1966-05-02

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West) presented the fifth report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, in both French and English.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
fEnglish1

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention and the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of the Minister of Economic Planning for the government of India, Mr. Ashoka Mehta.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



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. Sianbury:: In the absence of the member for High Park may I ask that the motion in his name 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.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I ask that this motion appearing in my name be allowed to stand.


Mr. Winch:: May I ask why these motions are being allowed to stand? The public accounts committee is being called into session tomorrow. Twice now we have not been able to function because of a lack of a quorum. Why, after all these days, are we being asked to stand this motion?



BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS CONCURRENCE IN FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Hochelaga) moved: that the fourth report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, presented to the house on Friday, April 29, 1966, be now concurred in.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Before the committee report is concurred in, I wish to point out that this committee is being required to sit this week at the same time as the house. Since the committee's mandate is a limited one, we have no objection.
I should like to take this opportunity to point out that an irregularity took place over the weekend. While a committee of the house has been set up to look into the matters relating to arts, broadcasting and films and this committee is now considering the matter concerning the program "This Hour Has Seven Days", as well as the renewal of the contract of Messrs. Watson and LaPierre, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has appointed a mediator between the parties concerned.
Therefore, it means that the Prime Minister is appointing someone to arbitrate a dispute already before a parliamentary committee. I wonder what part this parliamentary committee can play, since the Prime Minister has appointed another person to study and analyse the matter and report thereon. Is this not a typical example of contempt for parliamentary committees? If parliamentary committees were shown due respect, this committee would have been allowed to study the problems brought before it. Somebody is now appointed in addition to this committee, in order to perform exactly the same work. Such a situation is quite unusual and indicates utter contempt for the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.

Broadcasting Committee Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. member to say a few words. He realizes, I am sure, that his remarks are outside the scope of the debate on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Hochelaga.
The motion now before us is to concur in the report to enable the committee to sit while the house is sitting. I doubt that a debate can be initiated ouside the subject matter of the report, and more particularly, the motion before the house.


Gilles Grégoire: We are asked to sit while the house is sitting from now until May 5. The purpose of these sittings, as I explained at the start, is the question of the program This Hour Has Seven Days". We are asked to sit while the house is sitting and while a mediator appointed by the Prime Minister is sitting.
That is why I believe my remarks are in order at this time, without objecting to granting the committee permission to sit while the house is sitting.
I object to sit so as to discuss this question while a mediator appointed by the Prime Minister is considering the same matter.
The motion, introduced last Friday, was perfectly in order and acceptable. But since then, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has set aside the rights of the committees and has shown contempt for the committee of the house by the appointment of a mediator to do the same work, the necessity to sit is no longer so great.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe the hon. member should go any further. He has stated an opinion which is not sufficiently related to the question before us to enable him to go on any longer.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, although I do not entirely approve of the particular appointment which has been made,
I think the record should show-and my friend the hon. member for Hochelaga was trying to get Your Honour's attention-that the appointment was made on the recommendation of the committee about which the hon. member is speaking.


Gilles Grégoire: The recommendation just mentioned by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was that the two parties use the good offices of the Prime Minister at the present time. All the good offices of the 
May 2, 1966
Prime Minister are eliminated purely and simply and replaced by mediation.


Miss LaMarsh:: Mr. Speaker-


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


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on this point of order which has been raised. The motion of the chairman of the broadcasting committee, the hon. member for Hochelaga, which was before the house on Friday last made reference to using the good offices of the government. My hon. friend will realize that it is the office of the Secretary of State which reports for the C.B.C., and thus that office could not become involved in such a matter.
In response to questions in the house the Prime Minister offered his good offices. He did not offer to mediate or to arbitrate personally in this regard; he suggested to the house, having been requested to do so by a resolution of the broadcasting committee of this house, that he would be prepared to offer those good offices providing it was satisfactory to the producers involved and to the corporation itself.
As a result of a purported threatened strike as of ten o'clock last evening the Prime Minister used, as he undertook to the house, his good offices to obtain an individual, one apart from the public service and who would be satisfactory to both parties concerned, to meet with them independent of the government and independent of the office of the Secretary of State in order to ascertain whether they might arrive at a settlement.
I suggest on this point of order, Mr. Speaker, that it is not inappropriate for the committee to proceed as it chooses to do in its motion now before the house, in that the resolution which was presented has been accepted and acted upon by the Prime Minister, who is thus not in any way in breach of the privileges of the house or the committee. The committee is at perfect freedom to proceed now as it chooses, while the individual who is acceptable to both parties goes ahead to try to arrive at a compromise agreement.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the motion, I feel that since the matter before the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts has now been entrusted to a mediator, the committee should no longer deal with the particular matter of "This Hour Has Seven Days".
May 2, 1966

Division
That is why we do not want the committee to sit while the house is sitting and this, all the more so, because a most important supply motion is coming up today, which was not expected two or three days ago. We therefore object to committee sittings for the next two days, during the regular sittings of the house.
[English1


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unfortunately the hon. member for Hochelaga cannot speak now without the unanimous consent of the house, because this is not a substantive motion. Therefore he does not have the right of reply, nor does he have the right to close the debate on the motion. The only thing I can do now is to put the motion to the house.


Mr. Knowles:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Hochelaga did not avail himself of the opportunity to speak when he moved the motion, I wonder if the house would not let him make his speech now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, a brief remark to say that, unlike what was just advanced by the hon. member who spoke before me, it has always been implicit in the proceedings of the committee that it did not seek to settle any particular dispute, namely that submitted to mediation as a result of the good offices of the government, but rather to explore the much larger and much more important situation of which this particular dispute was only symptomatic.
LEnglish1


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Is it the wish of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Caoueiie:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no right to speak about the vote, but I should like to point out that only 150 members out of 265 have voted, which means there are 115 members now absent from the house.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


Hon. Paul Martin (for the Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-174, to provide for the establishment of The Company of Young Canadians.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MARITIME TRANSPORTATION UNIONS TRUSTEES ACT


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Herridge-


Mr. Herridge:: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. Don't put me down on that bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Howard, seconded by Mr. Knowles, moves for leave to introduce Bill No. C-175, to repeal the Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


Paul Joseph James Martin: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the organization of the government of (Mr. Speaker.]
Canada to establish a Department of the Solicitor General, Department of Manpower, Department of the Registrar General, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Department of Energy, Mines and Resources: to establish the office of President of the Treasury Board; to pro-provide for the respective powers, duties and functions of the ministers thereof; to establish the office of President of the Treasury Board; to provide for the appointment of deputy heads of the new departments and for the appointment in the manner authorized by law of other offices and employees; to authorize the transfer of appropriations to the new departments and other departments to which the functions for which such appropriations were made are assigned; to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Salaries Act and generally to make such other consequential or incidental statutory amendments as are necessary to implement the changes to be effected by the said measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. Noble: 1.	Has the government received representations from any provincial government or association or other organized body asking for the calling of a federal-provincial conference for the purpose of working out a national program (a) to ensure that all practical safety devices be required equipment in motor vehicles (b) to ensure that more and better driver education be made available (c) to require more rigid traffic law observance or (d) any other action which would help in reducing the accidents and loss of life on our highways?
2.	If so, has the government taken or does it intend to take any action on such representation?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Prime Minister's office as follows:
1.	Yes. A letter dated August 12, 1965, was received from the premier of Manitoba who urged the calling by the federal government jointly with the provinces of a national conference on highway safety.
2.	The matter is receiving appropriate consideration by the government.


C.P.R. BOX CAR MOVEMENTS
Mr. Douglas: 1.	How many box cars on the Lethbridge division of the Canadian Pacific Railway had been loaded with grain and waybills prepared but had not been moved as of November 26, 1965?
2.	How many box cars on the Lethbridge division of the Canadian Pacific Railway had been loaded with grain and waybills prepared for each of the following periods: November 26 to December 3; December 3 to December 10; December 10 to
May 2, 1966

December 17; December 17 to December 24; December 24 to December 31; December 31 to January 7; January 7 to January 14; January 14 to January 21; and January 21 to January 28?
3.	How many box cars of grain had been moved off the Lethbridge division of the Canadian Pacific Railway between the following dates; November 26 to December 3; December 3 to December 10; December 10 to December 17; December 17 to December 24; December 24 to December 31; December 31 to January 7; January 7 to January 14; January 14 to January 21; and January 21 to January 28?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture, Finance, Trade and Commerce and Transport as follows:
1,	2 and 3. Information not available.


PROPOSED CORRIDOR ROAD THROUGH MAINE
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What organizations in the Atlantic provinces have made representation to the government in connection with the proposed international corridor road across Maine?
2.	Have any departments or officials of the dominion government participated in discussions on this project?
3.	Is the Atlantic Development Board conducting a study of the feasibility of this project or in any way giving assistance to it?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:
1.	La Chambre de Commerce du Haut-Madawaska, the council of the municipality of Madawaska, and the Annapolis Royal Board of Trade.
2.	No.
3.	No.


NAME CHANGES, HUDSON BAY COMMUNITIES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Have any communities on Hudson strait and on the east coast of Hudson bay undergone changes of name since 1962 and, if so (a) what are the new names (b) were the people in such communities consulted as to the changes in name (c) by whom were they consulted (d) who requested the name changes?
2.	Are name changes established by the Canadian permanent committee on geographical names?
3.	Does such committee include non-federal employees appointed by the provinces and, if so, who has been the representative of the province of Quebec on the committee with regard to communities on Hudson strait and on the east coast of Hudson bay since 1962?
4.	Is it the practice to require that adequate information on origin or usage of new names be provided to the said committee and, if so (a) has
Questions
this practice been carried out in regard to communities on Hudson strait and on the east coast of Hudson bay since 1962 (b) who supplied such information to the said committee?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. Yes.
(a)	New name	Previous name
Beilin (Payne Bay)
Maricourt CWakeham)
Port-Nouveau-Quebec
Saglouc
Ivugivik
Koartac
Inoucdjouac
(Port Harrison) East-Main Nouveau-Comptoir Poste-de-la-Baleine
Fort Rupert
Payne Bay Wakeham Bay George River Sugluk Notre-Dame-d'lvugivic Notre-Dame-de-Koartac
Port Harrison Eastmain Paint Hills Great Whale River
Rupert House
(b)	Not by the federal government; (c) see (b); (d) in 1963 and 1964, the Quebec geographic board investigated the toponymy of settlements in New Quebec. Recommendations concerning certain names were received by Quebec from an independent researcher. In January, 1965, the government was informed by the government of Quebec of certain name changes approved by the province. As far as the Canadian permanent committee on geographical names is concerned, these changes originated with the Quebec geographic board.
2.	Name changes are endorsed and recorded by the permanent committee on the recommendation of the provincial or territorial representative and become official when approved by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys or the appropriate provincial minister, according to their respective jurisdiction. Name changes are published in the semiannual supplements to the Gazetteer of Canada. The changes listed in 1 (a) above appeared in supplement No. 5, January to June, 1965.
3.	Yes. The representative for the province of Quebec is the secretary of the Quebec geographic board, Mr. Jean Poirier.
4.	Yes. (a) The permanent committee is aware of the origin of the name changes listed in 1 (a); (b) information obtained from correspondence with Quebec and from published documents.

May 2, 1966
Questions
GROSSE ILE QUARANTINE STATION	'PROSECUTION OF PENCIL MANUFACTURERS


Mr. Berger: 1.	What was the total cost of the quarantine station for animals at Grosse lie, Quebec, including architects' and engineers' fees, materials and labour?
2.	Were Charolais cattle kept this winter at Grosse lie for experiment and, if so (a) how many-head (b) is this the maximum number possible and provided for (c) what is the total value of the said Charolais cattle (d) what was the cost of the quarantine operation with regard to transportation, feeding, salaries, maintenance, etc. (e) how many persons were directly or indirectly employed for this purpose and how were they hired (f) how will the said Charolais cattle be distributed among the breeders who have applied for them, according to province, when the quarantine period is over?
_ 3. Is an increase in activity expected at Grosse lie during the 1966-67 season?
4.	Is it the intention to offer again this year, the summer courses provided for American and Canadian veterinarians during the last few years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Agriculture as follows:
1.	Total cost to date including architect's and engineer's fees, material and labour, $565,804.90.
2.	Charolais cattle were kept at Grosse lie during the past winter as part of a quarantine procedure. These cattle were the property of the importers who selected and purchased them in the country of origin, (a) 113; (b) Yes, of the age and size in this importation;
(c)	Not known as they are the property of the importers; (d) Importers bore the cost of transportation. The total cost of feeding, salaries and maintenance is not yet known and will be borne by the importers; (e) four animal attendants were provided by the importers. In addition, a departmental veterinarian was in charge of the quarantine procedures; (f) By provinces, the cattle will be released, at the termination of the quarantine, to the holders of import permits as follows: British Columbia, 4; Alberta, 50; Saskatchewan, 28; Manitoba, 6; Ontario, 14; Quebec, 11.
3.	No.
4.	This has not yet been decided.


Mr. Orlikow: Did the government charge and prosecute a number of companies that make pencils and, if so (a) what were the names of the companies (b) have the trials of these companies taken place (c) were the companies found guilty and, if so, what were the penalties imposed by the court (d) what were the costs to the government of investigating and transcribing the above cases, exclusive of the salaries of permanent government employees, but including fees paid to lawyers, court reporters, etc., and travelling expenses for officers of the Department of Justice, cost of transcripts, etc.?


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. The answers to the subquestions are as follows: (a) Eagle Pencil Company of Canada Limited; Venus Pencil Company Limited; Dixon Pencil Company Limited; Eberhard Faber (Canada) Limited, (b) Yes; (c) Yes. A total fine of $16,000 was imposed, apportioned as follows: Eagle Pencil Company of Canada Limited, $8,000; Venus Pencil Company Limited, $4,000; Dixon Pencil Company Limited, $2,000; Eberhard Faber (Canada) Limited, $2,000; (d) $14,959.66. A prohibition order was granted against each of the above companies.


ARDA PROJECTS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Have any projects been approved under ARDA In Cumberland county since April 8, 1963, and, if so (a) what are they (b) what was the objective of each (c) what was the cost of each?
2.	Are any projects before the government under ARDA pending approval for Cumberland county and, if so, how many?
3.	Were all of the above projects proposed by the provincial government and, if not, what projects, if any, were initiated by the federal government?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	See following list, (a) Answered by 1. (b) Answered by 1. (c) Answered by 1.
2.	No.
3.	The above projects were initiated by the province and approved by Canada as a joint federal-provincial project.

Projects approved under ARDA in the Cumberland county since April 8, 1963
Project No. Approved	Description	Category	General area of activity	Total Cost	Federal Contribution3056	July 1964	Rehabilitation of the Parrsboro Dam	SVV	Cumberland County	$ 37,500	$ 18,7503067	March 1965	To study the economic feasibility of livestock production related to land use	FR	Northern Nova Scotia	18,000	18,0003071	March 1965	To research a number of production problems encountered by the Nova Scotia blueberry industry	FR	Guysborough and Cumberland Counties	20,000	20,00022014	June 1965	Development of campgrounds and picnic areas in designated low income rural areas	Rural Devel. Areas	Selected Localities	131,000	65,50022016	September 1965	Development of Crown Land for Forest Demonstration Purposes	Rural Devel. Areas	Cumberland County 	153,000	76,500May 2, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	4565
Questions

May 2, 1966
Questions


SUBSIDIES FOR FARM IMPLEMENTS
Mr. Laiulippe: Does the government intend to provide subsidies for farm implements in order to help farmers to mechanize their farms?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Loans may now be secured by farmers for this purpose at favourable interest rates and in Quebec at rates which are subsidized by the provincial government.


CENTENNIAL PROJECTS, GATINEAU CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Isabelle: 1.	Have any projects for the centennial of confederation been submitted from municipalities in the constituency of Gatineau and, if so (a) what are they (b) how many have been accepted (c) where are they located (d) what is the estimated cost of each?
2.	Will the centennial caravan visit the constituency of Gatineau by railway or motor trailer?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	The following project for the centennial of confederation has been submitted to the Centennial Commission by a municipality in the constituency of Gatineau: (a) Project: Cultural Centre; (b) One has been presented and it has been accepted; (c) Location: Maniwaki;
(d)	Estimated cost: $100,000.
2.	The confederation motor caravan will visit Wakefield on October 15 and Maniwaki for two days on October 17 and 18, 1967.


INDIAN AFFAIRS BRANCH TEACHERS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many teachers are employed by the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
2.	What are the minimum academic qualifications required for teachers hired by the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources?
3.	How many teachers working for the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources have more than the minimum academic qualifications required and how many have (a) a bachelor of arts degree (b) a bachelor of science degree (c) a bachelor of education degree?
4.	What is the salary range for teachers working for the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, minimum, maximum, yearly increments, etc?
5.	Of the teachers working for the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, how many have worked more than two years; four years; six years; eight years; ten years?
6.	Is the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources giving consideration to the payment of a bonus or an allowance similar to the $1,000 bonus now being paid by the Ontario Department of Education to teachers in isolated northern schools?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. During
the 1965-66 academic year there are 1,489 teachers employed.
2.	The minimum desired qualifications are senior matriculation and one year of professional teacher education. However, the national shortage of professionally qualified teachers necessitates employment of a number of applicants with less than the desired qualifications.
3.	Five hundred and seventy four teachers have more than senior matriculation and one year of teacher education. A total of 266 hold one or more university degrees at bachelor, master, and doctorate levels. Of that number (a) 115 have a bachelor of arts degree, (b) 23 have a bachelor of science degree, (c) 93 have a bachelor of education or pedagogy degree, and the remaining 35 have degrees in other fields or postgraduate degrees in arts, science, education, music and philosophy.
4.	There is a salary schedule in effect for teachers and the following is a summary of the minimum and maximum basic salary ranges and yearly increments for the various levels of qualifications:
Level	Qualifications	Minimum salary	Maximum salary	Number of incrementsTeacher aide or unqualified teacher	No professional teacher training	$2700	$3900	6Sub-level	Jr. matriculation and one year of teacher education	$3200	$4400	6May 2, 1966	COMMONS	DEBATES	Questions	4567Minimum	Maximum	Number ofLevel	Qualifications	salary	salary	incrementsLevel 1	Sr. matriculation and one year of teacher education	$3700	$5700	10Level 2	Sr. matriculation and two years of teacher education	$4000	$6250	10Level 3	Sr. matriculation and three years of teacher education	$4400	$6875	11Level 4	Sr. matriculation and four years of teacher education	$5400	$8650	13Level 5	Sr. matriculation and five years of teacher education	$5800	$9300	14Level 6	Sr. matriculation and six years of teacher education	$6200	$9700	145.	152 have worked more than two years; 157 have worked more than four years; 142 have worked more than six years; 141 have worked more than eight years, and 631 have worked more than ten years.6.	In accordance with the isolated posts regulations, isolation allowances are paid to 462 teachers employed at 154 locations which have been designated as isolated posts.


TORONTO-SALES TAX EXEMPTION ON SENIOR CITIZENS HOME
Mr. Scott (Danforth): Has the Department of National Revenue received a request dated March 28, 1966, from Beaches Gardens Limited, Toronto 8, Ontario, requesting exemption from the federal sales tax for the construction costs of a limited-dividend senior citizens home in the east end of Toronto and, if so (a) has the government made any decision or made any responses to this request (b) what were these responses?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes. (a) Yes, a reply was made under date of April 20, 1966; (b) Section 47 of the Excise Tax Act provides exemption from sales tax by way of refund on purchases by public institutions which have been certified by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the reply given to Beaches Gardens Limited under date of April 20th,	1966, attention was drawn to this
provision of the law and in particular to the necessity of their establishing qualification as a bona fide public institution as a prerequisite to claiming refund of sales tax.


ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC RECORDS
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	Has an advisory committee on public records been appointed?
2.	If so (a) when (b) by what authority (c) who are its members (d) by whom was each member designated (e) what are its powers and instructions (f) does it replace any previous committee or body and, if so wherein does it differ from the predecessor committee or body?
3.	Has any plan been formulated for the preparation of a complete schedule of departmental records?
4.	If so, what is the nature of the plan and as of what date will it be fully operative?
5.	Has any rule or policy been established as to the date after their creation at which departmental records will normally be open for inspection?
6.	If so, what is the rule or policy and to what exceptions, if any, is it subject?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the dominion archivist and national librarian as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Answered in 1.
3.	General records disposal schedules, covering types of records common to many departments and agencies of the government were prepared by the records management branch of the Public Archives and approved by the treasury board in 1963. Most departments are now preparing disposal schedules covering records relating to their own special and individual activities. Many of these have already been approved and are being carried into effect.

May 2, 1966
Questions
4.	Answered in no. 3.	5. The studies are in preparation for a5.	No.	federal-provincial meeting of officials, to be6.	Answered in no. 5.	held late in June, which will discuss problems in financial disclosure and securities regulation.


CANADIAN ART AT SAO PAULO BIENNIAL
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Did the government arrange Canadian representation at the VUIth biennial of Sao Paulo by an exhibition of Canadian art?
2.	If so, by whom was the exhibition chosen?
3.	What Canadian artists were represented?
4.	What was the total cost of the representation and exhibition at this biennial?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	Yes.
2.	The National Gallery of Canada.
3.	Jacques Hurtubise, Roy Kiyooka, Claude Tousignant and Gerald Trottier.
4.	$5,489.24.


STUDY OF SECURITIES TRANSACTION REGULATION
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has the government undertaken recently study of the regulation of securities transactions and financial disclosures by corporations?
2.	If so, by whom is the study been carried on?
3.	Has any counsel been retained to assist in the study?
4.	If so, who, and upon what terms and conditions?
5.	What is the purpose or objective of the study?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: 1. Yes, a number of studies are now under way.
2.	The studies are being carried on by a group of officials from the Department of Finance, the Bank of Canada, the combines branch, the corporations branch and the R.C.M.P. The studies are being co-ordinated by the Privy Council office.
3.	Yes, Marc Lalonde, a Montreal lawyer.
4.	Mr. Lalonde has been retained as a consultant, for a period of six months, by the Privy Council office to advise and assist on the studies underway with respect to financial disclosure and securities regulations, and to preside over the group of officials referred to in paragraph 2. Mr. Lalonde's terms of reference also provide that he would undertake such other matters as may be assigned to him by the Prime Minister or the clerk of the Privy Council.


FISHERIES CONTRACT FOR POLES, P.E.I.-N.S.
Mr. Coaies: Has the Department of Fisheries or any agency of the government entered into a contract with anyone for the purchase of poles for use by the department in designating the imaginary line between Crapaud, P.E.I., and Bergman's Point, N.S., for lobster fishing purposes and, if so, what are the names of the individuals in question and what is the amount of the contract?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: The Department of Fisheries purchased 20 poles from Richard Cameron of Port Howe, N.S., at a cost of $30.


MANPOWER OFFICE IN MARITIMES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has the government decided on the location of a manpower office to serve the maritimes?
2.	If so, what site was choseh?
3.	If not, will the decision be made and, if so, when?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Yes.
2.	The department will have at Halifax, N.S. a regional headquarters at which will be located the regional director of immigration and the director of the manpower service for the Atlantic region, with appropriate specialist staffs. The manpower service will also have a regional office at Moncton, N.B., in charge of the director of operations for the region, which will be responsible for the supervision of area offices throughout the region.
3.	N/A.


BIRTH RATE
Mr. Smith: By provinces, what has been the birth rate in Canada for each of the last six years ending December 31, 1965, expressed in absolute terms and in terms of percentage per thousand population?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: (Miss LaMarsh.]
Year
1960
1962
1964
1960
1962
1964
* 1965
Live Births, Canada and Provinces, 1959-1964*
Canada	Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.
					Number					
479,275	14,826	2,720	19,038	16,486	142,383	157,124	22,801	24,319	38,080	39,971478,551	15,173	2,734	19,126	16,341	137,850	159,245	23,237	24,088	39,009	40,116475,700	15,591	2,838	19,382	16,590	137,174	157,663	23,288	23,994	38,914	38,591469,693	15,064	2,805	19,432	16,467	135,000	156,053	22,918	23,341	38,804	38,128465,767	15,443	2,949	18,976	15,771	133,640	155,089	22,751	23,543	38,467	37,478452,915	14,680	2,727	18,314	15,338	130,845	152,729	21,754	22,682	36,169	35,897Rate per	1,000 population,	1959-1964*	27.4	33.6	26.9	26.5	28.3	28.3	26.3	25.6	26.8	30.5	25.526.8	33.9	26.5	26.3	27.7	26.8	26.1	25.6	26.3	30.2	25.026.1	34.1	27.1	26.3	27.7	26.1	25.3	25.3	25.9	29.2	23.725.3	32.1	26.5	26.0	27.1	25.2	24.6	24.5	25.1	28.3	23.024.6	32.1	27.6	25.1	25.7	24.4	24.1	23.9	25.2	27.4	22.123.5	29.9	25.5	24.1	24.9	23.5	23.2	22.7	24.1	25.3	20.7
data are not yet available.

May 2, 1366
Questions


UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS-INVESTIGATION BY MINES DEPARTMENT
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	Has the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys ever undertaken an investigation of reports of unidentified flying objects and, if so, are such investigations continuing at this time?
2.	Have results of such investigations been made public and, if not, is consideration being given to making them public in future?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The geological survey of Canada and the observatories branch, both of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, investigate reports of sightings commonly called unidentified flying objects. These reports refer to a wide variety of phenomena and many of these are reports of spectacular meteors entering the atmosphere, for example, the one at 8:14 pm. EDT on April 25, 1966. These may lead to the recovery of meteorites which are of great scientific interest to scientists of the department.
2. There is no attempt to restrict the results of such investigations and officers of the department frequently comment to the various news media on this subject.


LANGUAGE OF EMIGRANTS TO U.S.
Mr. Harley: In the past five years, what percentage of Canadian emigrants to the United States have English as their mother tongue and what percentage have French as their mother tongue?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This information is not available.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Ballard: L What was the total amount of contributions paid into the unemployment insurance commission fund by both employees and employers for the calendar years 1964 and 1965?
2.	What was the cost of administering the unemployment insurance commission (Including the national employment service) for the year ended March 31, 1965?
3.	What was the number of employees of the U.I.C., both permanent and casual, for the year ended March 31, 1965?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: I am informed by the U.I.C. as follows:
1.	1964, $304,895,000.53;	1965, $324,083,-
850.94.
2.	$54,253,989.57.
3.	10,340.

[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State, and is based on a world copyright story in the Telegram today reporting that a 17 year old girl had alleged to the Telegram that while under the influence of a pill she was photographed in bed with two youths by the roving camera of a crew of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's "This Hour Has Seven Days" program, the incident apparently being laid on for the purpose of simulating a teen age marijuana party. Under whose authority was such a filming set up in the C.B.C.? Is the C.B.C. investigating the circumstances of this case, and is an investigation being made in respect of the extent to which the C.B.C. is permitted to go in its so-called artistic licence?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I learned of this matter just before coming into the house. I am informed that the C.B.C. is looking into the matter. I have a memorandum from the executive producer indicating, in his words, that the story is grossly inaccurate and in its essentials untrue. I would hope it is only a smear story and that the particulars are not accurate. However, I ask hon. members to give me a day or so to ascertain the facts, at which time I shall be happy to give them to the house.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. When the minister is making her inquiry will she also obtain for the members of the house information as to whether this was the real reason for the firing of the hosts of the "This Hour Has Seven Days" program? Would she also inform us whether the Department of Justice is investigating the circumstances, and whether any charges have been laid or whether it is the intention that any will be laid?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard any reference to this matter before from any source. Therefore I cannot suggest to hon. members, nor has there been such a suggestion in the C.B.C., that any reference to the set of circumstances as alleged had anything to do with the announcement made by the C.B.C. management about two weeks ago.
May 2, 1966

In answer to my hon. friend's question in respect of the Department of Justice being consulted, I may say this is a speculative question which would depend upon the result of my investigation into the alleged circumstances.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. Since the allegations contained in the article may have a bearing on narcotics, does the minister not think it would be a wise course to consult the officials of the Department of Justice immediately?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's further supplementary question appears to be argumentative.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question. Would the minister inform the house whether the Department of Justice or the R.C.M.P. have been asked to investigate the possible use of narcotics in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question seems to be hypothetical. This is the reply that was given by the hon. minister a moment ago, and I am inclined to agree with the attitude she has taken with regard to the third part of the question raised by the hon. member, that the course of action he is suggesting now would depend on the answers which would be obtained to questions 1 and 2.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps my question was not clear to Your Honour. What I am asking the minister is-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: -whether the R.C.M.P. or the Department of Justice have been requested to investigate the possible use of narcotics in this case. My question is seeking information.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the Chair can accept that question.


APPOINTMENT OF MEDIATOR IN DISPUTE BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State, in the absence of the Prime Minister, arising out of the appointment of the publisher of the Vancouver Sun as mediator in the dispute between C.B.C. management and "Seven Days". Would the hon. lady inform the house whether before Mr. Keate was appointed account was taken of the fact that the Vancouver Sun supported 23033-290
Inquiries of the Ministry the C.B.C. management editorially in the dispute; and if so, what assurance was received that Mr. Keate is in a position to deal with the dispute in an impartial and objective way?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether acccount was taken of the editorial position taken by the Vancouver Sun, but I happen to know that Mr. Keate was out of the country for the past two weeks and had no part in any editorial position taken in this regard.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. lady a question in connection with this matter. In the appointment of the mediator by the Prime Minister was it made clear, with regard to the statement of the president of the C.B.C. that there could be no reinstatement for the two promoters-if that is the proper expression for Mr. Watson and Mr. LaPierre-whether the mediation was to be on the basis of their removal regardless of any other condition?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have not seen reduced to writing the terms which were agreed upon between the producers and the C.B.C., although I had them read to me. But it is my impression that the terms under which Mr. Keate is empowered to discuss this question with both sides are broader than that immediate issue.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not an answer to my question. I am trying to find out whether it was made perfectly clear that the adamant attitude taken by the president of the C.B.C. would be alleviated to the extent that a determination by Mr. Keate would include the question whether or not these two people should be removed as promoters or producers of "This Hour Has Seven Days".


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the right hon. gentleman, he is asking whether Mr. Keate might consider the reinstatement of these people, whether this is part of his purview. It is my understanding that Mr. Keate's responsibility is wide enough to include that question should he actually so decide.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the hon. lady whether Mr. Keate was requested by the government that whatever else he may consider, he will go into the question of the
4572	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry justification of the removal of the two gentlemen mentioned as hosts of the program "Seven Days".


John George Diefenbaker: I used the wrong expression when I said "promoters".


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is my understanding that in the drawing up of the phraseology of the instructions it was left sufficiently fluid that Mr. Keate would be able to look into all the circumstances of the controversy that obtains at the present time in the narrow sense of the program in question, and in the wider sense of the lower part of the iceberg.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question, and I hope the hon. lady can assure us that Mr. Keate is not being inhibited in his investigation by any ex cathedra statements by the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: He is one of the most uninhibited people I know.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I wanted to ask the Secretary of State. Having in mind the current C.B.C. troubles, I wanted to ask the hon. lady if she will do what she can to expedite the tabling of the government white paper on broadcasting, so that we do not become too involved in patching up something which may be facing a basic change.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the most precarious position in which the credit restrictions imposed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation leave the residential builders of the Hull area, is the government or the Minister of Finance contemplating a change in this policy which is harmful to the development of the Hull area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question the hon. member is asking is of a general nature. I do not believe it is acceptable.

DEBATES	May 2. 1966


David Réal Caouette: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but my question pertains to a specific area, namely the Hull area. Has the minister received complaints from the builders association on the credit restriction policy laid down by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is, on the whole, the same as was asked before and I do not think he is adding anything to the question to which reply was made by one of the ministers.


David Réal Caouette: On a point or order. I shall change the nature of my question.
I ask the minister whether he is currently considering the possibility of giving the municipalities of the Hull area and other areas the same credit facilities as those the government is getting ready to grant to countries outside Canada by lending them money without interest.
[English1


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SHORTAGE OF MORTGAGE MONEY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, all of us know that the number of telegrams we are receiving in connection with C.M.H.C. lending has been increasing. Indeed, one telegram after another speaks of the shambles in connection with house building, and this delay has added to it. Is the minister now in a position to give the answer which the Prime Minister said would be given, as I recall, last Friday? That was the original statement. What is the position the government intends to take in this matter?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, reference to Hansard will show that when this matter was last raised in the house the Prime Minister stated that the government's position would be made known tomorrow, Tuesday. It will be made known on motions tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and refers to a statement made by the President of the United
May 2, 1966	COMMONS
States on Friday when he brought down his new "Food for Freedom" campaign.


Mr. Starr:: Order.


Robert Norman Thompson: At that time the President said this was a program of American farmers combined with the efforts of other foreign farmers. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture could tell us whether there has been any consultation with his department regarding this program or whether any commitments have been made to it by the Canadian government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The way this question is phrased it seems to be so general in nature that it does not appear to be urgent enough to justify either a question or an answer at this time.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have heard your decision with respect to the question, but this is a matter of the head of state of another country speaking in regard to what Canada is going to do in respect of this program.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be wrong in this regard but as the hon. member knows he has an opportunity to discuss the matter on the adjournment debate if he does not agree with my decision.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister advise the house when he expects to introduce legislation dealing with transportation matters and based on the ideas expressed in the speech he made in Winnipeg last Wednesday?
Hon. J. W. Pickers gill (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I think I would not be candid with the hon. member or the house if I suggested it was very likely that the legislation could be introduced before the end of June. There are the deliberations of the committee on transportation at the present time and certain other developments going on which I believe the government should prudently take into account before introducing legislation.
DEBATES	4573
Inquiries of the Ministry
As I said in Winnipeg, I would welcome the views of anyone, and particularly of a former minister of transport, on some of the questions which I raised in that speech.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Defence Production. I should like to ask him whether the government is now in a position to announce to the house whether it will continue its assistance to the high altitude research project carried on by McGill University at Highwater, in the Barbados.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this question should be placed on the order paper.



OTTAWA-REPORTED REFUSAL OF PERMISSION TO USE WHITE ENSIGN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask the minister whether he refused permission to the Ottawa-Hull Naval Association to use the naval white ensign in yesterday's commemoration service.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I did not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did not hear the reply made by the minister, but I assume what he said prevents my saying that the question is out of order.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. CFCN Television Limited of Calgary, Alta, has asked the Department of Transport for authority to establish a television broadcasting station at Claresholm, Alberta, and the authorization is held up by the Board of Broadcast Governors pending clarification by the Department of Transport of public policy for the extension of alternative television service.

May 2. 1566
Inquiries of the Ministry
My question is, can the minister indicate when we can expect this policy decision which is under study by his department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this question might well be placed on the order paper.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, may I phrase the question in another way?


Mr. Speaker:: Well I hope the hon. member rephrases the second part of the question in a different way, and not the first part.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, would the minister appreciate it if I were kind and gave him one more chance before ringing it up for the late show, in view of the fact that he is going to a dinner tonight and he might have to appear here in tails and white tie?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, can I answer now? My answer is that this is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course, and I hope soon.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General may I direct a question of most urgent importance to the Acting Solicitor General. In view of the oflicial opening on Friday of this week of the Matsqui institution for narcotic addicts sentenced to penitentiary terms, and the expressed desire conveyed to the Solicitor General of all but one of the addicts in the women's prison at Kingston not to be transferred to Matsqui institution, can the Acting Solicitor General now fulfil the promise given to me by the Solicitor General that I would receive an answer on government policy on this most important matter early this week?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I can promise to refer the question immediately to the Solicitor General.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand the Solicitor General is in England.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council who attended the meeting between the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the R.C.M.P. commissioner at the end of November 1964?
Can the President of the Privy Council tell us if, in addition to the Munsinger file, the R.C.M.P. commissioner handed him or the Prime Minister other files concerning other events, similar or almost similar, to the Munsinger case over the last ten years?


Mr. Speaker:: That question is out of order because it deals directly with an inquiry now under way.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, my question is in no way connected with the royal commission now sitting. I am just asking if, at a given moment, Commissioner McLelland gave the Prime Minister other similar files concerning hon. members over the last ten years. That has nothing to do with the royal commission on the Munsinger case.


Mr. Speaker:: Even if I accept the hon. member's suggestion that his question bears no relation to the inquiry I referred to, he must admit just the same that his question is not so urgent that it can be asked at this time.
Moreover, that question deals with something that has already happened and, under the circumstances, I feel that it is unacceptable.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite understand the reference you made a moment ago, but if I comprehend correctly you indicated that any matter which came before the royal commission could not be discussed here in the house. I want to make it very clear that we cannot accept such a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: No, this is not what I intended to say and I hope it is not what I said. I had the impression that the hon. member was asking a question which dealt directly with evidence, and in its limited context it was my opinion that the specific question could not be answered.
May 2, 1966


Gilles Grégoire: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, my question had no direct relation to the Munsinger case-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I accept the hon. member's explanation but his question, as put, is not urgent enough to be considered at this time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I will put my question in another way so that it will be urgent enough to be considered at this time.
Can the President of the Privy Council tell us if other similar files were handed to him or the Prime Minister and if they will be made public shortly?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is not any more urgent now than it was when asked the first time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I discuss the matter on the ten o'clock show?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the Tariff Board. I have given the hon. gentleman notice of this question. In view of the fact that the voluntary economic planning board of Nova Scotia now warns that the infant automobile industry in Nova Scotia may fail unless an extension of tariff arrangements is made, would the minister lend his good offices to help this industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question cannot be accepted. The hon. member may wish to place it on the order paper.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria (Onl.)):: My question is to the minister of manpower, and relates to a question I asked of the Minister of Industry last Friday. Will the minister advise the house if his department is looking into the lay-off of approximately 225 employees of Lake Simcoe Industries Limited, at
Inquiries of the Ministry Beaverton, Ontario, and assure the house that all employees affected by this lay-off will be given all possible assistance in finding new jobs, if possible in the area in which this plant is located?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I will take the question as notice, but the hon. member can be sure that if this lay-off is taking place now, we will make all our services available to this group of men.


David Lewis: May I
address a supplementary question to either the minister of manpower or the Minister of Industry. Has either minister received a request from certain of the employees to purchase the particular business which is being closed down? Has the government considered giving them a loan to assist them in that purpose?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: No
such proposal has come to my attention. I do not know whether it has come to the attention of my colleague the minister of manpower.



MANITOBA-REQUEST FOR DECLARATION AS DESIGNATED AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry. I should like to ask the minister if he has received a resolution passed virtually unanimously in the Manitoba legislature last week calling on the federal government to declare the entire province of Manitoba a designated area under the designated area program of his department? If he has, how has he considered this request?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: can understand the desire of the legislature of Manitoba to be brought under the umbrella of this really quite successful program, but I have not received any such resolution.
If and when it is received it will be replied to, but it will have to be pointed out to the sender that this program calls for designation of areas suffering from high chronic unemployment. It is difficult to find that metropolitan Winnipeg, for instance, is suffering currently, I am glad to say, from high chronic unemployment
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



MAINLAND CHINA-POSSIBILITY OF RECOGNITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is based on an address given by the Minister of Veterans Affairs on behalf of the Prime Minister to the council of world veterans federations in Toronto yesterday. I may say the minister did himself proud. His address was well received and he delivered it very well. I am quoting from the remarks of the minister:
For the UN to secure a valid mandate to intervene with effect anywhere in the world, its membership should include states everywhere in the world.
My question is, will the minister inform the house, in view of past government policy, what the government is undertaking at this time to promote the recognition of mainland China and its admission to the United Nations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question seems to be of a very general nature. I suggest to the hon. member it cannot be asked in this form at this time.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and is based on reports aoncerning the limited enrolment taking place in OMSIP, the Ontario medical services insurance plan. Are discussions taking place between the federal government and the Ontario government concerning the possibility of integrating OMSIP and the federal government's medicare program?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Following the federalprovincial conference held early in the year there was an exchange of correspondence between me and the minister of health for Ontario with respect to further elaboration of the federal proposals. Since that correspondence there have been no further discussions at the ministerial level. I will investigate whether discussions have taken place between my officials and the officials of the health department of Ontario.

May 2, 1966



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: My question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. His colleague the Minister of Forestry was reported as having said in Winnipeg last week that the government was working hard to produce a white paper on national agriculture policy. Can the minister say whether a white paper on agriculture policy will be tabled in the next 60 days or so?


John James Greene: I make no commitments that have any 60 day connotation in them.


Mr. Ricard:: Are you speaking from experience?


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are the minister and his colleagues in fact working on a white paper on national agriculture policy?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe that question, in the way it is put, is acceptable. The hon. member may either put it on the order paper or discuss it on the adjournment debate.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mitchell William Sharp: that the house go into committee of supply.



MORALITY IN GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT -NEED FOR REFORM

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, the institution of parliament is on trial and we who are its present members, I submit, are in danger of being accused of standing by while what some think of as its splendid purposes are destroyed by those whose conception of its role is narrow and mean. Bruce Hutchison in the Ottawa Journal for April 30 last wrote in another context, but the application of his words is relevant:
. . . the largest question in the western world remains unanswered. It is whether, against the proliferating state, the individual can survive; whether the collective roof will fall in, under its own weight, and crush the private human beings who built it. Some day, perhaps, our politicians will get around to thinking about these matters but at the moment they are otherwise engaged in their jolly sham battle fought with spitballs and mud.

May 2, 1966

We have serious problems and those problems demand our combined intelligence and our combined ingenuity. Surely those who have an interest in the continuity of this place feel that there are large problems which we should be considering. One of those that I look upon as being very real is how to improve the control that parliament should, if it is to fulfil its prime mission, be able to exercise over the general administration. This is a difficult concept to discuss, but it is discussed in a most interesting way in a book entitled "Modern Capitalism," by Andrew Shonfield. Obviously our parliament is not unique in its search for a formula which would enable it to adapt itself to the modern world. In the United Kingdom, France, Sweden and in the United States the search for better methods continues.
We representatives, I suggest, must reequip ourselves and our system so we can talk on equal terms with the great body of administrators who intervene increasingly in our daily lives. Let it be clearly understood here that I am not launching a discussion on the public service as an institution, because I believe Canada is tremendously well served by our public service. The concept I have in mind is much broader than this. As Shonfield says:
-the central question is how far an active government wielding great and varied economic power, intervening in the detailed conduct of private business affairs, discriminating between one citizen and another on the basis of subtle and complex judgments of the community's needs ten or twenty years ahead, driving bargains with particular interest groups as administrative conveni-ience dictates, can be subjected to effective democratic control?
These are things on which we should be spending our time. As Shonfield says:
-a nation which is unable to establish effective democratic control over the processes of modern government faces one of two alternatives. Either it must accept that the liberties of its citizens will be diminished or it must forego the great material benefits which can be made to flow from the operation of the active interventionist state of today.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
What more acceptable challenge could be imagined for the parliament of 1966 than devising a formula which would recognize our traditional anxiety about the individual citizen and his liberty and our concern that parliament remain an effective and relevant instrument for the conduct of public business? How do we make sure that the member of parliament plays a meaningful role in the business of government? How too do we
Morality in Government ensure the protection of the individual citizen against the arbitrary exercise of an ever more extensive public power? The ombudsman of Scandinavia, the Conseil d'fitat of France, the Swedish principle of the goldfish bowl, are all ways in which various other countries have begun to try to solve this fundamental question.
But, Mr. Speaker, rather than deal with these affairs, we seem to be dealing in this country with quite a different issue. We ignore the fundamental problem, to our peril I suggest. Because we do, many thoughtful Canadians have been deeply troubled, in fact they have become alarmed, at the low estate to which government and parliament have fallen of late. There is no need here to catalogue a list of the smirches on the escutcheon of parliament, but let us examine the events surrounding the evidence given at the so-called Spence inquiry by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who disclosed that late in November 1964, within days of charges having been made in this chamber by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the Prime Minister asked the commissioner whether there were any files involving members of parliament in wrongdoing.
The fact that the Prime Minister asked the commissioner whether there were any files involving any member of parliament of any party in matters of a scandalous nature over the past ten years is evidence-evidence which has been published abroad, and quite properly-which shows how proper was the concern of many people in this country that this inquiry should be a public inquiry. There really need not have been any other single piece of evidence to prove this essential point. The commissioner told the Prime Minister about the Munsinger file and a summary of it was provided. That summary was kept in cold storage, if that can be possible in this context, by the Prime Minister until the commissioner last month asked that it be sent back.
What a sinister abuse of the rules of law. What a tragic and dangerous misuse of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. What a cynical attitude to the constitutional role of a member of parliament and his obligation to exercise independence in debate, unfettered by any threat or improper pressure.
I shall make no attempt to try to anticipate the outcome of this inquiry because that would be improper. I shall not comment upon the manner in which it is being conducted
Mar 2. 1966

Morality in Government except to say, as has been said in other places, that the terms of reference are cleverly designed as a government fishnet which, when carefully used, could gather in a very bitter harvest of wrecked careers of people in public life.
The evidence of Commissioner McClellan is now being subjected to a most interesting process of interpretation by unnamed spokesmen for the government. This is what brings the matter into the public domain and is why I feel it is quite proper to discuss it in this parliament. These unnamed spokesmen for the government and even, we learn, the members of the national executive of the Liberal party, have been asked for their opinions about the grave implication of the commissioner's disclosures in what is termed a question and answer session with the Prime Minister.
We know all about the open telephone line that is the new device of radio. It must have been a very open telephone line to 24 Sussex Drive this week end. The commissioner was not restricted in his instruction from the Prime Minister. As George Bain put it in today's Globe and Mail:
This was not to confine the commissioner to any evidence he might have about an offence or possible offence under any law; it was a straight request for any scandal or gossip that the R.C.M.F. might have acquired.
The file was delivered to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, in November, 1964. Why, if matters of national security were at stake, did the government not use it until April, 1966? The security which to me is now of transcendent importance is the security of our very parliamentary system of government. Can anyone possibly believe that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should in effect be used by government as a political force? To quote Mr. George Bain again:
If the R.C.M.P. can be called upon by any government for "information indicating any impropriety or anything of a scandalous nature" about members of parliament, who is to say that it cannot similarly be called upon for scandal about others? That was not wrongdoing under the law that the commissioner described in those words; that was the stuff of smear.
None of us can stand aside from this issue, Mr. Speaker. None of us can hide under any interpretation-


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order at this stage. The hon. member is seeking to deal with a portion of the evidence which is now in the course of being given before a royal commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Now given.


George James McIlraith: Now in the course of being given before a royal commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Now having been given.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like the courtesy from the Leader of the Opposition, because of the nature of the subject matter, of being allowed to make my point of order. Whether or not it is well founded is a matter for decision in due course.


John George Diefenbaker: But your wording was incorrect.


George James McIlraith: I should like to make it with the usual rules of the house being applicable, namely, that I not be rudely interrupted by the right hon. gentleman from his seat in this house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I did not rudely interrupt; I just corrected a statement that was incorrect.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there is a procedure for correcting statements in this house which any hon. member thinks are incorrect. I should like the Leader of the Opposition, who I think has received courtesy from me in the past, to avail himself of the rules of the house and I ask him to observe them as the rest of us are expected to.
My point of order, at least as I see it, is deserving of the attention of this house. Very simply, it is this. A royal commission is sitting on this matter. Evidence is being given before it. The hon. member who now has the floor on this supply motion has been discussing-I take it he has been quoting from the record though personally I have not yet seen the record-a portion of the evidence which has been given before the royal commission.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is to be done with any matter which is before a royal commission or before a court, it must be patent to everybody that those bodies would not be able to carry on, because by the very nature of things evidence may not be completed at one sitting of a court or royal commission, and until it is complete, conclusions should not be drawn. The evidence comes out piece by piece, question by question, witness by witness. What I presume the hon. member is now seeking to do is to discuss one question and one answer that have come out in evidence on one day before the royal commission.
May 2, 1966

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I respectfully submit that the rule is that when a matter is before a royal commission or a court it is not proper for the house to discuss it during the currency of the taking of the evidence.


Mr. Churchill:: Is it all right for newspapers to do that?


George James McIlraith: It may be very proper at the appropriate stage when the proceedings are concluded to raise such matter. But that stage is not now. That is my point. I therefore ask that the hon. member's remarks be ruled out of order.


Mr. Fairwealher:: What I have been trying to discuss is a much larger question. I am sorry I have not been able to put it into the kind of words to suggest my feelings about the matter. What I refer to is of far broader implication than the subject to which the house leader refers. I am discussing, if I need to clarify it for him, what is really the question of morality in government or morality, if you like, in parliament. I have used as an example a question and an answer.
I am perfectly aware how these commissions are conducted. I commented on the fact that unless I discussed the subject in very broad terms I might be out of order. Furthermore, this very question and answer have been subjected to interpretation by as yet unnamed people. If this type of thing is subjected to interpretation outside parliament, surely we should be privy to it here. Unless there are serious objections I am going to continue with my speech.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Greenwood on the point of order.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word, if I may, on the point of order. I should like to try to make the point that the claim that a matter is sub judice, or has been in some way taken beyond the right of this house to discuss merely because it happens to be mentioned in the proceedings of a royal commission, is a claim that is without precedent and without foundation.


Erik Nielsen: They know that.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Furthermore, such a claim could seriously damage the rights and privileges of this house.


Erik Nielsen: They know that too.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A royal commission is appointed to inquire into many broad matters.
Morality in Government It is not a court. Let us make that clear. Let us also make clear that when a matter before a court is properly under consideration by the court it would be contempt of that court for this body or any other to discuss matters before that judicial tribunal.
However, a commission of inquiry is not a judicial tribunal even though it be presided over by the most distinguished judge in the country. It would be a strange thing, Mr. Speaker, if the rights and privileges of this house, having been brought in issue by something which incidentally happened to be revealed in the proceedings of a royal commission, were, during the months or perhaps years that some of these royal commissions sit to be withdrawn in such a way that the house would not have the right to discuss them.
I took down the words used by the house leader. He said that the rule is that a matter which is before a royal commission or the courts is not to be discussed in this house. I challenge him to produce authority to equate a royal commission with the courts of th* land.


An hon. Member:: They are different.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not think that can be done. But, Mr. Speaker, I point out that what is before the royal commission are the terms of inquiry and the terms of inquiry do not cover the question being discussed by the hon. member for Royal. Nothing that the royal commissioner may say in respect of this statement which happens to have been made in evidence given by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or, indeed, nothing that is said before that commission affects the rights and privileges of members of this house. It is not something that has been referred to the royal commissioner. Indeed, I would think it strange if he saw fit to comment on it. What has been included in the very narrow terms of reference of that commission are certain matters which are well known to this house. I do not need to enlarge on them.
I point out to you, sir, that the matter before the royal commission does not include something which arose incidentally out of the evidence before the royal commission and which was to the effect that a member of this house, the Right Hon. Prime Minister, had made an inquiry from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not affecting the Munsinger inquiry directly at all in any way but affecting the reputation of every member of the house. That inquiry related to the conduct,
May 2, 1966

Morality in Government supposedly scandalous, and possible wrongdoing of every member of the house at that particular time.
I suggest to you, sir, that this matter is not before the royal commission in any way, shape or form. I suggest that to use this incantation of sub judice as the reason why this house should not discuss the very important matters raised by the hon. member for Royal would be to deprive this house of the opportunity to vindicate its own privileges and rights. I therefore hope that you, sir, will rule, in accordance with my submission, that the hon. member for Royal should proceed to discuss this matter now according to the rules of this house.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order-


An hon. Member:: Are you an authority?


Erik Nielsen: I hear an interjection by a backbencher referring to me as an authority. He should know. He is sitting with his Hansard before him.


Mr. Lind:: I resent that because I have not said a word. Withdraw.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: There was no need to identify yourself.


Erik Nielsen: Contrary to what the Minister of Public Works has said, the evidence which has been given before the inquiry is being discussed. Where are we in this house if that evidence can be discussed by the communication media across this land, by every newspaper in the country, by every television station, every radio station while at the same time we are prohibited, according to the submission of the Minister of Public Works, from discussing it in this house where the privilege surely resides?
The precedent was set during the proceedings of the Dorion inquiry. I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs looked at this matter very carefully at the time. The evidence before that inquiry was discussed in this house before that inquiry made its findings. Indeed, the subject matter arose as a result of the Prime Minister's sending a memorandum and thereby smuggling evidence before that commission that he did not appear to give personally. On the basis of that action the precedent has been set by this house.
I took from the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood the argument that Your Honour ought to find that it should, in effect,

be prohibitory to discuss in this house matters which may fall within the terms of reference passed by the house. I think that also is unduly restrictive of the privileges of debate and of privileges generally in this house.
Parliament from start to finish is seized of those terms of reference. At any time they can be altered by parliament. The terms of reference have to come before parliament to be so altered.


Michael Starr: They were not approved by parliament.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry; I ought to have said "by the executive". It would be very strange if, once an order in council has been passed setting up a commission, the executive or parliament could not at any time enlarge, restrict or alter the terms of reference.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I submit that the authorities are clear. There is nothing sub judice about discussing any matter before the royal commission. I say that not because of the compelling reasons given by the hon. member for Greenwood but by virtue of the fact that parliament is supreme in this field. It is always seized of the right to discuss matters such as the one before Your Honour now. In my submission it would be an abdication of the rights of parliament if the right to discuss such matters were to be taken away from members.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, once again I am in agreement with the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) when he states that such a matter may be considered by the house.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, a Royal Commission has not the authority to hold anyone in contempt of court. If such power is not given, if it may not, through positive action, prevent mention of it, I do not see, then, why the members should not be entitled to discuss the question raised by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather).
Furthermore, the matter referred to the Spence Commission for investigation has nothing to do with the ways or methods through which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) has gone through the file. This is precisely what we want to discuss. According to the member for Royal, two totally different questions are involved. When the Spence Commission was instituted, its terms of reference were not to inquire into the ways through which this could have come to the
May 2. 1966
ears of the ministers of justice. The purpose of the Spence Commission is surely not to investigate as to how the Prime Minister has taken cognizance of the Munsinger affair or how he asked for the file.
In the circumstances, I believe this is a new matter and that the hon. members should be entitled to discuss it. I do not mean to say that it is appropriate to discuss it now, while the people expect something positive from us, namely legislation. But I say it is a privilege of the members to discuss it and if the members wish to avail themselves of the privilege, it is their right to do so. I am not in favor of pursuing the debate interminably on this matter, I feel rather that it is time that the house go on to, the positive consideration of legislation.
[English1


Mr. Fullon:: I wish only to refer Your Honour to the situation which now prevails in the United Kingdom. I do so because the select committee on procedure which sat in 1962 and 1963 gave specific attention to the question of what is involved in the phrase "sub judice" in so far as it may restrict the right of discussion in parliament.
For my authority I refer to the seventeenth edition of May. At page 454 hon. members will find set out specifically how the sub judice rule applies. It bars references in debate to "matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction and in courts martial."


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: What edition is that?


James Ross Fulton: The seventeenth edition at page 454. The commission here is not a court exercising criminal jurisdiction.
In the second place, reference is barred with respect to "matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court." Once again, a commission of inquiry is not a civil court. Third, the citation speaks of the ban applying "in the case of any judicial body to which the House has expressly referred a specific matter for decision and report".
It is clear from what has happened earlier in this chamber that the House of Commons did not approve or in any way pass upon the terms of reference to this commission. The inquiry was set up entirely as an act of the executive. I appreciate that the rules of the parliament of the United Kingdom are not ipso facto the rules which govern us here, but since a committee there has given careful
4581
Morality in Government consideration to this question and set out in detail what the phrase "sub judice" really means, I do suggest this is something which should be taken into consideration by Your Honour as having great weight in reaching a decision on this subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to support briefly the position taken by the hon. member for Greenwood, a position which has been supported by others. I should like to begin by drawing attention to something which is not in our Standing Orders as well as to the only reference to this matter which is to be found in the citations covering our proceedings.
First, may I point out that in our Standing Orders as such there is no sub judice rule. There is a Standing Order-I believe it is number 35-to the effect that members cannot speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign and certain other persons. But there is no such thing as a sub judice rule in our Standing Orders.
Nevertheless, in our citations-and we are governed largely by them-there is item 149(c) to be found in Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 127. This is the one which deals with reflections on the Sovereign, and it says:
It has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(c) refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending
I would add that if one looks up "sub judice" in the index to Beauchesne he will find that this is the only prohibition to which reference is made, namely, that a member cannot refer to a matter on which a judicial decision is pending. I would point out that the question which has been referred to Mr. Justice Spence is one calling for him to inquire fully into certain matters. I have before me the full text of the order in council as it was tabled in this house on Monday, March 14, 1966 and as recorded at pages 287 and 288 of Votes and Proceedings for that day. It is a lengthy order in council and I will not read it all, but I have checked it over carefully. All it does is appoint Mr. Justice Spence to be a commissioner to inquire fully into several things. These things are spelled out. But there is no suggestion anywhere in the order in council that Mr. Justice Spence has to make a judicial decision; he has to inquire into the matters which were referred to him.
I agree with my hon. friend from Greenwood that for the most part the subject which the hon. member for Royal was raising

May 2. 1966

Morality in Government is outside the terms of reference of the order in council of March 14. It is surely not precluded from discussion here because these are not matters on which a judicial decision is pending.
Therefore the only rule, if one may call it that, the only citation in the book, does not stand in the way of what the hon. member for Royal is seeking to do. I will go further and say there is nothing in our Standing Orders which could be called a sub judice rule. I should like to support very strongly the remarks made by one of the earlier speakers, the hon. member for Kamloops, to the effect that the reference of Monday, March 14, was made not by parliament but by the executive, by the governor in council. If this were a device which were to be allowed, if each time a government by executive action referred something to an outside body it could not be taken up upon the floor of parliament, one could easily see the extent to which such a practice could be abused. I am sure Your Honour appreciates the force of the arguments of those who have already spoken to the effect that this matter is in the hands of parliament and, because it is in the hands of parliament, we have the right to discuss it.
[DOT] (4.20 D.m.)
So far as the point of order raised by the Minister of Public Works is concerned, I would point out that all he did was to make an assertion. He gave no citation or ruling, nothing to back up his assertion. He just asserted that this matter is sub judice and therefore it cannot be discussed. I submit that the only things we are barred from discussing, even by the citation, are matters upon which a judicial decision is pending and, no matter what comes out of Mr. Justice Spence's inquiry, he is not called upon to make a judicial decision.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be very brief, and I speak from the standpoint of the authority provided for us in standing order No. 35. I believe that is the only authority to which we can refer. I do not refer to it from a legal standpoint because I do not feel qualified to do so, but I must speak in support of what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just said. Citation 149(c) makes it very clear that the restrictions placed upon members of the house refer to a matter in which a judicial decision is pending.
,

In my opinion the royal commission that has been set up is not in any manner a court. There is no judicial decision that can be made by it and even though the chairman of the commission is himself a member of the Supreme Court of Canada the commission is not acting in any sense as a court of justice. Mr. Justice Spence is chairman of a royal commission that has been set up by the executive, and the recommendation which he will make can in no way be considered as a judgment made by a court of justice. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must give our support to the argument that has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and we must also support the point made by the hon. member for Kamloops.
I believe that the Minister of Public Works is mistaken in the position he has taken because he is claiming that the royal commission is something which it is not. He is assuming that the decision or recommendation to be made by the commission is equivalent to a judicial decision, something which it cannot be. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we base our position clearly on this one point, paragraph (c) of citation 149.


Mr. Baldwin:: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I think the issues have been pretty well covered but I would like to place before Your Honour a narrow interpretation within the wording of citation 149, even if Your Honour takes the view that a judicial decision can be taken to cover the findings of a royal commission. I submit that there is no judicial decision pending in any sense of the word on the particular matter which the hon. member for Royal has raised, namely, the statement made by the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. in his evidence before Mr. Justice Spence.
I put it this way. Surely with respect to collateral issues which may be raised at any time by evidence given we cannot be deprived of the opportunity to discuss them. The res gestae, yes, in a civil case, the charge and defence in a criminal case, yes, and in a royal commission the terms of reference, but where evidence is given which may be collateral to the issue and with regard to which an attack might be made on credibility, surely this house is not to be prevented from discussing at any time, even while the royal commission proceedings are continuing, those collateral issues in that narrow sense. Furthermore, in this case the matter raised is not one with respect to which any decision is pending.
May 2. 1966

Mr. Justice Spence is not going to make a finding on the credibility of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. in respect of this particular collateral matter. Therefore I think it is perfectly open for the hon. member for Royal and for this house to discuss it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. After hearing these very learned comments I think hon. members would expect the Chair to express an opinion about the point raised by the Minister of Public Works.
I think I should mention honestly to the house that this is a point I have had in the back of my mind for some days. It was brought to the forefront when questions were asked during the question period last week. The questions asked at that time were not allowed at that particular moment, but I did not want to convey the impression that these questions could not be debated at all in the house. It was my feeling that because of the way in which the questions were posed they were not so urgent.
However, this raised the issue and I had to consider the matter further when I received notice that the hon. members who had asked the questions wanted to debate them on the adjournment motion. This put me in a position where I thought I should give the matter very serious consideration, which I did over the week end and particularly this morning. Briefly I might say I agree substantially with the views expressed by hon. members who have taken part in the debate, for reasons which I will now give.
In a general way the principles that govern the sub judice doctrine are found in the following quotations. Lord Campion in May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, at page 400 states:
A matter whilst under adjudication by a court of law, should not be brought before the house by a motion or otherwise. This rule does not apply to bills.
Also in the same edition, at page 457:
Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate, except by means of a bill. This rule was observed by Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell, both by the wording of the speech from the throne and by their procedure in the house, regarding Mr. O'Connell's case, and has been maintained by rulings from the Chair.
Bourinot's fourth edition at page 301 also states:
A matter which is under adjudication by a court of law cannot be brought forward before the house by a motion or otherwise.
Morality in Government
Also, in Beauchesne, fourth edition, at page 127, is found the following, and this citation which I have before me was mentioned by a number of hon. members who took part in the discussion including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
Besides the prohibitions obtained in standing order 41, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and Canada, that a member, while speaking must not . . .
(c) refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending.
Generally speaking I believe it may be stated that the creation of a royal commission is purely an administrative matter, that the commissioners are not called upon to render decisions on what has been submitted to them but are only asked to make recommendations which the government is free to act upon or not as it wills. In other words, parliament is still the highest court in the land. One of its traditional rights is to express its power by the enactment of legislation and this right cannot be set aside by a mere reference of certain matters to a royal commission for a study thereof and recommendations thereon.
As hon. members well know, commissioners are generally appointed under Part I of the Inquiries Act which simply provides that the governor in council may cause inquiry into public matters and appoint commissioners for the purpose who shall have the power of summoning witnesses and of requiring them to give evidence on oath. They are, it is true, given such powers as are vested in any court of record, but the wording of the act is that it does not constitute them a court of record.
On October 15, 1957, an order in council was passed to appoint commissioners under Part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire into and make recommendations concerning, inter alia, policies in relation to the export of energy, the regulation of the transmission of oil and natural gas, the financial structure and control of pipe line corporations, prices or charges, the extent of authority that might best be conferred on a National Energy Board, etc.
A few days later the then hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar sought to discuss the subject matter of the inquiry. A point of order was raised submitting that the hon. member was out of order because he was dealing directly with the terms of the royal commission and a subject referred to it. Mr. Coldwell then said:
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not dealing with the report of the royal commission. When does an announcement that a royal commission is being set up preclude discussion in this house?

May 2, 1966
Morality in Government
After some argument Mr. Speaker Mich-ener rose and rendered the following decision which is found at page 119 of the debates of 1957-58, volume I:
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There is nothing on the order paper which would preclude a discussion of this matter. The royal comimssion is not a court of record and matters before it are not sub judice. Therefore I see no reason why the hon. member should not discuss it.
From a study of the precedents it appears that if the subject matter introduced in the house is at the moment before a court for decision and adjudication and a judgment has not been rendered, or if judgment has been rendered and an appeal taken, then the matter is sub judice. On the other hand, if the subject matter has simply been referred to a commission for study and report and it is not asked or empowered to render a decision-in other words, if once the report is made it will be the function of the government to implement-the matter is not sub judice.
During the question period, when a question was asked by an hon. member about which I had some doubt because it seemed to be dealing perhaps directly with evidence given before the commission, I had in mind at that time a decision of Mr. Speaker Macdonald which so far as I have been able to ascertain is the last decision on the point. It reads as follows:
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, of course, is something we have before us; it is a decision of Mr. Speaker Macdonald which we have to take into account. It cannot be easy for the Chair to decide, when an hon. member is taking part in a debate, whether or not he actually is dealing with the evidence itself. I think there is much to be said for the position of the hon. member for Peace River when he referred to evidence which might be given before the royal commission on a collateral issue or issues perhaps not of essence. I have in mind that the witness before the commission discussed collaterally something which was not basically of the essence of the subject matter of the commission. I believe we should not preclude hon. members from referring to such a matter if it was discussed collaterally in the evidence given by such a person.

I still feel that hon. members should bear in mind the decision of Mr. Speaker Macdonald that we should not delve into the evidence itself. In any event, the hon. member for Royal has indicated that is not the subject matter of his contribution to the debate this afternoon. I would think, therefore, that the discussion we are having now is not a discussion of a matter which is sub judice, and I rule against the point of order raised by the hon. Minister of Public Works.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, this very discussion, it seems to me, contributes to the jurisprudence of this place and the manner in which it is conducted. It fits in very well with the theory I am trying to enunciate. None of us, as I was saying, can stand aside from the fundamental issues. All of us must be called to account, those in high places and those on the back benches. Those who bandy about highminded phrases about the new politics must interpret their philosophy in the light of their words and their actions, since they have enunciated that philosophy.
Obviously-and this has been said by other speakers in other forums-we must expect the thrust of legitimate political debate and as a matter of fact should welcome it, but all of us must conduct ourselves so as to be above suspicion. It seems to me that when we think of the evil that is the subject matter of this inquiry we should remind ourselves that public morality is not confined to the bedroom. Public morality is part and parcel of every public man's actions; public morality is relevant in this chamber; public morality is interwoven into all our motivations, into all our policies as political people, and is even interwoven into our tactics.
There is public morality in the tactics we employ. I think we should remind ourselves of this as some of us go about our sinister business. I wonder whether survival unscathed and untarnished will be the only thing to the credit of some of us when we have finished our membership here? What a hollow type of victory this would be. Jacques Barzin answered about another event, when asked what he accomplished in those days, "I survived". Is this to be the sole thing we can say at another time, that we survived? The engines of smear, once started, are hard to stop. The habit of scandal is hard to break. These are days when we should be asking whether there is in fact a decline in the integrity of public life.
May 2, 1966

Here I should like to share with the house a couple of quotations from speeches by Right Hon. Harold Macmillan. The first will be found in the Parliamentary Debates 196263, volume 667, dated November 14, 1962. 1 do not think I need draw the attention of the house to what issue was before the House of Commons on that occasion. He said:
I repeat that none of us who has had any long experience of the ordinary thrusts, however wounding, of political life pays much attention to them. We try to control our temper and take as easily as we can the ups and downs. If one were to answer every falsehood that is put about, one would spend one's whole time in repudiation. Many things are best put aside and many criticisms find their own level.
Again, on page 401 he goes on:
I have a feeling that the time has come for men of propriety and decency not to tolerate the growth of what I can only call the spirit of Titus Oates and Senator McCarthy. At any rate, let the judgment be made. If these men are guilty of what it is said they are guilty of, in the old days their heads would have fallen on Tower Hill and today they would never dare lift up their heads among their comrades again. If those who accuse them have done so falsely out of wantonness or malice, let them receive, in due course, not only those who come in the front line, but those who stand behind them, the reprobation which they will have deserved.
The second quotation is from a speech by the same right hon. gentleman on May 7, 1963, and is found on page 250, volume 677:
As for men in public life-and here we are all in the same boat-I do not think that they must be too sensitive. They must expect, whether by the reporter's words or the cartoonist's pencil, to suffer some wounding blows. This is part of what we assume when we voluntarily enter upon public affairs.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It is in this context, Mr. Speaker, that I deplore what we have been about. Because I am one who believes that talk should be followed by some action, I propose, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), amending the motion that is before Your Honour as follows:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"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."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Hon. members have heard the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal. If there is no objection to this amendment I shall proceed to read it.
Morality in Government


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is a procedural point of some importance which I believe arises out of the ruling made by His Honour a few moments ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I interrupt the minister? When the minister rose to speak I was going to add that I would read this amendment from the chair subject to the ruling made by Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister would wish to continue now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not sure whether I should proceed to make the point of order now or following the reading of the amendment, but I do wish to present a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the terms of the amendment. I make the submission that the terms of the amendment are not in conformity with the ruling made a moment ago by His Honour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then I shall proceed to read the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal again, subject to the limitations contained in the ruling made by Mr. Speaker. Moved by Mr. Fairweather, seconded by Mr. Dinsdale:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"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 Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the ruling made by His Honour was based on a ruling previously made by Mr. Speaker Macdonald.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker Michener.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Speaker Macdonald.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand that this ruling is reported in Hansard for March 21, 1950, at page 949. I understand that Mr. Speaker Macdonald was ruling on precisely the kind of discussion that could take place in the House of Commons with respect to a matter which was at that time before a royal commission. It has been suggested by hon. members opposite that the inquiry we are discussing is a royal commission. At that time Mr. Speaker Macdonald ruled, as I recollect the quotation, that it was possible to deal with collateral matters relating to a royal
May 2, 1966

Morality in Government commission but it was not possible to discuss evidence given before a royal commission.
I submit that this amendment is simply, and not only simply but straightforwardly and fully, founded upon evidence given before this royal commission and that the amendment would be meaningless unless it involved a discussion of evidence given before the royal commission. My submission is that this amendment as framed should, by virtue of the ruling previously made by His Honour, be ruled out of order because it cannot be discussed. It has no meaning, no relevance, unless it hinges upon evidence given before a royal commission and, as His Honour ruled a few moments ago, this kind of discussion would be irregular and improper.


Erik Nielsen: No, he did not.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the matter can be squarely placed before Your Honour in this way. If the house is called upon to come to a decision on the amendment of the hon. member for Royal, I submit that it is not in any sense of the word a question which Mr. Justice Spence is called upon to make a desicion on under the terms of reference before him. In other words, if Mr. Justice Spence makes a decision or finding in due course following the hearing of the evidence which has been taken, he will not make a decision and keep squarely and properly within the terms of reference if he includes in his findings the issue upon which this house is now called upon to come to a decision.
I submit it is a completely collateral issue. There might well be-and I do not think that Your Honour nor I can be called upon to give an opinion on this-certain types of evidence which go so squarely to the issue with regard to which Mr. Justice Spence is charged that the house might not be able to discuss it. But this is not that type of evidence. I submit with confidence to Your Honour that under these circumstances the issue raised by the hon. member for Royal is one that we are competent to deal with, to debate and vote upon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the point just made by the hon. member for Peace River I should like your permission to read again from Hansard for March 21, 1950, page 949, the ruling made by Mr. Speaker

Macdonald. Your Honour adverted to the last paragraph of this ruling in an earlier ruling:
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.
I think that my hon. friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has already pointed out that this motion is founded upon evidence given before a royal commission and upon nothing else, and without the evidence given before that royal commission it would have been impossible for this amendment to be moved.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Therefore nothing could be more squarely in contradiction of what Your Honour, if I recall properly, referred to earlier in your previous ruling as the last judgment which a Speaker had made on this precise point, and it could hardly be more precise. On the other hand, I would also refer to the ruling that reference should not be made to the proceedings or evidence, or findings of a royal commission before it has made its report.
The hon. gentleman is not merely referring to these matters but is founding a motion upon the evidence and upon nothing else. He is asking the house to pass judgment on the evidence given before the royal commission and before the royal commission has completed its work, and on nothing else. It seems to me, sir, if we are to have any respect for the rulings of previous speakers, which have always been respected in this house except on occasions when they were clearly contrary to the expressed rules or when the rules had been changed in respect of them, that Your Honour, on the basis of the previous ruling, would have no choice but to find this motion out of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the minister is anticipating a debate which he has not yet had the privilege of hearing. If he is patient and if His Honour will find, as I am sure he will, the motion to be acceptable the minister will be enlightened. What is before the house is an amendment which, if I may be permitted, I should like to read:
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.
May 2. 1966

Even if we were to accept the minister's argument and that of the Minister of Public Works, which Your Honour has already ruled upon, there is nothing here which is sub judice.


George James McIlraith: Nobody is suggesting that.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Transport in his argument did suggest it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no.


Erik Nielsen: The minister said to the house that this motion must be based upon arguments which in turn must be based on the evidence given at the inquiry. He was anticipating. Even if that were so, there is nothing sub judice about the contents of this amendment. Therefore, on the face of it I submit to Your Honour that the amendment itself must be accepted. Despite the ruling you might come to subsequently upon any future possible points which may be raised in debate, there is nothing sub judice and therefore nothing unacceptable about the motion itself.
I have one more point, Mr. Speaker, and then I will sit down. Your Honour's ruling, as I took it and as I heard it, was primarily based on a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Michener seven years after the ruling which was quoted by the minister. I believe a distinction can be drawn between the circumstances which gave rise to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Macdonald in 1950 and those which surrounded the matter which gave rise to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener in 1957.
I wish to point out again, sir, as part of this discussion on the point of order, that a precedent has been set-it is a matter of record-in that in the early months of 1965 matters before a royal commission of inquiry were not only discussed in this house but members adopted strange means of getting evidence before that inquiry through the vehicle of this house. Now, sir, surely parliament is not going to be deprived of its right to discuss a matter affecting, as it does, the very survival of the institution itself by the kind of weak, specious and devious arguments which have been advanced by those opposite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will permit me to emphasize the fact that I did not maintain and I am not maintaining that this matter is sub judice, nor did my learned colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), so maintain. We both maintain that the motion and now the
Morality in Government amendment were based upon a piece of evidence. Your Honour quoted Mr. Speaker Michener's ruling which, as I recall it, was based on matters which were sub judice. This is totally irrelevant to the point which my hon. friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, made and which I was supporting by reading Mr. Speaker Macdonald's ruling to this effect:
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.
There is nothing here about whether or not it is sub judice. This is a categorical statement, and I would suggest that reference should not be made to the evidence and that this motion is founded exclusively on the evidence. Without that evidence there would have been no finding of the kind which was made on this motion. Therefore I say nothing could be more clearly within the terms of the ruling of Mr. Speaker Macdonald.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has been reading from Hansard for March 21, 1950. In view of the fact that he has read a portion I believe we should look at other portions as well. A point of order was raised and at page 949 Mr. Speaker stated as follows:
The point raised by the hon. member for York-ton is, as I understand it, that at the present time-a debate should not be permitted on any matter affecting transportation because a royal commission has been set up to inquire into that matter. I take it that that is the point of order raised.
Mr. Stewart, the member for Yorkton, said yes. In the next column Mr. Speaker said:
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.
So Mr. Speaker made it quite possible for the house to discuss in general terms the question of transportation despite the fact that the subject was before the royal commission. He went on to use the sentence which the minister has read to us. He then stated and again I quote:
It was a new question for me, and I hope my ruling meets with the general approval of the house.
The Speaker showed considerable uncertainty with regard to a matter which had just recently come to his attention and I notice that he does not give any citations or references such as Your Honour has been able to give to us this afternoon. The only reference given was to Beauchesne, citation 490. I
May 2, 1966

Morality in Government submit that you have gone much more fully into this question and I believe that Mr. Speaker Michener's ruling and yours today would tend to supersede rather than support the conclusion which was arrived at on March 21, 1950.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I take it that what is now before us is the contention by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, supported by some of his colleagues, that the amendment as moved by the member for Royal somehow contravenes the ruling which you gave earlier this afternoon. I submit that such is not the case and I ask the house to recall the general terms of the ruling which Your Honour gave. Your ruling was that a matter before a commission of inquiry was not beyond the right of this house to discuss. You based your ruling on a study of the authorities and in particular on the judgment of Mr. Speaker Michener. I believe it is quite clear that your general position was that we have the right to discuss certain matters even though they may be under discussion in another place.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Then, sir, you asked the house to have regard to a very narrow point. I believe you used the word "narrow". This point was to be found in Mr. Speaker Macdonald's ruling of 1960. As I understood it, the narow point you were making was that we should not in this place be trying the evidence being given in another place.


An hon. Member:: He said "refer".


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friends over there quote what Mr. Speaker Macdonald said. I am trying to interpret what the present occupant of the chair said. As I understood Your Honour, your view was that it would be improper for us to be trying bits of evidence here at the same time those bits of evidence are being tried somewhere else. You did not rule out discussion of matters just because they are being discussed in that other place.
I suggest what the hon. member for Royal has brought before this house is not the question of whether evidence being given in another place is to be examined there or not. What the hon. member for Royal has brought before this house has been a practice, an action, concerning which there is now knowledge in the public domain. It is not only a matter of discussion before the inquiry, it is fully reported in the press. It has not been denied by the ministers opposite. There is no

suggestion that the statement that the government asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to provide information is incorrect.
What we are asking, what the hon. member for Royal has asked be discussed is a practice. This is something quite different from trying or assessing the evidence in the way that was dealt with in Mr. Speaker Macdonald's ruling of 1950. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that I think your general ruling was clear and I think it was correct, that this house has certain rights that cannot be abrogated by the reference of a matter to a royal commission. You merely asked that within that general rule we have regard to what Mr. Speaker Macdonald said and that we not try bits of evidence here while they are being tried in another place.
I submit that this amendment does not do that in any sense at all. This amendment deals with a practice on the part of the government, knowledge of which is now part of the public domain. We have a right to discuss that matter in this house. In the light of your own ruling given earlier this afternoon, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal is in order.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, I add my support to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just said and what has been said by my own colleagues previously. Following on from where the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre left off and along the same general lines, I say that the ruling of Mr. Speaker Macdonald was on a narrow point. What he said was that reference should not be made to the proceedings, evidence or findings of a royal commission. It is clear that what he had in mind by his use of those words in that juxtaposition was matters which were in effect the res gestae before the royal commission.
It is true that as a result of evidence given we now know there was a certain course followed by the government. However, this is not a matter before the royal commission; it is entirely a collateral matter. It is in keeping with Mr. Speaker Macdonald's ruling and certainly in keeping with what Your Honour had said-you have said here earlier that parliament is not to be precluded from discussing a matter simply because it is before a commission of inquiry-that parliament certainly should not be precluded from discussing a collateral matter having no relationship to the real matter before the commission, simply because that collateral matter may have been referred to down there.
May 2, 1966

If we were to follow that principle, then if any matters were mentioned before various bodies even though they were irrelevant to the issue before those bodies we would be precluded from discussing any number of matters. Clearly what Mr. Speaker Macdonald had in mind was that parliament should not be discussing or even referring to the very matter with which the commission is dealing. Here I come very close to the point to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was referring. He was referring to the proceedings or findings by a royal commission. There will be no findings by the commission on this matter. It is entirely collateral. I submit this is in keeping with your ruling as well as the ruling of Mr. Speaker Macdonald, and hon. members should be allowed to discuss the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, because reference has been made from time to time to the actual terms of reference, for the purpose of the record the material points in the order in council perhaps should be placed before you. The material portions thereof include appointment of a commissioner, and I now quote in part:
-a commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire fully into a statement by the Minister of Justice in a letter dated March 11, 1966 to the Prime Minister, with reference to a case involving one Gerda Munsinger, which was read in the House of Commons on March 11, 1966; into all statements concerning the case in the House of Commons on March 4 and March 7, 1966; and into all statements by the Minister of Justice in a press conference on March 10, 1966, which, among other things included statements about involvement with the said Gerda Munsinger, about failure to seek the advice of the law officers of the Department of Justice, that there were circumstances that may have constituted a risk to the security of Canada and that the case was not properly handled; and to enquire whether the case was handled in accordance with the rules and principles normally applicable to persons having access to classified information, and into all the relevant circumstances connected therewith-
Sir, in all of that there was not one reference or suggestion to the matters referred to in the amendment moved. I am not at all agreeing that if there were the amendment would be out of order. However, I am pointing out that nothing within the amendment was placed before the commission. I continue quoting the terms of reference:
-and in particular but without limiting the generality of the foregoing to consider fully all reports submitted to the government or any member of the government of the day and any evidence laid before them in connection therewith and any
Morality in Government
further evidence elicited by or laid before the commissioner and to consider such other matters as may appear to the commissioner to be relevant.
There is not one word of reference there to this matter. As has been well said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, this whole matter is in the public domain. It is now known in every part of our nation. We find, to our great surprise and indeed to our horror as parliamentarians, that the government has elected to use tactics that tyrannize the members of this chamber, tactics that cannot be excused under any circumstances and were not in contemplation when the government, by itself, prepared the terms of reference.
In other words, the government did not include this matter but they do not want us to discuss it in parliament. It shocks the public conscience that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be used by the government as its private eye over the lives, purposes and reputations of members of this chamber. It is a shocking situation that the mounted police would be used by the government as part of its tactics to peek into the private lives of members of parliament. It is this to which we are objecting, Mr. Speaker, and in the strongest possible terms. This house has a right to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was going to inquire whether or not the Leader of the Opposition was still on the point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: You see, Mr. Speaker, in order to speak on the point of order I must necessarily tell you what we are speaking about. I was trying to do so in most restrained terms, having regard to all the circumstances. On the basis of your ruling earlier I am sure you will hold that the amendment is in order. It was very obvious that the arguments advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite were advanced with diffidence, realizing that you had brought finality to this matter by your earlier ruling.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wish that a ruling I had made could bring finality to any matter in this house. I have some doubts whether I will ever achieve that. Hon. members realize, as I indicated earlier this afternoon, that to some extent we have a conflict between the precedents to which I have referred. Certainly there is a conflict in the house this afternoon between the authorities cited. It is not easy to reconcile rulings which have been made in the past, but I have expressed

May 2, 1966
Morality in Government the thought that I believe that as a general rule the principle by which we should be guided is that parliament is supreme, that it is only in extreme cases that we might consider our debates to be limited in some way in light of certain considerations, including the fact that certain questions have been referred to a royal commission.
This principle is in accordance with the authorities I have cited. It is certainly sustained very strongly by the ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener. However, I thought that at that time I should bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that there is a limitation, and a very narrow one, to the general rule that no reference should be made in the course of our discussions to evidence given in any proceeding before a royal commission or inquiry. The reason, of course, is that we would not want to have a parallel inquiry going on in the house at the same time as that now being carried out in another forum.
However, having taken that into account I still believe that the rule to which I referred a moment ago applies, namely, that this type of question is not really sub judice but can be discussed here.
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.
In my opinion the type of subject matter contained in the amendment presented by the hon. member for Royal is collateral to the main issue. It does not refer to the essence of the evidence but rather to knowledge, acquired from evidence, of what is considered to be a collateral issue, namely, the manner in which certain information was given by or obtained from the R.C.M. Police.
When there is doubt in the mind of the Chair I believe there is an obligation on the part of the Speaker to give the benefit of whatever doubt there may be in his mind to

the hon. member who wishes to discuss such a matter in this chamber. On the basis of the authorities I have quoted this afternoon and on the basis of further evidence presented for my consideration by hon. members who have taken part in the discussion on the point of order raised, I feel that the amendment is in order and should be accepted.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the house that we in this party intend to support the amendment presented by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather). We do so because we share with every person who believes in parliamentary democracy a very grave sense of disquiet over what has been revealed in the last few days and has now been made the subject matter of this motion.
It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that police reports of a confidential nature gathered, we presume, for security reasons have been used, threatened to be used, sought to be used or made available to be used, against members of parliament, not for police or security purposes but for political purposes. If this is so, Mr. Speaker, it reduces our police system to the point where we have political police, and this is something we should stand up and oppose as vigorously and firmly as we possibly can.
Every member of this house knows that in an era of cold war or total war it is inevitable that some things happen which we would rather did not happen. One of the things which does happen is that acts of espionage and sabotage are committed, against which it is necessary that the sovereign state protect itself. One of the instruments the sovereign state must use is a police force which collects confidential and secret information and maintains files or dossiers on public men. We do not complain, Mr. Speaker-I think least of all can anyone in public life do so-about the proposition that police who are charged with the responsibility of maintaining our security should keep dossiers or records on individuals.
We are all very conscious of the fact that these dossiers must of their nature include much that is gossip, much that is unverified, much that is perhaps even false and malicious fabrication. The duty of the police who are charged with this responsibility is to collect unreliable as well as reliable information and to sift it out.
As a result of the era in which we are living the weapon of blackmail can be used
May 2, 1966

in a cold war and details concerning personal weaknesses or aberrations, normally completely irrelevant in public life, may be collected and put into a file. The private aberrations of individuals may affect their public responsibility. This is a matter which cannot be helped. But the very fact that police files may contain derogatory and often inaccurate information about individuals is precisely the reason they should not be used, should never be made available to be used, and should never be sought to be made available to be used for purposes that do not affect the security of the state.
As members of parliament we are not freed from the obligation of accounting to the law. If charges are to be made, of course, any files relating to us ought to be revealed as in any other case. We are not in any sense above the law. But what we do have the right to insist on, Mr. Speaker, is that information of this nature collected in confidence for security purposes should not be used, particularly by governments, to strike back at opponents even when governments are suffering from political criticism. Such a proposal is utterly intolerable in a democracy. Criticism in this house may be and often is harsh and sometimes unfair. However harshly and however unfairly one is criticized, one has absolutely no right to use confidential police dossiers for the improper purpose of striking back or threatening to strike back at individual members in this house.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
What are the circumstances surrounding the matter we are discussing? In November, 1964, the present administration was under bitter attack. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had revealed an attempted bribe by an executive assistant to one of the members of the government and also the possible implication in the matter of the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. Another cabinet minister was under suspicion of influence peddling for which he has subsequently been convicted.
The Prime Minister was naturally hurt by revelations of this sort affecting people he trusted. Under those circumstances, for him to ask the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for reports on his own colleagues was both natural and proper. But, Mr. Speaker, when he went further and asked for files and information on other members of parliament of all parties relating to any misconduct or scandalous matter over the past ten years, I suggest, if this is a fact-unfortunately we
Morality in Government have no explanation of this matter at the moment-that the Prime Minister was yielding to the ugly mood of the moment, the mood of counterattack by improper methods. If this was his purpose, and so it appears, in our submission he was demeaning the function of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to that of a political police force. I do not think there is any point in labouring this matter at great length. The proper functioning of parliament and of parliamentary democracy is based upon the mutual respect of persons and groups in parliament. We have political differences. I hope we shall continue to have them. We have political parties with different principles. But, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that basic to the functioning of our party system is this mutual respect of persons and groups in parliament. It is the erosion, the wearing away, of this mutual respect that in my view threatens to paralyse parliament and discredit democracy. When confidential police reports are sought for the purpose of possibly being used or threatened to be used against hon. members of this house, which seems to me an utterly improper purpose, then we believe that democracy itself is in danger.
The people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, urgently hope that his parliament can get down to doing the business for which it was elected, that of legislating in the interests of the people of this country. It is our duty, no matter how painful it is, no matter what respect and affection we may have for some members of this house, including the Prime Minister against whom these remarks are directed, to stand firm on certain principles. One of the principles of this house and of every parliamentary institution, I suggest, is that secret police reports shall not be used or threatened to be used against anybody. If anybody wants to make a charge let him make that charge in the courts and have it dealt with in that way.
Matters affecting the privileges of members of this house must be brought out openly. It is intolerable that this house should be under the cloud of the sort of suspicion and counter-suspicion that presently exists. It is intolerable that R.C.M.P. files should be used for such a purpose.
I have even heard of immigration files being used. It is intolerable that people such as myself, who act in immigration matters, should have the files in such cases looked into to see if there is anything discreditable in our professional conduct in connection with such a matter. It seems to me reasonable to think
4592	COMMONS
Morality in Government that something of this sort is going on, because people have given me information and I do not know where else they could have got it but from the confidential files of the immigration department. I had no complaint to make in that case because nothing further came of the matter, and there was nothing discreditable in my conduct. But the atmosphere was discreditable, Mr. Speaker. The atmosphere of "We can find out something about you and maybe this will silence you, maybe you will not be so critical," was discreditable.
I say that members of this house should be free to criticize without fear that some matter affecting their personal reputation, other than a proper accusation of crime or misconduct, will be brought up. Matters of a scandalous nature ought not to be made available to any member of this house on the government side or elsewhere.
We feel strongly about this matter, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to take part in this debate in any tone of partisan bitterness. For myself I hope that the Prime Minister will come forward and give and explanation satisfactory to the house. I asked a question in the house last Friday. I did not do so in order to make a score off the party to which I happen to be opposed. I asked the question because I wanted some sort of explanation made to the house as to something which it seems to me strikes at the freedom and fundamental dignity of the members of this house.
It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I for one and other members of this party will support this amendment.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather). I can assure you, sir, that I am going to deal with the principle that has been raised in the amendment, namely, the violation of the rights and privileges of private members in this house. I shall tie that in to 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.
I think the hon. member for Royal has established the debate on a high level in dealing with the obvious difficulty that we are confronted with in this parliament. The destruction of parliament's prestige and the

DEBATES	May 2. 1966
criticism of the parliamentary process in the press and other news media of the nation are closely connected with the events that have been referred to by the hon. member for Royal and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.
1 am going to try to bring some concrete information before the house which I think will pinpoint in specific terms the need for raising this question as a matter of confidence at the present time. Many hon. members have been disturbed by current trends. A few have become personally involved, and I have been one of those. I think, Mr. Speaker, that as I refer to the incidents in my own particular case it will be agreed and it will be concluded by my colleagues in this house, particularly the private members, that at the present time we have a reasonable grievance.
Two years ago in December, 1964, I had occasion to take part in a C.B.C. radio broadcast. At that time I dealt with a subject that was exercising the minds of a good many members of the house as well as of citizens across the country. I dealt with the subject of morality in politics. This, incidentally, has been described by the hon. member for Royal as the principle that he is trying to get at in his amendment this afternoon.
I thought that I dealt in reasonable and moderate terms with the subject of morality in politics, which I think all hon. members will agree was topical then and is still topical at the present time. However, notwithstanding the reasonableness of my approach on December 14-the broadcast took place on December 11, 1964-I received a letter from the Prime Minister very bitterly upbraiding me for the manner in which I had downgraded the parliament of Canada.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Although this letter has been tabled in the house, no reference has been made to it in detail, and perhaps if I were to read it at this time it would indicate the tone to which I refer.
Dear Mr. Dinsdale:
I have been trying-without success-to secure from your office a copy of your Nation's Business broadcast of December 11th. However, I have received a transcript from the C.B.C. which confirms that you said this:
"Today, too, we find the nation rocked by evidence of lack of integrity in high places in government."
This is a serious charge to be made against men in high places in government. It becomes the more serious when made by a Privy Councillor.
May 2. 1966

Will you, therefore, let me know what evidence you have to support this charge?
Yours sincerely,
L. B. Pearson
I replied the next day by a letter dated December 15, 1964:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I was sorry to learn by yours of December 14 that you had not been able to obtain a copy of my Nation's Business broadcast on December 11. Unfortunately I do not make a practice of circulating a speech other than providing Canadian Press with a copy.
It is quite true that I referred to a lack of integrity in high places in government. If you refer to the copy of the transcript you received from the C.B.C., you will find that I based this squarely on your own action of writing a letter to your Ministers outlining a code of ethics. This suggests that you yourself have become disturbed over the matter.
In case you have not been able to follow public reaction as indicated in press reports from right across the country, I am taking the liberty of enclosing a summary that has come to hand.
Perhaps I might digress for a moment to refer to some of this material, first, to an article written by Mr. Claude Ryan in Le Devoir of November 27, 1964. It uses a phrase which has become well established in the knowledge of the general public. The article reads in part as follows:
In any case, the facts reveal a grave lack of communication within the government. They seriously shake public confidence in Mr. Pearson. We are witnessing the explosion of the old Liberal garbage can in Montreal. Sordid stories have been accumulating for months. Mr. Pearson will pay dearly for the blunder he committed in giving his confidence to a clique against whom he had been duly warned.
In the same letter I referred also to an article in the Hamilton Spectator of November 28, 1964, which came to the same conclusion in the following words:
The Department of Justice is now under a heavy shadow. The first demand should be less for the resignation of a minister than a blunt facing by Prime Minister Pearson of this grave challenge to integrity in his government, and an immediate and exhaustive inquiry.
The Winnipeg Tribune of November 27, 1964, had this to say:
While Ottawa rocked with the latest dramatic move in the bribery-coercion case this morning, Prime Minister Pearson relaxed in dressing gown and slippers at the farm home of his brother-inlaw at nearby St. Norbert.
So in my reply I substantiated the claim that there was disturbance across the country
Morality in Government over these matters. To continue with my letter, I wrote:
The fact, too, that your own parliamentary secretary found it necessary to resign also casts a shadow of suspicion in high places.
It is precisely because I am a member of the Privy Council that I felt duty bound to express this opinion.
Unhappily there is far too great a reluctance in Canadian government circles on the part of active Privy Councillors to resign from positions of public trust when actions have been severely criticized. This is in decided contrast to the policy in the United Kingdom where cabinet ministers resign at the slightest suggestion of dereliction in duty.
I appreciate your taking the time to write to me on this matter. It does provide me with an opportunity to place my comments in the proper perspective.
Yours sincerely

The Prime Minister's letter was written on December 14, 1964. It will be recalled that on the same day or more precisely in the early hours of the following day we had the final vote in the flag debate. I believe that vote was taken at about 2.15 a.m. in the morning of December 15. It was an exciting moment in the life of the last parliament, as those who took part will recall. As I was leaving the chamber I was accosted by a member of the administration, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud). He asked me why I was looking so gloomy and I indicated I did not see anything to be very happy about on that occasion. He then told me I would look a lot gloomier when they exposed something they had on me. I began to search my conscience to see-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege is involved in an accusation of that kind. I should like the hon. member to repeat exactly the words I used at that time. I did ask him if there was any truth in the rumours to that effect.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Just a veiled threat.


John George Diefenbaker: The rumour government.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I did not make any statement in public. I asked personally the member concerned.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member said he had something on me and that I would be hearing about it in due course.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: That is not so.


An hon. Member:: Just a rumour.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Tell the truth.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I discussed this with several of my colleagues at the time and I was told
4594	COMMONS
Morality in Government not to be too concerned. I thought it was in connection with my vote on the flag issue. They said: Surely feelings will not be carried to the extent of wreaking vengeance against a member of the house for the stand he took on a particular issue. But it was more than coincidental, I would think, that the two incidents occurred on the same day. It would suggest there had been discussion going on in cabinet circles involving certain members of this house.
Nothing further was heard until early in the new year a series of questions appeared on the order paper involving a certain citizen in the city of Brandon who was concerned with the Chinese immigration investigation. It surprised me that these quwstions were presented not by a member who had been in the house for a long period-


An hon. Member:: Nor by a minister.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Nor by a minister. The member concerned, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso), had not even been in the house while the Chinese immigration investigation was under way. But the questions remained on the order paper for quite some time, and it was not until March 4 of the following year, 1965, that I came under direct attack in the house by the then minister of justice. I replied to the charge on March 5, 1965, because I was not present in the house on March 4, being engaged: in delivering a speech in the city of Montreal on the day when the accusation was made.


Erik Nielsen: Where did the backbencher get his information?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This is what I am leading up to, I assure the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). We had to take the situation as it developed at face value and, as I have already intimated, I wondered why the hon. member for Hamilton West, who was not present in the house at the time the events took place, was the one who placed these questions on the order paper.
As a result of the attack in the house several stories appeared in the press, and I think I can best summarize the matter in the words of the story which appeared in the Toronto Star, written by the late Norman Phillips, one of the highly respected members of the press gallery. The headings of that story were:	"Under Attack For Liberal
Scandals They Dir For Tory Scandals" and

DEBATES	May 2. 1966
"Politics-Ottawa Style." The story read as
follows:
The Buddy Leeds' case is the story of a Chinese restaurateur, an angry Prime Minister, and a misguided Minister of Justice. It could be subtitled: Politics, Ottawa Style.
The moral was provided by the Prime Minister one vexing December day before he even knew the Chinese restaurateur existed.
In an uncanny coincidence, Mr. Pearson quoted Confucius: "He who digs dirt loses ground."
The Prime Minister was angry on December 18 because a few days previously an inoffensive Conservative ex-minister named Walter Dinsdale had gone on T.V. with some pious pronouncements about the lack of integrity in high places.
Mr. Pearson's immediate reaction was to write a letter challenging Mr. Dinsdale to produce evidence or make a specific charge.
As I already intimated, I replied immediately to his letter, and I should point out that in a later exchange the Prime Minister denied receiving my reply and I had to send him an additional copy. But that is incidental to the main theme. I continue to read the Norman Phillips article.
Ever since the Conservatives had unearthed the alleged $20,000 bribe offer from a government executive assistant and had forced the setting up of the Dorion inquiry, the Liberals had been digging frantically through the files for instances of Conservative wrongdoing.
The search yielded a letter written by Mr. Dinsdale on August 17, 1960 on behalf of a Chinese constituent, Yuen Bak Lee. A popular figure in Brandon, Manitoba, where he runs the Litchi Gardens on Princess Avenue, he is known to local citizens as Buddy Leeds.
Mr. Phillips very fairly reviewed the whole case and dealt with the part played by the hon. member for Hamilton West in the affair. Then he moved on to the next important step in this whole plot on the date already referred to, March 4, when the then minister of justice launched a personal attack against me in the following words, and I am quoting the Phillips story:
"I will call attention to one forgery case," Mr. Favreau began, "where a charge was made and a parallel case of conspiracy instituted-the case of Buddy Leeds."
He read from the Dinsdale letter and explained the charge had been withdrawn, one year later. The inference was that there had been political interference with the course of justice.
"There have been other cases," Mr. Favreau said ominously. "There have been a few, quite a few."
The use of the Dinsdale letter was quite out of character for the embattled justice minister, who has a reputation as an eminently fair man.
He attacked Mr. Dinsdale on a day when the latter was not in the house to defend himself.
As Andrew Brewin, (N.D.P.-Greenwood) put it: "I think the Minister of Justice does himself no good by calling the kettle black, if that is what he was trying to do."
May 2, 1966

Mr. Dinsdale was back in the house yesterday with a long-winded self-justification involving the amnesty granted Chinese Canadians who had infringed immigration regulations.
In fact, his letter was similar to ones that 99 out of 100 M.P.'s write for their constituents.
An outraged Douglas Fisher (N.D.P.-Port Arthur) moved to block any further snooping into government files and planting of embarrassing questions.
Back in Brandon Buddy Leeds probably wondered what had caused him to become a subject of parliamentary debate for two successive days.
And students of Confucius began searching his sayings to see whether he had ever linked the black on the kettle with the dirt that was dug.
He did say:	"High moral conduct along the
Golden Mean is indeed supreme form of such conduct. For a long time, however, few among the people have been capable of it."
The point I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, is the reference Mr. Phillips made at the start of his article when he said:
Somewhere in the Liberal administration a decision was made to punish Mr. Dinsdale for his effrontery.
I also want to point out that it went much further than myself because the then minister of justice in his personal attack on me said:
There have been other cases. There have been a few. quite a few.
This leads up to the present situation. We wondered who had initiated the witch hunt, as I have referred to it from time to time in the house. We wondered how the backbenchers in the Liberal party were able to get hold of information not only concerning myself but others. I received a clue when the hon. member for Hamilton West in defence of his action, as recorded at page 11,962 of Hansard for March 4, 1965, said:
I wish to state that my interest was not directed specifically toward the Chinese immigration problem-
I think that is true.
-and I have very many friends of Chinese origin in my constituency and in other areas-but was raised because of certain information I had received and because of certain pious statements which were made by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. I assure the hon. member that there was no intention on my part to create any-
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
He was interrupted by laughter at that point. Obviously the house was not convinced that the hon. member was making a legitimate point, but he said it was because of certain information he had received.
In the intervening months we have wondered what the source of that information might be. It now would appear-and this is the basis of the amendment before the house-that it was the Prime Minister himself
Morality in Government who instigated what can only be described as a witch hunt in requesting, as has been revealed, confidential information from R.C.M.P. files going back over a period of some ten years. It would appear that this was a deliberate act. At the time of the accusation against me the then hon. member for Port Arthur, Mr. Fisher, was almost persuaded to move the same motion which we have before the house this afternoon.
If the institution of parliament is going to be preserved, I think it is high time some action is taken on this subject. We have had since that time a book written by Mr. Richard Gwyn, a member of the press gallery, entitled "The Shape of Scandal". In that book Mr. Gwyn has many interesting observations to make in respect of the scandals which emerged during 1964, and obviously it would seem that it was the spirit of revenge which gave rise to the witch hunt under way at the present time.
One passage which I think is significant is found on page 157 of the book, "The Shape of Scandal". It reads as follows:
Unlike Diefenbaker, who served as a lightning rod for all criticisms of his government, Pearson's style has been to shift blame away from his own office.
I think that was meant to be an apology for the present Prime Minister. I think it is most revealing, however, in the light of the information which just has come to hand. I feel, on the basis of the evidence I have endeavoured to put before the house this afternoon, that what has taken place in this parliament over the past several months is not designed to encourage the progress of the new politics which has been piously referred to from to time by members of the opposition, and I use the word "piously" advisedly.


Mr.   Start@: You mean by the members of the government.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, members of the administration. I feel that the whole strategy began in the year 1962 with an attack led by the Prime Minister and reported in the Toronto Star of September 19, 1962, under the heading "Won't Ease All-Out Attack Until P.C.s Fall-Pearson". The writer on this occasion was Mr. Hyman Solomon. His article reads as follows:
Liberal leader Lester Pearson last night began an all-out, pre-parliament attack on Prime Minister Diefenbaker and promised his attack would not cease until it tumbled the Conservative government.
The Liberal leader flayed Mr. Diefenbaker for his "deplorable display" at the London Commonwealth meeting, and promised to introduce a vote

May 2, 1966
Morality in Government of non-confidence in the government at the first opportunity in the coming parliament.
The article goes on:
Charged Mr. Diefenbaker with 'complete contempt of Parliament" for not convening Parliament as soon as possible after the election and with a crucial Commonwealth conference facing the leader of a minority government.
I should like to pause, Mr. Speaker, to remind hon. members of what took place in Canada last fall with regard to the calling of parliament. Another charge was:
Claimed that Mr. Diefenbaker's plea for a cooling off period following the election had resulted in "wasted weeks" after "wasted years".
He went on generally to outline the charges that became all too well known during the 1962 election. This was an election in which any tactics were used such as "Diefenbucks" and all the other gimmicks of propaganda in order to do precisely what is indicated in that headline-"Won't Ease All-Out Attack Until P.C.s Fall". That attack, of course, continued in the House of Commons.
I go now to the words of Mr. Claude Ryan to bring these remarks to a conclusion. Mr. Ryan always has been a responsible editorial writer. In the light of what has been taking place in this house, when the Munsinger affair was launched on parliament and on the people Mr. Ryan had this to say, as found in a newspaper report on editorials written by him, the report being headed, "Pearson, Cardin Urged to Resign":
By his own hand he has destroyed the myth that he once created around his name. There is now nothing left for him to do but to draw the ineluctable conclusion.
Notwithstanding remarkable talents and his long experience in public affairs, Mr. Pearson has revealed himself to be inept to govern.
During the last few months he has taken several deplorable decisions over which he later must have chewed his fingernails. In less than two years he has burned out at least half a dozen collaborators of top standing.
On serious occasions he has displayed a staggering lack of courage and solidarity. Nobody can feel secure any more under his leadership.
That was Mr. Ryan's editorial comment. I can understand why the Prime Minister was so exercised by the remarks I made over the C.B.C. on December 11, 1964, but I do not think it is in the interest of preservation of our parliamentary system for the Queen's first minister to use tactics which, as has been described in the amendment, bring the R.C.M.P. into the role of political police in order to bring hon. members of this house into discredit.
IMr. Dinsdale.l
My own experience has been recited here this afternoon to indicate that the Munsinger affair is just one of a series of episodes which are largely responsible for so badly poisoning the atmosphere of parliament that we now are faced with a situation across the country where a good many people question the institution of parliament as being a proper method of ruling the country. I should have brought into the house this afternoon the letters I have from my constituents which consistently harp on the theme, what has gone wrong with parliament? This is the question I was endeavouring to answer as I spoke to the people of Canada in a radio broadcast on December 11, 1964. I will conclude my remarks by reading one paragraph:
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
There was a time, not so long ago, when Canada, secure in her internal serenity, a serenity based on a spirit of good will and tolerance, looked askance at the racism, rioting, and all the other indices of social and political confusion in other parts of the world. Now, it would appear the poisons are seeping through the Canadian body politic and we too have become a sick society.
It is for this reason that I heartily endorse the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Royal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the house, and in particular the Acting Prime Minister, if it would not meet the wishes of the house to agree to take a supper adjournment this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: This is agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker, and for the course of this debate. May I therefore extend that suggestion to include tomorrow?	<


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the house agree that during this debate, that is, for today and tomorrow, the period from six o'clock to eight o'clock shall be considered as the dinner recess?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Peters:: Indefinitely.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
May 2, 1966



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), Privileges and Elections-inquiry as to presentation of first report of committee; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Public Service-superannuated federal employees-request for increased pensions; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), External Affairs-mainland China-possibility of recognition.
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.
Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Speaker, in the eight years that I have been a member of this house and of parliament, I have never before risen to speak on a question which was more vital to the individual members of this house, to the dignity of parliament and to all that this stands for, than the present amendment to the resolution. It aims directly at the cause, and the cause is that the Prime Minister asked for the files on a number of individual members. What for? It is clear to anyone that the motive was political revenge. The protection of national security, past, present and future had nothing to do with it-or very little at any rate, giving the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt. What he had in mind was to find something with which to strike back at the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)-in other words to try to silence the opposition.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Well, I can assure the Prime Minister and other members of the government that before this debate is over they will rue the day the Prime Minister ever took this type of action.
Morality in Government After he received these files from the R.C.M.P., I do not know what he did with them-let us assume that he examined them. But he had them for roughly 16 months and then the R.C.M.P. had to ask for them back. Well, if there was anything in them of a security nature, surely the Prime Minister would have asked the R.C.M.P. to take action. In my view, and I say this in all seriousness, if anything of a security nature should be found against a man who is elected a member of parliament, who enjoys the trust of the people he represents, surely the government or the R.C.M.P. or the people in power are justified in giving him the works. We have to preserve honesty, integrity and dignity in this parliament. No wrongdoing can be condoned. If such a case comes to light it is the duty of the R.C.M.P. to present to the government the file relating thereto. I submit it is not the duty of the Prime Minister to ask for the files of members of parliament, placing those members in jeopardy and holding such files like a bucket of slops over their heads which he might pour on them at any time. This is not the type of conduct that any government should condone, let alone the Prime Minister. I am certain that the purpose behind the action of the government was to create a witch hunt so as to try to find something to pin on somebody and expose them to public scrutiny; and this is the method they chose to do it.
As I said before, I do not know why the government was not able to find something on somebody. At one time I was covered for security and had access to secret files that others had not, through this was not in Canada. I found some things, and things were shown to me which were more or less of a hearsay nature, and doubtful. I imagine that all files contain matters of that nature. But to bring these people before the bar of justice or to cast suspicion upon them is absolutely wrong. When no wrongdoing is proved, then nothing should be done.
I would imagine this was the attitude the Prime Minister took after looking at these files; otherwise he would not have kept them for 16 months without doing something. Something is wrong somewhere. There is a nigger in the woodpile, and before this debate is over I hope we will put our finger directly on the problem. In my view the problem lies directly on the desire of the Prime Minister and his government to find something to pin on the opposition and secure a certain degree of revenge.
4598	COMMONS
Morality in Government
It may be that when the Prime Minister- or perhaps it was some of his assistants, I do not know-looked over these files he found Liberals with some kind of record and did not want to bring them forward. I think we should know about this from the Prime Minister. I am sorry he is not here; I am also very sorry to learn he is indisposed with a cold. It is unfortunate that this matter should come up at a time when he is not in his seat, because it is he and his government who are the ones on trial. Beyond that, there is no question but that this parliament, in the eyes of the people, is on trial. Parliament has a certain dignity, or it used to have. But dignity it should have, and if hon. member in the government and elsewhere conducted themselves as they should vis-a-vis other mem-brse, it would still preserve its dignity.
I was very much embarrassed last night, on listening to the program "This Hour has Seven Days", to hear the House of Commons referred to as the common house by one gentleman taking part. That might be all right for a laugh for some people, but it is something that should not be perpetrated by the press or others. This house is for dignified people and, above all, it must be kept that way if we are to maintain the respect of the nation and fulfil our parts in the function of passing laws for the guidance and government of the people.
The action of the Prime Minister is merely a symptom of what is wrong with this parliament. The root of the problem is the weakness of the government. It has to resort, in seeking some revenge, to asking for files on Liberal members, N.D.P. members, Social Credit members as well as Progressive Conservative members. Resort to those tactics certainly indicates that something is wrong with the present government. The only thing you can do with a weak government like the present one is to toss it out, because there never was a weaker government in office in the Dominion of Canada. All you have to do is to talk to the people; they will tell you the same thing.
No longer does this government, Mr. Speaker, hold the confidence of this house. Neither does it hold the confidence of the people. It is high time for them to make amends, go before the electorate and let the electorate decide on what action to take. For this reason I would therefore support the amendment to the motion before the house.


Mr. Orange:: Would the hon. member permit a question?

DEBATES	May 2, 1966


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I shall answer all questions when I have finished, and I am almost through. As I said before, the thing to do is to support this motion and throw out the present government in view of the tactics which have been used by the Prime Minister. Let the people decide on the type of government this country should have. The time is ripe, the ground has been prepared, and the way has been paved by the actions of the Prime Minister. No other course of action seems logical at this particular stage of this parliament.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member who has just sat down. During the course of his speech he brought out the fact that perhaps this nation is prepared for a general election. I would just like to know in my own mind whether that is exactly what he said-that if this amendment does go through we should have a general election in the country at this time?


Mr. Southam:: If this amendment goes
through you will have nothing to say about it.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr.   Kindi@: I was going to say the very same thing before the hon. member interjected that remark. I do not say we would have to have an election, but it may be the only way to get rid of a government of this kind, a weak government such as we now have in power. There may be other alternatives, but a last resort may be to have another election. The people are fed up with elections and I hesitate to think about another election. However I will say this, that the people would be more willing to have another election than they would be to tolerate any more nonsense or weakness from this particular government.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member has posed his question. The Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slale for External Affairs: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat will not misunderstand me if I do not follow his line of thought and if I seek to establish a basis for the discussion for the remaining part of this debate which, I think we will all agree upon reflection, should govern our consideration of a matter of such importance. The Leader of the Opposition
May 2, 1966

(Mr. Diefenbaker) and I are among those who have been in this house the longest. I must say that I had thought the question put the other day by the hon. member tor Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) was out of order. I had thought also, though I must have been mistaken, that the present amendment, on the basis of our rules and practice, was likewise out of order. However, Mr. Speaker, who so obviously has the confidence of everyone in this house, has ruled otherwise. Of course we accept his ruling without reservation.
The Leader of the Opposition has made a number of speeches in which he sought to indicate to the Canadian people what parliament is. I must say that with a lot of what he has said in that regard I cannot find myself in disagreement. I think one of the most salutary consequences of this parliament is that in Mr. Speaker we have someone who unquestionably enjoys the confidence of every member in this house. On the basis of long experience in this house, I suggest this will prove to be a vital factor in the preservation of this parliamentary institution.
Now, I have risen at this time because I could not sit in my seat and hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) attacked, and not offer some explanation, first of all for his absence and, second, to indicate as reasonably and as fairly as I can what I believe should be the governing factors in the consideration which we give to this matter at least until he has an opportunity of taking part in our discussions. The Prime Minister is absent because he is suffering from a 'flu condition, but he hopes to be able to be here tomorrow.
In order that there will be no misunderstanding, I may say his condition is not a serious one but his doctors did not think it would be wise for him to be here today. He will be here tomorrow, and he wishes to take part in this debate to explain what he believes to be the interpretation of a situation that has been described by someone else in the inquiry that is under way. I have thought it would be worth while to say that it must be clear to all of us that the amendment we have been discussing this afternoon is obviously not based on fact. The most that one can say at this stage is that the argument has been based on assumptions.
The hon. member who has just taken his seat spoke about files. I do not recall any reference being made to files. I may be wrong in this regard, but it seems to me in a matter of this importance none of us will consciously want to be loose or imprecise in the use of it.
Morality in Government words, because of the implications involving what is basic in this amendment, that is the protection of the individual rights of members of this house, just as we would be jealous of the protection of the individual rights of any Canadian citizen.
Am I wrong in suggesting that this amendment, moved by an hon. member for whom all of us have a high regard, is an amendment that assumes a certain conduct without finding out if the assumption is correct? It is an amendment based on a one-sided interpretation of events, as they are presumed to have existed. I do not know whether or not they do. This amendment assumes that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were asked to provide information on the past conduct of members, without limitation as to time. Is that a correct assumption? Are these the facts? Some hon. members have been participating in this debate as though this were, in fact, the true situation, without having had an opportunity of hearing from the Prime Minister, who is alleged to be the author of the remarks attributed to him by a third party.
I suggest that if we have confidence in this parliament-and I am one who has confidence in this institution-surely the facts ought to be ascertained fully before deploring and condemning. The amendment and the assumptions are remarkable because they derive from information at an inquiry, without waiting for that inquiry to be completed. Why is it so urgent to make the assumptions without waiting for the hearings to end? Why is it so urgent that parliament cannot wait until it has the views of the commissioner, and all the facts, before deploring and condemning.


An hon. Member:: We know what he will say.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I do not know what that interjection was, but I think what I have said is based on ordinary principles of justice as we understand them and as we generally seek to practise them in this country.


William Arnold Peters: We never went into this file business before-at least, I hope we did not.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: That is the very argument: Have we gone into them.


Mr. Orlikow:: The commissioner went into
May 2, 1966

Morality in Government


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I ask, is it possible that we want to condemn the Prime Minister before the facts can be established. Apparently we are asked to pass judgment before the case is over.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the minister a
question?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Does he doubt the truthfulness of the commissioner of the R.C.M.P.?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: My right hon. friend knows the answer that I will make to that question. I have every confidence in the R.C.M.P. But I do want to understand what is the explanation of the circumstances about which the commissioner commented the other day. I want to understand exactly what the man to whom are attributed the words had in mind. That, I think, is only fair.
I am sure that no one in this house would respect me if, after listening to this debate, occupying the position in the government that I do, sitting with the Prime Minister -who, by the way, is ill at the present time-I did not rise and at least put these questions to the house which I think any fair minded man would expect me to do, and which is the proper thing for me in the circumstances to do.
We in this house do not all agree on questions that divide us, in terms of our respective programs. We have our controversies. But, no matter what anyone thinks of the Prime Minister, does anyone really believe that the present Prime Minister of Canada is the kind of man who could possibly undertake the kind of course that is suggested and that is implicit in this amendment?


An hon. Member:: What did the commissioner say?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I am trying to deal with this matter as reasonably as I can, in the absence of the Prime Minister. I ask again, does anyone really believe that the present Prime Minister of Canada is the kind of man who would undertake to deal with a situation like this in the way which is suggested in the amendment before the house?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Does this accord with his reputation?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Martin (Essex Easl):: Is he the type of man who would do what the assumptions indicate?
I say, as one who has known him long before I came into this house, this is not in accord with his past conduct, either as a diplomat, as a minister, as Prime Minister, or as an individual. That is the opinion I am sure of every hon. member in this house. His record, surely, has been concerned with individual rights, and not with the destruction of the rights of individuals. There has been criticism about his conduct in the Spencer case.


An hon. Member:: That was quite justified.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: We all know what was behind the attitude he took in that case. He did what he did because he had a deep regard for individual human rights and was very greatly concerned that there might have been an infraction of those human rights.


John George Diefenbaker: After how long?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I happen to know something about his attitude in the matter, and I can say this without fear of contradiction: that there was no one in this house more anxious than was he to make sure that no act of his government was in any way infringing unduly on the rights of the individual concerned. I cannot believe that anyone in this house really and sincerely believes that the present Prime Minister would deliberately embark upon a course to affect the rights of individual members of this house.
The revision of our security procedures, long before this matter arose, has been a concern of his. He had every reason to be deeply concerned at a time long before he was Prime Minister of this country. His concern, for instance, for the right of collective bargaining in the civil service is based upon his concern for the rights of the individual.
I do not expect that anything I have said will bring this matter to a conclusion. I did feel tonight, during the dinner hour, because he could not be here, because he has been the object of the attacks, that I owed to him, because of my belief in his integrity and good intentions at least to ask this house to wait until an explanation of the facts had been given. I have enough confidence in my fellow members in this house, in all parts, to believe that this courtesy will be extended to him.
May 2, 1966

I can understand what motivated the hon. gentleman in bringing forward this resolution. I am not criticizing him for doing it. I know the hon. gentleman who is bringing this matter forward, and I know what influences him in the judgments he makes in matters that concern us. But surely I am not asking too much when I ask hon. members to take into account the fact that there will be an opportunity given to the head of this government, to the Prime Minister, to explain his interpretation of the events which Mr. Speaker now has decided may be discussed within our rules.
I have said that I have full confidence in the Speaker of this house and in the decision he has made. I would ask the house to consider carefully what I have said, and I would not ask this if I were not perhaps the man in the house who has been here longest.


An hon. Member:: That is a one-sided argument.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, it may be a
one-sided argument, but I assure my hon. friend that it is a necessary one.
I say to this house, as the right hon. gentleman opposite has said many times, parliament still remains the effective embodiment of the national will. It may not be at any given moment what the people of this country would like it to be. There have been many periods in history when the Canadian people have complained about their deliberative assembly. I say tonight, in the remaining hours of this debate, we ought to make sure, before passing judgment that we have all the facts before us. Only then, if we are true to the ideals and traditions of what this parliament professes to be, will we have the right to reach conclusions which are now implicit in this amendment, as though there had been full disclosure of all that was involved.


John George Diefenbaker: Disclosure?


William Arnold Peters: Would the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs permit a question?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Yes, of course.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to know if he has within his knowledge the answer to a rumour that has been widely circulated. I ask this question only because he has mentioned the Spencer case. The rumour is, and looking at the evidence that we have before us it would seem that there is a basis for it, that the head of the H.C.M.P. brought forth this information in question on a rather voluntary basis, rather than being asked questions about it-if I follow the proceedings correctly.
Morality in Government
The story that is abroad is that the Prime Minister, through the Minister of Justice and several others, was threatened by the R.C.M.P. to protect the R.C.M.P., and that when the Spencer inquiry was granted, that was done despite the objections of the R.C.M.P. For this reason, I ask the minister, is it within his knowledge to say whether or not this is a vindictive attack that is being made on the Prime Minister by persons outside this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say, I do not believe it. I do not know, but I do not believe that there is any basis for that. I do not know the facts but I do not believe that people generally in authority are so motivated. I cannot bring myself to think that that kind of thing happens to reasonable and well inten-tioned men.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, my participation in this debate will be as brief as the participation of those who preceded me. All of us, I think, are unhappy that a debate such as this is necessary, and we find that the views we wish to express can be stated briefly.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I speak in the context in which the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) opened the debate and to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) made reference, namely the confidence which all of us have in the institution of parliament. Not only do we in this house believe in parliament but we confidently feel it will survive the trials and tribulations through which it is passing.
Nevertheless, we are all aware that parliament is on trial. We know that the people of this country are asking the question which was quoted this afternoon by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale): What is wrong with parliament?
I realize that anyone who sets out to answer a question as weighty as that runs the risk of being accused of knowing too much about other people's faults. But I feel the only reason for participating in this debate is to try to give an answer to that question.
In my opinion the speech just made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs revealed the answer that is in my mind. He found it necessary-and I think this is sad and

May 2, 1966
Morality in Government pathetic-to stand in this house and defend the reputation of the Prime Minister of this country. Why should he feel it necessary to do that? It was because the reputation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is under attack. I refer not just to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Royal; one has only to pick up newspapers in any centre of this country at the present time and read the editorial pages to realize that the Prime Minister of Canada, the first citizen of this country, is under attack.
The Prime Minister is not the only public man whose reputation has been called into question. He is not the only man who is under criticism and attack. There are other members of parliament on both the government and the opposition sides of the house whose reputations have been seriously damaged by recent events, by allegations, by stories in the press and so forth. I suggest that right here, in the fact that public men are being attacked, that politics has become a game of trying to destroy the other person, is precisely what is wrong with parliament.
I hear an interjection from over there. I think someone said: "Who started it?" I have my own view, but I do not intend to state it. I think we are only compounding the illness if we keep asking the question: Who started it? The fact is that for a long time politics in this country has consisted in an effort to win elections and gain power by destroying the character and reputation of persons on the other side of the house.
If I talk about the two main parties in this chamber someone might well say: That is fine; you are speaking from the vantage point of not yet being one of the major parties. But I do so in the light of the facts of the situation. It cannot be denied that an effort has been made from one side of the house to win political advantage by linking the other side with organized crime.


An hon. Member:: They were.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone says: "They were". That does not matter any more. What matters is what this game is doing to Canada. The other side comes back and says, in effect: Whatever you say about us, you yourselves are engaged in various forms of immorality.
These things have their effect. I say to hon. members in each of the old parties that if they wish to play the game of destroying members on the other side they can do it, and they can succeed. The tragedy is that a great deal of success has already been achieved.

But the process of seeking to destroy members of parliament, whether on the front benches or the back benches, for the sake of gaining political advantage does something further: It destroys parliament itself. This, I suggest, is what is wrong with parliament. This is our malaise. Instead of being engaged in combat over issues and principles, we are engaged in this effort at mutual destruction as a substitute for politics as politics ought to be. We must see an end to this kind of thing in the parliament of Canada.
One of my colleagues, when he knew I intended to speak, urged me to be sure to suggest to the House of Commons that the country wants us to get on with the business of the nation. I agree. I can tell my hon. friend I was going to say that.
But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot get on with the business of the house just by the way we order our procedures, or what items we consider next, or by agreeing, for example, that we should not have had this particular two-day debate. We cannot get the business of this country done as long as this poison stays here -as long as the means of winning out over the other side consists mainly of destroying persons on the opposite side of the house.
I hope members of parliament are listening to the commentaries on radio and television. I hope they are reading the editorials and the letters which constituents are sending. I hope we all realize there is a sickness here. I still believe in parliament. I believe we shall survive this sickness and come out of it stronger than ever. But in order to do this we must call a halt to this abuse of politics, this practice of each side trying to destroy the other and, in particular, of individuals trying to destroy individuals on the other side of the house.
This is what the amendment now before us is about. It is really just a symptom of what is going on. The reference in the amendment is to a course of action which has apparently been followed on the government side of the house; it has not been denied. But we know that on the opposition side of the house, too, certain practices have been followed. When people accept the destruction of the other party as a means of action, the ultimate way of doing that is by character assassination, accusing people of being linked with crime or immorality, or anything else, so as to get them out of the way.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
This is not parliament at its best. This is not parliament as we should like it to be in
May 2. 1966

the history of Canada. This is not the kind of parliament that any of us in the House of Commons wants. Therefore, I call on the leadership of this house. In particular I call on the leaders of the two main parties, the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition, to eschew this method of carrying on, to say we have had enough of it, and to give leadership in constructive battling over real issues. I believe they can. But if they cannot respond to that challenge which is coming to them from all over the country, then they know what the country is saying they ought to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as a member of parliament I would also like to make a few comments with reference to this debate. I could not help but be very impressed with the speech just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I believe all hon. members basically agree with just about everything he said.
I also believe many hon. members were impressed with certain aspects of the speech made by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather). I say certain aspects advisedly because I think it is unfortunate that in the latter part of his speech he tried to frame it into a partisan, no-confidence motion in the government. When he talked about public morality on the part of all members of parliament, in fact he was talking about the conduct of all members of parliament in all parties as exemplified by our behaviour over a period of three or four years.
One could take about two thirds of his speech and say it would be a pretty effective indictment of parliament as a whole, rather than of the government, and so it is unfortunate that his speech had to be twisted for that particular purpose. But one thing that he has accomplished is that he has brought the subject out for further discussion.
In many parts of his speech he suggested that the type of poisoning that has been taking place in this parliament is a thing we have all contributed to in a collective way. He got that message through pretty well before he put forward the motion of no confidence. But I think it was a pretty superficial subterfuge to try to place the blame for what is wrong in this parliament on one hon. member, irrespective of whether he be the Prime Minister or not; and that, in fact, 23033-292
Morality in Government is what has been done by this motion. It is most unfair and I think it is beneath the reputation of the hon. member who moved the motion, an hon. member for whom many of us have the highest respect.
We realize that the disclosure by the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. at this particular hearing was an irresistible temptation to take political advantage of a party and to heap abuse and blame for all that has taken place on the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who, it is alleged, ordered these files. But we all know basically that this is not the root cause, or anything related to it. We all know that what has been going on has been growing for three or four years.
The substantive words of the motion refer to-
-a course of action which would destroy the independence of all members and undermine the institution of parliament.
I submit that this has been effectively done over a period of three or four years by the action of all of us in a collective sense. We are all members of political parties. We all take part in party caucuses. We have to share our responsibility for this type of compromise in our role as members of parliament.
To use this particular disclosure by the R.C.M.P. as a springboard for heaping all the abuse and blame on one man is beneath the dignity of all hon. members, and we should desist from it now if we are to adopt a constructive course and put an end to this action. Its having been stated that the Prime Minister ordered these files then, of course, all the assumptions referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) came into play this afternoon.
But even assuming for the sake of argument that these files were in fact ordered by the Prime Minister, following that allegation there is a mighty big assumption which has been made by hon. members that the files were ordered with malice aforethought, to be used for threatening members of parliament and to blacken the reputations of members of parliament. There are no facts to substantiate that type of assumption, but it is an allegation which has been made at random throughout the house all afternoon. Yet the very ones who make that type of generalization are the people who say this type of conduct must cease if we are to save the institution of parliament.
I do not for one moment impute that type of motive to the Prime Minister. I know the

May 2, 1966
Morality in Government Prime Minister. I have a very high respect for him and I do not believe for one moment
that these files, even if they were orderedand presumably we will hear the Prime Minister's statement on that tomorrow-were ordered with any type of malice such as has been imputed to him here today.
We can all recall the atmosphere in the house-I have never been in such a poisonous atmosphere-in 1964 when allegations were made arising out of the Rivard affair, when a parliamentary secretary and an executive assistant were alleged to be involved in wrongdoing. Those charges were made from the benches opposite, and were used as a basis for wider generalization. We heard that there were going to be great bankruptcy revelations, but these did not come to fruition. It was said that somehow these bankruptcies were a link with the underworld. This lent a certain plausibility to these devastating generalizations, and so other reputations were hurt through unwarranted conduct for which we have never had any substantiation.
We all, as members of parliament, deplore this type of conduct. We all know that certain other members of the government are ghosts that must be present with us, members who were subjected to this generalization technique, but about whom wrongdoing was never substantiated. I cannot help but think of the ex-postmaster general. The justice who presided over the Dorion inquiry said he was a man who was completely exonerated, and that even in the furniture affair his conduct was above reproach. The justice even said that he should be exonerated by all men in public life. Yet he was subjected to this wide type of generalization which must have brought tremendous pain to himself and his family. It was an unjustified type of devastating generalization founded on innuendos and implications. We have all had to live with that type of conduct for the past three years.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Carr Munro: For us to say now that we will forget all that in the past, because the alleged ordering of certain files by the Prime Minister is an implication that one man is the author of all that is wrong with the house, is a conclusion which is obviously ridiculous.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question? When he is dealing with unfounded accusations would he deal with the press conference which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) held on March 10?
(Mr. Munro.]


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish my comments and then I will be pleased to answer the hon. member's question. We are talking about all the allegations that were thrown about this house for a year and a half, involving bankruptcies that were never substantiated, and the origins of which followed closely upon the Rivard affair. We have all experienced the rumour craze that went around the corridors of this house, to a degree never experienced before, when reputations of members too numerous to mention were being compromised at random, whose names came up in the context of some improper conduct in their personal lives. We all know that there were rumours.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
There were vicious rumours floating throughout the press gallery. It seemed that certain members were conducting their own private police force and dropping dark hints that they had revelations which would be coming forward to destroy some particular member of this parliament. If it is a political responsibility of anyone in public life, I would think it must be that of the Prime Minister-this is my own interpretation-to consult and have interviews with the R.C.M.P. to find out whether or not there is any substantiation for the vicious charges being levelled, whether in fact any of them were true or were on the other hand, unfounded gossip; and once that was ascertained it would be the end of the matter. But, to base charges on the assumption that the files were ordered for the purpose of threatening and blackmailing members I think is a motive which should be most distasteful and beneath the dignity of members.
That then was the type of atmosphere which we had for a year and a half. There is little wonder that these files would be ordered. I would have been very surprised if in fact they had not been ordered. I would think it would be the responsibility of any prime minister in the context of his oath as a privy councillor, to check out some of the rumours to find out whether in fact there was any truth to some of them, so that some action could be taken; but it certainly was not designed to discredit the actions of any member of parliament. This is my own interpretation. That disclosure at the inquiry did not surprise me. I suppose, if we listened to the hon. members here, we would think it was some type of outrageous conduct. I never cease to be amazed at how pious we politicians can become.
May 2, 1966	COMMONS
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) today spoke in very injured tones about how his reputation had been compromised or had been damaged because of questions placed on the order paper designed to point out some wrongdoing on his part, of even a minor nature. In the same speech, when he decries that type of behaviour, the hon. member quotes from a speech that he gave on the C.B.C. embodying some of the most wide-sweeping generalizations of a smear nature containing a reference to "garbage cans" and a "whole government under suspicion," Yet, in the same breath he claims his reputation is being tarnished. When one complains, surely one must be prepared to acknowledge at the same time one's own shortcoming.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege. The hon. member, if I heard him correctly, a few moments ago said that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) was guilty of wrongdoing. That statement should be withdrawn or substantiated.


John Carr Munro: It is too bad the hon. member did not listen. I said that he complained that there were questions placed on the order paper designed to point out that he was guilty of some wrongdoing.


Erik Nielsen: Where did he get the information?


Mr. Byrne:: Where did you get yours?


John Carr Munro: If the hon. member wishes to remove subtle threats placed on the order paper, he will have to find some consistency in his own conduct, I refer to the hon. member for the Yukon, because after I made a speech in Toronto complaining about members demeaning themselves by scurrying around the halls trying to get something on one another, I can remember the hon. member's comments then. I think he met me a few days after and said he had received letters from my constituents complaining that I was using my privilege of air travel to give political speeches.


Erik Nielsen: That is true.


John Carr Munro: He was going to take some policing action in this matter. The hon. member does not know that I gave a personal cheque for that particular air fare.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris was complaining bitterly about this type of procedure. Surely this is another example of inconsistency on the part of us all. All of us
23033-292J
DEBATES	4605
Morality in Government collectively have been responsible for what has taken place. I would think that if the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) wishes to talk about political morality not only in our tactics but in our everyday conduct of affairs as parliamentarians, one tactic is the framing of a motion of non-confidence in the government. I would think that a lot of political morality is involved in that type of tactic. Surely he is aware, as are all of us as members of parliament, when these rumours are going about and when there are wide-sweeping generalizations being made based on unfounded implication and innuendo that, as the words of the motion indicate unquestionably: "this destroys the independence or certainly impairs the independence of all of us as members of parliament". How could this action in respect of the ordering of files, as came out at a royal commission hearing have done this type of damage as set out in this amendment, when in fact we know that has happened to us as members of parliament through our course of conduct and through the collective action of all of us for the last three and a half years.
How can this pat and convenient device-I refer to the use of the revelation which came forth four or five days ago at a royal commission hearing-be placed upon one man as his wrongdoing? I say we should all be prepared to accept our shortcomings and do something about them. I should think that a new point of departure for us as members would be to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); we should forget trying to dig up dirt on one another and get on with the business of the country.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion of non-confidence in the government with very deep feelings, because I can speak as a member of the privy council and can say flatly that one of the first instructions I received on being sworn into the council was that under no circumstances was I to probe into any file of the previous administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As a member of the privy council I can say that I was instructed on the first day of my being sworn into office that I must remove myself from all business transactions because my judgment as a minister might be affected, and I assume that instruction applied to all the ministers who were sworn in ahead of me. I can state, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
May 2. 1966
Morality in Government Speaker, that as a member of the privy council inadvertently information came to me about predecessors of mine, not only in my own department but in other departments. On no occasion, with one slight exception, did I ever divulge to my colleagues or other members in the house what information I had gleaned. That one exception was in the year 1959 when a member on this side of the house, a privy councillor, asked me a question in debate on a certain subject which, as I said earlier, inadvertently I had come across, and I did indicate by my statement that I understood what his position had been in that matter when he was in the cabinet. That may have been an improper use of information which had come to me inadvertently, and I would stake my life on the fact that this privy councillor and myself are the only ones who knew of the information that was passed. I say these things deliberately in order that the house may understand that in 1957 we were a new government; not one of us had ever been in a cabinet before, and the instructions I have mentioned came from one person only, the then prime minister of Canada, the man who today sits as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I do not want the house to believe that this attitude was taken by the Leader of the Opposition purely on his assumption of office. The illustration which I shall now quote dates back to the year 1952. It took place in the town of Lumsden, Saskatchewan, in the month of June. It occurred at an election meeting I was attending as a candidate in the provincial election, as leader of the Conservative party in Saskatchewan, for the constituency of Lumsden. The speaker on my behalf that evening was the only Conservative M.P. in Saskatchewan, John Diefenbaker, Member of Parliament for Lake Centre, who is now Leader of the Opposition.
At that meeting was a member of today's press gallery with whom I have checked this story in the last month to verify my memory of this event. On this occasion a man named Rawluk asked at the end of the meeting whether he might read to the meeting a sworn affidavit. I am not a lawyer, nor was the chairman of that meeting. If my memory serves me correctly, and I think it does, I asked the speaker of the evening, who was a distinguished lawyer, whether he could guide us on the course of action we should follow. He asked Mr. Rawluk whether he might read that sworn affidavit. He read the affidavit and
IMr. Hamilton.]
then announced to the meeting that the document would not be read at any meeting at which he or, he hoped, any other Conservative was present, because the allegations in it, even though sworn, would bring down in ruins the reputations of several leading public figures in Saskatchewan.
I quote this incident because the same gentleman, Mr. Rawluk, tried to get another M.L.A. named Benson to let him read the same document at one of his public meetings. This independent M.L.A. refused to read the document, I think on the same grounds as those of the then Mr. Diefenbaker. I point this out because it has a bearing on the situation we face in the house at this moment. The members of the legislature of Saskatchewan knew by the rumour-mill that these allegations were in the wind. It was in the month of February, if my memory serves me correctly, that the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, Mr. Tucker, read this affidavit into the record of the legislature, namely before the crown corporations committee of the legislature.
My remarks are now aimed at the members of the N.D.P. in this house, the successors of that party, the C.C.F. On that occasion the premier of the province of Saskatchewan offered to the opposition three types of investigation. If my memory is correct, the opposition chose a public hearing of these charges on the floor of the house through the forum of the crown corporations committee. Those hearings lasted for several weeks. They were attended by lawyers and representatives of all those people involved in the charges. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the hearings lasted for several weeks and the business of the province of Saskatchewan was held up until the allegations could be cleared away.
I have two points to make. One is that during the long period of the hearing of these terrible charges aimed at the premier and the senior ministers of the government of the province of Saskatchewan you never heard from the leader of the Conservative party in that province one word except in an effort to try to stop this awful going-on. Rightly of wrongly, I have fought the Liberals all my life, I have fought the C.C.F. as hard as I can; but I look upon members of both these parties as Canadians and fellow citizens of Saskatchewan who I hope some day will continue parliament in that legislature after we are all gone.
The second point I want to make is that during those hearings on several occasions I
May 2, 1966
met with leading figures on both sides and tried to use my good offices to bring some kind of end to their impossible tug-of-war, because they were asking that the matter be decided by a vote of the members, and no one would give in. When the hearing was completed, the ministers of the crown were cleared.
It is true that the head of the government insurance office left his job. But my point is this, and I make it to the N.D.P.: During that time when the premier of Saskatchewan, along with his ministers, was under heavy personal attack, charged with allegations in many ways much more terrible than this house has had to endure, the Conservative party in Saskatchewan stood for the rights of all people in that province to see that their legislature was preserved and that the rights of individuals were not condemned.
During that awful period the rumours that went around our province and through the legislative building every hour on the hour were just as bad as we have had to endure in the last few years here in Ottawa. I mention this to the New Democratic Party on the ground that now I think they can measure up to their democratic responsibility by indicating in this house that they disapprove, not only of this type of blanket charge that we have had to endure, but of the concept that the mounted police of our country, which has the highest reputation of any police force in the world, should be forced into a position where they have to degrade themselves to become watchdogs over members of parliament for a period of 10 years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. I wonder whether he is aware of the fact that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) stated this afternoon that this is the position of our party and that we shall be voting for the amendment.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am very glad to hear this interjection because I wanted to make this appeal and I wanted to make it absolutely clear, with no sense of malice to the N.D.P. whatsoever, that we can all be subjected to this type of treatment.
I recall what the premier of Saskatchewan had to go through in my province on this same type of attack, not only the type of allegations but this rumour-mongering. I believe it would have been easy for me to have joined in this business of worrying the premier when he seemed to be flat on his back.
Morality in Government However, I took the course-and many people in my party in the province of Saskatchewan accused me of destroying the chance for my party to rise in power-of trying to defend a principle which I still believe in. I am glad to hear that the N.D.P. are going to stand with us on this matter, because it is crucial.
When a government is attacked as the opposition must attack a government, it is not a proper course of action to use the national police of the country to destroy the reputation of any individual in this house, whether requested by a prime minister or not. I believe this country knows that we can only carry on as a parliament when certain codes of ethics are followed. This is illustrated in the fact that we assume every person in this house is a gentleman and we must take his word, even though that is hard at times.
Second, we have certain rules developed over the centuries to try to protect the rights of individuals in this house. If my history is not wrong, that mace sitting on the table when Mr. Speaker is in the chair, is a symbol that no one, neither a monarch sitting up in the gallery nor any agent of a monarch, has any right to impose pressure on members; it makes no difference whether the Queen's first minister uses that technique. This is what the issue is here today, Mr. Speaker-and my time goes on.
I should like, if I may, to read an article which appeared on March 8 in many papers across Canada. It is written by a gentleman named Douglas Fisher who was in this house. This article disturbed me at the time and I have questioned this ex-N.D.P. member closely about the article. The article has been challenged but no action has been taken on this challenge. I ask all members who are not committed to a fixed course of action to read what one of our ex-members said. Before going into that article, I have been rereading what was quoted by the member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) about what the member for Port Arthur said on March 4, 1965 when he asked the speaker for a ruling on this question of private members, on the government side, posing questions which indicated extremely clearly that they had access to documents only available to ministers. I could duplicate, for example, the question which he used with other samples, because I noticed, as an ex-minister, certain questions going on the order paper which could only come from the files of ministers. At this time the member for Port Arthur asked the



May 2, 1966
Morality in Government Speaker this, as reported at page 11963 of Hansard, March 4, 1965:
I think all members of parliament, whether government or opposition, only ask for a fair chance. After consultation with your officials, Mr. Speaker, who deal with the order paper and questions of procedure, I now put before you for your advice the question whether there is a clear cut case here of collusion of the kind that would attack the traditional parliamentary rights of members of parliament.
This point of privilege raised by the member for Port Arthur was followed by the member for Winnipeg South Centre who goes on to say this at page 11964 of Hansard, March 4, 1965:
But the problem raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur is much wider than that. Surely it is no function of the Speaker to ascertain whether or not access to files has been made available to private members of the house. I do not know what sort of investigation Mr. Speaker could carry on in that regard. If I understood the accusation of the hon. member for Port Arthur, it was based more on that ground rather than simply the technical arrangement of questions on the order paper.
Then the member for Winnipeg South Centre went on to say that he would like to move a motion, and there were other parts of the debate which I have a feeling will be referred to before this debate is over. So here we have, on March 4, 1965, a member of this house, who I think we will all agree has been very interested in the institution of parliament, questioning a practice that was becoming self-evident.
Now almost a year to the day later the same member of parliament, who is no longer with us, publishes an article of which I am going to read a part.


David Lewis: He is fully alive.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When I say he is no longer with us I mean on the floor of this house.
Mr. Fisher's article appears in the Toronto Telegram of Tuesday, March 8, 1966 and reads:
At first blush, the manner in which Justice Minister Cardin dropped the Monsignor case into the house record made it seem almost accidental. The mistaken spelling or pronunciation, Munzinger for Monsignor, supports this. But it could not have been that casual.
Before Mr. Cardin spoke, Mr. Diefenbaker had said during remarks on the Spencer case" . . . . the time has come for a full and complete investigation. I want to go back; I want to cover the period from 1944 onward."
Remember that this was early Friday afternoon before we had any threat about the Monsignor case from Mr. Cardin. Shortly after saying this, Mr. Diefenbaker remarked: "Let us assure that our security shall be preserved. Let us go into the

matter. Why do you not do it? Don't go around telling members of the press gallery: 'If we were to tell what we know, we would be devastating.' I say to you, let us bring out the facts. Establish a royal commission. I want to go back to 1944-45 to see whether our security is what it should be."
So the press gallery had been told something. What was it?
It won't surprise anyone that members of the press are always being given tips and leads, especially by a politician or worker for one party about another.
The hon. member who has made an interjection should remember that one of his predecessors sitting in his seat was in very serious trouble and is now out of this house.


Mr. Teillei:: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to threaten me, let him deal with facts.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I believe, Mr. Speaker, we need only to regard where this comes from and let it pass.
Let me go on to quote again from Mr. Fisher's article, where he says:
In this sense the reporter becomes the broker or agent for the interest that gave him his lead. Of course, he is not consciously such an agent because his main concern is to dig out a story for the public.
I am new enough around the press gallery to have a strong curiosity about how the news process works. I notice the people who are not reporters who drop into the gallery room-the MP's, the executive assistants, and the public relations men.
Several weeks ago it struck me that one chap, medium sized, glasses, rather scholarly, seemed to drift through the quarters a lot.
He was a familiar face around the buildings but I had never placed him directly. I asked a colleague who he was and the answer was that he was a former executive assistant to George Mcllraith, Minister of Public Works. His name was Hugh Lawford. He is now attached to the Privy Council office and working around the Prime Minister's office.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Stewart:: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker? I should like to know if the hon. member is assuming responsibility for the accuracy of the information he is putting before the house.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the necessary action can be taken if this is inaccurate, as the hon. member knows.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: The hon. member was making certain assertions a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, with regard to me. I should like him to specify those.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the success of my remarks is self-evident.
May 2. 1966


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is no answer.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to go on and quote.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker-


Roger-Joseph Teillet: If you have any accusations to make, make them.


John B. Stewart: Is the hon. gentleman assuming responsibility for the accuracy of the statements he is putting on the record? This is the rule of the house, as we all know.


John James Greene: And stake his seat on it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not know why hon. members are objecting. I am reading an article which is available to everyone and if the actions that they want to take are not taken we can only assume the statements are accurate.


John B. Stewart: The authority of the information is very important.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: If the
hon. member for Qu'Appelle reads an article contained in a newspaper, he is also assuming responsibility for the accuracy of these different points that have been put forward in the article.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, provided he will read the article and leave out the asides he is making, then we will accept that.


Erik Nielsen: You put in the asides.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will be glad to accept that admonition. I will have no more asides if the minister will keep quiet. I continue to quote:
I asked whether Mr. Lawford was a party worker and the answer was not clear. Mr. Law-ford had been on the staff of Queen's University. His training was in law. and he was much interested in the parliamentary process. Innocent enough. I asked what brought him to the gallery so often. Did he have some friendship or association with some reporter? The person I questioned wasn't sure. He hadn't thought about it before but it was true that Mr. Lawford was drifting around on many occasions during the day and evening.
About this time the prospect of a storm over affairs in the Department of Justice was developing. Erik Nielsen had said that he would be naming names on bankruptcy matters and the Spencer case was becoming more and more of an issue. I began to hear the odd hint that the government wasn't worried about Nielsen and any of his charges; that the government had some juicy items of its own about the Diefenbaker administration and that some truly exciting revelations were in store.
Naturally I was all ears and I am sure the same attitude prevailed among most newspapermen. Now this kind of hint was not new. It had been dropped
Morality in Government repeatedly at the time of the Rivard brouhaha. In fact, some of the ugliest stories I have ever heard were running below the surface at that time, involving members of all parties. Stories to make the seamy ones in Arthur Hailey's In High Places seem tame.
I remember that I wrote a column at the time which tried to make the point that morally the federal politicians were as good or better than the people they represented.
In tracing these hints to a source I found that most of them seemed to lead to Mr. Lawford. It seemed that in his excursions through the gallery a few reporters were told that they could expect or might get some real sensations very soon, that the government had more than enough to put the Tories in their place. Of course, these hints got back to Mr. Diefenbaker. That's what he was referring to with his sentence: "Don't go around telling members of the press gallery: 'If we were to tell what we know, we would be devastating'."
When Mr. Cardin dropped his Monsignor reference, the cat was out of the bag. The reporters or some of them had been given just enough information to have the most lurid outline for a breaking story. Thus the first line of one reporter's story . . . "The photograph shows a voluptuous blonde, nude, lying in bed with a man. Ordinarily, it might be just another smutty picture. But the woman is Olga Munzinger, an East German, who was considered a security risk by the R.C.M.P. and the man was a minister in the Diefenbaker government in 1961."
Now, this reporter was not around Ottawa in 1961. He is not an old hand in Ottawa. His information was a tip from someone in the government. I have to conclude that it was given him deliberately as part of a plan, that Mr. Lawford was the source or one of the sources for it.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: May we know who the hon. gentleman is quoting now? Will you let us know whom you are quoting now?


Erik Nielsen: Lawford.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I know you cannot protect me from this type of thing, Mr. Speaker. I promised I would not interrupt my reading if the minister would keep quiet.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I should like to know from whom he is quoting now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am quoting now from a reporter by the name of Douglas Fisher who is quoting from a newspaper known as the Toronto Star.
Nr. Nielsen: Not always friendly to this side.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I continue to quote:
Since Mr. Lawford is working out of the P.M.'s office and is a contract employee with the responsibility of advising the government on problems of parliamentary procedure (that is, he is not a petty clerk) it seems clear that the Munzinger revelations are part of a calculated government plan to shift attention to the behaviour of the Diefenbaker government.

May 2, 1366
Morality in Government
It seems a queer thing, an odd plan, perhaps a stupid plan. But it is obviously a plan that the government has gone into with deliberation and with the approval of the Prime Minister. As might be expected, much more than the Munzinger case will now be heard.
I read this article into the record, Mr. Speaker, because it bears out something that I feel we have been a little slow on this side to grasp, namely, the appearance of statements in 1962 read this afternoon to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), now Prime Minister, in several places announced that under no circumstances would anything happen in the house until the government of the day was defeated. These headlines went all across Canada. This policy of destruction of government at any cost to parliament or the members of this house was started on that occasion. I cannot divulge any part of what I know for the simple reason that I have to hold myself to my oath as a privy councillor and to the level of ethics to which I personally adhere.
I want to ask the members of the Social Credit party now about a pledge they made to the people during the last election campaign to the effect they would support the government except on matters of corruption or doubtful action. This was the pledge which I am sure was made with all sincerity. I have fought the Social Credit party just as I have fought the Liberals and the N.D.P. On an issue such as this, I have a right to ask the Social Credit members where they stand. Will they come with us in a clearcut expression of opinion that no one, the monarch or the first spokesman of the monarch, has the right to apply police state principles to the members of this house.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remind our friends in the Creditiste party that in the election in 1963 they had a man by the name of Dupuis flung at them. He had instructions to get the Creditistes. He was sent out to follow every member of the Creditiste party and overwhelm them with the thunder of his voice, and make charges against them. Is this not true? It is true. This man came into the house and was rewarded with a position in the cabinet by the present Prime Minister. Even after the government of the day knew of the allegations made against him by the Quebec government, that member stayed in the house and in the cabinet.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I think the Creditistes know that if they want the right as individual members of

parliament or collectively as a party to survive, they have to expect that with Dupuis out of the way someone else will take his place.We hear rumours and rumbles of this tonight. I have to ask members of parliament, both individually and as members of a party, where they stand on this issue of using the police for a purpose for which they were never intended, namely, to threaten and to restrict the freedom of the individual members of the house.
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, there may be many members of the Liberal party across this country who remember the principles of Liberalism, who remember the long struggles over hundreds of years to build up the freedom of individuals in this country and in our parliamentary structure. The many Liberals who have shared these principles with many others will remember that their loyalty to them is greater than that party devotion which they have had drilled into them in the last 50 years or so.
Therefore, I ask some of the members across the floor tonight to think very long and hard before they make their decision on this matter. If the government goes down to defeat tomorrow night they will lose a Prime Minister and a leader. But this house must show where it stands. Should a Prime Minister or should anybody call on the police force of our country to look into the private behavour of all M.P.'s for the last ten years so as to find whether there are any scandalous actions which can be used as a threat, to be held over their heads-as the headlines point out-for 16 months? I hope the principles to which I referred will force many members, individually and collectively, to stand up and be counted tomorrow as Liberals of this house who believe in Liberalism, not the Liberal party. Let them be counted with those of us who fight on this issue of the preservation of the rights of individuals in this house to freedom from fear of a police state.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. gentleman who has just finished speaking? We have heard a great deal tonight about the dangers of general allegations. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he is accepting responsibility for the accuracy of the article, allegedly written by Mr. Douglas Fisher, upon which he relied so fully in the argument he has developed in the house tonight.
May 2, 1966

Second, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he knows that these allegations were categorically denied by the gentleman mentioned, namely Mr. Hugh Lawford, in the next day's issue of the Ottawa Citizen.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned when I started to read the article of Douglas Fisher that I knew that the article had been objected to by the person mentioned, Mr. Lawford. I also went on to say that no action had been forthcoming. I simply say that in the refutation of this article by Mr. Lawford he threatened to sue, and I am waiting for the suit to start.


John B. Stewart: May I ask another question. May I ask the hon. member if the mere fact that a person does not persist in an action in the courts is to be taken as conclusive evidence of the accuracy of allegations against which the person objected?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I want to state my conviction so that there is no misunderstanding. I have been in this house for nine years. During that time, specifically in the last two or three years, I know that rumours have been floating around this place the like of which I have not known before. When this case of which we cannot talk developed, things appeared in the papers which turned out to be untrue. Now, somebody must have started these rumours, and I put Mr. Douglas Fisher's opinion as to who one of the sources was on the record.
What I have to say now is very blunt and to the point. What the hon. member is saying in his question is that I am trying to nit-pick; that I am accepting responsibility for every word written by Douglas Fisher. He is completely missing my main plea. Certainly somebody was spreading these rumours; they did not get abroad by accident. I heard them myself and from Liberal M.P.'s, but I will not stoop so low as to mention any names. I simply ask where these rumours started from. I quoted one source, and I am now wondering why we are so naive in not realizing the tremendous public relations effort put in by the government in 1963 in lieu of policies. They are trying to do this by means of a type of public relations smear and scandal campaign, which must stop if we are to exist as a parliament.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, having listened earlier this evening 23033-293

Morality in Government to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and comparing it to the speech just made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), I am sure the people in the galleries will all know just how sick parliament has become. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle saw fit to attack this person named Hugh Lawford for about ten minutes in what was to me the most puzzling speech of the day, because I do not know what purpose it served. Nevertheless it seemed to me both despicable and cowardly for a member of parliament to stand in this house and attack a civil servant, whose only recourse is to sit silently in the galleries and listen to the hon. member read what is nothing more than gossip, inference and slander.
I have been a member of this house for four years. Like most new members, when I first came here I had no fear or hesitation about standing up in the House of Commons and issuing what I thought, in my humble way, was a belligerent and vicious attack. In those days I viewed every member outside the Liberal party as an enemy.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, I like to think that I have matured a little. In the four years I have been here I have come to know most members of this house, regardless of party, by their first names. It is no secret that after hours I have had the chance to fraternize with most members-Creditistes, Socialists, Conservatives. I can say without fear of contradition that individually I do not know a nicer group of people.
I sit in this house, Mr. Speaker, day in and day out, rarely participating in debates, though at times when I do it may be in a belligerent manner, but I am puzzled and wonder why this House of Commons has deteriorated to such a state that the Mun-singer affair could become a reality. I wonder why we are discussing an amendment reflecting upon the integrity of a man who has yet to have an opportunity to defend himself. I refer to our Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who is ill.
It seems to me that the question raised today on the supply motion should have waited until the Prime Minister was present in this house. I think the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), in introducing the amendment, did so in a very reasonable manner, as is his custom. He is worried, as am I, about the freedom of individuals both inside and outside parliament. I think that all hon. members on this side of the house share


An hon. Member:: He resigned.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: He was completely exonerated. I thought everybody knew this. His name came into the Dorion case, and I am not blaming anybody for that. His name was dragged into that probe as part of the evidence, as part of the inferences drawn, as part of skilful manoeuvrings. I did ask at the time who would protect him if he was found innocent of wrongdoing, as indeed he was. I think it is a great shame, when the Dorion report was tabled, that the house did not officially apologize to that man who was completely exonerated by a judge.
When we finished with the furniture deals, Mr. Speaker, was that the end of the disturbing atmosphere in this house? No. It was only the beginning of an attitude and of an atmosphere that is leading to the self-destruction of all parties of the house, because shortly after that we embarked on an election campaign. The tenor of the election campaign unfortunately was set by the tone of the house when it dissolved.
Therefore, as though it were smoke coming out of a bottle, that spirit of belligerence and hostility which marked the Dorion debate, which marked the debate on the furniture business, came into the question period, and carried on into election time.
I have a file here. I will read a few comments from it into the record tomorrow. These are headlines that made news across Canada. I would ask the older members of the house, from the New Democratic Party, from the Liberal party, or from the front bench of the Conservative party to compare these headlines with the types of headlines that you traditionally see in the heat of an election campaign, either out west, in the east or in central Canada. We all expect a little freedom, a little licence and a little irresponsibility in an election campaign. But how irresponsible do you get? Take the Toronto Star for instance-
DEBATES	4613
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


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

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, on December 20, 1963, two and a half years ago, the committee on privileges and elections under the chairmanship of the hon. gentleman who is now the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) considered the Canada Elections Act, but did not complete its studies at that time. In its final report to the house the committee unanimously recommended, and I quote from the Journals of that year, at page 765:
-that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be empowered to study the Canada Elections Act, at the earliest possible date next session with a view to affording this committee an opportunity for exhaustive and constructive examination and study of the said act.
That was in 1963. Even though the Prime Minister has been asked on a number of occasions since that time to carry out the wishes recommended unanimously by that committee, he has failed to carry out those legitimate requests and has denied the committee the opportunity to study fully and completely the Canada Elections Act, as has been the practice for quite a number of years.
Some two months ago I moved that the committee report to the house, and that the Canada Elections Act be referred to it for study. That motion of mine was carried unanimously in the committee. There was not a whisper of objection to the idea that we should complete the examination begun in 1963.
We waited in vain for the committee to report. The chairman, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. McWilliam) who is not here this evening, said in answer to one question of mine that someone had objected to the proceedings of the committee. But this was a unanimous decision. So we must ask ourselves: Who objected, and for what reason?
The only conclusion one can reach is that one of the close supporters of the government
May 2, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion objected to this procedure because it ran counter to the desire of the Prime Minister and his colleagues not to have the Canada Elections Act looked into.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
This was primarily because the committee at one stage in 1963 passed a resolution that the age of voting be reduced from 21 years to 18 years. After that decision was made I heard, quietly and privately, many Liberals saying that they wished they had not supported the resolution because it was an embarrassing thing in the province of Quebec, because the most notable radicals in the separatist movement were in the 18 and 19 year age group, and they did not want to be tarred with that sort of distasteful brushing.
I submit that it is for that reason the government has refused to carry out the unanimous recommendation of the Privileges and Elections Committee of 1963, that the government has interfered with the privileges of the committee, and did it by having the committee stymied through the chairman. I submit that this has been an unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of the committee.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 1, 1966, at the organization meeting of the Committee on Privileges and Elections a motion was made, as stated by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), in substantially these words, "that the Canada Elections Act be referred to the committee for study, examination and report." The motion was accepted by the committee. However, I am told that a point was raised at that time that the committee acted beyond its terms of reference because a study of the Elections Act was not referred to the committee.


Frank Howard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not correct to say that an objection was raised at that time because it was not.


Albert Béchard: Well, I am told by the chairman of the committee that it was raised, due to the fact that the act was not referred to the committee by the house. The chairman of the committee then requested opinions on the matter, not from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), but from the Clerk of the House, the parliamentary counsel and the chief of the committees branch. These three officials stated in writing to the chairman that the


committee acted beyond its terms of reference.
Since then the chairman of the committee has requested space for the accommodation of another meeting, at which time the opinion of the officers of the house will be brought before members of the committee for consideration and action. I must state that there was no interference by the Prime Minister, the government, or any member of the government.



PUBLIC SERVICE-SUPERANNUATED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES-REQUEST FOR INCREASED PENSIONS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last, as reported at page 4424 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) a question concerning retired civil servants. My question was put in these words:
In view of the fact that the government has on the order paper a notice of intention to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, including the making of amendments of a general character, may I ask whether this will include an amendment to increase the pensions of civil servants already retired?
The Prime Minister's reply was very brief. He simply said:
No, Mr. Speaker.
I then put a supplementary question, to which the Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, this matter is being brought to our attention, as my hon. friend knows, not only by him but by those directly concerned, and it is under continuous consideration. There is no intention to change the position at this time.
I find that answer very disappointing, if not somewhat confusing. We are told by the Prime Minister that the matter is under continuous consideration but that there is no intention to change the position at this time.
The basis of my question last Thursday was a resolution, which is order No. 51 on the order paper, which forecasts legislation dealing with a number of pension statutes. It is obvious from the resolution that the main purpose of the legislation will be to provide integration between a number of pension plans and the Canada Pension Plan. However, at the end of the resolution, the Public Service Superannuation Act having been mentioned, there is this phrase:
-and to make amendments of a general nature in connection with the administration of those acts-
May 2, 1966	COMMONS
Therefore it was my contention that since legislation is to be brought before the house at this session, amending the Public Service Superannuation Act, and if the amendments to be presented at that time include amendments of a general character, then that would be an excellent opportunity to deal with this tremendously important question of raising the pensions of retired civil servants.
I know the answers to this question. I have had them given to me a good many times. They shift a bit. Sometimes it is a case of waiting for the Canada Pension Plan. Sometimes it is a case of waiting for review of the Old Age Security Act. Sometimes it is a case of waiting for the Canada Assistance Plan, and sometimes it is just wait. This is what the retired civil servants have been doing-waiting, waiting, waiting across the years.
Of course the argument is put forward that the pensions these people get are the result of a contractual arrangement and that it is unusual to escalate pensions after they have been put in pay. But that argument does not hold any more, because the government has provided for escalation of pensions under the Old Age Security Act and under the Canada Pension Plan. That the government has put this piece of escalation into effect is a recognition of the fact that we are going to have to get over the notion that pensions, once fixed, are good for all time.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The cost of living keeps changing; the standard of living keeps changing; prices go up; wages and salaries go up. The thought that retired people from age 60 or 65 for the rest of their years must never have an increase in the pension awarded to them is completely out of date. Surely the body which ought to start doing something about this is the federal government. Information has been placed on the record many times, certainly at least once a year in the time I have been here, concerning the pensions which our retired civil servants receive. There are far too many cases where they are low. The
DEBATES	4615
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion argument today to the effect that perhaps some of them have something else in addition to their pension has nothing to do with the case. It is our business to be a good employer, and just as some other employers have made adjustments to pensions after they have been put in pay, I say this should be done for the retired civil servants. It was done once; it was done by the Conservative government in 1960 or 1961 and there is no reason that it cannot be done again.
I say that the answer of the Prime Minister, that this matter is under continuous consideration, is not good enough. If the answer tonight still is no, the parliamentary secretary might as well stay in his seat. I hope he will indicate instead that the kind of study which is being given to this matter is the kind which will see action taken on this important question of increased pensions for retired civil servants at this session of parliament.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, of course I have not much to add to the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I think we gave an adequate answer to that question on January 25, 1966, when the hon. member raised it in the house.
I know that he is very much interested in pensions for all Canadian citizens and, as we said in our reply of January 25, 1966, we are also very much concerned by the situation of pensioners.
However, the government has decided that the matter of pensions for civil servants would be studied in the general context of the pension plan for all the citizens of Canada, and that policy has not changed since then.
The hon. member has only to read the answer given on January 25, 1966, on the same subject.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Tuesday, May 3, 1966