1966-03-04

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement on wheat supplies for India. As various international discussions will be taking place over the next two or three weeks regarding the very serious food situation facing India, and as it is most important that India should know as soon as possible what supplies she can count on, I should like to inform the house in general terms of the plans of the Canadian government in this matter.
Although the Indian government is making strenuous efforts to improve the situation, there can be no doubt, as the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization has emphasized, that without large amounts of assistance from other countries food shortages in many areas of India would reach famine proportions. Fortunately, several governments are already taking steps to help. In particular, the government of the United States of America is providing massive support.
For our part we announced some time ago that out of the 1965-66 appropriations Canada would make available to India a total of $25 million worth of food, all of which is exepect-ed to be shipped before the end of this month.
I am glad to be able to announce now that during the coming fiscal year the government plans to make available a substantially larger amount than last year. Most of this food aid will be in wheat, which India so badly needs. I expect shipment to take place after the beginning of the new crop year this July. We shall be working out the precise details in our further consultations with the Indian government and with the other governments concerned. I am satisfied that we shall be able to provide this substantial help to India and at the same time meet all our commercial orders. The fact that we can do so is a tribute to the hard work of our western farmers and the high productivity of our agricultural industry.
The situation in India requires a concerted international effort. I would hope that not only the food producing countries will help but also the many other countries which are capable of assisting with shipping, port handling equipment, fertilizers and other effective forms of aid.
Canada, Mr. Speaker, can be depended upon to make a contribution which will compare well with that of any other country.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the statement made by the right hon. gentleman I would say at once that the plan announced has the complete support and commendation of the opposition. We have consistently advocated additional assistance by way of food to meet the terrible famine conditions that face India in increasing measure.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
In this connection I recall so well the NATO meeting that took place in Paris in December, 1957. At that time I advocated a food bank which would make available to famine stricken countries in all parts of the world food and assistance of that kind. The idea was not accepted at that time. Later on, within the commonwealth, we endeavoured to bring about this plan. It was accepted, but was not carried into effect because of the failure of some of the nations within the commonwealth to give their full approval. Hunger knows no geographical bounds. The hunger of people in all parts of the world must have a direct claim on the compassion of all of us. However, hunger within the commonwealth is of pre-eminent concern and must be so recognized by all of us.
At the same time I want to say that what President Johnson and the United States administration has done in this connection, in making available huge supplies of wheat in recent months, is further evidence of the extent to which the United States of America accepts its world responsibilites.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party welcome the Prime Minister's statement. We think that aid to the Indian people at this tragic time of famine in that country is not only called for by human compassion but also on higher political

March 4, 1966
Food Aid to India
grounds. The whole democratic world is involved in the question of the stability of democracy in India. We will examine the Prime Minister's statement and future plans with great interest.
I am not quite sure that I heard the Prime Minister correctly, but I thought he mentioned the figure of $25 million last year and said it would be increased. We think in any event, that this increase should be on a generous scale. It should be treated as a matter of emergency, as if a similar problem faced our own people in this country, because it is of great importance.
Perhaps the Prime Minister could deal with this at some other time, Mr. Speaker, but I did notice that in the dispatch from the Washington correspondent of the Globe and Mail in this morning's newspaper it was stated that the United States representatives at the conference now being undertaken with cabinet ministers in Washington had said the United States is almost certain to complain that Canada is not doing its share to forestall the widespread famine arising in India. This may be quite false speculation but I would ask the Prime Minister, in view of the crucial importance of this matter, to let us know and at the same time take steps to see that this important subject is discussed in Washington so that our plans can be co-ordinated with United States plans to deal with this situation.


Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we listened attentively to the Prime Minister's statement to the effect that Canada will do a lot this year to help India which is faced with a food shortage and which finds itself in the most abject misery. Indeed, according to India's new Prime Minister, 52 million Indians now lack the bare essentials and the role that Canada can play in such a situation is of the most vital importance.
The announcement made by the Prime Minister is encouraging. He stated that we will send mostly wheat. We will also send other things.
Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The whole world knows it. And yet, in our country, one of the world's wealthiest, among a population of 20 million people the farmers suffer because their production remains unsold year after year.
If the government or the Prime Minister looked closely into the situation, they would

see there an opportunity to help Canadian agriculture by setting up a system of cold storage facilities which would guarantee to the farmers that their products would be sold when a situation similar to the one prevailing in India or elsewhere developed. As a matter of fact, we would then have on hand the products needed to help such people and we would help our agriculture and our farmers at the same time.
We must feel sorry for the Indians' plight -but we must also feel sorry for the plight of that class of our Canadian society.
In any event, we are happy to support the policy of assistance which our government will apply toward India and we hope that all the countries in the world which have a food surplus and can dispose of it, will follow the example of Canada, a country with a relatively small population which, at least, is kind-hearted enough to help the needy wherever they are in the world.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the other leaders in giving the complete support of our party to this project which the Prime Minister has announced. We trust that included in this immediate shipment of grain will also be supplies of wheat flour. We also trust that the transportation problems which have been so prevalent in these last months will not hinder the rail carriage of this particular shipment of food which is so urgently required by the starving millions of India.
Those of us who are associated with the freedom from hunger campaign, and specifically the Canada-Mysore project, have had brought to our attention the fact that in India approximately 20 per cent of all food produced is lost because of the lack of proper processing facilities. This includes storage, refrigeration and packaging.
I trust that the government, in giving this assistance which it is our responsibility to provide, will also consider ways and means of assisting to avoid the waste of food which is taking place in India owing to the lack of facilities. I would remind the members of the house that the Canada-Mysore project is specifically designed to preserve foodstuffs. This is one area where assistance could be given which would go beyond just the immediate need which has been filled by this particular gift.
I would also draw to the attention of the house the fact that while we in Canada are able to produce tremendous food surpluses, it
March 4, 1966

is extremely difficult to dispose of these surpluses. That should be evidence again of the need to set up proper financing facilities for the sale of our surplus food products. This relates specifically to a two-price system which will make it possible for nations like India to purchase this surplus food which we have, and which will assist them in their over-all planning to meet such critical urgencies as they now face.
We give our wholehearted support, Mr. Speaker, to the initiative which has been taken by the government, and we assure them that in every way possible we will give them our co-operation.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


David Réal Caouette: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-134, to amend the Financial Administration Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the explanation is simple. The object of this bill is to ask Parliament to control more closely administrative expenses of Crown corporations in such a way that Parliament will always know what they do and how they spend the taxpayer's money.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether in the unravelling of the Spencer case, in view of the press report of this morning that letters were written by the solicitor for Spencer, those letters or any information regarding them will be revealed to the house. Will the Prime Minister now table them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection at all to tabling them. The two letters referred to were not letters to me, or to cabinet ministers. I assured the house about this yesterday. One letter I knew about, because it was a letter to the Privy Council, was from a solicitor in Vancouver. There was no indication on the letter that he was Spencer's solicitor. His name was Mr. Rankin.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The first letter asked for a copy of the order in council dismissing Mr. Spencer, and that was replied to at once. The order in council was sent to him. A second letter was sent to the deputy postmaster general who sent it to the Privy Council, asking to explain the meaning of the word "misconduct." I am paraphrasing what was in the letter. That letter was also replied to. That is all that was in it. As I say, that was a request that "misconduct" should be explained.
The reply, which was given by a member of the Privy Council staff, was that it would be inappropriate for him to explain what "misconduct" was, but he referred the inquirer to the Civil Service Act under which the dismissal took place, and in which misconduct is referred to.


John George Diefenbaker: Why was the house not told of this? Why was there all this concealment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there was no concealment of any kind. There was a letter from a lawyer in Vancouver asking for certain information, which he got.


John George Diefenbaker: There was a two day
debate over that.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister when the letter written by Mr. Rankin asking for an explanation of the word "misconduct" was answered? The Prime Minister said it was answered, but may I ask him when that letter was answered? And when, may I say, if you will permit me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The only thing the hon. member can do now is ask a question. He cannot make a statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a simple question. The letter was dated February 18, and it was replied to on February 24.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Since a formal request is probably necessary, may I now ask the Prime Minister to table the letters he appears to have in his possession on the Spencer matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will overlook the characteristically offensive way in which the question was put and point out that the first letter I had was, as has been pointed out, a letter from a lawyer asking for an order in council, which he received. Apparently my right hon. friend suggests this was concealing something. Everybody in the house knows about the order in council, including, I suppose, my right hon. friend.
March 4, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
The second letter was dated February 18 and it asked for information concerning the word "misconduct"; what constituted misconduct within the meaning of the law. That letter also was sent to an assistant clerk of the Privy Council and he answered it, to Mr. Harry Rankin, who was a solicitor in Vancouver. And I am informed he did not identify himself in this letter as Mr. Spencer's solicitor. I will read this letter if the Speaker gives me permission.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, the question I asked the Prime Minister was will he table the correspondence. That is all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will do more than that. I will read the correspondence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: Rather than raise a point of order again, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will request Your Honour's permission to obtain unanimous consent to table the letters he has in his possession.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have indicated that not only am I willing to table the communications, though I suppose I should get the consent of the lawyer who sent them, but I am also willing to read the letters. They are very short.


Some hon. Members:: Read them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps it would save a lot of time-this is a very short letter-if I just read it together with the answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we have had enough of these expurgated things and partial truths. We want the letters tabled. We do not want the Prime Minister to do the reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the right hon. Prime Minister asking for leave to table the letters or to read them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for leave to read the reply to which reference has been made. I am asking for leave to read the reply right now and put it on the record.


John George Diefenbaker: Table it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I have a question for the Secretary of State. Can the hon. lady inform us whether or not there are

plans on foot for the establishment of a French language radio station on the lower mainland of British Columbia?


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



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the very strong steps being taken by the United States government to correct its imbalance of payments deficit of $1.3 billion with all countries, has the Canadian government any plans for correcting its $1.4 billion current account deficit with the United States as specified yesterday in Toronto by Assistant Secretary of Commerce Andrew F. Brimmer when speaking to the Toronto Bond Traders Association?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a very general question and I do not think it should be posed or answered at this time.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order-


George Harris Hees: Just a minute.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Northumberland is speaking to a point of order.


George Harris Hees: On many occasions in this parliament I have been sent to the penalty box before even stepping on the ice. Today I really feel this is an important question, one which should be asked the Prime Minister on behalf of Canada, and I suggest an answer should be forthcoming.


Mr. Speaker:: What I am suggesting to the hon. member is that the question is in such general terms that in its present form it is not a question of the type which should be asked on orders of the day.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rephrase my question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister instructed the Minister of Finance to advise the United States government, with whom Canadian ministers are conferring today, of the steps Canada proposes to take to correct the $1.4 billion balance of payments deficit which we have with that country?
March 4, 1966


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. friend has got out of the penalty box. Of course this matter will be among those discussed in Washington at the ministerial meeting, and I would point out to my hon. friend-because this the first question he has asked me that I have been able to answer, the first one that has not been ruled out of order-that the figure he gave is a figure given in this country by an official of the United States government, not the Canadian government.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary question, does the Prime Minister disagree with this figure? I have the speech of the assistant secretary of state right here before me and I will show it to the Prime Minister if he would like to see it. Does he disagree with this figure? Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister does he disagree with the figure used by Mr. Brimmer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: Come on, let's go.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Who is in the penalty box now?



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from this generally riotous performance I want to ask the Prime Minister a question on a very different matter. I call attention to the fact that the Prime Minister of Quebec is said to have tabled in the Quebec legislature further correspondence about a proposed new formula for the amendment of the B.N.A. Act. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will table the further correspondence on this matter, and also whether he will undertake that the government will not agree to, or propose any new formula for the amendment of the constitution without the opportunity for debate in this house, and perhaps examination by a committee of this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister of Quebec has made his letter public I have no objection whatsoever to having it tabled in this house. The correspondence to which my hon. friend refers is merely a letter from the Prime Minister of Quebec to me, dated February 17, and I shall be very glad indeed to table it.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: And the reply?


Lester Bowles Pearson: With regard to the second part of my hon. friend's question, I think there should be ample opportunity to discuss the question of constitutional amendment, in substance and in form, well before any new proposals are put before a federal-provincial conference.


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the most recent correspondence with Premier Lesage on the subject of the amending formula, whether the government has yet formed any intention to resume negotiations on this matter, and if so will he advise the house when negotiations on the means of bringing Canada's constitution home will be resumed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; we have given no consideration to the resumption of these discussions. In view of the fact that at a federal-provincial conference not so very long ago all the provincial governments agreed on a particular formula, and that that formula has now been postponed indefinitely, according to Mr. Lesage's letter, I would think that before further consideration can be given to this matter we in the federal government would be interested in receiving from the government of Quebec what changes it thinks would be desirable in the formula which all other governments have accepted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the Prime Minister make that inquiry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to make that inquiry.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys stating government policy when he said that in future for persons to enter or work in the civil service in Ottawa they must be bilingual?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government in this matter has already been laid down. It has been laid down by me in this house and I have referred to it outside the house. Perhaps
2200	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry at this juncture I might repeat what I said on this particular point on March 11, 1965. I said then:
In working toward that objective-
That is, bilingualism in the civil service; and I put it forward as an objective and an objective only.
-in moving to make the services ol government available in both languages and open to both English and French speaking employees-we must guard against prejudicing the position ol people already in the public service. We must take great care that no injustice or injury is done to the prospects of advancement by people now in the public service who came here to provide the best service that they can for Canada, but who may speak only one of Canada's languages. That certainly is not the intention of this government and will not be the result, I believe, of the policies of this government.
I am glad to reaffirm that statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, what I asked the Prime Minister was whether the statement made by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys represented government policy, that in future people entering the civil service must be bilingual.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday, and 1 shall be glad to repeat now, that I will be making a rather complete, I hope, statement on this matter next week after the report of the interdepartmental committee on bilingualism has been finally considered by the cabinet over the week end.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a further supplementary question, have the Prime Minister and the government consulted the heads of the National Research Council, the defence research board, the heads of the research branches of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and other departments, in regard to what I believe would be the complete impossibility of recruiting and having adequate scientific personnel if this sort of proposition were put into effect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, all the agencies of the government have been very carefully consulted by the interdepartmental committee whose work, I believe, extended over a year. The report of that committee to the government, which is exhaustive, not only makes certain recommendations but gives the nature of this consultation. This will be covered in the report I will be making to the house.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister what he means when he uses

DEBATES	March 4, 1966
the expression "as an objective, and as an objective only"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker- [Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think this question is in order. The hon. member asks for an interpretation of a word or a phrase used in an answer. I do not think that question can be put in those terms.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious and urgent implications involved in the Gundy report, recently put before the government, which in part alludes to a serious shortage of doctors in Canada and the necessity for increased federal assistance to our medical schools, I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the government has studied this report, and will the government soon implement some of its recommendations by announcing a drive for medical care manpower?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this question is again one of a very general nature and is not so urgent that it requires an answer at this time. Perhaps the hon. member would place it on the order paper.



PRIVILEGE


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is more a matter of privilege than a question that I want to raise.
Last evening, I had long distance calls to make to my constituency and I met with a situation which is totally unacceptable and inconceivable. We have just heard about bilingualism. Last night not a single French speaking operator was available at the central telephone switchboard of the House of Commons and what I find wrong, or-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may have a legitimate question of privilege, but under the rules, as he is well aware, he must give notice of it to the Speaker of the house one hour before the house sits.
March 4, 1966

As far as I know, such notice has not been given and the hon. member, therefore, cannot raise a question of privilege. He may put a question, if he so wishes, to a member of the government, if there is some responsibility on the part of the government in connection with the subject dealt with by the hon. member.


Mr, Caouelle:: Mr. Speaker, could the responsible minister see to it that this situation is corrected so that we may have bilingual operators on the Parliament switchboard?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minisler of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if any minister has a responsibility in the matter I must be that minister. I will look into it at once to see what can be done.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Minister of Transport. I presume his attention has been called to the protest of the Canadian Air Lines Pilots Association about the recent change in the international regulation governing air corridors across the north Atlantic. In view of the exceptional record of Canadian air lines regarding safety, unsurpassed I think in the world, I wonder whether the minister is prepared to place the views of these pilots who are responsible for that enviable record before the international body and press for a revision or repeal of this international decision to narrow the corridors.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into the suggestion of the hon. member as soon as possible.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Bailie River-
Camrose): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works and in his absence I should like to direct it to the Prime Minister. It arises from a letter I received this morning informing me that because of the C.P.R. the farmers at Derwent and Myrnam are still on a two bushel quota. I should like
Inquiries of the Ministry to ask the Prime Minister what action the government is going to take to see that these farmers get some box cars.
Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the responsible minister or ministers and the Prime Minister have taken note of the hon. member's inquiry, but I do not think this question can properly be asked at this time.


Mr. Smallwood:: I should like to debate it on Monday at ten o'clock.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. If I am directing it to the wrong minister I offer my apologies. My question refers to the growing concern among prevailing rate employees now termed as service and maintenance employees in Halifax. Would the minister and the government consider the suspension of the implementation of job evaluation at least until collective bargaining is a fact?


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



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberl Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State in relation to the estimates of her department, which we expect to have before us in the not too distant future. Can the hon. lady say whether it is her intention to have officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation available so we can obtain answers to some very pressing questions?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I have had most of the officials from the president on down here in Ottawa for the past week. So far as I am aware they will be around today.



MONTREAL-DEMONSTRATION RESPECTING JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I would have to look into that matter, Mr. Speaker. As of yesterday we had received no\nMarch 4, 1966', 'Inquiries of the Ministry formal or official request. Something may-have come in since then. I shall be glad to investigate.']
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Is the hon. lady aware
March 4, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry of a movement to destroy the membership in four national unions in the province of Quebec involving employees of the C.B.C.?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such matter.
Yesterday my hon. friend asked me a question having regard to some demonstrations, which puzzled me. I do not know with what reference it was associated, but I assume it was in respect of the C.B.C. He asked me whether I knew of any proposed demonstrations by the C.S.N.-C.N.T.U. I have checked with the C.B.C. and have been informed that they understand there is a demonstration planned in regard to the jurisdictional dispute at Palais du Commerce in Montreal on Sunday, March 13. They are not aware of any plans for such meetings in Ottawa or in Quebec city.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether Mrs. Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, will be visiting Canada when she is in North America shortly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Gandhi was invited to come to Canada before or after her forthcoming visit to Washington. I received a telegram this morning through our high commissioner in New Delhi in which she expressed regret at not being able to accept the invitation partly because the Indian parliament is now in session and she feels she must go right back to India after her Washington visit. Perhaps her inability to accept at this time may be related not only to her own important duties in India in the present situation, but to the fact that the late and lamented prime minister of India, Mr. Shastri, visited us last year.


Mr. Siarr:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to know whether someone in the government benches can tell us what was so pressing about that question that it should be allowed, with a reply, on orders of the day?


An hon. Member:: As a matter of courtesy it should be answered.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the statement he made this morning in respect of additional food aid to India. Have the government made any decision in respect of the purchase of the various commodities of food they intend to send to India, or have they just appropriated the additional money required? If there is a list of the commodities intended to be shipped, I wonder whether we can be provided with a copy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there is no detailed list as yet. We do know, in view of talks we have had with India, that India requires wheat above all else, but a discussion as to what other food commodities might be helpful is still taking place.
I should also like to remind the house that within the next two or three weeks there is to be an international meeting of the countries which are anxious to help share in aid to India in order to discuss the most effective ways that particular countries can assist in meeting this situation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have a supplementary question. I understood the Prime Minister to say that the balance of the $25 million in aid for the current year would be used to ship commodities to India before the end of this month, and that is what I am mainly concerned about rather than aid in the new fiscal year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will look into the situation right away and obtain the information requested.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that question regarding Indian aid. Is the government taking every step to make certain that the aid pledged earlier this year will be provided India as early as possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I did not catch the last part of my hon. friend's question.


Siegfried John Enns: The government made an announcement regarding aid to India earlier this year, in respect of which contracts and tenders were received for purchases. Is every step being taken by the government to make sure this aid will be provided that country as expeditiously as possible?
March 4, 1966


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are taking every possible step to get it there and to get it there quickly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in connection with the statement made by the Prime Minister regarding aid to India. In his statement he said the general plan would begin in the next crop year which, of course, would be after July 31. Does the Prime Minister know the total amount that Canada will be making available between now and then to meet the immediate serious situation; and is it a fact that because of our other commitments, to which he referred in his statement, we are unable to give any additional wheat or flour assistance at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The aid for 1965-66 that we have promised will be completed very shortly. Indeed, in view of some observations that have been made in the United States I would point out that Canada has been able to provide every bushel of food aid requested by the Indian authorities up to the present time. We are now discussing with the Indian authorities and other countries concerned how much we can add to what we have done. We have not yet agreed on the amount or the nature of the food aid. We expect to do this within a week or two, and perhaps I will be able to make a more specific and definite announcement next week.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. I should like to ask him one further question. Who pays for the freight of the wheat? This was a matter of concern during my period of administration, and it is of very great importance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the past-and I speak subject to correction-I believe the government receiving Colombo plan assistance in most cases paid the freight, but in an emergency of this kind I should think other arrangements might have to be considered. When I mentioned the possibility of aid from other countries which cannot supply food, I was referring to their providing aid in other ways such as shipping. But we shall be very careful not to let shipping costs prevent needed wheat getting to India.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I wanted to
Inquiries of the Ministry ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps in his absence and with your permission I could direct it to the Prime Minister. Having in mind reports from Paris under today's date that the French government is pressing Canada for the removal of bases and personnel, can the Prime Minister say whether any official representations have been received from the French government on this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have of course read these reports. We have also been in touch with our mission in Paris in regard to them and in regard to other conversations which are going on concerning NATO. I should like to repeat what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said the other day, that some of the reports have not been confirmed, and the government has not yet received any formal communication from the French government in respect of these matters.
Nevertheless, the reports I have read and to which my hon. friend has referred are consistent with the general position taken by President de Gaulle in his press conference on February 21. As I said in the house the day after that press conference, on February 22, we would expect the French government to put forward in some formal manner precise proposals to which Canada and other NATO countries would respond. We have not, as I just indicated, received such a communication. When it is received, Mr. Speaker, we will give it careful study. But I would reaffirm what I said the other day that Canadian forces are in France as NATO forces under collective security arrangements, and if those arrangements are to be changed at the request of any particular government this would be a very serious matter which would deserve very serious consideration.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of continuing reports from Ghana I would ask whether the Canadian government has received any specific request for financial aid, either directly from Ghana or through the world bank or the United Nations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to look into that matter, Mr. Speaker. As of yesterday we had received no
March 4, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry formal or official request. Something may-have come in since then. I shall be glad to investigate.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Prime Minister. Can he advise the house whether the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will be discussing problems of water resources and pollution of boundary waters while he is in Washington?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that this question will come up during the course of discussions there. I can not say specifically whether this subject is on the formal agenda, but I am sure it will be discussed.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is it true that the government has approved a federal migratory bird licence or duck stamp?


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



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the teamsters' strike has continued for more than six weeks, will the minister consider taking a personal part in seeking a quick settlement?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the report I received early this morning would indicate that the teamsters are now considering a proposal that was submitted to them by the truck operators. This has been or is to be submitted to the different unions for their consideration. I am watching the situation carefully, and if and when I feel that the time has come when I should intervene, I will do so. I continue to receive reports at least once or twice every day.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Sallsman (Waierloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It arises from remarks he made earlier this morning in which he said that two men in Windsor were acting on behalf of his department in regard to the lay-offs at the Ford Motor Company. The minister said he hoped he would be able to report to the house tomorrow. I am not sure whether today is tomorrow, because of the early hour when his remarks were made. However, I would ask the minister whether he is in a position to report to the house on the progress his people have made in Windsor.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to receive a report today but I have not yet received it. As soon as I get it I will make a report to the house.

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.


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Justice for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966, vote No. 1. Shall vote No. 1 carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, a few days ago when I concluded my remarks I said "I rest", which of course is the proper expression to use. I noticed an article in the press written by one of those who apparently do not understand the expression, because he said the significance of it was that I was tired. I am glad to be able to say that I used the term in the best and properly acceptable form. I also read in another article that the other day the Prime Minister played his trump card when he brought out certain facts. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am going to deal with that trump card today.
March 4, 1966

This has been an amazing series of revelations. As the days go by we get additional information, mainly through the press. You said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, "Shall vote No. 1 carry?" We are generally in agreement that the various estimates of the Department of Justice shall pass and would be only too happy to agree thereto, provided it is made clear that it does not cover one dollar of the salary of the Minister of Justice.
I do not condemn the minister individually. I think he has been acting as his predecessor had to act on several occasions to protect the government. I have listened to the minister and endeavoured to understand what is behind all this evasion and even downright delusion.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)


Erik Nielsen: Deception.


John George Diefenbaker: Deception is a word that has wide circulation and which is only used in particular circumstances, but I think in these circumstances the word is not overly strong. The government has hidden the facts right from the beginning. The other day the minister read a long screed, obviously extramurally prepared.


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I presume the right hon. gentleman is subject to the rules of this house, just as the rest of us common mortals are, and I insist that they be applied.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not the first time he read a speech prepared elsewhere; let me make that clear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I can tell hon. members this; when it comes to writing anything about the right hon. gentleman I do not need any writers because it flows like magic.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me say that the last time he made a vicious attack, he made it when he knew I was not in the house and it was prepared elsewhere, and I know-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: I know who prepared it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me say to the hon.
gentleman, just keep yourself calm.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the hon. member withdraw that statement. It is untrue. Let me tell him it takes more than two frustrated Conservatives to rattle me.
Supply-Justice


John George Diefenbaker: You know-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw. .


John George Diefenbaker: There is nothing to withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: As I listened to the hon. gentleman again giving one of these exhibitions I thought of the words of Shakespeare, "Man, proud man, dressed in a little brief authority, most ignorant of what he's most assured".


Lester Bowles Pearson: Get it right; remember
Shakespeare.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister had added to the ignorance of this house by not giving the facts. He has hidden them. He has hidden them always and I intend to deal with the record, the labyrinth of deception that has been built around this case. We have not been able to get the truth. We do not know the truth, yet we get the story day by day. If we read the Montreal Star we find that those in high authority gave information regarding the administration and dismissals that took place. Who are these people who give information to the press when the House of Commons cannot secure that information?
The Prime Minister smiles about this. You know, there is one thing you have to do and that is rely upon the word of the Prime Minister. I always follow that course. The other day-on February 23, was it-he spoke at length, but he must again have forgotten some things. We did not get much information. As I said, I go back to the beginning, to the communique that was issued on May 8, a communique that was not true if the statement made by the minister the other day was.
They thought they were going to play a trump on us by saying these things happened in 1960 and before in so far as Spencer is concerned. Nothing happened after 1963. This was a trump, was it? If it is true that no knowledge had been received by the mounted police, they did not know anything about it in 1960, 1961 or 1962; they did not know of the activities of Mr. Spencer.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Of course they did.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Speaker, if the mounted police did, why was action not taken in this case?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Why didn't you?

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice


John George Diefenbaker: If that statement is true, then what about this statement in the press release that was issued:
Approaches made by two members of the Soviet embassy very shortly came to the attention of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
What does "very shortly" mean? It means very shortly before the publication of this release.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, shortly after that happened.


John George Diefenbaker: It means that if what the hon. gentleman has said is true, the time has come for a full and complete investigation. I want to go back; I want to cover the period from 1944 onward.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I want to cover that period. I want to see it fully investigated. The Prime Minister laughs, but I want to see as well that we make available to the commission meeting behind closed doors the revelations that have found their way to Washington and have there been placed in evidence that was taken in that body on security. We are not getting the facts. Today we asked what communications there were, and we received no answer at all. The indication was that so far as Spencer was concerned, he was satisfied. There was no suggestion at any time that Spencer's lawyer had ever written, that there had been any objection.
In the morning press the lawyer says he wrote asking for certain information and that he was retained for the purpose of looking into the question and securing the rights of Mr. Spencer. None of this has been revealed. We have had half truths placed before the House of Commons when, in a matter such as this, the full truth should be revealed. I have only to point out that yesterday the Minister of Justice in the province of Quebec issued as grave an indictment as has ever been made regarding this government's administration of justice. He says it is "pusillanimous". He says he can get no action. He says what is taking place is that this government will not act other than a pusillanimous way.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I ask the government, what are you going to do in this connection? What action are you going to take? Why will you not set up a royal commission now behind closed doors? Is there anything unusual in that? In 1944-45 the government of that day set up a royal commission. I was not in agreement with certain activities of that commission which,

in effect, abolished habeas corpus. However, the commission was set up and it went thoroughly into the investigation. The assumption put forward that these things have happened over the years is of primary importance as a basis upon which to demand that there be such a commission.
I know of no newspaper that supports the stand of the government. In all parts of Canada the press is saying, set up a commission. Let us assure that our security shall be preserved. Let us go into this matter. Why do you not do it? Don't go around telling members of the press gallery: "If we were to tell what we know, we would be devastating". I say to you, let us bring out the facts. Establish a royal commission.
I want to go back to 1944-45 to see whether our security is what it should be. This Spencer case and the circumstances connected with the issuance of that never to be forgotten press release can only lead one to believe that at that time there was something that required a smokescreen, something at that time which had to be used to cover up certain circumstances. This is most unusual. Security does not work that way. It is a very difficult problem, but it does not work when you rush to issue a press release which, on the basis of what we have been told, was not true.
The other day the minister tried to carry us away by saying that Mr. Spencer was dismissed under a law passed during the days of the Conservative administration. Let us just look at it. The section in question had been in effect for years, though it was worded differently. I am going to read the two sets of wording. The sections were rearranged, and there was only a change of wording.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman a question. Does the right hon. gentleman not take responsibility for the legislation that his government introduced?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, all of it. There is nothing more helpful, Mr. Chairman, than that kind of interruption. We are trying to make the government responsible for some of the things they have been doing and which they have been hiding over the last several weeks. We have been smoking them out. The old section 52 of the Civil Service Act read as follows:
Subject to section 3, nothing herein contained shall impair the power of the governor in council to remove or dismiss any deputy head, officer, clerk or employee, but no such deputy head, officer,
March 4. 1966



clerk or employee, whose appointment is of a permanent nature, shall be removed from office except by authority of the governor in council.
That was the law all through the years, but in 1960-61 the wording was changed and the section renumbered to section 50, which now 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.
The two sections, in effect, are identical, although the minister, not having read the earlier section, tried to leave the impression that something new had been added.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a factual question. Did his government not take the responsibility for the revised bill that was introduced in this house and passed?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, with the assistance of the hon. member and those who sit on the other side who were in the house at the time, who all agreed with the legislation. Some time ago the hon. gentleman himself joined in this, and I just have to recall it to his mind.
We are now dealing with the question of the security of Canada. The minister says he believes in truth. I would only ask, after the deception practised by this government in this matter, what is their definition of truth? It has been a sinuous course, revealing a bit here and a bit there.
As far as Mr. Wagner is concerned, he knows them well. He said he could not understand why they will not act. What is the reason that the government will not act? I should like the government to tell the truth in this connection. Why will the government not set up a commission on crime? Why will they not set up a commission to look into this matter in secret, while preserving and protecting the security of the nation? All we want is the truth, and from the very beginning we have not had it.
I had to read in the paper today that Spencer was a communist and that he was thrown out of the communist party. I had to read in the paper because we did not learn it in the house, what was his age. We have never been able to find out when he came to Canada, although there is an indication that he has been here quite a number of years. Why is the whole story not told? What is
Supply-Justice
behind this? No matter whether the government is able to command a majority or is not, in every part of this nation people are asking what is behind this, why the government is not acting.
It is a difficult problem. We are all held in check by our oath of office as privy councillors. Therefore the only place where a full and complete explanation can be made would be in a commission inquiry, I would say headed by one supreme court judge. Two of the judges are greatly experienced and served during the days of Gouzenko.
Let us get to the bottom of this, Mr. Chairman. Let hon. members not take my word for it; let them take Mr. Wagner's word. He looks forward to the government changing its mind, to retreating and appointing a commission on crime. According to Mr. Wagner: "They will reverse their decision." So he knows them. He said that people who act pusillanimously always reverse themselves. These are the terms of the minister of justice of the province of Quebec, commenting upon the decision of his counterpart the Minister of Justice of Canada not to act on Quebec's demand to set up a royal commission to deal with organized crime.
He also said- and these words come from an outstanding Liberal who knows these ministers-"They must be afraid of something". Has he any basis for saying that? He said that they must be afraid of something, to refuse an inquiry in such a cavalier fashion, as though this was a request for a hunting licence. Can you imagine anything more deadly or condemnatory than those words which are to be found in the press yesterday, those words of condemnation? He also said "I want Ottawa to give reasons for their refusal". But he lives in hope. Anyone, he says, who gives a pusillanimous decision will always retreat.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Now, sir, let us go back to the explanation of the Prime Minister. On February 23 he went into detail regarding this case and he said this at page 1682:
Not only did I study the details of this case and discuss them again with my ministerial colleagues who were more particularly concerned, but I examined other security cases in the last ten years which might throw some light on the justifiability or otherwise of the procedure followed in this instance-certain cases which were of very direct and immediate concern to the government of the day, which was the government preceding this government.
As I have stated before, you will find problems such as this, and they do come up. I do not criticize any government for its action

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice
in preserving the security of the nation, but what I do criticize is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs rushed into print, and what was denied over and over again by the Minister of Justice became official. The identification finally became official when the minister on television marked this man as a wrongdoer, as a traitor and as a despicable individual, undermining this country.


Erik Nielsen: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: And he named him. It is all very well to try to get away with that, but there is no excuse that the minister can give; there is no excuse at all. He said, "That is not the truth." May I point out what the Prime Minister said, on page 1682:
In the first place. Mr. Spencer himself has admitted, voluntarily admitted, improper activities which in the view of the government made his dismissal from the civil service of Canada not only desirable but necessary.
I understand that, but that is not what we are dealing with at the moment. We are dealing with the question of security and the way in which it was bungled callously, the facts concealed by this government; and only by the process of daily extraction, by one admission after another, do we finally see the picture as it is.
The Prime Minister says that in so far as section 50 of the Civil Service Act is concerned-
Mr. Spencer was in my view treated fairly.
He goes on to say:
-he was given a hearing by a senior official of the Civil Service Commission.
Well, I cannot understand what kind of hearing that would be, bringing a hired man before the hired man's boss. This man has already been found to be a wrongdoer. Sir, the Prime Minister goes on to say:
The law officers of the crown had advised against instituting criminal proceedings against Mr. Spencer and proceedings were not taken. The primary purpose of the investigations in which Mr. Spencer himself was involved-and he was certainly only one of the persons involved in those investigations- was to identify, if possible, and remove a threat to the national security.
Sir, we want to know that the national security is free from the inexcusable ineptitude and worse that this case has revealed. We should not have to press away for this information. Surely in the interests of common justice a commission is the only way. Surely I am right. What else is there?
The other day the minister or the Prime Minister hid behind a smokescreen and said,

"Oh, he is perfectly satisfied." You could almost see Spencer exuding his happiness at the events which have taken place, and at the way he was treated.
We find that there was a letter written, thrown up in the air, "To whom it may concern," which covered doctors, mounted policemen, consideration of his operation, and those sorts of things. That was no approval of the conduct of this government. That letter was simply a statement of appreciation of a man who was in hospital and had an operation. It was addressed "To whom it may concern". There is not a word, never a suggestion that he approved of his treatment, except through the medium of that letter.
We had to find out about this, and it came out yesterday in a very unusual way. We had to find out which letters were written. The reason a question was asked by me was that it was obvious from the appearance of the ministers that there was something not exactly in accordance with the facts as revealed by the Minister of Justice. The hon. member for Yukon said on page 2055 of Hansard:
-may I ask the Minister of Justice whether he has received any recent communication from Victor Spencer which would constitute further evidence in support of a judicial hearing, as has been demanded by the opposition in this house?
The answer was:
No, Mr. Speaker.
Then I asked the Prime Minister this:
During the course of the investigation and during the last few months has the government of Canada received a letter from Spencer setting forth his side of the case and, in that letter, giving a great deal of information?
As far as that letter is concerned, when the Prime Minister says the national security demands that it be not produced, I can go along with him. I can realize that would be the result of the publication of such a letter. However, that letter should be before a judge in a commission to get the facts. We cannot have that letter. The security of the country is of first consideration. But that does not deny if injustice is done, or even where it only appears to have been done, this case ought to come before a commission and be thoroughly gone into.
The Prime Minister at page 2056 of Hansard said:
This was many months ago-explaining the nature of his own improper conduct. The government also received a communication from Mr. Spencer some weeks ago-"To whom it may concern"-thanking the R.C.M.P. and others who have been with him during these difficult months for the courtesy and consideration he received.
March 4, 1966

That was supposed to be approval of the kind of treatment he has been subjected to.
Sir, I come back to the point where I began. The revelations made by the Minister of Justice and by the Prime Minister in the last three or four days call out for an investigation. They are hiding something. They have hidden and concealed matters, one after the other, until finally, as information comes out in the press, they gradually back up and reveal a little more.
We want the facts of this case. If there has been wrongdoing at any other times it can all be brought out in a commission. It should be held, to assure us that Canada's security shall be maintained. Because, sir, if this matter is allowed to stand in its present form it means that a government can point out, designate, condemn, and a person has no recourse. Surely we have not come to that in this country?


Erik Nielsen: We have not.


John George Diefenbaker: I again impress on the government the need of action. I know the Minister of Justice is not acquainted with these things. He is seldom before the courts at any time, according to what I am told. Yet he is able to tell us that he knows everything has been well done. It is not enough, sir. There has been too much hiding, too much concealment and deception practised on this house in the last few weeks in this connection.
I would not have believed it possible. In saying that I am making due allowance for hon. members sitting on the other side of the house. I would not have believed it possible that ministers of the crown would come before parliament and give the house a selfexculpatory, ill-digested and incomplete story, as this is.
Again I say that so far as the rest of the estimates are concerned, I think in general they will be accepted. Indeed, we are not going to be put in the position of having the government say "We will get this through because we have got to get supply." Bring in a supply bill immediately covering all the departments which have been passed so far and we will put it through at once.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: And the ones that have not been passed?


John George Diefenbaker: We shall do it at once and I am sure the house will consent. But we do not intend to be placed in a position where the government can delude the house, conceal
Supply-Justice
things, fail to reveal facts which the house should know and hide behind the bulwark of security. We do not want any information which will reveal the secret operations of the R.C.M.P. But what has been stated here? The alleged trump card of the other day reveals that this man must have been operating for a long time unknown to the mounted police, trying to build up espionage networks within this country and outside apparently. Is it not a strange, puzzling story? If that is so, if he was able to get away with it, then there needs to be some checking up on our security activities.
This case has left a bad impression in the minds of many Canadians. No amount of insistence by the minister that this is a routine case can erase that impression. The failure to discover the truth in this case will be a black day in Canada's security history. There the minister is on television with two million people listening to him and he gives the man's name, his activities and his wrongdoing. The minister pretended the other day that this man was so well satisfied that he had not uttered a squeak. We find that this is not quite so. Even now, after all the denials which have been made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, do you not think, Mr. Chairman, that in the interest, first of all, of assuring that not only shall justice be done but that it shall appear to have been done, and also in the interest of assuring that our security measures are not honeycombed by weakness, failure or bad administrative technique, some positive step should be taken to deal with this situation?
When we had the investigation which was undertaken by the government of the day in 1945-46 a great deal was revealed. Evidence was brought out which showed the creation, not in embryo but the actual creation, of an espionage group operating against the welfare of the country to which its members owed allegiance. They were cleared out. The innocent were acquitted and the guilty were convicted. Let us have another such investigation behind closed doors now in the interests of security.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: In the course of this debate, which has been a most important one covering important subjects, there have been many speeches, particularly on the Spencer case. Some of these speeches were extremely hardhitting, using very strong language. I refer particularly to the speeches made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for York South. Although I do not

March 4. 1966
Supply-J ustice
and cannot agree with their conclusions I accept their right in the house to express their opinions and their feelings in as strong a language as they desire. I feel this is completely in accord with the practice of debate in the House of Commons.
But I do not consider the remarks which have just been made by the leader of the Opposition belong in that category. The speech made by the Leader of the Opposition on this occasion, as on other occasions in the past, shows one thing, right from the beginning the purpose of the right hon. gentleman is evident. He uses such phrases as "the Minister of Justice, who has not had very much practice in law, is telling us". Well, he can save his breath if he is trying to prove to the committee that I am not an expert in law. I am not an expert in law. But I do have good officials in the Department of Justice and I know just about enough law to be able to detect phony arguments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: From the speech the right hon. gentleman made this afternoon and from statements he has made both inside and outside the house it is quite clear to me that the great executioner is now after my political neck.


John George Diefenbaker: You committed suicide yourself.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The right hon. gentleman's performance would have been as good and his speech would have been as vicious if in fact I had prosecuted Spencer and if I had not had proper surveillance mounted in regard to him. The real issue is not Spencer. This is merely an excuse to put into effect the execution which the hon. member has wanted to carry out for quite some time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: In a speech not so very long ago he referred to me as a dwarf parading around in clothing I had inherited from a giant. I can tell the hon. member this: I would rather be a dwarf clothed in giant's garments-I presume the hon. member thinks he is among the giants-than be a giant clothed in dwarf's clothing, because there is much more exposed.
For the past 14 years I have sat in this house and I have watched the hon. member pummel away at a chosen political opponent, heaping abuse, ridicule, scorn, accusations and insinuations of all sorts upon him with

evident delight. Of course, he could be considered by some to be a great political debater, a great fighter except for one thing. The right hon. gentleman has a glass chin. He can't take it. He cannot take the least possible criticism, nor has he done so in the past.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: All right. Hon. members say that is not so. On Friday the hon. member for Yukon and again today the right hon. gentleman mentioned the speech I made four or five years ago when I dared to criticize the right hon. gentleman, when I dared to criticize the untouchable one because of his attitude as prime minister of this country.
Not only did I believe and do I now believe that every word I said at that time was right, but the right hon. gentleman, with his vicious attacks on individuals, his irresponsible accusations and insinuations in this house, is proving me to be right day by day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, the right hon. gentleman has not learned. He is still blasting his way through paper walls and open doorways. He is blasting himself out of the leadership of his party and out of parliament and maybe, Mr. Chairman, when that is done we will be able to do some work in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: You have the Prime Minister applauding now.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The right hon. gentleman
knows that the problem of national security is an important one. Does he believe that the performance he has put on this afternoon is going to help in any way to solve that problem? Does he believe that the performance he has put on this afternoon is going to add any dignity or prestige to parliament? This is stirring up hostility in the house far beyond what is normal and necessary in debates in the house.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What are you doing yourself?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that the right hon. gentleman has unfortunately attained a degree of political conceit that every time he decides to make loud noises he expects the government, parliament, and everyone in it to jump. Well, I refuse to jump.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I have made my case.
March 4, 19S6


John George Diefenbaker: Tell us about Mr. Wagner.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Whether or not hon. members opposite agree with it, I have made my case.
I am convinced of the correctness of the decision I have made and there is not one person in the house who is going to make me say I am wrong when I know I am right.
I am willing to listen to hon. members on all sides of the house who bring forward criticisms and constructive advice on the difficult problems concerning the administration of security matters. But a while ago the right hon. gentleman was accusing us of hiding the truth, of hiding evidence from the committee. Well, I can tell the right hon. gentleman that of all the members of the House of Commons he-I repeat, he-is the very last person in the house who can afford to give advice on the handling of security cases in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: And I am not kidding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: And again applause from the Prime Minister. I want that on the record.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I understand the right hon. gentleman said he wants that on the record. Would he want me to go on and give more?


Some hon. Members:: Go on. He wants it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Very well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I want the right hon. gentleman to tell the house about his participation in the Monseignor case when he was prime minister of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not worried. Have your commission look into it. Put it on the agenda.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman-


Robert Muir: Speak up or shut up.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I have spoken. Let the right hon. gentleman speak. Mr. Chairman, I think I have said all I have to say on the Spencer case.
Supply-Justice


John George Diefenbaker: None of those false
threats mean anything. Now, go to it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: They are not false threats. The Spencer case was an important one. It was a most difficult one. I have done all I could to try to inform the house of matters that I could and to try and explain the reason this case was unusual. As I have mentioned on many occasions, the only difference in this case is the fact that Spencer identified himself three weeks before I did.
Other important matters have been raised during the course of the debate, about which I would like to say a few words. Speeches have been made, and very good ones, on the question of bankruptcy. I want to refer particularly to the speech made by the hon. member for Greenwood and the speech made by the hon. member for Broadview. I wish to thank the hon. members for the suggestions they made in the course of that debate.
I am also very anxious to explain to members of the committee the difficulty which the Minister of Justice has in trying to administer a very complicated, awkward and obsolete Act, in trying to deal with what has become sophisticated and, I understand, organized crime in the field of bankruptcies.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what Mr. Kierans says.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, some confusion has arisen in the minds of hon. members and of people outside the house, between fraudulent bankruptcies and pre-bankruptcy frauds, and in order to explain this may I give an example, say, of arson being committed or theft or misappropriation of funds which leads to a bankruptcy. In that case it could be considered as a fraudulent bankruptcy, but there we are mistaking the cause and the effect and I think it is important that this distinction be made.
I am not trying in any way to minimize the responsibility of the federal government in the field of bankruptcy but I think it is important that that position be made clear. Contrary to what hon. members have said, it is not true to suggest that the government has done nothing about the problem of bankruptcy during the past two years. It is not true to say that the government has been unconcerned about the most disconcerting activities and crimes that have been committed in this field, and I should like to state some of the steps that have been taken in this matter.

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice
For instance, just recently important amendments to the Bankruptcy Act were introduced in the other place, and I should like to explain the reason why this was done. It would not have been possible for me to introduce those amendments to the Bankruptcy Act in this house before another five to six weeks, which to my mind was too long a delay, and I felt that by introducing the amendments in the Senate members of this house would have an opportunity to see the bill, to study it, to be prepared and then be in a position to pass the legislation as quickly as possible so that the proper action can be taken as soon as possible.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the minister permit a question at this stage? I understood him to say that there is need for speed in passing these amendments. Does he not think that this subject, because it is a tremendously important one politically and otherwise, should be discussed by a committee of this house? This whole subject involves not only the question of legislation but the question of the administration of the Act. Should this not be dealt with by a committee of this house rather than leaving the other place to look after a matter so important?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I understand that by following the procedure I have suggested we are taking this first step in the Senate. There is no question in my mind that this matter can be considered by a committee of this house but at least the first part of this operation will have been completed.
I should like to state also that the measures which will be brought before the house will extend the powers of the superintendent to do those very things which hon. members in the house claim can be done under section 3(3)(e) of the Act. I maintain that they cannot be done now. The superintendent of bankruptcy under the present Act can investigate matters that fall within the estate, but he cannot investigate matters that are outside the estate. At the present time there is no power by which the superintendent of bankruptcy is able to follow leads with regard to the estate in bankruptcy which may lead him outside the estate or to obtain search warrants or to inquire into all sorts of activities which may not be directly in the estate in bankruptcy. That is the area in which most of the evidence is to be found in respect of what some people call fraudulent bankruptcies.

According to the present Act the superintendent has no power to investigate negotiations, contracts or events that have taken place before or after the bankruptcy, and the reason for this is quite clear. In 1949 when the act was passed Mr. Garson, in explaining the purposes of the bill, said, as reported in the proceedings of the Senate and house committee on bankruptcy:
The bill increases "creditor control'1 over an estate by vesting directly in the creditors and inspectors a number <rf responsibilities and obligations in respect of which they were previously required to resort to the court.
As a result of this trustees, creditors, and inspectors who are named by the trustees and who are not part of the bankruptcy division have in effect more power than the superintendent to launch investigations into matters, whether criminal or otherwise, either within or outside the bankruptcies. We have but to refer to sections 120, 121 and 122 to verify that fact.
What has really happened is that on the basis of the present Act the control has broken down completely. The superintendent, because of the act, does not have sufficient power to carry out the investigations that are required in this sophisticated field of crime. The amendments will give the superintendent more power to investigate not only within a bankrupt estate but outside as well. He will then be able to follow whatever leads he discovers. He will have power to call for witnesses and obtain search warrants to get at the real core of the problem in this regard. As far back as 1964 a measure was taken-


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the minister a question before he leaves that point? Has the minister or the government discussed this aspect of following leads, wherever the superintendent finds them, with the attorneys general of the provinces?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, indeed. If you allow me to complete my remarks I think you will find I will have covered that very point. As far back as 1964 the federal government was in touch with the Quebec authorities in an attempt to work out co-operative measures in the field of fraudulent bankruptcy, which is in fact a field falling within the jurisdictions of both governments.
The third measure we have taken is the institution of regular audits of the administration of trustees by the comptroller of the treasury. This was initiated as far back as April, 1964 and it has proven to be an
March 4, 1966

Supply-Justice
effective check on the administration of trustees. This has led to the discovery of some irregularities and some prosecutions.
As the fourth measure I can inform the committee that in 1963 there were 33 bankruptcies investigated by the R.C.M.P., in 1964 the R.C.M.P. investigated 185 bankruptcies, in 1965 they investigated 123 and in 1966 so far they have investigated 32, making a total of 373 bankruptcy investigations since 1963. In addition, there have been some 200 employees of bankrupts who have in fact been investigated by the R.C.M.P. during this same period. As a result 11 trustees have lost their licences and 12 trustees have been restricted in order that they may complete the estates in hand under the very strict supervision of the superintendent of bankruptcy. No new estates are being granted to these people.
Although there may not be reason for being overly proud there is at least some indication that the measures we have taken have had some effect, because in 1964 there were 5,562 estates in bankruptcies reported and in 1965 there were 5,003. I am not saying that this is a world-shaking record but I do say that it indicates a tendency in the right direction.
We are also giving extremely careful scrutiny in regard to all applicants for licences as trustees. This includes an examination by the R.C.M.P. and, as a matter of fact, there have been no new licences for trustees given since April 20, 1965. Moreover, the superintendent and I are busily engaged in setting up a selective board to which people who are interested in becoming trustees will have to come. That board will be able to examine their qualifications as well as their integrity and look into the applications to a greater degree than has ever been possible in the past. We have also instituted unexpected spot checks by the R.C.M.P. of the administration by trustees in cases about which we have had some doubt. This also has proven to be quite useful.
As a seventh measure the superintendent of bankruptcy is now preparing a book of regulations giving rules and procedures that the trustees must follow meticulously. This will mean that the procedures followed will be uniform throughout the country.
As an eighth measure negotiations have been successfully carried out by the provincial and federal government to appoint an additional superior court judge to sit and act exclusively in respect of bankruptcy matters.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
Ninth, there have been and there are extensive plans to increase the staff of the bankruptcy branch, including the locating of representatives of the superintendent in Toronto and Montreal. I think the man suggested for Toronto has pretty well been decided upon and the man for Montreal is still being considered. In the bankruptcy division four additional positions have been created for auditors. Two additional positions for investigators have also been created as well as an additional five members of the clerical staff. In addition, Mr. Chairman-and this is the main point of our program- we are going to organize a bankruptcy squad made up of specialists, including accountants and investigators, who will be able to carry out these specialized inspections far more effectively than the police. This is no reflection on the police.


Erik Nielsen: Hear, hear.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The investigation of these matters is most difficult because it requires a great deal of knowledge of bookkeeping, corporation and commercial law and a special type of knowledge of the transactions of business. The result is that the superintendent, with the greater powers he has been given and the additional help he will have, will be able to look into the particular area in which most of the trouble has occurred, what is called the grey area in bankruptcy. This is the area where suspicion of irregularities exists but not to the extent where provincial and local law enforcement officers think they are justified in carrying out a full scale investigation of the matter. Bankruptcy squad individuals, as I mentioned a while ago-I think this is important-would not only look into a bankruptcy where there was suspicion of irregularity but would go wherever the evidence might lead them. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this would get at the nub of the problem.
Further, in order to ensure the greatest possible co-ordination between the federal and provincial governments in this field of divided jurisdiction, particularly as it relates to the grey area-this answers the question posed just now by the hon. member for Yukon-it was agreed at a meeting of the Attorneys General with regard to organized crime, held last January, that a standing federal-provincial committee on bankruptcy be set up, and it was. It is composed of the

March 4. 1966
Supply-Justice
deputy attorney general of Ontario, the deputy attorney general of Quebec and the superintendent of the bankruptcy here in Ottawa.
This committee has met and important steps have been taken to co-ordinate the efforts of both jurisdictions in a field which requires this co-ordination, particularly in the area in which I belive most of the loopholes exist. This committee will be able to block these loopholes and put a stop to what we call fraudulent bankruptcies. I am not saying that this is the complete answer to the problems of bankruptcy but I am saying it is not true that this government has done nothing in the field of bankruptcy.
The government has taken a tremendous step forward in order to stop these fraudulent bankruptcies. It is giving full co-operation to the provinces in order that we may stamp out these terrible crimes. I also say without batting an eyelid that this government has done more in the field of bankruptcy than has ever been done since the inception of the law in 1950.
When I was given this portfolio in July I found in the department a young, aggressive, competent lawyer in charge of bankruptcy. He has been in the department since April, 1965. He has very far reaching and I would say progressive ideas about the administration of the Bankruptcy Act, particularly in the light of present day circumstances. As a matter of fact, he has already started to put some of his ideas into effect. Included in this program is a complete revision of the Bankruptcy Act, which I would tell the committee is in my humble opinion absolutely essential if we are to deal effectively with the present day problems of bankruptcy.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Minister of Justice but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Maurice Rinfret: Do I understand there is unanimous consent that the Minister of Justice may continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the committee will give unanimous consent because we have been waiting for weeks for these explanations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Prittie:: Mr. Chairman, at this point may I ask the minister whether it is his intention to review at this time any of the

questions raised during this session with regard to the Combines Investigation Act?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, in answering the hon. gentleman I would say that the Combines Investigation Act falls under the jurisdiction of the President of the Privy Council who I presume will be dealing with those questions.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether he intends to reply to the supplementary questions I asked the other day concerning the notorious R.C.M.P. card issued to a former executive assistant under the previous Conservative government?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to answer at this time but I shall see whether it may not be possible to answer during the day.
To come back to the question of bankruptcy, Mr. Chairman, I think there have been complaints in this field ever since 1950, the very year in which the Bankruptcy Act was passed, and with reason. When the Bankruptcy Act was passed in 1950 the draftsmen did not take the advice, recommendations and suggestions put forward by the Canadian Bar Association who recommended strongly at that time that more power be given to the superintendent. I think this is part of the reason for the problem we have faced in this field ever since that time.
Since 1960 the department has received 47 briefs from industry, Canadian labour associations, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and other organizations. Briefs have also been received from the Canadian Bar Association, unions and a host of people who are directly concerned with and affected by the Bankruptcy Act. These voluminous briefs have been studied by the Department of Justice since that time. Not only have they been studied but the department has also been working on plans for the revision of the Bankruptcy Act. I would point out to the committee that this is not an easy task as matters now stand because both federal and provincial jurisdictions are involved in this field.
The department has now completed its study of the briefs and plans for the revision of the Act. I announced recently that a special committee of three had been set up and was working on completing the revision of the Bankruptcy Act. I mentioned that Mr. Hons-berger, who is a practicing lawyer in Toronto,
March 4, 1966

is one member of this committee. I understand he is an authority on bankruptcy and we feel sure he will be able to contribute a great deal in attempting to arrive at a practicable revision of the Act. We also have Mr. Carignan who is a very distinguished lawyer in Montreal and who has a great deal to contribute to the revision of the Act. We have the young superintendent of bankruptcy who is a lawyer well versed in this subject and who is taking his job very seriously. I have the greatest esteem for him.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
I met with this committee not very long ago and I can tell hon. members that the committee was surprised at the amount of work that had already been done on this question in the study of briefs as well as in preparations for the revision of the act. One member of the committee told me that because of the work that had already been done within the department it may not take a year for them to make their report.
Included in our considerations of the revision of the Act, I think hon. members will agree that a hard and long look should be taken also at the Winding-up Act which I understand has caused some difficulties in the past.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the minister at this stage under which minister's jurisdiction the Winding-up Act comes?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Ours.


Erik Nielsen: Of the three ministers?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mine. I should like to remind the committee that there are plans to set up a permanent registration for recording complaints made to trustees, something, strange as it may seem, that has never been done since the inception of that act. I submit respectfully to the committee that these are practicable, useful measures which may not eradicate the problem completely but which go a long way toward arriving at a solution.
When one listens to the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yukon one gets the definite idea that not only has the government done absolutely nothing in the field of bankruptcy since it has been in power but that somehow we actually invented bankruptcy, that there were virtually no fraudulent bankruptcies before 1963.


John George Diefenbaker: They have multiplied three times in total under this government.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Just a moment.


John George Diefenbaker: No more blackmail.
Supply-Justice


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The hon. member says, no more blackmail. Just listen and let us see what is true.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Kierans told us what was true, that the Department of Justice could not operate under this government.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The other day the hon. member for Yukon, in referring to the Mercier report, intimated he had never seen a more condemnatory report. Never in his lifetime had he seen a more condemnatory report. Apparently he has not read it because the period covered by the Mercier report extends from January 1, 1959 to February 1, 1965. This means that the Mercier report is four times more condemnatory of the Conservative party than it is of us because it covers a period of four and a half years of Conservative administration compared to one and a half years of our administration.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what the hon. Mr. Kierans said.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: We will get to what he said. The offences in relation to bankruptcy which were recently prosecuted in Quebec were committed as far back as 1959. They included arson, fraud, perjury, theft and conspiracy. Well, Mr. Chairman, what did Sherlock Holmes do about these scandals that occurred in his time? Did he put any questions on the order paper? Did he inform the press by giving it information that his government was corrupt? Did he travel around the country with a magnifying glass looking for evidence.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the minister if he is saying that the previous administration was corrupt?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I beg your pardon?


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the minister if what he is saying is that the previous administration was corrupt?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, I asked why the hon. member did not say it was corrupt if the Mercier report is as condemnatory as he implied it was but according to him exclusively of the present administration-


Erik Nielsen: Who said so?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: You did.


Erik Nielsen: Nonsense.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Look at your speech.


Erik Nielsen: Nonsense.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I say that there has been a bankruptcy problem and that problem existed

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice
long before we took power. It is wrong for either the hon. member for Yukon or the Leader of the Opposition to lead the people of the country to believe that we are solely responsible for the fraudulent bankruptcies, because the previous government did nothing in connection with bankruptcies. They did not make one amendment in the Bankruptcy Act; they did not add one messenger boy to the depleted staff of the bankruptcy division.
Last November the hon. member for Yukon and the Leader of the Opposition in the house and in the country made irresponsible and unfounded statements to the effect that the government was not concerned at all about bankruptcies.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what Mr. Kierans said. He said you would not act.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Wagner is saying it too.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Wagner is saying it now and they both know you very well.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: They said the government had not been concerned about bankruptcies, and that we were negligent in our administration. Yet they had done nothing, while I have put on the record a list of the things we have done which are infinitely more and better than the things the previous government did. What is more serious, what is more dangerous, is the fact that both of these hon. gentlemen have deliberately engaged in what are false and insidious insinuations to the effect that somehow or other the government is directly responsible for and linked with the crimes surrounding bankruptcies, whether it be perjury, fraud, theft or embezzlement, and they have even insinuated that perhaps we are connected with murder.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing as detrimental to parliament and to the prestige of any member of government as this type of insidious insinuation.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister answer one question? What did Mr. Kierans say about it and what does Mr. Wagner say about it?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I would suggest that the hon. gentleman follow the rules and speak only when his time comes.


John George Diefenbaker: You cannot answer. You like to indulge in cheap insinuations and you cannot face the facts.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I submit, regardless of what the right hon. gentleman says-I agree he is a far better orator than I, but he is no more truthful.


John George Diefenbaker: No, that is right; that is a high tribute.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I know that-
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. The Minister of Justice has the floor and I would ask hon. members to reserve their remarks until the minister has completed his speech.


John George Diefenbaker: We wanted him to make a statement but we are not going to sit silent during his extra time when a lot of untruths and scurrilous abuse are passing his lips. We do not intend to be quiet in that situation.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I can recall several speeches when the right hon. gentleman spoke for a long period and I am not ready to say everything he said on those occasions was true. We sat and listened. Now it is my turn to speak, and I will tell the truth.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
I do not think I am being oversensitive about this, but I believe it is an indisputable fact that the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Yukon have been making insinuations which are not only detrimental to our party but which in fact will destroy parliament if they continue. I submit to members of the committee that it is an inexcusable and outrageous abuse of the authority and prestige of the right hon. gentleman in his position of leader of his party to act in this way. To the hon. member for Yukon I say it is indicative of a juvenile propensity for playing at being a famous detective rather than being, like the rest of us, an ordinary member of parliament.
Strangely enough, both these hon. gentlemen are lawyers and as such know very well that the administration of justice and the enforcement of the Criminal Code have been, are and will be a provincial responsibility as long as the constitution remains as it is. The division of responsibility in the field of bankruptcy between the federal and provincial governments has always been recognized, and this was confirmed not so very long ago at the last meeting of the Attorneys General in January.
I repeat that I am not trying to shirk responsibility on behalf of the government in the field of bankruptcy. I am saying that I am absolutely convinced that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of
March 4, 1966

Justice and the superintendent of bankruptcy-are all giving full co-operation to the provinces to try to wipe out this most disconcerting crime which is affecting everybody in Canada. As a government we are most concerned and eager to help in every way we can in what is becoming a serious problem of crime, particularly in Quebec.
Reference was made a while ago by the right hon. gentleman to this point. He again insinuated that we did not want a royal commission because we were afraid of one.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what Mr. Wagner said.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Let Mr. Wagner say what he wants. You stand by your own statements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: But he knows.


Mr. Churchill:: Would the minister permit a question?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Personally I am not afraid, nor is the government, of any kind of inquiry.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what Mr. Wagner says.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: We are not afraid of an inquiry of any kind in this or in any other field. But one thing is very important and that is that the government cannot and should not be pushed around by anyone who tries to do so for political reasons.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Are you not speaking for political reasons?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the minister afraid to answer a question? I have asked him four times.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Ask it afterwards. This is a really important subject but everyone makes a laughingstock of it. People accuse us of being afraid of doing this and doing that. When I try to make a reasonable answer, and I believe I have that right, I am scorned. The right hon. gentleman uses the same kind of scorn of which I accused him four years ago. He is using the same scorn now.
The real answer is this. We are worried about the difficult problem of crime in Canada and it is because-


John George Diefenbaker: Then why don't you set up a commission on crime?
23033-140a
Supply-Justice


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Why don't you shut up?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Maurice Rinfret: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That statement is not very judicial.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. Will the minister please resume his seat. I intervene to ask hon. members on all sides of the house, north, south, east and west, please to co-operate with the Chair, which has a little difficulty hearing the expressions of view which are being made on both sides. I think hon. gentlemen should listen and reserve their remarks until a later time.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I sincerely apologize to the right hon. gentleman; this I do very sincerely. However, I think he knows, as I know, that sometimes one gets provoked beyond a certain point. I apologize for having used those last words.


John George Diefenbaker: We all do that.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I think all hon. members will agree that the question of crime is an important one. The problem of crime in Canada is so serious and difficult that this is not the time for anyone to panic. It is not the time to run in two or three directions at the same time. Perhaps the appointment of a royal commission would be one method to deal with it. The government has stated it will look into this matter, but my feeling is that this is not the time for panic.
It seems to me that at the meeting of the Attorneys General held last January on organized crime important steps were taken to deal with this very problem of organized crime. Certainly more steps and measures can be taken, but I cannot help but think that the Attorneys General, individually and collectively, with the assistance of the federal government are the people who are most knowledgeable and have the most experience of organized crime and are also in the best position to deal with this great problem.


Erik Nielsen: Wagner is asking for a commission.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Perhaps he is, but is that the right thing to do? I have not answered that yet. Hon. gentlemen have asked for a royal commission in the Spencer case but I feel this is not the answer. I am saying that because the government does not automatically grant something it is not necessarily wrong. One has to judge first of all whether something is good before taking action. If it is not good,

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice
then you do not take action. This is what we are doing in this case.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that what you call pusillanimity?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: What about the Mercier report? This is also an important factor. I think it will surprise many people to know that when we received the Mercier report some time ago-


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister tell us when the government received it?
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: You should know. You were here when it was tabled.


Erik Nielsen: We cannot hear what the minister has to say.


John George Diefenbaker: He does not know.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am not going to do the hon. member's homework. When we received the Mercier report-


Edmund Davie Fulton: All we ask is that you do your own.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I beg your pardon?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said, do your own.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, when we received the Mercier report-


John George Diefenbaker: When?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Last June.


Erik Nielsen: Last June?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Somewhere around there. I am not sure when. However, as soon as we got the report I immediately wrote to the Quebec authorities in order to be able to get information that might substantiate in any way the allegations made against trustees as set out in the report. I may say that we do have undoubted co-operation with the authorities of the province of Quebec, as I mentioned some time ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Quebec has none from you.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: However, I may say categorically in this committee that I did not nor have I yet received one shred of evidence that would substantiate the charges and allegations which have been made against trustees in that report. I have written several letters in that connection. I have also, with the permission of the premier of Quebec, asked to send one of our agents to Quebec in order to be able to get the flies so that we might obtain some information on which

charges could be laid against trustees to help us in the work we are trying to do. So far I have not had any kind of evidence to substantiate the laying of charges against trustees in the light of the report.


Erik Nielsen: Can the minister say that evidence does not exist?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Was permission to pick up the files given? Was the permission given that you sought?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. The premier of Quebec did give that permission and the agent was sent to Quebec.


Erik Nielsen: The minister has given us his personal assurance. Can he say that no such evidence exists in the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Let me finish my speech and the hon. member will understand.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it possible?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: We have not had a shred of evidence against trustees so far arising out of the Mercier report. As a matter of fact, so far as I know there have not been any prosecutions by the authorities of the province of Quebec in matters arising out of the Mercier report. I will also say this: No one will accuse the Minister of Justice of Quebec of letting the grass grow under his feet. Any disciplinary action that has been taken so far by the federal government has been initiated as a result of the activities undertaken by the superintendent of bankruptcy.
I am not saying that all the trustees are irreproachable. Some of them certainly have been investigated and have been dealt with, as I mentioned earlier. I must say, however, that it is wrong to generalize. It is wrong to lead anybody to believe that all trustees are bad. It is also wrong to make charges that cannot be substantiated or that will not be substantiated no matter who makes these charges, and what authority the person making them may have. If charges are to be made, and I believe that they can and should be made, there are right procedures to be followed. A charge can be laid but substantiation of that charge is equally important. If you make a charge but do not substantiate it, the injustice is done.
I can recall quite well that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition claimed not very long ago that the government had a confidential report.
March 4, 1966


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, the Mercier report. I spoke of the Mercier report.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Wait a minute-


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, that is what I spoke of, and the hon. minister twisted it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition claimed there was a confidential report dealing with bankruptcy.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: He claimed that we had hidden it and that it was secret. He claimed if we had made it known we might possibly have avoided the crimes committed in Canada at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement is false.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: If it is false let me repeat what the hon. member said on October 6, 1965:
At a press conference, the Progressive Conservative Leader demanded the production of a report on bankruptcies-


John George Diefenbaker: That is the Mercier report.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I continue quoting:
-to find out what has been hidden from parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I continue:
He said if the government had accepted his party's request in the Commons to release a special report on the administration of the Bankruptcy Act. "there would have been less possibility of such horrible crimes being committed."
Does the right hon. gentleman deny that?


John George Diefenbaker: The Mercier report.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is not the Mercier report.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the Mercier report.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Then why were you asking for that report in November when the Mercier report had been tabled when the hon. member was in the house?


John George Diefenbaker: No, no. That is not what Kierans said.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I deny now that there was a report. I deny that the right hon. gentleman was referring to the Mercier report. The Prime Minister denied that there was such a report. Then, however, our hero jumped into the act. The hon. member for Yukon said, "There is such a report."


John George Diefenbaker: The Mercier report.
Supply-Justice


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: On October 7 in the Ottawa Journal this report appeared:
Erik Nielsen, Conservative M.P. for the Yukon, jumped into the affair today by insisting that there is a hidden federal report on bankruptcies. Mr. Nielsen who touched off the Dorion inquiry-
And so on, and so on. But he suggests that there was a report. What happened? He went to see the press. He produced a series of documentary files and said, "This is the report that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was talking about". It was said that if it had been tabled in the house we would have stopped all these murders which have been committed in Quebec.
Well, there were reports. They were the reports from the trustees to the superintendent of bankruptcy in a particular case. They were routine reports. But members of the right hon. gentleman's party would not stop. They kept hammering away at this until finally I said, "All right. If you want to have those files I will allow the right hon. gentleman to see them." I would have allowed any former minister of justice to see them also. Nobody took me up on that offer. It was claimed that that type of strategy in the house is absolutely unacceptable. Later, Mr. Chairman-


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister permit a question?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Can you wait for a moment? I have spoken for a long time and I am tired.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister runs away from questions.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I will answer them later. You have no right to force me to answer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You might say you are afraid to answer them.


John George Diefenbaker: The little Caesar will not answer.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Let us go on. I continue quoting from the Globe and Mail of October 12:
Mr. Diefenbaker made the Quebec bankruptcy frauds an election issue last week by suggesting that the government had a hidden report on which it had failed to act.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I continue:
When Justice Minister Lucien Cardin offered to let him inspect the documents in the Sefkind case- the only specific case he had mentioned-Mr. Diefenbaker said it was an attempt to seal his lips because his Privy Council oath would prevent him from disclosing what he found out.
He demanded also production of what he described as a report from the Quebec government to Ottawa on the bankruptcy frauds.

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice
Mr. Chairman, there was a complete denial on October 13 by Mr. Lesage himself that there was such a report. I continue quoting:
Mr. Cardin replied that Mr. Diefenbaker would not be bound by his oath if he wanted to see the Sefkind file; he would be able to use his discretion and make public any information he found about persons in public or political life.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
Asked about this aboard his campaign train yesterday, Mr. Diefenbaker broadened the issue by saying he also wanted to see the file of correspondence between the Justice Department and Judge Bruce J. S. Macdonald when he was chairman of the Ontario Police Commission.
He said: "Mr. Cardin does not make it clear that all the files are going to be made available to me. I doubt if he can give me that right, as most of the files would be marked secret and as a Privy Councillor I could not reveal them. I don't want selective files. I want all the files on this subject-
I want this, I want that. How far has the right hon. gentleman strayed from the original so-called secret file which was so important at that time? It seems to me the only file we had was the Mercier file which was in the right hon. gentleman's possession at the time the house was sitting. Members opposite have been going around the country pretending there was this other file. They object when I say they are toying with the truth. The reason I use that expression is that if I were to really say what I think it would not be parliamentary. I agree there have to be political differences but there must be a limit somewhere.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say when the Mercier report was tabled? He has been talking about it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: On August 19, 1965.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: The house was not sitting then.


John George Diefenbaker: We were not sitting.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: It was tabled on August 19 in the Quebec house and it was a public document.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was a public document.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The right hon. gentleman thinks he has a great point. I apologize for having made a mistake. The fact is that it was tabled in the Quebec house on August 19 and it is a public document, so it could not have been a secret report.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman said it was tabled in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: They are making an awful mess of it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Well, perhaps.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly of the Leader of the Opposition.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: All members of the house have a responsibility when it comes to combating crime and the terrible things which have happened in connection with bankruptcy. People with the prestige of the Leader of the Opposition have a tremendous responsibility. We all have a responsibility to try to assure the Canadian public that we have this problem under control or, if not, that we are doing our best to deal with it. But it is altogether wrong that any responsible member should let it be said that the government is abrogating its responsibilities when the facts are to the contrary.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what Mr. Kierans said.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I have given an example of what happened in the case of the Mercier report-the accusations that the government had been lax, almost criminal, in its activities. These are serious charges. Are we now faced again with new tactics that I see arising among the Conservatives-striking hard, preferably below the belt, and then running away?


Gordon Minto Churchill: What did you do in February, 1962?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Only a short while ago the hon. member for Yukon stated in a press conference that he had important information on fraudulent bankruptcies. This is what appeared in the Globe and Mail on February 9:
Erik Nielsen, the man who sparked the Dorion Inquiry said Monday he has enough information on fraudulent bankruptcies to justify another inquiry of equal proportions. The Progressive Conservative M.P. for the Yukon told a press conference that there is a definite connection between the frauds and political campaign funds. He said he will present his evidence to the House of Commons when he returns to Ottawa later this week.
Asked if he would include names with his evidence, he replied: "Yes. I have a list of both companies and individuals involved."
He said he has information on fradulent bankruptcies in British Columbia and Alberta but will concentrate his attack on operations in eastern Canada. Under the Bankruptcies Act the frauds could be investigated by the R.C.M.P., he said, but in the past the force has been prevented by the government from carrying out some investigations.
I submit that these are extremely important charges. Here is a categorical statement by the hon. member for Yukon that he has definite knowledge that the government has prevented the R.C.M.P. from acting in cases
March 4, 1966

where the federal jurisdiction is concerned. He says he knows this. I demand that he make these charges public. He has no right not to do so.


Erik Nielsen: I do not have to make them public, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Justice Dorion has.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Favreau:: After your lying under oath.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of personal privilege because I fear that something has gotten on the record of Hansard which I do not think the President of the Privy Council would want to keep there. I heard him quite plainly shout across the aisle: "You lied under oath there". That is the statement which he should withdraw if it appears on the Hansard record. In fact, I have put it on the record now so he must withdraw it.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, if the expression "to lie" is unparliamentary, I must withdraw it, but I wish to add that twice, under oath before the Dorion commission he did not tell the truth.


Erik Nielsen: Regardless of what the opinions of any of us may be, having read carefully the evidence contained in the proceedings before Mr. Justice Dorion-I have my own views as to the minister's evidence-a statement such as the one the minister has made in the house demands immediate withdrawal unless the hon. gentleman is prepared to make a charge and, as the rules require, stake his seat on the outcome.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I have here the transcript of the March 23 and 24, 1965, sittings of the Dorion commission. I will do what he never had the courage to do when asked to do it. I will state, evidence in hand, that under oath and twice before the Dorion commission, the hon. member for Yukon said in his testimony things that were not in accordance with the truth and if he wants to refer the matter to the committee on privileges and elections, I am willing to maintain the charge.


Erik Nielsen: Sir, the minister has dug himself in quite deeply here. He has made a personal charge of perjury against a sitting member of this house. I am going to give him one final opportunity to withdraw the charge
Supply-J ustice
he has made. If he is not prepared to do so, some procedure must be taken to ensure either a withdrawal or the loss of his seat.


An hon. Member:: Maybe yours.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: I give him this one final opportunity to make that withdrawal.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Withdraw.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, the only procedure is for the hon. member for Yukon to ask that the matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.
I said that: "Twice, under oath, he did not tell the truth, before the Dorion commission".


Erik Nielsen: No. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that is not our procedure. When a sitting member makes a charge against another he is required to substantiate that charge. The responsibility lies on the minister, not upon me. Either he withdraws or he takes-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Well, hon. members do not appreciate the rules. Either the minister withdraws or he must take procedures to substantiate the charges he makes or resign his seat.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, regardless of any other circumstance there must be an unequivocal withdrawal. That type of thing is not permissible. There have been several times lately when the President of the Privy Council has used the word "lie" in this house. I am not going to recapitulate-


Guy Favreau: I withdrew the word "lie".


John George Diefenbaker: The other day the minister said that and was not called to order. That statement must be withdrawn unequivocally, Mr. Chairman, and no nonsense about it.


Maurice Rinfret: Does the President of the Privy Council wish to make an observation?


Erik Nielsen: No, no, Mr. Chairman. This cannot be allowed to proceed. This is a question of privilege. The hon. member tried to split a hair by saying he withdrew the word "lie". That is so. The minister did say he withdrew the word "lie" but he replaced it with a charge that I did not tell the truth under oath on two occasions.

March 4, 196S
Supply-Justice


Mr. Bigg:: That is what he said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Erik Nielsen: Is the Minister of Transport making the same charge?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, no; not at all.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: No, you don't want to risk your seat.


Erik Nielsen: The President of the Privy Council replaced the qualified withdrawal of the word "lie" with the statement that on two occasions I did not tell the truth under oath before the Dorion inquiry. Under our rules that charge, must be unequivocally, completely, absolutely withdrawn.


Maurice Rinfret: Order.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: The rules are clear.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The Chair has certain difficulties just now in rendering a decision. If hon. members with their experience of procedure would enlighten the Chair in a more elaborate and thorough manner, then the Chair with the enlightenment of the house from all sides will be able to render a decision.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I will endeavour to help you if I can. We have had many instances in the house where people have accused members of being untruthful. Sometimes they have used the word "lie". Sometimes they have said, "He did not tell the truth". It is the same expression. On each occasion in all the sessions I have been in this chamber the Chairman, or the Speaker, insisted that the member who made the statement accusing another hon. member of not telling the truth or of lying, should withdraw it immediately.
That has been the practice of the house. The rules substantiate it and everyone here, unless he is a new member, is aware that this is the situation. There is no lengthy argument required. The statement of the President of the Privy Council happens to be the worst I have heard during the 15 years I have been here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, since this is my question of privilege-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have had a certain amount of experience in the house, as has the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and I do think it is quite correct, as he has said, that anyone who is accused-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Of perjury.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the first place the word "lie" is unparliamentary.


Guy Favreau: I never said "perjury".


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The statement that someone deliberately did not tell the truth has also been ruled unparliamentary, but I listened very carefully to what the President of the Privy Council said. I do not use one of these machines. I am relying on what knowledge I have of the other official language when I translate into English what I understood him to say. I understood him to say that on two occasions the hon. member for Yukon, when he was under oath before the Dorion commission, had made statements which were not true. I do not think, sir, there is any necessary implication in that statement if I have translated it correctly. There is no implication that the hon. member knew his statements were untrue.


John George Diefenbaker: Perjury requires knowledge.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I submit, sir, there have been many occasions in the house where an hon. member, including the right hon. gentleman opposite, has said that something that someone else has said was not true-


John George Diefenbaker: Was false.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and that was not unparliamentary at all, unless there is some suggestion that there was deliberate knowledge when the statement was made that it was untrue.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, before other hon. members deal with the rules may I for one moment lay before the Chair and the members of the committee the precise question at issue here. The minister had before him, as he said, the transcript of what the translator referred to as the proceedings before Mr. Justice Dorion. He went on to say that that transcript indicated I had made statements under oath on two occasions which were not the truth. As I understand the law, sir, that is a direct charge of perjury.


John George Diefenbaker: Absolutely.


Erik Nielsen: That is what must be withdrawn, the whole of the minister's statement, because inherent in it is a charge of perjury and it cannot be accepted as a parliamentary statement by any member of the house, let alone a responsible minister of the Crown
March 4, 1966

who, because of his disappointment over the results of that commission, makes such emotional statements.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr.Chairman, I do not profess to be an expert on the rules and I certainly do not want to get involved in a dispute of this nature between members of the committee. But I have a great deal of sympathy with you, Mr. Chairman, when you ask for advice in respect to this matter. I am wondering whether it would be acceptable to the committee that we should take this matter under advisement?


Erik Nielsen: No.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I suggest that if some opportunity for thinking about this matter were given the President of the Privy Council might well review what he has said, because it seems to me his words did convey a very grave implication against the hon. member for Yukon.
If he did not intend to convey the imputation which I thought he made, then I think it would be a very useful thing if he were given a little time to ponder the matter and perhaps he would then withdraw the imputation that the hon. member for Yukon has seen in these words. I do not believe it advances the dignity and welfare of the house when accusations of that sort are bandied backward and forward and the matter is made into a great personal issue. I think we can conduct the affairs of the house without that and I am wondering, because of the difficulties of the procedural points involved, whether it would not be proper for you, Mr. Chairman, to ask that the matter be reserved while you look into it.


Erik Nielsen: No. That is completely unacceptable, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, referring to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, I find that the house is now in a rather difficult and complicated situation, which may have serious implications and consequences and which requires much thought.
Now, I think it would be most useful, for the guidance of hon. members, to read the first paragraph of citation 128 of Beauchesne which reads as follows:
A personal attack, by one member upon another, is an offence against the house, in the person of one of its members, which, on account of the respect due from every member to the character and dignity 23033-141
Supply-Justice
of the house, as well as the importance of preserving regularity in the debates, calls for the prompt interference of the Speaker-*
To make my first point, I should like to call attention on this:
-the prompt interference of the Speaker-
And not the chairman of committees.
I wonder if, rising above the question itself, one would not help the house by pointing out that this citation provides that the Speaker must interfere; consequently, the chairman should report progress, so that the Speaker could take the chair and that the discussion could continue.
This way, a solution could be arrived at; the Speaker could resume the chair, in accordance with citation 128 of Beauchesne.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer Your Honour by way of assistance to several citations to be found in Beauchesne's fourth edition as to how this matter must be handled. First of all, it is surely clear that what has transpired is that the President of the Privy Council has made a personal attack upon the hon. member for Yukon. I think that cannot be disputed. I direct your attention to citation 128(1) to be found at page 115 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads:
A personal attack, by one member upon another, is an offence against the House, in the person of one of its members-[DOT]
The following words of the citation are not relevant, I do not believe, but they indicate that the procedure to be followed, as I appreciate it, is for the member attacked to ask for a withdrawal. This has been done but the President of the Privy Council has declined to withdraw. On the contrary, he has repeated the ill-founded charge which constituted the personal attack.


Erik Nielsen: I did not ask for an apology; I asked him to withdraw.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If he refuses to withdraw he should be named. But I submit to you, sir, that this is not a matter that can be dealt with in the committee; it is one which requires to be reported immediately to the house. In that regard I refer you to citation 138(1) to be found at page 120 of the same edition which states:
The House of Commons will insist upon all offensive words being withdrawn, and upon an ample apology being made which shall satisfy both the House and the member to whom offence has been given. If the apology be refused, or if the offended member declines to express his satisfaction, the House takes immediate measures for preventing the quarrel from being pursued further-

March 4, 1966
Supply-J ustice
I do not think the remaining part of that paragraph is relevant but the next paragraph states:
If offensive words are spoken in Committee, which are taken down, the House only, and not the Committee, can take notice of them. The Committee therefore reports progress and asks leave to sit again; the Chairman reports the words used to the Speaker who says: 'It has been reported to the House that the hon. member for . . . has used the following words: . . . Has the honourable member anything to say in explanation or retraction of these words?'
I submit to you, therefore, that if the President of the Privy Council persists in his refusal to withdraw the offensive words then you have no option but to report the words to Mr. Speaker and the house shall then determine what action shall be taken to deal with the refusal to withdraw the charge made by the President of the Privy Council. If on the other hand he withdraws them here this matter is disposed of and there will be nothing to report to the house.
I trust that the President of the Privy Council will recognize that he is in serious breach of the rules, that he has made a personal attack on another member, and that in the interests of continuing the dignity and functions of this house he will withdraw.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If he does not withdraw he should be named.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to take it upon myself to give you advice with regard to the application of the rules, but the facts may bear clarification.
There may be a slight translation problem here. The words "liar" and "perjury" were not spoken by the hon. minister. He did say that if the word "liar" was unparliamentary, he would withdraw it. He stated very clearly that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had twice said something which was not true.


An hon. Member:: Under oath.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am just trying to get the facts straight.


An hon. Member:: What a silly man. Go back to the stables.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The minister may well say that it is snowing outside but I would not call him a liar if 1 went out and saw it was not snowing. I would say that he was stating

something that did not conform with the truth. That does not means he is telling a lie. The word "perjury" was heard from the other side of the house, not from this side. I am not debating this point of order; I am just stating a fact.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I want to say something on this point which goes in my respectful submission a little beyond the mere point of order, important as it is. Last night we heard the house leader appeal to members of the committee because he had to get the estimates through in order to pay the salaries of the employees of the government. In my respectful submission I submit to the President of the Privy Council that it is a provocation to this committee to do as he has done. His behaviour is entirely improper for a minister of the Crown and it is contrary to the express demands of the house leader to make an interjection while another member is speaking which constitutes an attack on a member of this house that is bound to delay the passage of these estimates indefinitely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I therefore, if you will allow me to complete one sentence, appeal to the President of the Privy Council to do the right thing by the government, by the employees of the government and by this committee and withdraw his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I call on the President of the Privy Council to withdraw his words. This house cannot operate if any member is allowed to use language that can only imply the commission of a criminal offence. His statement must be unequivocally withdrawn. If it is not, I ask you to report progress and we will then ask the Speaker to take the proper course, namely, to name the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfair, not only for myself, but also for the hon. member for Yukon, to impute to me words that I have not said.
As the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) said a moment ago, it is on the other side of the house that certain words were said.
I am imputed words which would imply that the member for Yukon deliberately intended not to speak the truth when he testified.
March 4, 1966

I never said that the member for Yukon committed perjury.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what you said: Something false under oath.


Guy Favreau: That is what you said I said.

The hon. member for Yukon had just made an interjection which was not at all pertinent to the debate. He stated that everything said could be found in the Dorion report, thus prompting me to object, because I, among others, had read the transcript of the evidence.
I believe I am entitled, with regard to his allegation, to tell him that, on two occasions, he said things that were not the exact truth.


Mr. Vincent:: Under oath.


Guy Favreau: Under oath and otherwise.


Clément Vincent: No, no.


Guy Favreau: What constitutes perjury is the intention to mislead.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: You can't get away with that. You might as well withdraw.


An hon. Member:: You are getting in deeper.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Withdraw or sit down. [Translation']


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I regret that that interruption should delay the discussion. It is most important and urgent in the public interest-which goes considerably beyond the personal interest of the hon. member for Yukon or mine-that the estimates be voted by the house.
In the circumstances, I clearly state that I never had the intention of implying that the hon. member for the Yukon had perjured himself and consequently I do not believe the words I may have uttered could be construed as harmful to his reputation or otherwise.
I think a solution might be that if I stated things that were not according to the facts, every one agree to refer the question to the committee on privileges and elections where it could be dealt with.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Supply-Justice


Maurice Rinfret: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is a motion, Mr. Chairman. I move that the committee rise.


Maurice Rinfret: Order.


Mr. Mcllraith:: The Chairman is on his feet.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The Chair has been enlightened by the observations of members of the committee. It is difficult in these situations to render a decision, but if we consult the authorities on this topic and recall certain decisions that have been rendered in similar circumstances it is definitely mentioned that the word "lie" is unparliamentary. To ease the situation may I ask the hon. President of the Privy Council if he would consider withdrawing the word "lie" which is unparliamentary?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, before this ruling was rendered I did withdraw the word "lie" as unparliamentary, and I must make it quite clear that to the extent that any of the words I may have used might be interpreted as meaning that the member for Yukon deliberately tried to deceive the court, I withdraw them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I move that the committee rise, Mr. Chairman. You must surely accept my motion.


Erik Nielsen: Perhaps I might make one last appeal to the minister and give him one last opportunity.


Robert Muir: He isn't worth it.


Erik Nielsen: The issue is this. The minister used these words, that the member for Yukon, myself, had on two occasions before Mr. Justice Dorion-


An hon. Member:: Under oath.


Erik Nielsen: -under oath, not told the truth. Therein lie the offensive words. All the minister has to do-I am not asking him for an apology even though the rules say I am entitled to one-is simply to withdraw those offensive words.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is apparently not going to withdraw them, Mr. Chairman. My motion is before you. Will you not accept my motion?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Let us have the motion.


Maurice Rinfret: I did not hear what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said to the Chair.

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I move, and if it requires a seconder, seconded by the hon. member for Queens, that the committee rise.


An hon. Member:: But it was not seconded before.


Maurice Rinfret: Will the hon. member make a formal motion so that the Chair may put the motion before the committee?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, having listened to speakers from both sides of the house and especially to those who are now dealing with a statement made by the President of the Privy Council, I think that the latter has made the situation quite clear. He said that he would withdraw all the offensive words he used or any of his remarks that could be harmful to the reputation of the hon. member for Yukon. Does the member for Yukon want the minister to lick his feet? The minister is willing-he said so himself-to withdraw the words which might be offensive to the hon. member. Why, then, introduce a motion and delay the business of the house?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would have something to add in this connection-


Maurice Rinfret: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might make a direct, personal appeal to the President of the Privy Council with respect to this matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about my motion? I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. There is a motion in front of you. It should be acted upon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: You have not been recognized yet.


George James McIlraith: Yes, but I heard the hon. member speak and I am sure the motion he put is not in the form he intended in order to accomplish the purpose that I think he has in mind. I wonder whether the hon. member would look at the wording of his motion. I am sure he intended that there should be leave for the committee to sit again. If he
[The Deputy Chairman.]
will look at the words of the motion again he will agree with me. The motion does not say that the committee shall have leave to sit again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is thinking about that may I have the indulgence of the house to direct a personal appeal to the President of the Privy Council. I ask him, as one who has not got into this debate at all and as one who has not tried to quote the rules at him, to appreciate the fact that he may have made a mistake-


Gordon Minto Churchill: May have? He did make a mistake.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -a mistake which will do damage to today's session of parliament and may do continuing damage. I ask him also to realize that if he will withdraw the words unequivocally he will have the respect of all members of this house, and I ask him to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I said a few minutes ago that the public interest was more important than the interest and pride of individuals. I withdraw unequivocally.


Maurice Rinfret: Will the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre withdraw his motion?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do I understand that the President of the Privy Council is withdrawing unequivocally every charge that he made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what he did.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He did not add those extra words. What is he withdrawing? That is what I want to know.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not going to be shouted down by anybody. When he said he was going to withdraw unequivocally, what has he withdrawn? He withdrew the word "lie". Has he withdrawn the other accusation? That is what I want to know.


Maurice Rinfret: The committee and the Chair heard very distinctly the President of the Privy Council say he withdrew his remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unequivocally.


Maurice Rinfret: Yes, unequivocally.


Erik Nielsen: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I accept the minister's withdrawal and also
March 4. 1966

the apology which under the rules I am entitled to but which the minister did not make.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I withdraw my motion, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to the case of Victor Spencer. I want to say in beginning my remarks which will not be very long, after what has occurred in the past half hour, that during the first part of the speech by the Minister of Justice he castigated the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. He asked with a great deal of feeling-and I must say I had some considerable sympathy for his words-whether the right hon. gentleman's performance would add to the prestige and dignity of parliament. Then the Minister of Justice himself, I suggest, proceeded to give the kind of performance which added to the indignity about which he complained.
I say, Mr. Chairman, as a relatively new member of the house, because I have not been here the years the right hon. gentleman has nor the years the Minister of Justice has, that as I hear these exchanges across the floor of this house that have nothing to do with public policy, nothing to do with the issues before the house, nothing to do with the plight of the poor fellow like Spencer, but result from purely personal vindictiveness or political vindictiveness, I feel, as I said on another occasion, sad for my country. I appeal to the minister to throw away from his mind this obstinacy which has got hold of him in connection with the case of Victor Spencer, this spirit of inflexibility which he has shown today and on other occasions, this determination to be proven right no matter what, and deal with the matter coldly, logically, intelligently and with some heart.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that we would not be in the spot in which we are now over this issue of Victor Spencer if it were not for the obstinacy which has been shown. I reject the suggestion, because I have no evidence of it and I do not like to make accusations without evidence, that the government is trying to hide anything. I do not know. I am not suggesting there has been any deception because I do not know. I do know, having read the record and having listened to the discussion on these estimates, that there is truth in the assertion that government spokesmen have not been forthright and frank with this committee. They may not have intended to mislead anybody. However,
Supply-Justice
it is perfectly true that every day we learn something new. It was the duty of the minister to lay the entire case before this house, all the correspondence he had ever exchanged and that the Privy Council had with the lawyer for Mr. Spencer, and every other fact that was relevant to a complete understanding of the issue before the committee. He failed to do that. The minister failed to do it because of the words he used today. He said, "No one will convince me I am wrong when I think I am right".
I ask the hon. gentleman in all good humour, who ever thinks he is wrong? Certainly he does not nor the Prime Minister nor the President of the Privy Council nor do I nor anyone else. The only time we ever admit we are wrong is if we have the goodness, the richness of mind, to open our mind to a particular situation, listen to the requests and measure their reasonableness instead of saying, "No one is going to convince me I am wrong". This is what has been at fault here.
One of the points the minister mentioned in his defence, which is of extreme importance in my view, was that, he said, we have done in the Spencer case what has been done many times before. I hope I am paraphrasing him correctly. The only difference in this case, he says, is that the identity of the man is known. It is this statement, which the minister has made on several occasions, which makes my colleagues and me determined to appeal to him to change his view. The fact that he has followed what has been done before does not make the case for him any stronger. It makes it weaker. It means, if I take him literally, that other employees of the government, this government and perhaps preceding governments, have been thrown out of their jobs without a chance to be heard. It means that on other occasions governments of this country have applied section 50 of the Civil Service Act against a number of civil servants without their right to be heard.
It is that which makes this situation even more important. It does not defend the minister's action; it condemns it all the more. I thought from the start that what we were faced with here was the matter of a basic principle and it did not matter whether Mr. Spencer was interested in it or not interested in it. The basic principle is very simple if we would only get rid of these attempts at making personal attacks, personal innuendos, and look at it objectively. There is this simple

March 4, 1986
Supply-Justice
difference between the minister and ourselves. He says, and I am sure he says it sincerely, that section 50 of the Civil Service Act gives the Governor in Council the right to dismiss an employee without that employee having any right of appeal. There is another section of the act which affords him another kind of procedure. He says:	We
found that this man in our view was doing things which were improper, which were contrary to the security of Canada. Therefore we used this section which is there, dismissed him from employment, and that is that. This is his view. He says, I have applied the law.
We on this side of the house say to him: Whatever may be the merits or demerits of section 50 of the Civil Service Act-I think it is a pernicious section-he has it within his hand, the Prime Minister and his colleagues have it within their hands, to lessen the perniciousness of section 50 and give this man an opportunity to present his case in camera to an independent tribunal. The security of Canada would not be affected at all. Everything he said would remain private. The minister says, I will not do this.
Because the hon. member for Mount Royal insisted that he wanted to know what Mr. Spencer thought and I believe the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said the man had not filed a grievance, interjections which with great respect to them I think were entirely irrelevant to the issue in this case, I telephoned a solicitor in Vancouver on Wednesday, Mr. John Laxton. He is a well known younger solicitor of undisputable integrity. I asked him whether he would at my request get in touch with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in order to meet with Mr. Spencer and discuss this matter with him.
I then telephoned the Minister of Justice and after some time he was good enough to call me back. He not only was good enough to listen to my request for his assistance but good enough also to make available the assistance of Commissioner Kelly of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to discuss how this could be done. As a result Mr. Spencer was in the office of John Laxton, the solicitor in Vancouver, at nine o'clock Vancouver time yesterday morning. I received a telephone call from Mr. Laxton at about twelve thirty or one o'clock our time in which he informed me of the conversation he had had with Spencer. He dictated to my secretary a telegram that Mr. Spencer and he had drawn up In case the telegram itself did not reach me

in time because I expected the justice estimates were going to be considered first thing yesterday afternoon.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
At two thirty in the afternoon I received the telegram, Mr. Chairman. I appeal to the minister and to the Prime Minister to listen to the words of this telegram today in the light of what we have asked him to do. I mentioned the fact that I had telephoned Mr. Laxton and he read this telegram to me over the telephone in order to make sure I had talked to Laxton and could give the committee this assurance. I have the telegram which reads as follows:
I have had a long interview with Victor Spencer with the approval of his solicitor Harry Rankin. Spencer wants an inquiry of his case, either a judicial inquiry or by parliamentary committee because he does not feel he has been fairly dealt with. His complaint is with the nature of his dismissal and the unfair deprivation of benefits associated with his job such as pension and insurance benefits. He has no complaint-
I interject to say that Mr. Laxton emphasized to me that Mr. Spencer insisted on this kind of remark going into the telegram.
-with the treatment he has received from the R.C.M.P. but on the contrary feels they have been most considerate with him. Mr. Harry Rankin has also authorized the sending of this telegram.
The names under the body of the telegram are "John N. Laxton" and "Victor Spencer".
I do not withdraw from the position I have always taken, and which I take now on principle, that it does not matter whether Mr. Spencer wants an inquiry or does not. It is our duty as a parliament to give him that inquiry. It is the duty of the employer to give him a chance to express his views about his case.
If there is any doubt whatever in the minds of hon. members about Mr. Spencer's own feelings, I have obtained evidence which seems to me absolutely incontrovertible as to what he feels about the situation. I ask the minister to note that it may be of some consolation to him that the wire does not say that Mr. Spencer objects to his dismissal. It is significant that it says:
His complaint Is with the nature of his dismissal and the unfair deprivation of benefits associated with his job. such as pension and insurance benefits.
It is certainly possible for a commissioner of inquiry to consider in camera the treatment of this man in respect of his insurance, pension and other benefits without affecting the security of Canada. It is certainly possible to give this man justice without affecting the
March 4. 1966

security of Canada, particularly in an inquiry held in camera.
I spoke to Mr. Rankin on the telephone. This is not a court of law so that no one can stop me giving hearsay evidence, which we do all the time. Briefly this is the kind of story I received.
I deliberately did not deal with Mr. Rankin only because I have never met him before. I had heard his name. I determined I would speak with someone whose integrity 1 can personally vouch for and who would have this conversation with Mr. Spencer to ascertain Mr. Spencer's feelings. I do not know the other chap. I do not suggest anything about his integrity; I just do not know him.
Mr. Rankin tells me that Mr. Spencer has informed him of the sort of thing he told the police. I pause to ask the minister and the right hon. gentleman, can they stop Mr. Spencer telling Mr. Rankin what he did? They cannot. Can they stop Mr. Spencer telling a neighbour what he said? Not unless his doing so is a violation of the law. I am deliberately going to be as unprovocative as I can.
I suggest to the minister that he is inconsistent. It is surely much more harmful to provoke Mr. Spencer and to give him the opportunity to complain to all and sundry in Vancouver, with the undoubted likelihood of its being spread, as rumours spread, like wildfire. It is much more dangerous to the security of Canada to permit that sort of situation than to say to Mr. Spencer: "For the sake of everybody, keep quiet and come down to Ottawa to Mr. Justice so and so. Come with your lawyer and tell your story and see if you can persuade him that we were wrong." I suggest this is much safer as well as more just for the country, the government and the minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the commissioner or single person who would judge Mr. Spencer's case have, in the view of the hon. member, authority also to condemn him to some prison or to purge him if he was found guilty?


David Lewis: I do not have that in mind. I have in mind some very simple terms of reference, though I am not drafting them now. The government would tell the justice that they want him to inquire into the dismissal of Spencer and the attendant consequences of that dismissal and to inform the government, and through the government parliament, whether in his opinion the decision of the government was in accordance
Supply-Justice
with the facts and is supported by the facts, both as to the dismissal and as to the consequences which the government visited upon Mr. Spencer.
I am not saying that the judge thus appointed would be any wiser than the police or the Minister of Justice. What I am saying is that whereas the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are part of the management team for whom Mr. Spencer worked and are the employers who dismissed an employee, the judge who would be appointed, or judges-there could be more than one-would be disinterested. The entire life and function of a judge has been the weighing and relating of facts. He would therefore give an opinion which (a) would more likely be objective and fair, not because anyone is being deliberately unfair, and (b), of much greater importance, would be accepted by members on this side of the house and by the people of Canada as being that of a disinterested person, and without there being any suspicion such as is inevitable when the interested party is the only one who has made the decision and has investigated the facts.
In other words, there are two matters. First of all, there is the greater likelihood of justice being done. Second, there is the greater likelihood of justice appearing to be done. Both those things are important to our system.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the hon. member permit another question? I am trying to understand what kind of board this would be. Obviously it would be a board which would not be presiding according to due process. There would be no cross-examination of witnesses, no jury and no real trial. I am wondering what authority this judge would have. Suppose he found that the government had acted rightly. Obviously he would have nothing to do but to confirm the government in its view. But take the opposite hypothesis. Suppose he found the government was wrong. Would he have permission to reinstate Mr. Spencer or would Spencer have to ask for a civil trial?


David Lewis: Of course not. I do not quite understand the hon. gentleman's question. I have known him for many years and I have always had great regard for his intelligence. It seems to me his very great intelligence ought to serve to tell him that any number of royal commissions have been appointed, whether it be the Dorion commission or any

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice
other commission, to deal with various matters.
What we ask the inquiry to do is to give us the opinion of its commissioner or commissioners and if, when the opinion is tabled, it agrees with the opinion of the government then the government can say they have been proven right by the board. If the opinion is contrary to that of the government, then the government has the responsibility of doing what it likes. If it refuses to reinstate Spencer despite such a finding, then we and the country would know. But I do not think that would happen.
I have greater faith in the members of the government who are in the same party as the hon. member for Mount Royal than he has himself. Perhaps he knows better. However, if an independent commissioner investigated this matter and found the government wrong either in dismissing the man or depriving him of his insurance or pension, then I have faith that the government would set things right and that it would not be necessary for the commissioner to make any decision or order in that regard.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Mr. Rankin tells me that Mr. Spencer is exceedingly concerned about his position. The other day I gave Mr. Spencer's age to the house. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition perhaps did not hear me. I understand I was right in the information I have received. He is 57 to 58 years of age; he is very ill. I am not trying to do any tear jerking, but surely these things are relevant to the consideration of a sentence when a person is found guilty. He is very ill, as has been said. He had a lung removed because of lung cancer of which he is not yet cured. As a very ill person he may be, as I understand, very disturbed in other ways. All these things, it seems to me, make it absolutely necessary that there be no suspicion that he has been denied any of his rights as a citizen of Canada, and particularly as an employee of this government, to which he is entitled.


An hon. Member:: Has he a family?


David Lewis: I really cannot say. From the beginning I determined not to direct questions about him personally. I said to myself, "you are not going to be addressing a jury. You are going to be addressing a group of pretty cold and objective members of parliament. You had better not try any of this tear jerking". And I left personal questions alone.

I was very interested in the reply of the Prime Minister this morning about the answer with respect to the letter from Mr. Rankin addressed, as I understand to Mr. Milligan, an assistant secretary of the Privy Council, in which Mr. Rankin asked what the definition of misconduct was. Mr. Rankin had been informed in a letter from Mr. Milligan, so he tells me, that Mr. Spencer had been dismissed for misconduct. Mr. Rankin wrote and asked, "What do you mean by misconduct in this case"? I understand he has been told that he cannot be given an answer now. He has to find it somewhere else.
The importance of that letter, as I see it, were I to have received it from the lawyer of a person who had been dismissed, would be such that I would know perfectly well from it that the person dismissed was not satisfied. I say to the members of this house, whether members of the Liberal party or members not in the government, that if they try to suggest to the house that Mr. Spencer was satisfied they have failed to understand the obvious import of the letters addressed to Mr. Milligan. If they do understand that, then they have done something which should not have been done. It is perfectly clear from the correspondence, as Mr. Rankin also told me over the telephone, that he was conveying to the government the dissatisfaction of Mr. Spencer over his removal from his job.
1 ask the minister and the Prime Minister: In heaven's name what wrong would there be in saying to the country, this case has raised a great deal of interest, as it obviously has, this case requires another look, as it obviously does; we are not going to shut the door on all this, we will appoint a commissioner to make an inquiry?
My attention was drawn a little while ago to the issue of the Winnipeg Free Press for Wednesday, March 2. I appeal to members of the government to listen to the paragraph I am about to read. After referring to Mr. Cardin's appeal to trust him it says:
Given perfection in all men this is a fair enough appeal. But many people have less than 100 per cent faith in the absolute impartiality of any police organization and in the absolute wisdom of any body of men, even federal cabinet ministers. They have a larger degree of faith in the due processes of justice than in the private decisions of some men. While many Canadians are quite prepared to take the word of Mr. Cardin and Mr. Pearson that no injustice has been done to Mr. Spencer, others are not. In the circumstances, the wisest course of action for the government would seem to be to turn the case over to a private judicial inquiry.
March 4, 1966

If the government is in the right on this matter, as Mr. Cardin says, it has nothing to fear from such an inquiry.
I plead with the Prime Minister, that these words are obviously right. I plead with the minister that these words are obviously right. They have nothing to fear. No harm will be done. Justice will be done and will appear to be done where now it does not appear to be done. I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that after thinking about it and discussing it with their colleagues the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice would have changed their minds. I had particularly hoped that when I had brought the attention of the minister and the Prime Minister to the fact that Mr. Spencer has asked for an inquiry they would immediately agree to give him one because he is the aggrieved person.
I got the impression from the minister's words that he was not going to budge. We believe this issue to be of basic importance to the rights of individuals, to the concept of civil liberty and particularly of importance for the protection and security of government employees to make sure they will not be turned out without a chance of having their say before an indenpendent tribunal.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice be reduced by $17,000. I have this motion in both French and English. I hope my French translation is accurate.
The minister's salary, of course, is statutory. I cannot do anything about that.
But I want to be frank with the minister and tell him that the choice of the amount of $17,000 is to make it clear that this is an expression of lack of confidence in the minister and in the way he has handled the Spencer case.
If the minister will rise and say, in view of the telegram which has made it known to him that Mr. Spencer wants an inquiry, that he, the minister, will make further inquiries to satisfy himself that Mr. Spencer wants it-he does not have to accept this wire-and will say to this committee, when he has made inquiries and found that Mr. Spencer wants a judicial inquiry, that he will give him one, nothing will give me greater pleasure than to withdraw this motion and pay the highest compliment and respect to the minister for that decision.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. It is moved by Mr. Lewis that Vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Justice be reduced by $17,000.
Supply-Justice


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, with the last words of the member of York South I am sure all hon. members of the committee will agree, namely, that it is to be earnestly hoped that the Minister of Justice will now realize the untenable position which he is in and in which his colleagues and the government are pinioning him in regard to ordering a judicial inquiry. If a judicial inquiry is ordered, then I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the members of this party too will support the member for York South in withdrawing the motion. In the absence of any such direction on the part of the government there will, of course, be no alternative but to support the motion.
It is not easy to take part in this debate and say some of the things that I intend to say. I would much rather not have to say them. I debated with myself very earnestly whether I should participate in the debate at all. I was pretty well resolved on the question in favour of participating and any lingering doubts I had were completely removed by the regrettable and reprehensible conduct of the government and of the Minister of Justice in the course of the debate so far today.
What does the minister do? He absolutely refuses to realize that there is here an extremely important issue not only involving the freedom and liberty of the individual, although that is one of its most important aspects, but also involving the conduct and reputation of the government and therefore necessarily himself as Minister of Justice in connection with the administration of justice. That is what is involved.
The attack upon the minister is not a personal one but he chooses to treat it as such. It was obvious from his reply to the Leader of the Opposition that he fails altogether to realize that and in his failure he is unfortunately supported by his colleagues. I cannot help but feel that some of the major responsibility rests upon other members of the government from the Prime Minister down who have placed him in this impossible position.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The minister does not realize the issue involved but regards the criticism instead as a personal attack on himself. He showed that he still does not appreciate the responsibilities of his office or the untenable position in which he has been placed. So he deals with the matter in his reply this morning only in personal and subjective terms. He did the same in his defence with respect to bankruptcy. He said "No matter how much you urge

March 4. 1966
Supply-Justice
me, I refuse to jump". We are not asking the minister to jump, but we wish he would act. We want him to act in accordance with his responsibilities as Minister of Justice.
Instead, what do we see? In his reply to the Leader of the Opposition, in his attitude toward the whole of the opposition and toward those who would dare suggest there should be an official inquiry the minister resorts to the most vicious and public threat of intimidation, an attempt to silence criticism by a threat of intimidation bordering on blackmail.
What conduct for a Minister of Justice to say: You be quiet or I will tell about the Monseignor case. That is what he did. Let me tell him that that approach to blackmail will not work. I regret exceedingly that I have to use those words in connection with one who occupies the post of Minister of Justice, but that is what it was.
I ask the Prime Minister, who regrettably has just left the committee again, to take cognizance of the conduct which was indulged in here and which I personally know was not devised by the Minister of Justice alone.


John George Diefenbaker: It was applauded by the Prime Minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There were others associated with him in this. I ask the Prime Minister to take cognizance of what has happened. An attempt was made publicly in the House of Commons to still criticism by the threat of intimidation. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, if hon. members opposite feel it appropriate, go ahead. Produce the details if you think there is anything which should be exposed, if there is anything you believe you are in a position to expose, and you will be answered, because there is nothing which from the point of view of any improper conduct on our part we wish to hide. That kind of intimidation simply will not work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: You hope.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What does the minister say in this connection? He says: "I have spoken and you must be content with what I have said". He then went on to discuss bankruptcies. Again, the whole attempt was to avoid discussing the facts, to avoid telling us what steps, if any, they have in mind to deal with problems which are real and serious. No one

who has occupied this position in the Department of Justice, as I have done, could for a moment deny that. But instead of endeavouring to attract the support of the committee by taking us into his confidence, the minister indulges in cheap sneers at those who preceded him and a pretence that nothing was done to deal with the difficulties which confronted us then.
While I do not pretend that we solved this problem I would remind the committee that, as is well known, we recognized it and we instituted the studies of which the present minister is now the beneficiary. We did the preparatory work and we introduced those studies. We did not complete them and we did not complete all the action which the problem requires to be taken. But his government has now been in office for three years. It is our complaint not that hon. gentlemen opposite have created this problem but that after three years they have done nothing to solve it.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is not true.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister says "That is not true". Apparently he is trying to do something. Well, let him take us into his confidence and get on with the job instead of pretending that he has all the merit and that his predecessor should be condemned.
We must take a serious view of the attitude of the minister and of his attempt to stifle criticism both in the field of bankruptcy and with respect to the Spencer case. He says we are making a personal attack on him, that our criticism amounts to nothing more than a vicious smear. This is exactly what was said at the start of the matters which led to the Dorion inquiry. I know this to be the case, though I was not here in the house at the time. An effort was made to say it was nothing but an effort to discredit the government. So what must we think about the threat which the minister is now prepared to hold over our heads in an effort to stifle criticism?
This matter is too serious to be left on the bitter personal basis to which the Minister of Justice attempted to reduce it. What is involved here is certainly not criticism of the minister alone, though he insists on regarding it as such, either for not prosecuting Mr. Spencer or for not accepting a danger to our security measures with respect to counterespionage activities in Canada.
Our criticism is based on the inherent stubbornness of the government in refusing
March 4, 1966

to appoint a judicial inquiry to be held in camera, on the basis of whose findings the public might be assured that the minister and his colleagues are in the right in what they have done. That is all we want, a judicial inquiry in camera so that the actions of the executive may be judged, the actions of an executive, if I may say so, in which we have lost what little confidence which might have been left to us as a result of the attitude of this minister.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I just finish the sentence? We want a judicial inquiry so that these actions may be reviewed by an impartial and independent body and so that the administration of justice itself as well as the interests of Mr. Spencer may be protected.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Is the hon. member suggesting that as part of this judicial inquiry security officers and counterespionage officials should be subjected to cross-examination as they would be in a trial according to law?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think that question is completely irrelevant to what is at issue. I will outline to the hon. member the kind of judicial inquiry I propose and the purpose which I envisage this inquiry as serving. The Minister and the government have branded this man as a spy, as a criminal. It does not matter who did it first. That is one feature which distinguishes this case from any other case of which I am aware. The man has been branded as being an enemy of the state without having been put on trial.
In addition, the minister has said one of two things-I am not sure which he means: on the one hand he says that the evidence in the possession of the department is not sufficient for there to be a reasonable likelihood of a conviction in a court of law. On the other hand he says that the evidence they would be obliged to produce in order to secure a conviction would compromise our security service. It is not clear to me on which of these two grounds the minister relies in his refusal to go to court.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Both.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Labour says "both". We have one good lawyer speaking now from the government side. This may well be so. We say: It may well be that your
Supp ly-J ustice
decision not to go to court is justified but we want a judicial inquiry to be held in camera on the basis of which this question of the adequacy of the reports and the evidence you have against this man may be assessed. Then either one of the two decisions might be confirmed, the first being that that evidence was or was not sufficient to take to court and secure a conviction. That question would be decided. And the other question would also be determined; even though the evidence may have been sufficient, was it or was it not the kind of evidence that could be produced in open court without danger to our security arrangements? This is the information we want to get from a judicial inquiry, to know whether the executive was justified in branding this man as a criminal. Did they have any evidence at all?
Second, we want to know are they justified in refusing that right which every other Canadian has, the right of an open trial in an open court.


Mr. Turner:: If I might interject, what the hon. member is suggesting is that the executive, or an act of the executive through the minister, is to be reviewed by what he calls an independent inquiry. In other words, he is subjecting the executive to review by the judicial process. Would he not think the proper review of the executive under our parliamentary system should be by parliament, and that the motion of the hon. member for York South, being perfectly in order, is the proper way to challenge the discretion of the minister-not by a judicial inquiry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In answer I would first like to know what it is that this executive does not want to have reviewed by a judicial inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Second, I am amazed when the Minister without Portfolio suggests that somehow there is some impropriety in having executive actions reviewed by the courts.


David Lewis: That the executive is also the employer is an important point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a point made by the hon. member for York South; but my point is that actions of the executive are constantly reviewed by the courts, and I hope we will not hear any more of this extraordinary doctrine, suggested by the Minister without Portfolio, that the actions of the executive should now be above review by the courts. I hope he will reconsider this, and make it

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice
clear at the first opportunity that he did not mean it, because if he means it, it means that this government believes its actions are above review by the courts.


John Napier Turner: Review by parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course it is subject to review by parliament. But is my hon. friend saying that parliament should be given all this evidence, the very things the government is clutching to its bosom and saying it cannot reveal? Is he now saying that this evidence should be given in parliament? I think he and the Minister of Justice should get together before making that kind of contradiction.
What we are saying is that there may have been proper grounds on which the government decided not to take this case to court, but it was an executive decision and we want that decision reviewed by a competent body, and that competent body would be a judge carrying out a judicial inquiry in camera.
I do not think it is necessary to rehearse all the features of this case which make it a special one, although I have heard it suggested, in answer to our request, that we do not normally deal with these cases this way. Of course we don't, but this is a special case. As 1 said, in the first place the accused has been named, without opportunity of trial, branded a criminal and branded a spy. Second, he is now under constant surveillance.
Of what other man in Canada can it be said-and I hope it will never be said of any other man-that he, like the man named Victor Spencer, shall be under constant surveillance from now until the day he dies? When this question of the propriety of their conduct is raised, my hon. friends opposite regard it as a personal attack on the minister; but the third and most important distinction between this case and all others is the fact that Spencer himself has said, "They dare not prosecute me because if they do heads will roll."
Now, sir, can anyone conscientiously argue on the government side that this is a case which should be buried and left there? If it is buried and left there, it means that the very administration of justice is under a cloud, that the Minister of Justice is under suspicion, that the Prime Minister is under suspicion of refusing to have this matter investigated by a judicial inquiry because they dare not, because heads will roll.
Why don't they do the simple, obvious and decent thing? Why don't they unbend their stubbornness? Why don't they say, "All right,

we will have a judicial inquiry. We will clear up these doubts and place the administration of justice beyond question and impeachment in this country"? Until they do that, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the administration of justice will continue to be under a cloud.
Now may I just say a word with respect to my own intervention in this debate. I was very interested to read the words of the Minister of Justice as recorded at page 1885 of Hansard for February 28, when he said:
The hon. member for Kamloops, for whom I have great esteem, is well acquainted with the difficulties involved in the handling of security cases-
I say, yes I am, and I recognize that these decisions are not easy. The minister continued:
-and I am sure he will agree with me that no minister of justice would have authorized a prosecution when his legal advisers had recomended that the evidence admissible in court could not and would not carry a conviction.
Again I say I quite agree. It may well be that that was the case. That may have been the advice; but since this is an executive decision, passed upon only by the servants of the executive, it is perfectly appropriate for us to ask to have that decision, in the light of the extraordinary circumstances of this case, reviewed by a competent judge.
The minister went on:
I also feel quite sure that any minister of justice would be extremely sensitive to the possibility of divulging our counter-espionage activities.
I am. I agree with him. It is one part of his decision which, if it be well based, I respect. But what we are asking for is to have an inquiry which will make a report to us on whether this decision was well based, whether the case could not be taken to court without divulging essential security measures.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he feel that this type of an inquiry into decisions that have been taken wisely should continue in all types of security cases?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. I have endeavoured to make that clear. This is an extraordinary case. This is not the average case.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Why?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I gave the minister the four features, the four factors that clearly distinguish it from every other case and make it extraordinary. Perhaps I should repeat them. First, we have a man branded publicly as a criminal.
March 4, 1966


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: By himself.


Mr. Fullon:: I had hoped the Minister of Justice would not seek to take refuge in that kind of inconsequentiality. The identity of Spencer could not help but be revealed when he was dismissed from his job. Then the minister got on a television program and named him.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: He was named before.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All I can say is that the minister is impervious to common sense. The minister named him. Spencer is branded as a criminal. He is placed under perpetual surveillance, and he himself has said, "They dare not prosecute me because heads will roll." I say those circumstances place the minister under an obligation to treat this differently from other cases, to have a judicial inquiry and dispose of these issues, else there is a cloud under which he will live for the rest of his presumably short tenure as Minister of Justice.
Sir, I find I am supported in this view by others on the government side, by no less an authority, rising authority, than the hon. member for St. John's West who, as recorded at page 1917 of Hansard for February 28, with reference to the Prime Minister's announcement that there should be a separate body to investigate security cases, said:
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.
That is what we are asking for here-a judicial inquiry outside the administration itself, so that the house and the country may know that there was in fact proper support for the actions taken by the executive, and for the decisions to brand Mr. Spencer for life as a criminal, without giving him the right of trial in court, and for depriving him of his pension and all other rights. This was an act of the executive; but now unfortunately we find the government begins to believe that it should be beyond review by the courts.
This morning the Minister of Justice said that sometimes one gets carried away in the heat of debate. I hope he will review his own actions. I trust that the Prime Minster and his colleagues will review their actions and say, "Maybe we got ourselves into an extremely stubborn position. It may now be a little difficult for us to reverse ourselves." But in view of what is at stake, in view of the interests of preserving the integrity of the whole concept of justice, I trust they will be able to make this human gesture in the
Supply-Justice
interests of civil rights, fundamental freedoms, the institution of parliament, and the integrity of government, and do the right thing even at this late date.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, since I am a member of the cabinet that took the position which led to Mr. Spencer's dismissal and because of my professional background, I am particularly concerned with this problem. I spent part of my life fighting for the right of an employee to be heard in cases of dismissal as well as in others. Therefore I am not indifferent to the arguments brought forward in support of this grievance, on the contrary.
When the Spencer case came up or at least when the case was brought to my attention, the government had not decided yet, if I remember correctly, whether he was to be dismissed under section 50, section 65 or section 60 of the Civil Service Act.
The first section did not provide the right of appeal. The second one did. I suppose there was a reason for including section 50 in the act; otherwise, it would not have been needed, since section 60 provided for the right of appeal in case of dismissal.
The house decided, by passing section 50, that there were cases of dismissal which, for the common good of the state, should not provide the right of appeal. I was not in the house then and several hon. members who took part in the debate were not there either. That section was passed so that there would not be any right of appeal, in order to protect the security of the state.
I take the facts as they are in 1966. I notice that section 50 was unanimously passed by the house. This means that the Conservative party proposed it, the New Democratic Party approved it, as well as the Liberal party, in short all the members of the house agreed that there were cases when, for reasons of security or for other reasons, it is better not to grant the right of appeal, which is quite a normal right under ordinary circumstances, a dismissal or any other decision imposed by the government. There is no doubt that if there is any discretionary power, someone must exercise it, that is to say that the cabinet, knowing certain facts, must give a judgment and know if an employee must be dismissed under the first or second section. In this case, in view of the facts given us, we deemed it necessary to dismiss him under

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice
section 50, since the house had unanimously passed it and since it was meant to protect what is called the common good and the security oi the state. That is how the problem appeared to us.
Is section 50 justified? I do not have to discuss it, since the house unanimously decided that there should be such a section. If a dismissal resulting from the discretion used by the cabinet, in a particular case, under section 50, can be appealed, in spite of what the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) says, all cases can be appealed; there is not a single one that cannot be appealed. If someone endangers the state in a very serious manner, there will always be someone in this house to say: That employee did not enjoy all the democratic remedies provided by our judicial system; there should be an appeal to a judge. I am not saying that this stand is indefensible.
All I say is that, by virtue of the act enacted by the House of Commons, section 50 no longer means anything, if the decisions of the government can be disputed when a problem occurs similar to the one in Spencer's case. Let the R.C.M.P. arrest on the train tomorrow morning someone who is selling out the whole country to Russia, Communist China or another country, let him be fired, and anyone, the member for York South (Mr. Lewis) or any other member can rise and ask for an investigation. I am not saying that this would be a bad thing.
I am merely saying that I wonder why- those who were in the house at that time might know-why was section 50 included in the statutes? If the house feels that no case could occur where an employee might be deprived of his democratic rights, I would like to know it and we can settle the case.
Some time ago, the hon. member for York South seemed to understand me perfectly but we do not seem to understand each other anymore, possibly due to the division in the house. He blamed me for having connected to the facts, for having used an argument related to the formulation of a grievance by Mr. Spencer. I think that, for any other than the hon. member for York South, I would have to make a long speech to prove that he is aware of the situation, due to the fact that it is a problem of employer-employee relations and that he is aware that in industry, grievances are not formulated, that unions object to the formulation of grievances that many people sometimes fail to take the means available under law, for their own reasons, that in the
[Mr. MarchandJ
field of employer-employee relations, we asked that the grievances be formulated by the party involved.
The member for York South is surprised by this; conversely, I am most surprised, because it is normal practice in the field where he spent his life. We usually ask the worker to formulate in writing the grievance he wants to submit, so that we may know exactly what he is complaining about.
I wonder why he was surprised at my remark, because it seemed so matter of fact, especially to someone who has spent all his life dealing with labour and management relations.
Now, in a case like Spencer's, the telegram produced by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) is undoubtedly a new development for me, that is to say, from the time he stated his grievance. What surprises me is that after a month-long debate in the house, Mr. Spencer should decide voluntarily to state his grievance. It is not up to me to launch an inquiry. I do not know how this grievance was stated and I shall not question the good intentions of the persons who went to examine him or the methods they used.
I do not know this but, in view of the importance given to the Spencer case, I assume that Mr. Spencer is presenting his case before us today and asking that it be reconsidered. But let us not forget, and this was emphasized by the member for York South, that he does not ask to be reinstated; he asks that his name be cleared and that he be given a pension. Of course, Mr. Spencer is seriously ill and does not expect to work on account of ill-health. His telegram is actually an admission of guilt. In my opinion, if a person is dismissed, if he thinks that he has been dismissed unfairly and if, in his appeal, he does not ask to be reinstated, this is strong presumptive evidence against him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean Marchand: I think that the only justification for the wording of the telegram would be that Mr. Spencer is ill and no longer wishes to get his old job back. In any case-

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


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? I should like to ask him whether he did not hear my invitation to the Minister of Justice to make inquiries from Mr. Spencer? He does not have to act on the telegram I received. All I want him to do is act in accordance with the
March 4, 1966



request of Mr. Spencer. If he has any doubt about my telegram, let him make his own inquiries.


Jean Marchand: Then, I do not have to answer the question.
I conclude by saying simply that in cases of this sort, the Spencer case, the human element is important. There are also group interests, party interests, and that is quite normal. I think you will find such influences at work everywhere, but above that there remains the fundamental institutions which we must represent here.
I do not know how the house will finally deal with the Spencer case but section 50 and the whole question of the relations between the government, security agencies and those who negotiate on behalf of employees are involved here. It is not simply a case we can isolate, but I feel that this goes against what the house has already endorsed unanimously.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, I propose to inflict myself upon the committee for but a few minutes. The issue here is the ancient one of freedom and security. There is no need for me to say that we must never use security as an instrument to impair freedom, but let us not forget that there can be no freedom without security.
The issue, as I see it, divides itself into two parts, the question of the dismissal and the decision not to prosecute. I propose to deal with the last point first. Under our constitution as I understand it the decision whether or not to prosecute is not the concern of the government but the concern of the law officers of the crown. I call as my witness Sir Hartley Shawcross, one of the most distinguished occupants of the attorney generalship in Great Britain in the years 1945 to 1951. With the leave of the committee I would quote his words as found in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates, volume 460, where Sir Hartley Shawcross said:
I have always understood the position of the Attorney General to be that he is solely responsible for the decision in any case which comes to him. He must inform himself of all relevant matters. Matters of policy may be relevant. If he thinks that they are, it is for him to inform himself of the views of his colleagues, and not for his colleagues to volunteer those views to him. If, when he has informed himself of those views he thinks it desirable-and it is a matter for him-he attaches such weight to them as he thinks right, but the decision is solely and exclusively for him. That was laid down in a number of cases. Lord Birkenhead
Supply-Justice
made it clear in a well-remembered letter to "The Times," and I think it has been generally accepted since that time.
Under our constitution as I understand it the law officers have a double character. On the one hand they have a political capacity and on the other a quasi-judicial capacity, each of which imposes upon them a separate and a special obligation. I am here to bear testimony to the fact that the Minister of Justice at all times has kept the two roles distinct and separate throughout this case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is a time-honoured principle laid down in the very homestead of freedom at Westminster that there ought not to be a prosecution if the law officer of the Crown feels in his own heart that the evidence would not justify a conviction. I speak out of a deep and intimate knowledge of this case and know that the Minister of Justice revolved this matter in his mind a great deal before coming to a decision.
Let us not forget that the rules of evidence in a criminal court are extremely rigid. For instance-and I am now speaking generally-you cannot put the accused man into the witness box to testify if he does not wish to go there. The question uppermost in the mind of the law officer at all times is this: Would it be in the interest of justice, would it be in the public interest to carry out a prosecution in a given case?
In this case the Minister of Justice consulted his legal advisers who have been in the department for many years. They informed him of all the relevant matters and then, having concluded that on the grounds of evidentiary difficulties it was highly unlikely that there would be a successful prosecution, I submit there was no course open to him, by his oath of office and the spirit of the law, but to refuse to sanction a prosecution. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, when I hear hon. members talk about sending this matter to another judicial body to determine whether there should or should not be a prosecution I can only say there has been a complete misconception of the spirit of the law in this country.
I propose to say just a word about the dismissal. I purposely avoid the question about the identification of the civil servant in question. I only say to you that the Minister of Justice, if my memory does not belie me, publicly announced that there would be no prosecution before there had been identification of Spencer in this case. The Minister of

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice
Justice has put before this committee clear evidence, I respectfully submit, which shows that Spencer was the author of his own identification.
Now I come to the question of the dismissal. Once there had been a decision on the part of the law officers not to prosecute, then it became a collective responsibility of the executive to decide whether or not he should continue in employment. It is a trite observation on my part to say that when you consider a dismissal by an employer, and this now becomes a matter of employer-employee relationship, you have to consider evidence other than that which would be admissible in a court of law, and I am only talking about a criminal court. It was incumbent upon the executive then to look at all the evidence strictly in a manner that would apply in the civil courts. Many hon. members in this house have had this experience. If the committee will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I will draw upon an experience when I defended certain people charged with theft from their employers. They were acquitted of the charge. They decided to go on with this matter and brought an action in the civil court for wrongful dismissal. Evidence that could not be admitted in a criminal court was heard in the civil court. Their application for reinstatement was rejected. There was a duty resting upon the government to consider all the evidence.
I come now to section 50 of the Civil Service Act. I do not want to re-traverse all this ground. I see that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is not in his place. I say that with the passage of the Bill of Rights he forever set his seal upon the administration of justice in this country, I acknowledge that it stands as a great landmark in the relentless and unremitting struggle between the individual and the authority of the state. That was in 1960. In 1961 we amended the Civil Service Act. Whether we did it in different words or, as has been suggested, we merely re-enacted section 52, none the less this house introduced section 50.
What is the significance of section 50? Some hon. members may smile, but I ask what is the significance of section 50? I suggest it is that this house clearly contemplated that there would be those rare and exceptional cases of misconduct on the part of a civil servant which would be of such a type that it deserved to be condemned and punished by invoking section 50, that is by dismissal without appeal. For what other

reason would this house have put it on the statute books?
I draw upon other evidence which I am sure will receive the support of every hon. member of this house. I refer now to the report of the Privy Councillors of Great Britain in 1956, consisting of the Right Hon. Herbert Morrison, Lord Jowett, the Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor. I shall read just one salient and very instructive sentence:
The conference is of the opinion that in deciding these difficult and often borderline cases, it is right to continue the practice of tilting the balance in favour of offering greater protection to the security of the state rather than in the direction of safeguarding the rights of the individual.
They went on to say:
The conference recognize that some of the measures which the state is driven to take to protect its security are in some respects alien to our traditional practices. Thus, in order not to imperil sources of information, decisions have sometimes to be taken without revealing full details of the supporting evidence.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Clearly, I submit, in matters of security the government, the executive, must be the final arbiter. This is their responsibility and they cannot divest themselves of this responsibility. They cannot abdicate the duty they owe to the people in connection with Canadian security. Clearly it was never contemplated that every case of security should go to the courts. So in this case what did we do? The government looked at all the evidence, they weighed it carefully, closely, conscientiously, and reached a decision that the misconduct in this case brought it within section 50 and they acted accordingly.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, one has to admit that we are getting from both sides of the house arguments that are certainly not without value. We cannot remain indifferent to the appeals of some members of the opposition who want Mr. Spencer to be given all the freedom he is entitled to as a Canadian citizen. On the other hand, we cannot help but be struck by the appeals made, for the sake of national security, by ministers who are surely conscious of their responsibilities.
I have been re-reading one of Pascal's thoughts that I find perfectly suited to the situation we are going through. Here it is:
When one is reaching for all virtues to the extreme, here and there vices start creeping in imperceptibly as they slowly make their way toward the small infinite; and a multitude of vices also appear along the road to the great infinite,
March 4, 1966

so that one becomes lost In emptiness and is no longer able to see the virtues. One is caught in perfection itself.
Mr. Chairman, this is what happens more or less on both sides of the house.
There is another thought of Pascal, a little shorter, this one, that I might apply to those who lend passion to this debate and I quote: Man is neither angel nor beast, and unfortunately he who would act the angel acts the beast.
This, up to a point, is what we have here; passions are roused on both sides in an attempt to prove equally and entirely virtuous.
Yet there are questions to be raised. The Spencer case is not anything new. There have been similar cases in the past and it would be interesting to know what happened then.
I was surprised to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) formally and openly dare in this house the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) to refer to certain action he took when he was leader of the government in order to establish whether the same thing had not happened at that time. Among other things, mention was made of the Monseignor case which took place when the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister. Both cases are reported to be almost similar. It is hard to learn much about this matter, because the ministers, as far as I can see, feel bound by their oath of secrecy. Even though they are cornered, they make every effort not to divulge anything. It is rather by other persons that the truth could be known.
Since the Minister of Justice made reference to the Monseignor case in today's debate, I should like to ask him whether it involved national security as the Spencer case now before the house? In the Monseignor case, did Canadian citizens suffer penalties such as Spencer is suffering, without any proceedings or other form of inquiry? Did the same thing occur in a possibly similar case while the present Leader of the Opposition was in power? Is it not true that in the Monseignor case the Prime Minister of the day intervened personally to avoid prosecution and judicial inquiry? And when I say intervene, I insist on saying "intervene personally."
Since the leader of the opposition has just resumed his seat, I might perhaps repeat the questions I asked before he entered the house. He might then give us the answers to the questions I put with regard to the Monseignor case?
Here was the first: Was that case one of national security, like the Spencer case now
Supply-Justice
being studied? In that case, were sanctions imposed upon individuals without their having had the privilege of a trial or judicial inquiry similar to the one now requested? Might it not be that the former Prime Minister intervened personally so that proceedings or an inquiry might be avoided?
In the Monseignor case, did the former Prime Minister not ask that some facts be not revealed and that some actions be concealed, saying that it was necessary for the security of the country, exactly as the cabinet claims now? In the Monseignor case, were not certain individuals, at the request of the former Prime Minister, found out or kept out of the inquiry so that they would not be incriminated? Did the former Prime Minister not act like this after being influenced by certain individuals or certain people who had no connection with the cabinet, the Justice Department or the House of Commons?
The answers to these questions would likely enlighten us in the case now under consideration. If the Leader of the Opposition would tell us why some members of the opposition behaved in such a way, we might understand why the cabinet is behaving otherwise today.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, as far as we are concerned, we are still puzzled. There is a motion before us, and I know that members of our group are still wondering who is right and who is wrong. We are seeking the truth, we do not want to condemn an individual unfairly but, on the other hand, we do not want the security of the state to be threatened either, in order to protect an individual who is not actually worth it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a point which I believe was raised by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis); anyway that point is reported in today's Ottawa Journal in which it is said that there are now two lawyers working on the case. If my understanding of the newspaper item is correct, those lawyers, one of which is Mr. John Laxton, have been appointed by the New Democratic Party to defend the interests of this Mr. Spencer. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I suggested three or four days ago during consideration of the estimates of the Department of Justice: if someone believes initiatives should be taken and Spencer's rights defended before the courts, let him do it.
I mentioned that if the same thing had happened in the constituency of Lapointe, I

March 4, 1966
Supply-J ustice
would have sought personally to ensure justice to a fellow-citizen.
Well, I now see that the New Democratic Party has taken that initiative and has put Spencer's case into the hands of a Vancouver lawyer, Mr. John Laxton, and the hon. member for York South added in his press conference:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)

He has retained Vancouver lawyer John Laxton and Mr. Cardin agreed to instruct the R.C.M.P. to make Spencer available to Mr. Laxton.

Considering, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Justice agreed to a lawyer meeting Mr. Spencer to deal with this case, is this not the best procedure? Now that lawyers are handling the Spencer case, is it necessary for parliament to launch an inquiry?
I think it is desirable to let lawyers defend the rights and privileges of Spencer, since the Minister of Justice himself agreed to let lawyers handle it.
Further in the article, it is said that another lawyer-I think he is also a lawyer-Harry Raskin, of Vancouver, is also personally handling the Spencer case.
I think that parliament should be satisfied that lawyers are not prevented from dealing with the Spencer case.
But, Mr. Chairman, what strikes me is the vindictiveness with which some hon. members go after some French speaking ministers. I rose a little earlier but I could not speak because the committee was considering a motion. I must say that I did not like the meanness shown by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) did not rise; he did not have the right to speak. Nothing was heard. So he gets up and states for all to hear in the house that the President of the Privy Council had just said something that was not even official.
But, the microphone on that side was dead since the hon. member for Yukon had the floor. The minister was not on his feet. Now, let the hon. member for Yukon tell us if, in the case of the former Postmaster General, after Justice Dorion said: "Anyone who harmed his reputation should apologize", he apologized. He blamed the other minister but he never apologized to the former Postmaster General, the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay). Today, since it is urgent to pass the estimates, claiming that nothing official had been said, he tried to get

another one to his knees, asking him to apologize, when he himself has never had the courage and intestinal fortitude to apologize to another one whose reputation was clear and whom he went after in this house and outside.
The hon. member for Yukon should justify his behaviour. I was the first one in the house to take him to task. Well, no, this is forgotten. On the other hand, the hon. member for Yukon has started a lot of rumours in the last seven or eight days about the Department of Justice. I could read the statements of February 8, in Victoria, in he Droit or he Devoir on February 9, 1966:
I have a list showing the names of the companies implicated and the names of the individuals involved in the matter.
Why did he not bring it? He says that everything is mentioned in the Dorion report. No, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing said about fraudulent bankruptcies in the Dorion inquiry.
The hon. member for Yukon was saying, and this makes him even closer. The Journal of February 8, 1966:

He said he will present this evidence in the House of Commons when he returns to Ottawa later this week.

That was three weeks ago, and still no evidence.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that we are seeing the biggest deflated balloon since confederation. Oh, he had a very high reputation and all the newspaper men said: "That is the man who brought about the Dorion inquiry".
But here, there is no sign of the names and lists which he claims to have. Where are they?
Mr. Chairman, I shall quote a beautiful thought of Pascal's-good even though it is old:
The mind of this man who sits on judgment on the world is not so independent that he cannot be disturbed by the first noise he hears. There is no need of cannon fire to prevent him from thinking: the noise of a weathercock or a pulley is enough. Do not be surprised if now he cannot reason properly; a fly is buzzing in his ear; that is enough to make him incapable of giving good advice.
In Pascal, Mr. Chairman, we find a great many wonderful thoughts. Here is one. I should like to digress in order to quote another one which fits the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) perfectly. It is so right and accurate that you will not fail
March 4, 1966



to recognize the truth in Pascal's thought: the Leader of the Opposition is so presumptuous that he would like to be known throughout the world and even by people who will come after he is gone; and he is so vain that the esteem of five or six persons around him amuses and satisfies him.
I waited, Mr. Chairman, before reading those clippings over again; I was expecting the famous names of those famous companies, but nothing came out.
Would it not be that the hon. member for Yukon made statements too soon? Would it not be that he thought he was immunized, or at least important enough due to the results of the Dorion inquiry, so that today he is no longer justified? Did he change his mind?
It is easy to see from the way he acts now that the balloon has burst and that before long he will prove to be the greatest flop of this century.
I should like to conclude on one of Pascal's thoughts. It is above politics; there are things done on both sides without changing sides. An individual asks another:
Why do you kill me? The other answers: Do you not live on the other side of the water?
If you lived on this side, my friend, I should be a murderer, and it would be unjust to kill you. But since you live on the other side, it is just, and I am a hero.
Pascal, Mr. Chairman.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I take it upon myself to speak in this fashion precisely because in such a case as this I should have preferred to a display of political emotions and aroused passions, a reasonable and sensible discussion of the matter, so that we might be able to judge. We are sorry it was not so.
We shall try to put in practice Pascal's last thought: the side does not count, we will try to hear above the fly that buzzes in our ear, we will try to judge to the best of our ability.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the committee and the house have spent a good deal of time on this particular case. I think that is understandable and is right because it involves questions of national security, questions of the effectiveness in the past and the continued effectiveness in the future of our security arrangements for the protection of our state, and of our society against subversive action. This, of course, is the first duty of a government; certainly a first duty of government, and particularly of the head of a
Supply-Justice
government; To make sure that these arrangements in so far as you can make sure, are effective.
Also involved, Mr. Chairman, are questions of human rights, fundamental human rights, the rights of an individual as a citizen against unjust, and even illegal action by the state. I know that members of the committee are concerned with both aspects of this very difficult case. I should like to say if I might, Mr. Chairman, that both aspects, but more particularly one aspect, were put very forcibly before the committee in a speech a short time ago by the hon. member for York South. I appreciate the strength of his feeling. I appreciate the strength of feelings of other members, feelings hostile to the government in the way it has handled or managed this case, I appreciate the strength of this feeling and I appreciate the way in which the hon. member put it forward.
I should also like this to be known, Mr. Chairman. Naturally, I as the head of the government take the responsibility, the primary responsibility, for everything that has been done in this matter by the government. Any minister who has a particular responsibility acts only as a member of the government of which I am the head. Any action taken against the minister is naturally taken against the government and must be considered as such. In what I have said in the past and in what I am to say now, I am speaking as the head of the government, but also after consultation with the Minister of Justice who is more particularly concerned with this matter, and who might in other circumstances have been anxious to make that statement himself. But I persuaded him to let me make it.
There are those two aspects, then, of this very difficult case, when I have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I am just as concerned with the second aspect, the rights of the individual, however humble he may be, however powerless he may be, as I am with the national security aspect.
My concern with security, of course, is the concern of someone who has the responsibility of government. My concern with the human rights aspect of the case is dual. It is the concern of a man who has the responsibility of government, but it is also the concern of an individual Canadian who believes in the freedom of the individual against the state, if necessary. I am asking the members of the committee to accept the sincerity of my views in this matter.

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice
It has been suggested, I think by the hon. member for York South, that members of the government never admit that they ever make mistakes. I do not think he can accuse me of that strength, or that weakness, whichever it is. I have in the past admitted that there have been mistakes, and I will admit that in the future, when we make mistakes.
I believe that we have handled this matter, as a government, having regard to the issues involved, in the right way. I believe, however, that in an effort last May to call attention to the dangers to our national security of certain kinds of conspiracies which were developing in this country and of which we had evidence; the relationship of these dangers to civil servants, and to newer Canadians and people who might be exposed to temptation, that in giving the kind of publicity that we did, which was absolutely unprecedented in our security history, we made a mistake; that is, in the way that it was done.
Nevertheless, apart from that, I believe that the procedures which we have followed have been correct, and I believe that they did not inflict an injustice on the man concerned.
Until today, Mr. Chairman, this member of the civil service had never given any indication, so far as I know, to anybody that he himself was dissatisfied with the treatment he had received. It has been suggested that naturally he is not going to talk to security officers and members of the police and say that he is dissatisfied. In any event it might be argued that if he did talk like that, at least we would not hear about it in the government. If you take that position, Mr. Chairman, I would call attention to the fact that Mr. Spencer in the telegram which my hon. friend read this afternoon publicly acknowledged the consideration he had received from the police, which is something I had indicated more than once in this debate, but which was certainly much more impressive in coming from the gentleman himself. So, we had no reason to believe that he was dissatisfied with his treatment.
Nor had we any indication from him that he wished an inquiry. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, we had from him a document signed by himself, which I cannot disclose-it is a long document with considerable security information in it which would be contrary to the national interest to disclose, and I hope and I am sure that hon. members will accept that -nevertheless it was a document signed by him in which he admitted conduct which was
improper for a civil servant of the government of Canada, which justified his dismissal from the civil service. He was so dismissed under the Civil Service Act, under a clause in that act, clause 50, which does not provide for an appeal. When the act was revised in 1961 this clause was kept in. I am not criticizing the previous government for this.
My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Bell) may remember, because he took a very prominent part in the debate, that at the time the clause was considered necessary for this kind of security situation. That is the way it has been regarded since that time. I am not at all sure it should have been kept in. I am not sure now in view of what we have run into in this debate that it should still be kept in. The fact is, however, that it was included, and included by a unanimous vote of this house, including members of the New Democratic party. So, we acted under a clause in the act which had received the unanimous approval of parliament when it was being adopted in 1961.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Action has been taken in the past, Mr. Chairman, against civil servants who have prejudiced national security and who have acted improperly and been dismissed, and there has never been an appeal against this kind of decision of the Civil Service Commission. The right hon. gentleman will recall the case of a civil servant-and I am not complaining about this; I think it was the right way to proceed-who was dismissed, not under article 50, because this was before the revision of the legislation, but under article 52, which was practically the same, because he had been faithless to his duty as a civil servant. In that case there was no appeal, nor did he ask for any; and he could not have made an appeal, under the law, had he asked. We took action under this particular section of the act because we thought it was the section applicable to this particular case. The civil servant in question agreed he had done things which justified-certainly in the government's view-his dismissal. He was very ill at the time. He is still ill. In securing information from him-I think I can say this, now, because of his own remarks about the police -he was shown every possible consideration. That is one reason why the inquiry extended over so many months-so that his physical condition would not be prejudiced by the kind of inquiry which was required.
This was the situation until today when the hon. member for York South put on record a

March 4, 1966

telegram which he had quoted, the pertinent parts of which I have taken down. Oh, I know it has been argued already today that we should have known he wanted an inquiry of some kind, that he was protesting because letters were received from a Mr. Rankin-I believe this was the name-though there was nothing on the letterhead to indicate that he was a counsel for Mr. Spencer. One letter was a mere request for the order in council dismissing him. This was a public document, and it was furnished. The other was a request for information as to the ground for his dismissal. The writer was referred to the Civil Service Act by the civil servant who dealt with the matter. Those are the only two documents. I do not think that we as a government should have been expected to draw the conclusion from those two documents that this man was seeking a hearing and had secured a lawyer to prepare the way for it.
However that may be, there was a message this morning-a telegram, according to the hon. member-


David Lewis: It may be of assistance to the right hon. gentleman if I say I have just sent a copy over to him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -from a John Laxton, a reputable lawyer in Vancouver, and Mr. Victor Spencer. In this telegram Mr. Laxton quotes Mr. Spencer as saying he wants an inquiry into his case because he does not feel he has been fairly dealt with. His complaint-and this is why he feels he has not been fairly dealt with-is about the nature of his dismissal and the unfair deprivation of benefits associated with his job, such as pension and insurance benefits. Then he goes on to say he is not complaining about his treatment by the police.
As I understand it-and I am not a lawyer- he is complaining as an employee to his employer about the way in which he has been dismissed-the nature of his dismissal. He is complaining of being deprived of benefits associated with his job. I am not going into the technicalities of his right to superannuation-they have been dealt with by more than one speaker on this side of the house. Any civil servant taking a post with the government presumably knows what those rights are and he knows, also, that they can be forfeited by improper conduct. Perhaps Mr. Spencer does not know this. Perhaps he does not know he can be deprived of certain superannuation rights because of the nature of his dismissal.
Supply-Justice
I think it is my duty, now, to telephone Mr. Spencer myself. I do this, not because I throw any doubt on the authenticity of this message, but if Mr. Spencer is to be given the benefit of an inquiry into the nature of his dismissal and his superannuation rights, I think we in the government have the right to ask him the question whether he wants such an inquiry. He has not said so before. I know that in the past he has said he wanted to be left alone.


David Lewis: I suggested that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am grateful to the hon. member. If he feels it would add to the impressiveness of the telephone call I would be glad to have him in the office at the end of another telephone line and he could listen to what was being said. I say that because I might not get every word straight from Mr. Spencer. I would be glad to have this call monitored by anyone to make sure we do not have any kind of misunderstanding-not deliberate, but accidental misrepresentation of anything he might say. I think this is important because long distance telephone calls can at times lead to misunderstandings.
If Mr. Spencer says yes, and confirms this telegram, and says "I want an inquiry into the nature of my dismissal; I am worried about my superannuation benefits, and I want this situation cleared up", I do not see any reason in the world why we should not grant him this request. I am quite prepared to do that if this telephone call confirms he would like an inquiry of that kind.
But let it be clear-and I stand firmly on this: We do not feel we have acted in any wrong way with respect to the inquiries we have made in relation to the security aspects of this case and his relationship to them. We do not feel we have been unfair to him in any respect in his dismissal from the civil service consequent on his own admissions. And we do not think any interest would be served-indeed, the security services might be prejudiced-by an inquiry into the security aspects of this matter. Nevertheless, in the aspects which concern Spencer as a civil servant, the denial of rights he now claims, he should be allowed the benefit of an inquiry. We would be glad to make that possible. He could come here to Ottawa and the inquiry could be held here, or if he is not fit to travel to Ottawa the inquiry could be held in Vancouver. Such an inquiry would remove any doubt that he has been unfairly treated

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice
with, regard to his superannuation benefits and other aspects of his dismissal as a civil servant.


David Lewis: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether I understood him correctly to say that if he finds Mr. Spencer wants the kind of inquiry he has suggested, such an inquiry would be carried out by a judge, or judges? The right hon. gentleman did not make clear whether this was to be an independent inquiry by a judge.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It seems to me in view of everything that has been said that any inquiry, if only an inquiry into the nature of his dismissal and superannuation benefits, should be held by someone completely outside the civil service or the government. I think that would be by a judge.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, it is not for me, and under no circumstances would I point out that had it not been for the strong stand taken in this parliament a grave wrong would not-


Mr. Teillel:: You are prejudging.


John George Diefenbaker: -a grave wrong would not have been brought to the attention of the Canadian people. While the suggestion by the Prime Minister goes part way it still leaves great uncertainty in answer to much of the criticism that has taken place. But anyway I say this, after the intransigent position taken by the government for so long, and without going into any further detail, the announcement by the Prime Minister indicates the power of parliament to achieve justice and to preserve fundamental freedoms and human rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Patierson@: Mr. Chairman, I am sure all hon. members recognize that we in this group have not, up until the present, participated in the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Justice. That has not been because we are disinterested in the discussions which have been taking place. There were occasions when we wanted to participate but the battle lines were drawn so clearly, and the battle was raging so vociferously, we did not have an opportune time to make any comments.	.
I first wish to speak about the division of responsibility which has been announced. Because of the proliferation of duties that has built up, it has been decided to disperse these responsibilities among three ministers

of the Crown, the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General and the President of the Privy Council. I do not know whether this will facilitate the work, but we recognize the fact that changes have to take place and if these result in a more adequate and effective administration of the various matters coming within the justice portfolio we are prepared to support that division of responsibility.
This may seem anti-climatic to all the discussion which has ranged around the Victor Spencer case, but so far as this party is concerned, and I am speaking on behalf of our leader who intended to participate but who had to leave, we recognize that the government has the responsibility for assuring the security of the nation. Even though there are times when we may question and disagree with the government's judgment, we realize it must accept the final responsibility in matters of security. On the other hand, as has been rightly stressed by many opposition speakers, the basic rights and freedoms of the individual citizen must be assured. Therefore the difficult task is to reconcile the interests of security with the assurance and maintenance of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.
I shall not mention any more about this except to say we appreciate the announcement made by the Prime Minister in that, so far as this one aspect of the problem is concerned, he is quite prepared to allow it to go before a court of inquiry, or a judicial inquiry. I believe the Prime Minister and the government are wise in doing this.
Many statements have been made on both sides, some to the effect that such a matter has never been handled before like this, and others to the effect that it is the usual practice. We only hope this will clear the air, and that from now on there will be a recognized pattern for taking care of these cases without causing all the furore and fuss which we have had during the past few days.
Another matter which has received considerable attention is organized crime. Canadians are uneasy at the possibility organized crime is establishing spheres of influence in our society. In saying this I am not casting innuendos at the government or anybody else. I am just stating a bald fact, that the people of Canada are very disturbed. They have seen this matter covered in newspaper stories, heard about it over the radio, and watch personalities discuss it on television. The public are very perturbed lest they eventually
March 4, 1966

find themselves in a position where our society in general, with all its activities and tradition, may be dictated by organized crime and criminal elements which have managed to infiltrate various phases of our society.
We can refer to the findings of the Dorion commission. We can refer to the expressed concern about fraudulent bankruptcy, and the many other crimes which may be tied in with that whole problem, and Canadians are apprehensive that so little seems to be done about it. I am not going to say that nothing is done about it. Today the Minister of Justice outlined a number of steps that the government is taking to try and meet this challenge. I am not going to say nothing has been done, or even that little has been done, but I do say Canadians are disturbed that so little seems to be done. This may be due to poor public relations on the part of the government, but the fact remains Canadians have the impression that little is being done to solve what has become a critical problem in our society.
The government should not have to be pushed or prodded, but the people of Canada should be informed of what is going on and what should be done. I realize this whole problem was discussed at a dominion-provincial conference attended by the Attorneys General of the provinces, which was a good thing.
Some Liberal party supporters have raised the question of the constitutionality of the appointment of a royal commission to look into this matter, and have pointed out that basically it is a problem which falls within provincial jurisdiction. That may be so. However, there are a great many issues today which formerly were under the complete jurisdiction of the provinces, but have now become a joint federal-provincial responsibility as a result of negotiations and agreements between the federal and provincial departments and agencies.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
1 believe determined and concerted action is required to meet this challenge. It does not matter how we approach this; if it is felt that the best agency or group to handle this is the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general, all well and good, but I hope they get down to work, get down to business and in some way or other get rid of the carping criticism which exists between these individuals, and reach a position in which they can face the issues and work together constructively to right this serious crime situation. If that
Supply-Justice
cannot be done, then I believe there should be a royal commission established.
If it is felt that a royal commission would be more effective, we would certainly go along with the establishment of such a commission. Whether this problem be solved by the attorneys general in concert or by a royal commission, I believe we all agree that there is a problem which must be tackled in the interests of this great country of ours. Therefore I would urge upon the minister and upon those associated with him the necessity for doing their utmost to see that this problem is faced and solved. If that is not done we are going to face a very difficult and serious situation in the very near future.
Mr. Chairman, there is one other matter to which I should like to refer briefly, and it is my intention to speak at greater length on this subject on a future occasion. I refer to the matter of juvenile delinquency, which is a situation of great concern to us today. All members have received the report of the committee that was set up to study this problem regarding juvenile delinquency. I have not read it completely but I have read a considerable portion of it and I can understand why there is a definte concern about this problem which faces us today.
I have figures here, which I do not intend to put on the record, in regard to the extent of the problem. I know all hon. members have received the same information, and that we recognize the extent of the problem. In this report by the committee on its study of the situation we find pointed out that no one cause is behind the problem, but rather that there are many. All of the causes working together create the situation in which we find the existence of juvenile delinquency.
It is essential that very careful analysis be made of all these issues and problems and that something positive and concrete be done to meet the challenge that is presented to us. I am sure we all recognize that youth is our greatest national asset, and that a failure to deal effectively with these problems will constitute a criminal wastage of human resources. I am sure we will all agree that a very careful, detailed and understanding attitude was taken during the study of the juvenile delinquency problem. It is not sufficient for us to get up and blast and blaze away at our young people regarding their faults, failures and shortcomings, because we have all had these, and perhaps some of us still have them. We must take a positive

March 4. 1966
Supply-Justice
attitude, realizing that these young people represent our greatest asset, and that it we fail to do our best tor them we are wasting that asset.
I have before me a reprint of an address made by Mr. MacLeod, commissioner of the Canadian penitentiary service, headed "Juvenile Delinquency, Just a Legal Problem". There is one short statement in this address I should like to read because I believe it sets out the motive that should prompt us in all our studies and activities in this regard. Mr. MacLeod, the commissioner, states:
The basic concern, I believe, stems from the adult fear that the child will not achieve his full potential in life; that indiscretions, sown in youth, will yield a harvest of lost opportunity in later life; and at the worst that the juvenile delinquent will, in time, become the adult offender.
I trust that in the spirit set out in that brief paragraph all who are concerned with this problem will work together in an endeavour to solve it, in the interests of all our young people and our nation as a whole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is incumbent upon me to say at least a few words during our consideration of these estimates, and to make some reference to what at the present time may be known as the Spencer incident or case. I can assure you that what I have to say is entirely different from what I intended to say some 15 to 20 minutes ago. I say that because of the announcement just made by the right hon. Prime Minister regarding this situation.
That eminent journalist Mr. Lynch wrote in his column a couple of days ago that as a result of an answer given to a question I had put on the order paper I rose in this house in a howl of fury and said that the Minister of Justice had tried to lynch Winch by stating that he did not think Mr. Spencer would be very happy about his new found friends, and that he did not want an inquiry. Perhaps Mr. Lynch should get a new crystal ball because Mr. Spencer has made it clear that he does want an inquiry.
May I also point out to Mr. Lynch that I am not a new found friend of Mr. Spencer as a result of this case being taken up in the House of Commons, which is of great importance to all Canadians. I know that I am the only member of this house who can say that Mr. Spencer is his constituent, because he has lived for years in the constituency of Vancouver East. I have also known Mr. Spencer personally for many, many years. He has been in my home on a number of occasions. I

have met him at numerous meetings when he was fighting on behalf of the postal workers. As a matter of fact, that is how I first met Mr. Spencer. I received a phone call from him saying that he could no longer remain quiet about the wages and working conditions of the post office employees of the federal government. He came down to my home and gave me first hand details. I think he was the first militant person to speak out on behalf of the postal employees in British Columbia.
From that first meeting we advanced to meetings which involved an official delegation from Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster and the Fraser Valley. These meetings eventually paid off and something was done for the postal employees of this country.
I wanted to bring those facts to the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, because it indicates that I am only interested in the general nature of situations such as Mr. Spencer now finds himself in, and that I speak with a knowledge of a constituent of mine.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I want to emphasize that much as I welcome the statement of the Prime Minister I am still not happy, I am still not completely satisfied about this matter. I sincerely believe that far too many questions have been left unanswered. I find it very, very difficult to understand a situation wherein an announcement was made some 18 months ago that a Canadian citizen in the federal civil service was a traitor to Canada, was guilty of espionage, that the government had the evidence to such an extent that two diplomats or employees of a foreign country's embassy were ordered home without complaint from the embassy, where there was a record of $3,000 or $4,000 being paid to a civil servant by a foreign power as a result of this espionage, where he was put under surveillance for the rest of his life, but there is not enough proof to lay a charge of espionage.
However, Mr. Chairman, there may be and there must be some peculiar, fantastic reasons for this being the case. What hits very close to home in my mind is that if the situation is such that no charge can be laid or will be laid, on what basis is the man found guilty? He must be guilty or he would not have been fired from his job as a clerk, a lowly clerk in the post office, he would not have lost his pension rights, his unemployment insurance rights and be placed under surveillance. I wish to stress that even if I do not know all the details and do not have all
March 4, 1966



the reports, I still think that even though the security of Canada is concerned the details cannot be of a nature to justify this action being taken in regard to a man who is in fact found guilty without a charge being laid.
But why carry on, Mr. Chairman; there have been days and days of debate on this matter. I still feel very unhappy about the situation. There are too many questions left unanswered. This man has been placed in a position that I believe is absolutely untenable; he has been called a criminal without a charge being laid. He has been found guilty although he may be innocent. I do not understand this. But I do hope that I have the understanding of a member of parliament, and as one who has sat in provincial and federal parliaments for over 32 years in opposition, to realize that an advance is an advance, and an admission, even if it is only a partial admission, by a Prime Minister and government that perhaps they should take a second look at a given situation is something for which we should be grateful. I hope I have the understanding to accept with good grace the advance that has been made and the proposal to meet, at least in part, the request made in the fight that has been waged in this house for many days by opposition members for understanding, decency and Canadian justice.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there are a few questions I should like to ask the minister in connection with a most unusual matter that occurred in the last 10 days. I hope he will give me his attention because I do not want him to feel that what happened this afternoon meant that the chair had been pulled out from under him. I hope he does not have that fear.
My question has to do with a case that went through the courts over a period of years. I refer to the Georges Marcotte case. In no way am I offering any views on the question of commutation. I realize the difficult decision the governor in council had in regard to that case because of the question of identification. However, a most unusual occurrence took place within the last 10 days. One of our major Canadian newspapers carried a report of a lengthy interview with a convicted murderer to which was appended an example of his literary merit and his artistic turn of mind.
I should like to ask the minister, is it the policy of the Department of Justice to permit press interviews of convicted murderers serving their term in penitentiary? Personally I 23033-142
Supply-J ustice
think this course is not one that will contribute to the administration of justice; it has too much of the melodrama that sometimes we see in the neighbouring republic, in which convicted murderers become sentimentally greater than their crime should permit.
I want to know by whom the permission was granted to interview this man. Was that permission granted by the Department of Justice or by the minister himself? By whom was the request for the interview made and what was the reason for granting it? I will have something more to say after I have received answers to these questions.


Lawrence T. Pennell: If I may interpose, Mr. Chairman, if any fault arises out of this incident it must be charged to me, because under the transfer of duties I must advise the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that I am now responsible to the house for the penitentiaries service. I undertake to obtain answers to the questions the right hon. gentleman has raised as quickly as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister not in a position to answer these questions?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am not, sir. I say quite frankly to the right hon. gentleman that I am not in a position to answer them. But the officials of my department are standing by and I expect to have an answer from them almost immediately.


John George Diefenbaker: The answer given by the minister, with the frankness that always characterizes him, lends emphasis to a view that I have expressed, namely that the trifurcation of the Department of Justice will not make for strength, certainty and effectiveness.
There is one other matter I wish to refer to, Mr. Chairman. It does not come under justice but it comes generally under the question of the estimates. We have tried to co-operate in bringing about the passage of the estimates that have come before us. They amount to a vast amount of money, billions of dollars. Today we got into a controversy which has made impossible the completion of the estimates that are before the committee. There are still five or six departments whose estimates have not been touched, two of them of major importance.
We as members of the House of Commons would be recreant to our trust if we rushed in and gave rubberstamp approval, as it were, or carte blanche approval to a mass of expenditures which has yet to be examined.

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice
It is not our fault that there has been delay in this matter. The Prime Minister in the month of June, at the time of the adjournment of the house to the fall, stated that we would be back in September. He changed his mind. He saw a majority as a result of an election and he called the election. These estimates would have been passed in the regular manner, had it not been for the precipitate way in which an election was called.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Now, I want to offer a suggestion in a spirit of co-operation. We have covered some 15 departments, I think. In order to assure that supply will be available, we are prepared immediately to give consent to the introduction of the necessary appropriation bill, give first, second and third readings forthwith then, so far as the other departments are concerned, they can be dealt with next week. We have done everything to bring about a full examination. The house has sat long hours, over and above the added hours that we are now sitting compared with the hours of sitting in previous sessions. If the government is desirous of getting a bill through, so that royal assent can be given, then on behalf of the opposition I ask for the introduction of such a bill. We will immediately give it our support. I hope hon. members in other parties in the house will join in that, so there will be no question of supply drying up over the week end.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I did not desire to speak further on the justice estimates this afternoon. I had determined not to rise unless I could see that justice was not going to be done. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister upon his action and for his announcement of this afternoon. There was a remark passed here this afternoon upon which I wish to comment and I wish to do so immediately.
The hon. member for Lapointe made a statement that there were certain people in the House of Commons carrying on a vendetta against French speaking ministers. I regret that such a statement was ever made because I do not believe such a situation exists. I regret that a French speaking member has made it. I should like to emphasize this point, that when the cabinet gives a pension to Messrs. Belec and Poitras, after the Royal Canadian Mounted Police found against them, then I for one want to see that an Anglo-Saxon gets a pension when another tribunal has found against him.


David Lewis: I do not know whether Mr. Spencer is an Anglo-Saxon, or a Buddhist or

from Africa or from Timbuctu. I, for one, strongly object to the kind of differentiation which was made both by the hon. member for Lapointe and the hon. member for York-Humber. May I say also that I think of the Minister of Justice as English speaking. He speaks as fluently as any person named Smith or Smyth or what have you.


Mr. Herridge:: A wonderful fellow.


David Lewis: I join the right hon. Leader of the Opposition in expressing pleasure at the fact that the position taken by members of parliament has enabled the Prime Minister to change the position which the government had formerly taken and to do a measure of justice to Victor Spencer. The right hon. gentleman was good enough to suggest that I should be at the extension of the telephone when the Prime Minister speaks to Mr. Spencer. I appreciate the invitation, but-


John George Diefenbaker: Wire tapping is against the law.


David Lewis: That is right, wire tapping is against the law. I do not accept the invitation, with great respect to the Prime Minister, first because Canada would be in an awful state if this parliament could not accept what the Prime Minister of the country says he heard over the telephone. I am not going to monitor him.
I do say, Mr. Chairman, very seriously that when the Prime Minister speaks to Mr. Spencer, Mr. Spencer ought to have beside him his counsel and John Laxton, whom I have asked to enter the picture. I see the Minister of Justice nodding his head. Can I assume that that is not only an agreement by him but an undertaking by him that that will be made possible?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure the right hon. Prime Minister would not object to that at all. As a matter of fact, Mr. Spencer has had legal counsel from Mr. Rankin for quite some time, and according to the report we had from the hon. member it appears that Mr. Spencer and Mr. Laxton get along extremely well. I am quite sure the Prime Minister will not have any objection at all if both of these gentlemen are present.


David Lewis: I wanted that because I wanted Mr. Spencer to get any advice he may want to obtain when the Prime Minister speaks to him.
The second thing I want-
March 4, 1966


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: How about the Prime
Minister having his lawyer there?


David Lewis: There is a host of lawyers the Prime Minister could have. The other point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, and about which I am very anxious, as I am sure all hon. members are, concerns the terms of reference appointing the inquirer. I do not care if you call him a commission of inquiry or what you call him. I heard the Prime Minister say it would be a judge, in answer to my question. I think the terms of reference ought to be broad enough not merely to enable the judge sitting to say whether or not the action was legal. I do not have very grave doubts about that, anyway, and it is a very narrow thing. The terms of reference should be broad enough to enable the person making the inquiry to say whether, in his view, in all the circumstances of this case, what was done with respect to the insurance and pension was right, in terms of human and decent treatment of an employee of the government.
On the understanding that Mr. Spencer will have beside him Mr. Rankin and Mr. Laxton when he speaks to the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister speaks to Mr. Spencer, and that the terms of reference will be broad enough to meet the requirements of human treatment, I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw the motion which I made earlier.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Does the committee give its unanimous consent to the hon. member for York South to withdraw his motion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not just at the moment. I have an idea I will but I think there is a point that must be raised immediately before we finally dispose of this matter. I am sure that all members on all sides of the house in this committee will agree that it is significant that the Prime Minister has announced that an inquiry will be made into the question whether or not a public servant has been treated fairly. I express my unreserved approval for that course; I just wish that it had been taken some time ago. As the hon. member for York South has raised the question of the terms of reference of the inquiry which is to be made, I too wish to raise what I think is a serious question in that regard.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I do not think it is just enough that there should be an inquiry into whether or not a man should have his pension rights restored, but surely an inquiry must be directed into
23033-142J
Supply-J ustice
the question of whether or not there was sufficient evidence upon which to dismiss him. If there was sufficient evidence upon which to dismiss him, then he should not have his pension restored. How, therefore, can the inquiry avoid taking that question into consideration? This was the very point I sought to raise in my remarks earlier today. Under whatever disguise the government may attempt to cloak it, what is necessary to establish the rights and wrongs of the matter is a judicial inquiry held in camera to determine whether or not the government had the evidence upon which the dismissal of Mr. Spencer was justified, and whether or not that evidence could or should have been introduced in the courts.
Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I have no wish to impose my views about the logicality of the situation against the will of the committee. I think I am right in assuming that the committee does wish to accept what the Prime Minister has announced. But I cannot give my consent to the withdrawal of this motion without registering my strong opinion that the procedure which is proposed to be taken is really not getting to the root of the issue at all. If it results in fairness or justice being given to Spencer, or the restoration of his pension, then it may well be that some benefit will be derived from this course.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Certainly.


George James McIlraith: In the circumstances, does he regard the payment of full pension as being of greater benefit to the person involved than a return of the contributions which he has made?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would express no opinion on that matter. I cannot answer because I do not know. If there was not sufficient evidence upon which to dismiss Mr. Spencer, then I am saying that he should be completely restored so far as is possible to the position which he enjoyed before his dismissal. If there was sufficient evidence upon which to dismiss him, then who is to say that the matter is adjusted by giving him a pension? How can we come to the conclusion that there was or was not sufficient evidence unless all questions are taken into account in the inquiry?


George James McIlraith: I was putting it on a much more definitive basis. I was dealing with the language used by the hon. gentleman when he

March 4, 1966
Supply-Justice
talked of restoring. the pension. I should like to ask him whether he thought that restoring a pension was always of greater benefit to a person than returning his contributions. In some cases civil servants prefer one over the other.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, Mr. Chairman, in my view the question whether you restore his pension or return his contribution does not arise, if you are satisfied that there is not sufficient evidence upon which to dismiss him. What I am saying is that every step must be taken to restore him so far as is possible to the position in which he would have been had he not been dismissed. You cannot arrive at that decision until you arrive at the decision whether or not there is sufficient evidence upon which to dismiss him. That is why we are asking for an inquiry, and have done so all along.
All I am saying is that the Prime Minister, while seeking to make the best of a bad job, has underlined the fact that the whole thing is just a ghastly mess. Had the government been less stubborn and agreed that the unusual and extraordinary circumstances of this case warranted the setting up of an in camera judicial inquiry, we would not be in the illogical position in which we find ourselves now. Parliament would not be frustrated, the estimates would be almost completed, the government would not be out of money, and we would have got on with the business of the country. We have been prevented from doing this by the wrong, intransigent and stubborn attitude of the government, which has been based upon an entirely false premise.
I certainly wish to record my opinion before I agree to the withdrawal of the motion that, although it allows us to get on with the job, it does not disguise the fact that the whole thing has arisen out of an entirely improper course of conduct which has been followed by the government from the beginning.
There is also the matter of the Prime Minister making a phone call. Why does he not go on television too and let the whole public hear him?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief as usual. I want to compliment the hon. member for Kamloops upon his remarks; he has a sense of justice which I admire. He does not want to see partial justice done but complete justice done. I also compliment the minister on his later retreat.
I wfint to take this opportunity to inquire of the Solicitor General what progress is
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
being made with the examination of documents seized by the R.C.M.P. from the headquarters of the Seafarers International Union in Montreal. Are these documents being examined by the law officers of the crown or by other counsel? Second, have the provincial authorities in Quebec been interested in the possibility of charges being laid on the basis of evidence contained in these documents? Third, when does the minister expect a decision will be made with respect to laying charges on the basis of the information contained in these documents?
I have one other matter to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice. Strangely enough the hon. member for Kamloops was Minister of Justice on June 9, 1961, when I raised this question in the house. It concerns a person known as Mr. Heakes. I dealt with the matter at some length on the basis of the information given me.
In reply to me the then Minister of Justice said, as reported at page 6092 of Hansard for that year:
Turning now to the Heakes case. I should say at once we have here a most difficult case in connection with an individual for whom I have a great deal of sympathy. The ease has been exhaustively investigated by myself and at least one of my colleagues. It has also been exhaustively studied by senior officials in the government service. I have had a lengthy interview with Mr. Heakes. I referred him to the then assistant deputy minister of justice, who had several lengthy interviews with him. In the course of these interviews the position was fully explained to Mr. Heakes with every regard for the difficult position in which he found himself. Furthermore, I know that at least one of my colleagues has given assistance of a personal nature to Mr. Heakes during the period when he has found himself in difficulty, so it may be said that Mr. Heakes has not found an unsympathetic attitude on the part of the government and its officials.
I want to draw attention to the next part of his speech, which is as follows:
Our investigation has established that at the time the proposal was made there was some confusion as to whether it was the original or amended proposal which was approved by the court. Our investigation also established that there was some error on the part of the trustee who applied later on to have the proposal annulled. But the action of the trustee, so far as I can determine-and at this point I am satisfied of this on the report of my advisers-was in error and not of the nature of fraud or bad intent.
At that time the minister did go extensively into this unfortunate case. Since that date this man has made numerous calls to the house, visited a number of members and has had conversations with legal counsel, and so on. He produced many documents, some of them coming to my office as well as to the
March 4, 1966

offices of other members at this end of the house.
I am not going to take the time to go further into this matter. This man sought the assistance of the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada and other prominent persons in Montreal. At the time he brought the case to the attention of the members of the house the President of the Privy Council was then assistant deputy minister of justice. I for one feel very sorry about the circumstances surrounding this case. This man is very concerned that he be given an opportunity to obtain justice by presenting further evidence. He claims there has been perjury, wrongdoing and so on, on the part of various officials appointed under the superintendent of bankruptcy. In conclusion, I would ask whether the minister would give this unfortunate man an opportunity again to present his case to him or his appropriate officials.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being five o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker I move, that the house continue sitting this day until twelve o'clock midnight.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I oppose that, Mr. Speaker. Ten members rise. It is out.


An hon. Member:: Where is the co-operation?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in view of the failure of the motion to carry, I wonder if hon. members would be willing to waive private members' hour and continue with the estimates until six o'clock?


Gordon Minto Churchill: In answer to that, we think
we should go on now with private members' hour. Three times this week private members' hour has been passed over. The situation that the government got into today was of its own making, not ours.


George James McIlraith: I cannot let that remark go, Mr. Speaker. I think that the house leader of the official opposition, on mature reflection,
Unemployment Insurance Act will wish that he had not made that remark because it is not in accordance with the facts. He must accept his share of the responsibility, and the official opposition must accept their share of their responsibility.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have reflected, and I stand by what I said.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we agree to the request of the government house leader so that the debate on the Department of Justice estimates may go on until six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As there is not unanimous consent, the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tisdale) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-59, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (agricultural employees' coverage).
He said: Over the years, more and more employees have been covered by unemployment insurance. There is only one segment of our working population which is not presently covered, and that is agricultural and farm labour. I have presented my views on this subject on more than one occasion before standing committees and in the house itself.
This spring there is likely to be a severe shortage of farm labour. The main reason farm units are unable to get labourers to work on their crops is because agricultural workers are not covered by unemployment insurance as are other workers. In 1962 the Gill report was presented, late in the fall, to the Conservative government of that day. We were not able to debate it because early in 1963 an election was called. As a result the report was not adopted or implemented. I should like to draw attention to one of the recommendations in this report which states that farm labour should be included within the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, provided administrative difficulties can be overcome.
Four years have gone by and no action has been taken either by this parliament or by its predecessor. I should like to stress this point: If ever there was a time when farm labour
March 4, 1966

Unemployment Insurance Act should be covered by unemployment insurance, this is the time. There are shortages of labour in Canada at the present time. Even unskilled workers who have no knowledge how to operate farm machinery are unwilling to work on our farms, simply because they are not covered by insurance benefits.
I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour and he was good enough to tell me this question would be dealt with. I take his word that consideration will be given to it, but I think it should be dealt with immediately because there will be a severe shortage of farm labour by the spring both in the west and in the east.
I believe the minister should give serious thought to letting the present bill go through. Let it go before the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that it can be implemented to the benefit of all those who are willing to work on our farms. I should like to remind hon. members that it was in 1957, before the government of that day was voted out of office, that the then minister of fisheries with the help of some of his colleagues was in a position to bring in legislation enabling fishermen on both the east and the west coasts to enjoy the benefits of the act. I am not suggesting that the fishermen should not be covered, even though they are selfemployed. There was a need for these benefits. But I am blaming the members of parliament and the minister of agriculture from the western provinces because at that time they failed to bring farm labour under the provisions of the act. That was the time when action should have been taken. It is most regrettable that the fishermen were covered while farm labour was not taken into consideration.
I brought this bill to the attention of the former minister of labour, now minister of health. He assured me on more than one occasion that the Gill recommendation would be brought before the standing committee and that this matter would be debated. Of course, there have been two elections in succession, as it were, and this can be used as an excuse for delay. Nevertheless, there was plenty of time for the Minister of Labour to have presented this report.
The Gill report went thoroughly into the merits of the case for providing coverage to farm workers and it recommended that all those who worked should be covered by unemployment insurance, provided the administrative difficulties could be overcome. I cannot see why administrative difficulties


connected with the agriculture industry could not be overcome. There must be a means by which this legislation could be implemented. Today there is hardly anyone in the west who is willing to work on a farm. The industry is now highly mechanized. Scarcely anyone wishes to hire a man who works with horses. We use expensive implements-another reason why farm labour should be covered by insurance.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It is now skilful work and it would be wrong to entrust a combine costing $8,000 or $9,000, or a tractor costing $5,000 or $6,000 to someone with little skill or experience in handling such expensive machinery. I know there are many members on both sides of the house who are in favour of having unemployment insurance coverage given to farm labourers. For that reason I will yield the floor and let them express their views to show that this is a necessity. If ever there was a time when farm labour should be covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act, this is it.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure any hon. members who were members of the industrial relations committee in 1955, when the Unemployment Insurance Act was given a major overhaul, will recall that some of the members of that committee, including myself, made quite an effort to have it extended to cover farm labourers. However, our best efforts were unavailing and it has been a matter of considerable regret that, as a result, ever since that time the agricultural workers of Canada by and large have been excluded from the benefits of coverage.
I know the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) has been a consistent advocate of extending coverage since I returned to the house in 1962. I can only say in passing that I have some regret that during the period he sat on the government side he was not able to persuade the government which he supported to implement the changes he recommends. But there is little point in dwelling on what might have happened in the past.
It should be apparent to any hon. member who has looked at the most recent brief presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that the adoption of this bill is a matter of increasing urgency. One of the major points made in that brief dealt with the problem which Canadian farmers have in securing adequate farm workers, both with respect to skills and numbers. For that reason,
March 4, 1966	COMMONS
if for no other, this bill is worthy of early passage.
The reason given in 1955, and the reason given since for the exclusion of farm workers from the benefits of the act, is that their work is largely of a seasonal nature. It is true that many Canadian farms do not require full time, year round employees, though large numbers are employed on that basis. However, I think any one who has talked to farmers, and people interested in engaging in farm work, recognizes the fact that one of the problems in securing an adequate number of workers is that people who are engaged in other forms of insurable employment, at other seasons of the year, try to avoid accepting farm employment because, during any period of employment on a farm, they will be outside the coverage of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and thus lose potential benefits under it.
We are discussing this bill at a time of high employment and when the most recent reports indicate that the amount of money in the unemployment insurance fund is on the rise. It is a time when skilled workers are in short supply, and this situation is striking quite a blow at the agricultural economy of the country. It is for this reason I feel the house should give second reading to the bill and refer it to the appropriate committee where, if minor changes are required to fit it in with the existing Unemployment Insurance Act, they can be implemented there and reported back to the house for favourable consideration.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I shall make only a few comments on the motion for second reading of Bill No. 59, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (Agricultural Employees' Coverage).
Here is the preamble of this bill:
Whereas, under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, employment in agriculture is an employment that is not, nor has been, an insurable employment; and
Whereas, since the coming into force in 1941 of The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, economic and social pressures and technological changes have reduced the number and increased the size of farm units and have swollen the migration of excess farm population to urban areas; and
In the farming areas, and to give only one example, more specifically, in my own area, we have mining centres, mining towns, and surrounding such towns are quite a large
DEBATES	2253
Unemployment Insurance Act number of farming parishes where the settlers must, during the winter months, work either in the woods or in mines and come back to their farms for the few summer months to try to earn something from them.
While those people are employed in lumbering or mining, they pay unemployment insurance and when they leave their jobs they apply to the unemployment insurance office to get benefits, only to be refused benefits because they are told that their main occupation is agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that agriculture is centred mainly in eastern Canada. In our province of Quebec more particularly, agriculture brings in approximately $1200 to $1500 a year to our farmers and settlers, many of whom earn less than $1300. It is not with only six or seven cows that a farmer or a settler can support a family of seven, eight or ten children on the farm.
I believe the amendment proposed in Bill No. C-59 reasonably complies with the requirements and particularly with justice, for farmers and farm workers.
The bill goes on as follows:
Whereas, increasing mechanization and the consolidation of smaller farm units for more efficient operation, the low levels of farm income compared to the income of the non-agricultural labour force, the high capital cost of entering modern farming, and the attraction of urban amenities, turn farm youth from farming as a family way of life.
It is a fact. We find that young people are leaving the farm for the cities. Go into any farm riding nowadays, whether it be my riding or the riding of Lotbiniere, and ask a young man of 23 or 25: Are you interested in taking over from your father on the farm? In 95 per cent of the cases, the young people will reply: We are not interested in working 15 hours a day the year round on the farm for an income of $1,200 to $1,300.
This is where the young farmers, the youth exodus toward urban centres is apparent. The young go away and leave the farm. Why? Because farms no longer supply a livelihood to the farmers. That is the reason. The young do not want to carry on. Why? Because they have seen their fathers toil for years, for 10, 15, 20, 25 years. They are not interested in taking over their father's place on the farm precisely because the farm no longer offers the security it formerly did.
The bill goes on:
Whereas, the number of workers with the new abilities and managerial skills requisite for seasonal or permanent employment on the modernized farm
March 4, 1966

Unemployment Insurance Act has decreased and such workers are reluctant to take employment in agriculture due to the occupational discrimination in the Unemployment Insurance Act against employment in agriculture; and
Whereas, by reason of the facts hereinbefore recited, the small farmer must shrink his acreage and the operator of a large farm is harassed in his operations and expansion; and
Whereas, the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Unemployment Insurance Act in their report dated November 1962 recommend that the general principle be followed of extending coverage as broadly as possible for employees in agriculture so long as the necessary administrative procedures may be carried out to see to it that the rules of the plan are adhered to in a satisfactory fashion;
And this is where the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act is introduced;
An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Section 26 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto, immediately after subsection (3) thereof, the following subsection:
"(4) Notwithstanding anything in this act, the commission shall, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations to include employment in agriculture in insurable employment and to provide for all such matters as are necessary to provide unemployment insurance for employees in agriculture.
Even if this bill is sponsored by a member of the opposition, it should get the unanimous approval of the house because it is important that our farmers, our settlers and our farm workers be treated on the same footing as other workers in any industry or in any economic sector, in Canada.
One of the things that the government should keep in mind is that a miner during his employment, makes a contribution, but it should not be forgotten that miners earn $5,000 while farmers make only $1,200. The small earners are exactly those who cannot get unemployment insurance benefits.
Now, if other categories of workers are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, I sincerely believe that our farmers and settlers should be treated as fairly as any other category of workers in industry.
That is why I give my unqualified support to Bill No. C-59 and I hope that instead of giving it a first class burial at six o'clock, hon. members will have an opportunity to vote on it so that farmers can be treated just as fairly as the other social classes in this country.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly on this bill because I believe that this is a matter which concerns the farmers in my riding, the
[Mr. Caouette.l
farmers in the riding of the hon. member who proposed the bill, as well as farmers all across Canada. There is no doubt about the suggestion that agricultural workers are not covered under the Unemployment Insurance Act and that this makes it difficult for farmers to obtain assistance for seeding, harvesting and other tasks. I do not want to be misunderstood, because there is no doubt in my mind that it would be desirable for the people who are engaged in the occupation of farming to be covered by unemployment insurance; but having said that I should like to state that I have some apprehension about the administration that would be necessary to make this possible.
I have had some experience in the small business field in complying with the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I know, for example, that it is an offence for a small businessman to hire anyone unless he is licensed to buy unemployment insurance stamps. I know it is an offence if a small businessman does not purchase the stamps and place them in the unemployment insurance books within three days of the end of the month.
If the government does acquiesce to the requests contained in Bill C-59 I hope they will be extremely careful in setting up the regulations for the administration of this coverage; otherwise, on balance, this will be more of a millstone to the farmers across this country than it will be of assistance. It will require farmers hiring anyone to work for them to obtain a licence to purchase stamps, to keep records and supply the unemployment insurance office with those records. This could be more of a burden than anything else.
There may be a solution to the situation. I think the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) pointed out the difficulties when he referred to the Gill commission, which suggested that it would be desirable to have agricultural workers covered under the act, provided the administrative details could be worked out. It is those details with which I am concerned, and I have had some experience in this small business field. I can well imagine that farmers will be unhappy when they find that they will be committing an offence by hiring someone without having a licence to purchase stamps, and unless they keep books, provide records, and so on.
March 4, 1966	COMMONS
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a possibility that in setting up the regulations this system could be made optional or used at the discretion of the particular farmer concerned. I say this because those farmers who carry on a large enough operation to warrant their needing hired help, perhaps on a year round basis, should be brought in. Some of those who require more than one employee, and are fairly consistent employers of farm labour should be brought in, because usually their operation is large enough that they have to do a great deal of bookkeeping, keeping of records, submitting of reports and so on. Adding the Unemployment Insurance Commission requirements to that kind of operation would probably not be objectionable. But to make it a blanket coverage as it is with other business today would create, I think, a great many problems that would be undesirable.
I should like the government to consider making this system optional in the regulations because I know the government has stated on a number of occasions that it is seriously considering ways and means of bringing agricultural workers within the ambit of the act. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I want to be very, very brief and in conclusion I should like to caution the government that if and when they do introduce this kind of coverage the regulations should not be so extensive and arbitrary that they will cause a great many small operators and part time employers, if I may put it that way, a great deal of difficulty in abiding by them.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I should like to ask whether he is not aware of the fact that unemployment insurance stamps can be secured at any post office as required.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am very well aware of that fact, but you cannot buy unemployment insurance stamps at any post office unless you have a licence to buy them. There are very good and sufficient reasons for having to apply for such a licence and for the application book necessary to pick up these stamps at any post office. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) knows very well that he cannot go to a post office and buy unemployment insurance stamps unless he produces the licence with which to purchase those stamps. The reason is very simple; it is that there would be abuse of the use of these stamps unless there was very strict control on who could buy them.
DEBATES	2255
Unemployment Insurance Act [Translation]


Mr. Auguste Choqueiie (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the various contributions to the debate on the bill now under study.
I should like, first of all, to congratulate the hon. member who introduced the bill; his intentions are excellent and his proposal worthy of interest.
Mr. Speaker, the bill, in its present form, reflects the claims, not only of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture but also of the Catholic Farmers' Union, both of which advocated it strongly.
Personally, I came to the house in 1963 and supported and requested such legislation.
I do not wish to minimize the credit of the hon. member who moved the bill, but as I represent an essentially rural riding-there are only villages in the riding of Lotbiniere, no towns or cities-I am in a position to understand the nature of our farmers' problems, and more specifically, the problems that arise because the tillers of the soil are not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Therefore, I fully agree with the principle of this bill. I also agree with the reasons adduced in the preamble of the bill, particularly the marked technological changes that have occurred since the Unemployment Insurance Act came into force; increasing mechanization of our farms and the consolidation of farm units and the fact that a worker owning a smaller farm is likely to disappear for the benefit of those who own larger units.
I believe that all these reasons enlighten us in a special way on the necessity of such a bill.
However, I have listened also to the speech made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) and, there, we have food for thought. In my opinion, here is the weakness of the bill: the application provisions of this legislation are certainly not thorough enough for us to pass this bill at once.
In fact, section 3 reads as follows:
(4) No payment shall be made out of the amounts standing to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund in the consolidated revenue fund in respect of unemployment insurance benefits and refunds of contributions for employees in agriculture in excess of and except out of the amounts credited on account of contributions on behalf of insured persons, contributions made by employers of insured persons, and interest earnings of such contributions.
Then I wonder whether the sponsor of this bill made the necessary calculations to see how much this will cost? Does he have
March 4, 1966

Unemployment Insurance Act statistical data or exact figures that can prove mathematically that we are in a position, without further consideration, to give immediate passage to this bill, for I believe there is not much difficulty about the principle.
A few moments ago, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), noting that the intention of the hon. member who sponsors this measure is generous, regretted like us that-his government was in office at the time when the hon. member sat as a representative in this house in his first years-that his government did not take the initiative he wants our government to take.
Therefore, this means there is a problem. If the government does not act very quickly, if the government is not ready, when the principle is recognized to take immediate action, it is due to technical difficulties and problems relating to the practical application of the bill. In my opinion, we would not be in a position, even if we agreed in principle, to pass the bill as it is, because the hon. member did not indicate clearly enough how the government could defray the cost of implementing these new provisions.
Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing with the unemployment insurance problem, I must say, before resuming my seat that I am quite concerned about another insurance scheme, that of crop insurance.
Since the government, as well as the Quebec government, have made firm commitments in this connection, I am wondering-I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are about to call me to order, but I shall not stray from the subject completely-I say that I am concerned about the possible application of the Crop Insurance Act, because I think that, on the one hand, Mr. Courcy has not entirely agreed with the proposals of the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene). I am wondering whether we shall be in a position to witness this year the implementation of crop insurance which is much more important than the application of the bill under study.
I am in agreement with the principle of that act. I commend the hon. member for his noble intentions, but since we are not advanced enough, both on the practical and on the technical level, I do not feel we are in a position to act readily upon the bill now before us.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member allow a question?


Auguste Choquette: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member of the opinion for instance, that farmers and settlers in his riding like in mine, who work during the summer and contribute to unemployment insurance, but lose their jobs during the winter, should receive benefits which are now refused, because they are under agriculture rather than under labour, although they have paid their contributions for six or seven months of the year?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I am thoroughly in agreement with what the hon. member for Villeneuve says. It is very true, and I know, because I represent an agricultural riding and farmers come to me to complain about this injustice.
As this principle seems to have unanimous approval, I wonder whether this matter should not be referred to some committee of the house, so that concrete steps could be taken and this principle implemented soon.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who spoke before me and others who took part in this interesting debate. I entirely agree with the principle of the biU.
However, I wish to point out that the Unemployment Insurance Act should be revised during this session, as was announced in the speech from the throne if, however, we ever resume the study of legislation, for, at this rate, I do not see when we shall begin our examination of this new legislation.
I am inclined to believe that this problem will be examined and will receive all the consideration it deserves, because it is absolutely unfair, in my opinion, that farm workers-they are not farmers or farm owners, but employees like all other employees -should not benefit from social security measures established for everyone in this country.
However, as the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) pointed out, there are great technical difficulties involved in that problem. Why? Because often those farm workers only work a few days or a few weeks. In addition, in the case of employers who have but one employee during certain seasons, it seems that the method of checking their operations in order to prevent abuse will require a thorough study on the part of the government.
March 4. 1966

In the past, people have often taken undue advantage of unemployment insurance, people who were not entitled to its benefits, people who took advantage of the fact that some employers were not well organized. As a result, complaints were made that people who were not entitled to unemployment insurance and often were lazy, worked solely to get, under false pretences, unemployment insurance stamps in order to benefit from that insurance. The government was then forced to take steps to prevent this type of abuse.
I feel the observations of the hon. member for Medicine Hat are most appropriate in this connection.
We agree on the principle of the bill, particularly in this day and age when small farmers disappear, while newcomers undertake large farm operations and behave like small industrialists.
I think it is entirely illogical that these industrialist-farmers should not be able to give their employees the same benefits as other employers.
I agree that we should pass a bill in this regard and I am inclined to think that we shall be in a position to adopt the proper policy during this session, when the government has the opportunity to introduce its bill to revise the Unemployment Insurance Act, so that all Canadian workers, including farm workers, be put on the same footing.


Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, should like to express the sentiments of the previous speaker and support the principle of this bill. About a month or so ago the very distinguished and very able Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) visited the province of Newfoundland. As all gentlemen in this house are aware, while Newfoundland has many industrious farmers it is not one of those areas of endeavour that has made Newfoundland renowned throughout the world. However, we were very glad to have the Minister of Agriculture visit our province and to meet with the dairy farmers and mixed farmers of the various regions,
Unemployment Insurance Act particularly in the Avalon peninsula and in central Newfoundland. One of the matters that came up for discussion during this meeting with the farmers, a very successful meeting at which all these men were much impressed by the minister's understandable interest and sympathy, was this very point that is in fact the principle of this bill, namely the extension of unemployment insurance to farmers.
There are certain technical and other difficulties that are recognized. I hope, as I know all hon. members particularly on this side of the house do, that in the not too distant future these technicalities will be overcome to the point where this principle can, in fact, be adopted. I would remind all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that just as it was the Liberal party that extended these benefits to fishermen in 1956 so, too, it will be the Liberal party that will extend these benefits to farmers, hopefully, in 1966.
I may say it is unfortunate, indeed, that the hon. member who introduced this bill, and for whom I have a great deal of respect, and his like minded colleagues, were unable during the five years they were in office with such a large representation, particularly from the farming areas, to persuade the government of the day to overcome these technical and other difficulties involved.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In my remarks, I stressed that the Gill commission was set up by our government at that time. The report was not in until December or November, 1962. Then there were the Christmas holidays and after that an election. I should like to have the record straight.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; this is not a point of order, it is a correction. The hon. member may have an opportunity to continue the correction when this bill comes before the house a second time. The hour for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


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