1966-02-28

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: On January 26 I tabled volume 1 of the Tariff Board report on reference 132 relating to wire and wire products. Volume 1 dealt with rod, wire and wire products of iron or steel. I am having tabled today copies in English and in French of volume 2 of this report.
Volume 2 relates to wire and wire cloth of non-ferrous metals. The Tariff Board's recommendations contained therein will receive most careful consideration by the government. I would also like to take this opportunity to invite interested parties to let me have any comments they may wish to make on this report.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I wish to announce the government's decision to recommend to the house the adoption of a new northern loan program as an incentive to develop the mineral resources in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Exploration expenditures in the north have been running at an annual rate of approximately twenty millions of dollars per year which, while gratifying in terms of the past, is still unsatisfactory as compared with the oil and gas exploration expenditures in southern Canada in the magnitude of $150 million per annum.
The government therefore believes it is desirable to encourage greater northern exploration for the purpose of realizing the mineral possibilities which exist in these territories. The federal government has a net expenditure in the north every year of over $50 million. Companies and individuals engaged in the oil and mineral business presently appear to have adequate incentives under the Income Tax Act for exploration expenditure. The government proposes, 23033-1171
through a northern mineral development loan fund, to bring many of these same advantages to the ordinary Canadian investor and thereby considerably expand the funds available for such exploration.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The loan fund is for Canadians and Canadian-controlled companies only. While we welcome foreign capital in the north, we believe that Canadians should have a special incentive to invest in Canada's large northern potential of resources. Development in depth is one of our great challenges.
The loan fund will provide amounts of up to 40 per cent of approved exploratory expenditures to companies and individuals not eligible for the Income Tax Act charge-off incentive, and repayment will be required only if minerals are found in commercial quantities. The government will thereby assist with the high risks normally associated with northern resource exploration. The loan fund will be limited initially to $3 million per year, with possible increases in succeeding years after review of the program's success. An appropriate item will be included in estimates for the approval of the house.
In conclusion, I hope this loan fund will be instrumental in attracting major new exploration funds to the northern territories, and increasing the proportion of Canadian ownership in the non-renewable resources of the north.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, for the second time in two sitting days, for paying the opposition the courtesy of sending his announcement on motions across to us ahead of time, because this gives us an opportunity to prepare some form of constructive response to such announcements.
The first point I wish to make is that the announcement today recognizes something that has been a fact for a long time, namely that United States tax laws and Canadian tax laws work in a similar direction to encourage United States investment in Canada and to penalize Canadian investment in the Canadian mining and oil industries. This fact was pointed out very clearly by the Gordon
February 28, 1966
1842	COMMONS
Northern Mineral Resources Program royal commission and the Borden royal commission, and the proposal announced today is a method to try and equalize the scales.
The proposal suggests a 40 per cent loan, not repayable if there is no success in the exploration. The only thing I would like to suggest here is that since the government intends to collect back the 40 per cent loan in a case where there is success in locating new oil or minerals, why not go one step further and take a 40 per cent interest in equity ownership? This would be the next logical step.
The proposal announced today carries on the over-all idea of dynamic action by the federal government in the development of the resources of this country that we brought into effect in a major way in 1957-58.
I should also like to point out, with respect to the expenditure of federal moneys in development of the north that we have to keep the economics in mind. That is, we cannot spread such a program generally all over the north. It has to be concentrated in those areas where there is the best chance relating to marketing the product. Therefore it is sound to go into the north from the sea, as I know the minister is interested in doing, via Baffin Island, and also through the land mass of the four western provinces.
I would also suggest that while this loan program which will encourage money to be spent in the high risk enterprise of exploration, giving companies a write-off where a write-off is not available to them now because they have not got refineries or smelters, the minister can help even more by restoring the roads to resources program. The hopes for a smelter at Great Slave lake will help, but by building a road connection around Great Slave lake in a circle the rich area around Great Slave lake could be made available for development through this loan fund program.
I should like to conclude with one little statement to the house. In 1958 and 1959 we invested $2J million in building three bridges in the Yukon over the Stewart, Pelly and Yukon rivers. Every two years since those three bridges were completed the federal government has received back $2J million in direct taxes as a result of that investment. This type of thing announced by the minister will have a similar result.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I too desire to thank the minister for giving us notice of his intention to make this statement on motions. I am sure all hon. members will agree with the need for


development in the north and the need for additional exploration and development of minerals. I am sure they will also agree that this is a high risk area.
I think the minister is to be commended for setting up this northern mineral development fund. However, I am somewhat perturbed at the proposal that a borrower may be able to borrow up to 40 per cent of the amount invested and need not repay this loan unless he discovers minerals in commercial quantities. It seems to me this is coming fairly close to a "heads you win, tails I lose" proposition.
I think the minister could accomplish what he has in mind by entering into an arrangement with these companies whereby, an additional royalty in addition to the normal royalty, or 40 per cent of the profits made would be payable to the government by the company; and of course if the company made no profits they would not have to make any repayment. But if they do make profits in developing these resources, which after all belong to the people of Canada, I see no reason why the people of Canada should not have a share of the profits which result therefrom.
I hope the minister will give this some consideration. Also I hope that after the passage of time the amount of $3 million will be greatly expanded, because larger amounts of capital will be needed if we are to develop the northern parts of this country.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I too appreciate the privilege of having been given prior notice ot this statement today as it relates to the assistance program for the development of our northern resources. I believe we share with all members of the house satisfaction in knowing that something is being done to assist in the exploration and survey development of the resources in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory.
As I listened to the announcement I found myself wondering whether this program could not have been developed through the Industrial Development Bank, or whether this is perhaps part of the legitimate area into which the Canadian Development Corporation could well reach when it is established. Certainly we are concerned at the multiplicity of funds in this regard. I would hope the government is making every effort to bring forward the Canadian Development Corporation legislation as quickly as possible.
February 28. 1966

I believe, Mr. Speaker, the amount mentioned is only the beginning. I believe also to follow up this policy there must be some policy in relation to the leasing of mineral rights and the sharing in the royalties so far as the Canadian people are concerned. I do not think this has to be done through governmental equity. I think the pattern already is established, that this can be done through leases, rentals, and also through royalties so that the real benefit of these resources which are developed as a result of the exploration can return to the people of Canada in their own time.
Again we express our satisfaction at this beginning in this very important area of resources development.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, on February 23, 1966, as shown at page 1658 of Hansard, I answered question No. 315 asked by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam concerning annual vacations for the employees of Polymer Corporation. The corporation has since furnished me with additional pertinent information.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
In the reply shown in Hansard it was stated that there were 21 employees who did not receive the full annual vacation to which they were entitled in 1965. The vacation periods for these employees were set over into 1966 by mutual agreement because of sickness or their involvement in special assignments or projects.
I am now advised that, in addition, there are 28 new employees whose first year of employment with the company ended after July 1, 1965, and some as late as December, 1965, and who therefore become entitled to an additional week of vacation under the terms of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. Section 17(A) of the act requires that the vacation begin not later than ten months after completion of the year of employment and the additional week of vacation is being given in conformity with the act. Thus, although these employees will receive the full annual vacation to which they became entitled in 1965, the additional week was not, in fact, taken in the calendar year 1965.
Question of Privilege HOUSE OF COMMONS



ELI LINDSAY. ARBORFIELD, SASK.- 107 YEARS OLD TODAY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to your attention and to the attention of the Prime Minister and hon. members a matter of great national interest. One of my constituents, Grandfather Eli Lindsay, of Arborfield, Saskatchewan, is celebrating his 107th birthday today. This morning I phoned Grandpa Lindsay to wish him good health. He seemed pleased with the call and thanked me for calling him.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to remind hon. members of a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) I believe some time last week, affecting the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Berger). I have given the matter serious consideration since that time and am now prepared to express an opinion or give a judgment on the question of privilege. However, I feel that perhaps it would be more in order to deliver my judgment when the hon. member for Yukon is in the house.
I notice that the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet is in his seat at this time, so perhaps I should bring to the attention of the house a judgment which has been brought to the attention of the Chair and the Clerk of the House. This judgment reads in part as follows:

We, the undersigned. Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, sitting for the district of Quebec, on the applicant's petition, after having examined the facts alleged In the petition and the documents produced:
EXCUSE the applicant for failing to file his election expenses return;
AUTHORIZE the applicant to submit the said return within fifteen days from the date of the present ruling;
AUTHORIZE the applicant to act as if his return had been filed within the time limit prescribed by law.

Perhaps I should mention the fact that this does not necessarily close the matter in so far

February 28, 1966
Questions
as the question ol privilege is concerned but, if the house is in agreement, before rendering a judgment on the matter I suggest that we wait until both members are in their seats.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, could we have the date of that judgment or
order?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might be given an opportunity to consult with the chief justice to find out when this was delivered, because there is no apparent date of delivery. It does indicate that it was received by the chief electoral officer and the Clerk of the House of Commons on February 28. That is the only date on this judgment now before the Chair and the House.



Before going on to orders of the day, I wish to point out to hon. members that after looking more closely at the judgment delivered by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, I notice that the said judgment was delivered or is dated February 24, 1966.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1965, has any employee in the penitentiary service been charged in court with any offence and, if so, with respect to each such person, what was (a) his or her name (b) the particulars of the charge, and (c) the disposition of the charge?
2.	What disciplinary action did the penitentiary service take with respect to each such person?
3.	Was each such person subsequently reinstated in full stature and employment with the penitentiary service?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: 1, 2
and 3. Since January 1, 1965, the following employees of the penitentiary service have been charged in court. The particulars of the charge (s), the disposition of the charge by the court and the disciplinary and/or administrative action taken by the service with respect to each such person are indicated in each case: R. E. Phinney: Charges: Being intoxicated in a public place. Other charges withdrawn. Court disposition: Found guilty and fined $10 and costs. Service action: No action was taken by the service because this employee resigned on 23 September 1965, be-

fore his court appearance. He reapplied for re-employment and was reinstated with effect on January 6, 1966, at the basic rate of pay of his rank classification. M. L. Christie: Charges: Being intoxicated in a public place. Other charge withdrawn. Court disposition: Found guilty and fined $10 and costs. Service action: Suspended from duty, later charged under penitentiary service regulations and awarded admonishment by warden. Reinstated in rank and pay with effect December, 1965. J. L. R. Poliquin: Charge: Gross indecency. Court disposition: Found guilty, fined $200 and placed on $500 bond to keep peace for a period of three years; in default of the fine, to serve six months in jail; in default of keeping the peace, to serve one year in prison. Granted an extension of time of two months to pay. Service action: Resigned from the service. F. B. G. Wirth: Charge: Being intoxicated in a public place. Court disposition: Fined $18 and costs $2.50. Service action: Charged under penitentiary service regulations and awarded a reprimand. This officer resigned from the service on 31 December 1965. G. E. Jackson: Charge: Being intoxicated in a public place. Court disposition: Fined $18 and costs $2.50. Service action:	Resigned from the service. J. E.
Frasso: Charge: Theft of government property. Court disposition: Found guilty and fined $25 and costs. Service action: Resigned from the service. G. N. White: Charge: Being intoxicated in a public place. Court disposition: Remanded until called upon. Warned by magistrate. Service action: Charged under penitentiary service regulations and awarded a warning. L. E. Pritchett:	Charge:	Adriving charge dismissed. Service action: None. D. M. Keshane:	Charge:	Assault.Court disposition: Found guilty, fined $50 and costs, placed on $300 bond to keep peace for one year. Service action: No action was taken as yet, because he has entered an appeal which is to be heard in April 1966. J. R. Scriver:	Charge:	Impaired driving. Court
disposition: Found guilty, fined $300 and costs. Service action: Released from the service. K. R. Harvey: Charge: Theft of property less than $50. Court disposition: Pleaded guilty. Suspended sentence of three months. Service action: Charged under penitentiary service regulations and awarded a reprimand. Retained on staff. Now employed at another institution. N. V. Dickie: Charge: Theft of property less than $50. Court disposition: Pleaded guilty. Suspended sentence of three months. Service action: Charged under penitentiary service regulations and awarded a
February 28, 1966

reprimand. This officer was to be promoted with effect 1 January 1966. This promotion was cancelled. Retained on staff. Now employed at another institution.
There may have been other employees of the service who, since January 1, 1965, have been charged in court for minor offences, whose cases never became known to service authorities.


PRINTING BUREAU CONSTRUCTION COST
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What was the cost of constructing the Canadian Government Printing Bureau in Hull?
2.	What was the original estimate?
3.	What was the date of completion?
4.	What has been the annual cost since that date of (a) structural changes or alterations (b) what were these changes and why were they necessary (c) since completion date, what capital outlays have been made for such items as air conditioning, heating equipment, lighting, etc. (d) were such costs incurred for new equipment, replacement equipment, major repairs?
5.	What was the annual cost of plant maintenance for each of the past five calendar or fiscal years?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minisier of Public Works):: 1. $12,580,458.84.
2.	Original estimate in April 1949 was $8,297,000.
3.	November 28, 1954.
4.	(a) 1955-56, $1,988; 1956-57, $4,480; 1957-
58, nil; 1958-59, $1,777; 1959-60; nil; 1960-61, $17,139; 1961-62, $11,348; 1962-63, nil; 196364, nil; 1964-65, $37,500. 1965-66, $110,391. (b) 1955-56-Install boardwalks. Accommodation requirements. 1956-57-Install catwalks and paper chute. Accommodation requirements.	1957-58-Nil.	1958-59-Install oil
troughs and drains. Accommodation requirements. 1959-60-Nil. 1960-61-Partitions, concrete steps in loading area, catch basins and steam outlets in cafeteria. Accommodation requirements. 1961-62-Partitions and washroom facilities. Accommodation requirements. 1962-63-Nil. 1963-64-Nil. 1964-65-Alterations to first floor and new grease pit in garage. Accommodation requirements. 196566-Relocation and repairs to posts, exterior painting, services for D.N.D., kick plates on doors, install dumbwaiter, partitions and alterations to first floor. Accommodation requirements. (c) $945,691.75 (d) Yes.
5.	1960-61, $630,668.46; 1961-62, $621,127.99; 1962-63, $635,960.96; 1963-64, $528,523.05.
Questions


NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has the National Capital Commission appointed a national capital planning committee as provided for in section 9	(3) of the National
Capital Act?
2.	If so, who are the members of the committee and what powers and functions have been assigned to it?
3.	If not, for what reason?


George James McIlraith: 1, 2, 3. In 1946, the Federal District Commission established a national capital planning committee to draw up a master plan for the development, improvement, and beautification of the national capital district. The administrative staff serving the committee was provided by the Federal District Commission. The planning consultant was Mr. Jacques Greber, who was assisted by a Canadian staff called the national capital planning service.
The national capital committee held 22 meetings between October 30, 1946 and December 29, 1955. In 1954, the national capital planning service, which assisted Mr. Greber, and the national capital planning committee, was transferred to the Federal District Commission. Subsequently, the national capital planning committee met only four times; and the Federal District Commission, assisted by its staff and the advisory committees, carried out the work previously done by the national capital planning committee. Moreover, as the municipalities increased their own planning staffs, they required less assistance from the national capital planning committee.
The Federal District Commission Act was replaced by the National Capital Act, 1958, 7 Elizabeth II, Ch. 37. The National Capital Commission, whose responsibilities resemble those of the Federal District Commission, is assisted by the staff of the commission, the executive committee, the land committee, the advisory committee on design, the Gatineau Park advisory committee, the historical advisory committee, the information advisory committee, and by various consultants.
Given its modus operandi, the commission has not felt the need to make use of the authority conferred by the National Capital Act, s. 9(3), to appoint a national capital planning committee.


RECOMMENDATIONS ON PURCHASE OF C-5 FIGHTER BOMBER
Mr. MacRae: Did the Minister of National Defence reject the recommendation of any of his military advisers

February 28, 1966
Questions
when he decided to purchase the American Northrop C-5 lighter bomber?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: The purchase of the CF-5, an improved version of the Northrop F-5, was one of a number of options presented for consideration by the minister and was the option selected after a careful assessment of all the factors, and recommended to the government for approval.


FORMATION OF UNIT OF MARINES
Mr. MacRae: Is it the intention to form a unit or units of the Canadian Armed Forces to be known as the Canadian Marines?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As stated in the white paper in March 1964, the integration of the armed forces of Canada under a single chief of defence staff and a single defence staff was the first step toward a single unified defence force for Canada. Progress is being made in this direction and studies are continuing on such matters as the name of the force.


SASKATCHEWAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WITH B AND B COMMISSION
Mr. Ormiston: 1.	Have any former employees of the government of Saskatchewan been employed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism?
2.	If so, what are their names?
3.	What remuneration have these employees received from the government of Canada for services rendered to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism as follows:
1.	Yes.
2. Full-time
employees W. Bolstad
M.	Brownstone
N.	Bryan P. Findlay
C.	Franks
D.	Lyngseth
L. Stanford
D. Smiley -Consultant
Period of employment
June 1965 to September 1, 1965
June 27, 1964 to present
May 25, 1965 to present
February 1, 1964 to present
May 3, 1965 to July 31, 1965
August 17, 1964 to May 1, 1965
September 21, 1964 to present
May 15, 1964 to present

3.	The total remuneration received by these employees from the date of employment until separation, or until January 31, 1966, as the case may be, is as follows:
Employees W. Bolstad
M.	Brownstone
N.	Bryan P. Findlay
C.	Franks
D.	Lyngseth L. Stanford D. Smiley
Total remuneration $ 3,000.00 21,274.56 7,002.38 20,150.07
2.250.00 8,523.81
13,206.82
6.035.00


LOANS TO CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	During the past three years, what loans were granted to each crown corporation under section 82 of the Financial Administration Act?
2.	What were the terms of such loans?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	Farm Credit Corporation, two loans totalling $125,000.
2.	To be repaid without interest at such time as parliament appropriates funds for operating expenses in connection with the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act.


COLOUR TELEVISION-CANADIAN CONTENT
Mr. Ormiston: Will the decision to provide colour television initially and ultimately result in an increase or decrease in the Canadian content of private station programming in the Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver areas?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: It is not anticipated that the introduction of colour television will change the Canadian content to any significant degree.


DEVELOPMENT OF TROIS-RIVIERES AIRPORT
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	Does the Department of Transport have any plans for developing or improving the Trois-Rivieres airport and, if so, what are such plans?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Fertilizing and seeding of sidestrips will be undertaken this year. Improvements to the non-directional beacon building, an extension to the operations building and improvements to communications facilities are also planned for 1966-67.
February 28, 1966


DEBT FREE MONEY
Mr. McCleave: Has the present government taken any steps to bring about debt-free money in (a) 1963 (b) 1964
(c)	1965, and (d) 1966?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to each of parts (a), (b), (c) and
(d)	is no.


RESTORATION OF LOVERS' WALK, PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has any study or survey been made, since the first day of January 1963, by or on behalf of the Department of Public Works, or the National Capital Commission, of the extent of erosion or deterioration of the cliff or bluff of Parliament Hill above the Ottawa River?
2.	If so, what findings have been made?
3.	What work is considered necessary and desirable to prevent further erosion or deterioration?
4.	What is it estimated would be the cost of such work?
5.	Has any consideration been given by the government to the restoration of "Lovers' Walk" on the cliff or bluff of Parliament Hill?
6.	If so, what conclusion has been reached?
7.	What is the estimate of the cost of restoration?


George James McIlraith: 1. The National Capital Commission's staff examines the cliff behind Parliament Hill at least four times each year to determine the extent of erosion and what remedial steps, if any, are needed.
2.	Usually some erosion is found.
3.	A program of cribbing, placing of top soil, and planting of quick rooting plants has been carried on for about ten years.
4.	The commission spends from about $2,000 to $5,000 a year for such erosion control.
5.	Yes.
6.	Because of the difficulty in controlling erosion and maintaining satisfactory landscaping on this escarpment, due to its formation and northern exposure, it has been decided not to undertake a project for restoring "Lover's Walk" at this time.
7.	No estimate has been made.


COMMISSION ON DIVORCE REFORM
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to the setting up of a national commission to study and recommend divorce reform in Canada?


John Ross Matheson: The government is currently considering the question of divorce reform and the various means available for determining which changes in the existing law may be desirable.
Questions


COST OF LIVING BONUS FOR RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to granting superannuated civil servants a cost of living bonus retroactive to January 1963 and in future relating their pensions to cost of living increases?


Mitchell William Sharp: The attitude of the government was expressed by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance as recorded in Hansard for January 25, 1966 at pages 273 and 274.


CANADIAN FORCES ABROAD
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	How much has Canada spent for the maintenance of Canadian troops in Germany from the end of world war II until December 31, 1965?
2.	How many Canadian soldiers are still stationed in Germany at the present time?
3.	How much has the government spent on these troops for the year 1964-65?
4.	What is the amount of money paid by Canada to the United Nations since its foundation?
5.	What is the United Nations' share of expenses for our soldiers in Germany and what is Canada's direct share of expenses on behalf of our armies in Germany?
6.	How much has Canada spent as a member of the United Nations since its foundation?
7.	How much has the Canadian government spent on the Cyprus operation up to December 31, 1965?
8.	How many Canadian soldiers are still stationed in Cyprus?
9.	How much has the Canadian government spent on assistance to Rhodesia during the last few months?
10.	How much has the Canadian Government spent for its intervention in Korea?
11.	Does Canada still have soldiers in Korea and, if so, how many?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Approximately $860,000,000. This estimate includes personnel costs, equipment operating costs, station support costs as well as miscellaneous operating and maintenance costs, for the Canadian Forces stationed in Germany. Capital costs of equipment or construction are not included.
2.	As of 31 December 1965, there were 9,565 military personnel in Germany.
3.	$87,000,000.
4.	Since the inception of the United Nations in 1945, Canada has paid a total of approximately $253 million in assessments and contributions to the United Nations and its related bodies (including the Specialized Agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency).

February 28, 1966
Questions
5.	The United Nations do not share the expenses of our servicemen in Germany as the Canadian Forces stationed in Germany are in that country in fulfilment of Canada's obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty and as part of Canada's contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Canada, therefore, bears the full cost of maintaining the Canadian Forces in Germany.
6.	See answer to 4.
7.	Approximately $7,002,000. This includes supplies, services, transportation.
8.	968 as of 31 December 1965.
9.	Following the unilateral declaration of independence in Rhodesia on November 11, 1965 Canada withdrew the Canadian teachers serving under the Canadian External Aid program in Rhodesia. Twenty six Rhodesian students continue to study in Canada. Canada has spent $83,493 from November 1, 1965 to February 8, 1966 on this program. For the sake of comparison Canada has spent $75,024 on assistance to Zambia, the former Northern Rhodesia, during the same period. In addition, the cost to Canada of participation in an emergency operation to airlift oil to Zambia has been approximately $502,000 in the period ending January 31, 1966.
10.	Approximately $233,900,000.
11.	Yes, two, with the Participating Nations Advisory Group, United Nations Command, Military Armistice Commission, Korea.


'EXPENDITURES UNDER GOVERNOR GENERAL'S WARRANTS
Mr. Fulton: 1.	Since September 8, 1965, have any amounts of public funds of Canada been spent under the authority of governor general's warrants?
2.	If so, how many warrants were issued, on what date, and for what total amounts respectively?
3.	What is the breakdown per department authorized by the said warrants referred to in part 2?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Five warrants were issued: November 1, 1965, $163,176,450; November 29, 1965, $345,696,168; December 29, 1965, $399,294,249; January 7, 1966, $12,000,000; January 17, 1966, $425,000.
3.	The departmental totals may be found in part I of the Canada Gazette as follows: Warrant of November 1-November 6, page 3601; warrant of November 29-December 4, page 3974; Warrant of December 29-January 8, page 73; Warrant of January 7-

January 15, page 165; warrant of January 17- January 22, page 268.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Listening to the translation, when a lot of statistical information is being given at the speed at which the Minister of National Revenue gave it I find that it leaves the translation service away behind. Perhaps copies might be sent direct to the translation service beforehand or the information should be read at a slower speed so that all hon. members may hear what the minister is saying.


C.B.C. EXPENDITURES ON COLOUR TELEVISION
Mr. Simpson: 1.	What is the extent of the authority which has been granted by the government to the C.B.C. in relation to colour television?
2.	What amount of money has the C.B.C. been authorized to spend in this regard?
3.	Was an order in council passed in this respect and, if so, on what date?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	On June 15, 1965, the government announced its willingness to permit all broadcasters, C.B.C. and private, to apply for licences for colour transmission under the Radio Act. The house was also advised on that date that the first phase of the C.B.C. entry into colour would entail estimated expenditures of some $15,000,000 and that further development would await the broadcasting committee report. Expenditures to date by the corporation, as authorized by order in council, are well within that figure.
In brief, the government has authorized the C.B.C. to enter colour, subject to the necessary approval by order in council of items of expenditure in excess of $100,000; the limitations of the C.B.C. budget and within an over-all temporary limit on capital expenditures for colour of $15,000,000. Authorization has also been given C.B.C. for the provision of colour facilities at Expo '67 to serve all foreign and domestic broadcasters and for special centennial requirements.
2.	$5,731,631.36, excluding Expo and the Centennial (see note).
3.	Yes. P.C. 1965-2/1711, Sept. 22, 1965. P.C. 1965-3/1879, Oct. 25, 1965. P.C. 1965-4/1879, Oct. 25, 1965. P.C. 1965-1/2077, Nov. 24, 1965. P.C. 1965-11/2175, Dec. 8, 1965.
Note:	P.C. 1965-11/2175 includes $74,-
032.80 for Expo equipment. This amount not included in (2) above. To service all broadcasters at Expo with colour will cost an
February 28, 1966

estimated $1,000,000 more than lor black and white. The planned Centennial colour coverage will cost some $1,500,000 additional.


INCOME TAX ABATEMENTS FOR RESEARCH
Mr. Saltsman: For the fiscal years 1963-64, 1964-65, and 1965-66, under the Income Tax Act (a) how many companies were granted tax abatements for scientific research (b) what were the names of these companies (c) what was the nature of the research carried out (d) what were the amounts of the tax abatements (e) how many companies were refused tax abatement for research (f) what were their names (g) what kind of research projects were rejected?


Edgar John Benson: No information is available by fiscal year, (a) no tax abatement as such was granted but additional allowances with respect to scientific research expenditures under section 72A ol the Income Tax Act were deductible from taxable income. The number of claims for such additional allowances was 104 (1962 taxation year), 265 (1963), 402 (1964). (b) confidential, (c) confidential. (d) these additional allowances amounted to $6.2 million (1962 taxation year), $26.2 million (1963), 1964 not yet available. <e) in the period January 1 to December 31, 1965, a total of 20 claims were refused after referral to the national research council. This is the only period for which figures are available. (f) confidential, (g) confidential.


APPLICATION FOR TELEVISION LICENCE TORONTO
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 1.	Is there an application before the Board of Broadcast Governors and/or the Minister of Transport on behalf of the government regarding the granting of a new television station licence in Toronto on channel 3?
2.	Will there be public hearings held for the purpose of hearing the arguments both "pro" and "con"?
3.	Have the owners of CKVR-TV in Barrie made application and, if so, who are the officers and directors of the company operating said station?
4.	If channel 3-TV is granted in Toronto, what will be the effect on the reception in the Toronto area of the two Buffalo, N.Y. television stations that operate on channels 2 and 4 respectively?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows. I am informed by the Board of Broadcast Governors and the Department of Transport, first in so far as the Board of Broadcast Governors is concerned: 1. No.
Questions
2.	The board cannot make recommendations on applications forwarded to it under section 12 of the Broadcasting Act without holding a public hearing.
3.	See 1.
4.	See 1.
In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned: 1. Yes, there is such an application with the Minister of Transport.
2.	If found technically acceptable, the application would be referred to the Board of Broadcast Governors in accordance with section 12 of the Broadcasting Act.
3.	Yes. R. T. Snelgrove, A. F. Waters and G. W. Stirling.
4.	The introduction of a channel 3 assignment in Toronto would cause some adjacent channel interference to the reception in the Toronto area of two Buffalo stations, WGR-TV on channel 2 and WBEN-TV on channel 4, although the Canadian engineering allocation criteria for adjacent channel stations would be met.


DEMOLITION OF ROXBOROUGH APARTMENTS, OTTAWA
Mr. Caouelle: 1.	Who were the tenderers for the demolition of the Roxborough Apartments corner of Laurier and Elgin Streets in Ottawa, and what was the amount of the tenders?
2.	Among the tenderers, whose offer was accepted and at what price?
3.	What are the criteria which justified the selection of that tenderer?
4.	Why was the bid of Mr. Leopold Fournier, 46 Lome Street, Ottawa, rejected?


George James McIlraith: 1. Leopold Fournier, Ottawa, Ontario, $19,991.00; Eastern Demolishers Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario, $21,000.00; Arrow Wrecking, Ottawa, Ontario, $24,500.00; Hugh M. Grant Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario, $34,000.00; F. Thibault Lumber & Wrecker Ltd., Hull, Quebec, $34,440.00; Boulevard Demolisher, Hull, Quebec, $34,800.00; Steve Wasylyk, Toronto 9, Ontario, $47,365.00; Panzini Ltd., Montreal, Quebec, $57,000.00; Greenspoon Bros. Ltd., Hull, Quebec, 58,000.00; Advance Lumber & Wrecking Co. Ltd., Toronto 9, Ontario, $67,974.00; Palmer Levitan Ltd., Hull, Quebec, $68,-
000.00; Harvey et Fils Ltee., St. Hubert, Quebec, $77,770.00; Beechwood Steel Supply Ltd. (J. A. Cronier Co. Ltd.), Eastview, Ontario, $83,900.00; St. Pierre Construction Ltd., London, Ontario, $88,000.

February 28, 1966
Questions
2.	Eastern Demolishers Ltd., 1070 Cyrville Road, Ottawa, Ontario, at the amount of $21,000.
3.	The tenderer provided proof of financial capability, experience and competence.
4.	In accordance with normal practice, the department obtained a report on Leopold Fournier which indicated that he did not have the resources required to ensure successful completion of this contract. In addition, the tender document submitted by Mr. Fournier was incomplete.


C.B.C. FRENCH PROGRAMS IN B.C.
Mr. Caouelle: 1.	What French language programs are being offered at the present time in British Columbia on the CBC networks?
2.	Does the government contemplate any action soon, so that the French speaking Canadians in British Columbia may have the same advantages on the government network as the French speaking Canadians of Quebec and, if so (a) when will this action be taken (b) what will these measures be?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	I am informed by the C.B.C. that "Music-hall", a one-hour French language variety series, and "French for Love", a half-hour French language instructional program, are being offered on C.B.C. television. "French for Love" is also presented on radio.
2.	The C.B.C. advises that it will make application for a French-language FM radio station of maximum power in Vancouver to serve the French speaking and bilingual population of approximately 45,000 in the area. The application will be filed with the Department of Transport before March 8, the cut-off date for the June public hearings of the BBG at which the application is expected to be heard.


FRESH WATER FISHERIES EXPENDITURES, MANITOBA
Mr. Stefanson: 1.	By years, what has been the expenditure by the government on fresh water fisheries in Manitoba during the past five years?
2.	For what projects was this expenditure made, and what the location of and the amount spent on each project?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1.
1960-61	1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65

35,950	49,551	54,426	56,231	64,331

2. Expenditure for department has been for inspection of whitefish and fresh water species. Expenditure for the fisheries research board has been for population dynamics on Heming lake.


NATIONAL DEFENCE RECRUITMENT OF CHILDREN
Mr. Fairweafher: Were the 9, 11 and 12 year olds mentioned at page 56 of the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1965, recruited as officers or men?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The six persons involved were recruited into the non-permanent active militia as privates.


AVAILABLE TELEVISION CHANNELS, MUSKOKA DISTRICT
Mr. Rynard: What channels, if any, are available for television broadcast (originating broadcasts) in the following areas (a) Barrie (b) Orillia (c) Midland (d) Huntsville?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Under the Canadian television allocation plan, (a) channels 3+, 14 and 42 are allocated to Barrie, (b) Channel 30 is allocated to Orillia, (c) There is no channel allocated to Midland, (d) Channel 8-f is allocated to Huntsville.


TELEVISION LICENCE FOR CHANNEL 5
Mr. Rynard: Has a decision been made to grant a television broadcasting licence on channel 5 in any of the following areas (a) Barrie (b) Orillia (c) Midland?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No.


SALARY OF GOVERNMENT JANITOR
Mr. Laprise: 1.	In 1920, what was the average salary of a janitor in the government service?
2.	At the present time, what is the average salary for the same job?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information
February 28, 1986

by the Civil Service Commission: 1. The annual salary rates for janitor (caretaker) in 1920 were:	$960, $1,020, $1,080. Average
salary unavailable.
2.	The current annual salary for the equivalent job (caretaker 3) is: $3,555, $3,705, $3,855, $4,005. Average salary for September 1965 was $3,908.


COMPLETION OF OTTAWA RIVER PARKWAY
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	When is it anticipated that the eastern connection of the Ottawa river parkway to Wellington street in the city of Ottawa may be completed?
2.	Has the design of such connection been approved?
3.	If so, what is its nature?
4.	If not, when is it anticipated that it will be approved?
5.	Will the government undertake an expedited program to assure that the Ottawa river parkway will be fully completed before the centennial of confederation?


George James McIlraith: 1. It is expected that the Ottawa river parkway will be connected to Wellington street and opened to traffic at the end of 1966 or shortly thereafter.
2.	In the Ottawa-Hull area transportation study, a basic design has been recommended. A detailed design has not yet been approved.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Since this involves concurrence by other authorities, it is not possible to give a date.
5.	The government did this last year.


OTTAWA RIVER PARKWAY INTERCHANGES
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What type of interchange is planned by the National Capital Commission for the Ottawa river parkway with (a) Richmond Road (b) Carling Avenue?
2.	What, in detail, are the reasons for the decision in respect of each such interchange, or in the event no interchange is actually planned for either road or avenue, for the lack of interchange?
3.	What is the target date for the full completion and opening of the Ottawa river parkway to
(a)	Carling avenue (b) the proposed terminus of the Deschenes bridge?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. The National Capital Commission Ottawa river parkway does not cross Carling Avenue and the Richmond Road, but the National Capital Commission driveway known as the western parkway does cross Carling Avenue and the Richmond Road. No interchange at the junction of the Richmond
Questions
Road and Western parkway is proposed because traffic and design factors do not warrant a second interchange a distance of one quarter of a mile from the interchange at Carling Avenue.
3. (a) The target date for the completion of the western parkway to Carling avenue is December 31, 1966.
(b) A connection leading to the Deschenes-Britannia bridge will be built when that bridge is constructed.


VAL D'OR, QUE., AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	When will the construction of an airport at Val d'Or commence?
2.	Were tenders asked for and, if so (a) from whom were the tenders received (b) what were the amounts of these tenders (c) by whom was the contract secured?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. On the basis of present planning construction of a terminal building should commence in the fall of 1966.
2.	Tenders have not yet been called.


INQUIRIES RESPECTING CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Is a Canadian citizen entitled to know if a person has passed any examinations prior to holding a position in the civil service?
2.	If not, for what reason?
3.	If so, to whom should such inquiry be directed?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have been given the following information by the Civil Service Commission:
1.	Information concerning the examination results of persons whose names are placed on an eligible list is made readily available to anyone, since such lists are published in the Canada Gazette. However, information concerning candidates whose names do not appear on an eligible list is divulged only to persons considered to have a legitimate interest.
2.	Having regard for the right to privacy of candidates and the possibility that the release of information could prove not only embarrassing but prejudicial to them, the commission holds in confidence information concerning candidates whose names do not appear on the eligible list.
3.	See 1 and 2 above.
1852	COMMONS
Questions


IMMIGRANTS WITH FARM EXPERIENCE
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	How many immigrants arrived in Canada in 1965?
2.	How many of these had previous farm experience in their own country?
3.	How many of these immigrants were required to work on farms, as a condition of entering Canada?
4.	What countries did they come from, and how many from each?
5.	Will there be an increase in the 1966 quota to take care of the shortage of farm labor?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1.	146,758 immigrants arrived in Canada in 1965.
2.	The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has no statistical data showing immigrants' previous occupational experience. However, all immigrants who are actually selected for migration, as opposed to those who were sponsored by close relatives, must satisfy the department that their training or experience is such as to enable them to become satisfactorily established in their intended occupation. In 1965, there were 1,179 such immigrants who listed their intended occupation as farmers or farm workers and it can safely be said that all of these had previous farm experience. In addition 1,183 sponsored immigrants indicated an intention to take up farm employment. Since occupational proficiency is not a determining factor in establishing admissibility in sponsored cases, such persons are not questioned on their previous experience. There is therefore no way of determining how many of the 1,183 had previously worked on farms.
3.	None.
4.	See attached list.
5.	The immigration movement to Canada is not based on a quota system. While the department will continue its efforts to increase the movement of qualified persons to Canada, including farmers and farm workers, the number of persons who come forward will depend upon the demand in Canada and the number of qualified applicants overseas.
Country of last Permanent residence Austria Belgium Czechoslovakia
Total Selected Farmers Farmers and Farm Workers and Farm (Unsponsored Workers immigrants)
39	37
23	22
3	-

DEBATES Denmark	74
Finland	8
France	137
Germany	121
Greece	415
Hungary	7
Ireland, Republic	8
Italy	223
Malta	11
Netherlands	114
Norway	11
Poland	87
Portugal	338
Spain	16
Sweden	6
Switzerland	61
United Kingdom	318
U.S.S.R.	2
Yugoslavia	27
Other Europe	1
Algeria	1
Kenya	1
Morocco	2
Rhodesia	4
South Africa, Republic	3
China and Formosa 1	
Hong Kong	11
India	3
Japan	1
Lebanon	30
Pakistan	1
Philippines	3
Turkey	1
Other Asia	1
Australia	21
Other Australasia	9
Bermuda	10
Jamaica	3
Mexico	3
Trinidad	2
U.S.A.	139
Other West Indies	1
Argentina	1
Brazil	17
Uruguay	3
Venezuela	5
Other South America	27
Fiji Islands	8
Total	2,362
February 28, 1986
7 125 114
8 1 8
56 10
10
10
57 299
1
2
3
1
6 1 2
18
2
1
1
6
8
1,179
February 28, 1966


SEAL HUNTING
Mr. Tucker: 1.	How many Canadian aircraft were licensed to hunt seals in the gulf of St. Lawrence in 1965?
2.	How many seals were landed by these aircraft in 1965?
3.	How many ships or auxiliary vessels prosecuted the seal fishery in the gulf of St. Lawrence from 1954 to 1964 inclusive?
4.	How many seals were taken by these ships in these years?
5.	How many steamers prosecuting the seal fishery off the coast of Newfoundland from 1954 to 1964 were (a) Canadian (b) Norwegian (c) Russian (d) Japanese (e) others?
6.	How many seals were taken by each of these ships each year?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. 52.
2.	18,672
3.	and 4.
Canadian	Foreign
Year	No. of Ships	Seals Taken	No. of Ships	Seals Taken1954	
5	51,500	i	13,0001955	
7	65,000	i	13,0001956	
7	53,000	i	13,0001957	
5	52,000	i	12,0001958	
6	65,000	i	8,0001959	
5	48,000	i	12,6001960	
7	68,000	i	14,0001961	
8	32,000	i	8,8001962	
7	74,500	i	9,5001963	
6	54,500	i	18,0001964	
7	22,400	4	28,6001965	
8	42,500	Not available	5 and 1954	6. 	
7(3)	49,000	8	61,0001955	
6(2)	74,000	10(1)	152,0001956	
4	100,000	11(1)	218,0001957	
8(1)	39,000	12(1)	123,0001958	
4(2)	15,000	13(1)	113,0001959	
3	43,000	13	205,0001960	
8(2)	56,000	16(1)	122,0001961	
5	13,700	14	120,0001962	
4	35,000	13	145,0001963	
7(1)	68,000	14(1)	155,0001964	
9(1)	61,000	13(4)	160,0001965	
8(4)	45,000	14	69,000Note:	Figures in	brackets	indicate ships	
which had first sealed in the gulf, then went to the front.
Note on country of origin of ships-All foreign ships sealing in the gulf of St. Lawrence (up to 1964 only) were Norwegian ships. All foreign ships sealing at the front
Questions
in the period 1954-1965 were Norwegian, with the following exceptions: In 1960 to 1962 inclusive a single Norwegian sealer chartered by the Greenland administration of the Danish government sealed at the front. Catch results are officially known and are included in the totals given. In 1961 and 1963 single Russian icebreakers carried out experimental sealing at the front. Catch results are not known officially, but are believed to have been 17,000 seals in 1961 and 20,000 in 1963. These figures are included in the totals given for front catches.


HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS, PLEASANT BAY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Was a contract awarded for harbour improvements at Pleasant Bay, N.S.?
2.	How many bids were received for the improvements in question and what were the names and amounts of the bidders and who was awarded the contract?
3.	On what date was work initiated on the harbour improvements and was the work completed and, if not, for what reason?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes.
2.	In response to public advertisement, the following bids were received: Nova Construction Company Ltd., Antigonish, N.S., $259,289; Martell's Construction Ltd., North Sydney, N.S., $308,780; McNamara Construction of (Nova Scotia) Ltd., Halifax, N.S., $336,866; T. C. Gorman (Nova Scotia) Ltd., Halifax, N.S., $354,741; Atlas Construction Company Ltd., Fredericton, N.B., $399,561; Kenny Construction Company Ltd., Yarmouth, N.S., $416,200. The contract was awarded to Nova Construction Company Ltd. in the amount of $259,289.
3.	Work on the approach road commenced on May 27, 1965. The work is not completed. The contractor has encountered difficulties in obtaining rock proper for use in this work.


ASSISTANCE TO ONTARIO FARMERS
Mr. Madill: 1.	Has the government received a request from the Farmer's Union of Ontario for support for those farmers who received crop loss and damage in the fall of 1965?
2.	Has a survey been taken to estimate their losses?
3.	Will assistance be given to those who were unable to harvest their crops?

February 28, 1966
Questions


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, question 521 is divided into three parts. The answer to part 1 is deemed to include the answers to parts 2 and 3:
1.	The government received requests from the Farmer's Union of Ontario and others for assistance in respect of crop losses due to drought and adverse weather at harvest. Last summer the government agreed to contribute one half the cost of a program in Ontario to assist cattle farmers seriously affected by drought. In the fall this agreement was extended to cover losses from adverse weather at harvest.
The program involved crop assessment by the province. Feed entitlement per animal unit was set at different levels per county in a manner to provide that production per county plus entitlement per animal unit would result in approximately the same over-all feed supply in each country. Twen-by two counties were designated following the assessments, which indicates that the crop production per county in other counties was as high or higher than the over-all supply in each county assisted.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	Answered by 1.


NELSON RIVER POWER
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Have negotiations taken place between the government of Canada and the province of Manitoba with respect to the exploitation of the power resources of the Nelson river?
2.	Was agreement reached for a survey as to the power potential and uses and, if so, what share did the federal government agree to pay?
3.	Have these surveys been completed, or are they continuing?
4.	Have the surveys reached the point where a firm estimate as to the cost of the total project has been arrived at and, if so, how much is this?
5.	If such an estimate has been decided upon, has the federal government agreed to share in the cost and, if so, in what amount?
6.	Has it been estimated how much surplus power could be sold to the United States?
7.	Have inquiries or negotiations been carried on with potential American users as to the sale of surplus power from the Nelson river to the United States?
8.	Has it been estimated at what price power from the Nelson river could be sold to the United States?
9.	Has the federal government agreed to the *export of power from the Nelson river to the United States?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes, on February 18, 1963, and on May 27, 1964. The federal government agreed to pay 50 per cent of the cost of these surveys.
3.	No to first part of the question and yes to the second. An interim report was tabled in the house on February 14. A final report, of technical nature, is still to be received.
4.	No. The interim report of the Nelson river programming board estimates the cost of phase I at $305,000,000.
5.	The federal government has agreed in principle to construct, finance and own high voltage transmission lines required to move the Nelson river power to Winnipeg, which in phase I of the developing will cost approximately $114,000,000, according to the interim report of the Nelson river programming board. The Manitoba authorities will lease and operate these lines and will have an option to purchase them.
6.	It is indicated that when the entire project is completed upward of two million kilowatts surplus to Manitoba's internal needs could be made available for export for a substantial period of years.
7.	Yes-by the Manitoba authorities.
8.	No definitive estimates have been made.
9.	Export of power from Canada to the United States is permitted subject to a license being obtained from the National Energy Board. No application has been made for such a license.


PERSONNEL STRENGTH, R.C.A.F. STATION, FALCONBRIDGE, ONT.
Mr. Fawcett: 1.	Will the (a) air force personnel, and (b) civilian personnel, at the R.C.A.F. station at Falcon-bridge, Ontario be maintained at present levels?
2.	If not, when will reductions in (a) air force and (b) civilian staff, occur?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) Yes, in so far as the foreseeable future is concerned, (b) No, establishment action has been taken to delete three kitchen helper positions to bring the messing establishment of this station in line with the Canadian forces staffing scale for messing activities.
2. (a) Not applicable, (b) 31 March, 1966.
February 28, 1966


ARMED FORCES RETIREMENTS
Mr. Lambert: 1.	During the period January 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964, how many (a) officers (b) non-commissioned officers (e) men, retired from Canada's defence forces or did not re-engage as the case may be?
2.	How are these numbers distributed among the naval, ground (army) and air (R.C.A.F.) components?
3.	Of these persons, how many in each category of non-commissioned officers and men had been entitled to rank or special pay for technical or specialist training?
4. Of all persons who have retired from the defence forces during the said period, how many retired (a) on reaching normal retirement age
(b)	at own request prior to normal retirement age
(c)	compulsorily for disciplinary reasons?
5.	How many (a) civilian employees (b) civil servants, have been retired, transferred or laid off during the said period?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1 and 2.
Non commissioned offrs. Men Officers Cpl to WOI (Including Service (Incl O/Cdts) (equiv.) Apprentices)
Navy	441	764	4185Army	955	1311	6340Air Force	1537	1307	5143Total	2933	3382	15668
Questions
during the following periods (a) January 1. 1963 to June 30, 1963 (b) July 1, 1963 to December 31. 1963 (c) January 1, 1964 to June 30, 1964 (d) July 1, 1964 to December 31, 1964 (e) January 1, 1965 to
June 30, 1965 (f)	July 1, 1965 to December 31, 1965?	
Hon. Paul	Hellyer (Minister	of National
Defence):		
Navy	Army	Air Force(a) 1618	1039	2452(b) 1772	2652	2271(c) 911	1790	1589(d) 1423	2694	2132(e) 1010	1807	1318(f) 1282	2587	1879STRENGTH OF DEFENCE FORCES	
Question No. 538-Mr. Lambert:		
1. What was the active strength		(naval, ground
and air) of the defence forces of		Canada as of
(a) December 31, 1963 (b) June 30,		, 1964 (c) December 31, 1964	(d) June 30, 1965?	
2. What was the active enrolment		in the militia
as of the same	dates?	
Hon. Paul	Hellyer (Minister	of National
Defence): 1.		
Navy	Army	Air Force(a) 21,432	49,253	51,830(b) 20,393	48,088	50,617(c) 20,133	47,142	48,973(d) 19,410	45,396	47,183
3.
Non commis-
Service	sioned Offrs.	MenNavy	764	3249Army	1311	4432Air Force	1307	3451Total	3382	111324. (a) 1505,	(b) 10164, (c) 2174.	5. (a) and (b)-	Prevailing Rate	ClassifiedEmployees Civil Servants	Retirements	220	454Lay-offs	647	455
A separate record of employees who transferred from the department was not kept prior to Jan. 1, 1965.


ARMED FORCES ENLISTMENTS
Mr. Lambert: What numbers were recruited for and actually enlisted for service in the naval, ground and air components of Canada's defence forces respectively
2. (a) 53,118;	(b) 46,763;	(c) 44,204;	(d)
32,289.


CHANGE OF POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT INTO CROWN CORPORATION
Mr. Caouelie: 1.	As a result of the report of Mr. Justice Anderson, does the government intend to transform the Post Office Department into a crown corporation?
2.	Has the government studied the remarks of Mr. Justice Anderson and of the Mail Carriers Union of Canada, stating that the postal service should be operated as a crown corporation?


Hon. Jean-Pierre  Cole@Posimasier General: 1. As this is a matter of government policy, any statement that may be necessary will be made at the appropriate time.
2. The study of the remarks is continuing.


EXTRA DUTIES OF JUDGES
Mr. Fairwealher: 1.	During each of the years 1963, 1964 and 1965, how many judges appointed by Canada were engaged in extra duties, e.g., presiding over boards and commissions either part time or full time?

February 28, 1966
Questions
2.	What are the names of these judges and in what province or judicial district have they jurisdiction?
3.	Is consideration being given to recruiting people from outside the judiciary for this responsibility?


George James McIlraith: For the National Capital Commission: 1. Not applicable.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


LOBSTER TRAP LIMIT, P.E.I.
[Stage Direction]
Question 565-Mr. McQuaid:
1.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation which will make effective a trap limit within lobster fishing districts 7B and 8 in Prince Edward Island?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation limiting the operation of lobster fishing boats within the aforesaid districts to one boat in any one lobster fishing season in any one year?
3.	If the answers to parts 1 and 2 above are affirmative, how soon may the introduction of this legislation be expected?
Mr. C. R. Granger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: The answer is as follows:
1.	The whole problem of more effective economic management for the lobster fishery is under examination. No decision has yet been made concerning any proposed legislation to make effective such measures as limitation of numbers of traps within any lobster fishing district.
2.	The reply to question No. 1 also applies. However, there is now, and has been for some time, a regulation which stipulates that except with the permission of the minister no person shall, during the open season for any year in a district, or portion of a district, use for lobster fishing any boat that has been used during that year for lobster fishing in any other district. This regulation exists by demand of the great majority of lobster fishermen. The minister permits exceptions only where a lobster fisherman may find himself without a lobster fishing boat through fire, shipwreck, or other mishap, and the only boat available to him for purchase may be one which has been used during the previous open season in another district during the year.
3.	Not applicable.


GRAIN EXPORTS
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What, in bushels and in dollars, was the total Canadian export of the following grain products in each of the last six crop years (a) wheat (b) barley (c) oats (d) rye (e) flax, and (f) rape seed?
2.	What are the names of those countries that entered into negotiations with or expressed interest to the Canadian Wheat Board with a view to placing orders for Canadian grain in the current crop year?
3.	Of the above countries, how many were turned away because of the inability of Canadian transportation to move the required volumes of grain?
4.	What is the approximate loss of export sales owing to this turning away of import demand?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports the quantity and value of total Canadian export of the following grain products in each of the last six crop years (a) wheat (b) barley (c) oats (d) rye (e) flax, and (f) rape seed, are shown in table 1 attached.
2 and 3. As a matter of commercial practice it is not the policy of the Canadian Wheat Board to divulge information with respect to the current crop year's operations. The private grain trade on their own account and acting as agents of the Canadian Wheat Board are sellers of all the grains listed in question 1. The trade's operations are of a commercial nature and information concerning their negotiations with foreign buyers is not available to the government.
4.	Canada is meeting all its export commitments including those to supply our traditional markets with their normal requirements. There is no doubt, however, that Canada has been unable to meet all demands for grain from foreign buyers for shipment during the current crop year. It is impossible to be definitive with respect to the actual quantity of grain involved. Both the private grain trade and the Canadian Wheat Board have had inquiries which could not be pursued, because Canada's grain handling and transportation facilities were extended to the limit to meet existing record commitments. Additionally, foreign buyers have been aware of these heavy commitments and some may have covered their immediate requirements elsewhere.


TABLE I. QUANTITY AND VALUE OF EXPORTS OF GRAIN PRODUCTS IN EACH OF THE LAST SIX CROP YEARS, (AUGUST 1 TO JULY 31).
[Stage Direction]
August 1, 1959	August 1, 1960	August 1. 1961	August 1,1962	August 1, 1963	August 1, 1964to July 31, 1960	to July 31, 1961	to July 31, 1962	to July 31, 1963	to July 31, 1964	to July 31, 1965

[Stage Direction]
(a) Wheat	
245,115	410,434	306,962	528,535	340,422	660,936	304,142	624,248	528,430	1,055,770	375,795	757,600(5) Barley	
59,131	63,152	39,346	40,551	39,520	48,528	10,284	13,681	40,554	48,457	34,299	46,914(c)	Oats	
7,815	6,890	3,791	3,513	4,234	3,979	23,692	19,727	20,090	16,524	16,971	14,809(d)	Rye	
4,750	5,629	2,6S1	2,850	4,690	6,873	7,009	9,575	6,157	9,299	4,523	5,848(e)	Flax	
13,010	44,553	13,978	43,218	12,005	44,640	11,842	40,777	13,740	45,087	14,614	48,050(/) Rapeseed	
2,880	7,744	8,124	20,317	6,599	16,611	5,802	13,372	5,211	14,614	9,235	27,548Grand Total.. 332,701	538,402	374,882	638,984	407,470	781,567	362,771	721,380	614,1821,189,751	455,437	900,769February 28, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	1857
Questions
[Stage Direction]
February 28, 1968
Questions

Mr. McLelland: Has the government received a request from the village council of Elbow, Saskatchewan, requesting assistance in having a Cree Indian shrine known as the Mistaseni moved to another location so that it will not be destroyed by the creation of the reservoir in connection with the building of the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, I have received such a request from the secretary treasurer of the village council of Elbow, Saskatchewan. I have asked the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada to place this matter on the agenda of its next meeting to be held this spring. When the board has submitted its recommendations, I will be in a position to reach a decision on this matter.


BOMB SHELTERS AND TESTING STATIONS
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	How many bomb shelters and testing stations were installed and at what cost, in each year since 1959?
2.	Were these all on railway property?
3.	How many of the places so designated are now closed?
4.	In how many was testing equipment installed?
Hon, Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence): 1. No bomb shelters or testing stations have been constructed as such. However, from 1959 to 1963, 1178 nuclear detonation and fallout reporting posts were constructed across Canada to locate the position of any nuclear bursts and to determine the general pattern of radiation fall-out at a cost of approximately $2,600,000.
2.	No.
3.	28.
4.	Equipment for the location of bursts and detection of radiation fall-out is available for all posts.


RADAR STATION, BELLETERRE, QUE.
Mr. Lefebvre: 1.	When was the decision taken to build the radar station at Belleterre, county of Temis-camingue, P.Q.?
2.	Was a decision taken to abandon this project and, if so, when?
3.	How much money was spent on this project?
4.	Will any equipment be abandoned on site and, if so, (a) what kind of equipment, and (b) in what manner will such equipment be disposed of?
5.	What is the name of the contractor involved in the said project?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. 29 September, 1960.
2.	Yes, 30 April, 1964.
3.	Approximately $156,000.
4.	No equipment was abandoned on the site. Two steelox buildings, one 2,000 gallon and one 50,000 gallon fuel oil storage tanks were declared surplus and turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
5.	Joliette and Mercier Inc., Lorraineville, Que., was the contractor for the construction work at Belleterre.


U.S. MILITARY INVESTIGATION IN CANADA
Mr. Vincent: 1.	During the last few years, have socio-psychological investigations been conducted by or on behalf of the American military authorities in Canada?
2.	If such is the case, has the Canadian government been consulted or informed about them, or has it participated in these investigations?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, however a study of attitudes toward military service was conducted by the Department of National Defence in 1965, the results of which are being analysed now. This Canadian study parallels a similar study being carried out by the United States Department of Defence, and it is anticipated that information from the two national studies will be shared.


CLOTHING WORN BY FOREIGN NAVAL PERSONNEL
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Has the government of Canada, or any department thereof, requested the government of the United Kingdom to inform naval personnel of the United Kingdom that civilian clothes should be worn when proceeding ashore in Canadian ports or other Canadian cities?
2.	Has such request been made to the governments of (a) the United States (b) France (c) any other foreign country?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No.


HEADINGLEY, MAN. POST OFFICE
Mr. Enns: 1.	What is the increase in the volume of mail handled by the post office at Headingley, Manitoba?
2.	For how many rural routes is mail sorted at the Headingley post office?
February 28, 1966

3.	For how many post offices is mail sorted at Headingley?
4.	Has the government any plan to expand the post office facilities at Headingley?


Hon. Jean-Pierre  Cole@Postmaster General: 1. There is no appreciable increase except in householder material. There was a revenue decrease in 1964-65.
2.	One.
3.	Headingley and St. Francis Xavier (a very small office).
4.	Not at the present time.


AIR CONDITIONING FOR H.M.C.S. &quot;BONA VENTURE&quot;
Mr. Forreslall: In the preparation of specifications for the major overhaul and refit of H.M.C.S. Bonaventure, did the Department of Defence Production or the Department of National Defence include provision for the installation of air-conditioning systems?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer is yes, equipment is being purchased for installation during refit. This equipment will provide additional air conditioning to electronic compartments as well as to dining halls and living space.


VISIT TO GREENWOOD BY AIR VICE MARSHAL REYNO
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	Did Air Vice Marshal E. M. Reyno visit R.C.A.F. Greenwood, Nova Scotia, during the month preceding the election on November 8, 1965 and, if so (a) when was he there (b) what was the purpose of the visit (c) did he address any meetings or groups of officers and/or enlisted men (d) if he did, where were the meetings held and when, and (e) what did he say?
2.	Did Air Vice Marshal Reyno, or any other officer of the R.C.A.F., visit other R.C.A.F. stations in the month preceding the election on November 8, 1965 and, if so (a) what bases were visited, and when (b) who was the other officer (c) what was the purpose of the visit?
3.	If Air Vice Marshal Reyno was ordered to visit R.C.A.F. Greenwood, who ordered the visit and was the order oral or written, and when was it made?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer is as follows:
1.	Yes, (a) November 1, 1965. (b) A followup visit made by the chief of personnel on October 1, 1965. (c) Yes. (d) The officers' mess and the sergeants' mess, (e) He discussed personnel topics in relation to integration of Canadian forces headquarters and command headquarters.
Questions
2.	Yes, (a) St. Hubert, Quebec; Maritime air command headquarters, Halifax, N.S., and Summerside, P.E.I. (b) Squadron Leader W. R. Windover accompanied Air Vice Marshal Reyno to all three stations, and in addition Air Commodore R. A. Gordon accompanied them to Halifax and Summerside. (c) For the same purpose as in 1(e).
3.	Air Vice Marshal Reyno was not ordered to visit Greenwood. As deputy chief of personnel for the Canadian forces, the visit to Greenwood was one of a pattern of staff visits in keeping with his responsibilities.


NATIONAL GALLERY-PAINTINGS BY TOM THOMSON
Mr. Faulkner: 1.	Are there a number of sketches and paintings by the late artist Tom Thomson stored in the National Gallery?
2.	If so, is there any plan to retrieve these sketches and paintings from storage and arrange for their public showing?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	Yes.
2.	A number of sketches and paintings by Tom Thomson in the National Gallery Collection are on view at all times. A travelling exhibition of this artist's work is being planned for the centennial year.


CANCELLATION OF C.P.R. PASSENGER SERVICE, TORONTO-OTTAWA
Mr. Webb: 1.	Did the Canadian Pacific railways make application to the board of transport commissioners to cancel passenger service between Toronto and Ottawa?
2.	If so, on what date was the application received?
3.	Who authorized the discontinuance of this service?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada advise as follows:
1.	No formal application was made or was required. The situation was that the passenger pool train service between Montreal-Toronto and Ottawa-Toronto was discontinued by action of the railways on October 30, 1965, and each railway then proceeded on an independent course, with Canadian Pacific scheduling a morning and afternoon service

February 28, 1866
Questions
between Ottawa-Toronto. The board initiated conferences with the railways, with the object of improving the Ottawa-Toronto service. Canadian National proposed that Canadian National provide morning, afternoon and overnight service between Ottawa-Toronto, provided that Canadian Pacific withdraw from the Ottawa-Toronto and Montreal-To-ronto service and give free running rights to Canadian National over Canadian Pacific trackage between Brockville-Smith's Falls. Canadian Pacific accepted Canadian National's proposal and informed the board to that effect.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	The board, by its order No. 119608 of January 14, 1966.


CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL BUILDING, . AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coales: 1.	Has the firm of architects been chosen for the new federal building to be constructed at Amherst, N.S.?
2.	If so, what is the name of the firm and why was it selected?
3.	Is there a firm of architects located in Cumberland county, was this firm considered, and if considered, why was it not selected?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes.
2.	C. A. Fowler, Bauld, Mitchell. It was selected as being one of the most experienced firms in Nova Scotia.
3.	An architectural firm in the county was considered, but was not selected for this particular project because it lacked the experience of the one selected.


WHARF CONSTRUCTION, CAPE SABLE ISLAND, N.S.
Mr. Bower: 1.	Has the government received any representations from the officials and/or citizens of the province of Nova Scotia in regard to the urgent need of a wharf on Cape Sable island at a point known as West Head?
2.	Has any work been started on this project?
3.	If not, when is it estimated that work will begin?
4.	When is it estimated that the job will be finished?
5.	What is the estimated cost of the completed project.

Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Yes.
2.	No.
3.	An item is included in the department's 1966-67 estimates for construction of the wharf and the plans and specifications are now being prepared for a tender call this year.
4.	In 1967.
5.	It is not customary to reveal estimated costs before tenders have been received.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, PONTIAC AND TEMISCAMINGUE COUNTIES, QUE.
Mr. Lefebvre: How many people were drawing unemployment insurance and what was the total amount of money paid for Pontiac county and for Temisca-mingue county for the period (a) October 1, 1964 to March 31, 1965 (b) October 1, 1965 to the latest date for which figures are available?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: The unemployment insurance commission advises that such information is not available by counties.


POST OFFICE SITE, CHRISTMAS ISLAND, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	From what individual did the department concerned purchase the site of the Christmas Island post office at Christmas Island, Nova Scotia?
2.	What was the cost of this site?
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Mr. Allan MacNeil.
2. Mr. MacNeil signed an offer to sell in the amount of $500 and this offer has been accepted.


RETRAINING OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS
Mr. Starr: How many persons completed their training under the retraining of unemployed workers plan (a) as of January 31, 1964 (b) as of January 31, 1965 (c) as of January 31, 1966?


John Carr Munro: The following information covers the period beginning April 1, 1961, when the technical and vocational training agreement became effective, (a) 39,035; (b) 60,279; (c) complete information not yet reported by provinces; will be available about March 15, 1966.
February 28, 1966


RICE IMPORTS-WHEAT AND FLOUR EXPORTS
Mr. Hamilton: 1.	For the calendar years 1960-1965 inclusive, what was the dollar value of imports of (a) cleaned rice (b) uncleaned, hulled or paddy rice (c) any other classification?
2.	Of these amounts, what was the value of imports from (a) U.S.A., (b) mainland China?
3.	What was the dollar value of wheat and flour exports in the calendar years 1960-1965 inclusive to (a) U.S.A., (b) mainland China?
Questions


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1, 2 and 3. Available statistics on the dollar value if imports of rice in total, from the United States and from mainland China, and on exports of wheat and flour to the United States and to mainland China during the period 1960-1965 are shown in table I attached.


TABLE I. AVAILABLE STATISTICS ON DOLLAR VALUE OF IMPORTS OF RICE IN TOTAL, FROM THE UNITED STATES, AND FROM MAINLAND CHINA, AND ON EXPORTS OF WHEAT AND FLOUR TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO MAINLAND CHINA DURING THE
[Stage Direction]
PERIOD 1960-1965 ARE AS FOLLOWS:-
Imports of Rice	I960	1961	1962	1963	1964	January-September, 1965 (latest figures available)1(a) Cleaned Rice	T otal	2,989	2,658	(In Thousands of Dollars) 2,886 3,056 3,255	3,7812(a)	U.S.A	2,166	2,172	2,714	2,853	2,614	2,3172(6)	Mainland China	111	-	-	-	-	1(6) Uncleaned Rice	Total	3,593	3,512	4,734	6,229	4,081	3,9562(a)	U.S.A	514	759	4,491	6,229	4,081	3,9562(6)	Mainland China	
-	-	-	1 (c) Rice Starch or Flour	Total	145	142	196	168	144	712(a)	U.S.A	123	112	167	128	112	372(6)	Mainland China	-	-	-	-	-	Exports of wheat and flour	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964	January-November, 1965 (latest figures available)3(a) Wheat and flour	U.S.A	14,746	16,980	14,892	16,307	9,170	3,0313(6)	Mainland China	94,412	134,254	103,001	116,725	95,0421862	COMMONS DEBATES	February 28. 1966
Questions
February 28, 19G6

Mr. MacEwan: Is it the intention of the Minister of Fisheries to make regulations limiting the number of lobster traps permitted for each licensed boat owner in fishery district 7-B?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Answered by question No. 565.
Questions
4.	What, in detail, have been the income and expenses of the Jeanne-Mance housing project, for each fiscal year since it was started?
5.	What kind of report of its activities does the corporation submit to parliament?
6.	By whom is the board of managers of the corporation appointed?
7.	What is the status of the corporation in relation to the federal government?
8.	Is there a similar project elsewhere in Canada and, if so. where?


JEANNE-MANCE HOUSING PROJECT, MONTREAL
Mr. Caoueife: 1.	What was the total cost of the Jeanne-Mance housing project in Montreal?
2.	What was the federal government's share of the expenses?
3.	What are the terms of payment of that project?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. $10,662,585.60. 2. The federal government's share of the capital cost was $7,996,939.20.
3.	Recovery of the cost of the project will be obtained from rental revenue over a period of 50 years. Any operating deficits are shared 75 per cent by the federal government and 25 per cent by the city of Montreal.
Project Revenue	
Administrative Expenses___
Operating Expenses	
Maintenance Expenses	
Municipal Taxes	
Amortization of Investment
Operating Deficit	
Project Revenue	
Administrative Expenses___
Operating Expenses	
Maintenance Expenses	
Municipal Taxes	
Amortization of Investment
Operating Deficit	
1959	1960	1961	1962. 8 8, H0.95	* 177,667.68	8 481,034.25	8 513,277.6810,424.60	54,442.92	55,679.10	53,614.15. 2,123.49	51,642.40	108,040.58	104,239.573,613.43	83,279.45	100,812.63	124,736.702,713.65	48,282.77	125,746.51	135,837.46228,192.63	444,383.27	497,731.0518,875.17	465,840.17	834,662.09	916,158.93$ 10,734.22	$ 288,172.49	$ 373,627.84	$ 402,881.251963	1964	1965	TOTAL 1959-65. i 540,611.52	* 551,724.68	[DOT]1 558,239.68	$2,810,696.72. 53,746.75	57,519.70	61,148.04	346,593.26. 108,482.44	149,569.50	142,854.42	666,952.40. 132,098.51	107,472.04	112,146.43	664,159.19. 134,536.95	132,680.99	134,261.19	714,059.52. 533,493.68	539,312.50	545,223.45	2,788,336.58962,876.83	986,554.73	995,633.53	5,180,100.95. $ 421,764.81	$ 434,830.05	* 437,393.57	*2,369,404.235.	La Corporation d'Habitations Jeanne-Mance submits monthly and quarterly operational and financial reports on its activities to the city of Montreal and to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in turn, presents an annual report and financial statement to Parliament regarding the conduct of its business including its joint public housing operations of which Jeanne-Mance forms part.6.	Members of La Corporation d'Habitations Jeanne-Mance are appointed by resolution of the municipal council of Montreal, after consultation with representatives of the federal government.7.	La Corporation d'Habitations Jeanne-Mance is an agency established by a bylaw of the city of Montreal for the specific purpose of managing the Jeanne-Mance public
February 28, 1966
Questions
housing project under the terms of an agreement dated September 17, 1959, between the agency, the city of Montreal and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
8.	Yes. Public housing projects financed under Section 35A of the National Housing Act have been constructed or approved for development in 60 municipalities across Canada. The number of units by province is as follows: British Columbia, 1,400; Alberta, 30; Saskatchewan, 595; Manitoba, 165; Ontario, 7,035; Quebec, 796; New Brunswick, 685; Nova Scotia, 914; Newfoundland, 794; total, 12,414.


COST OF AIR CANADA PUBLICITY
Mr. Kennedy: How much money has been spent and how much is estimated to be spent by Air Canada on the current widespread newspaper advertising of the addition of more equipment to their service?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advise as follows: $138,000 has been spent and $12,000 is estimated to be spent.


LIVING CONDITIONS ON NAVY SHIPS IN SOUTHERN WATERS
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	Has the government conducted any studies through its appropriate officials, with respect to the matter of living conditions on board all Canadian naval ships that may from time to time operate in southern waters?
2.	If not, would such a study be considered?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Yes, studies are continually being carried out on all aspects of ship habitability as all Canadian naval ships require to be habitable through a wide range of climatic conditions from sub-Arctic to tropical.	.
2. Not applicable.


ILLNESS ON NAVY SHIPS IN SOUTHERN WATERS
Mr. Forrestall: Have any reports been received by naval authorities from previous trips into southern waters by HMC ships regarding illness apparently brought about by heat, lack of ventilation, and overcrowding?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: There have been no reports of illness attributable to these factors.


INTEREST YIELD ON TREASURY BILLS
Mr. Monteith: What is the interest yield, as established by sale of Treasury Bills, for each week since January 1, 1965?


Mitchell William Sharp: Average yield at weekly tender of government of Canada treasury bills
3 Month 6 Month
		Bills	Bills
165		Percent	
January	7	3.80	3.9314	3.82	3.9421	3.74	3.8428	3.74	3.83February	4	3.73	3.8211	3.70	3.8018	3.71	3.8225	3.74	3.86March	4	3.77	3.9011	3.75	3.8918	3.70	3.8225	3.62	3.73April	1	3.62	3.738	3.61	3.7115	3.64	3.7422	3.67	3.7729	3.77	3.87May	6	3.82	3.9313	3.81	3.9120	3.83	3.9327	3.90	4.01June	3	3.96	4.0710	3.96	4.0817	3.98	4.1024	3.94	4.07July	1	3.93	4.048	3.97	4.0915	3.97	4.1022	3.99	4.1629	4.05	4.23August	5	4.08	4.2712	4.09	4.2919	4.08	4.3026	4.08	4.30September	2	4.09	4.329	4.13	4.3416	4.11	4.3223	4.09	4.3030	4.13	4.35February 28, 1966	COMMONS
Average yield at weekly tender of government of Canada treasury bills
		3 Month	6 Mont
		Bills	Bills
1965		Percent	
October	7	4.13	4.3614	4.13	4.3621	4.15	4.4128	4.15	4.40November	4	4.16	4.4211	4.17	4.4618	4.17	4.4425	4.16	4.45December	2	4.16	4.449	4.46	4.7016	4.55	4.7823	4.56	4.7830	4.54	4.771966	January	6	4.58	4.8313	4.60	4.8420	4.64	4.8827	4.63	4.84February	3	4.66	4.8710	4.68	4.8917	4.69	4.90MACTAQUAC PROJECT,	SAINT JOHN	RIVER


Mr. MacRae: Is the government of Canada satisfied that the Mactaquac project on the Saint John river in New Brunswick will not interfere with navigation on the Saint John river from Fredericton to the mouth of the river?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


RE-ENGAGEMENT BONUS TO ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
Mr. MacRae: Is the government giving consideration to the granting of a re-engagement bonus to members of the armed forces?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, this was announced
DEBATES	1865
Questions
in the House of Commons Friday, 18 February, 1966, as reported at page 1473 in the official report of the House of Commons debates.


GRANT TO SUTHERLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, PICTOU, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Has the government approved a grant through the Department of National Health and Welfare for the construction of the new Sutherland memorial hospital at Pictou, N.S.?
2.	If so, what is the amount of the grant?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No.
2. See answer 1. above.


LANGUAGE DIFFICULTIES OF CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-: Kingsway):
Will the government consider as part of its war on poverty the problem of language difficulties of children of immigrants with low income and their consequent inability to benefit from Canadian schools?


John Ross Matheson: Language instruction for immigrant children who require it is provided by the provincial governments as part of their responsibility for education. Should the provinces ask for assistance in providing such instruction, the federal government would be pleased to consider such a request with them.


HARBOURS BOARD EMPLOYEES, TROIS-RIVEERES
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	What are the names of the employees under the control of the National Harbours Board in Trois-Rivieres, the date upon which each of them began working, each employee's annual salary at the present time, as well as a table indicating the salary raises received by each of them during the last five years?
2.	Were temporary workers sometimes hired, and upon what salary basis were they paid?
1866

February 28, 1966
Questions


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
Year	Annual Salary	or Earnings	Name	Appointed	1962	1963	1964	1965	1966 (Present Salary)T. Lauzon	1966	-	-	-	-	9000J. R. Blais	1939	4920	5130	5280	5280	5491R. Luckerhoff	1957	4200	4410	4740	4920	5304Mrs. M. Maynard	1961	3060	3300	3600	4050	4524R Bolduc	1955	3420	3750	4050	4410	4742A. Garneau	1961	2970	3270	3390	3540	4212G. Dumont	1960	3581	3919	3972	4115	*C. E. Godin	1962	2871	3123	3681	4234	*^Prevailing rates ($64.00 week plus overtime) *	
2. A casual worker is occasionally hired for temporary work at prevailing rates for the locality.


COST OF LIVING INDEX
Mr. Graffley: What was the cost of living index for the period from January 1, 1965, to December 31, 1965?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Not all prices used in any month's consumer price index are collected on any one day of the month and, hence, the index cannot be described as referring to a specific day. However, the great bulk of prices recorded are centred around the first day of the month and the index therefore relates basically to the beginning of the month.
The monthly consumer price index for the year 1965 was as follows (1949=100): January, 136.9; February, 137.2; March, 137.3; April, 137.7; May, 138.0; June, 139.0; July, 139.0; August, 139.4; September, 139.1; October, 139.3; November, 140.2; December, 140.8


INVESTMENT IN HARBOUR FACILITIES, MONTREAL-VANCOUVER
Mr. Davis: 1.	What, in approximate terms, is the total depreciated investment in harbour facilities in (a) the port of Montreal and (b) the port of Vancouver?
2.	What is the approximate breakdown of these total investments as between the national harbours board and other public and private owners?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:-
1.	In so far as the National Harbours Board is concerned: (a) Montreal-$109,795,725; (b) Vancouver-$34,677,204.
2.	No statistics available.


WATER POLLUTION, BAY CHALEUR, N.B.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has any study been made of the possible pollution of the waters of Bay Chaleur, New Brunswick, by effluents from the Belledune smelter complex?
2.	If so (a) what recommendations were made as the result of such a study and (b) what action has been taken by the company on those recommendations?
3.	What steps have been taken by the federal government to protect the offshore fishermen from the effect of any pollution of the waters of Bay Chaleur by the Belledune smelter complex?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1. Yes.
2.	Investigations being carried out by the Department of Fisheries, the fisheries research board, and the New Brunswick water authority have not yet been completed. There has been full co-operation by the company concerned, and the indications are that it will accept its responsibility for the pollution control features that may be recommended.
3.	Studies thus far indicate that feasible solutions are available to solve the potential effluent disposal problems which have arisen so far in the design of the Belledune smelter complex.
February 28, 1966


CALGARY, ALTA-CONSTRUCTION OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICE BUILDING
Mr. Ballard: What investigation has been made of the cessation of construction since December 1. 1965, of the national employment service building in Calgary, and with what results?


George James McIlraith: There has been no cessation of construction since December 1, 1965.


'CONSTRUCTION AT PRESCOTT, ONT.
Mrs. Wadds: What type of construction is planned under the $1,200,000 and $300,000 items listed as expenditures at Prescott in the 1966-67 estimates now tabled?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Items under vote 100 in the 1966-1967 estimates pertaining to Prescott grain elevator are for construction of wharf, $1,200,000 and renovation and renewal of electrical equipment, $300,000.


FAMILY ALLOWANCE RECIPIENTS
Mr. Godin: How many persons have received family allowances during 1964 and 1965 (a) in Canada (b) in the province of Quebec (c) in the county of Portneuf?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As at December 31, 1964: (a) 2,736,674 families received Family Allowances on behalf of 6,790,804 children, (b) 777,900 families received Family Allowances on behalf of 2,032,207 children, (c) No statistics available.
As at December 31, 1965:	(a) 2,774,463
families received Family Allowances on behalf of 6,849,095 children, (b) 790,368 families received Family Allowances on behalf of 2,041,545 children, (c) No statistics available.


OLD AGE SECURITY PENSIONS
Mr. Godin: 1.	What was the total amount disbursed by the government, as old age security pensions, during the years 1964 and 1965 (a) for Canada (b) for the province of Quebec and (c) for the county of Portneuf?
2.	For the same areas and during the same years, how many persons received the old age security pension?
3.	For the same areas and during the same years, how many applications were received by the government for such pensions and (a) how many of these applications were accepted and (b) how many were rejected?
Questions
Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister	of
National Health and Welfare):	1. In the
calendar year 1964:	(a) $880,804,251. (b)
$188,349,618. (c) No statistics available.
In the calendar year 1965: (a) $900,552,699. (b) $194,214,870. (c) No statistics available.
2.	As at December 31, 1964: (a) 990,652. (b) 213,444. (c) No statistics available.
3.	No statistics available.


EXPO '67-POSSIBLE DEFICIT
Mr. Faulkner: 1.	Is there a deficit anticipated for Expo '67?
2.	If so, has the government considered the possibility of a bond issue in which all citizens could participate?


Robert Henry Winters: 1. Yes.
2. No.


DELAY IN FEDERAL BUILDING, CALGARY
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	Why has the construction work of the National Employment Service building being built in Calgary, Alberta, by the Department of Public Works, been at a standstill since December 1, 1965?
2.	Who is the main contractor?
3.	How many contractors are there?
4.	What is the nature of the dispute between the department and the main contractor?
5.	To the knowledge of the government how many men have been laid off as a result of this dispute?


George James McIlraith: The answer to this question is as follows:
1.	The construction has not been at a standstill since December 1, 1965.
2.	Universal Construction Company Limited, Calgary, Alberta.
3.	One.
4.	There is no dispute between the department and the main contractor, but the precast concrete panels supplied were not acceptable to the consultant employed by the department.
5.	Ten have been laid off as a result of the delay in obtaining satisfactory panels.

February 28, 1966
Questions


STUDY OF LABOUR DEPARTMENT BY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Were management consultants engaged by the Department of Labour, in 1964 or 1965, to study the structure of the department and to make recommendations concerning the integration of the National Employment Service with the department?
2.	If so, who were so engaged, how long were they engaged, and what was the total cost of such study?
3.	Are copies of any reports made by such consultants available?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. Yes.
2.	Woods, Gordon and Company, Toronto, from June 24 to December 22, 1965, at a cost of $40,250.
3.	Yes, copies of the final report can be made available to members of parliament through the Department of Labour.


SASKATCHEWAN-HOMES CONSTRUCTED FOR INDIANS AND METIS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many homes have been constructed for Indians and metis under the low-income housing in northern Saskatchewan program which was announced April 21, 1965?
2.	What was the total amount of the loans granted?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1. In April, 1965 the federal government and the government of the province of Saskatchewan agreed to undertake a joint program to provide housing for low income families in sparsely settled regions. The program is experimental in nature and is designed primarily to meet the needs of the metis and enfranchised Indians in northern Saskatchewan. The agreement between the federal government and the province limits the program to a period of two years and 100 dwelling units. To date, approval has been given for the construction of 12 housing units. Applications for further units are expected shortly.
2. Total amount of loans to date, $35,000.


VALCARTIER, QUE., ARMOURY SALE
Mr. Caouetie: 
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Negotiations for the sale of the Val Rose Plant of Canadian Arsenals Limited are not completed.
2.	See 1.
3.	See 1.


'REQUEST FOR ESCALATOR CLAUSE IN SUPERANNUATION ACT
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has the Prime Minister received a letter from the secretary-treasurer of the Federal Superannuates' National Association asking that the Public Service Superannuation Act be amended so as to provide therein an escalator clause similar to that contained in the Canada Pension Plan and in the Old Age Security Act?
2.	If so, what reply has the Prime Minister made thereto?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: The answer to the first part of the question is yes.
The answer to part 2 is as follows:
In my reply to this point raised by the secretary treasurer of the Federal Superannuates' National Association, I referred to the problem of financing increases in the pensions of federal superannuates, which would involve a charge on either general revenues or the superannuation account. I said that the government does not feel justified in granting, at the expense of the public generally, a special treatment which was not received by other retired Canadians, and that because the full amount of the credit of the superannuation account was needed to meet charges on the account on the existing basis, payment of increased pensions from the account would not be actuarily sound.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1965, has the government or any agency, department or branch thereof spent any money to bring people to Ottawa for the purpose of discussing the role which Indian people might play in the centennial activities between now and 1967 and, if so, what is the name and home address of each such person, the amount paid for his or her transportation and living expenses, the dates during which he or she was in Ottawa, the manner by which he or she was selected, and whether or not any such person is currently employed by the government or any agency or department thereof and, if so, employed in what position at what salary?
2.	Since January 1, 1965, has there been any conference or other meeting held in Ottawa between the government or any agency or department thereof and any Indian people regarding activities of Indian people in relation to the centennial activities and, if so, what are the dates upon which such a conference was held, the names and home adresses of each person in attendance, the names and addresses of each person who was invited and/or selected to attend and the manner by which each was invited or selected and if any person recommended people who should be invited or selected, the name and home address of the person who made that recommendation, and the payments made to each person who attended?
Return tabled.


APPOINTMENTS TO PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE
Mr. Ormision: 1.	What are the names, classifications, salaries, and dates of appointment of all personnel in the Privy Council office?
2.	What are the names, classifications, salaries and dates of appointment of all personnel in the Prime Minister's office?
3.	How many personnel presently in the Privy Council were appointed by order in council?
4.	How many personnel in the Privy Council office on April 1, 1963, were appointed by order in council?
5.	How many personnel presently in the Prime Minister's office were appointed by order in council?
Orders for Returns
6.	How many personnel in the Prime Minister's office on April 1, 1963, were appointed by order in council?
Return tabled.


CANADA PENSION PLAN DEDUCTIONS IN 1965
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	Did any of the operative sections with respect to deductions of the Canada Pension Plan become effective prior to January 1, 1966?
2.	If so, which sections?
3.	Were any Canada Pension Plan deductions made from moneys earned during the year 1965 by any employee of HMC Dockyard, Halifax?
4.	If any deductions were made, will they be returned to the employees concerned?
Return tabled.


FISHING VESSEL SUBSIDY APPLICATIONS, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	How many applications for the payment of subsidies under the fishing vessel regulations 1964 have been received since June 5, 1964, from persons, firms or corporations in the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland?
2.	How many applications from each of the provinces mentioned above have been approved for payment since June 5, 1964?
3.	Of those approved, how many have actually been paid?
4.	What are the names and addresses of those to whom payments have been made?
5.	What is the length of each boat approved for payment?
6.	What was the basis on which each individual payment was approved?
7.	What was the amount of each payment, and the person to whom it was made?
8.	What was the date of each payment?
Return tabled.


WHEAT PRICES, FORT WILLIAM
Mr. Ormision: What was the average weekly price January 1, 1955 to February 11, 1966, inclusive, basis Fort William for (a) No. 1 northern wheat, class 2, wheat prices (b) No. 4 northern wheat, and (c) No. 6?
Return tabled.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: At this point, Mr. Speaker, may I say that after the questions both oral and written have been answered today, there are some 75 questions remaining on the order paper which have been there for a month or more. I feel some of these questions could have been answered

February 28. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry
sooner, and I ask the Prime Minister if he when this and other matters will be diswill try to persuade his ministers to pay cussed. I believe it would not be in the public more attention to these written questions, interest, before that meeting takes place, to thereby expediting the answers and cutting have the aide-memoire tabled. I hope we can down on the number of questions asked do so shortly thereafter, having in mind orally.	Canadian interests.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving consideration to the immediate appointment of a royal commission in connection with the infiltration of organized crime into various parts, if not all parts, of this nation. Has he noted the remarks of the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec, Hon. Mr. Wagner, to the effect that a state of emergency exists in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I noted these remarks. I would remind my right hon. friend also that a federal-provincial conference has been dealing with this matter, which has set up certain machinery to pursue the investigations required. I shall be glad to look into the specific proposal made by my right hon. friend.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Some time ago he promised to table the aide-memoire which the Canadian government sent to the United States government with regard to the guide lines imposed by that country. The minister has had adequate time to consult with his colleagues, and I wonder if he is now ready to table that aide-memoire?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: If my hon. friend will look at what I said about the aide-memoire I believe he will find it had to do with S.E.C. regulations. I said this would be tabled at the appropriate moment. The government, through some of its ministers, will be meeting opposite numbers in the government of the United States on Friday next in Washington,
[Mr. Starr.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister appeared on national television and claimed that not only had Hon. Eric Kierans written to the United States government protesting the guide lines but that this government had also protested, did he have in mind the aide-memoire which referred only to the S.E.C. regulations, or was there another document?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember what I said on television a long time ago, but I can remember what I said to my hon. friend in the house. I think if he looks at the exchange which took place on the day he asked the question and on the day after he will see that I set out the situation as I understood it to be, and as I think it had been lucidly stated the night before on television.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Since we are now considering the estimates of the Department of Justice and since question No. 577 now on the order paper seems to be quite important in the examination of those estimates, can the minister tell us if the officials of his department are giving that question all the necessary attention, so that an answer will be given to it before consideration of his estimates is completed?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minisler of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to discuss question No. 577 during the study of my estimates, probably this afternoon.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the
February 28, 1966	COMMONS
Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and follows up remarks attributed to him over the week end relating to the conservation of water resources in Canada. Does the minister anticipate in the immediate future the setting up of a commission to study the over-all picture of water conservation and flow, such as the commission already instituted by the premiers of the prairie provinces?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this question very often comes up; when are we going to have a national water policy? It is quite difficult for me to answer this question, because everybody knows the provinces have a lot to do with natural resources; with water in particular.
I do not think hon. members should be pessimistic. A lot of good work is being done in this field at the moment. For example, a study has been started of the Ontario northern rivers. Another study is proceeding on water levels in the great lakes. About ten days ago the Minister of Agriculture and I were in Winnipeg discussing with representatives of the three prairie provinces the setting up of a board for the investigation of the Nelson and Saskatchewan basins. The conversation is going along very nicely and we are about to reach agreement in principle.
I would remind hon. members that although we do not have a sort of unitary water policy, we are nevertheless making great progress in federal-provincial relations in this field.
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposiiion): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the hon. gentleman whether study has been given to the recent legislation passed by the United States relating to the exchange of water in the river basins draining into lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence, Chesapeake bay and the Atlantic ocean; and what if any, in the opinion of the minister and his advisers, will be the further effect on the water levels in lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river? Will the minister say at the same time whether this legislation has been referred to the International Joint Commission for consideration?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. But if you ask my opinion-


John George Diefenbaker: I can think of nothing I want to hear more.
DEBATES	1871
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Thank you very much. I have read the legislation mentioned and found out that it covers only studies; it refers to funds allocated in the United States for studies of this question of reservoirs and diversions. Consequently this matter does not come yet under the boundary treaty existing between the United States and Canada. If further to these studies diversion of waters should be considered, then we would expect the United States government to consult with us.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay West):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I intended to ask the minister a question on this subject. The minister did say he was optimistic by a good many of us on this side are a bit pessimistic regarding our water policy.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the apprehension felt by many Canadians and practically all members of the opposition in this house over recent statements made by the Prime Minister and the minister with respect to the international development of Canadian water resources, and in view of the legislation passed by the United States government which was mentioned by the Leader of the Official Opposition, will the minister-I heard his reply to me but it was not quite satisfactory-do what he can to promote an agreement between the provinces and the federal government so we can have an early announcement of what is our water policy in this country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already given, in the short period of time which is allocated to us, three wide areas of federal-provincial co-operation on water supply and use. I could go on, but I do not think hon. members should be too pessimistic about this. As far as I am concerned I am giving the matter all my attention.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether he would investigate mailings from a firm in Winnetka, California, which sends unsolicited mail to many businesses and homes in southern Ontario, particularly in the Toronto and Oshawa areas, offering for sale obscene films and literature. Many residents
February 28, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry are complaining about this, and I wonder whether the minister would investigate to see what can be done about halting the delivery of this mail.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ontario has made a suggestion to the minister. I am sure the minister will take note of it, but this is not a question for this time of day.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister receive a petition from the senior citizens from Spir-itwood district in Saskatchewan requesting that the old age pension be increased to $100 a month? Does the government intend to take any action on the request of these pioneer citizens who are in great need at this time owing to the high cost of living?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister should let us know whether or not he has received such a petition.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that it is not in order at this time to ask whether the Prime Minister or any minister has received a petition or a letter. Many members receive petitions and letters every day, and if they were allowed at this time, during the short period available for questions, to ask members of the government whether such petitions, letters or requests had been received by them we should, I think, make very little progress. I suggest that the hon. member might wish to put his question on the order paper.



APPLICATION FOR SECOND GAS TRANSMISSION LINE THROUGH U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister of mines or to the minister in his capacity as minister of resources, or I will address it to the Prime Minister.
May I preface my question with one sentence. There is an application pending before the National Energy Board at the moment for

a permit to export six trillion cubic feet of Canadian natural gas from western Canada by pipe line. Does the minister and his government take the position that a second gas transmission pipe line can now be constructed from Caanda through the U.S.A. without referring the matter to parliament and getting parliament's approval of such an enterprise? Or has approval now been granted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Certainly the first part of the question is not in order. The hon. member is making an argument and putting the question in such a way that it suggests its own answer, which is not in accordance with the rules.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then may I put the question in this way. Has approval been given for the building of a second trans-Canada pipe line out of Canada through the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this question is before both the United States federal power commission and the Canadian National Energy Board, so it would be improper for me to comment on the matter at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of an answer given by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys respecting export and import permits for the National Energy Board. Is the matter of building a second trans-Canada or pipe line before that board or is it before the government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I understand this is the question that is before the board.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has Mrs. Lenore Andrews been authorized to speak for the Department of Agriculture with regard to difficulties in cream supplementary payments? Mrs. Andrews is a prominent Liberal in Prince Albert and is president of the Saskatchewan Women's Liberal Association.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question should seek information, not give information.
February 28, 1966	COMMONS


Edward Nasserden: I was raising a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. The lady in question is faced with a real difficulty in connection with this payment-


Mr. Speaker:: The question may be serious, but it should not be asked at this time. The hon. member might wish to place it on the order paper.


Edward Nasserden: Could the Minister of
Agriculture tell us the extent of the difficulties which have arisen with regard to supplementary cream payments in Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member place his question on the order paper.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or, if he is not the appropriate minister, for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is there any information available about a recent important discovery of oil on Melville island in the Northwest Territories; and can the hon. gentleman tell us anything about the way in which this discovery was made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This does not appear to be a question which should be asked at this time and I invite the hon. member to place it on the order paper.


Eric Alfred Winkler: With all deference, Mr. Speaker, I suggest this is of great national and even international importance.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr Speaker, some weeks ago the Prime Minister informed the house that the government was seriously considering the establishment of an all-party parliamentary committee to study questions relating to the Canadian constitution. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether this matter is still receiving active consideration by the government and whether we can expect an announcement in this regard fairly soon.
DEBATES	1873
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but no decision has yet been reached. I hope one will be before long.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is it correct that the Minister of Transport together with the Minister of Labour and the minister of northern affairs will be visiting the harbours of Vancouver and Victoria between March 4 and March 7? If it is correct, will the minister be making an announcement on his return concerning the development of Vancouver harbour and adjacent areas?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr Speaker, I hate to forecast announcements.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I regret I was unable to discuss this matter which the Secretary of State for External Affairs before the house sat but I have a question to address to him which he would perhaps like to take as notice. Would the minister inquire when the government can expect a report from the International Joint Commission with regard to the development of the Pembina river project in North Dakota and Manitoba?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I shall make immediate inquiries and let the hon. member know tomorrow.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry. It is with reference to a meeting held on Friday in Ottawa between representatives of the Department of Industry and representatives of local 200 of the United Automobile Workers, Windsor, regarding projected lay-offs of workers at the Ford Motor Company of Canada. I should

February 28, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry like to ask the minister whether he gave the U.A.W. assurances that his departmental officials would make representation to the Ford Motor Company on behalf of the U.A.W. and, if so, what progress has been made with those representations?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I myself was not present at this meeting but I am advised-


Mr. Knowles:: By whom?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -that the appropriate action was taken by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, assisted in this matter by my hon. friends from Essex East and Essex West.


Max Saltsman: Then may I direct my question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: As the hon. member mentioned, we met a delegation from local 200 of the United Automobile Workers.
They stated their problems at length, more particularly the lay-offs and the exodus of certain tradesmen to the United States.
The Ministers of Industry, Labour and myself have agreed to co-operate in finding a solution to those problems and also to send someone there to check the facts on the spot, at the resquest of local 200 representatives.


Max Saltsman: Because of the urgency of this situation-these lay-offs are to occur on March 4-can the minister inform the house when he is likely to have an answer to this particular problem?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire and possibly answer tomorrow on what may have been done.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Brown (Braniford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the light of assurances that consideration is being given by the government to recent proposals of the special committee of the Senate on aging, can the
[Mr. Saltsman.)
hon. gentleman advise us whether this subject might now be referred to the standing committee on health and welfare in order to give members of parliament from all parties an opportunity to make representations of a non-partisan nature, which will represent an effort by parliament as a whole to bring financial relief to our senior citizens?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The announcement he made earlier today recognizes the potentialities of the north. Is the minister now in a position to invite the provinces to submit proposals for a new five year plan under the roads to resources program?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I think the best answer I could make to the hon. member would be to say that this section of my department was transferred to my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Stanley James Korchinski: Then could I direct my question to the appropriate minister?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the roads to resources program was intended to last a certain period of time. I am told that some provinces have yet to complete their use of the program, and this has to be borne in mind as the government gives consideration to a possible extension of the program. The question is being studied.


Stanley James Korchinski: Inasmuch as there have been ad hoc extensions of the original program, is the government now giving consideration to setting aside certain funds so that interested provinces can avail themselves of them as they see fit?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said a moment ago that we were now studying the effects of this program. Decisions for the future will be taken on the basis of this study.
February 28, 1966



LOANS TO PROSPECTORS FOR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change.']
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in relation to the announcement he made today concerning loans for the development of resources in the territories. Can he tell us whether money will be available from this fund for loans to individual prospectors to carry out the work they normally do?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that would be that the advisability of making a loan will be judged on the basis of the individual application.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister now inform the house whether any official instructions have been sent to the Canadian military training team in Ghana and, particularly, whether there has been any change in its activities?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. On Wednesday last the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked the minister whether he would consider making a decision as soon as possible on the application for deferment of part 1 of the Canadian Labour Code by the Automotive Transport Association. The minister stated he would be glad to give consideration to this suggestion. May I ask the minister whether he has now given the matter his consideration and whether he can give an answer today in view of the fact that the truckers' strike is still continuing?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on the same day the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked his question I received a long letter on the subject from the hon. member who has just spoken, and I answered that letter at some length today.
I suggest he might consider it and renew the question tomorrow if he thinks it advisable.


David Lewis: I shall live in anticipation until I read the letter.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Have arrangements been made yet for a meeting with the appropriately interested parties with respect to safety measures on the St. Lawrence river and seaway?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I understand such arrangements are being made.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will Canada continue to supply troops to the United Nations peace keeping force in Cyprus? If so, will the rotation take place in March and what units will replace the present ones?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the mandate will be extended. I shall take as notice the question regarding the actual rotation date and units.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries possibly I should direct this question to the Prime Minister. It is of pressing importance because sealing operations, so far as individuals are concerned, open tomorrow.
February 28, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
Would the Prime Minister say whether there has been any effective change in the regulations so that Canadians may be assured that cruel and inhumane practices will end? I ask this in view of the fact that recent articles indicate that the regulations do not cover the situation and the inhumanity of the past will not be obviated unless there is unusual vigilance and action on the part of the Department of Fisheries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister has been concerning himself with this matter, especially in the light of certain reports that have appeared. He will be in his place tomorrow, and I shall ask him to deal with the question at that time.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has any action been taken yet on the request for a conciliation board which I understand has been received from the president of the union at the Polymer Corporation in Sarnia?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that telegram was received only this morning. I hope to have the matter investigated and have something to report in a couple of days.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he advise the house whether results can be expected as a consequence of recent meetings with representatives of fair associations and other interested persons?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The immediate urgency of this question is not apparent to the Chair. Perhaps the hon. member would put it on the order paper.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister say whether he has reinstated capital grants for class B fairs?


Mr. Speaker:: I would invite the hon. member to place that question also on the order paper.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augusie Choqueite (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of Mr. Claude Wagner's statement to the effect that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was duty bound to tell the provincial police everything he knew concerning the death of Mr. Payette, the lawyer, could the minister tell the house whether he has learned anything from Mr. Wagner about steps taken by the hon. member for Yukon to inform the Quebec provincial authorities?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the hon. member for Lotbiniere will take into account the fact that the estimates of the Minister of Justice are before the house and that this will give him an opportunity to ask him his question.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he has yet ascertained the location of the Thompson report?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, has the minister made inquiries since last Tuesday to find out where the report is?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, sir.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a further supplementary question, can the minister tell us what he has learned as a result of such inquiries?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall try to do so tomorrow, sir.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the general interest in
February 28, 1966

the Senate brought about by the recent appointments to that place, would the Prime Minister be prepared to table the large number of letters, telegrams and other missiles that his appointments have inspired?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Recently the premier of Ontario said there ought to be a royal commission on divorce. Is the Prime Minister of the opinion that the standing committee on justice and legal affairs is competent to handle this matter without the establishment of a royal commission?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is out of order.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
Legal and Other Services-
1. Administration including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or such dependents as may be approved by Treasury Board of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,504,300.
The Chairman:: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, naturally we are awaiting with bated interest the reply that will be given by the Minister of Justice to the various questions that have been propounded and are as yet unanswered. I intend to deal now with only two matters while awaiting the response of the minister regarding questions that are of pre-eminent importance.
During the question period I asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been drawn to the views expressed over the week end by the minister of justice of the province of Quebec and what the government's stand would be respecting the convening of a royal commission to look fully into the whole field of crime. Canadians as a whole have been shocked, even dumbfounded by the revelations of the last year or so, and
Supply-Justice
everywhere there is a demand that the situation be looked into to see whether the administration of justice has been subject to infiltration by gangs, thugs and Mafia dominated individuals. I think the demand for a royal commission which I had the honour to make months ago has been reinforced by events during the passing months.
Only on Friday the hon. member for Yukon again repeated that request. I cannot understand the government's position. The government has before it the facts revealed in the Dorion Commission inquiry and the complaints that have been made by the Ontario Crime Commission respecting the failure of the Department of Justice to reply to letters regarding international criminals. These things make one wonder why a royal commission representative not only of the federal government but the provinces should not be set up.
The division of responsibility in the administration of justice demands that there be representation from both jurisdictions on the commission. The Prime Minister stated today that this matter was before a dominion-provincial conference. That is no answer. More and more fields of endeavour that should be before the House of Commons are receiving the attention of dominion-provincial conferences and the House of Commons representing the people receives little or no information regarding these matters.
I would simply quote the words of the minister of justice of the province of Quebec who stated over the week end:
Organized crime has created a "veritable state of emergency". . . . "It has become more and more evident that organized crime, not only in Quebec but in the whole of the country, has created a veritable state of emergency." . . .
Mr. Wagner recalled that a royal commission investigation into crime is not a new idea-he had made the same suggestion when he was Crown Attorney and when he was a Judge of the court of sessions here.
"What I had in mind then is precisely a commission of national scope which would bring witnesses from all corners of the country because it is now public knowledge that organized crime knows no provincial boundaries. A local inquiry would not uncover what a royal commission or what a national commission would reveal."
The support of the minister of justice of the province of Quebec, a man who has had experience both as a prosecutor and as a local judge, gives added emphasis to the need of action in this regard.
I am now going to refer to the Spencer case because I want the minister to know and the Prime Minister too that it is not a dead

February 28, 1966
Supply-Justice
issue. We want the facts. More and more it is becoming a question of whether or not the government can stand against public opinion which generally has demanded an investigation into the circumstances, the strange, bizarre circumstances of the Spencer case. It is parliament's responsibility. It has been interesting to find that while up to very recently, outside of the press across Canada which is almost unanimous in a demand for action in this regard, we in the opposition had not been able to secure support from members sitting on the Liberal benches supporting the government, the other day there were revelations. One was by the hon. member for York-Humber in a most striking presentation. There was no evasion, there was a directness in the expression of his view which cannot be wiped aside.
Even in the mind of the hon. member for Verdun, who has a reputation for qualified viewpoints, suspicion is beginning to be aroused. He wants to know why no action has been taken. "What action there has been, has been bureaucratic, dictatorial, and completely without precedent. This man was designated by the Minister of Justice. He found his way on to the television screens of this country and he designated this man and identified him. Earlier there had been some reference to him.
According to Lord Hewitt, "the only things that interfere with the absolute power of bureaucratic government are the sovereignty of parliament and the rule of law". If a poll were taken of members of the house, I think it would be overwhelmingly in favour of the need for investigation into this weird case. Let me point out how difficult it is to obtain information. The hon. member for Battle River-Camrose on January 21 placed the following questions on the order paper and they have hibernated there ever since:
1.	Were alleged security or espionage offences committed by Victor G. Spencer, now of Vancouver and, if so, what were they and when did these alleged offences take place?
2.	What year did he come to Canada, and from what country?
Who is hiding the facts here? Sir, is it not strange that questions like these remain on the order paper for a month and ten days without being answered. What are they hiding? What are they concealing? What are they afraid of? I realize that this government has established an international reputation as a bumbler. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, speaking on

international affairs the other day in Edmonton, said, "we have to stumble to a stalemate". That is what this government has done. That is its policy, its attitude; it refuses to face facts.
All across this nation there is a demand for action and the Prime Minister has intensified that demand by an explanation which certainly did not explain. Indeed, the Montreal Star, which never has been known as one of the government's most active critics, on February 25 said in an editorial headed "The Spencer Case Is Not Closed":
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
So far as Mr. Pearson is concerned the Spencer case is closed. The Prime Minister may be happy about it all, quite convinced that the interests of national security are not jeopardized, and that no injustice has been worked. No one else is so easily convinced and the suspicion will not down that in this, as in perhaps other cases, the government has something to hide. It has at any rate fumbled and can satisfy the public that justice has been done only by bringing Spencer to trial or instituting a judicial inquiry.
I immediately add that when the government says security procedures might be revealed I accept that explanation, but that does not justify the refusal to call together an inquiry presided over by a judge or judges sitting in camera. We want to know whether the rights of Canadians can be shamelessly swept aside.
The last paragraph of this article states:
Objections to the government's course of action in the Spencer case are not based on sympathy for Spencer. He himself created the publicity that now surrounds him by identifying himself in connection with the ousting of two Russian representatives. What gives cause for concern is the government's assumption that whenever it sees fit it can sidestep justice and deal with people as if we were living in a police state.
That is what has happened here. Surely the shades of 1945 and 1946 are not returning. I intend to ask questions to which we want answers. These are not questions that will interfere with national security but we want to know about a few of the things that have been hidden in fog, smokescreen and mystery to such an extent that people are beginning to wonder why the government has hidden them if there is nothing to hide.
Let us consider how the government started in this matter. It began by giving the explanation that Mr. Spencer had to be subjected to what one would call protective surveillance in order to protect the nation. Then the minister let the cat out of the bag when he said: We are not doing it for that reason because he never endangered the
February 28, 1968

security of the state. The security of the state is not in jeopardy because he is wandering around wherever he may be.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The second explanation was that they were protecting him.


John George Diefenbaker: There was mention of previous cases. What was done in previous cases where complete secrecy was maintained? No names were given in those cases. Why is this man denied a hearing? What stage have we reached in this country when a Canadian, whatever his record may be, and apparently it cannot be very serious because the minister says that the security of the nation was never in danger, is told that he is out of a job but wherever he goes he is going to have somebody with him? If that is not a form of open arrest I do not know what else it is.
The government decided that the first explanation was not very good because it gave all the earmarks of a police state, and they altered it. What a tangled web of circumstances. The explanation was then given that he was being followed in order to provide protection of his own person, because they do not want him to be subjected to physical danger from the communists, but surely nobody believes that possible.
Surely no one could be gullible enough to accept the first theory that he was being followed to assure that he would do no wrong and then the amended form, that he is being followed for that purpose and also to preserve his precious being. Let us get the story straight. These people cannot have it both ways. In a democratic state there is certainly a difference between protection by law enforcement officers and surveillance of a person because he might commit a criminal offence. If it was intended for the sake of protection, all I say is that even a lawyer without experience would not have used the word "surveillance". I suggest these people changed their story to meet the criticism. There can be no justification for this nation putting anyone under protective custody or keeping him under open arrest in the circumstances that have been revealed so far.
I was not in the house at the time but I was amazed to know that the Prime Minister had said, as reported at page 1683 of Hansard for February 23:
I do not believe his rights as a person or as a citizen have been violated.
Supply-Justice
I should like to ask at what stage he would consider rights to have been violated if this is not a violation. He said that Spencer had not complained. Have they interviewed him or have the R.C.M.P. interviewed him to find out whether he basks in the sunshine of notoriety with police officers on his trail wherever he goes? Has there been any correspondence with him? Surely it would not interfere with security of the state if this were revealed.
The explanation that has been given, the secondary revised version, is nothing but pharasaic cant and hypocrisy. The government started out by saying that this man was being followed and kept under surveillance. Surveillance means the following of a person for the purpose of assuring that he does not commit a crime or to ascertain whether or not evidence can be obtained against him regarding a crime.
Surely there can be no successful denial of this fair request for a judicial inquiry behind closed doors. Such an inquiry would permit a judicial declaration whether security would be harmed if this man were given his day in court. I hope never again will a royal commission be subjected to a suggestion by the Prime Minister or any other minister of the government to the effect that its findings do not meet the sensibilities of the Prime Minister or another minister and that the evidence given under oath should be changed and altered by an ex-parte statement not under oath. Surely that case of asking a judge to change his judgment after it had been delivered and tabled in parliament was the height of indiscretion and worse.
The Prime Minister laughs. He got in touch with the head of a royal commission and said: Your finding is not right.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The former minister of justice said, "That is what I said, but what I should have said when I did not say it was what I would have said if I had thought it over. This is what it will be." What nonsense is this? It was one of the most serious invasions of judicial independence that has ever been seen in this country. Yet they smile. One remembers the words of William Cullen Bryant which are as true today as when they were uttered, "O freedom, close not your eyes. Its opposition never sleeps." What we are asked to do in this case is say, "Begone, freedom. Exit the rights of individuals who only ask that they be tried for their alleged wrongs."

February 28, 1966
Supply-Justice
Why is no action being taken in the Spencer case? It is for the government to say. They have had to change their story as to the reason he is being followed. Why? Spencer said, "If they do anything with me, heads will swim". Whose heads? What heads? A little later, on December 26, Mr. Peter Trueman reported in his column that Spencer had said that if the federal government prosecuted him on espionage charges, high-ranking officials in Ottawa would suffer. Those are strong words. Who are these heads? The former minister of justice, with that urbanity he shows whenever justice is trampled on, smiles and sneers. I say to him: Who are these people?
There should be a royal commission, behind closed doors if necessary. I will go along with the government on that even though I do not like closed-door investigations. But under the circumstances an inquiry should be conducted by a judge if there is danger of the revelation of counter-espionage. A judge can hear, sift and conclude. Surely we have not come to the stage in this country where a person can be named, charged with a heinous crime, the most serious crime against the state, publicly branded and maintained in a state of continuing open arrest without a proper inquiry.
The excuse might be offered: Well, this man tried to undermine the state; therefore he should not have the rights of all other citizens. If that press release was based on fact, everything about his conduct was despicable and worthy of punishment. But to condone wrongdoing on the part of the state on the ground that the wrongdoing by the victim might reveal certain information is anything but what one should expect. Even at this late date there should be an inquiry into this matter. When I raised this question the Prime Minister at first said he would consider it even though the Minister of Justice had swept it aside. What a sinuous course the present Minister of Justice followed. When the election was on he said, "I am not looking into the case."
I will be very glad to quote the speech of the Minister of Justice in this regard because I always come with the necessary material. He said he was not looking into the case then. That is what he said and I shall quote from the speech in a moment. Then he left the impression that there would be an investigation along the line of a commission. Once the

election was over and that sort of attitude had achieved its purpose, suddenly he changed his viewpoint.
I point out that across the country, as I said a moment ago, the press almost unanimously demands action. La Presse, the Globe and Mail, Le Devoir, the Montreal Star, the Gazette, the Toronto Telegram-everywhere, without regard to party considerations, there is a demand for action. But this government stands adamant. Why? Whose heads will roll? What revelations will be made? Sir, that is what parliament is for, to see that the nation's security shall be protected and the rights of the individual shall not be denied unnecessarily.
Even in the days of war, as the hon. member for York South said, a man had greater rights. During the days of World War II I sat on the committee considering the defence of Canada regulations. Many persons were interned because of the exigencies of war who later had to be released. In this case, sir, the Bill of Rights has been shockingly violated. There has been a gross perversion of the elementary principles of right. I say, on the basis of very full study, that what has been done to Spencer serves neither justice nor national security. He has been scourged by despotism. He has been denied human rights. The government that will not place him in the dock will place him forever in a pillory.
Surely ordinary justice demands that a man be judged according to law. This man has been judged outside the law. He has been convicted without evidence by the jury of public opinion. He has been punished without verdict. For the rest of his life he carries with him the stigma of a traitor to his country.
I have some questions I want answered, although on the basis of information to date it is with trepidation that I even advance them. I am going to read, because I think it should be on the record, the press release issued by the Department of External Affairs on May 8. Before I do, I ask the minister to reveal this fact; it cannot interfere with the security of the nation. Was it in the month of January or February or March or April that the first suspicions came to the attention of the Department of Justice regarding the proclivities of this man or did the wrongdoing only come to light a day or so prior to May 8? [DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This is very important. When this matter was revealed that great body of men, the R.C.M.P., was under attack in connection
February 28, 1966

with the Dorion inquiry. How did it come about that the Spencer case, at that significant moment, should be brought to light? If the alleged offences took place in the month of April or early May it is understandable. When did these alleged offences take place?
They say they have no evidence. On more than one occasion wrongdoers, communists, who have come into Canada to undermine the state have been told to get out; they have been sent back. Indeed, the experience of our country, the United States and the United Kingdom has been that many of these people who come in under the guise of diplomacy use that as a camouflage for wrongdoing against the country to which they are accredited. Let us read what this press release says:
The Department of External Affairs today announced that the ambassador of the Soviet Union was requested on May 4 to arrange for the departure from Canada of two members of his mission, Mr. A. E. Bytchkov, of the Commercial Section, and a Chancery clerk, Mr. V. N. Polu-chkin.
I pause here to suggest that a man in the commercial section, who did not enjoy diplomatic immunity, was allowed to leave. I am talking about the commercial section.
The Canadian government had learned that they had engaged in activities incompatible with their official status and had, therefore, found it necessary to declare them persona non grata. They left Canada on May 7.
Listen to this, and this is the Department of External Affairs speaking:
In one instance a Canadian civil servant was paid thousands of dollars to gather information and documentation in Canada, the purpose of which was to assist in the establishment of espionage activities in Canada and other countries, and to perform economic intelligence tasks, including the provision of detailed information on the Transmountain pipe line system in western Canada.
The question I ask is this: Many thousands of dollars were paid to this man Spencer according to this record but today you say you have no evidence sufficient to convict. You issue this statement on the eighth day of May. In what other countries were these espionage establishments to be brought about? This information would not reveal anything of importance to our security. You have already said thousands of dollars were paid. We ask, how many? Let us see how big this is. How many individuals were approached by this man. How much was paid to him? You must have all this information. How many payments were made and over what period of time? Let us have that information. The security of this nation will not be undermined by this information.
Supply-Justice
Then, what about the naturalized Canadian citizen who was paid thousands of dollars to provide technical information? He is free because he assisted. Of what is he free? His name remains among the great incognitos of our country. What did he do? He endeavoured to compromise other Canadians, including female employees of the government, with the object of securing their assistance in obtaining access to classified information. The minister shakes his head in a horizontal motion, which means no. This is what it says in the press release from which I am reading issued by the Department of External Affairs. The Minister of Justice says there is nothing in that. What kind of press release is this to emanate from the Department of External Affairs containing information that is false?
The press release says this man was given specialized photographic training to assist him in his task. Is that true? This is true. Well, we are getting along. The minister says it is not true, he shook his head in a negative way, that this man tried to compromise female employees in an effort to obtain access to information. You see, the minister is very honest and straightforward about this. He says that is not a fact. What kind of reliance can you place on a press release issued by the minister of the Department of External Affairs-it would not be issued by him but by somebody there-when the Minister of Justice says it has no foundation? We are starting to get some information.
I quote again from the press release:
The approaches made by the two members of the Soviet Embassy very shortly came to the attention of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As a result of this co-operation by conscientious Canadians, the police were able to establish the improper intent of the Soviet approaches and to put an end to them before any damage was done to Canadian interests.
I ask, when was this? When did these things happen? I am amazed to have an admission from the Minister of Justice that the cornerstone upon which the government has founded this press release by the Department of External Affairs has cracks in it; parts of it are not time. This is a very serious matter. I know the minister will want to clear this matter up beyond peradventure. It is in that spirit that I appeal to him once more that action be taken in the interests of justice. The very fact he now admits part of the press release was without foundation indicates the need for a royal commission to go into this matter.

February 28. 1966
Supply-J ustice
Let me go on from there. One man gets thousands of dollars. He obtained the money to begin with because they had to trust him first and then later, because of conscience, fear or whatever the reason, a change was brought about in his thinking. Do you not think a commission should have an opportunity of looking into this situation, because thousands of dollars are not paid by the Soviets just for the amusement of making payments? I have just been reading the papers of the Russian spy-his name has gone out of my mind for the moment but he was the Russian colonel who was executed-and they indicate that the results are not insignificant.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Surely, Mr. Chairman, in view of that admission by the Minister of Justice, which I am sure came as a surprise to the Prime Minister and the other ministers, there is no difficulty now in making a case for a commission. I do not in any way wish to see our security techniques revealed. On the other hand, the present state of indefiniteness, uncertainty and evasion in this matter, the foundation story now ceasing to exist with the admission by the minister that one portion of this press release is not factual, point to the need for action to be taken.
I am not going to press this case further at this time. However, the Minister of Justice mentioned a moment ago that one statement I had made was not quite correct. I have before me the file. So far as the R.C.M.P. is concerned, the commissioner received severe criticism in the Dorion report. The attitude taken toward two of the high officials of the R.C.M.P. by the judge before he published his report indicated that there would be criticism. When the Spencer case was first revealed the Dorion report was being written.
The minister indicated a moment ago-I want to be entirely fair about this report-that he went right after this as soon as he became Minister of Justice. I think fairness demands that I admit that. I admit-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Would the right hon. gentleman explain what he means when he says that I went right after this? Right after what?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I would think that with that assiduity and energy that the hon. gentleman possesses in such abundant measure, as soon as the matter came into his hands-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: What matter?


John George Diefenbaker: -he would have acted. And he did act. I was just going to pay a tribute to him for his action but I do not want to spoil the record. I have before me an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of July 8 written by Mr. Geoffrey Stevens in which the following appears:
The short, easy-going lawyer from Sorel, Que., moved smoothly and swiftly yesterday into the political hot-seat . . . Without waiting for the official swearing-in ceremony, he set up a meeting-
Then the article goes on to say this, and it is a very striking statement for a minister who is just assuming the heavy responsibilities of Minister of Justice:
-although he could not sympathize with the violent attacks made on the R.C.M.P. last week by the French-speaking members of the Social Credit Party and the Social Credit Rally, he felt there must be some basis for the M.P.'s complaints.
"I feel there is nothing fundamentally wrong (with the R.C.M.P.) but I hope to get at the reason very quickly"-
That is why I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, he had moved forward with acceleration and dispatch. Then the article went on to say that the minister also had other hot potatoes to dispose of such as Adrien Meunier, Leo Landreville and so on. The hon. member for Hochelega also became involved in this and wrote an article in the Toronto Telegram dated August 24 in which he covered a lot of things. In his article he said:
In his report published at the beginning of July, he criticized our federal police corps-
He is referring to Chief Justice Dorion.
-so severely that many Canadians, including this columnist, are still wondering why nothing happened to Commissioner McLellan as a consequence of such a dressing down.
I did not hold that view, but this article was written by a very eminent publicist. However, he gets to the bottom of things because he went on to say:
Not only did Chief Justice Dorion condemn the R.C.M.P. for its appalling lack of bilingualism, an aspect of the problem that could be deemed by many as not directly relevant to the case, but he also described the handling of the Rivard affair as a very poor performance by the force.
It is now official, thanks to the report, that the R.C.M.P. went to work after a long delay that it could not explain; that the methods displayed by its men were unworthy of a responsible institution.
Then he goes on to say:
The press was unanimous in demanding that Guy Favreau resign but to my knowledge, only one newspaper suggested that Commissioner McLellan was in the same situation.
February 28, 1966

That article indicates the opinion of a most outstanding publicist, now one of those who, having seen the light of day, sits on the thrones of the powerful.
Then we go on to follow the course through. I say advisedly that I am concerned about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police being placed in any invidious position which would result in the loss to any degree of the kind of prestige they have built up. I speak as one who, before I became a member of parliament, was in the courts and I met with them week after week in literally hundreds of cases. I relied upon them, and in all the times I appeared before the courts there were only two cases in which there was ever any evidence given by a mounted policeman which I had any reason to believe was not the truth and the whole truth.
However, in this case, strangely enough, they do have to start to produce an answer, which is a serious situation. That is why on Friday I mentioned the fact that the commissioner of the mounted police must keep out of participating in any way in the defence of his force, however strongly he may feel about the matter. That is a question for the minister. As soon as a person occupying the position of commissioner starts getting into that field, controversy takes place. Not everybody will accept the views expressed by him and the result is one not beneficial to the maintenance of that high degree of regard which the R.C.M.P. enjoys.
I am concerned about what has happened over the last couple of years. I will say no more at this time, but I do hope that never again will the commissioner get into a field of controversy. Let him talk about the work of the mounted police, give the benefit of his ideas and experiments and so on, but he must never be in the category of a protagonist for one side or another. The history of police forces stands out as a warning that to take such a course may lead to serious consequences.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I said the minister started right in. Then I said he decided to put off consideration of the case until after the election, on November 3, according to an article by David Scott, the Minister of Justice said that when he got the chance to study the report, the report on Spencer I take it, he would decide whether there was sufficient evidence. Then somebody said to him: "What about his statement 'Heads will swim'?" To this the minister replied that the man should tell his story to the
Supply-Justice
police, whatever it was. He added: "The implications in the man's statement suggest he may have a political axe to grind."
I ask this question: Did the mounted police interview Spencer as to what he meant by this outrageous threat? Then the minister said, according to this report: "I don't know what it is he has to say but whatever it is, let him go ahead and say it. I would be very interested to see it myself." This commendable interest of the minister is widely shared by those of us who want to get the facts.
Then the minister gave an interview on November 5 to the Toronto Star in which he said he found the whole affair "pretty strange". I think there is agreement with that. The article states:
In a telephone interview Mr. Cardin added that he understands the man told the newspaper that if he were able to do so he "would tell everything and that heads would swim."
The Minister of Justice said he will deal further with the case on his return to Ottawa after the election.
Then I demanded a probe. I wanted information. We have not been able to get that information. But we were told the reason Spencer was not being prosecuted was that he was sick. I have a quotation to this effect if it is wanted. Hon. gentlemen opposite said, "If only this man was well". I recall the old saying: "When the devil was sick, the devil a monk would be".
Now this man is well. The first excuse was: We cannot prosecute because he is under surgery. You know, the story as one unravels it makes me wonder. It is a difficult thing to follow. Finally there was the decision that in no circumstances would action be taken. I lay these quotations aside for use a little later. I simply rest my case here at this time. Try to unravel this tortuous course. There was the press statement which got headlines all over the world. Here was the R.C.M.P. finding this wrongdoer who would be undermining other countries by the setting up of espionage rings elsewhere. Out went the Russians. One of them did not have diplomatic protection but he was allowed to go home. Then the man was too sick for proceedings against him to be taken. Follow it through. I know the minister will straighten out this labyrinth when he speaks. We would be delighted to have an acceptable explanation though I doubt that his power of advocacy will be sufficient to assure this.
Sweeping everything aside, I now ask the government to have the fullest investigation. The people of Canada have the right to know

February 28, 1968
Supply-J ustice
what is what. The R.C.M.P. have the right to know. This man has the right to know. If this be not so, then any time when one would remove a person against whom there was not sufficient evidence one would do it simply by stating a fact, as was stated repeatedly in this press release, and when the press release, untrue and unjustified in part as the minister admits, had served its purpose no further action would be taken. I rest.


Mr. Cashin:: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question? I believe I heard him correctly. He said that on two occasions he found that the R.C.M.P. were not up to par. I notice that speaking in the debate on October 25, 1963 on security matters he said, as found on page 4049 of Hansard.
In the hundreds of cases in which I participated, only in one did I find on the part of any member of that force a departure from the elemental justice which has been characteristic of the force.
Are the right hon. gentleman's entire remarks equally inflated by 100 per cent?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman
would not be able to see any difference between those two statements. One dealt with one matter. The matter I had to discuss today deals entirely with credibility. When the hon. member achieves that age of responsibility which allows him to differentiate, picayune interruptions of that kind will be banished from a quite able young man.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, members of this committee realize, I am sure, that security cases are for obvious reasons among the most difficult and delicate administrative problems of government, problems about which, unfortunately, very little can be said.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Those who have had responsibility for the administration of government or who have been in charge of the Department of Justice will perhaps feel and understand more keenly the difficulties involved in security cases. Indeed, while the Leader of the Opposition was prime minister security cases arose but questions let alone debates, about such cases were not accepted or answered on the ground that it would not be in the national interest to do so. We, then in opposition, accepted this attitude because, first, we knew and appreciated the inherent difficulties involved both nationally and internationally in dealing with security cases; second, because we realized the necessity of keeping secret the security procedures used by the police in these cases; third, because we had confidence

in the competence, loyalty and integrity of the R.C.M.P. and in the effectiveness of their counter-espionage activities; fourth, because we trusted the accuracy and the wisdom of the legal officers of the Department of Justice and believed in the sense of responsibility of the government and the common sense of the minister of justice, whoever he might be.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that without this basic confidence and trust, not only in the competence and loyalty of the civil service but also in the good faith and sense of responsibility of government and individual ministers, parliament will not and cannot work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: In recent times it has become dangerously easy to accuse and condemn by innuendos and insinuations without being called upon to substantiate charges. It may be considered politically expedient and even smart tactics, to create doubt and confusion in the house and among the public by asking questions and seeking information and explanations about this case, which is a bona fide security case, but I submit it is demagoguery for anyone to ask these questions knowing that the answers cannot and should not be given in public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: In the field of national security and national security cases nothing has really changed since 1963. Security problems are as complex now as they were before 1963. Secrecy for security procedures is as essential now as it was then. The law officers of the Department of Justice are as knowledgeable and conscientious as they were in
1963.	The integrity and competence of the R.C.M.P. have not diminished.
Then what is it in the Spencer case that has motivated the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and other members of the committee to demand a judicial inquiry into this case and into the whole field of security procedures?


John George Diefenbaker: The whole action of the Minister of Justice.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister's conduct.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Was the right hon. gentleman not satisfied with the security procedures when he was head of the government? If not, why did he not have a royal commission
February 28, 1966

then? If he was satisfied then, why does he call for one now since the very same security procedures have been used in this case?
Is the right hon. gentleman complaining because I did not prosecute Spencer? If he is, is the right hon. gentleman saying that prosecutions were proceeded with in all security cases that came to his attention between 1957 and 1963? I am sure the right hon. gentleman is not saying that, and with reason.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How many were there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Quite a few.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Is the right hon. gentleman questioning the validity and soundness of the recommendations of the law officers of the Crown that there was not sufficient admissible evidence to bring down a conviction against Spencer? If he is, then how can he reconcile this attitude with the severe criticism he addressed to my predecessor for not having sought the opinion of the legal officers of the Crown in the Denis case when these are the very same competent people? Is the right hon. gentleman suggesting that even though there was not a reasonable chance of bringing down a conviction I should have laid charges and prosecuted Spencer just the same and risk having disclosed the same security procedures about which his government question in the house on the grounds that it would not answer even the most benign was not in the public interest to do so?
With the experience that the right hon. gentleman has had in security matters when he was in office he must know or he can guess why prosecution did not take place in the Spencer case. If that is so, why is the right hon. gentleman acting as though he had never heard of security and intelligence procedures and why is he insinuating that the government has something to hide?
Is the right hon. gentleman condemning me because I advocated appropriate surveillance of a person who, of his own volition and without being forced to do so, admitted he was the man the R.C.M.P. were questioning in connection with espionage activities?


John George Diefenbaker: How could he deny it? Everybody knew it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Is the right hon. gentleman questioning the legality or propriety of the accepted procedure of surveillance? The right hon. gentleman has in fact severely criticized the government for not having maintained stricter surveillance over Hal Banks. Was the right hon. gentleman advocating an illegal procedure at that time?
Supply-Justice
Is the right hon. gentleman suggesting that surveillance can or should be applied only when a person has been charged or convicted? How then could the police carry out their responsibility in the field of prevention of crime?
The hon. member for Kamloops, for whom I have great esteem, is well acquainted with the difficulties involved in the handling of security cases and I am sure he will agree with me when I say that no minister of justice would have authorized a prosecution when his legal advisers had recommended that the evidence admissible in court could not and would not carry a conviction. I also feel quite sure that any minister of justice would be extremely sensitive to the possibility of divulging our counter-espionage activities.
If, Mr. Chairman, the security procedures applied by the R.C.M.P. in this case are the normal procedures always used, which have proven to be very effective in the past, if the rules and policy for the laying of charges and instituting of action are the same in this case as have been applied over the years, if surveillance by the police is a normal procedure for the prevention of crime, there can be and there is only one fact that is unprecedented in the Spencer case, something which the Leader of the Opposition and members of other political parties are scrupulously trying to ignore, forget, pass over and avoid mentioning, and that one unprecedented fact is that Spencer, not I, branded himself as a spy when he admitted he was the postal clerk involved in the espionage case.


Mr. Nielsen:: You disclosed his name before the public.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: He had done that before me and, Mr. Chairman, because he did identify himself, after the government took all necessary precautions to safeguard his identity, am I being asked to prosecute him even though I know that I could not convict him and that I would risk compromising our security procedures? If Spencer had not identified himself as the man involved in espionage activity, would hon. members of the committee have insisted on a trial? No, Mr. Chairman, they would not have insisted any more in this case than they did in other security cases in the past.


John George Diefenbaker: What date was it that the minister revealed Spencer's name?

February 28, 1966
Supply-Justice


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: We will go into that later, Mr. Chairman. I did not interrupt the right hon. gentleman and if he will allow me to finish my speech, I will deal with his question afterwards.
What is the difference between this security case and other cases if it is not the unprecedented fact that the person involved in this case actually identified himself and branded himself as a spy of his own free will? And because Spencer decided to identify himself, should I be asked to ignore the well established policy in prosecutions and prosecute him anyway?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: Big joke.


John George Diefenbaker: There were quite a number prosecuted in 1945-46.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Are you saying that you prosecuted all the security cases which came before you when you were in office?


Erik Nielsen: They were never identified by a Minister of Justice.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They were not identified.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. May we let the Minister of Justice continue without interruption?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, the government is being asked to have a judicial inquiry into the Spencer case. I can assure the members of the committee that I believe in the principle behind the setting up of royal commissions of inquiry of any kind when they are warranted, but I do not believe royal commissions and judicial inquiries should replace the basic trust and confidence which are essential in any form of responsible government. Nor, Mr. Chairman, do I believe that royal commissions should be substituted for the normal administration of government and for the due processes of law.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no due process here.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I do not believe either that a royal commission or inquiry should be set up every time the opposition asks for one in order to prove that the government did the right thing.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the press of Canada?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, this is exactly what we would be doing in this case.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, would the minister allow a question?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I would be delighted to answer the question after I finish my speech.


Erik Nielsen: After you finish reading it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I believe it would do a lot of good if the hon. member would write his own speeches. There would be a lot more logic in them than there is in the ones he has made here.


Michael Starr: You are reading Favreau's writing.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The question I should like to ask hon. members is, what exactly would the commission inquire into? Into the security procedures of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Why? The Royal Mounted Police actually were successful in detecting this security case among others and did eliminate any potential danger to the security of Canada and, even though it may not be generally known in Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's record in the field of counter-espionage is second to that in no other country in the world and their procedure and discipline in security matters is recognized internationally as one of the best in the world. Is there justification here for a royal commission into the security procedures of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


David Lewis: No one suggested that.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Would the royal commission inquire into my decision not to prosecute Spencer? The basis of my decision is a long and well established practice applied by successive ministers of justice and, indeed, no other logical criteria could in fact be applied. Would this mean that a royal commission would be warranted to look into all future cases where prosecutions did not follow the investigation of security cases? Would the royal commission look into past cases under this or the previous government where prosecutions did not follow in similar investigations. If not, then why not? What difference is there? Where do you draw the line?
I might also ask whether we need a royal commission to tell us that surveillance is a normal and necessary procedure employed by police forces all over the world in carrying out their responsibility of maintaining order and preventing crime?
February 28, 1986


John George Diefenbaker: Protecting a man from danger.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: We will go into that, if you give me time. Do we need to have a royal commission to confirm that Spencer identified himself and branded himself as the spy that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were questioning when all the newspapers in Canada carried the story of Spencer's selfidentification more than three weeks before I mentioned him on a television program?


John George Diefenbaker: No, no. What is the date? That is what I asked a while ago.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: You will get the dates. Ask the hon. member for Bow River. He made my case the other day when he spoke.


John George Diefenbaker: You are not making it, so you need help.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for York South charge that Spencer is being discriminated against and unjustly treated because he was dismissed without pension and without appeal. Surely hon. members know that employment in the public service is during pleasure. This principle is applicable to all employees of the civil service including Spencer.


An hon. Member:: What happened to the collective bargaining rights?


David Lewis: You cannot fire anyone any time for any reason.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: For reason and for cause.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, order. May I ask hon. members to permit the Minister of Justice to make his speech? If some hon. members wish to interject certain opinions they certainly will have an opportunity to do so when their turn comes.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Under the Public Service Superannuation Act pensions are paid to employees of the civil service as a right but under certain conditions. According to the Act an employee will be deprived of his pension if he is dismissed because of misconduct. This is applicable to all employees of the civil service and has been applied to other Canadian citizens in the public service. Why should it not apply to Spencer? Section 50 of the Civil Service Act, which was enacted in 1961 when the previous government was in office and after the Bill of Rights came into effect, does not provide for an appeal of the dismissal of an employee in certain cases. This law passed by the house was applied in the Spencer case.
Sup p ly-J ustice
I feel, Mr. Chairman, sure that hon. members will appreciate that in certain justified circumstances the government as an employer must take the hard decision to proceed under section 50 of the Civil Service Act and must take the responsibility for that decision. After a very painstaking examination of the whole situation, the government is satisfied as an employer that no injustice has been done and, Mr. Chairman, in clear conscience the government can assert that position.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
No one member or group of members in this house has a monopoly on genuine concern for the civil rights and liberties of individuals. We are all dedicated to and have all sworn to defend and protect these rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: We are also all dedicated to and have all sworn to safeguard our national security. The undeniable responsibility of the opposition to criticize constructively does not and cannot for obvious reasons always reflect the irreconcilable conflict which arises at times between these two fundamental principles to which we are all dedicated.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, the government in its undeniable responsibility to administer the country must take a decision, no matter how difficult that decision is or may be. As I have said, the government has done this and I am convinced that the decisions taken in this case were not only the right ones but the only ones that could responsibly be taken in the circumstances. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I do not believe that an inquiry into this matter is justified or warranted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I should now like to answer some of the questions raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. That right hon. gentleman spoke first of surveillance and the fact that we were maintaining surveillance of a man who had not been brought before the courts. He suggested that this was an injustice. Of course, there is some truth and some basis for an argument of that kind. However, I wonder what the hon. gentleman would have said had I not maintained surveillance of Mr. Spencer, knowing that he in fact had acted in a way which was not in the interests of our national security? I can imagine the type of speech the right hon. gentleman would have made under these circumstances.

February 28, 1966
Supply-Justice
I am sure the right hon. gentleman could, having a legal background in criminal law-he knows more about this than I do-in his mind conceive of surveillance which could at the same time protect an individual and prevent him from committing a crime. I am an amateur in law but there is no way in the world that I know of how the R.C.M.P. could at one time prevent a man who has been engaged in espionage activities from engaging further in them and at the same time protect him. As hon. members of the committee are aware, a statement was made by Mr. Spencer to the effect that he and the reporter could in fact be killed for what they were discussing.


John George Diefenbaker: When did he say that?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: This is the information in a report and I will be glad to inform the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us get the facts rather than generalities.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Some time ago-


John George Diefenbaker: This is just a sober second thought.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You used the expression yourself.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I think the right hon. gentleman could use some sober second thoughts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The right hon. gentleman also referred to an article written by Mr. Peter Newman. I hope I am not being unfair to Mr. Newman but if I understood the right hon. gentleman correctly-


John George Diefenbaker: I never referred to him.


An hon. Member:: It was Trueman.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am sorry; it was an article by Mr. Trueman to the effect that Mr. Spencer had said that heads would roll in Ottawa and in high places. The right hon. gentleman then asked whether or not we had initiated an investigation by the R.C.M.P. into this situation. We did so and the outcome of that investigation was that Mr. Spencer stated: "Those newspapermen again".


John George Diefenbaker: What date was that?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am sure the hon. member could not give any credence to this type of story. Certainly he was not being misquoted in the newspapers.


Erik Nielsen: You certainly were not misquoted on television.
(Mr. Cardin.]


John George Diefenbaker: The minister was not misquoted when he used Spencer's name on television.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I used Spencer's name on television after he had identified himself. The right hon. gentleman asked several other questions. I have been considering whether or not I should answer him. He wanted to know something about the amounts of money that were involved. It is unusual to reveal this type of information but in order to prove to the right hon. gentleman that we are not trying to hide anything I intend to go perhaps farther in giving this information than anyone has gone before with the hope that the members of this committee will realize that we are not hiding anything. The amounts of money involved ranged between $3,000 and $4,000. It is difficult to find out the exact amounts because they were paid in the form of travelling and other expenses. As far as we were able to determine, those were the amounts involved in this case.
The right hon. gentleman also asked for the dates on which these alleged offences were supposed to have occurred and he suggested to the committee that by divulging this information we would not be doing any harm to our security.


John George Diefenbaker: Just give us the months. That will be sufficient.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I think the years also have some bearing.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The alleged offences started to occur well before 1960. The more serious offences are alleged to have been committed in 1961 and 1962. There were no contacts made between 1963 and the time he was apprehended. As the right hon. gentleman knows, having experience in matters of this kind, the purpose of security and intelligence procedures is not necessarily to establish a charge or to prosecute one but rather to find out as much as possible from the individual in question. That was exactly the situation in this case.


John George Diefenbaker: Were the two Russians in question in Canada in 1960?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, or their predecessors.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Do not look so shocked. Do not put on an act. You are not impressing anybody.


John George Diefenbaker: They were not here.


Michael Starr: You have been caught putting on an act.
February 28, 1966


John George Diefenbaker: Your second act was interesting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Then the right hon. gentleman made reference to a press release that was issued in May and stated that I had denied that something in the statement was correct. The right hon. gentleman knows that there were two people involved and one of them had co-operated with the police. He was referring, I think, to the activities of female employees in the civil service. I said no at the time for the simple reason that this had nothing at all to do with Spencer. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman understood this. Anyway, I gave him the explanation. He asked for it and that is that. The other question-


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Minister of Justice but the time alloted for his speech has elapsed.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Michael Starr: We want to hear his alibis.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. Is it agreed that the Minister of Justice may proceed with his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, there is only one other question that I should like to try to clarify if I may. That is the question, which has been repeated on many occasions, that the Prime Minister or somebody stated that we were not prosecuting Spencer because he was ill. It is true that Spencer was ill in May; he was very seriously ill at that time. The statement-any hon. member can look at the record of the statement that was made-was that he was ill and we were looking into whether there were reasons for prosecution. Someone might have interpreted that as meaning that we were not prosecuting Spencer because he was ill but that was never said, nor was it the intention.
The other matter that arises in this connection is the fact that it was very difficult indeed, when the man was actually very ill and in hospital, for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to carry on the inquiries and investigations that were needed at that time. I have given answers to the questions of the right hon. gentleman as best I can and I can assure him and the members of the committee that we have nothing to hide.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Supply-Justice


Gilles Grégoire: Could I ask just one question of the minister, Mr. Chairman I should like an answer to a question asked by the minister of the Leader of the Official Opposition during the minister's speech. Did the former government prosecute all security risk cases during their term of office between 1957 and 1963? Could the minister answer that question which he asked the Leader of the Opposition? Did the former government proceed to prosecute in all security risk cases during their term of office?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Perhaps the hon. gentleman might direct that question to the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman.


Gilles Grégoire: Can the Minister of Justice give us the answer? The Leader of the Opposition does not want to give us the answer. Could we have the answer to this question from the minister?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I do not think it would be in the public interest to do so, Mr. Chairman.


Gilles Grégoire: Do we assume that they did not ?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, when the
history of the 60's is written the Spencer case, which will probably only appear as a footnote on one page, will not be a reference with regard to which historians of the future will give much credit to this government. We heard a great deal from the Minister of Justice today and the Prime Minister the other day about how for some peculiar reason it is only members of the opposition who are finding fault or asking questions about the Spencer case and the way in which the government has handled it.
I have not had an opportunity to see all the newspapers but I have had an opportunity to see some of the newspaper editorials written since the Prime Minister made his statement last week. I want to put on the record, because the Minister of Justice has perhaps been too busy preparing his case for the reason that it is a weak case, what these newspapers are saying. I shall quote only from Liberal newspapers to show the minister and the Prime Minister that the members of the opposition in this house are not alone in their questions and doubts about this case. Here is the Winnipeg Free Press of Friday, February 25:
The Prime Minister's statement of Wednesday on the Spencer case, although an improvement on its predecessors, does not meet the central criticisms which have been levelled in parliament and in the newspapers against the government's handling of this serious matter-

February 28, 1$66
Supply-Justice
There is no escaping the conclusion that the government, probably with the best of intentions, has acted as a court in the present case.
The Toronto Star of February 25 said:
In his statement in the House of Commons this week on the now notorious Spencer case, Prime Minister Lester Pearson declared: "I do not believe (Mr. Spencer's) rights as a person or as a citizen have been violated. On the contrary, I believe he has been treated with scrupulous fairness."
Few Canadians who have followed this case will agree with the Prime Minister-
The cabinet should do one of two things. Either it should lay charges against Victor Spencer (if necessary the case could be tried in camera to prevent disclosure of state secrets) or it should restore him his job and his pensions rights and take the Mounties off his doorstep.
The Montreal Star said on February 25:
So far as Mr. Pearson is concerned the Spencer case is closed. The Prime Minister may be happy about it all, quite convinced that the interests of national security are not jeapardized, and that no injustice has been worked. No one else is so easily convinced and the suspicion will not down that in this, as in perhaps other cases, the government has something to hide.
The minister today made a great deal of the fact that Mr. Spencer himself disclosed that he was involved. I want to tell the minister that Mr. Spencer did not have to identify himself. The press release issued by the Department of External Affairs was so specific that the postal workers in Vancouver knew that Mr. Spencer must be the person concerned. The press release mentioned that the person involved was sick and in hospital and these workers knew that Mr. Spencer was the person.
Apparently the government is satisfied with its handling of this case. The Prime Minister, of course, is very easily satisfied. It is a characteristic of the Prime Minister that he is easily satisfied. I should like to quote from the Prime Minister's speech of February 23:
-I believe Mr. Spencer's dismissal and his loss of pension rights under the law was lawful and just. I do not believe his rights as a person or as a citizen have been violated. On the contrary, I believe he has been treated with scrupulous fairness.
How was Mr. Spencer treated? In what way was Mr. Spencer heard? I quote again from the speech the Prime Minister made on February 23:
-he was given a hearing by a senior official of the Civil Service Commission, at which he had every opportunity to state his case. Neither at this hearing with a member of the Civil Service Commission present-and the Civil Service Commission has an interest in the protection of the rights of civil servants;-

Etc., etc.
-did Mr. Spencer make any complaint over his dismissal or prospective dismissal, or any complaint about the treatment he had received.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
This is the report which the Prime Minister received from one person in the Civil Service Commission. In outlining procedures for the investigation of government employees accused of having violated security in 1963, the Prime Minister assured the house that procedures would be adopted whereby these employees would be permitted to have a hearing before an independent commission composed of people outside the government service. Mr. Spencer did not have this opportunity. Mr. Spencer had a hearing, if it could be called a hearing, by one member of the Civil Service Commission or one member of its staff.
Is that sufficient for a decision affecting the future life of a government employee? Does not the Minister of Justice, does not the Prime Minister-I see the Postmaster General is in his seat and it is a good thing he is. I should like to remind the Postmaster General-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: I am always here.


David Orlikow: [DOT]-of a case where an employee of the Post Office Department was dismissed. He exercised his right of appeal, an appeal board was set up and the appeal board rendered a unanimous decision that the employee involved should not be dismissed. However, the Civil Service Commission exercised its judgment and decided that the person should be dismissed. He was dismissed. In that case, Mr. Chairman, it did not suit the government to take the advice of the appeal board. Its advice was ignored. In that case the Civil Service Commission gave the government the kind of advice it wanted so the government followed that advice.
I express no opinion about the guilt of Mr. Spencer. I do not have the evidence. It may be that Mr. Spencer is guilty, although I must express some doubt about the value of secret information which a postal employee could secure and whether or not it would be of real danger to the welfare of the people of Canada.
But I suggest, Mr. Chairman, regardless of what he did, there could be no reason for denying the suggestions which have come from members in every party, including the other side of the house, that a judicial inquiry be held in camera. I cannot believe for a moment, whatever Mr. Spencer is guilty of, that he was able to collect information of
February 28, 1966

greater danger to the people of Canada than did the spies involved in the case which arose out of the disclosures by Igor Gouzenko. In that case the government convened a private judicial hearing. Witnesses were questioned before two judges who were aided by counsel acting for the commission. The judges made a report on the basis of which certain people were prosecuted. In that case information of tremendous importance was transmitted to countries outside of Canada. The government did not hesitate, even under those difficult circumstances, to have a judicial inquiry. There can be no reason, for now saying that we cannot have a hearing before a judge or several judges in camera. These judges may prosecute but certainly there would be no doubt about the guilt or otherwise of Mr. Spencer.
It is not my intention today to say anything further about how Mr. Spencer's rights as an individual were violated. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is in his seat. In the years before he came to this house, when he was the publisher of a magazine called "Cite Libre", he had the courage to fight the repressive policies of the former premier of Quebec. I wonder what the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. member for Mount Royal, would have said about this case if he were not here and were not sitting on the government benches? There is no question about how he handled things before he came here, how he felt about civil liberties.


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


David Orlikow: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am still concerned about this problem and I should like the hon. member to help me clarify that concern. I understand Mr. Spencer has not complained. He is a free man. He is at liberty and he probably has some right of civil action if he has been unjustly placed under surveillance. Why is the opposition complaining and not bringing forth any facts which might lead us to believe he has been unjustly treated? Mr. Spencer himself is not complaining.


David Orlikow: I do not intend to do the kind of thing which has been done by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and others, that is, to say things about Mr. Spencer which I have heard about his health, both physical and mental, but the sources of which I cannot give. I think it is the responsibility of the government to make these inquiries. If I thought the Minister of Justice was really
Supply-Justice
interested in getting the facts I would be more than happy-


An hon. Member:: He is.


David Orlikow: He and his department have acted as judge, prosecutor, jury and everything else. However, I would be very happy to tell the Minister of Justice a few things I have heard about this case which might create a good deal of doubt about it. I could tell them to the Parliamentary Secretary too in the hope he might act as he used to act.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If they appeal to my conscience, but I should like to know what Mr. Spencer is complaining about.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


David Orlikow: It is not a question of what Mr. Spencer is complaining about. Does an individual in this country have a right to a hearing? Does he have a right to be faced with the evidence against him and to make a defence if there is one? I submit this is something Mr. Spencer has never had.
It was not my intention to spend much time on this aspect of the matter because the hon. member for York South, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon. member for York-Humber, with whom I seldom agree, have all enunciated these principles about the rights of an individual well enough that they have convinced me and I suggest they would have convinced the hon. member for Mount Royal before he became Parliamentary Secretary. I want to deal with another matter about which the hon. member for Mount Royal has some knowledge. I am glad the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is here. We have heard a great deal from the other Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister about the virtues of Section 50 of the Civil Service Act. The Minister of Justice, who I am sure is no expert on trade unionists and their rights, also talked about section 50.
Section 50 of the Civil Service Act reads as follows:
(1)	The tenure of office of an employee is during the pleasure of Her Majesty, subject to the provisions of this and any other Act and the regulations thereunder, and, unless some other period of employment is specified, for an indeterminate period.
(2)	Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or affect the right or power of the Governor in Council to remove or dismiss any employee.
It was under this section and the sections of the Public Service Superannuation Act that Mr. Spencer was dismissed and his right to a pension taken away. We are now into

February 28, 1966
Supply-J ustice
1966 and for more than two years the government has been promising to bring in legislation to guarantee to employees of the government the same right to belong to a union and to bargain collectively as now enjoyed by employees working for private industry.
I would ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who before he came to the house was a militant, aggressive trade union leader, to comment on what in these circumstances is left of collective bargaining rights. What is left of the right of employees to belong to a union if the government or any other employer has the right under a section in an act to dismiss an employee without cause or reason, with justification only to itself? I suggest this is completely contrary to the basic right of Canadian workers to belong to a trade union.
This is the government that has promised civil servants collective bargaining rights. I suggest that the pension rights of an employee are in effect a deferred wage payment. No government, private employer or anybody else has the moral right, even though there is such a right under legislation, to take away from an employee pension rights which he has built up over many years. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, who I know has acted in negotiations for many trade unions, what he thinks about this position taken by the government. I should also like to hear from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Three officers of the Postal Workers Union today addressed a letter to the Prime Minister, copies of which went to the leaders of the other parties. I should like to place on record what they said. The sent me a copy because they know of my interest in this matter.


John Ross Matheson: What is the date of the letter?


David Orlikow: It is dated today and is addressed to the Prime Minister. It reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
The National Executive Committee of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, at a meeting on January 28th, 1966, endorsed the following resolution:
"BE IT RESOLVED that this National Executive of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers goes on record as demanding the removal of Section 50 of the Civil Service Act on the grounds that it is totalitarian in concept."
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said on Friday that he thought this

was a pretty good Act. This is what the union concerned in this matter thinks of it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Did you vote against it?


David Orlikow: I was not here at the time and I would not have voted for it; nor would the hon. member before he tasted the flesh-pots of victory. The letter continues:
The event prompting the adoption of the above resolution was the summary dismissal from the service of Mr. G. Victor Spencer for alleged spying activities. Invoking Section 50 of the Civil Service Act denied Mr. Spencer the right of appeal. It is our conviction that a breach of civil liberties was committed by denying an employee the right of an appeal.
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers is convinced that a second breach of rights occurred when Mr. Spencer was denied pension rights under the Public Service Superannuation Act. In the absence of proof of misconduct, an employee must have full rights to benefits of the Act.
We therefore request that you implement a judicial inquiry to either prove innocence or guilt of Mr. Spencer so that all federal civil servants can be confident that their civil liberties and rights under the Civil Service Act and Public Service Superannuation Act cannot be arbitrarily denied without appeal. We therefore request that your office take immediate steps to remove Section 50 from the Civil Service Act and allay the fears of our members.
That is signed by W. Kay, national president, R. Otto, executive vice president and J. E. J. G. Simard, general secretary treasurer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: It is nice to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister applauding, but he is trying to sit on both sides of the fence. He should not be applauding but doing something practical about this matter. He should take the question up with his leader, the Prime Minister. This issue cannot be-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


David Orlikow: Certainly.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I should like to ask the hon. member whether this is a letter which was sent by Mr. Kay himself or was it sent with the consent of his executive committee?


David Lewis: It was a resolution which was passed.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Yes, there was a resolution passed but I have here a press release which appeared in the Ottawa Journal stating that the union president, William Kay, said that "Spencer's firing was discussed at a union executive meeting this
February 28, 1968



week and no executive action was recommended". That report was dated February 11, 1966.


David Orlikow: The resolution was passed at a meeting on January 28, 1966.


Mr. Lessard:: What hour?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, from the trained seals on the other side we get the kind of stupid remark which we have just heard from my hon. friend, who asked "what hour?". That is how seriously he takes this question. I suggest to members on the government side of the house that if they enter into collective bargaining with the degree of seriousness they have indicated in the Spencer case, with a lack of interest in the rights of employees to express opinions, to have their say and to make their defence whenever they think they have the right to do so, then the postal strike which we saw some months ago will look like a pink tea party before we have gone very far. I say this because you cannot grant collective bargaining with one hand and then take it away with the other hand as the government has done in this case.
I will be very happy to sit down, Mr. Chairman, if the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will tell the committee what they feel about what I and the postal workers consider to be very serious violations of the normal procedures followed between any employer and his employees when there is good faith present. Of course, I have not had the opportunity, and probably never will, to be appointed to the Privy Council so I do not have that club spirit which the Minister of Justice tried to create between himself and the Leader of the Official Opposition.
I am not trying to run down the R.C.M.P. and it is not my intention to debate how effective the R.C.M.P. has been. The force is made up of human beings and they have made mistakes.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I should like to remind the house of the case of one Mr. Petersen who, I presume on the basis of reports made by the R.C.M.P., was refused re-enlistment in the navy. Why? Because his uncle was supposed to be a member of the Communist party. Yet it was found out later that the person who was a member of the Communist party was not related to the man who was drummed out of the navy. The R.C.M.P. can make mistakes.
Supply-Justice
The Civil Service Commission can make mistakes. The Prime Minister can make mistakes, except in the eyes of members on the other side of the house.
What is required is that the public should feel that the rights of every citizen will be protected. This has not been done in the case we are considering. I came to this parliament in 1962 with an image of the Prime Minister as one who was an intellectual, a liberal with a small "1", a decent person who would try to do the right thing.


An hon. Member:: He still is.


David Orlikow: An hon. member over there says "He still is". That is his opinion. In my opinion the Prime Minister has become the spokesman for the establishment, that little group of ministers and others of whom the Minister of Transport is such a good example, that group of senior civil servants, including probably the commissioner and the assistant commissioner of the R.C.M.P., who think they know everything and have the right to decide everything.
Like Moses when he brought down the ten commandments from on high, they thing no one has the right to question them and that the rest of the people of Canada, the peasants, should keep quiet and accept without question what is decided. I have said enough to indicate that the public are not satisfied. The Liberal newspapers are not satisfied. The trade unions are not satisfied.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But Mr. Spencer is satisfied.


David Orlikow: The Parliamentary Secretary came to this house because he wanted to explain the legitimate aspirations of Quebec to the rest of Canada and the legitimate aspirations of English Canada to Quebec. If there is one thing which has been noticeable since he came here it is the fact that he has been silent. He has yet to my knowledge to say a single word in this house.


An hon. Member:: He is wise.


David Orlikow: I hope I have said enough to bring him to his feet. I should like to see him defend the government on the Spencer case. 1 should like to see him associate himself with the Prime Minister and the government in this matter because the day he does he will demonstrate conclusively and publicly to the many friends he had in all parties that the principles for which he spoke and wrote so eloquently for so many years have gone down the drain, that he is just another Liberal politician who will do or say nothing which

February 28, 1966
Supply-Justice
might hinder his rise or his appointment to the cabinet.


Mr. Maiheson:: May I direct a question to the hon. member-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I recognize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Does the minister want to ask a question?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member put several questions to me in the course of his remarks, I should like to have the opportunity to answer him. This is simply an intervention because several questions have been put to me.
In the course of his remarks, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) attempted to bring out inconsistencies with our past. I simply want to try and give an explanation. The hon. member surely referred to a real problem when he mentioned the conciliation of a collective labour agreement with section 50 of the Civil Service Act.
This raises a fundamental problem and I think hon. members will have the opportunity to discuss it when the legislation is brought before the house. At that time, I think we shall be able to discuss the matter irrespective of the Spencer case.
There is no doubt that section 50 may, in certain circumstances, deprive civil servants of rights normally theirs under a collective labour agreement.
Another angle will require consideration. It is the procedure followed by the R.C.M.P. In such cases, it is hardly different from the procedure of the Intelligence Service in England, under a labour government, of the F.B.I. in the United States, under a democratic government. That is police procedure and it is not and cannot be democratic from the start. All this has to be conciliated and I think it is a problem. If the problem is raised-and I can state that we are just as aware of it as all hon. members opposite-we shall see how it can be solved.
As for the Spencer case, and this holds true within labour unions as it is here-I think it all comes back to the comments made by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau)-there is one basic thing in the labour field: he who has a grievance must state it and he who has a claim must seek the right to have his claim heard, which is not the case for Mr. Spencer.

[EnglishJ


David Orlikow: I have a question for the minister: the minister says that he who has a grievance must express it. How could Mr. Spencer express a grievance after he had been dismissed under a section of the act which does not permit of any discussion? He was dismissed and his pension rights were taken away. How could he ask his union to act for him even if he wanted to? I do not know whether or not he wanted to. But how could he make an application under a section which does not permit him the right of appeal?


David Lewis: Perhaps I might be allowed to ask the minister a similar question though I may phrase it somewhat differently. Is the minister suggesting, first, that an employee must present a grievance even if there is no grievance procedure provided for him to follow? This is the case here, because Spencer had no right of appeal and he therefore had no grievance appeal procedure. Or is he suggesting that if there is a breach of a collective agreement and the employee concerned does not pursue it the matter should be ignored by the union as well despite the fact that the breach is of importance to all others who are subject to the agreement?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, when one wants to discuss a case in theory, when one knows that there is no collective agreement at this time between civil servants and the government, I suggest that one must not reason as if there were a collective agreement. There is none.


David Lewis: There is only section 50.


Jean Marchand: I repeat, there is no collective agreement; therefore, there is no grievance procedure.
I simply say that he did not present his request as he should; there is no question of a collective agreement, for this does not exist. When there is one-and perhaps it is neither for the hon. members of the opposition nor for those on the government side to decide whether the civil servants want a collective agreement-I think civil servants will handle that matter and it is up to them to settle this problem.
If you insist upon a collective agreement, I should think that we would agree to give it to them. But until they get such an agreement, you cannot berate us for the fact that there is no grievance procedure.
February 28, 1966


David Lewis: Then why did the minister refer to amendments? May I ask the minister another question?


Maurice Rinfret: There have been certain exchanges of opinion about this matter. If the hon. member wishes to contribute further to the debate he will have an opportunity to do so later.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Chairman, the estimates of the Department of Justice have been before the house for the past few days now and I should like to take this opportunity to make a few observations to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin). I shall only deal briefly with the Spencer case.
I submit that the house wasted a lot of time-I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who spoke a minute ago is not in his seat-concerning an oppressed individual who did not personally complain about anything. This is the fantastic part of it, which struck the imagination of the public.
I was in the marvellous Sherbrooke riding over the week-end and I talked about this to various people I met. No matter how some hon. members may try to twist the matter around, the plain folk cannot get over the fact that the Canadian involved has not himself voiced any complaint.
Are they not trying to indulge in partisanship or petty politics over the rights of an individual?


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Maurice Allard: Well, Mr. Chairman, since the 23rd of last February, until now, I have carefully followed the discussions on the estimates of the Justice Department and I have tried to discover the complaints of this Canadian in all the interventions of the hon. members. Not one gave complaints coming directly from this individual.
As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) said earlier, certain federal laws should be amended in order to establish the machinery of collective agreements; I believe all members agree.
However, that is not the problem. The fact is that we have wasted many hours on the estimates of a very important department.
In his opening speech, the minister listed the various matters which come under his department. In any case, on page 182 of the olue book now before us, the two main categories of matters under the jurisdiction of
Supply-Justice
the Department of Justice are plainly indicated:
1. Legal and other services:	2. Correctional
services.
The department was created by special legislation in 1868 and, as the minister pointed out clearly, it has taken up many additional responsibilities since then.
Today, the duties of the Department of Justice cover a wide field. The minister mentioned among other things that he acts as the chief legal officer of the crown, that he must look after the combines investigations, the supervision of bankruptcy trustees, the penitentiaries service, the national parole board, the fight against organized crime, the problems raised by juvenile delinquency, correctional services in general, penal reform, court proceedings, law reform and constitutional matters.
That is a very important department, Mr. Chairman.
The Minister told us at some length about his intention of sharing his various responsibilities with the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau).
I understand that the minister's remarks are preliminary but I am not convinced yet that this division has become necessary. I suppose the minister will have an opportunity to come back and explain to the house the need to divide those important responsibilities between three ministers.
The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), with his well-known experience, suggested that all those responsibilities be left in the hands of one minister and that the administrative jurisdiction be divided between three deputy ministers, that is for administration, application and enforcement of legislation.
That is a very captivating subject with regard to the efficient administration of justice in this country and the future of the department.
I think the minister should take some time when we have completed consideration of item 1 to better explain his idea and show the need to divide between three ministers the various sections of his department. He still has to convince us that this is necessary.
Up to now, I feel that the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops is much more unified and co-ordinated, that is a single minister with three deputy ministers to coordinate the various activities in order to
February 28, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion supply an element of efficiency and order, as well as co-ordination, in that very important department with social, judicial and constitutional ramifications in the whole country.
The minister spoke at length about administrative problems but, in the present circumstances and following all the crimes brought to light and the inquiries asked for, I would have liked him to explain the principles of his department's philosophy.
On what basis, on what ideas, on what philosophic concepts do the minister and his officials see the adoption of those laws, their enforcement, the reform of new laws, the maintenance of law and order in the country, in this year 1966.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the Department of Justice must anticipate, watch over, correct and serve justice.

The department must be extremely firm, objective and vigilant. Emanating as it does from that particular department, that justice cannot look with passivity, with listlessness upon the people's moral unrest and their behaviour. That justice must reflect the conscience of the best citizens, even if they are the minority, and it must at all times reflect a strict adherence to order, equality, authority and balance.
Its role is not limited solely to reprimanding; it must entice the citizens to reflection, to action and to regulation of their activities.
The justice which emanates from the Department of Justice must not be a time bomb nor a trap; it must be visible, ever-present, because justice, Mr. Chairman, commands respect.
It must not be sullied by insinuations, or used to political ends. Whoever he may be, every citizen must help justice. If there are members here in this house, regardless of their party affiliations, you know-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. It being six o'clock, in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to standing order 15(3) it is my duty to leave the chair.



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 the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), The Canadian Economy-suggested step to provide guaranteed annual income; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Labour Conditions-reported statement respecting retirement age in industry; the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), Farm Machinery-increased profits by Massey-Ferguson Company.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the advisability of inserting in every contract made under the authority of the Trans-Canada Highway Act, a clause to the effect that sidewalks or pedestrian paths be constructed along such highways passing through inhabited areas, so as to assure the protection of life and that the same principle should apply to existing trans-Canada highways.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today is one whose implementation I have considered over a period of years to be necessary to enable the completion of a highway system where the drivers of cars can proceed along the highway assured that no pedestrian or bicyclist will be a worry to them by occupying space on the route in close proximity to the traffic lanes and also to give the pedestrian the security he needs when walking along the highway. In this case I am addressing myself strictly to highways in Canada where the national government has an obligation in respect of the construction because of the grants or subsidies made available to help a province complete a highway within its borders and linking with highways of other neighbouring provinces and also because of the fact that the specifications for such construction are written by the national government.
In this sense this motion has reference only to the trans-Canada Highway. This highway is being completed across this country and although the largest percentage of it is built in areas far enough removed from the populated regions that it causes no worry to drivers and pedestrians because of the limited
February 28, 1966



access roads to the highway and because of the fact that secondary roads provide the means for local traffic, yet there are areas in the country where the highway is being constructed or has been built and passes in close proximity to sparsely populated areas on the outskirts of more densely populated areas, and this warrants some protection for the bicyclist and the pedestrian.
Naturally I do not pretend to know the exact location of the trans-Canada highway throughout the country but I am sure the highway passes through areas where people live in close proximity to the highway and often have the necessity of visiting their neighbours. Very often this is done on foot. These are the areas which concern me, and I would hope that the government, when drawing up their specifications for acceptance by the provinces, would give serious consideration to having a clause inserted so that pedestrian paths or sidewalks will be an integral part of the contract.
I can think of some areas in the province of Quebec where this situation could well exist when the trans-Canada highway is completed, for example, from Levis and Riviere du Loup to Edmundston, where the present main artery will become a secondary road after the completion of the trans-Canada highway. As you often see when a new highway is built, the traffic pattern shifts to the new highway and in the inhabited areas communication with neighbours generally is done on foot by children visiting their friends or older persons keeping in contact with their neighbours.
I have admitted that this condition possibly is not general across the country, but in Quebec and other parts of eastern Canada where the farms normally are very narrow and consequently the residences are in close proximity, there is more communication on foot between neighbours than there is by transportation in vehicles.
What additional cost would this entail per mile of highway? Two alternatives can be considered. In the areas where these paths are required it could be done either by widening the shoulders of the highway by an extra six feet on each side and paving that section, which could be delineated by a solid line making it evident that this space is reserved for pedestrians and bicyclists, or you could construct the sidewalk along the limit line of the right of way. It is estimated this would cost in the vicinity of $15,000 or $18,000 per mile. What a small price to pay
Trans-Canada Highway for the protection of life when we consider that in Canada, as shown by Dominion Bureau of Statistics report, catalogue No. 53206, motor vehicle traffic accidents, there were in Canada 1,132 pedestrians killed in 1963 and 1,195 killed in 1964 along the highway. The numbers in respect of bicyclists are 131 in 1963 and 116 in 1964. For motorcyclists and passengers the figures are 25 and 34.
When you consider that in the province of Quebec in this same period there were 488 pedestrians killed along the highway and in the following year 422-


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question? He has given figures in respect of casualties on the highways. Is the house to understand that these are casualties which occurred along the trans-Canada highway or on highways in general?


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I am bringing forward these figures in an endeavour to show that on the highways of Canada many pedestrians are being killed, and in the areas which I believe warrant sidewalks we know that accidents happen. In the rural areas -naturally the highways pass through the rural areas of Canada-we have figures which prove that for the same period in those areas alone there were 304 pedestrians killed in Canada as well as 39 bicyclists and 4 persons on motorcycles.
How do some of these accidents occur? There were 36 fatal accidents involving children playing on the roadway, 108 involving persons walking on rural highways, and others by reason of other causes. For the first nine months of 1965 the total figure for pedestrian fatalities in Canada is 858, of which 328 were in the province of Quebec and 259 in the province of Ontario.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
May I also say that the statistics have not been reported for some areas such as the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Nonfatal injuries to pedestrians in the same year, 1965, without Quebec and Manitoba reporting and including statistics for only six months in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon amonuted to 8,423. These figures are rather alarming and, as I have suggested, if by the construction of sidewalks in certain inhabited or sparsely inhabited areas on the fringes of towns and cities we could save one life, the cost would be negligible.
The Canadian Automobile Association is conducting a pedestrian safety program to
1898	COMMONS
Trans-Canada Highway protect the lives of those who walk along the streets or highways. That association should be highly commended in this regard. Perhaps it would be possible where these highways pass through inhabited areas for the space necessary for the construction of paths to be provided by the two levels of government, provincial and federal. In these areas the responsibility for the construction of the pedestrian paths is now that of the municipalities. Perhaps this could be done when the rights of way for these paths are being fixed or defined.
Perhaps the municipalities could build these paths under the winter works program but I doubt that unless the law in this regard is amended. I believe it states that no government grant can be considered for a winter works project where the government has already provided funds for construction. If this cannot be done there are two alternatives, the insertion of a clause in the trans-Canada highway specifications providing for paths as an integral part of trans-Canada highway contracts or outright grants to municipalities to build these paths along the trans-Canada highway where that highway passes in close proximity to heavily or sparsely inhabited areas.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the motion now before the house has strong implications for the future of the trans-Canada highway. I understand the appealing reasons that persuaded the hon. member to move this motion. Consequently, I hope he will forgive me for saying immediately that it seems to me that to pass this motion when it is considered in the context of the developing concept of a highway across Canada would be to take a backward step and would even increase the dangers to which he referred so eloquently.
The Trans-Canada Highway Act was passed 16 years ago in 1949, but the idea of a road from east to west, from Atlantic to Pacific, is much older than that. That idea goes back at least as far as the introduction to Canada of the motorcar. At the turn of the century Sir Wilfrid Laurier was talking about building, as he said: " . . . roads across this Dominion so that the peoples of the East mingling with those of the West might together become one indivisible nation."
When the Canada Highway Association was formed in 1910 one of its main objectives was the construction of a highway from one ocean
[Mr. Keays.l
DEBATES	February 28, 1966
to the other. At its first convention, Mr. A. E. Todd-


William Heward Grafftey: What has this got to do with the debate? Throw away your prepared speech.


John B. Stewart: May I say to the hon. member who just intervened from his seat that my purpose is quite clear and would be clear to him-


William Heward Grafftey: I have never listened to such bunkum before.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes to participate in the debate he will have an opportunity in due time to do so. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Words now has the floor.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is clear why the hon. gentleman does not understand the line of argument I intend to develop. I have not yet developed it. When I have developed it he may then understand what I have in mind.


An hon. Member:: Let us hope so.


John B. Stewart: It is quite possible he may not understand it even then, of course. At the first meeting of that association Mr. Todd presented a gold medal which was to be given by the association to the first person who travelled across Canada from coast to coast entirely by motorcar. It is notable that the medal went unawarded for 35 years. Only 20 years ago, in 1946, was the medal awarded to a gentleman who travelled from Louisburg in Nova Scotia to Victoria in British Columbia.


William Heward Grafftey: More bunkum.


John B. Stewart: During the period after world war I-


William Heward Grafftey: Pure bunkum.


John B. Stewart: -when there was a great expansion in motor vehicle registration in Canada, the demand for long distance highways was not great but there was a demand for the construction of local roads and interregional roads within provinces. The responsibility for the construction of these roads was primarily laid upon the municipalities. Provincial governments intervened. Recognizing the needs of the time, they intervened upon the independence of the municipalities with a program of provincial grants; and the result in most provinces was the development of a trunk highway system directly under provincial jurisdiction.
February 28, 1966

The parliament of Canada saw the value of these roads to Canada at large in that there were interprovincial connections and made grants to the provinces between 1919 and 1928 under the terms of the Canada Highway Act. In the 1930's grants for highways were continued under the statutes providing for unemployment relief. By the year 1939, the year in which the second world war broke out, both motor vehicles and highway construction techniques had come a long way so that short distance and medium distance trucking was presenting a very serious challenge to the railways as a means of national transportation, especially in central Canada. Yet it was not until after the second world war that parliament gave direct and explicit recognition to the need for a trans-Canada highway. In 1949 parliament took legislative action toward realizing the economic and political advantages of such a major highway from one extremity of the country to the other.


William Heward Grafftey: Sheer bunkum.


John B. Stewart: The emphasis of federal assistance now shifted aw^y from highway improvements in the provinces, with all the appurtenances that would be suitable to highways within provinces, to the construction of a great national highway.
Since 1949, when the Trans-Canada Highway Act was passed, the target date for the completion of the highway has been pushed forward again and again. The original target date was December 9, 1956, and the present target date is some time in 1970. Of course, the amount of money that the federal government was to contribute to this highway project has been increased again and again.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
This change in the target date for the completion of the highway and the increases in the amount of federal contribution have had what some would argue is a beneficial effect upon the trans-Canada highway, because during those years the nature of the traffic was changing and construction techniques were advancing very rapidly. Moreover, the kind of equipment available to contractors was improving. There were, of course, reasons other than the shortage of money in some of the provinces for the highway not going ahead. Some of the provinces started off with comparatively backward provincial highway systems and the trans-Canada highway was intruded into a
Trans-Canada Highway highway system which was costly even without the added expense to the province of the trans-Canada highway. We know that it was not until 1960 that the province of Quebec joined this national undertaking. During the 1930's-


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) put a very serious question before the house. We have figures that tell us that between now and 1970, if nothing is done, one million Canadians will be injured-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that by now the hon. member would-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat.


William Heward Grafftey: Yes.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel): Would the hon. member state his point of order and not-


William Heward Grafftey: My point of order-
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel): Would the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member is raising a point of order?


William Heward Grafftey: Very definitely.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel): Would the hon. member state his point of order without getting into an argument with the hon. member who has the floor?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to me that with regard to the problem of highway safety per se, introduced sincerely by the hon. member for Gaspe and a question on which many members of all parties wish to speak, the hon. member who now has the floor should have been allowed such latitude. I fail to see how his remarks have been germane to the debate and it is incredible to me that he was not brought to order long ago.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel): I thank the hon. member for his remarks. However, as hon. members know, the problem of traffic safety has a great many facets. If the hon. member wishes to participate in the debate he will be able to do so later.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to press my point of order. We are not having a debate. The hon. member is reading to us documentation that has been put in his hands.

February 28, 1966
Trans-Canada Highway


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works.


William Heward Grafftey: This increases the cynicism of the public toward parliament. It is a disgrace.


John B. Stewart: During the 1930's at a time when the government of Canada was giving assistance to highway construction through "make work" programs and for a period after the second world war, many so-called "major" highways were built, not only to serve vehicles but also to service the immediately adjacent land. Generally these roads were located so as to pass through the central part of each town or city. Consequently, what has come to be called "strip development" occurred on each side of these highways, particularly those adjacent to urban areas or to what the hon member for Gaspe has called "settled areas".
As vehicular traffic and strip development increased, these roads became overcongested and no longer had the capacity to move traffic in sufficient volumes or at adequate speeds. As this happened, new roads were required. These were built away from the older highways and in many cases they bypassed urban centres and the strip development areas. These new highways are what are called arterials or freeways. On these highways traffic movement is the primary consideration, with local access a secondary consideration. Building development along the arterials is either prohibited or discouraged.
In the case of freeways passing through built-up areas and arterials passing through areas where land access to the road is required, service roads parallelling the main route are now often provided. The older highways, those with the strip development, have reverted to the status of what are now known as local or collector highways.
I am saying that the thinking of the hon. member for Gaspe focuses on these local or collector highways and not on what is called an arterial. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the trans-Canada highway can now be classified as an arterial.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a correction here. I was not referring to urban areas. I referred to rural areas and arterial roads to which the hon. member has referred, those roads which are built to pass through sparsely populated areas.


John B. Stewart: The notion of an arterial road is that there should not be any secondary traffic on the right of way. That is inherent in the very nature of an arterial road. On these arterials vehicular traffic movement is of primary concern and access by people owning property or living immediately adjacent to the road is definitely secondary. Through or around heavily urbanized areas and in many rural areas where the traffic is heavy-


William Heward Grafftey: Tell this to the bereaved families.


John B. Stewart: -the trans-Canada highway is designed to freeway standards with no access to adjacent land except at regularly spaced interchanges. We have illustrations such as the Ottawa Queensway, the Winnipeg by-pass and the trans-Canada highway through the city of Montreal. I could illustrate this by reading to the hon. member a description of the Ottawa Queensway.


James Russell Keays: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my motion refers to rural areas and this is the problem on which I should like an answer. I am not interested in urban areas, because they have limited access to the arterials of which the hon. member spoke. I am interested in rural areas and highways on the fringe of small towns.


John B. Stewart: The trans-Canada highway is not yet completed in many of the provinces, for example, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario. Where the trans-Canada highway does pass near or through these settled areas, even though they are not incorporated towns or cities, what I am saying applies, namely, that this is a limited access highway and secondary traffic on the roadway or on the shoulders is not expected and indeed may very well be prohibited.
Therefore my argument concerning an area such as the city of Ottawa is equally apt for one of these "settled areas". It is true that there are areas wherein the trans-Canada highway was built before this arterial concept came to be fully developed. Part of the hon. member's motion would apply to such reaches of highway; this is quite true. But surely the thing to do in those areas is to provide secondary roads with adequate pedestrian paths and sidewalks and gradually to eliminate this kind of secondary traffic on the shoulders where there is no adequate protection.
The hon. gentleman said he would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to move along on the paved shoulders. I wish to submit to him
February 28, 1966

through you, Mr. Speaker, that this is really inviting the kind of danger that I am sure he wants to avoid. Here you have automobiles moving at a target speed of 60 miles per hour, and that may very well be the low point in the bracket rather than the high. Some of these automobiles will get over onto the shoulder. If you have children playing there, as children will if they are allowed there at all, and cyclists moving along there, they are going to be hit by these vehicles.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I think the hon. gentleman will have to face up to the fact that you cannot have an arterial highway and at the same time allow children to walk and play on the shoulder of that road, even if you do draw a white line down the edge of that road. You cannot have bicycles careening around there as the hon. member and I careened around on our bicycles. You cannot have that condition without inviting tragedy; and tragedy is precisely the sort of thing that must be avoided. You know, Mr. Speaker, there are members other than the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) who are concerned for the safety of the people of this country.
What I am arguing is that the hon. member has a very good motive but that the method he suggests for accomplishing it is one which might frustrate the purpose of the trans-Canada highway as it has developed over the years and which at the same time might frustrate the purpose set forth by the hon. member.
At the risk of being harangued by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi for being out of order, I want to suggest another problem that I feel is quite serious. I refer to the question of the constitutionality of the procedure that is being recommended. We must proceed within the context of the constitutional law as it now is. It may very well be that some alterations ought to be made in that constitutional law, but that is another question. We have to deal with the law as it now is. I am sure any gentleman learned in the law would insist that that is the realistic approach, at least in this debate.
You will notice, sir, that the motion would have the government take the initiative in introducing the requirement for sidewalks or pedestrian paths to be constructed alongside the trans-Canada highway where that highway passes through inhabited or built-up areas. I want to suggest to you, sir, that it is doubtful that this house has the constitutional
Trans-Canada Highway right to prompt such an initiative. Transportation within a province is the responsibility of the provincial government, and it is exercised either directly or by delegation to incorporated towns, cities or other municipalities.
I am quite ready to contend that the trans-Canada highway as a whole is hardly a local work or undertaking, but it is notable that in the building of the highway proper the work of planning and construction has been left to the several provinces. It would strain credulity to the utmost to contend that sidewalk or pedestrian paths appropriately could be declared by this parliament to be works for the general advantage of Canada and thus fall into the category suggested by subsection 10 of section 92 of the British North America Act.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Can he tell us what the federal government's contribution was to the trans-Canada highway? I think it is a shared cost basis. Just what proportion does this parliament pay?


John B. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give some figures on that. As of February 25, 1966, the estimated value of the approved work was $992,418,300 and the share of the federal government of that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: May I
remind the hon. member that in giving the amounts subscribed by the federal government or provincial governments he is straying from the main debate?


John B. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that is quite right. I was just trying to respond to the hon. gentleman's question.


John Mercer Reid: I do not think that is correct at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works.


John B. Stewart: Probably the contention was going to be, Your Honour, that this was a demand for more money from Ottawa for several provinces. Back in 1949, sir, when the Trans-Canada Highway Act was-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


James Russell Keays: May I ask a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Gaspe to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary?

February 28, 1966
Trans-Canada Highway


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Russell Keays: I have been on an historic trip from the horse and buggy days to the day of the motor vehicle. I should like to ask the hon. member if he believes that the construction of pedestrian paths or sidewalks alongside the trans-Canada highway would be a retrograde measure? It seems to me that this was the inference he left. Does he consider that the safety of people, the safety of children, is a retrograde measure?


John B. Stewart: I am glad to answer that question. If we are going to have a trans-Canada highway which is an arterial highway then the governments of the provinces, possibly with the assistance of the federal government, should be interested enough in the safety of the people of Canada to provide money for adequate alternative roads and highways to keep children and bicyclists off these arterial highways.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) in his desire to have a safe highway for people who may use the highway, but I have to agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) that an arterial highway is no place for people to be walking. I say that because in Alberta we have had some problems with development that has taken place along the edges of the trans-Canada highway since it was built. This development has almost destroyed the purpose for which the trans-Canada highway was built. In other words, if our concept of this highway was correct in the first instance, it was to be a high speed arterial highway along which motor vehicles could travel at near maximum highway speeds without having to slow down for small towns, villages or even cities. At the same time motor vehicles would be able to maintain this speed without endangering the life of anyone.
The notice of motion is somewhat ambiguous in that it calls for these walks or pedestrian paths to be constructed through inhabited areas. Does this mean inhabited areas such as hamlets, villages, towns and so on? Does it include going through the suburbs of certain cities? I know the hon. member for Gaspe suggested that was not what he had in mind because there was some control of pedestrians in those areas through limited access and so on. The hon. member indicated he was more concerned about the somewhat less inhabited or sparsely inhabited areas throughout the countryside.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I cannot agree that there should be any provision for pedestrian traffic alongside a high speed highway. The Trans-Canada Highway Act probably should have contained a provision that all other traffic, whether inter-city motor vehicle traffic or pedestrian traffic, should be completely removed from the trans-Canada highway. You do either one of two things; you either have a high speed arterial highway or you defeat the purpose of such a highway by creating serious hazards to life and limb to those people who are going on and off the highway. So I suggest that there really is not a valid case to be made for constructing pedestrian paths along the side of this highway.
That is one matter, Mr. Speaker. There is another great problem which also relates to amending the Trans-Canada Highway Act. Once the initial grant was made the federal government completely withdrew from any further participation in construction of the trans-Canada highway. The reason I say this is that, as the parliamentary secretary said, the completion date of the trans-Canada highway has been pushed forward. The percentage of federal participation has increased in many areas with the pushing forward of the completion date. The hon. member also suggested that the nature of the traffic using this highway is changing and therefore that would justify making some changes in the former arrangement.
This may apply to some provinces but it certainly has not applied to Alberta. Nor does it apply to any other province which has completed its section of the trans-Canada highway. Therefore I believe this suggestion is a fallacy. The original concept of the trans-Canada highway was to construct at least one major high speed arterial highway from one coast of Canada to the other. Surely we, as the federal parliament of the country, cannot now accept that specifications laid down in 1949, 1950, or whenever it was, are adequate for traffic needs in 1966.
One case in point is the inadequacy of the trans-Canada highway between Calgary and Banff. It was built as a two lane highway. Traffic has increased to such an extent that that 80-mile section now requires four lanes of traffic for the safety of the people using it.
Surely it is almost rank discrimination for the federal government to withdraw from the responsibility of maintaining a modern highway from one coast to the other in keeping
February 28, 1966

with changing conditions in Canada. The Parliamentary Secretary knows very well that for the last two or three years the federal government has adamantly refused to participate, even on a fifty-fifty basis, in the modernization of sections of the highway which require modification to keep abreast of the standards required for present day needs.
I think this is the great inadequacy of the Trans-Canada Highway Act. It is not good enough for the federal government to make a one-shot contribution and then completely withdraw. This is not the case in areas where the highway is incomplete at the present time. The date has been moved forward and the federal government has increased participation to the extent of as much as 90 per cent of the cost of the most expensive sections. Yet those provinces with the initiative to build the highway quickly and which tried to meet the original completion date are penalized to the extent that, first of all, they get only 50 per cent of the cost and, second, they pay 100 per cent of the cost of future modernization, there being no federal contribution whatever. I think this is a violation perhaps not of the Trans-Canada Highway Act but certainly of the concept that there should be at least one modern high-speed highway from one coast to the other.
Whenever a province pleads with the federal government that what was good enough in the early fifties is not good enough now, that province is not listened to. They receive no consideration regarding maintenance of the highway, although that is understood, but they are even refused consideration of federal government participation in modifications to bring the highway up to the requirements of today. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will realize that there are certain sections of Canada today which now require modern four lane highways if the safety factor necessary when taking into account traffic flow is going to be maintained.
Therefore I cannot honestly support the idea that there should be provision along these highways for pedestrian paths, because I do not think this is what the trans-Canada highway should have. However, I certainly think that the federal government has a responsibility to continue to particicpate in keeping this national arterial highway up to date.
The Parliamentary Secretary advanced the argument that there is some kind of constitutional problem over the federal government setting down specifications for this highway.
Trans-Canada Highway Well, Mr. Speaker, whether or not two wrongs make a right I do not know but there is certainly a precedent here. The financial contribution of the federal government was contingent upon certain specifications being met. Therefore that precedent completely destroys the argument that there is a constitutional problem about the federal government suggesting in this case that certain specifications should be met.


John B. Stewart: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does the hon. gentleman realize that in this instance, unlike the situation that prevailed between 1945 and 1949, no municipality or incorporated town or city and no province on its own behalf has come forward asking for pedestrian paths? That was not true with regard to the original construction of the highway.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the Parliamentary Secretary says that is true and that they did not ask for pedestrian paths, then I accept it. But I suggest that that does not aid his argument that there is a constitutional question. If it was originally proper for the financial contribution of the federal government to be contingent upon specifications regarding the width of the road, the compaction and all the other things that go into the building of a road, then it must certainly be equally constitutionally proper, if that is the right word, for the federal government to include other specifications now if they so wish. Therefore I do not think it is a sound argument to say that the federal government would be violating some constitutional provision by including pedestrian paths or anything else in the specifications for the highway.
I know there are other members who want to speak but in closing may I say that I do not believe that the federal government is discharging its responsibility to fulfil the intention that there be at least one transcontinental arterial highway across Canada when it makes a one-shot payment and then withdraws from participating in any of the modifications and modernization which may be required to keep the highway up to the standards required in 1966.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for the very important initiative he has taken. The question of safety on our highways is one of compelling national urgency. I believe it is one too in which the dominion, as my hon. and learned friend mentioned has been the case before, must

February 28. 1966
Trans-Canada Highway take the initiative. So what if the municipalities and provinces have not yet brought up this question? This is an opportunity for dominion initiative, as was the whole development of the trans-Canada highway. It goes way back to the days of Borden, though I do not want to run the risk of incurring the ire of my hon. friend by talking about what happened in those days.
I am impressed by the suggestion, somewhat negatively impressed, if I may say so, that the trans-Canada highway goes through remote areas where pedestrians should not be. There are certain ecological developments resulting in more and more people coming into the environs of the trans-Canada highway. In the province of Prince Edward Island this highway passes through the finest farms in the country and people are naturally moving closer to it.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
It is essential to recognize that people other than those who are driving pell-mell out to Red Deer will be on that highway. We must think of those who use this highway for short trips. I believe the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) has made an extremely important suggestion. Surely we have enough initiative to set out strips of these roads which would be of more practical use than mere portions over to the right. I believe the British have done good work in developing protective areas of this kind.
I wish I could speak at greater length on this subject because it is a compelling one. I hope the government will take note of this suggestion because it concerns a matter which is both urgent and important. I believe the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) is doing a wonderful thing in this country to dramatize the horrible statistics we are building up all over this nation. The role the federal government could play in a situation of national proportions cannot be too often underlined.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the eloquence of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) in the latter part of his observations. I am not sure that they were germane to the resolution before us but I would be pleased to join with him on another occasion in calling for extended federal participation in a national highway program. I should like to say I thoroughly agree with the remarks he made at the outset of his speech, remarks which I believe are germane to the resolution. I am
(Mr. Macquarrie.J
sure the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) has the best of motives in putting this proposal before the house and I wish to thank him for turning our thoughts to this question. Since there is little time left to us I do not wish to make any prolonged comment on the subject but I should like to say that if the hon. member had put before the house a proposition which was the reverse of his present proposal, if he had suggested that there should be a clause in the specifications for the trans-Canada highway which would prohibit the construction of pedestrian walks or paths alongside that highway, I would be very happy indeed to support him in the interest of ensuring safety for both motorists and pedestrians.
I think this is the direction in which we must move. We must to ensure that pedestrians cannot get anywhere near this highway. The specifications should in fact provide for the construction of barriers or fences, for example, to make sure that pedestrians do not have access, thereby endangering their own lives and the lives of those who are travelling in motor vehicles.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) on bringing this matter to the attention of the house so that there can be some discussion of it but I must say I find the argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) much more germane than some hon. members would like to believe.
As to the constitutional question it seems to me there is a difference between bicyclists and pedestrians and other interprovincial traffic. I find this out of keeping with the remarks of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) that we are not paying enough regard to the technicalities of the constitution. I do not believe the constitution would debar the federal government from doing something in this direction if the provinces and the municipalities were to make a request. I believe the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary regarding the development of the trans-Canada highway were sound, though I see the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) shaking his head.
In my opinion we are approaching this problem from the wrong direction. We should be concerned about the secondary roads in the provinces where there is more of
February 28, 1966

the kind of traffic to which reference has been made. If this is a problem at all on the trans-Canada highway it is a much greater problem on the local roads. I think the provinces would be best advised to make arrangements for these local and secondary roads before turning their attention to the trans-Canada highway.
My concept of the trans-Canada highway is that it is not a road of the kind which would encourage pedestrian movement, cyclists and so on. It is true that because of local needs in certain rural areas in provinces such as Prince Edward Island the trans-Canada highway may perhaps cater to more local traffic than it does in provinces such as Alberta.
This brings me to an important point. It may be the weakness of many of our costsharing agreements with the provinces is that we seek to devise formulae which are applicable to all the provinces. I agree with the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) that pedestrian and other traffic may present a larger problem in his area than on the main arteries of Alberta. Perhaps we should recognize that this presents special difficulties for Prince Edward Island, and particular arrangements should therefore be made to deal with a situation which may not occur in other provinces such as Newfoundland, Alberta, British Columbia and so on.


James Russell Keays: I am sorry, there is no trans-Canada highway in our area but the federal government is building a highway in lieu of the railroad.


Richard Joseph Cashin: That is an improvement on which I think the federal government should be congratulated. I am sure the hon. member will be a more effective representative as a result of this move by an enlightened government.


An hon. Member:: You have just killed another pedestrian.


Richard Joseph Cashin: There are comments from the other side. I agree with the principle of this motion but I think it is not the best way of dealing with the difficulty. We are not helping the area where the problem is greatest. Possibly the federal government in all its agreements with the provinces should pay more attention to local conditions. We do not have a trans-Canada highway in my constituency either. We do not have the same financial ability to build these highways as Alberta has. We should like to be able to enter 23033-1211
Supply-Justice
into special agreements in respect of these roads just as the hon. member for Queens would like to ensure the safety of road users in Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired. The house will revert to the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Legal and other services-
1. Administration including the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or such dependents as may be approved by treasury board of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,504,300.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned the debate on justice estimates, at six o'clock, 1 was saying that the administration of justice deserves to be respected. It must not be sullied through insinuations nor used to political ends.
Every citizen, without exception, must help justice. If a member or members in this house know of crime or criminals in our ranks or in the ranks of provincial politicians, it is their bounden and pressing duty to denounce said crimes or criminals. Let them be denounced either openly here in the house or discreetly to the Minister of Justice. No member has the right, under the cover of his immunity or privileges, to tarnish our reputation as legislators and to sow in the mind of our population the seeds of doubt, contempt and derision.
If anyone has evidence, he should come forward and give it. Let there be no more scheming which, in some quarters, is developing into persecution or partisan contentment. Statements, either in the house or behind the scene, like "Liberals have seen nothing yet" or "Conservatives will also have a taste of it" or "Creditistes will fade away", should no longer be heard. If this is politics on a high level, then it is most depressing.
Mr. Chairman, the cards should be put on the table and wrongdoings, if any, laid bare, but for goodness' sake let there be no more negative cogitation and goading.

February 28, 1966
Supply-Justice
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), whom I have heard speak in the house and whose speeches I have reread in Hansard, has developed a habit of making insinuations. They are probably well-founded-I do not know-but he is adopting the attitude of a citizen who is not trying to help the Department of Justice. If he knows the facts, the crimes, the criminals, let him expose them, and I shall be the first to support his charges. For instance, as reported on page 1814 of the official report, the hon. member for Yukon stated:
Does the minister sit there and endeavour to suggest to me that the murder of Payette is not linked with fraudulent bankruptcies?
Mr. Chairman, is this not a far-reaching innuendo? He further said:
I will deal with that matter when the minister has answered the questions that I have placed on the order paper.
The hon. member has put questions on the order paper which have not yet been answered. Those questions should be answered without delay, but since he has not yet obtained answers, I feel he is ill-advised to throw out, in the face of the Canadian people and of members of this house, innuendoes which reflect on the representatives of the people.
In view of previous events, among others, the Dorion report, the hon. member and other members were fully justified in demanding from the government an inquiry into this matter. The report not only indicated irregularities but implicated certain people. But today, if we are justified in asking and demanding an inquiry from the government and if the Minister of Justice does not seem to have such detailed information as some hon. members, I believe it is the duty of each of us to help justice and not hinder it, and to table the misdeeds some people are or would be accused of.
On the other hand, the minister should make up his mind to discharge his high responsibilities with firmness and dispatch. It is up to him to make the decisions and not always rely on civil servants. I hold the Minister of Justice in high esteem. To me, he is a most sympathetic member. But the minister seems prone to abstain from taking any initiative.
Some time ago, while asking a question in this house, I proposed the establishment of a constitutional court. The minister answered and commented on my question. Hon. members can read in this session's Hansard his state-
[Mr. Ailard.J
ment to the effect that his officials have not decided yet on the advisability of convening the attorneys general of the various provinces to settle the matter. I suggest that this is not the democratic way of doing things. If it is not up to the people's representatives to decide but to civil servants or to bureaucracy, I feel we are heading for trouble.
I would ask the minister to take the initiative and give instructions to his officials in all matters concerning his department, and I know he can do it.
I support hon. members who requested an investigation on organized crime. In view of various happenings, and of all the insinuations we hear on all sides, the Canadian people have lost confidence in the administration of justice in this country. I am talking in particular about the average Canadian, about all our friends in each of our ridings, the people we know, the labourers, the farmers, and the white-collar worker who make up the majority of the people. In view of what has happened, in view of the insinuations which are increasing, people are worried. I say it frankly and without any political partisanship because, if there is a department where political partisanship must not exist, where political controversies must not be encouraged, it is the Department of Justice. We must go about it without prejudice, objectively.
I ask the minister to agree to the setting up of a national investigation on organized crime, something which was done in many countries. In the United States at the time of Kefauver, a very useful investigation informed not only the government but also the American people. In view of certain events, the government must agree to a national investigation. It must be made throughout the country. On the other hand, in view of the responsibilities entrusted to us as legislators, since we must pass the laws, I feel that the sittings should be held here in Parliament to enable us to question the witnesses which would be called.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I think the Canadian people would be in favour of such an initiative and that the government would have nothing to lose. On the contrary, it would increase in the minds of the people the importance and value of the Department of Justice. Numerous reports have informed us that crime has considerably increased in our country.
February 28, 1966

Some members gave statistics. Crime has increased by almost 10 per cent in Canada in 1964, as compared to the previous year, and by over 20 per cent compared to 1962. That is what the dominion bureau of statistics tells us. If you study the kinds of offenses, the picture becomes alarming, particularly with regard to serious offenses, those which put in danger the security of the citizen, his good faith, his desire to live in a free country, a nice country.
It is noted that capital murders increased from 148 in 1962 to 162 in 1964; that attempted murders increased from 83 in 1962 to 122 in 1964, while common assaults, except indecent assaults, reached 27,818 in 1962 and 40,460 in
1964.	I could go on to about ten other fields and establish very easily, with the support of exact figures, that crime is increasing at a very fast pace and in an alarming way in Canada. There is no need to deal at length with the figures, because they are convincing and the situation is obvious.
The causes of this increased criminality should be investigated, the networks exposed and the underworld activities made known.
It is up to parliament, and especially to the government, to take the initiative and I think the government and the Department of Justice would thus greatly enhance their positions.
The Minister of Justice would surely increase his stature considerably if he remained aloof from the overly partisan attacks from the opposite side of the house and made a fine gesture, the gesture of a man aware of Canadian justice, and granted a national inquiry on criminality, its causes, its scope and on the remedial measures indicated, not only for juvenile delinquency but for all those groups of citizens. They are not numerous but rule in many areas that should be unmasked to improve the soundness and the decency of the whole country.
There is also within the Department of Justice the problem of police co-operation. We hear statements in the house to the effect that the R.C.M.P. is doing excellent work. I, for one, have no charge to bring against the R.C.M.P. and I am under the impression that it is a widely experienced police corps. But, the statements made by the Minister of Justice of Quebec are certainly not incongruous. For instance, he stated on January 14, 1966, that the R.C.M.P. refuse to provide the information requested by other police corps in the fight against organized crime. But that
Supply-Justice
is a responsible man, the Quebec Minister of Justice. I am not ready to accept completely all his comments, but here is the statement of a responsible man which contradicts other statements made by the federal Minister of Justice and other members of the house.
I think that those controversies and disagreements should disappear in the interest of the administration of justice so that police forces throughout the country may co-operate more fully and exchange the information necessary for a joint and effective campaign against organized crime.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer briefly to fraudulent bankruptcies. To be quite frank, what we have been told in the Mercier report, which is a provincial report, or in statements made by other Canadians, in this house or elsewhere, is enough to make one's hair stand on end, even if one does not have much hair left. Looking across the country, it is especially in Ontario and Quebec that we find strongly organized networks and that we see numerous companies offhandedly sharing profits that should be distributed among honest people. Those are true facts which are substantiated in the Mercier report. Those are grievances recognized by the Department of Justice. The minister cannot look at all that with indifference and apathy. On the contrary, he must act with impartiality, firmness and foresight. It is up to him as Minister of Justice to take immediate action. And that is why I say that a national commission set up either outside the house or under the Senate, and which members of the Lower House could attend, appears absolutely necessary. When I say this, I am not necessarily supporting a political leader or a political party. I represent the average Canadians of my riding, my region or my province who believe that if the government ignored more the attacks of the opposition and if it raised itself-because the Department of Justice is a highly important field-above such partisan contingencies, it would exalt itself and win over the admiration of thousands of Canadians.
The Minister of Justice should take positive steps to establish law and order in the country so that we have a clear blue sky again.
That is what we expect from the hon. Minister of Justice. I am sure he will prove equal to the task but he must act and without delay.
Mr. Chairman, no amendment has been made to our federal Bankruptcy Act in the last 17 years.

February 28. 1966
Supply-Justice
The main purpose of the act is to help the bona fide debtors and protect the creditors, while allowing for the best disposal of the bankrupt's goods.
It reflects the old principle of free trade and is meant to encourage initiative and even daring in business.
The problem is serious. In November 1965, total losses attributed to bankruptcies amounted to $15,600 million. According to Dun & Bradstreet, 248 bankruptcies were registered in Canada, the highest number in 1965, except for the 274 bankruptcies reported in March of the same year.
It is noted that bankruptcies are increasing in Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia. The largest increase in losses were registered in Quebec and British Columbia.
The tendency remains upwards: the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy entered the following number of bankruptcies: 1959, 3238; 1960, 3641; 1961, 3511; 1962, 4297; 1963, 5189.
The bankruptcies occur mainly in the following categories: primary industry, manufacturing industry, construction industry, transport and communications and other services, business bankruptcies, finance, insurance and real estate-


Herman Maxwell Batten: I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. There is no agreement that the hon. member continue.


Mr. Favreau:: We would agree that the hon. member continue.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree that the hon. member for Sherbrooke continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Allard: Then I conclude briefly, Mr. Chairman. I thank the hon. members for allowing me to conclude my remarks. I wish to suggest some amendments to the Bankruptcy Act, because we must not only criticize and demolish, but also correct the situation. I suggest certain amendments by which the situation can be improved.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
First of all, it would be advisable to appoint in each judicial district competent, specialized and permanent officials. These new trustees, if they could be called that, well-paid, just like a clerk of the court, could 
settle without delay, as soon as possible and honestly, bankruptcies and liquidations coming under their jurisdiction.
Second, anyone filing a statement in bankruptcy should be automatically declared bankrupt, so that he might be the subject of a full investigation.
Third, a closer watch should be kept on the bankrupt who wants to get back into business because we have seen, for many years, people declare themselves bankrupt and two or three months later become the most prosperous people in the country, and often in the same sector of the industry or economy.
Fourth, it would be desirable to set forth clearly the responsibilities of the governments. We have heard various statements, which did not always agree, from the federal Minister of Justice and the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec. I think that it would be advisable to set forth clearly the responsibilities of the federal and the provincial governments.
Personally, I understand that the Bankruptcy Act comes under the federal government, which is responsible for its administration, and that apparently the proceedings must be instituted by the provincial government.
But in their statements, the federal Minister of Justice and the Quebec Minister of Justice do not seem to agree on the responsibilities of each government.
In my opinion, everyone should agree so that this very important act, after some suitable amendments, will bring about the desired results.
Would it not be better to transfer to the provinces jurisdiction in the field of bankruptcies? It is not that I want to take this jurisdiction away from the central government, but since those problems are often local and regional and are often related to immediate problems, a provincial government might be able to keep a closer watch, with the help of other provincial laws, on the general progress of the regional business community. It might be advisable to examine the possibility of handing over to the provincial governments jurisdiction in the field of bankruptcy in order to increase efficiency.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think anybody has to apologize for the disquiet there is in the house about the Spencer case. I intend to take only a minute or two to
February 28, 1966

discuss some of the aspects of it which come to my mind, and the real reason why members -admittedly mostly in the opposition, although we have had very helpful evidence of disquiet from the government benches as well-are disillusioned about the government's handling of this case.
Let us review just a couple of things to put the matter in perspective. When the minister was asked about an investigation he very promptly said no. When the Prime Minister was asked about an investigation into this case he said maybe. That was his intervention, and some of us thought that, in a statement on government policy covering the aspects of this case and really all security cases, he would come forth with a policy or method for handling these difficult situations in a manner which would fit into the Prime Minister's philosophy, which he expounds as being new politics.
Of course finally the Prime Minister said no to the suggestion; and the minister today in what I have to call just a weak apologia, also said no. Let me review one or two other things that have served to disillusion members about the government's handling of this case. First of all there were the terms used by the Department of External Affairs when it made its announcement about the request for the recalling of the Russians in question. Any newspaperman, I suggest, who is worth his salary, would have had no difficulty in tracing Spencer from the evidence propounded in that press release by the Department of External Affairs. That is of course exactly what happened. An enterprising newspaperman traced Spencer because of that department's release.
There is another aspect that was unpleasant to me, relating to the use of quite an extraordinary term in contemporary Canadian history. That term which was used is "non-nationals of Canada". This was a discrimination, and when I asked the Prime Minister about it he said: Well, this is perhaps because these innocent people come to this country and are duped or something by lures of money. It remains however that the government used this quite unnecessary and unpleasant appellation.
In spite of all the speeches that have been made during this debate the minister has never really told us the story about his feature presentation on the program "This Hour has 7 Days". He has skirted this subject. Many of us who watched the minister that night, and who have been interested
Supply-Justice
as this case has developed in parliament, have been waiting for his apology, if that is the word, about this extraordinary statement. One must remember that the minister is not a newspaperman. I have great respect for newspapermen. But the minister is a privy councillor charged with protecting the rights of citizens of this country, and he does not do anything privately in this or other areas of his ministerial responsibility. We call the minister to account today because he as the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General chose to use a very popular program on which to stigmatize Spencer. The Minister of Justice for Canada made this public identification on a program that has very wide popularity. I am told it has an audience of between two and a half and three million Canadians.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
There are some people in this country who believe words, because they think words are precious things. Just because the Prime Minister of Canada does not lead the party to which I owe allegiance does not mean I do not pay some attention to what he says. I do not think this is a very startling revelation. When the Prime Minister of Canada discussed his new politics, I believed him. I thought, here is a man who believes what he says; he has had long experience in public life and perhaps in fact there is a new politics of Liberalism. Of course we have seen by this and other shoddy acts that those were just idle words.
I have not really any particular quarrel with the decision of the minister not to prosecute in the courts of the land. When I say that, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that this advice was taken after consultation with the law officers of the crown, which would be an innovation for this department in recent years. But I am assuming that this is now the custom in the department and the law officers have given this advice. I do not have too much quarrel with this. But surely the minister in accepting the recommendation that there be no prosecution is missing the point, the point being that the opposition has asked for a commission to judge the facts surrounding the public stigmatism of this man by the minister on a television program, and all the other events surrounding this matter.
There is one other matter which I should also like to clear up now. It was a rather extraordinary intervention by the member for Trois-Rivieres and I think some public

February 28, 1966
Supply-Justice
comment should be made about it. The member suggested, if I read his remarks correctly, that if the opposition would only keep quiet about the Spencer case, perhaps the government would give Mr. Spencer his day in court and then we could go on to other things. This was truly an extraordinary bargain in regard to a man's civil liberties. However, I leave the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres to his independent status and hope that this advice will be taken only by himself, because that is about all it deserves.
When the minister made his statement today he used words that are familiar to all of us but they were quite out of fashion in the context in which he used them. I found them extraordinary because in turning down a request for a commission to investigate this matter he used the phrase "due process of law" and the expression "normal processes of government". Well, what are the normal processes of government? Of all the extraordinary gobbledegook, this-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: "Administration of government" was the expression I used.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I thank the minister for that correction. However, "normal administration of government" is still an elusive phrase in the context of a man's liberty. Then the minister finished with a ringing declaration that this decision was made on the basis of long established practice. It is my contention that the minister should be the one person in the cabinet, if the only person, who should be fighting tooth and nail to see that the rights of the citizen in this country remain inviolate. The Minister of Justice is the guardian of the individual in this respect. Surely more than anybody else in this nation he is the guardian of the rights of the citizen.
Instead of protecting these rights, he chooses to throw them away and smother up his action with phrases like "due process". This is a mockery of due process, of course, of "normal administration of government" and "long established practice". But there were brave men of his own party in this debate. They have been mentioned but I will remind the committee of them again. They were the hon. member for York-Humber and the hon. member for Verdun. There was one hon. member who was called in, or perhaps he volunteered. I refer to the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Leeds, who I regret is not present at the moment. I have had the privilege of sitting with this hon. member on various
[Mr. Fairweather.i
meetings of the Canadian Bar Association and on numerous occasions the hon. gentleman has taken part in panels on civil liberties. What an extraordinary apology he made for the actions of the government. Better his very constructive speech on penal reform had been his sole contribution to this debate.
We in the opposition have been blamed because we are spending some time on a person's rights. I think protecting the rights of a citizen justifies the existence of this institution, if nothing else. I believe it is a sorry day when we hear the Prime Minister of this country deny to a person a fundamental and basic privilege which should be that of all citizens. I have a little book here, Mr. Chairman, from which I should like to read two passages. Perhaps the minister would like to read it at the start of his career. Perhaps he has; perhaps he has not, too. His philosophy does not show that he has read very much of it. Sir Alfred Denning, now Lord Justice Denning, in the Hamlyn lectures published under the title "Freedom Under The Law" made the following comments that perhaps the minister would like to reflect upon:
Whenever one of the King's judges takes his seat, there is one application which by long tradition has priority over all others. Counsel has but to say "My Lord, I have an application which concerns the liberty of the subject" and forthwith the judge will put ail other matters aside and hear it.
We have an application that involves the liberty of the subject and we in the opposition ask this government to put all other matters aside and hear it. That is our request. It is a request that is founded in the best traditions of the common law. Then, in a dissent-but we in the opposition are used to dissent-Lord Atkin said in a dissenting judgment on a case of arising out of the War Measures Act of the United Kingdom, and I shall put this on the record because it is the philosophy of the minister that disturbs me, this pattern, this denial of ordinary justice:
This power to imprison a man without trial, not for what he had already done, but for what he might hereafter do, was entrusted by parliament to the executive.
By the War Measures Act:
It could not be reviewed by the ordinary courts of law.
The passage continues:
Lord Atkin, in a great judgment, vigorously dissented from this view. He declared that: "In this country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the
February 28, 1966

principles of liberty for which we are now fighting, that the judges are no respectors of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law."
I suggest that the minister should be standing between this man Spencer and the actions of the executive of which the minister is a member. He should be the one who is championing a commission of inquiry, not standing up here with some apology for not having a commission examine this matter. The minister really gave us a pathetic example this afternoon. The claque behind him was saying "When was this done?" and he was saying, "Oh, it was done in 1960 or 1961". What a commentary on a very serious and important case.
I hope the minister before his estimates are finally approved will agree that in the case of Spencer an injustice has in fact been done. It is an unusual thing in this country that ministers are so bound by their colleagues, apparently. The minister, if he wants to make himself a hero, would call for a commission, and if the executive did not agree he would resign and we would think he was a real guardian of the citizen. Now we really do not know what to think of him.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)


Mr. Laflamme:: Mr. Chairman, before
participating in the debate on the Department of Justice supply, I should first like to echo, up to a point, some of the words spoken a while ago by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), and those of the member who spoke before me.
Still, speaking quite candidly, I wonder if the house is really the place where the fundamentals of all matters related to the administration of justice should be discussed.
I suggest that, when dealing with such a vastly important question as respect and prestige of justice itself, it is necessary, in my opinion, to care about the role of a Minister of Justice. And, as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat at one time was attorney general of his province, he has with some restraint and very rightly, shown that the Minister of Justice or the one responsible, among the people, for administration of justice must do it with serenity and that, being bound by the laws, he has the responsibility and the duty to administer it in the interest of all citizens.
Supply-Justice
The hon. member for Sherbrooke, who, in a certain paper, is considered as a great constitutional adviser, should nevertheless refer to paragraph 14 of section 92 of the British North America Act, which, I would say, is quite fundamental:
The administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in those courts.
That comes under the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures. And when I heard, a few moments ago, the hon. member for Sherbrooke asking for the establishment of a royal commission to investigate crime, I wondered if, within the framework of the constitution itself, this can be done with logic without the co-operation and the active participation of the various Departments of Justice of the ten Canadian provinces, in view of the fact that the administration of justice comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. And this is so true, sir, that when a lawyer is designated or recommended by the federal Minister of Justice to plead a case in a provincial court, it is necessary for him, in order to be heard by the judge, to receive a precise and special mandate from the attorney general, or the Minister of Justice in the province in which the case is tried.
Well, I respectfully submit that this section is proof that, in this matter of administration of justice, active co-operation between the ten provincial governments and the central government is absolutely necessary and essential.
My hon. friend, the member for Sherbrooke, asked once again a few moments ago, that the federal government take the initiative in this field. I wonder how he can reconcile some of his constitutional opinions with those he expressed in certain other speeches he made, in which he advocated that all initiatives, in all fields and jurisdictions, should always remain with the various provincial governments.
Now, should the Minister of Justice be a police chief? Should he be a public prosecutor? I believe he should instead be responsible in this house for the orderly dispatch of matters relating to the application of the laws enacted by parliament.
I do not propose to discuss in detail all the speeches we heard about the respect of individual freedoms, because all members of this house agree on this point and moreover, it is one of the reasons why parliament

February 28, 196$
Supply-Justice
exists. On the other hand, I would hope we would not hear in this house so many speeches on this subject and that we shall hear less perhaps than we did last week about the sacred rights of a small group of would-be Irishmen being expropriated, unfortunately, in the village of Shannon, which Montreal Star newspapermen looked for and failed to find, because there is no village of Shannon, either in Montmorency or in Portneuf ridings.
Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice, and I think this falls under his jurisdiction, a most important point. I refer to the appointment of judges, under section 99 of B.N.A. Act which to my mind should be amended:
The judges of the superior courts shall hold office during good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
I believe and respectfully submit that this section is obsolete, and that in this particular field, a more adequate method of going about it could be sought, for instance, through a petition or written request, signed by a majority of officers of the bar, countersigned by the chief justice assigned to the case, and then approved by Minister of Justice. I think this would meet the basic requirement to give complete freedom to a judge and would avoid a repetition of past difficulties.
Now, I respectfully submit that, in certain matters coming under exclusive federal jurisdiction, such as the Bankruptcy Act which has been so much in the news recently and which a number of members spoke of in the house, a great deal of statements often suggested the possibility that some people were or would eventually be involved.
To resort to such sensationalism in the house is to imitate the yellow press and to try to discredit the integrity and competence of the members of the house.
It would be more intelligent and fair toward all concerned to suggest useful amendments which would allow the Bankruptcy Act to be and to remain useful to a certain category of bankrupt taxpayers if they take the trouble to read it and to find out why it is not applied as it should be. If the creditors would merely take the trouble to do so at their meetings, it would be easy under the section of the Bankruptcy Act defining fraud to take the necessary steps to prevent the recurrence of frauds committed by a bankrupt.

To provide for a better application of the existing legislation, some of the bankrupts and also the inspectors appointed at the creditors' meeting, should be given additional powers. Direct assistance should also be provided, in my opinion, so that the onus of proceedings in cases of bankruptcy should not rest on the shoulders of creditors who stand to suffer heavy losses because of insolvent people who offer them nothing but a petition for bankruptcy.
Inspectors should have greater power to deal with a trustee, because they are the ones who must keep a check on bankruptcies. Unfortunately, such is often not the case.
There is also a useful change that could be suggested when the time comes to amend the act, that is to make it mandatory for the bankrupt to deposit the attachable part of his salary and also to keep on stipulating in the act that whoever, while bankrupt and still not liberated, is party to or takes part in a business transaction of any kind, commits a criminal offence.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks I wished to make concerning the estimates of the Minister of Justice. In my opinion, it would be much more useful to make constructive suggestions with respect to the estimates of the Department of Justice generally than to keep on repeating the same speeches which, I admit, have a certain value. But when we talk about the freedom of private individuals, about everyone's right to a fair trial, and the same thing is repeated over and over again by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, in every possible way, while dealing with the principle involved in the Spencer case, I think we could go on to something else instead of hearing about the case of Mr. Spencer for several days more.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I did not rise to take part in the discussion of the Spencer case, except to say this. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Royal and I was very impressed by it. I would say to the Minister of Justice that even if he discounts what many other hon. members have said as remarks of a partisan nature, he should listen particularly to the hon. member for Royal. He was for several years attorney general of a province, and more than that, he has felt free to criticize his own party, and criticize them severely, on many occasions. He has studied the question of civil rights at great
February 28, 1966

length. His remarks were well-founded and, I thought, very much to the point. There is a case to be made for Mr. Spencer, and I think the hon. member for Royal did it as well as anyone.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to speak particularly about the estimates of the department in relation to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and the combines investigation branch. I would not want the civil servants who worked so hard to prepare the annual reports of the Restrictive Trade Practice Commission and who put in their share of the work which goes into the annual report of the Department of Justice to feel that no one reads these reports.
There have not been too many speeches in this house on the question of combines investigation. The hon. member for Peace River referred to them briefly the other day, and I have spoken on the matter a number of times. I spoke in December of 1963, and on looking at the speech just recently I found I could really make the same speech tonight, because practically nothing has happened in the meantime.
I had another speech ready in November of 1964, but I did not give it because during the Justice estimates for that year the hon. member for Yukon got the discussion going in a different direction and the question did not seem appropriate at the time.


An hon. Member:: Which direction was that?


Robert William Prittie: It had to do with skating rinks in Montreal, and all that sort of thing.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, very little has changed since this government came to power as far as combines investigation is concerned. I freely admit that my speech in 1963 was largely a review of a book published by two academics, Thorburn and Rosenbluth, entitled "Canadian Anti-Combines Administration, 1952-60". These two professors pointed out certain weaknesses in our combines legislation at that time and also in the administration of the act. In the meantime there has been no change made in the legislation.
However, in one respect there has been a change. These two professors criticized the amount of money being budgeted for combines investigation at that time, and I am pleased to say that there has been an increase over the last two years in money allocated for combines investigation work. In 1964-65 the two branches combined-the commission,
Supply-Justice
and the office of investigation and research -had a budget of $729,000. In 1965-66 this was increased to $837,000; and I see the estimates for 1966-67 call for an amount of $903,200. So there is some improvement in that field in the budgetary aspect.
I have followed the ads which have been put out by the Civil Service Commission. There have been a number published in the past year and a half asking for personnel. I should like to hear from the minister at some time on the question of personnel and whether these branches are getting adequate staff. In the report of the Director of Investigation and Research for the year ending March 31, 1965, I notice this comment appearing at page 72:
The shortage of staff for specific investigations has imposed an important limitation on the development of research studies. Efforts have been made to recruit senior research personnel but up to the present, these efforts have not succeeded in the appointment of qualified persons. In view of the difficulty experienced in recruiting senior research staff for career posts in the Branch, attention is being given to the possibility of having qualified research scholars in the universities accept temporary assignments to undertake particular research projects.
At some time I should like the minister responsible to disclose how successful the department has been in recruiting senior research personnel as well as more junior personnel to carry out investigation work.
The deficiencies in the law relating to mergers, Mr. Chairman, have been evident for many years. They were pointed up in 1960 in the decisions in the Canadian Breweries case and in the British Columbia Sugar Refineries case in the same year. The staff recognizes this problem and the weakness in the law relating to mergers. Successive ministers of justice have said they recognize the problems, but in nearly six years no legislation has been brought forward to change the law. I should like to ask why this is so and to hear an explanation of what is being done in this regard.
I notice again at page 18 of the report of the Director of Investigation and Research for the year ended March 31, 1965, a quotation from the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. They said:
-It is our hope that in the near future the questions raised by these (Canadian Breweries and Western Sugar) decisions will be reviewed by appellate tribunals, more particularly by the Supreme Court of Canada, so that they may be definitely settled.
I should like to hear what is being done in the way of research or draft legislation to strengthen the merger provisions in our law.

February 28, 1966
Supply-Justice
The minister responsible for this branch-I believe it is the President of the Privy Council, who was formerly the Minister of Justice-has mentioned the difficulties of operating under the Criminal Code only. He has mentioned how difficult it is to prove conspiracy. He also referred to the fact that the department is exploring the possibility of non-criminal actions along the lines used by the federal trade commission in the United States.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
That is all to the good. At some time, however, we should be told the results of these investigations. The minister has made statements about the need to change the law-the need to find other approaches. He did this in the course of a review of his department in the house on November 23, 1964 and in the speech he made at Montebello to the Association of Canadian General Counsel in October, 1964. At that time he said:
I wish to pause here a second and note that one often feels uneasy at the thought that in Canada legislation dealing with combines or other types of restrictive trade practices has been found valid until now exclusively as being within the field of or in relation to criminal law which is one of the subject matters over which the parliament of Canada has legislative authority under section 92 of the British North America Act.
It would seem that a new and hard look could be given at the present state of our legislation in this domain and that without repealing the present laws we may want seriously to inquire how far and to what extent additional provisions could be enacted under the federal jurisdiction to regulate trade and commerce.
That is an interesting approach. Those words were spoken some time ago, in October, 1964. I should like to hear what the studies made since that time have revealed as to the possibility of using the federal government's authority in the field of trade and commerce to regulate combines.
There is another aspect of combines which I have been raising in this house for nearly three years. I first called attention to this matter when the present government came to office in May, 1963 when Mr. Chevrier was Minister of Justice. I refer to the question of tied sales.
In 1956 an investigation was begun of what is generally known as tied sales-the practice of petroleum companies requiring service stations to buy tires, batteries and other accessories from designated suppliers. The oil companies then get kick-backs from these suppliers. An investigation was begun, I believe, in 1956. The Director of Investigations and

Research reported to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission in November, 1960 and a report was published in April of 1962. Note, that was six years after the first complaint was filed. Since May, 1963, ministers of justice have come and gone. My hon. friend from New Westminster and I have asked repeated questions about this subject and we are always informed that the matter is under consideration. One of the replies I received was on February 16, 1965 in answer to question No. 2,634. I asked these questions and I got the following answers:
1.	Has the interdepartmental committee which has been investigating the report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission concerning the practice of tied sales imposed by oil companies on service stations completed its studies yet?
Answer: Yes.
2.	Has the committee presented recommendations to the minister of Justice?
Answer: Yes.
3.	When will the minister present legislation on this subject to the house?
Answer: The Minister of Justice, in reply to Questions in the house on October 29 and November 26, 1964, stated that he had placed certain recommendations before the cabinet and expected to be in a position in the near future to make known the policy of the government with respect to the recommendations contained in the report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. Any decision in this respect will be made known in due course in the proper way.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman that "due course" has run its course. It is now ten years since this investigation began. I think we should have either a decision or an explanation why a decision has not been forthcoming.
I should like to mention in passing another continuing problem in the combines field. Every year we have passed legislation to exempt the British Columbia fishing industry from the scope of the Combines Investigation Act. Could we not have a progress report on this subject suggesting what kind of permanent arrangement could be made so that a threat is not held over the fishing industry each year?
There is one other item I should like to mention. As one who comes from the lower mainland of British Columbia I will be glad to support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard seeking to bring professional sport within the scope of the Combines Investigation Act. I am sure this proposal will find a great deal of support in British Columbia and perhaps in other parts of Canada.
Ever since the present government took office we have been promised changes in the combines legislation. Looking over my files
February 28, 1966

and clippings I see this sort of thing-a newspaper heading in the Vancouver Sun for December 16,	1963:	"Tougher Combines
Measures Promised". The first paragraph of the report says:
Justice Minister Lionel Chevrier has promised to consider putting "teeth" into federal anti-combines legislation to strike at companies guilty of collusion, mergers or monopolies.
I notice a heading on the article reporting the minister's speech at Montebello-"Favreau Favours Law Change on Mergers". Then in November, 1964, the heading on a Canadian Press dispatch reads "Seek Changes in Combines Legislation". So we have all the evidence that this question has been under study-that the ministers understand the problem very well. But there has been no action. There may be a reason for this inaction, but I think that somewhere along the line there should be an explanation.
It must be admitted that the Combines Investigation Act has not served us very well. It is not preventing mergers from taking place; it is not preventing mergers which lead to monopoly situations. A number of people say from time to time: "There is no reason for bigness. Bigness is not synonymous with badness. You should not keep talking about this question of monopolies." It may be true that bigness is not synonymous with badness, but bigness in the sence of monopoly control-and there is a great deal of this in Canada-does mean that a company or a few companies are in complete command of the price mechanism of an industry. In western Canada, for example, there is only one sugar company for the four western provinces from Manitoba to British Columbia. It is true the government did try a case on this but, as I mentioned, it failed because of the weakness of the merger sections of the act.
This is the situation which faces us. We find individual companies controlling the market. This can happen quite apart from the combines law. They can achieve this position without infringing any laws.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I suggest this is a problem we shall have to face up to because there is no public accountability by these companies. There are, however, several answers to this. One is public ownership, of which we have a great deal in Canada. The other is the method of the public utilities commission before which companies have to prove their case before price increases can be sanctioned.
Supply-Justice
But I suggest that the position of some of these companies is so powerful, and the effect they have on the economy is so great, that we need some type of public accountability which does not exist at the present time. I do not care whether it is a company which rules over the sugar market or has effective control of the steel market, the day will have to come when it will be accountable to a public body. There is not much use in having a body such as the Economic Council of Canada making recommendations concerning growth and price stability if companies, such as in the case of the steel companies last spring, pay no attention to the recommendations of that body.
I am only going to deal with this one aspect of the justice estimates, and to sum up I wish to say there have been no changes in combine laws since the government took office in April, 1963. These laws have apparently received a great deal of study because they have become deficient, and the public at large do not know how companies arrive at their decisions concerning prices. I hope very much that a responsible minister will answer some of these questions about combines legislation and the administration of combines law in Canada.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Chairman, I rise, briefly I hope, to deal with one matter, namely the Spencer case. I have read the remarks made by certain opposition spokesmen, and I have listened in particular to those of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that there is something of a hollow ring to these remarks because a study of this kind of situation over the past several years indicates no evidence that the present official opposition would have dealt with the matter differently had they been in office today. Substantially, the Spencer case has been handled in much the same way as were similar cases of this nature subsequent to world war II.
Indeed, if there have been any improvements in the handling of some of these cases it is because of a procedure announced in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on October 25, 1963. On that day he publicly announced a change in policy adopted by the administration to cope with these security matters. This improvement was welcomed by the spokesmen for all opposition parties as a step forward and an improvement in the situation. But today we find the official opposition, particularly the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and some of his more vocal

February 28. 1966
Supply-Justice
cohorts, disagreeing with this procedure, when in fact it goes further in protecting rights than the procedure followed by the previous administration. In fact, the particular section of the act that is causing trouble, section 50, was, as we know, introduced by the previous administration.


David Orlikow: But that procedure was not followed in this case.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I might say, making passing reference to the debate which took place at that time-and the hon. member for Winnipeg North might care to note this-that the only objection came from the Liberal member for Hull when discussing section 50. These were some of the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton on that subject, and I quote from page 8576 of Hansard for the 1960-61 session, volume 8:
I think it is significant that the maintenance in this bill of this particular subclause which the hon. member-
That is, the hon. member for Hull.
-seeks to delete was approved by all three members of the Civil Service Commission who appeared before the special committee as witnesses. It is also significant that no representations of any kind were made in relation to it by any of the civil service staff associations. I think the hon. member is well aware of how carefully in clause 60 new provisions have been set forth dealing with dismissals and the right of appeal. This particular provision merely preserves the over-all prerogative of the Crown, one which I am sure will not at any time be abused. In view of this I shall ask the committee to reject the amendment.
And it was rejected.
No member of the N.D.P. party spoke on that occasion.
In the debate on October 25, 1963, to which I have made reference, the Leader of the Opposition said, and I quote, from page 4049 of Hansard:
When the Minister of Justice says this just began with this administration, he forgets we worked on it for several years. We endeavoured to bring about a system which primarily would preserve to the highest degree possible the safety and security of the state while maintaining the rights of the individual.
In actual fact, while I do not doubt that the right hon. gentleman was concerned about this matter when he was Prime Minister, this procedure consisting of a board of review was given official sanction by the present Prime Minister in the Liberal administration.
At the present time the Leader of the Opposition is asking the government to make

further changes in the procedures which govern security matters. In fact he is asking for changes which go beyond the procedure that was in vogue when he was prime minister. It would be difficult to convince me, at any rate, that there are a great many members in the Conservative party who do not actually approve of the procedure followed by the present administration in the Spencer case. It is substantially the same procedure that would have been followed by the previous administration, except perhaps for those changes introduced in 1963. In fact, I would like to quote further from the Leader of the Opposition as recorded at page 4050 of Hansard for October 25, 1963:
I feel, too, that In the measures announced the individual will have an opportunity of making known his defence. This step is taken officially that previously was followed unofficially. The individual has had that right, not in consequence of a declaration made in the House of Commons but as a result of its being a rule of practice, without which freedom might very well be denied to an individual. The review of the evidence by a separate body-
I should say within the civil service.
-with the individual having the right to give his side of the case, should go a long way to avoiding and preventing injustice. The setting up of a board of review taken from the membership of the security panel-as I understand the Prime Minister's statement-is a step forward;-
In all fairness to the Leader of the Opposition I must point out that at that time he also said:
-but I do not think it goes as far as it should:
And he advocated the setting up of a board of review presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is substantially the position he has taken in this debate.
However, I would like to remind the committee that during the five years the Leader of the Opposition was prime minister he did not do that and, in fact, he did not even give official sanction to the setting up of a board of review. This is yet another example of the Leader of the Opposition in effect saying what he would have done if he had his time over again, and had thought of it in time. I suggest to the committee that in actual fact there is no real difference between the attitude of the Conservative party and the attitude of the Liberal party in the handling of these security cases.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the trouble.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I am getting to that. This is substantiated by a review of the debates on this matter and also by the way these cases have been handled over the years.
February 28, 1966

At the present time the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make this a political and partisan issue. In other words, the Canadian public is being asked to believe that in this matter of civil liberties there is an official Liberal party view and an official Conservative party view. It seems more proper to say that there is an official government view, and a view that does not substantially change whether there is a Liberal or a Conservative administration in office. In fact, with one or two exceptions, I have not been very much impressed by the arguments brought forth by official opposition spokesmen on this matter, because I think basically the difficulties involved in this kind of case are well known to them, and when they were in office they had no choice but to act in the same way. Perhaps they may have been worried about such things, as anybody in a democracy is, because this is the kind of thing which is very difficult to handle in a democracy; and it is interesting to note that a former Conservative minister of justice to date has not commented on all of this.
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, I am sure there are hon. members in all parties who share my concern about the general principle of doing things in this way, and I do not think that this is, therefore, in the ordinary sense a party view. The matter of civil liberties, it seems to me, must be determined by the individual himself, by his own conscience, his own philosophy and his own concepts of justice. It is totally unrealistic- and this is one of the weakenesses of the parliamentary system-to say that 131 Liberals on one given subject have one view and 27 Conservatives share the opposite view.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
It seems to me, I think, to undermine the credibility of the institution itself and that we could discuss these matters with more regard to the fundamentals involved rather than with a regard to party position. This is a fundamental matter which goes to the roots of democracy and is much too vital to the well-being of the nation to be reduced to political expediency. I think this is an example of the weakness of our position. In this particular case I think the Prime Minister and the government have acted in good faith and that in the administration of justice today, so far as civil liberties are concerned, they are consistent with the Canadian way of doing these things.
Supply-Justice
I do question the fact that Mr. Spencer was unfairly treated. I accept therefore the words of the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, these men whose sense of fairness and justice is beyond question. I know that all of them, and anybody in any administration which has to deal with this kind of problem, must go through difficult moments. What in fact I disagree with is the Canadian way of handling these security cases. I have read very closely the words spoken in the house on October 25, 1963 by the Prime Minister.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman-


Richard Joseph Cashin: The hon. member for Winnipeg North had his chance to make a speech. I agree with the sentiment he expressed that he probably never would be a privy councillor; that was one of the most magnanimous statements I have heard in this House of Commons.
As I indicated at the beginning of these remarks the views of the Prime Minister represent a step forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question. Is he referring to the speech of the Prime Minister of October 25, 1963, when he promised that in cases such as this an employee would be given a full opportunity to resolve any doubt and also that there would be a second look taken by a separate body before dismissal was finally decided upon. Is that the speech to which the hon. member is referring? I hope his nod can be recorded on Hansard as a yes. If so, does he think that the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister have been met in the Spencer case?


Richard Joseph Cashin: So far as I know I think they have been.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask another question. Would he tell us when the second look was taken at this case, by whom, and what was the separate body that took that look at it.


Richard Joseph Cashin: The separate body to which the Prime Minister referred was a body within the administration itself. The point I have in mind is that in the future we should have a separate body which involves at least one judge outside the administration itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is our point.

February 28, 1986
Supply-Justice


Richard Joseph Cashin: If the hon. gentleman would bear with me I think perhaps he might grasp the logic-if three is some, and I hope there is-behind what I say.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: You
had better stick to your notes.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I see that the hon. member for Cape Breton South has made one of his highly irrelevant interruptions, and I would like to see it attributed to him, because I do not think anyone else would make a remark of equal inconsequence.
It has been impressed upon all of us, Mr. Chairman, how important secrecy is in all of these matters. I think the need for secrecy is apparent. I noted the words of the hon. member for Leeds when he said to the hon. member for York South that he did not know the facts and was never likely to know them. I think the main thing we must be sure of in all these cases is not only that justice is done but that it appears to be done.
I know-and I think before I go any further I should say this lest my remarks be misunderstood-that the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice concerning this particular case in question, the Spencer case, have received a lot of publicity. This has involved the ministers concerned and the Prime Minister taking a much closer look at this matter than might otherwise have been the case, and I am quite satisfied with the way this particular matter has been dealt with.


An hon. Member:: It is of little comfort to us.


Richard Joseph Cashin: The difficulty I think is that this is not a practical or desirable procedure to be carried on ad infinitum in the future as it has been carried on publicly in the past in this country. I am sure that the members of the opposition will agree with me when I say this procedure here is substantially the Canadian way of dealing with it; the same way basically that security matters were dealt with by Conservative and Liberal administrations. I think it is difficult to reconcile the nation's interests with the rights of the individual.
The point I am making is that now we have before us a discussion on this highly delicate but important matter, and surely it is time for those of us who have a very high regard for civil liberties-and this is something every Liberal feels at least equally

to discuss this, not in the light of the handling

of the present case so that hon. gentlemen opposite may play politics with the civil liberties of a few people, but rather I think it is important that we consider that while in this particular case this may have been the only procedure we could have followed -perhaps that is not so, but it is the procedure which has been followed-I think what we must be concerned about now is to evolve a better procedure for the future; not for the man who will be known publicly as Spencer but for the anonymous Spencers whom we will not hear of in the years to come. These are the people who give concern to me and I am sure to all of us.


David Lewis: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? I ask this in all seriousness. Would he explain why his excellent suggestion in respect of what should happen in such cases should not be applied, to satisfy him and others that justice has been done, in the Spencer case; why not?


An hon. Member:: Because the Prime
Minister said no.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I think the only thing that it would satisfy at the present time is perhaps a political motive. However, to answer that question, I would say that this is the procedure we followed for 20 years; but now in this particular case we have had a lot of public discussion about it and I am prepared to accept this on faith.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, may I-


Richard Joseph Cashin: The member for Winnipeg North is so concerned about history that he is trying to make an attempt to get in the history books. In any event I do think that in the present case it has received the attention of the administration. What satisfies me and perhaps indeed all of the people is that although in the 20 years of experience we have had in these cases, even when the Leader of the Opposition was in office, there was little change, at least the Prime Minister's statement in this instance did result in an improvement in the situation.
What worries me is that in respect of situations that might arise in the future we might not have people with the same kind of attitudes that we have now in this House of Commons. There is a principle involved which may work in individual cases because of the calibre of the people in the administration dealing with it, but I do not feel this is something which ought to go unchanged. It
February 28, 1986

seems to me this is a good opportunity now, when there is such a great deal of attention being paid to civil liberties, to talk about it.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
As hon. gentlemen are quite aware the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond just gave a speech on a matter which concerned him. I think he was complaining that this matter had not received attention in a long time. Perhaps if there was a great controversy or public discussion about something that was bothering him, that would be a good time for him to make some speech about the direction in which the government must go in dealing with these matters. That is why I felt I ought to make these few comments about civil liberties. This is a matter that is of great importance to me as I am sure it is to all members of the house. I have now sort of-


An hon. Member:: Run out.


Richard Joseph Cashin: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a question perhaps he can go ahead and ask it now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is a question I should like to ask the hon. member for St. John's West. When he was answering the hon. member for York South as to why the excellent principle he has enunciated should not be applied in this case, did I understand him correctly to say that the reason for not doing so now was that it would seem to be satisfying a political motive? At that point he gestured in the direction of the official opposition. Did he in fact say that the reason for not applying this excellent principle is that it would seem to be giving in to a demand from the opposition parties of this house? Is that the reason Mr. Spencer is to be denied the second look which the Prime Minister promised?


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Chairman, my answer is categorically no. I do not believe in changing a system to deal with one particular case. I am concerned primarily about the system which has been in effect for 20 years in this country. I do not suppose for one moment that I am now going to make a speech which will change that system here and now, making it retroactive. I am concerned with the situation 10 or 15 years from now and that which is involved in our approach. This sort of thing presents very difficult problems in a democracy.
It may well be, and I am prepared to admit this, Mr. Chairman, that the solution I have
Supply-Justice
put forward, or attempted to put forward, is not the most practical. There may even be cases similar to this under the change I have proposed. I do not know that, but perhaps there are other members who could really answer that question better than I,-and they may be some of the members on the front benches over here or on the other side who have dealt with these things before. Perhaps they are more aware of the difficulties involved, but it seemed to me from a distance that it would be good to make a few comments in this regard.
I might also say, because I am one who speaks at this time from the back rows, that some of the real importance in a long term sense of civil liberties has been overlooked in this debate, which is strictly and purely one to satisfy political motivations. I am not strongly questioning the members of the New Democratic party, because I do not know how they would have acted had they been in office.


William Heward Grafftey: I wonder how this speech is going to look in Hansard?


Richard Joseph Cashin: I can only assume that if they had been in office they would have carried out what they have said, in which case they probably would have acted differently from the Liberals or Conservatives. However, the point I really want to make is that in the past there has been no substantial difference between the attitudes of the two parties, and for the right hon. gentleman to suggest otherwise, that he would have dealt with this differently, is unrealistic.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the hon. member if he does not mind another interruption.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I do not mind.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: By this very moving account of the hon. member's belief in civil liberty, does he suggest there has been any equivalent experience in Canadian history where a minister of the Crown-the minister of justice for Canada-has gone on a national television program and stigmatized a citizen in an announcement such as that made by the present Minister of Justice? If so, what would my hon. friend do about this situation in the future?


Richard Joseph Cashin: I do not accept the hon. member's premise. I saw a newspaper account, I believe in the Globe and Mail of November 4,

February 28, 1966
Supply-J ustice
regarding this subject. I believe the television interview to which the hon. member for Royal makes reference took place in the latter part of November. Therefore I cannot accept once again the comments of the hon. member for York South. I can only assume that he was misinformed when he cited to this house that the Minister of Justice first mentioned this man's name on television, even before newspaper reports. That is not the case. In view of that I think they have not given the full facts of the matter.


An hon. Member:: Do not answer the question.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Chairman, I have strayed from the subject as a result of questions asked by hon. members from different parts of the house. However, as was pointed out very ably today by the Leader of the Opposition, I am young and lack a considerable amount of experience. Perhaps I cannot field this kind of questioning as ably as others, but I know that the house will bear with me and have some sympathy for me in this matter until I find myself in a better position.


An hon. Member:: You have dropped them all; you have not even got one.


Richard Joseph Cashin: My suggestion, which I should like to see carried out in future cases of this kind, is that there should be more study given to these questions by the government, and a better approach taken to them, which could perhaps involve a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or the Exchequer Court of Canada, or perhaps a judge of a provincial supreme court who has experience in government administration. Members of the opposition might suggest that this would be distinguishing between one judge and another.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think that it would be.


Richard Joseph Cashin: We now hear from the hon. member for Bow River, that great legal authority who has supplanted the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Yukon, who are neck and neck in the battle for the booby prize, as the chief spokesman. I admire the styles of both these hon. gentlemen very much, although I think they have nevertheless-and this may be some source of regret to their master-fallen into insignificance in comparison with the masterful performer who has just intervened. As a young member of Parliament I might say that it is a

great tragedy to me to know that at least in a mathematical sense I will perhaps be a member here in this house at some future date to see, sitting right opposite where the right hon. gentleman sits, some of those members like the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Bow River. At that time I will be happily able to look back over the years and think of the time when they had a really masterful and skilled politician at the helm.


An hon. Member:: He is getting into high gear now.


Richard Joseph Cashin: It has been a real pleasure to have been here for the past couple of years to witness that really masterful politician and his performance, and I am glad to have had the opportunity of questioning that master once in a while, particularly when his speech has not been up to par, so as to give him an opportunity to show his wit to a greater extent to further entertain the house. As a young member of parliament I do not regret one little bit being the straight-man for such a tremendous performer as the Leader of the Opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How could a Grit be
straight?


Richard Joseph Cashin: Now, gentleman, I shall return to this matter of civil liberty. It seems to me that the kind of thing we should consider in future cases of this kind is the kind of in camera hearing that people want today, presided over by either a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or a provincial justice who has had experience in government administration. Perhaps such a judge with this sort of qualification is the present chief justice of Nova Scotia. Perhaps that kind of a judge with particular experience in this kind of matter could be helpful in dealing with problems in this very difficult area.
There has been a lot of discussion to the effect that such an inquiry should take place in respect of the present case. As I said earlier, I am satisfied that this is not necessary in the present case. I am also prepared to admit that the procedure followed for some 20 years is perhaps not the right procedure. I am quite sure that the hon. member for York South, knowing of his record and having heard speeches he has made, does not agree with me. I am sure that he does not agree with the procedures that have been followed over the past 20 years; but he does not agree with much of anything. He just
February 28, 1966

thinks this is a very bad situation. My point to him is that this procedure has been followed for 20 years. I do have some questions in my mind about it, but-


David Orlikow: The procedures will be followed for another 20 years if it is left up to you.


Richard Joseph Cashin: That is another interruption which will be recorded in the annals of the House of Commons history when the history of the sixties is written, as suggested by a member earlier tonight.
The point is that neither the hon. member for Winnipeg North, nor any of his party, is ever likely to be in a position to make this kind of decision. I think it is important that the two parties over there, who are apt to have a chance to make these decisions, however small it may be, should consider these matters. I believe there should be more public debate on matters of this kind.
One of the things that has always disturbed me, as well as many other Canadians, is the fact that there is a lack of real, open, public discussion on matters of this kind. We have had a great many situations in Canada which have been considered and discussed in secret. I think that points to the monolithic decisions we have seen from time to time which hamper the kind of public discussion on issues which could make our institution of parliament more credible to the public. No wonder the United States citizens can get so excited that it may seem irrational to us from time to time. In their system they can see the Senate on television debating publicly a matter such as the Viet Nam situation. We in this country do not have that kind of public debate or public expression not only on this subject but on a wide variety of subjects.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I certainly do not want to suggest that my rather insignificant interruption in the debate tonight-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Richard Joseph Cashin: -is going to do very much to further that proposition but I do think there should be more of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should be on television.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I might say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-I think it was he who made a crack about television-that if
Supply-J ustice
I were he I would stay away from the camera altogether.
There are a number of other comments I should like to have made. I did not realize that members of the opposition would find my remarks so stimulating and refreshing that they would keep interrupting me at such great length. I hope that perhaps in a year's time, if we are all still here, when the estimates of the Department of Justice come before us we may have an opportunity again to discuss this matter and perhaps find the government in the position to advise us on the kind of policy to be adopted in future cases, a policy that would be more consistent with that which many of us would like to see adopted.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member a question?


Richard Joseph Cashin: Yes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I was very much impressed with the hon. member's tribute to the concern of himself for the other members of his party in regard to liberties in the future. Can the hon. member explain why he does not think these principles should be applied in the present case? Is this not like the expression, all is jam tomorrow but never jam today?


Richard Joseph Cashin: I do not agree, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me the answer is that we do not change the procedure in the middle of a case. This procedure has been adopted for 20 years. This case has won a great deal of publicity; therefore the Minister of Justice, presumably the Solicitor General, and the Prime Minister have had an opportunity to look at this matter in more detail than ordinarily might be the case. I accept their judgment, as I might well have accepted the words of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition were he in the same position.
The point is this. I do not think it is acceptable as a general rule to have this kind of procedure over a long term. We have followed this procedure for 20 years; I would like to see it changed. I do not see the need to change it in the Spencer case but I should like to see it changed at the earliest possible date.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Bow River.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two of a kind.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, somebody said, "Two of a kind" .but I have always

February 28, 1966
Supply-Justice
known that other members have been a little jealous of those redheads. However, I must congratulate the hon. member for St. John's West upon his speech and I hope the Liberal party will call a caucus tomorrow. They surely do not have to wait until Wednesday, because the member who has just spoken seemed to answer a number of questions very honestly. He said he thought a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, or a trial judge of a high court should review a matter such as this. The hon. member said he did not think the holding of an inquiry should apply to Spencer, the reason being that it might be interpreted as having a political motive.
I think that was the whole crux of his argument, namely that such action might be interpreted as having a political motive. I believe if there are any political motives attached to this question they are held by the Liberal party because, as I said on Wednesday last and I repeat it now, the government has something to cover up; it has swept the matter under the carpet; it does not want to bring this question out into the open. That is exactly what the hon. member for St. John's West tried to say tonight, but he did not want to go too far in speaking of his own party.
We listened with great interest to the minister. I make a special appeal to him because as I understand it from reading something about the minister's background-and I think he will like what I am about to say-he comes from a very traditional and great family in his own province and in this nation. He is a lawyer; he has some great traditions arising out of his family's background and is able to appreciate the legal principles involved in this case, namely those which are wrapped up in the rights of the individual in respect of civil liberties.
I hope that with those traditions behind him, and as a new Minister of Justice who came in with a new brush, he will not be just a pawn in the hands of the Prime Minister. I hope that because the Prime Minister says "We do not want an investigation in this case" the Minister of Justice has not become a pawn and just says "We must not have an investigation in this case".
When you analyse the arguments put forward this afternoon by the Minister of Justice, and his reasons for not having an inquiry held in this matter, you find them very weak. I find them very political. I find that all the reasons he put forward this afternoon make a mockery of justice. If he is, as I
[Mr. Woolliams.l
suggest he is, steeped in the great legal traditions of a great family background, let him now measure up to those traditions and the responsibility of the portfolio he holds, one of the main portfolios in government. Let him measure up to those responsibilities and give this man his day in court. Let the minister hold an inquiry into this case, as was suggested by the hon. member for St. John's West.
Let us compare this case with similar cases in the past. Hon members opposite keep saying that this case is on all fours with cases of espionage that occurred when the Conservatives were in office or when the Liberals were formerly in office. The hon. member for St. John's West referred to this type of justice, as I understood it, being the Canadian way-not the Conservative way, the Liberal way or the New Democratic party way. There is a difference between this case and others in the past. The minister this afternoon said no, there was not; but he might reconsider his position when he sees the fine distinction that can be drawn between this case and others.
What is that fine distinction? Several other hon. members raised the matter by their questions of the previous speaker. The distinction is that no one has ever been named in this manner before. I am not concerned tonight with the narrow, political side of the question and whether the minister named this man or somebody else did it. I am concerned with the fact that he has been named and the minister named him over the national television network. Therein lies the difference.
Hon. members opposite have said that you cannot have that kind of inquiry in this kind of case because you cannot have a proper investigation of the facts if they are made public. Let us compare this case with the ordinary case where there is a reasonable belief that someone is guilty of a crime under the Criminal Code and the police go out, make an investigation, interrogate the accused and ascertain certain facts. In this case the facts were referred to the legal officers of the Department of Justice. The Minister of Justice seems to want to hide behind this fact, because he says the law officers of the crown said there was not enough evidence to warrant a prosecution. It is true enough that if the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice, as the case may be, is advised that in an ordinary case-I am dealing with the ordinary case at the moment-there is not enough
February 28, 1968

evidence to substantiate a charge being laid, normally a charge is not laid.
However, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister this question. The person being investigated by the authorities is known, but as soon as the legal officers have advised the minister, who has determined that a charge shall not be laid, the surveillance ends and the man is as tree as any Canadian in this chamber; he may enjoy that freedom and liberty of the subject that is spelled out in our civil rights.
In an espionage case the individual is not normally named. Therein lies the difference. In this case the individual is known, he has been named; and because he has been named we ask, not that there be held an inquiry wherein all the facts would be made public and the security of the state might be threatened, but that the inquiry be held in camera. Nobody on this side of the chamber has gone as far as asking that this matter be inquired into in open court. The hon. member for St. John's West has said that this procedure should be adopted in the future, but not in this case because it would be giving in to the Conservatives. If it is giving in to the Conservatives it is because we stand for the protection of the civil rights of the individual. I believe that any fair, good-minded Liberal would be prepared to agree with this.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The difference between this case and another kind of spy case is, and I repeat it, that the individual in the other kind of case is not named. This is a different type of thing. Here, this person is named. They say he has had a hearing. I listened very carefully to what the Prime Minister said, and when I reread his words I find he said this man had been treated justly. Before I mention that, I want to say it is not only the individual Spencer with whom we are dealing. We are dealing with the civil rights of all Canadians. If it is right to debate this case tonight, it is right because we are dealing with the future justice, the future civil rights of all Canadians.
Now, the Prime Minister said this man was treated justly. As one hon. member pointed out, and it bears repeating, what kind of trial did this man have? He was tried by the Prime Minister; he was tried by the Minister of Justice; he was tried by the legal officers of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. These people do not form an independent judiciary. They represent a political machine and they say: We are not going
Supply-Justice
to give Spencer a fair trial, a fair hearing. What have you got to hide? What harm can come if he is given a hearing in camera? Therein, I say, lies the difference.
I am going to repeat what I said earlier, that I hoped this Minister of Justice, steeped in the traditions I mentioned at the outset, would be the kind of man who would say: I am going to stand on these principles; I am a member of the bar and I took a certain oath as a member of the bar and as a member of parliament. I hoped he would say: Since I took those oaths, since I am steeped in those principles, I am going to say to my Prime Minister that either this man gets fair treatment, the kind of treatment every Canadian expects, or I am going to resign my portfolio. I am not asking for your resignation, but I am saying this: Do not be a pawn in the hands of the Prime Minister. After listening to the minister this afternoon, sir, that is what he appeared to be.
Now, what did the minister say this afternoon? He said it seemed to be standard practice or a standard rule of law that where somebody was a squealer-I could tell you a story about that but I will not-then he is not charged, he does not have any punishment. I have never heard of a rule of law like that. I have heard of a case where a man is involved in a certain conspiracy, where people are conspiring to commit a crime, and gives information about the crime. However, this does not mean that a police officer says to him: Sure, as a Canadian, because you are a squealer, you are not going to be charged. This has never been a principle of law.
The principle of law is this: A man may stand charged, and even if there is a voluntary statement given to a police officer, then the proper rule of law is that the statement is admitted as evidence and may be used against that person at his trial. When it comes to punishment, then you decide on what kind of punishment to mete out to such a person, and mitigation is the letter of the law. If you say it is a standard principle of law in Canada that a squealer is not charged, then I am sure you are carrying the rule of law in a different direction than the one inculcated into the Minister of Justice when he graduated from law school and when he was steeped in the principles of a legal family.
The point I want to mention is that when the minister was asked a question he said he

February 28, 1966
Supply-Justice
knew from facts that this man had done things or had said things-I think "done" was the word but I do not have an exact note of what was said-and was a danger to the state. The minister said that as this man was a danger to the state it was necessary to have him under some kind of surveillance. If this man has done things which have threatened the security of Canada, then I do not care what the legal officers have told the minister, he must take the responsibility. After all, his advisers are only his advisers. The minister has the last say and if he knows this man has done something to make him a danger to the security of Canada, then I say to the minister he appears to be guilty of an offence. Let that offence be charged. Is there any great harm in a man's being acquitted of some crime with which he is charged? I believe that tonight every Canadian would rather be charged with an offence, tried and acquitted than be like Spencer who has to go through the rest of his life under surveillance.
I hope that before the sitting concludes tonight the minister will say how long this man will be under surveillance. Will it be 20 years, 30 years? I want to hear him say it. I say to him, as I said at the beginning, that his argument was weak. It was a political argument, an argument he put forward as a pawn of the Prime Minister to cover up a decision that was made by the Prime Minister some time ago. Maybe the minister could tell us tonight when that decision was made. Was it made in May at the time the Dorion report was coming out? Why was it made at such an opportune time, if it was made at that time? Was it used as a smokescreen to cover something they wanted the public to forget? I ask this question because at that time we heard in the corridors the Prime Minister was going to dissolve parliament and hold an election. I think that great columnist Douglas Fisher was writing about an election at that time and he named the date several months ahead of time. He did not get the information as a result of a cabinet leak; he knew what was going to happen.
I say it was a very weak argument. The Prime Minister was guilty of tergiversation. He tergiversated in offering explanations about the holding of an inquiry, and I say that you are turning your back on the principles that you hold so dear or you should hold so dear. In my opinion this seems to be the very crux of the matter. We may say that this debate has gone on a long time. It is [Mr. Woolliams.I
interesting to note, and I am going to direct your attention to it, Mr. Chairman, that not only have we spoken on this matter but there has been an equal number of speakers from the government side. This indicates the government is concerned. The hon. member for St. John's West has been thrown into the debate, and he is quite an able debater. It was hoped he would throw up another smokescreen, but the trouble was he went along with the Tories and let down the Grits. Nevertheless he was thrown into the debate. If the government wants to get these estimates through, and I am certainly one of those who would like to get them through and get on with the legislative program, then why does the Minister of Justice not say: Let us have an inquiry. Let us give this man a hearing, and let us give him the kind of hearing the Prime Minister said should be established under the new procedure to which the hon. member for St. John's West referred.
If that was to be the new procedure, why was it not adopted in this case? Why was a different procedure followed in contradiction of the policy outlined by the Prime Minister? These are questions I should like answered. I think the minister should answer all of these questions. I am going to repeat them. How long will this man be under surveillance? When did the minister first decide not to give him an inquiry? When was that decision made? Was it made on the spur of the moment in the house when he was asked questions on orders of the day or was careful consideration given to it by the cabinet? The Prime Minister said this man had been treated justly. Even if he has been fired from his job, even if he has lost his salary, even if he has lost his pension, the Prime Minister says it is just for him not to be given an inquiry.
I should have liked to hear some of the members of the Liberal party had they been sitting on this side of the house and we over there, if we had treated Spencer in the same manner. They would have rattled the benches; they would have rattled the electronic appliances. They would have said to us that we were nothing but dictators. I recall the Coyne affair, a man who increased his own pension. Today the minister said you only hold a job in the civil service at the will of the people.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Will the hon. member answer a question?
February 28. 1966

Supply-Justice


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will answer a question Mr. Sharp: The railways lost confidence when I am finished, and I am just about during the Conservative regime and they did finished.	not build the equipment.


An hon. Member:: Tory arrogance.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If that is arrogance, then I have a lot of friends with me and they are not all sitting on this side. When did you decide not to give him an inquiry? When did you decide to release his name? Was that a plan of the government before the minister went on television, or was it a slip of the tongue on his part? When did the two Russians who were connected with the case come to Canada? Were they in Canada before the minister's party was asked to form the government of this country? Let us hear answers to those questions.
I have watched the minister weigh his words. I do not say this unkindly to him, but he reads his speech because he wants it to read well in Hansard and does not want any mistakes. When the minister went on television he was told to release that name. This was a plan conceived by the Liberal party, a plan of the Liberal government, and that is the reason it was done.


Mitchell William Sharp: Why?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will tell you why. You covered up the terms and conditions of the Dorion report, and swept it under the rug so that you would win the last election. I was asked for the reason and that is it.


Mr. Roxburgh:: We do not take you too seriously.


Mitchell William Sharp: Just another fairy story.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Trade and Commerce says that is another fairy story. I heard him admit on the radio that the Conservative party was right; and I use that in answer to him.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I did not say a word.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It was the Minister of Finance. I forgot there had been a substitution. It happens^ so often that it is hard to keep track. The Minister of Finance said that the Tory party was right, that the government or Canada could have sold far more grain, but that transportation under the Liberals broke down, and the western farmer has to pay the price. He has already made that admission on television.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would have thought the Minister of Finance would be able to give a better retort than that. He said the railways broke down under the Conservative government. It seems to me that the C.P.R. run this government, but when we were the government we ran the country. That is the answer to that.


An hon. Member:: Yes, ran it right into the ground.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I think we have a very good railway system in Canada, but we should resume consideration of our system of justice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I got derailed. Anyhow, they are certainly railroading Mr. Spencer. That is the point I really had in mind, and I knew I would be able to draw an analogy there.
When the minister was answering questions this afternoon he said that only $3,000 or $4,000 was paid over to provide travel warrants from here to there so that the boys could get certain information. However, when the communique was released on May 9, 1965 it said thousands of dollars had been spent.
I think the minister should have told us how much money was paid to the other people connected with this matter, if there were others, and how much money was paid in total. If that information can be made available when he speaks I think he should give the full information. He would not have been embarrassed this afternoon to give any of these answers, had he done what the Prime Minister wanted to do but refused to do in the matter, namely hold an inquiry in camera in order to give this man a fair hearing.
Let me conclude on this note. We are not concerned tonight with this one man. It may be sad for Mr. Spencer; I do not know. I do not know whether he is guilty or innocent. But the fact is that every minister of justice, as I suppose do the courts, can refer back to precedents, and tonight we will be establishing a precedent. If this case should become a precedent for this House of Commons or for future governments, it means this, Mr. Chairman, that in future every man who becomes connected with a similar set of circumstances as Mr. Spencer, even though he discloses the facts to the proper legal

February 28, 1966
Supply-Justice
officers of the country, will then be put under surveillance for as long as he lives. He too may stand charged on the national television network of this country and have his name similarly disclosed. I suggest this would be a new form of trial by national television.
I listened to the hon. member for Royal who referred to a judgment which had been given. Sometimes when we get a little serious it often pays, as I said the other day, to get a little philosophical. The real question facing the western world today is the question of freedom. That is why we stand up against communism. We know they do not offer freedom to their citizens, and our ideas and ideals must be higher than theirs at all times if our way of life is going to survive.
Perhaps Byron made this point best in one of his sonnets, and I am going to close on these words:
Eternal Spirit of the chainless Mind!
Brightest in dungeons, Liberty, thou art,
For there thy habitation is the heart-
The heart which love of thee alone can bind; And when thy sons to fetters are consigned-
To fetters, and the damp vault's dayless gloom- Their country conquers with their martyrdom, And Freedom's fame finds wings on every wind. Chillon! thy prison is a holy place,
And thy sad floor an altar; for 'twas trod,
Until his very steps have left a trace Worn, as if the cold pavement were a sod,
By Bonnivard!-May none those marks efface! For they appeal from tyranny to God.
This, Mr. Chairman, is what Spencer is doing. He is appealing tonight, not to God, but to the Minister of Justice to give him a break so that every future Canadian will have the same break.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, the speech which we have just heard from the hon. member for Bow River has been, to me, a very moving one. I am grateful to him for his very flattering remarks in connection with my coming from a legal family. I cannot claim this honour to that exent.
I should also like to make it quite clear here and now that it was I who suggested to the Prime Minister that a judicial inquiry into this matter was neither necessary nor warranted, nor was it justified.
It has been suggested to me both by the hon. member for Bow River and by the hon. member for Royal that I could make a hero of myself by asking the Prime Minister and my colleagues to set up an inquiry into this matter. It would be very nice indeed to become a hero, and I guess there is nobody in 
this house who would not want to be one. But in this particular instance all I want to do is my job, and I want to do it well.
It is true that as a member of this house and as Minister of Justice I have a responsibility, as have all hon. members, to protect the rights of individuals and their liberties. But as Attorney General I also have the right and the responsibility to protect the national security system of this country.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
One of the strangest things about this debate is that not one person, not one hon. member, has asked to know exactly what damage has been done by Spencer in his connection with espionage activities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Everyone has spoken of civil rights. I agree with that. But it is also my responsibility as Attorney General to see that the security of the nation is guarded, and I intend to do this.
We have been speaking of justice, of principles, of righteousness. Well, there is a fundamental principle which applies in law, which applies in justice and which applies in parliament: That principle is the truth. I have been accused on I do not know how many occasions of having stigmatized Spencer on a television program. It has also been in all the newspapers. I have repeated on innumerable occasions that Spencer identified himself on the 4th, 5th and 6th of November and that I appeared on television on the 28th of November.
What is more, on that very program, "This Hour Has 7 Days", before I got on the air the reporter who had identified Spencer appeared and named Spencer about five minutes prior to my appearance. There is, as I say, this question of truth, and I did not see it being applied by hon. members opposite when they continued to insist that I had branded Spencer as a spy knowing full well, unless they do not read the newspapers, that he had identified himself at least three weeks previously. If hon. members opposite want to be righteous, I am all for it. At the same time, let them also be truthful.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be on another subject, but I should simply like to mention this before. As far as the Spencer case is concerned I have not yet been able to form an exact opinion about the
February 28, 1966

situation, although I have some questions which normally or naturally come to the mind of one who has not yet formed an opinion.
The first would be the following: Did any person, any individual, any member of the opposition or of the party in power ever express the desire to meet this Mr. Spencer personally? Did those who made pompous speeches a few moments ago in defence of Spencer's rights-I refer to the hon. members for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) and Royal (Mr. Fairweather)-ever express the wish or tried to meet him, to have clear ideas about him? Were they prevented or forbidden to meet Spencer?
Is it true that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), when he went to British Columbia, tried to question Spencer? Was he prevented from doing so? Was he able to meet him?
Mr. Chairman, in another of his questions, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated that the treatment given Spencer violates his famous Canadian bill of rights.
Did anybody in opposition or the Leader of the Opposition himself put himself or offer to put himself at the disposal of Spencer to help him demand his rights, insist upon his rights, since such rights were recognized by Parliament?
To defend Spencer's rights. Did the right hon. Leader of the Opposition or the hon. members for Yukon, Bow River or Royal offer to take Spencer's case in their own hands to demand his rights before Parliament, under the Canadian bill of rights?
And if Spencer is not guilty, are there any lawyers within the Conservative party who offered to help him, legally speaking? If Spencer loses his pension rights and if he has a right to a pension, he therefore undergoes a damage which gives him recourse before civil courts.
Did the hon. member for Bow River, a brilliant lawyer, at least when there is no client, no accused and no accuser, at least in this House in short, when there are no cases entrusted to him, offer to take this case into his own hands and attempt to defend Spencer's rights to a pension before the courts?
Is there a lawyer within the Conservative party who offered his services to help Spencer?
Supply-Justice


William Heward Grafftey: Yes, here, in the parliament of Canada.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, should one of my rights be violated, I would at once bring the case before a Canadian court of law. I have enough trust in Canadian courts to know that if a Canadian is being denied his rights or privileges the courts of law will recognize the fact even against the government and the Minister of Justice.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) should know our justices and courts are impartial, that they follow long established procedures, and that we can trust our justice.
And yet where is the lawyer, if there be one, who is moved by Mr. Spencer's rights more than by vulgar demagogy? If there is one including the hon. member for York-South (Mr. Lewis) of the N.D.P., if there is one who is sincere about defending Mr. Spencer, why does he not rise and bring the courts of Canada to recognize Mr. Spencer's rights? What is keeping him from doing this? Nothing.


David Lewis: The Supreme Court of Canada is here, this is the court of our land.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we know that before going to the supreme court, you must start with the superior court, and the court of appeal; then you go to the supreme court. Everyone knows that prior to going before 265 judges in parliament, you go before a single judge of the superior court and before three judges of the court of appeal. But what are we looking for? What is being asked? An investigation? Justice, could be had before the Canadian courts.
Therefore, it is not for us to render justice but rather to see that justice is done in Canada. If an hon. member wants so badly to protect the rights of Mr. Spencer, he should get up and defend the rights of Mr. Spencer before the Canadian courts.
Moreover-and it is significant-how is it that that a former Minister of Justice in this house, who is aware of such cases of national security since some undoubtedly came up while he was in office, did not even deem it necessary to touch upon that subject when he took part in the debate on the estimates of the Department of Justice? How is it that he did not say a word about it? And yet, if there is in the Conservative party a member who

February 28, 1966
Supply-Justice
would be qualified in that field, because he has been laced with similar situations, it is the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), a former Minister of Justice.
Why did he not say a word about it, Mr. Chairman? I admit, at first sight, that something might look surprising in this whole story.
If such a thing were done to one of my electors in the riding of Lapointe, I can assure you that I would see to it that it did not happen again and I would take the matter to court, where justice could be done, and not before the group of demagogues we have been hearing in this house in the last few days. The first thing I would do, Mr. Chairman, would be to go and see him. I would ask him questions, at least to know what I am talking about, because those who did not even take the trouble of seeing Spencer, the first one concerned, whether they come from British Columbia or Ontario-and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was there three weeks ago-do not have a very serious case. Indeed, when one wants to talk about something, one must first get some information. I heard the Leader of the Opposition, after a pathetic plea, say "I rest", as if he were before the court. "I rest" but he has not even met, not even seen and not even heard the defendant. Mr. Chairman, can you imagine a lawyer who would come before the courts and who, using legal terms, would say "I rest", without having seen, heard or spoken to his client. If a lawyer behaved like that, he would soon lose all his cases and all his clients. That is why we must question the sincerity and honesty of those famous lawyers who, in the last four or five days, have attempted to defend a client without even trying to meet him, to see him or to question him.
I have three questions to put to the Minister of Justice. But he could possibly answer this one: If another member of the house wanted to question Mr. Spencer, would the R.C.M.P. prevent him from doing so?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Well then, Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member for Yukon was in British Columbia three weeks ago, did he not try to meet him?

Was he prevented from meeting him? The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) lives not far-


Erik Nielsen: Too busy in Montreal.


Gilles Grégoire: Did the hon. member for Bow River who lives in a province not too remote from British Columbia try to meet him? The Minister of Justice stated that whoever wished to meet Mr. Spencer could do so.
If you want to defend a man, my friends, start by meeting your client and acquiring information, and then perhaps you will be less demagogic. Mr. Chairman, it is enough to make one question the sincerity and intellectual integrity of all these gentlemen who talk through their hat.
Mr. Chairman, my second question-my first one was answered rather promptly, I am glad to say-I asked this afternoon. I understand that perhaps the Minister of Justice does not wish to answer it; he may be right, but did not the same thing happen, did not similar events occur in the past, during the government of the present Leader of the Opposition, between 1957 and 1963? Did this happen before, were there similiar cases? Were today's puritans as puritan then?
When their party did it, did they show the same indignation? Has this ever happened?
Without mentioning particular cases or saying how many there were, without trying to identify anybody or anything, perhaps the minister could tell us whether that was done under the previous regime? The Minister of Justice could probably tell us that.
Third, Mr. Chairman-and I find that I have let myself get carried away from my subject-last week I put a series of questions to the Minister of Justice concerning the use of R.C.M.P membership cards by persons who did not belong to the mounted police. I think the minister said then that he would answer my questions, so I wonder whether he would now be ready to make a statement in that connection.
That is why I would like to afford him the opportunity to answer the questions I put to him the other day.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: hon. member for Lapointe. The R.C.M.P. investigated the allegations that one or two persons had unlawfully identified themselves as members of the R.C.M.P. It was established that one of them had an identification card issued by the R.C.M.P. commissioner under section 8, chapter 54, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, 1959. The commissioner in question is now retired.
This identification card showed that the bearer was a member of the R.C.M.P. and an officer of the peace. That person had been the executive assistant to the last minister of justice in the former government.
That identification card has been withdrawn. There is no evidence that another person involved in that case had such a card.
I have a report from the R.C.M.P. and after consulting the legal officers of the department, I decided there was no reason to take the matter before the courts.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have a further question with regard to the card which was withdrawn, I believe, after the former executive assistant had used it. In the present case, can the Minister of Justice tell us whether that former executive assistant was entitled to use that card when he did so, whether he was a member of the R.C.M.P., whether he had any reason to use it then, whether he used it with the permission of senior officers of the R.C.M.P., whether he still had the right at that time to keep that card and whether he used it within the operations of the R.C.M.P.?
Could the minister tell us also what other persons were involved with that former executive assistant? Were those other persons present when the former executive assistant produced that card? Did those other persons know that the former executive assistant was not a member of the R.C.M.P. and was not entitled to use that card?
Was it agreed that he should bring out this card although he was not entitled to it? Can the minister give the names of the three persons implicated in this affair?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, the series of questions from the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) can hardly be answered tonight. I do not remember exactly the names of the three persons involved. I hardly believe I should publish the names of persons following this kind of investigation.
Supply-Justice
As far as the identity card is concerned, the card proves that the bearer is in fact an agent of the R.C.M.P., a peace officer. For this reason it was not possible to prosecute him.
Now I do not believe the incumbent R.C.M.P. commissioner was aware that such a card existed. In fact, I am sure he was not aware this card was in circulation.


Gilles Grégoire: I do not at all wish to question the good faith of the commissioner, but did the former executive assistant still have the right and the permission to use this card at that time. Was he authorized to use it in this specific instance? Would the Minister of Justice perhaps answer these two questions tonight?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I have just said that the present commissioner did not know of the existence of the card and, consequently, I do not see how the person who had it could use it.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, does the Minister of Justice admit and recognize as normal that an individual should use an R.C.M.P. card without permission? Would the minister consider taking certain steps against the person who did this?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I have just answered this question. It is impossible to institute proceedings under the circumstances, because the card showed that he was an agent of the R.C.M.P. and an officer of the peace.


Gilles Grégoire: One last question, Mr. Chairman. Can the minister say whether there are many people in Canada who have cards like that one and without the R.C.M.P. commissioner knowing about it? Are there many people like that in Canada? For instance, could I have one?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Chairman, there is not one card like that in circulation.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we have been treated to some of the queerest expositions of the concepts of justice that I have heard in a long time. I know it is the habit of those opposite to laugh at anything that smacks of justice in Canada and justice in this house.
We have heard the hon. member for Lapointe, an expert on the subject, speak about demagoguery on this side of the house, and

February 28, 1966
Supply-*Justice
he provides us with the finest example of that. He speaks about parliament not being the place in which to discuss matters of the nature of the Spencer case, and yet he came whimpering to this house to discuss his own party's problems.


Michael Starr: A stupid man.


Erik Nielsen: He questioned, sir, the intellectual honesty of those who would raise the most important question of civil rights in this country. We question his intellectual capacity.
The Minister of Justice treated us to a whining discourse on the truth, and how important this is to parliament; and yet he forgets that when he was on this side of the house he was using words, on February 22, 1962 that will go down in infamy in the records of this house. He said that we must regard the truth: That is why we want an inquiry. He says we must trust the ministry. Is there any reason that we have to doubt the capability of this ministry in the administration of justice in this country? After the display that we were treated to in the last two years I say there should be grave doubt. Indeed there was doubt, as was displayed on November 8 last in the minds and hearts of all Canadians, as to the ability of these ministers to handle affairs concerning justice in this country.
The ex-minister of justice sitting beside the present Minister of Justice, on that day, November 23, when the matters giving rise to the issues in the Dorion inquiry were first raised, accused me of absolutely lying about the facts that I was presenting at that time, and still had the gall to sit there, as he did last Friday, and maintain the truth of those assertions, when they now have the full judicial arbitration of the commissioner appointed by himself.


Guy Favreau: What I said is a lie, is a lie, and you know it.


Erik Nielsen: Then I am in good company with Mr. Justice Dorion.
That gang on the treasury benches are up to their same old tricks; the green carpet gang, that is what they are. They are doing the same thing to Spencer as is their habit. He asks us, sir, to have faith and trust in a ministry that has shown itself incapable of appreciating the barest elementaries of the principles of justice. No wonder, sir, that we cannot have faith in this Minister of Justice or in any of his colleagues in any of the

decisions affecting the affairs of justice in the country. He uses words like "innuendo", and the member for Lapointe describes our demands on this side of this house as demagoguery.
Did you notice, Mr. Chairman, that coincidental exchange between the member for Lapointe and the Minister of Justice who read from a prepared answer to the question put by the member for Lapointe.


An hon. Member:: He asked him the other day.


Erik Nielsen: They shouted "innuendo" in November; they shouted "McCarthyism"; they shouted "lies", and all these matters which have come to pass have shown just how wrong they were on that occasion; and yet they will not learn. They do not appreciate the distinction between acting as a chief prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, and the principles on which the law officers in the Department of Justice operate. They rest their case on the fact that there is insufficient admissible evidence-I think those were the words used by the Minister of Justice-that could or should bring about a conviction. That is not his job. I said this to his predecessor and I say this to him-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Whose job is it.


Erik Nielsen: It is the job of the law officers of the Crown to consider whether or not there is sufficient there to lay an information, and then they go no further. It becomes the job of the judges of the courts of this country to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. That is the distinction that his predecessor missed and which got him into trouble-one of the factors

when he was minister, and it is precisely the same distinction which is being missed by the present minister.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: It was missed by your government.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: If the President of the Privy Council does not agree with that interpretation and if the Minister of Justice does not agree with it, then do away with the courts, because there is no more use for them or for judges. For what other purpose are they put there than to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence on which to base a conviction? That is what they are there for and that is what the courts of the country
February 28, 1966

are there for. The Minister of Justice is not in his position to act as a judge. His law officers are not employed to act as judges. The law officers of the minister's department, as I have said, are there to determine whether or not there is evidence on which to base the laying of an information, and from there on this becomes the responsibility of the courts.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. With the new system we have in the house each time the hon. member for Yukon pounds his fingers on the table we get a noise in our ears.


An hon. Member:: That is better than what you say normally.


Gilles Grégoire: I know it is not easy for the hon. member to remember not to hit his desk during arguments of this kind, but I would please ask him to not thump his fingers on the desk, because that is no use to us at all. It just makes a noise.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I have always said that the hon. member for Lapointe needs a good thumping. I have listened in the house for several years now to the hon. member for Lapointe and I was delighted to hear his remarks this evening, because they indicate his flexibility and capacity with the English language, that other official language of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The thumping is bilingual.


Erik Nielsen: The minister dealt at great length with the fact that Spencer admitted his identity. I ask him again to search his memory very carefully and to search his newspaper clippings on his files, and then reconsider what he has said in light of the record. He knows as well as I do about this business of the program, "This Hour Has 7 Days," and about the methods used by the C.B.C. He knows that they cut and splice and cut and splice.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: You can say that again.


Erik Nielsen: I think the expert in this field is the Prime Minister himself, having regard to the famous Pearson film. There were more cuts and splices lying on the cutting room floor after that filming than ever before.


An hon. Member:: Have you seen it?


Erik Nielsen: The minister says that no member of the house has asked about the
Supply-Justice
damage Spencer has done to national security, but what damage would it do to national security if the minister and the government were to accept the reasonable request of the opposition to hold an in camera inquiry? I suggest that not one scintilla of damage would be done to national security.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Why should there be such an inquiry?


Erik Nielsen: The minister asks why we want an in camera inquiry. We want one to satisfy precisely that attribute which the minister himself holds out as being the acme of parliamentary function and the function of justice in this country: To establish the truth, to establish whether or not the decisions that have been taken by the Prime Minister are good, and to establish whether or not the positions taken by the minister in pre-judgment and in convicting and sentencing Mr. SDencer were good.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Are you going to do that in respect of every decision the government takes?


Erik Nielsen: We only wish that procedure followed in respect of that one sort of action, and the manner in which that action is taken. We suggest that these matters should be submitted to an independent judicial assessment. As the hon. member for St. John's West-east, up, down or centre-has said, justice must not only be done, it must also appear to be done; and it does not appear to have been done under the present circumstances.
In the time left to me I should like to point out to the minister some remarks made by the Minister of Justice for the province of Quebec in commenting on this debate, as he is reported in the Montreal Star of February 26 last. In that article Mr. Wagner is quoted as having said:
It has become more and more evident that organized crime, not only in Quebec but in the whole of the country, has created a veritable state of emergency.
Mr. Wagner went on to support the submissions of the opposition, that there be convened a royal commission on crime. I do not see how the minister can excuse any further delay in this matter. His own Prime Minister led the people of this country to believe precisely that which Mr. Wagner said, when he spoke to them last June 29. The impression that was left in the minds of all Canadians

February 28. 1966
Supply-Justice
who saw and heard him was that government action was going to be taken in order to deal with the situation that Mr. Wagner has described as "a veritable state of emergency". That action can be taken by the convening of a royal commission on crime, and it would not be difficult to set one up.
Mr. Wagner indicated on February 26 that he is going to get this kind of co-operation from that provincial government, and that there is no reason to expect that there will not be the same kind of co-operation from the remainder of the attorneys general of the provinces. Therefore the minister can count on full co-operation in setting up a royal commission on organized criminal activities in this country. I had some doubt after the last federal-provincial conference that Mr. Wagner and the Quebec government would provide that degree of co-operation regarding a royal commission; but after the expression by Mr. Wagner, and the alternative to it of an interpol system, I am glad to know that he has come out in full support of the idea of a royal commission on crime. In this regard the minister need have no qualms that, in my view, the suggestion would meet with any thing but wholehearted acceptance, not only by the province of Quebec but by the others.
I was disappointed not to have received answers to the questions I have placed on the order paper. I should have liked to see those answers today; however, I can wait a little longer. In the interim I have one or two other questions I should like to ask dealing with specific companies and current matters, coincidentally, in the province of Quebec.


Guy Favreau: Yes, coincidentally.


Erik Nielsen: What does the President of the Privy Council say?


Guy Favreau: I said, coincidentally in the province of Quebec. I do not know why you always insist on saying that.


Erik Nielsen: The companies to which I have reference happen to be incorporated and operating in the province of Quebec. I am sure when the Minister of Justice answers the question I have on the order paper he will deal with those companies mentioned in Toronto, Hamilton, Edmonton and Vancouver, and that other names of companies and other material will then come to light.

I should like to ask the minister to refer to his officials in order to obtain replies to my questions on the order paper, in so far as they relate to these companies in Montreal; Bercy Construction; Provost Construction, Omer Construction; Taillon Construction, and Deauville or Douville Construction. I mentioned last Friday the name of the Scalia Development Company. I think it is important that the minister refer these particular companies to his officials. I think it may be of importance for his officials perhaps to act in liaison with the Montreal police officials and the Quebec attorney general's department in so far as these companies are concerned.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: We may not be able to get that information for tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: I doubt very much that I will have the questions I have put on the order paper answered by tomorrow. But these are companies that figure in current events in the city of Montreal in the province of Quebec. I will let the matter rest there, in the hope that I can obtain from the minister answers in so far as they relate to these specific companies, and I would hope that when the questions are answered they will be fully and accurately answered in so far as the remainder of the companies and the trustees are concerned.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? The Minister of Justice of Quebec, Mr. Wagner, said during the week end that if the hon. member for Yukon knows something about the fraudulent bankruptcies in the province of Quebec, it is his duty to give his information to the Minister of Justice of Quebec. Is the hon. member for Yukon ready to do that, or has he done it yet?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, let me say this in answer to my hon. friend's question. I am satisfied that I do not have any information that the Attorney General of Quebec does not have.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit me to also ask him a question? Does not the suggestion that a judicial inquiry be assembled to investigate this case, which is in the very sensitive area of national security, an area that I know is of great
February 28, 1966

concern to every member of this house particularly as it seeks the fundamental objective of safeguarding the liberties of individuals, presuppose the condition that the aggrieved one should be seeking relief?
It is very easy to obtain this relief; this is a free country and it requires only one word to the press. But I notice that in this case the accused has been silent. I think this silence is significant. I should like to hear what the hon. member's views are in this respect.


Erik Nielsen: Governments exist as an instrument for the people, and not vice-versa. If the Minister of Justice is prepared to stand up and say that Mr. Spencer has been approached and asked whether or not he wishes to have access to the courts, and if he is prepared to say that he wants nothing to do with access to the courts, then fine; I am prepared to accept the situation. But I believe that governments exist to see that justice is done, and we do not wait for this massive rejection of government action before governments act in matters such as this. It is the government's responsibility to see that justice is done to every individual or group however small it might be.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a supplementary question?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few more words on the case which we have discussed a great deal. I want to start by answering, if I may, in my own way the question which has just been asked and the question interjected by the hon. member for Mount Royal as well, namely as to whether or not Mr. Spencer has asked for relief. Let me ask the hon. gentleman this question. Suppose you have, as in my experience in labour relations I have frequently found, a man who is dealt with unfairly by his employer and he is one of those easy-going, quiet, reserved, timid people-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: Don't laugh. I happen to have made inquiries about Mr. Spencer, for the information of the hon. member for Lapointe, and I happen not to be able to find where Mr. Spencer is, for the information of the hon.
Supply-Justice
member for Lapointe. If I knew where Mr. Spencer is I would find out exactly what he wants or what he does not want done in this case. But he has apparently disappeared and people do not know where he is; at least, those we are in touch with do not know.
I ask the hon. members who have asked this question: If you have a man to whom an injustice has been done by his employer, and he happens to be rather timid and does not raise objection-there are many people who do not fight for their rights themselves-does that make the injustice any the less important; does that make the principle of civil liberty any the less relevant; does that make the taking away of a man's civil right any the less significant-the fact that the man has not himself raised his voice?
The Minister of Justice says, why do we want a judicial inquiry? To answer this question I can use no better language than that of the Prime Minister. We want a judicial inquiry for the reasons the Prime Minister set out as reported in Hansard of 1963 at pages 4044 and 4045:
The second new requirement is to ensure that a second look is always taken by a separate body before dismissal is finally decided upon. Once the individual is told of security doubts he will have the opportunity to give his side of the case. The employing agency will consider it, consult the staff of the government security panel, and arrive at a conclusion. It may be to accept the person as reliable, in which case no problem arises.
The right hon. gentleman went on:
It may be to transfer him to a less sensitive employment, as has been the case certainly more than once in the past, where he would not have access to secret and confidential material. But if it is-
I ask the Minister of Justice to listen to the words of his and my Prime Minister:
But if it is that his dismissal must be recommended, the individual will be given a second hearing, this time by the deputy minister or head of the agency. If that interview does not resolve the doubts, and if the agency head agrees with the view that dismissal is necessary, the whole case and the relevant information, including anything that the employee himself has submitted, will be submitted to a board of review.
This is the point we are making, Mr. Chairman.


David Walter Groos: May I have a chance to reply to the question of the hon. gentleman?


Some hon. Members:: No.


David Lewis: My question was not directed to the hon. member. I say to he Minister of

February 28, 1966
Supp ly-J ustice
Justice that there is no more than that in our request. I am not concerned with all the political stuff that has been thrown at the minister by other members; I am not concerned in any of the controversy about whether or not he revealed the name or somebody else revealed the name, and I am not concerned to go back to Dorion, November 8, or anything else. The New Democrats in this parliament, for whom I now speak, are concerned that this board of review mentioned by the Prime Minister conduct the necessary hearing. We call it a judicial inquiry.
We are concerned to make sure that this man does have the chance to have his say before a third party. We are concerned to make sure that this parliament and this country are convinced that justice has in fact been done. I am not questioning-I want to make this clear-the sincerity of the minister; I am not questioning the sincerity of the Prime Minister; I am not questioning the efficiency and the competence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am not questioning any of these things. I am saying to the minister that this man, dismissed under section 50 of the Civil Service Act, had no opportunity for an independent review and we are here, as members of parliament, his employer.
We are not asking that this matter be taken to a court, because no one is questioning the legality of the government's action under section 50 of the Civil Service Act; the words are clear. What we are questioning is the morality of the action. What we are questioning is the dismissal of an employee by an employer without the employee's voice being heard by an independent tribunal. It will do no harm to the government, it will do no harm to the security of Canada to have that kind of hearing. I still appeal to the minister to have this kind of appeal.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? I wonder whether the hon. member can envisage a situation in which section 50 would be pertinent; or does the hon. member allege that section 50 is redundant and should never be used?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


David Lewis: First of all, if I had anything to do with it, section 50 would not be there because I do not think you need it. But let me say to the Minister of Agriculture, even though section 50 says you have a right to

dismiss, I think the law would put into that the concept of dismissal for cause; our system of justice would put into the words the concept of a fair, impartial hearing, because those things are basic to our system of justice. No matter what language the section uses, if a man is dismissed without a hearing that, in my opinion, is contrary to our way of life.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Chairman, unless I misunderstood the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


David Walter Groos: He did ask me a question, inasmuch as he asked if I could not consider the case of a shy, retiring person who would not bring forward any argument in his defence.


David Lewis: I did not mean it as a question, but I do not mind it.


David Walter Groos: If I may make an observation, Mr. Chairman, I hardly think the actions of this man Spencer, who brought hinself to the attention-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, it being ten o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday on the orders of the day, I put this question to the Minister of Finance: In the preparation of the budget, is the minister looking at the negative income tax as one means of providing a guaranteed annual income? His Honour the Speaker thought it was a question that would be more appropriately placed on the order paper or, to use his words, discussed at a later hour. Well, the later hour has now come.
My purpose in putting this question to the Minister of Finance is to try to get the government to consider what is, to many people, still a new idea. It is not exactly a brand new idea, but it is one about which not
February 28, 1966
much has yet been done. I refer to the general concept of a guaranteed annual income.
As I am sure the minister is aware, much of the new or current thinking that is taking place among social workers and among some of our modern economists is in this very field. It is, of course, related to the tremendous technological changes which are taking place in our society. It is related to the fact that our whole way of life may well be changed by the modern developments that are taking place. The whole concept of our right to the enjoyment of goods and services being related to the number of hours of drudgery or other work which we do may in our time be replaced by the concept of a guaranteed annual income.
In fact, there are some very interesting books on this subject which I would be happy to recommend for the minister's bed-time reading while he is waiting for the Carter report. But all 1 wish to do at this point is simply to lay this basis for the specific question that I put to the minister.
When I speak, as others do, about a guaranteed annual income for all of our people, I have in mind that there are various ways of achieving it. Measures of social security are one of the ways in which it is done. An increase in the number of things, such as education and other services, which are provided free for all our people is another way to bring about a guaranteed annual income for our people. I hear some questioning in the background that I do not quite get, but I know there are some people who are afraid of this sort of thing and think it will do some damage to the human spirit. I think the very opposite. I believe that the more we free people from drudgery and insecurity, the better will our people respond.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention in a seven-minute overtime period to launch too deeply into the philosophy of the future. I simply wanted to lay this general basis for one of the ways which is being suggested for achieving a guaranteed annual income, and that is the negative income tax.
I notice that even Hansard did not put the phrase "negative income tax" into its heading. As a matter of fact, when I used the word in the house the other day Hansard had to send down to me to make sure that was the word I used. I guess it mystified some people. In fact, I was not really sure whether
1935
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the minister himself was quite aware of what I was talking about.
The minister could look into the writings of Peter Newman, Mr. Speaker, and discover that he thinks the Liberals are looking at it. The minister will also find that there is some suggestion that it is being looked at by his opposite numbers in Washington. The idea involved in the negative income tax is that we set reasonable income tax exemption levels, and if they are going to be reasonable they should be higher than the ones which we have at the present time. Then we impose taxation above these levels, but in the case of people who earn less than those levels they receive a payment from the state to bring them up to those levels.
This device is thus a means, but only one means, of helping to achieve a guaranteed annual income. Just as today the Minister of National Revenue makes refunds to people who overpay their taxes, I believe the day will come when he will be making this other kind of payment, namely a negative income tax. I am sure that the minister does not want to be thought of only as an ogre who takes money away from people because they make too much of it. I am sure, as a person who has the kind of background I know he has, he would like the incomes of all our people to be brought up to a reasonable level. He would like to subscribe to the principle that no one in this country should fall below certain reasonable and dignified levels of income.
If this is to be accepted as a principle, then I suggest it be accepted more than as a matter of words. Our legislation should be based on it, and I would invite the minister, in the preparation of his budget this year, to take a good look at the negative income tax.
I should now like to ask him the question which I put to him last Wednesday. Is he looking at this matter in the preparation of this year's budget?
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. member that I understood very well the question he asked me the other day. The idea of a negative income tax did not take me by surprise. Indeed I have been interested in this idea for many years and I am very pleased that a member of the New Democratic party should finally become modern in his thinking. One of the problems about the N.D.P. is that they are so hopelessly old-fashioned. It is a hopeful sign that the

February 28, 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion hon. member's party is now looking at modern ideas in this field, as the Liberals have been doing for many years.
I can recall many years ago one of my friends and colleagues elaborating a complete system involving a guaranteed minimum income for all Canadians from the time they enter the labour force until they die, combined with a related tax structure-the most ingenious and on the whole, I think, the best system of its kind I have ever seen. Needless to say, it was very revolutionary.
May I also point out to the hon. member that the idea of a negative income tax was in fact incorporated into the family allowance legislation introduced by a Liberal government quite some time ago. The family allowance payments are really payments in respect of their children to those who do not have a taxable income. After all, a provision along the lines of a family allowance had been in the Income Tax Act for many years before the family allowance was introduced. The family allowance is really an extension of a payment with respect to children going below taxable income levels. It was the first implementation of this principle of a negative income tax by the Liberal government many years ago. At first family allowances were a substitution for deductions in relation to children. Later it got a little fuzzy in administration but the fundamental principle is still there-that you pay a family allowance to those who do not have income tax liability as well as to those who do.
I do not intend to predict what will be incorporated in the budget, which I hope to bring down reasonably soon. But I should like to assure the hon. member that I personally, and, I think the present Liberal government, believe that all public policy in Canada should be directed toward providing all citizens, regardless of their means of livelihood, or their condition, with an adequate income. I have some doubt whether the negative income tax method of approaching this question is the best in all the circumstances, but as the hon. member has said himself there are many other things which could be done, all directed to that same goal.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As
one of those old-fashioned New Democratic Party members I was shocked and surprised

when I received correspondence from trade unionists in Kootenay East who said they had listened to a radio report of an interview given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport with respect to the age up to which a person could work. They were disturbed about this, as I was, and they asked me to put a question in the house to the minister in order to find out whether this statement represented government policy.
On that account I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the following question on February 24, as recorded at page 1705 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. My question is based on a radio report given to the people of Kootenay East by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. I am informed that the Parliamentary Secretary advocated that persons working in industry should have the opportunity to continue working until age 67. Would the minister inform the house if this represents government policy?
It was at that point that Your Honour intimated this would be a better subject at this hour.
I was really surprised at this report because the Parliamentary Secretary has had long experience as a trade union member and trade union official. I am sure he knows of the efforts of organized labour to reduce the retirement age from 65 to 60, in order to meet the just aspirations of working people generally, and under present circumstances to do something to meet changing conditions due to the rapid development of automation, and so on.
So, Mr. Speaker, I address this question to the minister. I am very pleased to see that the Parliamentary Secretary is in his seat this evening, and no doubt he will give us an explanation of this rather strange report to the people of Kootenay East.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, since the designate minister of manpower found it impossible to be in the house at this late hour he has asked me to reply to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). Essentially, of course, I was speaking as a private member in an interview on a regular broadcast to the people of Kootenay East. Sometimes I have the pleasure and honour of addressing the people of West Kootenay. I believe the interview will also be carried into West Kootenay, and I make no apology for it.
February 28. 1966

The government, of course, does not determine the employment termination date in any union agreements or pension plans. This is a matter between the unions and employers. The hon. member for Kootenay West must know that the Canada Pension Plan, to which he heartily subscribes, provides that a person who desires to work beyond the age of 65 may do so and collect his pension at age 70, and at age 70 may continue to work while still receiving payments under the Canada Pension Plan.
This matter of retirement and the integration of older people into our society after retirement was of chief concern to the Senate committee which studied the problem. In the Senate committee report it is stated:
One of the most serious and difficult problems faced by society in relation to old people is that of helping them maintain some satisfying foothold in the community and with it a sense of self-worth.
The report goes on to explain that arbitrarily cutting a man's income off at age 65 does not always work in his best interests and may be discriminatory. The very fact that we say "You are finished" when a person reaches 65 years can be harmful.
It is no surprise to my colleagues in the trade union movement that on occasion I have had to fight to keep members working after age 65, members who had little or no pension. I put up a terrific fight on their behalf, and I am thinking in particular of older people employed during the war and who did not have the opportunity to build up a pension fund. It is people like that I am concerned about, not those who are to some extent adequately cared for by present pension plans. I believe it is an arbitrary measure to say to a man, "You are finished as of your birth date."
I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay West agrees with me in practice if not in theory because, according to Hansard, on two occasions he announced his own retirement. Yet at the age of 71, which is not by any means a venerable age, he still graces the benches of this house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: At the request of the people of Kootenay West.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order please.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am sure the hon. member will agree-
23033-123J

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Kootenay East replying to the hon. member for Kootenay West, but the time allotted him has expired.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that many of the farmers in western Canada were reassured a few weeks ago when a statement was attributed to the Minister of Agriculture to the effect that there would be an investigation into the cost of farm machinery. Since then we have not heard too much about that subject. However, the other morning in reading the Globe and Mail I was a little disturbed by an article there headlined "Massey profit soars; SEC bars comment". I would like to quote briefly from that article:
Massey-Ferguson Ltd., international farm implement maker, yesterday reported sharp gains in sales and profits for the first quarter ended Jan. 31, 1966. The company said, however, that it is forbidden by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States to discuss reasons for the profit jump.
Sales rose 29.3 per cent to $179,500,000 from $138,000,000 in the year-earlier period.
It states further:
Sales gained in all major geographic areas of the company's operations except Australasia, where there has been severe drought. Largest sales gains were in North America (to $76,600,000 from $51,800,000).
Then there is this comment:
The SEC will not permit comment on the profit rise because Massey has yet to give full details of a rights offering announced Feb. 16.
Then it goes on to say what Massey said, and we get a sort of inverse reasoning here, because a company can make an omission, or error, and then it would seem to be almost rewarded for it. I was concerned by this because I did expect that the minister was sincere in his intention to have an inquiry into the prices of farm machinery. I would like to ask, first of all, whether it is the intention of the minister to refer the subject of farm machinery prices to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I am sure the farmers in the western provinces in particular will be interested in obtaining reassurance that this investigation is going to go ahead.
In recent years there has been a feeling in western Canada that we pay a high subsidy
February 28, 1966
1938	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion in respect of farm machinery prices to manufacturers in central Canada. This is a matter which concerns British Columbia very much in the dairy industry, particularly where the costs of the sophisticated machinery used both in the production of the fluid milk and also in the harvesting of the forage crops is an increasingly important cost factor to those people.
We have just had a committee from the Federation of Agriculture present a brief and the most important point they made is that the dairy industry is in a state of crisis at the present time. I am sure they will be very interested in knowing what is the intention of the minister. If this inquiry is referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, can we be assured that that committee will be able to obtain all the facts, and the reasons for the profits and the profit increases in Canada?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I have grave doubts about the propriety of raising a question at ten o'clock which has been ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker. If the question had been ruled out of order for lack of urgency then the question could be properly brought before the house at this time. I would therefore respectfully request that Mr. Speaker take this question under advisement and, if it pleases His Honour, to render a decision at some future time.
I do not, however, wish to stand on a technicality. I want to make a brief reply to the question posed by the hon. member.
On April 30, 1965, as recorded at page 777 of Hansard the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) directed a question to the then minister of finance. I should like to quote that question and the reply which is as follows:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister tell the House if the Government intends to take any action on the Porter Commission recommendation concerning securities administration and control?
The finance minister replied as follows:
The matter is under study and has been for some time, Mr. Speaker.
The action taken by the S.E.C. is quite proper. Any company which is listed on a foreign stock exchange is required, before making public its profit position, to clear this matter with the S.E.C. This is simply a means of protecting public investors. I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to know that the company in question has met this requirement, and yesterday or today made a statement of its financial position, indicating that it had met this requirement and was in a position to make public its profit position.
I think I would be at liberty to express to the hon. member the fact that in view of this transition there is nothing to prevent the agriculture committee from calling witnesses or dealing with any matter that might be referred to it. The matter of referring machinery prices to the agriculture committee is under study by the government. Whether or not it will be referred to that committee will be announced by the minister in due course.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, March 1, 1966