogative of the Prime Minister or of any member of the government to peruse R.C.M.P. files or reports relating to members of this house, nor is it the responsibility of the R.C.M.P. to provide such information to the government about the past or present conduct of members.
There may be two important exceptions- one, where there is a question of the security of the nation being involved, and the other where there has been some transgression of the Criminal Code. In either case the R.C.M.P. must report to the Minister of Justice, or, under the new organization of government, to the Solicitor General. If the government or any of its members fail to observe these basic principles then, truly, the useful existence of every member of parliament will have been destroyed and the institution of parliament itself undermined.
We must therefore support the principle set out in this amendment, that is to say, that the R.C.M.P. shall not be used by any member of
May 3, 1966

Morality in Government the government to provide information regarding the conduct of members of parliament; nor is it the right of the R.C.M.P. to divulge such information except to the minister in the cabinet who is responsible for the administration of justice.
To me, the whole matter centres on one simple question: Is the Prime Minister responsible for parliament or is he responsible to parliament? I do not think any Prime Minister is responsible for me. I think I have a responsibility to him as leader of the government of a nation of which this parliament is the most vital part.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I do not think that the Prime Minister can rightfully take upon his shoulders the responsibility for members of parliament because basically, according to the principles of parliament as I understand them, under the traditional parliamentary system in which we operate we are all responsible to parliament. Therefore if situations do arise where the conduct of an hon. member is involved there are other definite, specific channels through which he can move. In this regard you, Mr. Speaker, are one who holds a most vital position, and it is to you that the Prime Minister and all of us must look on matters respecting the conduct of hon. members.
The Prime Minister has today outlined his position with respect to the particular situation in which we find ourselves. He has stated the circumstances as he saw them. He was involved in a situation at the time when he sought the assistance of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P., a situation which I am sure we all would agree was a most difficult one for him. I do not for a moment question his motives in doing what he did.
Because he is the Prime Minister, because he is the leader of the government, I believe it is my responsibility to accept the statement he made, although I cannot agree that in each instance he was warranted in taking the action that he did, nor can I agree that he gave us the explanation as clearly as he might have done. Nevertheless, if we have come to a point in this parliament where we do not and cannot accept the word of the Prime Minister, then indeed we are in a sorry mess.
It is only reasonable to say that the statement he has given is his explanation of why he felt he must do those things was in the best interests of the country. On reflection however, I hope he will see the errors of his action, and make sure that not only does this

mistake not recur but that steps be taken to guard the interests of every member of the house and preserve the rights and privileges of the house.
Having said that, I come back to the issue involved. Yesterday, as I listened to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) presenting the background to the amendment he moved, I could not but agree with what he said. He set a very high level and tone for this debate, based upon what I am convinced was his sincere conviction. But what has happened since then is that we have lost ourselves once again in the constant bickering and in-fighting which has characterized this house for the last three or four years, and which has been responsible for the lowering of the image of parliament and the lack of respect for this house across the country.
Therefore we have to come to the reality of the situation in which we are. At this point it is basically a political one. What we have seen happening today is something that has been most discouraging to hon. members who want to get on with the business they were elected to do. It might be well if an arena could be found somewhere for the leaders of the two main political parties, in which they could go to it, thus allowing the rest of us to get on with the work that has to be done.
To precipitate a crisis in the country at this time will solve nothing. In saying this I could add we do not have respect for either of the two main leaders for the way in which they have faced up to their responsibilities in this house. The stability of parliament and the ability of all of us who make up parliament to get on with the job are things that are our own direct responsibility, and theirs.
I must say that whatever happens in the vote tonight, it is a responsibility of all of us to awaken ourselves to the fact very quickly. Certainly I am not going to be led into some pious crusade for self-righteousness as sought by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) as he spoke last night, because I think he dropped this debate into the political doldrums and into the wrangling in which he find ourselves today. So, Mr. Speaker, despite the scandalmongering and character assassination which has characterized this session of parliament, we must be objective tonight and face up to the real issue before the house. We must continue to deplore this type of thing. We believe something better is expected of us. Sir Francis Bacon had something to say about this type of situation. I was reminded of his words by a statement in the press by a
May 3, 1966

journalist friend of mine, who made a case for the fact that the people of Canada want to be governed. Not only do they want to be governed but they expect to be governed. The words of Sir Francis Bacon have survived many governments and many parliaments, and they are:
When discords and quarrels and factions are carried openly and audaciously, it is a sign that the reverence of government is lost.
Here is the key reason why we have lost the respect of the people who have elected us to do a job which they still expect us to do.
I think it was unfortunate today that the Prime Minister, or at least some members of his cabinet, did not see fit to let the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) put on record what was already public knowledge

the words that were first spoken before the inquiry by the commissioner of the E.C.M.P. That is another item that will have to be marked down as an error. Though I regard it as such, I must respect the Prime Minister's statement and what he outlined to be his reasons for his actions regarding the file summary which was given to him by the R.C.M.P. commissioner and which, as he explained, was filed away by the chairman of the security committee in the Privy Council.
Though we realize the conditions which existed in November, 1964, I think we can say it was to the credit of the Prime Minister that he called in the Leader of the Opposition and explained the situation to him in February, 1965. If there were any doubt about the motives of the Prime Minister, this is corroboration for what he said today, because it should be obvious that he was trying to do what he thought would be the right thing. To impute selfish motives to him in this, is to cast a slur on all members of parliament and to say that all members are here for selfish reasons.
On the strength of the statement of the Prime Minister today and the events of November and December, 1964, we in the Social Credit party are compelled to take a position where we say that the subject matter of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal is not relevant to the situation that is before us, and therefore we cannot support it on that basis.
I would just say this in closing, Mr. Speaker, that this does not take away-


John George Diefenbaker: Hypocrisy rampant.
Morality in Government


Robert Norman Thompson: Would hon. members please give me a little of the respect that they get from us when they speak?


Mr. Ricard:: You don't deserve it.


Robert Norman Thompson: Our action on this vote tonight does not take away one iota from the principle that is enunciated and stated in the amendment for certainly, if the Prime Minister had not explained his position today, it would have weakened the very warp and woof of this institution.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Red Deer.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for bringing some of the hon. Conservative members out of their dishonourable noise making. This outlines our position, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will, of necessity, be brief for two obvious reasons: First, only a few minutes remain and second, it seems that all that needed to be said in this debate has been said eloquently.
This afternoon, when we, the independents, claimed the right to express our views for a few minutes. I heard someone on the opposition side say:

You will vote Liberal anyway.

This worthy colleague felt, as I did, that his chief had not succeeded in bringing me around to his point of view.
I have not always voted with the Liberals, I am not committed to vote with them, but in the circumstances, I have listened to all that has been said on both sides of the house. Some things struck me as an independent member, for instance when someone said that it could not be imagined that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) could have strayed from the truth. It should, however, be said about him that he is an honourable man since, this very afternoon, he staked his honour.

May 3, 1966
Morality in Government
I was surprised to hear the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas), whom I hold in high regard, say, after admitting the Prime Minister's honesty: But after all, what does the Prime Minister intend to do with all this information? What evidence do we have that he does not intend to use it to compromise some member of the house?
I believe that the evidence we have is what the leader of the New Democratic Party recognized a while ago: the honesty of the Prime Minister and the fact that he has given his word of honour.
What more can be asked of him? I presume the leader of the New Democratic Party would not ask the Prime Minister to kneel in the center of the house to beg forgiveness for what he himself calls an admission. I cannot imagine that he could ask for such a thing.
Besides, I find that the amendment on which we will vote is machiavellian to a certain extent. It comes from a side of the house which, for two or three years, has been accusing the government of hiding scandals, of condoning to a certain extent all kinds of wrongdoing, of encouraging all kinds of crimes. And now the Prime Minister is accused of going where he found such information, that is the R.C.M.P.-such information cannot be found elsewhere-to find out if anything can be held against any member of parliament. It seems to me that he showed courage in view of the fact that-and those who are here know it-he asked some of his closest collaborators to resign following information he received. Therefore, he had the courage of his convictions and we should pay tribute to his courage and integrity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Besides, Mr. Speaker, we find something else shocking. It is the fact that some learned lawyers agreed to play that game. I have a deep respect for the bar, even if at times I thank the Good Lord for not making a lawyer out of me. I see many lawyers who do a thing which appears to me to go against their professional ethics: they allow themselves to bring here all the evidence given to a royal commission, to evaluate it, to weigh it, to read it as they wish, and in some cases they lean obviously on the side of their own electoral interests. It has always seemed to me, as an ordinary man, that it was against the most elementary decency to do such things and that the house should give the judge who is hearing the evidence time to

complete his case and submit his findings before getting into the act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Another thing surprises me in all that, Mr. Speaker. I just want to point out that everything that is happening now is the result of an unfortunate state of mind, which, as everyone said, is beginning to discredit parliament before public opinion. One or two members here, for whom I have a deep respect, should use their authority to say that things have gone far enough.
If this is not stopped as soon as possible, it will become a sort of electoral Russian roulette turning against the leaders of the main parties in the house. A sort of parliamentary masochism is being allowed which scandalizes public opinion and only kills in the rising generation any respect for the institution of parliament which we are trying to restore and promote in every way.
In my opinion, the two old parties should cease these overly violent and partisan battles. I think that we should instead discuss the value of future legislation and better ways to ensure the public good. Like many others who spoke before me, I believe that this is what the leaders of the two old parties should be concerned with, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, since it is he, in fact, who raises or allows these objections. He said that this is his role. I know it is, but his objection must be based on the discussion of bills promoting the good of the nation; it must not lead to discussion of slander or be inspired by obsessions which every day bring up in the house sickening details which we discuss to the great disgust of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the motion tonight because I do not want to be party to this waste of time and all these scandals, this whole sickening atmosphere which has been allowed to pervade this house far too long.
I shall resume my seat after this plea because, again, I respect the Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to put an end to all this slander as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Cape Breton South.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Brelon South):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his remarks
May 3, 1966

referred to the fact that he did not want to take part in this nauseating procedure. I would call attention to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a point of order, I would ask him to state it.


Malcolm MacInnis: My
point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that prior to the supper hour it was through the request of the hon. member, who said he did not want to take part in this nauseating procedure, that an arrangement was made by an order of the house that the house sit beyond the voting hour until nine o'clock in order to give the same hon. member an opportunity to take part in the debate. He now has stated he would not want to take part in it, and it was through his arrangements that the house sat until nine o'clock to listen to him-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: -at his
own request.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being nine o'clock, pursuant to a special order passed this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago I accepted a pair. My pair is absent tonight on government business. Accordingly, notwithstanding the particular nature of the issue involved in this vote, I had no alternative but to honour the pair. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Howard:: With respect to pairs, it was requested that I be paired this evening with an absent cabinet minister. In the circumstances, that was far too much of a sacrifice to make.


George Louis Chatterton: I was paired with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who is away on government business. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to take advantage of the opportunity given to members to raise a grievance before the final question is put on the motion. The grievance I raise is a matter that concerns me very deeply and affects the rights of a citizen of this country to free expression. The matter has been alluded to indirectly on many occasions but has never been placed before the house. No decision has been made by the government and no explanation has been given.


[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
On March 3, 1965 a senior actuary in the Department of Insurance, John Kroeker, was dismissed from the public service. The reason for his discharge was never stated. The method used to terminate his employment deprived him of severance pay of over $2,000. One of the principles of employment of professional men in the public service was raised but was never settled.
I do not want to go into the details of the reason for Mr. Kroeker's objection to his dismissal. He was in the employ, as I say, of the department of insurance. He is a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Manitoba, a Fellow of the Society of Actuaries, and a member of the education and examination committee of the Society of Actuaries in the United States and Canada. He is married with seven children. His salary on discharge was $15,100.
In his mind, Mr. Kroeker's code of ethics of his profession came into question. He believed that an actuary has a professional obligation not only to his employer but to the public and to his professional colleagues. In his mind, there was a conflict between his government employment and his professional conduct. His integrity as an actuary, as he saw it, was in conflict with government policy. He was not prepared to sacrifice his integrity and he spoke out against the terms of the Canada Pension Plan, which was then being considered by parliament. I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that at the time in question the Canada Pension Plan had not been passed and had not become the law of the country. It was under consideration by parliament; we were considering the matter in committee of the whole in this house.
I should like to make a comparison between this situation and the professional integrity of an engineer who believes that the construction of certain work is dangerous to the public, but who is instructed nevertheless to complete it. Is it his duty to sit silent because policy has decreed that this work should be constructed? The situation of a medical doctor in the employ of the government service is also a similar comparison. Is a doctor required to do something that his professional ethics do not permit him to do merely because policy is involved?
The circumstances of his discharge were that Mr. Kroeker had criticized the Canada Pension Plan and had stated his criticism publicly. He was not the only person in the civil service who had such reservations about
May 3, 1968	COMMONS
the plan, but he was the only person who spoke out. His criticism was based on his professional and personal opinion of its actuarial results and its future effect on the Canadian economy.
On or about March 3 he received a notice from the superintendent of insurance stating that he was being suspended. The reason given was "for reasons that are well known to you". He never received a definition of the reasons for his discharge. He appealed to the Civil Service Appeal Board; his appeal was heard and as a result he was discharged from the service.
Perhaps it might be said, Mr. Speaker, that a civil servant has no right to comment on a government proposal. However, I would point out that in this particular case numerous civil servants were then proceeding to go across the country praising the terms of the Canada Pension Plan, which was and had been a political proposal of the government in power. Therefore I would ask where the difference lies. If a civil servant is permitted to comment at all upon proposed legislation, surely the comment should not be limited merely to the expressions of people who are prepared to go out and support it. Surely those who are expert in the field and who oppose the plan should have some right to express their view in giving advice not only to the government but to parliament on the matter before them.
As a result of his discharge this man has not been able to obtain employment with a life insurance company or an actuarial firm since his release from the civil service. He has made an attempt on his own to find such employment and has been registered with the National Employment Service. He has had offers from the United States but does not wish to leave this country. He is presently self-employed on a commission basis with a financial house.
The first question I want to raise is that of his pension, quite apart from the question of his dismissal. If Mr. Kroeker had resigned he would have received some $2,000 severance pay. But since he stood by his principles of professional integrity as he saw them, and as a result was discharged, he stands to lose.
I should like to look into this matter for a moment, because I am going to suggest that, regardless of whether Mr. Kroeker was right or wrong in his statements, the then minister of finance, by his statement to the house, in fact deprived this man of his severance pay.
DEBATES	4661
Alleged Irregularities in Public Service
In 1961, when a special committee of the house was discussing section 60 of the Civil Service Act, the question of resignations was raised. A member of the commission on June 2, 1961 stated that employees are normally permitted to retire, in order to protect themselves, and presumably one element of such protection is a financial one. On March 1, 1965 the then minister of finance announced in the house that if Mr. Kroeker did not resign he would be discharged. This act of the government certainly eliminated the possibility of the routine resignation of Mr. Kroeker.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
This whole matter concerns me, Mr. Speaker. It raises questions that I think ought to be considered. May I also ask this question: Why should this civil servant be deprived of his severance pay because he chose not to meekly resign? He may have been wrong in the opinions he expressed, but surely he should not be penalized because he decided that he wanted to be discharged so that he could appeal to the Civil Service Appeal Board.
Second, may I ask, what alternative did he have but to take this case to the appeal board, in view of the statement by the Minister of Finance whereby he lost his right to severance pay. This is the financial aspect of the matter.
I want to compare this case with that of George Victor Spencer. The main questions before the commission in that case were the question of Mr. Spencer's release from the government service and his pension rights. Whether or not you agree with Mr. Kroeker, he had the nerve to stand up, to put his job on the line, and to say: "I do not believe in all this. I am going to say so, and by doing that, I think I shall be doing my country a service".
I think that second thoughts about the Canada Pension Plan over a number of years will show that many of the matters that were raised in committee, and many of the matters that he raised were perfectly valid objections. In time amendments will have to be brought in to this plan.
However, here is a man who said: "I do not like this plan. I am involved in it. I know that everybody else is going around saying what a wonderful thing it is, but I know that it is not, from my professional knowledge of the plan itself, and from the way it is designed. I think I ought to say so." This man at
May 3, 1963
4662	COMMONS
Alleged Irregularities in Public Service least had courage. There are very few people left who have the courage, to say: "This is my conviction. I will put my job on the line". Remember, he was a man with a wife and seven children to support.
What he did was I think an act of bravery.
I do not think it was an act of cowardice. I do not think the man should be pursued, as he is being pursued, to the point of making his name known across the country. I do not care whether he is right or wrong. Personally I think he was right, and I have said so. However, right or wrong, what comparison is there between this man who spoke out for himself and his children-he said he did not want his children raised under the provisions of this plan-and Mr. Spencer, who was, on his admission, an agent of a foreign government. I think that in all this there are certain matters which ought to be considered. This is a question which concerns me deeply.
We must also ask ourselves whether a professional man in the government service must compromise principles, if necessary, respecting any government policy which has not become legislation. There are many professional men in the public service, including those in the medical fields, in engineering, and so forth. What is their position if professionally they feel obliged to differ from conclusions which have been arrived at by a majority of their colleagues or by the government? Must they stay silent, or must they resign?
Is this the kind of civil service we want, where civil servants must knuckle under, and be prepared to compromise principles, if those principles do not happen to agree with government policy? I am raising this question because that is the sort of thing that has been accepted. For some time now any person who has had some disagreement along these lines felt it necessary to resign quietly from the civil service. I am not sure that this ought to be the situation, particularly as it affects professional civil servants.
Should one civil servant be permitted to praise government legislation and be promoted, while another who, talking about the same legislation and deciding that it is not what he wants, is fired without receiving even his severance pay? I know some people think this to be right. To my way of thinking this sort of thing strikes at the root of a person's freedom of speech.
It was never explained in the house, or to this man, why he was discharged. It was assumed, so everybody thought, that it was
TMr. Aiken.]

because he spoke against the Canada Pension Plan while he was in the government's employ. That was the end of it.
He has not been able to get other employment. On various occasions he has been close to being employed by people who feared that the government would retaliate if they did employ him. He had a speaking engagement at the Sudbury Chamber of Commerce. Then, some time after he left the government service-and this is what bothers me-somebody said that they did not think it in the best interests of the country to hear him because he was opposed to government policy. He received a polite letter from the Chamber of Commerce saying: "We are sorry, but we do not want to get involved in this. We think it best not to hear you".
I do not say that the government was to blame for what happened, because I am sure that no minister would phone the Chamber of Commerce and say: "Do not hear this man". However, the threat is there. The threat is somewhere in the government service. There are people who perhaps feel annoyed at this man because he stood out against the Canada Pension Plan. There are those who feel that, if they become involved with him, they are going to get into trouble with the government.
Most of the people he was associated with, in employment, are required to deal with the government. I think he has been improperly pursued, even following his discharge from the civil service. Assuming that he was properly discharged, why is this man being pursued, because he continued to do what he chose to do? In this particular situation I am asking two things of the government. First, I am asking that an inquiry be convened. I do not ask for a royal commission. However, I do ask that somebody make an inquiry to consider Mr. Kroeker's severance pay and his pension entitlement.
This man ought to be treated in the same way that Mr. Spencer was going to be treated, because Kroeker at least did what he thought was in the interest of his country. As I say, first, I would ask that an inquiry be convened for the purposes I have stated.
Second, I ask that someone in the government should announce that this man will not be pursued, throughout the life of this government, as a result of the real or implied actions of the government, for speaking against what was the pet project of the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), the then
May 3, 1966

minister of national health and welfare. I do not ask more than that.
This man's case was taken to the appeal board, which, itself, is composed of three other civil servants who are themselves in the same difficult position he was in. The appeal unfortunately was dismissed, and that was the end of it. There are, however, some tag ends.
The Secretary of State has been asked on several occasions in the house if she would not reconsider this man's pension rights. As I understand it, she has said that she had never been asked. However, she has been asked on a couple of occasions, and tonight I am asking again that something be done to reconsider this whole question. I ask that this man not be made a martyr because of the things he had the nerve to do-because he had the nerve to stand up and do what very, very few other people in public service will do, which is to put his job on the line, state his case and take his discharge.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Motion (Mr. Sharp) agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the Chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR 1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates; the expenses of the International Labour Conferences and the promotion of labour-management co-operation, $4,569,100.
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY 1. Departmental administration, $1,121,200.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE 1. General administration, operation and maintenance including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year from firms and individuals requiring special services, $49,278,000.
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT 1. Postal services including Canada's share of the upkeep of the International Bureaux at Berne and Montevideo, $252,804,000.
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY 1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $6,795,400.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 1. Departmental administration, $6,732,100.
Proceedings reported.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


George James McIlraith: That saving always the powers of the Committee of Supply in relation to the voting of public moneys the items listed in the main estimates for 1966-67 relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs entered for consideration be withdrawn from the Committee of Supply and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George James McIlraith: Tomorrow the business
before the house will, first, be consideration of the motion by way of objection to redistribution proposals relating to the province of Manitoba.
If this is completed before the end of the day we shall proceed to call the following legislation: first, item 54 on today's order paper, the second reading of Bill C-169, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. Then we would take the second reading of Bill C-150, an act to amend the Research Council Act. That is item 4 on today's order paper. Next we would proceed to consider item 5 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill C-151, an act to provide for the establishment of a fund for the economic and social development of special rural development areas.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a
member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs I had an opportunity with my colleagues to attend the opening of the 24th meeting of the Council of the World Veterans Federation held at the Royal York hotel in Toronto on May 1. During that time we were able to meet some of the delegates who were attending from some 49 countries. I wish we had had more time in which to do that and to listen to the various points of view.
Talking with these men and listening to the opening ceremonies, I and others were interested to see people whom I would consider to
4664	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion be Colonel Blimps in present circumstances speaking very forcefully on behalf of peace. I thought at the time: I wish some of the United States labour leaders could be here to listen to the colonels of various armies who have fought in war taking a much stronger stand on behalf of world peace than many of them have done. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had intended to be there to deliver an address. Unfortunately, because of his illness, he was unable to be present. But the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) delivered his address for him and, I may say, did a very good job and was well received by the audience.
I have the text of the address here. It was one of the best speeches which has been made on this question for a long time, in my opinion, and I listened to every word with great attention. I was so interested that yesterday I rose in the house, after giving the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) notice, to ask two questions. I thought it would be well worth while to hear from the Secretary of State on this subject. In asking these questions I quoted from page eight of the Prime Minister's text which stated:
For the United Nations to secure a valid mandate to intervene with effect anywhere in the world, its membership should include states everywhere in the world.
I then asked the minister whether he would inform the house, in view of this statement, what the government was doing at the present time to promote the recognition of mainland China and its admission to the United Nations. I had intended to ask the minister-but I was nipped in the bud-a second question based on the same excellent speech. Here is the quotation I gave:
The first concrete step in this direction would he a cease-fire, or a more formal armistice agreement, put into effect as part of a wider pattern of peace negotiations without prior conditions.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Once the cease fire was in effect and as negotiations progressed, equivalent and phased withdrawals from South Viet Nam by North Viet Nam and by the forces of other governments could take place under international supervision.
Then I intended to ask the minister this question: Can he inform the house, in view of government support for United States policy in Viet Nam, what the government is doing at the present time to promote a formal armistice agreement which provides for withdrawal of all the foreign forces from South Viet Nam?

DEBATES	May 3, 1966
I shall look forward to the minister's reply to these two interesting questions, prompted by a very interesting, and to me a very excellent speech, which received the applause of all delegates present. When the meeting concluded several of the delegates from countries in Africa and the Middle East expressed to me how pleased they were with the contents of this speech and its general approach to the international situation at this time.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my hon. friend for agreeing to have this matter come up tonight instead of last night. The Prime Minister's statement, which the hon. member has quoted, is a statement of fact which lies behind Canada's support for the principle of universality in the United Nations.
We have consistently supported that principle on the grounds that if the United Nations is to be an effective organ of international opinion it must be able to bring all the members of the international community within the framework of the responsibilities and obligations laid down in the charter. But this is not merely a principle we support in the abstract. It is an objective which we have carried closer to ultimate achievement.
As the hon. member will recall, it was Canada which was instrumental in 1955 in breaking the deadlock which was then barring a substantial number of countries from membership in the United Nations. The achievement of universality, as I told the General Assembly last autumn, remains our firm objective and we would hope that progress could be made toward achieving it as soon as possible.
In the particular case of communist China I have expressed Canada's support for the view of the Secretary General of the United Nations, that it is in the interests of the international community to have communist China exposed to the currents and cross-currents of international opinion to a much greater degree than is now the case. I have in the past recognized that communist China's co-operation is necessary if we are to solve a number of problems in the realm of international peace and security and, in spite of the discouraging attitudes communist China has taken on a number of such questions, this remains the government's view.
Nevertheless we must recognize that part of the difficulty of the question of communist China's participation in the United Nations
May 3, 1966	COMMONS
arises from the position taken by that, country itself, and from the conditions it has set for taking its seat in the organization. In my view, China itself must make an accommodation; it is not only for us to look to what can be done to approach the ideal of universality of the United Nations in this respect.
My hon. friend has asked me another question and, in the time available, I would simply like to say that, as he knows, since last December the government has been engaged in developing a proposal to give the International Control Commission a role in trying to bring about a negotiated settlement in Viet Nam.
The proposal is that the three members of the International Control Commission should agree to consider themselves as a body that would engage in a necessary probing to see if the gap between the various positions of the main parties concerned, as well as other countries involved, could not be narrowed. There have been discussions with both India and Poland, discussions in which it was basically recognized that at the appropriate moment the commission powers might assume the responsibility which we have in mind.
It is a fact that at the present time the opportunities for calling a Geneva conference do not look propitious. Nevertheless this gives the proposal that Canada has made a greater sense of urgency.
A great deal of ground work is required if the necessary foundation for the calling of such a conference is to materialize. I may assure my hon. friend that the Canadian government seriously is engaged in this and in related efforts to try to bring about a negotiated settlement. If some other instrument can be used for this purpose-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, but the time allotted for his speech has expired.
The hon. member for Springfield.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday before orders of the day I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) whether it was the intention of the government to table a white paper on a national agricultural policy, and whether it was the intention to do this some time within the next 60 days. In other words, I was
DEBATES	4665
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion asking whether the government is in a position to state whether or not it would try to give to the house and to the country a national agricultural policy statement before the middle of the year, and fully three years after having taken office. I do not think this is a particularly unreasonable request.
I asked this question of the Minister of Agriculture yesterday for two reasons. First of all, I asked this question because the Minister of Agriculture himself has been in the habit of making occasional and intermittent references to what he considers to be desirable goals in respect of a national agricultural policy. For example, I have heard him say from time to time that it is about time the family farm and family folk found a place in the economic sun in this country. This is a very desirable sentiment to express, and I have heard him express it on several occasions.
Then, too, according to the press I notice that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), when speaking to an audience in Manitoba just a few days ago, made reference to the possibility of the government's coming forward with a white paper on agriculture. In fact I might quote from the report. According to the minister the federal government is on the verge of producing the outline of a national agricultural policy for Canada. The press report states:
Speaking at a press conference on the University of Manitoba campus, Mr. Sauve said he wasn't ready to express his views on a national agricultural policy, but he claimed he had been "working hard" to have the government produce a White Paper on agriculture.
If ministers of the crown are to allow themselves the opportunity to make reference to what well might be desirable goals, principles or features of a national agricultural policy, I do not consider it an unreasonable request to ask them just what the government or the cabinet as a whole is doing with regard to framing or formulating the national agricultural policy.
If a minister of the crown can tell a group of people that the government is working on the formulation of a policy, then the minister or his colleagues should be able to tell a member in this house when it is hoped that his policy will be finalized and made ready for tabling in this house.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
It is obvious that the farmers of this country would welcome a comprehensive farm policy statement by this government. Only a few weeks ago the Minister of Agriculture made a statement relative to dairy policy
May 3, 1966
4666	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion which has helped a great deal toward informing producers about what they may expect in the next 12 months as far as dairy production is concerned. Similarly it may be said that a comprehensive policy statement would be welcome in respect of other sectors of the agricultural industry, relative particularly to livestock and grain growing.
For those reasons I would ask the minister, or whoever is answering for him at this time, whether or not it is the intention of the government to present a comprehensive White Paper on agricultural policy before the end of this year.


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for bringing this important matter to the attention of the house. I note from his question that he has quoted from a statement made by the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) to the University of Manitoba. 1 can only assume that the Minister of Forestry was referring to a White Paper which he may contemplate producing, concerning the aspects of agriculture which come under his jurisdiction.
So far as the Department of Agriculture and the minister of that department are concerned, I am not aware of the presentation of a White Paper being imminent. The Department of Agriculture and the minister announce from time to time certain changes in agricultural policy. The hon. member has referred to a recent announcement in respect of a dairy policy and the important effect it had on farmers generally from coast to coast. I can only assure the hon. member that when important matters are to be introduced an announcement will be made by the minister in the prescribed way in this house.
I do not have any further information to give my hon. friend at this particular time which might enlighten him regarding the question he has asked.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, last Friday morning I asked the Prime Minister the following question, which is to be found at page 4503 of Hansard:
What answer has the government given to a recent request from the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation for an across-the-board increase in the old age security pension to $100 a month?
[Mr. Schreyer.l

The Chair felt that my question was not couched in the terms prescribed for questions to be asked on orders of the day, so I gave the appropriate notice that I would discuss it on an adjournment motion. I welcome the attendance at this time of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), who I assume will be answering my question. I hope his answer will be one of his better ones.
As the minister knows, as a result of the communication being addressed to him, as well as to the Prime Minister-indeed, copies of it were sent to all members of parliament-the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation is concerned about reports to the effect that any increase in old age pensions may be based on some kind of a test-needs, means or otherwise. This organization feels very strongly, as do many people of this country, and I share their view, that what we need at this time is an across-the-board increase in old age security pensions without a means test, to a figure of not less than $100 a month, payable now at age 65.
When the minister is answering I hope he will not put us off by a reference to the Canada assistance plan, or by telling us that the government is studying this sort of thing, which is often what we hear. This is a serious situation concerning many millions of Canadians, not just those on pensions but many others. Some of us feel that this parliament could go a long way toward redeeming itself in the eyes of this country by taking action on this important question.
Let me say to the minister, although I am sure he knows it, that there are many things about parliament which the people of Canada do not really understand. I believe indeed if they were here tonight they would find it difficult to understand the huge crowd that was on the floor and in the galleries when we were discussing a certain subject, but in this last half hour, when we are discussing the peace of the world, agricultural policy and old age pensions, perhaps it is a good thing that no one asks whether we have a quorum.
When people ask questions about parliament, may I suggest that there are two things that old age pensioners in particular cannot understand. First they cannot understand how it is that we find time in parliament to discuss some of the things which occupy our attention, some of the things which fill our newspapers and are broadcast on radio and on television but, despite the time which we can find for that kind of discussion, we
May 3, 1966
cannot seem to find time to deal with this question of raising the old age security pension.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 am glad to hear some support from the other side of the house. Greetings, brother.
The other feature which people cannot understand is that parliamentary interest in this question of raising the old age pension seems to have flagged from the high point it reached early in the session. Pensioners have not forgotten that on January 21 and 25 there were votes on the old age security pension having to do with raising the amount to $100 and making it payable at the age of 65. Those votes were very close-five votes the other way could have resulted in the opposite conclusion. Rightly or wrongly, many pensioners had thought that we were very close to getting action and that it would be merely a matter of time before members of parliament would make a decision to take a further step and raise the pension. However, it seems that we are further away from an increase in old age security pension now than we were at that time. The people cannot understand the procedures which are involved in all of this. They cannot understand why we can discuss certain other things, but not pensions. What is wrong with our procedures, what is wrong with our common sense, what is wrong with our sense of responsibility, that we cannot act on this issue?
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Everyone knows the ways in which things are changing in our time. Wages and salaries are going up; the standard of living is going up as well as the cost of living. The idea that people should be expected to live the rest of their days on the kind of pension they were given when they retired no longer is valid. It is no longer valid, either, that the pension should be at a level that makes it possible for people merely to stay alive. Indeed, one wonders if they can stay alive on $75 a month. The whole approach of our society is one that recognizes the importance of old age, one that recognizes the right of older people to share in the abundance of our times, to share in our increased standard of living, which is now possible for everyone.
I say to the government that it should realize this is a field in which the people of this country expect action. In another context, we have been talking about parliament
4667
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and what people think about it. One does not need to repeat what has been said in another debate, in fact it would be out of order to do so. However I say to the minister, to the government and to this House of Commons that one way in which we can redeem ourselves in the eyes of the people of this country would be to take action on this important issue. I hope that tonight the Minister of National Health and Welfare can answer this question by saying that favourable consideration is being given, not to something that diverts attention, not to some other way of doing it, but that the government is considering taking action to raise the old age security pension to not less than $100 per month.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for renewing the acquaintance we have had over the past several sessions in this general field of social policy. I congratulate him on his heightened and continued interest in this problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to be able to return the compliment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not as many minutes as the hon. member had to deal with this question. I draw to his attention an address that I gave in early March in Regina in which I spent half of my time dealing with the various possible approaches to the problem of older people. It is, in a sense, a 1966 edition of the Regina manifesto, and I commend it to the hon. member for careful attention. It has all the sympathy, all the consideration and all the idealism that characterized the earlier edition of the Regina manifesto.
Seriously, however, the government is concerned. The government realizes that one of the groups in our society that will require continued support through public programs is, of course, our older citizens. As my hon. friend realizes, as the Canada Pension Plan comes into effect it will provide a decent level of retirement income for those who reach retirement age.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not until five or ten years from now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is a group that have not been able to contribute because they are now retired or who will not be able to contribute to earn the maximum pension.

May 3, 1966
4668	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion This is the group, of course, that must occupy the attention of the government and of parliament itself. Of course, these people will be eligible for the flat rate pension of $75 per month. This is, clearly, not enough, will not be enough for them to live adequately and decently.
The question that must occupy the government is, which of several alternatives offers the most reasonable way of continued support for the older citizens of Canada. My hon. friend has come down squarely in favour of a flat rate increase of $25 per month. This has its attractions, but it has its disadvantages because it will help people who do not need this amount of money and it will not be enough for others. One of the factors to be

considered is that it is a very costly expenditure in the field of income maintenance. At the moment, we are spending about a billion dollars per year on old age security. If we raised the pension to $100, then by 1970 the annual cost would be $2.1 billion.
There are competing demands on the resources of Canada in the field of medicare and in the field of pensions. These competing requirements must be considered. We are about to consider in the House of Commons the Canada assistance plan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but the time allotted to him has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Wednesday, May 4, 1966