1966-02-25

Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to announce that the government has approved the export from Pine Point in the Northwest Territories of additional quantities of high grade lead-zinc ore and zinc concentrates during the next two and three year periods. The application by Pine Point Mines Limited reflects a firm market position in these metals over this time period. We have approved the export of 90,000 tons per year of zinc metal contained in concentrates for a period of three years and 60,000 tons per year of high grade direct shipping ore.
These shipments will go to smelters in the United States. In addition, an earlier authority by which the government approved the export of 50,000 tons per year of elemental lead in concentrates to Japan for a period of ten years has been modified to allow the diversion of up to 15,000 tons of this amount to other markets during the next four years.
The result of these permits will be a very large increase in lead and zinc production in the immediate future. Not only will this produce very appreciable foreign exchange for Canada; it will also increase the volume of ore and concentrates moved by the Great Slave Lake Railway to more than double that anticipated before the mine went into production. It will be recalled that the government of Canada advanced the capital to build this railway. It is most encouraging to see this facility utilized to this extent.
When consideration was given to the applications for export, equal attention was given to the feasibility of increasing smelting facilities within Canada and particularly in the Northwest Territories. It is government policy to encourage processing of raw materials in Canada. On the basis of available information the case for establishing a smelter at Pine Point cannot be determined with certainty. There does seem to be a reasonable possibility that given adequate reserves and a continuation of present firm markets, such a
project might be realistic. The government is therefore engaging experienced consultants to undertake studies to determine the feasibility of the immediate construction of a smelter at Pine Point.
I am pleased to report that the mining company, Pine Point Mines Limited, and its parent organization, Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada Limited, have given unqualified support to this approach and have agreed to co-operate by making available to the government's independent consultants, on a confidential basis, all information useful in such a study. Pyramid Mining Company Limited, which has recently announced development of lead-zinc ore reserves in the same region, and several other companies now exploring the area have also indicated their willingness to co-operate in the same way.
I shall not predict that a smelter can or will be built in the Pine Point area, but because of the tremendous significance such a development could have for the region, I wish to assure the house that the government intends to continue a very active role in this matter.
To carry out the study of the economic feasibility of a smelter at Pine Point, the government has decided to retain the internationally known firm of Canadian Bechtel Limited.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that I very much appreciate the fact that I was made aware in advance of the announcement to be made by him.
That is a course that should be followed by ministers and that lends itself to more complete and intelligent comment.
I could not be happier over what has taken place with respect to the Pine Point Railway. You will recall, sir, that when we brought about the building of this railway, the northern vision was ridiculed. Indeed, this railway was described in words to the effect that what could happen might well be that there would be a couple of streaks of rust leading into northern areas.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


An hon. Member:: The Minister of Transport.
1776	COMMONS DEBATES	February 25, 1966
Lead and Zinc Exports


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to designate any of the hon. gentlemen opposite because I do not want them to blush. They are now doing that which we said should be done.
I am very pleased that our initiative received honourable mention from the minister when he said the government of Canada provided the available capital. There is just one omission in that statement; it was the government of Canada of another day. I also think the proposal that an investigation be made to determine whether a smelter should be built is a good step forward. I suggest to the minister that this company might also be authorized to look into the tremendous potentialities for further expansion, and that a smelter in the Yukon would be but another step along that course toward northern development to which we gave our hopes and expectations and also action when we were in office.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: am sure all hon. members will be pleased with the minister's announcement to the effect that there is to be a considerable increase in the export of ores and concentrates from Pine Point in the Northwest Territories.
This, as the minister has said, will help to increase Canada's foreign exchange and we shall benefit to some extent as a result. However, I think the minister recognizes-and I hope the government recognizes-that the exporting of raw material is not going to make this country rich in the long run. In the extraction industries the amount of employment per unit of invested capital is relatively low. No country ever became rich by exporting its natural resources in their raw state. Employment and wealth come in the long run from the secondary and tertiary stages of development and manufacture.
I am sure the minister is to be congratulated when he says the government is looking into the feasibility of a smelter at Pine Point. I am glad to know that studies are to be made to determine the economic feasibility of this project. However, I would urge that the government give some thought to who will direct and operate the smelter. It seems to me this is an excellent opportunity for the Canada Development Corporation to undertake this project or to undertake it in partnership with a company which has the technical know-how.

Here Canada has an excellent opportunity to develop resources which belong to the crown in such a way that the Canadian people will reap the benefit not only from extracting the raw materials but from processing them here in Canada. I think it would be a great pity if the entire process of extraction and processing were turned over to private companies, particularly if they were private companies located outside Canada. I hope the government will take advantage of this excellent opportunity to develop Canadian resources by Canadians for the benefit of Canadians.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, we are indeed very pleased to see that a recently built railroad will be used in the development of our natural resources.
However, we object to this railroad being used precisely to ship our natural resources to other countries.
I therefore urge the minister and the government to consider the idea of a smelter being established as soon as possible, so that we can process our natural resources at home and give employment to our own workers.
We are, I repeat, very pleased with this development concerning our natural resources, but we would like them to be processed here first.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we too join in expressing our satisfaction at this announcement, particularly as it relates to the possible refining within Canada of the ores that form part of our natural resource wealth. It is not possible to comment on the announcement in any detail as I did not receive notice of it. I have just checked with my office, and I believe I did not have prior notice, as did the others.
However, I would make one comment to the minister with respect to our mineral resource wealth in northern Canada. I am speaking of the vast area adjacent to Pine Point which we know as Wood Buffalo national park, an area which has been designated as a national park but which has nothing to do with park purposes. We would hope the minister would also release this area for the development of its natural resources, some of which are very vital and important to our economy.
Again we express satisfaction that this step is being taken, and we hope it is just a beginning in the development of our northern natural resources.
February 25, 1966



REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO TABLE ORDER IN COUNCIL AND PRESS RELEASE

Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the house to table copies of order in council P.C 1966-347 dated February 24, relating to final payments by the Canadian Wheat Board with respect to the crop year 1964-65, and a copy of the press release being made by the wheat board today.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the documents to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Clancy:: Read them.


Mr. Jorgenson:: He is afraid to read them in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be some difficulty about the minister having obtained permission to table these documents. Suggestions are being made that there is not perhaps unanimous consent. Is it agreed that these documents be tabled?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be ones of consternation that the minister has chosen this course-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me we have a slight difficulty at this point. There is no statement made by the minister under the terms of standing order 15(2a), and I wonder whether this would allow representatives or spokesmen for other parties in opposition to make statements at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to that. Though strictly speaking I agree with the question you have raised, surely the result of following this through would be that if the government did not want anything discussed it would simply file a document containing all the information that the minister otherwise would have given, and the opposition would then be denied the opportunity of making any observations. I suggest that having followed the course of tabling these documents there should be available to the opposition the right to comment.


Mr. Speaker:: The understanding of the Chair is that the document could not be filed because it is not a statutory document, and 23033-1131
Grain Payments
the only thing that could be done at this time is that the minister might table it by unanimous agreement. This is what the minister is doing. He is not making a statement under the terms of standing order 15(2a), and I suggest there should be no debate on this.


John George Diefenbaker: Well then, Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly clear, there can be no consent to the tabling of a document like this because this deprives us of our rights-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -and it is obviously-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there has been some misunderstanding. This is an order in council that the government is asking leave to table, an administrative act of government.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: What about the press release?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house is entitled to ask the Minister of Finance for some kind of explanation for following this course in making the information available to the house and the Canadian people. I do not think there is any precedent for this. 1 am sure Your Honour's decision and apprehension about whether there should be a comment when no statement or motion has been made is a very valid position to take, but it seems to me this is a question on which we should have some explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: The situation is a bit difficult, in as much as the minister had asked for leave and unanimous consent was given him for tabling-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the understanding of the Chair and this is why, having heard some doubt expressed from the left of the Chair, I took it upon myself to ask again whether there is leave. Otherwise, if there is not agreement in the house in respect of the tabling of these documents, the minister would be in a position where he would have to make a motion and on the motion there would be a division.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I say just one word in explanation. I wish to make it quite clear that what I was tabling today was not a
February 25, 1966
1778	COMMONS DEBATES
Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs
statement I was making, but rather was a statement by the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg.


John George Diefenbaker: You are doing by the back door what you are afraid to do by the front door.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia asked the minister whether he would let the house know when the payments by the Canadian Wheat Board would be announced, and the minister promised he would announce those payments to the house today.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter is simple. If the minister does not have the consent of the house to table these documents and does not wish to make a motion, the documents will not be tabled.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A point of order was raised, a decision has been rendered by the Chair, and the matter is closed.



FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, presented to the house on Tuesday, February 22, 1966, be now concurred in.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I must object to the approval of this report which asks that the committee be allowed to sit while the house is in session. If I were to ask its chairman why he wants this permission, he would tell me it was just in case it was needed. This is something to which we always objected. I recall that when we were in the opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) objected to the move, as did the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) and as I did myself. But we were always defeated.
I know also that several Conservative members who requested it then, admit today that they should not have done so.
I feel that the motion recommending that the committee be allowed to meet while the

house is sitting should not have been presented and I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that it is not necessary. If the committee ever feels that it has to meet, it can always come back before the house and ask for leave to do so. We would examine the situation and find out the reason why the committee wants to meet. At present, nobody knows why. Some want to create a tradition which does not exist, and the proof that it does not exist is that we have the right to object when the motion is submitted.
That is why I object to the motion and ask the members of the house to go on record in this connection.
I think it is illogical that we should be obliged to miss the sittings of the house. We have work to do while the committee meets and if we grant the same privilege to all committees, then 22 committees will want to meet while the house is in session and there will be no members left to attend to the business of the house.
That is illogical and should not be allowed. I ask hon. members to reject this motion.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is so seldom I have the opportunity to support the hon. member for Hull I want to take advantage of it now. What he has said happens to be very correct indeed, because with the multiplicity of committees now set up, if they are all given permission to sit while the house is sitting we are going to be faced with a very difficult situation here in the chamber. We will hear complaints about members not being in attendance here, and the answer to those complaints will be that they are in attendance at committee meetings but that fact will not be obvious to observers and the general public.
I should also like to support the stand that was taken some years ago by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). I did not understand the force of their arguments then but one can always learn, and I recognize now that they were very wise in the opposition they raised at that time. So, along with the member for Hull and the two hon. gentlemen I have mentioned I should like to add my name in support-


An hon. Member:: And the house leader.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Was the house leader there at that time as well? Mr. Speaker, I could not be in better company, and I want to add my support to the objection.
February 25, 1966


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the question that arises in this particular case may not be thoroughly appreciated by the house. The committee on finance is asking for leave to sit while the house is sitting, having arranged for a considerable number of witnesses to appear before it on Tuesday of next week to give evidence relating to a private bill now before that committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the argument I used a few years ago.


George James McIlraith: The question arises as to whether they will complete that evidence in the morning. Personally I hope they do, as I think all hon. members would, so the bill can be dealt with in the morning. However, it may be that they cannot complete that evidence until after 2.30 in the afternoon. In any event it would then be obvious whether they need leave, and the hon. member now making the motion could bring his motion forward when the house opens at 2.30. If it is evident that permission ought to be granted, perhaps we could grant it then. Bearing that in mind, I wonder if the hon. member would agree to let his motion stand on the order paper to be brought forward when it is clear that permission is necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the debate on this motion should be adjourned?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



CANADA FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-131, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (age discrimination).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the chief purpose of this bill is to prohibit discrimination that is rampant in the hiring, treatment and separation of many capable and experienced older workers between the ages of 40 and 45, in line with the report of the National Employment Service, which points out that one of the greatest barriers facing older people is the policy of many employers to refuse to hire persons of the older age group regardless of whether they are capable of doing an efficient job. I repeat, the purpose of this bill
Proposed Legislation
is to prohibit the practice of discrimination in the hiring of older workers.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-132, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (professional sports).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as was made clear on Wednesday, the Combines Investigation Act does not apply to professional sports or, in particular, to the operation of the National Hockey League. This bill will amend the Combines Investigation Act to provide that those who conspire or combine together to limit or restrict the opportunity in Canada of persons to participate in or observe any professional sport and which operates against the public interest shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for two years.
While this amendment includes all professional sports it is immediately directed at the National Hockey League whose president, Mr. Clarence Campbell, has made it clear that its owners are interested only in their own welfare and not the public interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him that according to standing order 71(2) he is allowed to make a brief explanation of his bill and not a general explanation of the matter.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I respect your wishes, Mr. Speaker, and I think this explanation is brief. I have only one sentence left. This bill would make them-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -recognize their obligations to the public and to Canada whether they wanted to or not.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DIVORCE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-133, to extend the grounds upon which courts now having jurisdiction to grant divorces a vinculo matrimonii may grant such relief.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
1780	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, this bill is identical word for word with the bill introduced in the other place yesterday by the chairman of the divorce committee of the other place. It would extend the grounds for divorce to include desertion without cause for three years, cruelty and incurable insanity in those courts which now have jurisdiction to receive petitions for divorce.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



THE SENATE

[Stage Direction]
ARE RECENT APPOINTMENTS DESIGNED TO BRING ABOUT REFORM?
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether Mr. Hazen Argue, who for years was engaged in advocating and supporting the abolition of the Senate before he received this appointment, made it clear that he intended to belong to the suicide squad in the Senate and do his part to abolish that institution; or has he changed his viewpoint in three years?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that this is not a proper question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I always try to ask proper questions. I then ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the appointees who have found their way into the Senate have agreed on reforming that body and thereby carry out the Liberal program in two elections in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some very serious doubts about that question, too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



INVESTIGATION UNDER COMBINES ACT INTO PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all have some serious doubts about the reform of the other place, in view of recent happenings.
May I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the statement made by the premier of Saskatchewan in the legislature to the effect that he had been in touch with the President of the Privy Council and had received assurances that an inquiry would be made under the Combines Investigation Act into the increase in the price of bread, I would ask the President of the Privy

DEBATES	February 25, 19GS
Council whether he is contemplating such an inquiry and, if so, when it will begin.


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to repeat in this house what I said to the premier of Saskatchewan. This is verbatim what I told him over the telephone; that the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act is aware of the situation and the matter is under study.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the director of investigation is aware of the situation, may I ask whether he has been directed by the President of the Privy Council to immediately institute an inquiry and, if so, when it will begin.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will not mind if I speak in my own language; it is always easier to express oneself.

Mr. Speaker, I discussed the matter with the director of investigation and research, who is now looking into the matter to determine whether or not an investigation is necessary in the circumstances.



METHOD OF ANNOUNCING FINAL PAYMENTS BY WHEAT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. My question involves the rights and privileges of the members of this house. I should like to ask the minister why he chose this method of informing the Canadian people with respect to payments made by the wheat board-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is not the type of question that can be asked of the Minister of Finance. It seems to me that questions have to be asked of a minister, in this particular instance the Minister of Finance, in his capacity as minister. The question the hon. member is asking does not relate to the minister's functions in that particular capacity.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; the Prime Minister has stated in this house a number of times that the Minister of Finance is responsible to parliament for the Canadian Wheat Board, and members ought to have the right to ask this type of question involving that responsibility.
February 25, 1968	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Certainly the hon. member has that right, but he is asking a question about the method of tabling documents, and that is not a question which can be accepted at this time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some weeks ago in this house I asked a question of the Prime Minister on the same subject, pointing out that the Minister of Finance had on three occasions up to that time ignored the traditional rights of this house. I asked the Prime Minister whether this was the policy of the government. The words of the Prime Minister were that he would leave this question to you as Speaker.
I suggest that now is the time for Your Honour to take this matter under advisement and give us a ruling on this question, which affects the fundamental right of members of this house to hear reports concerning an agency of the government in the only way we can receive these reports, through the minister. We are not being afforded that right. I would ask on this point of order that the Prime Minister's statement that this question be left in Your Honour's hands be considered, and that Your Honour give us a ruling on this type of procedure.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Further on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Watson) yesterday asked whether the minister would be setting out the rates applicable to grain in the second payment of the wheat board. The wheat board is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance for the first time. Surely the Minister of Finance, who has jurisdiction over the wheat board, should answer the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that the Minister of Finance has not been asked a question. A point of order or a question of privilege or a grievance has been raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, but he did not ask a question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then may I put a question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister disclose to the house what is the price of grain in the second payment by the wheat board, as appears in the material which the minister tried to file this morning?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do so. I thought it would have helped the house if it had accepted my tabling the documents.
DEBATES	1781
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: There would have been no argument; that is what you wanted.


Mitchell William Sharp: The list of prices is several pages long. The statement made by the wheat board today is a public document. The wheat board is competent to issue its own statements in connection with its own operations.
I thought it would help the house if we abandoned this procedure of my getting up and announcing what the wheat board has said.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the minister now saying that he is not going to answer the question put by the hon. member for Bow River? Instead of making an announcement is he going to leave the members of the house to wait until the newspapers come out in order to see what announcement has been made by the wheat board? Surely this is a completely improper procedure for a minister to adopt. It seems to me that the rules of the house are perfectly clear in this respect.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Such a statement should be made in the house.


Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: On a
point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the minister when he would be disclosing the final payments, and as reported at page 1708 of Hansard he said:
Mr. Speaker, the order in council is being approved today and the announcement will be made tomorrow.
So far as procedure is concerned, I have in my hand the announcement that the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a year ago. It is a three page document which was disclosed to the house on motions. I can see no reason for denying the house the privilege of learning right now what is the final wheat payment. One sentence in the statement made last year is as follows, as reported at page 11870 of Hansard for March 2, 1965:
Never before has so much wheat been handled and moved and sold so quickly and at such high prices.
I suspect that today the farmers have been denied these high prices, and that the minister is afraid to disclose this information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question then and ask the Minister of Finance what are the prices, and whether they are comparable with last year's.
February 25, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to answer these questions, and I am sorry the members oi the opposition denied me the opportunity of tabling the figures previously.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have not the slightest hesitation in announcing the prices or the payments, which under the circumstances are excellent. This is the second largest payment in the history of the Canadian Wheat Board. The total amount is $200,107,082. As I say, this is the second largest amount distributed by the wheat board in its history.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is the price per bushel?


Mitchell William Sharp: The average price per bushel was 38.124 cents for wheat other than Durum. For Durum it was 39.579 cents. This is exceeded only by the payments made while this government has been in office, and exceeded only once by a very slight amount when the previous government was in office.


Mr. Starr:: So that is why you did not want to tell us.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the minister confirm that the price for grades 3 and 4 last year was approximately 13 cents per bushel higher on both these crucial grades to western farmers?


Mr. Nielsen:: He did not want to talk about that.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to answer any questions which hon. gentlemen put to me. I would be very happy to give comparisons not only with last year but with many years, if the house would bear with me.
Let me take, for example, the price of No. 1 northern. In the crop year I am reporting on the price was $1.89, approximately. The previous year it was $1.97; the year before that $1.87; the year before that $1.91. Then when we get back to the great years of the Conservative administration the price was $1.79 and $1.59.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the undertaking in regard to $2 wheat?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the contempt with which the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -has treated my question is evidenced by the fact that I asked for confirmation from him that the price of No. 3 and

No. 4 last year was 13 cents higher than the price for this year. He then proceeds to go back over the years and tell us about No. 1 wheat, which nobody asked about. I want the minister now to answer the question I asked. Is it true that the price of No. 3 and No. 4 is down approximately 13 cents a bushel this year over last year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to give the figures for No. 3 northern; I have no hesitation at all. For the crop year 1964-65, upon which the wheat board has reported today, the price was $1.78; the previous year it was $1.91; the year before that $1.82; and the year before that $1.88. Then we get back those great years when it was $1.74 and $1.52.


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Speaker, last year the minister in his announcement did not go into a preamble in quoting prices of $1.80 and $1.90; he gave us the figures for grades-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly put his question.


Lawrence E. Watson: Last year the minister gave us the amount of the final payment on each grade. If he would do that today in plain, simple language it would do away with all this fuss which is going on now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since Your Honour permitted the minister to say that he was sorry the opposition had not permitted him to table the document, I hope you will also permit me to say that I am sorry the minister did not make his announcement on motions in the proper manner, so that comments could have been made and we could have saved a great deal of time.
I want to ask the minister whether he will give us the comparative figures for No. 4 for this year and last year; and has he also a comparative figure of the average for all grades of wheat for this year and last year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First of all may I just raise a question of privilege. I really felt, and I have felt for a long time-I have always tried to do this while I have had responsibility for the wheat board-that I should attempt not to confuse the responsibilities of the minister with the responsibilities of the Canadian Wheat Board. I thought it would be a waste of the time of the house for me to read into the record the statement
February 25, 1966	COMMONS
made today by the Canadian Wheat Board. I feel this ought to be the practice to be followed in the future. Therefore I felt the desirable course of action was to table the documents prepared by the Canadian Wheat Board at the same time as the order in council which set out the final prices.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is going to debate this matter on a question of privilege, then the opposition have the right to know whether the minister takes the position that as minister responsible for the wheat board he has not the responsibility to make any announcements in this house regarding any statements being made by the wheat board.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam did ask a question, and I suggest that the minister reply to it.


An hon. Member:: Try to answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question of privilege.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked me about No. 4 northern. The prices for the year that I was making the announcement about are $1.72 approximately; the previous year $1.85; then $1.74, $1.82, back to $1.69 and then $1.47. These are the prices for the past six years.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the average for all grades?


John George Diefenbaker: I have no information about this, but I ask the minister, in view of his statement as to the responsibilities of the minister, did he issue any press release today himself?


Mitchell William Sharp: No.


John George Diefenbaker: He did not? Then there is no foundation for that?


Mitchell William Sharp: No.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine.


Mitchell William Sharp: So that there is no misunderstanding, in Winnipeg today the wheat board published the statement that I endeavoured to table here today.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
DEBATES	1783
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader. Would the minister consider making arrangements some time today for time to consider Bill C-15, so that we might finish the job on the Senate which the government did on it yesterday.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: wish to direct a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On February 24 the Minister of Fisheries announced control measures to regulate sealing operations on the Atlantic coast, and the new regulations prohibited the taking or killing of hood seals in the entire gulf of St. Lawrence region. On May 20, 1964, the Secretary of State for External Affairs introduced Bill No. S-17 dealing with Canada's territorial waters. He said that when the bill comes into effect the governor in council will be authorized to draw straight base lines.
Since the announcement of the Minister of Fisheries states that a base line has been drawn from Channel Head near Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, to Scartarie light off the northeastern tip of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and no one can kill or take seals in this area


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not properly put. I suggest to the hon. member that perhaps there is a question which should be asked which might be a matter of urgency but the hon. member is really prefacing the question by a rather lengthy argument.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I prefaced my remarks so the minister would understand what I was trying to bring before the house. The question is this. Does this drawing of base lines imply that the government is now ready to implement Bill No. S-17, defining via base lines the internal waters of Canada?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: That, of course, cannot be done, as my hon. friend I think will appreciate, until we have completed our negotiations with the other countries concerned. The straight base lines have to be drawn from points that are based in turn on an acceptance of the position Canada takes with regard to waters which come within Canadian jurisdiction.
1784	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



NORTH PACIFIC-IMPROPER PRACTICES BY JAPANESE AND U.S. FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['-I would say that the words used by my hon. friend apply precisely to the former administration.']
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him whether he has given consideration to that rather full and comprehensive brief of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union on the Pacific Coast. Is the minister in agreement with the allegation in that brief, for instance, that there has been a considerable reduction in the production of salmon and halibut because of most improper practices in deep sea fishing by Japanese and also by United States fishermen in the Alaska area? May I ask what the government intends to do in that connection?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very long question. It would require a very long and detailed answer. I shall try to make the reply as brief as possible.
On Tuesday I had a meeting with the delegation which was here all week. We had a very profitable meeting, and I understand that the secretary of the group with which I met, issued yesterday a press release which deals thoroughly with the discussions that took place.
Having regard to the reduction in salmon and halibut production in the Pacific, I suggest that this is a matter presently being given serious consideration by those countries participating in the north Pacific treaty which is now under negotiation. Reference was made to the fact the U.S.S.R. should be invited to join this treaty, and I stated that personally I had no objection but that Canada would not take a unilateral position in this regard. The treaty is a tripartite treaty concerning all three countries, and if and when the U.S.S.R. is invited to join it will have to be done by the three nations which take part in this treaty.


Mr. G. L. Chatterlon (Esquimalf-Saanich):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister bring before the tripartite committee the suggestion that the U.S.S.R. be invited to join it?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which is being considered by the three nations which comprise the north Pacific treaty. As I suggested before in this house, the time may not be ripe to invite the U.S.S.R. because a principle of abstention is involved. Unless we can confirm that the

DEBATES	February 25, 1966
U.S.S.R. is prepared to abide by this principle, then it would depend on Canada, United States and Japan to extend such an invitation. This is a matter under consideration, and when the three nations become convinced that the U.S.S.R. is accepting those principles then personally I will be prepared to state that it could be to the advantage of all countries concerned to have a four party treaty instead of a tripartite treaty.


Mr. Barry Mafher (New Westminster):: have a question to direct to the Minister of Public Works. It relates to an earlier question put to the Minister of Fisheries in connection with the delegation of west coast fishermen. Has the minister yet met this delegation, and if not would he consider meeting with them before they return?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether it is in order during the question period for hon. members to ask whether ministers have met delegations, or propose to meet delegations. I suggest this is not a matter of such urgency that the question should be allowed at this time.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbiii (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is, does Canada act as spokesman on behalf of India, Burma, Ceylon and Malaysia with respect to all matters concerning the current Viet Nam situation? Second, is it indeed the view of the government that the Viet Nam situation will soon be resolved into a state similar to the Cuban situation?
Mr. Speaker, I ask these questions in view of a statement reported in the Edmonton Journal of last Tuesday, alleged to have been made by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister who was also formerly chairman of the external affairs committee of this house. The statement is alleged to have been made when speaking to students at the University of Alberta.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement to which my hon. friend draws attention. Canada, of course, does not speak for the countries he mentioned. India is a member of the commission, and while there are co-operative exchanges between members
February 25, 1966	COMMONS
of the commission, this does not involve the -adoption by one country of the foreign policy position of another. Likewise, Burma and Malaysia are independent countries, and as my hon. friend well knows are capable of expressing, and do express, their own independent positions.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister then answer my second question. Is it now the view of the government that the present Viet Nam situation will soon be resolved into a state similar to that of the Cuban situation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was wondering if the minister would simply state that the reported statement of the parliamentary secretary was completely inaccurate and wholly irresponsible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend well knows that I will not do that. I have not seen the statement. When I do see the statement I shall be glad to give my judgment about its contents.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I shall ask the question again. [Later:]


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to ask him whether the statement made in Edmonton by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Leeds, is an accurate representation of the views of the present government. His statement, in quotation marks, was "We have to stumble to a stalemate." Is this the course which the government is following not only with regard to South Viet Nam but with regard to other problems?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I were a politically minded man-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: -I would say that the words used by my hon. friend apply precisely to the former administration.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health and Welfare to which perhaps his parliamentary secretary may wish to reply in his absence. I just wish to ask if there is a
DEBATES	1785
Inquiries of the Ministry reply to the question which the minister took on notice yesterday.


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In the absence of the minister I should like to say that officials of the department have been in direct contact with the United States public health service and with the provincial health department concerning the influenza outbreak in the United States and British Columbia.
We have received samples for examination from British Columbia, and we are prepared to offer every assistance in regard to a possible immunization program if considered advisable in consultation with British Columbia health officials.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a question to direct to the President of the Privy Council. I should like to ask him whether the director of research and investigation under the Combines Investigation Act is contemplating an investigation into retail gasoline prices and the control of such prices by the petroleum companies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that the hon. member place this question on the order paper.


David Lewis: With the greatest respect to Your Honour, it is not many minutes ago that a question was directed to the President of the Privy Council with regard to an investigation into the price of bread. It is probably my dullness, but I cannot see any difference in principle between the price of bread and the price of gasoline.


Mr. Speaker:: But the Chair saw a difference between the price of bread and the price of gasoline. The Chair was under the impression, and still is, that the former question was more urgent; moreover, it was phrased in a way which conveyed a sense of immediate urgency. As to the second question, if the hon. member feels there is the same urgency attached to it he might ask that it be debated on the adjournment motion.
February 25, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry SPORTS



HOCKEY-SIGNING OF PLAYERS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: My question is intended for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the current move by the Alberta legislature to make it illegal for the United States-oriented National Hockey League to sign a contract with any boy under 18 years of age, is the government intending to take similar action-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This does not appear to be a matter so urgent that it might not be placed on the order paper.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In a radio broadcast last night the hon. gentleman indicated in connection with a reference to Ghana that the practice of the Canadian government in recognizing de facto regimes in commonwealth countries differed from the practice in recognizing countries which are not members of the commonwealth, and that Canada recognized in the commonwealth a de facto regime which seemed to be in control of affairs. Is there a difference between Ghana and Nigeria and Rhodesia in this regard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This question was raised by the Leader of the Opposition on one recent occasion when he questioned whether it is customary to recognize new commonwealth governments.


John George Diefenbaker: After revolutions and rebellions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: After revolutions.
I pointed out at that time that this had not been the practice, but that the British government in the particular case had withheld recognition, later according it. The practice of recognition of governments of commonwealth countries is not precisely the same as in the case of countries outside the commonwealth. In many instances recognition is accorded automatically. In respect of cases such as that which occurred in Ghana yesterday, the practice is developing of carrying on with the 
government which has taken over, but according no formal act until some interval has elapsed. We shall carry on with the present arrangement for Ghana. Whether there will be any formal act will depend on information which is not now before us.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will this apply also to Rhodesia?


Murdo William Martin: Rhodesia, of course, is a colony.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What a fine distinction.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, it is a distinction.


Robert Norman Thompson: Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs could answer the question I put to him yesterday relating to Uganda, in the light of what is taking place there at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the case of Uganda there is, of course, a difference. There has been no coup d'etat. The prime minister has taken over full powers of administration, the constitution has been suspended, and it is reported that Prime Minister Obote will carry on with an advisory council.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of the fact that there still exists a vacancy in the Senate from the province of Newfoundland. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he will meet the delegation from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union before that vacancy has been filled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There seems to be a non sequitur in this question.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell us whether the Leader of the Opposition agrees with his friend, Mr. Daniel Johnson, who suggested that Mr. Hugues Lapointe was the last Lieutenant Governor of the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 25, 1966



EIGHT OF MEMBER FOR MONTMAGNY-L'ISLET TO VOTE IN HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choqueile (Lolbiniere):: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Yukon on this matter, and the Chair will be given an opportunity at the beginning of the week to express an opinion about it and invite the house to take whatever action it may wish to take.


The Deputy Chairman:: 
Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, this has been an excellent debate so far although we are still waiting to hear from the government on some of the important issues that have been raised. I do not know whether I can take the debate to the same degree of rhetorical exuberance that it reached yesterday, but I do want to comment on an extraordinary statement made by the hon. member for York East. He said there were many serious problems in connection with the administration of justice in Canada and went on to say, as
Supply-Justice
found on page 1730 of Hansard of February
24:
I was not surprised to find some reaction to the proposal to split the department into two. I admire this move. I think this is reform because at least it is a change.
I know of nothing which indicates more the attitude of the government toward reform, namely, that all it needs to do is split departments into two.
During the course of the question period just ended I heard some comment about the government's stumbling and I think that is a pretty fair description. But even more than that, when the government has to face a problem it seems that its usual reaction is to fly into a fury of uncontrolled inaction and do nothing, something like a yo-yo, up and down, up and down but always in the same spot, never moving and never achieving any result.
I also heard the comments of the Minister of Justice concerning some of the serious questions raised respecting bankruptcy. The suggestion was made that this was a matter which could well be left to the provinces. I realize that so far as the Criminal Code is concerned-any member of the bar who has practised before the criminal courts will bear me out on this-by constitutional practice and by custom there is left to the provincial administrations acting through the various Attorneys General the prosecution of criminal cases, especially those arising under the Criminal Code. It is also a known fact, however, that with regard to matters coming under other federal statutes, for example, the Excise Act, the Narcotic Act and the Immigration Act, the almost invariable practice is for the Minister of Justice to appoint counsel who prepares these cases and prosecutes where necessary.
An examination of the Bankruptcy Act indicates that a large number of matters are referred to which constitute offences under that act, and the practice has been followed that such matters be referred to appropriate counsel. Those of us who were here in the last parliament know there are counsel appointed by the Minister of Justice. We all had a chance to examine a very interesting list which was prepared by another minister of the Crown who has since gone on to a higher position and we know that the list included the names of those who were agents of the Minister of Justice. Therefore I assume there are competent counsel in this country, and if there are offences under this act I suggest it is through the medium of the minister and

February 25, 1968
Supply-Justice
his officials that these prosecutions should take place.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the utmost use will be made of the standing committee which has been set up. I am not referring to the select committee which the Solicitor General mentioned but the standing committee which will be dealing with various matters concerning the administration of justice, no matter under whose department they may fall.
There has been reluctance on the part of the Prime Minister to refer the matter of Mr. Spencer to a royal commission. I shall deal with that later. But even though I am not a member of the standing committee, although I hope to exercise my rights to appear before it from time to time and conduct certain examinations, I trust that the committee, if it sees its duty as I see it, will call Mr. Spencer before it, as it has every right to do, when it is examining the estimates of the department for the fiscal year 1966-67. I see no barrier to the committee calling Mr. Spencer before it and conducting a thorough and careful examination of all the facts about which hon. members, particularly members of the opposition, have shown such great concern.
If no other medium is established, I also hope the committee will call before it the superintendent of bankruptcy and such other officials as it sees fit. This is not a matter that needs to be referred to the committee by the house. As I understand the rules and practice under which these committees are constituted, there will be a mandatory reference of the estimates to the committee and during the process of examination of those estimates there are sure to be items under which it will be possible to call these people for that close and detailed examination which is so essential in order that the people of the country can be reassured, if it is possible to reassure them, about these serious matters that have come to light.
I now wish to talk about the Combines Investigation Act, which was discussed yesterday. I understand this is a matter which comes strictly within the purview of the President of the Privy Council.
During the time he was minister of justice I asked him one or two questions, both on estimates and orders of the day, which indicated that in my opinion, from an examination of the jurisprudence in this field, there was great doubt whether the constitutional practice of resting the operations of the Combines Investigation Act and the restrictive trade practices jurisdiction on the

Criminal Code was satisfactory. True enough. I know that decisions of the past have suggested this may have been proper at that time, but my recollection is that the minister intimated to me that he and his officials were giving serious consideration to deciding whether or not the jurisdiction could be broadened by invoking the provisions of the B.N.A. Act, section 91, under the head, "the regulation of trade and commerce".
I do not know to what extent this has progressed, but from an examination of the decided cases and having in mind the purpose for which this legislation was designed I believe that it has failed to achieve what we set out to obtain many years ago when the legislation was first introduced.
In this connection an interesting article appeared in the last edition of the Alberta Law Quarterly. It is by Professor MacDonald, assistant professor of the faculty of law at Queens University. At page 67 of the Quarterly he deals at length with the question of criminality and the Canadian anticombines law. I shall not go into detail. He makes some very prudent observations, and an examination of the article supports the view I take that if we are going to use this type of measure effectively we will have to proceed on a much wider basis.
I am not here to suggest how this might be done. It may be essential to have consultation with the provincial governments to see whether or not the constitution is in fact a rigid barrier to the type of jurisdiction we need. There may have to be consultation with the provinces to see if they will lend their efforts and we might have some kind of joint program. I am inclined to think-and I mention this with diffidence because I dealt with the subject some few days ago-that it may be possible now.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I think it is a known fact that the Supreme Court is now the final arbiter in matters of constitutional practice in this country. As I understand the view expressed by some of the judges of the Supreme Court and the Privy Council, they are not necessarily bound by the decisions of the past. In other words, the principle of stare decisis is not a principle which should apply to constitutional matters. I should like to see the most careful review of the combines legislation to see whether it can be effective and to see whether there may be some measure of control without attaching the stigma of unreality in matters which involve decisions which have to be
February 25, 1966

made by large corporations and which can have a very serious and detrimental effect on the people of this country.
I think the way we should approach it is to consider whether or not we should broaden the jurisdiction by invoking the trade and commerce section of the B.N.A. Act. Some time or other I would ask the President of the Privy Council to give us his view and indicate the extent to which the investigation by his officials, which he indicated to me would take place has progressed.
I should like to deal very briefly with one other matter before I revert to the Spencer case. During the course of the report of the Auditor General reference was made on several occasions by this official to the fact that in his opinion there had been a number of breaches of the Judges Act by reason of the practice which has grown up of providing for judges who are appointed to various tribunals a measure of financial consideration which is designated as being a cost of living allowance. As the ministers know, it is quite definite that the Judges Act provides that there shall be no remuneration given to an occupant of the bench over and above his salary. The Auditor General's opinion-he has had access to counsel in Toronto and in Montreal-is buttressed by the report he has received from these people, as well as by the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee, to the effect that the payment of sums in the amount of say $100 a day contains an element of remuneration which is contrary and repugnant to the provisions of the Judges Act.
This may be a small issue, Mr. Chairman, but the government comes to the people in an effort to secure the greatest measure of law and order. It is for it to put its house in order in every way and certainly, sir, a suggestion which has been made on several occasions that judges occupying the positions they do have not been following the law because of this fact is, I think, something which should be considered by the department.
I should like to deal now with the Spencer case. I think it is a tremendous tribute to this parliament and to this country that this poor unfortunate individual, for whom I hold no brief, has had his case ventilated in the fullest detail or at least to some extent. As a result of a request made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the members of the opposition the Prime Minister made a statement with regard to Mr. Spencer. It is a statement I do not accept, but at least he was
Supply-Justice
compelled to make the statement. I already have suggested that in my opinion, inasmuch as the Prime Minister has indicated that noinquiry will be held, that we at least should have the benefit of Mr. Spencer's appearance before the standing committee. I see no reason that this should not be done and therefore I will reserve any further comments on the question of the rightness of the action taken in the hope, in which I hope I will be supported by members of the house, that he will be appearing before the committee.
I do want to say something with regard to what I think is a very serious by-product of this case. I have noted som6 of the interventions made during the course of this session in respect of the Spencer case. The first time it was brought up was on January 21 when the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of Justice to comment on it. At that time the minister made what I considered an extraordinary statement supporting and corroborating the position he had taken on a television broadcast, which might have been excused at that time under the circumstances that prevailed but which I hardly think could be excused when given calmly and deliberately in response to a question in the house. The minister said as found on page 85 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, there is no specific law or statute that covers the question of surveillance; it flows from the ordinary administration of the law by law enforcement officers.
Then the minister went on to deal further with this matter. I was prompted to ask the Prime Minister as a supplementary question whether he asserted on behalf of the government that a general right exists to scrutinize and keep under surveillance any citizen on the basis of what the government thinks that citizen may do in the future. This line of thought on the part of the government, which is clearly indicated and clearly delineated in those questions and answers was followed further by the Minister of Justice on January 31 as recorded on page 425 of Hansard where he made this statement;
As to surveillance, I said, in the course of a television program, that there would be surveillance on this man as long as he remains in Canada. It would be irresponsible not to keep such a man under surveillance fitted to the needs of the case. As already mentioned, security operations are primarily preventive in nature and success must often depend on surveillance.
Further comments were then made. Again, Mr. Chairman, on February 8 the Minister of Justice, in response to a question by the right


John George Diefenbaker: When was the first reference made to the fact that this was being done for his own protection?


Gerald William Baldwin: The question has been asked when the suggestion was first raised that this surveillance was being carried out for the protection of the individual. So far as my research has indicated, the first reference was made by the Prime Minister in his statement to the house the other day.
I suggest there are enough encroachments on individual liberties today. Some of them are essential, some of them are covered by legislation such as the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Immigration Act, and the War Measures Act if it is ever invoked. However, these are all matters in respect of which parliament has spoken.
I should like the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice before this debate is concluded to indicate to the house whether it is their view that the executive of this country, represented by the cabinet and their appointed officials, have the right to place any individual under the type of surveillance that is envisaged here without going through the due process of law under the authority of a statute which this parliament has made. It might well be that I might choose to make an inflammatory speech in this house. Does that mean that I could be followed or placed under continuous surveillance? Hon. gentlemen may say that such an idea is farfetched. I do not think it is because the principle is precisely the same. I hope that before this debate is concluded we will be given a clear and precise answer with regard to this serious situation.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the house and the hon. gentleman who just rose in anticipation of being the next speaker that my remarks will be fairly brief. Not being a member of the legal profession I normally prefer, during the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Justice, to sit and listen to the members of the house who because of their vocations are necessarily much more familiar with the Department of Justice, the administration of justice and all the other legal involvements that are confusing to the average backbencher.
That does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that I have been unable to appreciate the debate thus far. I share the view of the hon. member who has just taken his seat that in general the calibre of speeches made since our consideration of the estimates of the Department
February 25, 1966

of Justice began has been on a fairly high plane. I suppose they have been of interest to me because each and every speaker has added to my limited store of knowledge about the Department of Justice and the administration of justice in Canada. I must admit at the outset that I have a very limited knowledge of what is basically federal and what is basically provincial jurisdiction.
I was particularly impressed by the contribution of the hon. member for Kamloops, in fact, to the extent that I re-read his speech this morning. Not only did it reflect a thorough knowledge of the Department of Justice, not only did it contain what I thought were very objective criticisms of the department, but it could be considered as a lesson to the average member who wants to make an effective and objective contribution to the debate. I say this because there was a lot of meat in the speech made by that hon. member and because it was delivered without the belligerence that unfortunately a lot of us think is necessary to make a speech effective.
I cannot help but contrast the depth of the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops with the speech I was privileged to hear a little earlier delivered by the hon. member for Bow River, my old sparring partner of last session. I should like to refer to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops a little later in my speech if time permits.
I should like particularly to make reference to one paragraph which I think is valid in that it points out the dangers that may result from the exercise of legal authority within the Department of Justice. I intend to read that paragraph from Hansard because I think in it the hon. member for Kamloops implies very strongly that some of the problems that faced the former minister of justice leading to the Dorion inquiry could easily have been avoided had there been a form of mechanism within the department for the exchange of information, perhaps through joint meetings of the officers of the various branches that make up the ministry of justice.
This paragraph is very important so far as I am concerned because it explains to me why no action was taken against Hal Banks between the years 1958 and 1962. I do not suggest this in a sarcastic manner but rather objectively because although I am not a lawyer I realize there is a very sharp line of distinction between what is immoral and what is considered under the law to be illegal.
Supply-Justice
The hon. member for Peace River made a very excellent speech a few minutes ago regarding what is commonly referred to as the Spencer case. It contained much food for thought and emphasized what I have sought to emphasize when speaking in this House of Commons on occasion, the rights of individuals no matter how humble they may be. If a man like Spencer cannot have his case presented in the House of Commons, the highest court of the land, where can he turn for protection? If this high court becomes so callous that we are not interested in the rights of the individual it is time for us to sit back and take stock. The individual to whom I refer could be a Spencer or a Banks, and I am sure that the lawyers of this house, who are not as emotionally involved in personalities because of their background and training, can understand this point better than I.
Before I lose the trend of my thought I should like to make the original point I intended to make in this debate, and I draw it to the attention of the minister. I have had more than one constituent come to me with complaints of a similar nature, not because I am a lawyer but because I am a member of parliament like every other member of the house. I should like to give one example. Approximately three weeks ago a young man of 34 years of age, married and with three children, a man devoted to recreational activities in the community, active in one of our social welfare organizations, a man who has worked extremely hard for the company which employs him, suddenly realized that his hard work was to be recognized and that he was to be promoted from an average position to one of trust within his company.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
He had worked for this company for 12 years and had an impeccable record. However, he found to his amazement that because of his new position of trust the company had gone back into his record-they felt this to be necessary despite his 12 years of service-and after a thorough investigation of this young man's past had discovered that at the age of 19 he had been arrested and convicted of a common assault which occurred outside a Montreal nightclub. At that time the young man served a few days in prison. That blot is still on his record 15 years after the offence. His crime against society is no greater than that.
Being a belligerent Irishman, Mr. Chairman, I can recall half a dozen occasions when but for the grace of God my name would also

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice
have been in the permanent files of the K.C.M.P. This man has not only been refused promotion but it has been suggested that in the opinion of the pompous board of directors he should find another position in the next 60 days. This is not an isolated case; this sort of situation has been brought to my attention on half a dozen occasions. This is not the case of a man who has broken the law two, three, four or five times thereby establishing a pattern or a tendency to become a criminal. It is the case of a man who has broken the law once and that once when he was a teen-ager.
When one inquires around parliament one is told that there may be a way in which his record can be cleansed. But is there a way? If there is a way, why do we have to be furtive about it? Why do we not amend the laws of the land to make some provision to cleanse the record of a young man or girl who after an offence has served society well for five or ten years and has not shown any tendency to repeat an act of violence or break the laws of the land? In those circumstances why cannot their criminal record be wiped out as is done in the case of juveniles? I am not a lawyer, Mr. Chairman, and cannot even offer a suggestion because I feel very inadequate at the moment.
I should like to refer to another case which came to my attention last Friday. This case affects me deeply. I arrived home as usual at 20 minutes to eight and as usual the telephone rang at 15 minutes to eight. A distraught mother had called to inform me that her young son had been arrested two hours earlier and she could not get sufficient information with regard to what would happen to her boy. So I went to the local police station and found that her son together with four other boys of my community had been detained or arrested, whichever is the correct word, for breaking into the local high school.
After breaking into the high school they had thrown school books around, stolen 92 cents and finally, very unfortunately, had set fire to a wing of the school. The fire resulted in considerable material damage. Certainly they should have been picked up and detained or arrested. But what concerns me more, and I have no answer for this problem, is that I found on investigating the matter with the police that this young man 15 years of age, who as far as I understand comes from a normal home and is one of three or four children, was first arrested or detained-I do not know the right word when talking about juveniles-in the community of Verdun

at the age of 10 and was re-arrested at the age of 12 and again at the age of 14. At the time of this last offence he was 15.
Considered by themselves each of these charges was perhaps not too serious but I feel they denote a pattern of behaviour if this is the word to use. To a father of a boy of 12 who has just discovered "Treasure Island" or "Huckleberry Finn" it seems inconceivable that a youngster of 10 or 12 years of age can run afoul of the law. But it happens. What disturbs me more as a father is the fact that, this tendency to rebel against society having been discovered in this young man at the age of 10 or 12, nothing had been done about it. It is all very well to say it is the parents' fault, and perhaps it is. But it is also our fault because if young children of 10 or 12 commit this type of offence there should be some medium at our disposal whereby they can be helped. The medium may be either provincial or federal but something should be done to prevent this type of conduct in the future on the part of a young person and find out what is troubling him.
The thought went through my mind as I sat in that cold, dirty police station discussing this question that, if something is not done for this boy who is only 15 years of age, by the time he is 17, 19 or 21 he may be arrested on a charge of murder committed while holding up a drug store. It was at that moment I came to the conclusion that when we vote in this house on the question of capital punishment I shall vote for the abolition of the death sentence. I shall do this because somewhere along the line we have failed that young person of 10 or 12 years of age. Not only did his parents fail him but so did society.
I am not criticizing the social welfare courts of Quebec. I have a great deal to do with them as a private citizen looking after my constituents, more particularly as an aider-man than as a member of the house. I have been filled with admiration for two judges whom I have no hesitation naming, Judge Long and Judge Nicholson. The last time I saw them they were working in cramped quarters; they were overworked, overburdened, overtaxed. They bear a heavy burden day in and day out because of problems such as this.
I say to the members of the legal profession in this house that there is something wrong when this sort of situation exists. There has to be a better way of dealing with a juvenile of 10, 12 or 13. Perhaps I have no
February 25, 1966

right to raise this question or challenge the authorities to find an answer because I do not have any answer. I do not even know where to start. My contact with this segment of society is limited, unlike the contact of members of the legal profession.
I leave this matter with the ministers responsible as food for thought. It is time we developed a more acute conscience and stopped paying lip service to the problem by saying, "Let the schoolteachers rectify the situation" or "What do you expect? This boy comes from a broken home." The answer is not in building more penitentiaries, making them bigger, more spacious and mollycoddling a person aged 25 or 30 who is sent to penitentiary. The problem begins when a little boy of 10 is picked up for stealing a package of gum or because he showed his resentment of school by breaking into it, not breaking out of it.
I come back to the words of the hon. member for Kamloops who pointed out, 1 think quite reasonably and accurately, that whether we have one Minister of Justice or the jurisdiction is split into two or three fields the government and the ministers concerned must make certain that one hand knows what the other is doing. The hon. member stressed the point that the advisers of the department must know what the R.C.M.P. reports are all about. I will not read the passage at length. Hon. members can find the words at page 1725 of Hansard. I believe I have properly paraphrased the words used by the hon. member or he would have corrected me.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
This brings me back to the Banks affair, to which the hon. member for Bow River likes to refer when he is running out of material of a more serious nature. As reported at page 11406 of Hansard for last year the then hon. member for Carleton, Mr. Francis, asked a series of questions about Hal Banks. There were eight questions in all. These eight questions established the fact that the insidious problem of the bully, Hal Banks, was apparent to the Department of Justice as early as 1958.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member permit one question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will at the end. Unlike the hon. member for Bow River, to whom words come easily, I want to continue my main thought, but I will be sitting down in a moment.
Supply-Justice


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All right; I will ask my question at the end.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The point I tried to make earlier was that there is a distinction between having suspicions against a man and charging a man. The department must feel certain they can convict him, even though everyone in Canada knows that the man is morally irresponsible and morally guilty, before they charge him. I imagine there would be a distinction in the mind of the layman between being morally guilty and being suspected guilty, if my English explains my thought properly.
From listening to the hon. member for Kamloops yesterday I would say, though I am only guessing, that when he discussed the R.C.M.P. reports on Hal Banks between 1958 and 1962 he did so, as he said yesterday-I am not contradicting his words-with the senior officers of his department and came to the conclusion that no matter how advisable and wonderful it would be to bring Mr. Banks to justice and to prosecute him on the evidence then available, nevertheless in his opinion and in the opinion of the law officers of the land there was not sufficient evidence to do so.
I applaud the then Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Kamloops, for not bowing to public opinion and bringing Hal Banks before the courts of the land when in his opinion and in view of the advice which he sought and received there was not sufficient evidence to convict this man. That requires courage.


Mr. Fulton:: That is why we appointed the royal commission.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I agree, and I am coming to that. That was in 1963, two months after we were elected.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No; it was appointed under the Conservatives.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is not-


Maurice Rinfret: Would the hon. member mind resuming his seat. The hon. member has 30 minutes allotted to him to make his speech. He has asked to finish his speech and if there is time at the end questions may be asked. The hon. member for Verdun has the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then let him set out the
facts properly.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As usual the hon. member for Bow River has to have the last word and

February 25, 1965
Supply-Justice
I concede it to him. We are all friends here. If he wants me to criticize the speech he made yesterday I can do so effectively but it was not an important enough speech for me to devote my time to it. I am more interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Kamloops.
What I am trying to say is that it takes courage not to bow to political expediency. If it took four years for the Conservative government to set up a royal commission to investigate the affairs of Hal Banks, knowing the reputation of the then minister of justice I am sure there would have been no hesitation on his part in 1958, 1959, 1960 or 1961 to bring Hal Banks to justice if in his opinion there had been sufficient evidence upon which to do so. I am sure he felt in his own mind that morally the man was guilty of something but that to prove it was another matter. Therefore I commend his restraint in those days.
I think that is borne out by anyone who refers to the answers to the questions posed by the then member for Carleton. I do not want to take too much time on this matter but the first question he asked, as reported at page 11406 of Hansard for February 17, 1965, was:
Did the Department of Justice, in 1958, through the R.C.M.P., conduct an investigation to determine if Hal Banks had been employing intimidation and violence in the furtherance of union activities?
The answer was:
Yes. In November, 1958, the Minister of Justice instructed the R.C.M.F. to conduct an exploratory investigation-[DOT]
and so on and so forth.
The second question was:
Did the government on February 23, 1959, as a result of the aforementioned investigation, receive a full account of the conspiracy which resulted in the Walsh beatings?
The answer was:
The R.C.M.P. advise that on February 23, 1959, they forwarded a preliminary report to the Minister of Justice, under secret cover, outlining the findings of their investigation into the activities of Hal Banks, which included an account of the conspiracy to beat Captain Walsh.
The third question was:
Was any action taken by the government of that day to bring Banks to trial as a result of that evidence?
The simple answer was "No".
I come to another question:
Was another report, which included a further account of the Walsh conspiracy, sent on June 14, 1961, to the government by the Department of Justice?

The answer was:
The R.C.M.P. advise that on June 14, 1961, they forwarded a further report to the Minister of Justice, under secret cover, which enlarged on their findings with respect to Hal Banks and the general picture of the S.I.U. activities, including further information with respect to the beating of Captain Walsh.
The rest of the questions go on to lead up to the establishement of the royal commission which investigated the disruption and problems of the waterfront. I find no fault with the fact that it took three or four years to establish the commission or that the minister of justice of that day did not feel the time for action was appropriate. But the hon. member for Bow River has constantly harped on Hal Banks and his relationship with the Liberal party, intimating to those who do not know differently that the Liberal government in. some way conspired to keep Hal Banks in Canada.
The hon. member for Bow River will get up and say: "That is not my point at all. My point is, how did he get bail and then get out of the country?"
I say to the hon. member for Bow River that Hal Banks, regardless of who he was and regardless of his record, as an individual was entitled to the full protection of the law, as is Mr. Spencer with regard to whom the hon. member for Bow River made an eloquent and moving address two days ago. According to' the judge who presided at the trial, Hal Banks was entitled to bail. I have only to quote once more the words of the hon. member for Bow River, words with which l agree-I agree with him more often than I disagree-in which he emphasized the importance of maintaining the independence of the judicial system in Canada. Yet he averred yesterday that the judge, through some devious means used by our party-the hon. member kept referring to shoving things under the rug-conspired to give this man not only bail but to see that after he got bail he left the country. However, the fact remains that Mr. Banks was entitled to bail. The judge was also entitled to set bail. Hal Banks was entitled to the same rights that Mr. Spencer should enjoy as an ordinary, common citizen of this country.
The hon. member referred yesterday to Dr. Marcoux and also to one of the ministers on the front bench. He might have gone all the way and said the present Minister of Transport. What are the facts? Hon. members want all the facts. They can read the speech made by the hon. member for Lapointe last night. The facts may be embarrassing not to this
February 25, 1966

party but to the hon. gentleman's party. I thought that this was all part of good old [DOT]electioneering and I was a little surprised when the hon. member brought the matter [DOT]up in the house of Commons.
The fact remains that Dr. Marcoux made very serious allegations which should have been investigated.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member for Bow River, who is an excellent lawyer, says "Right". But he did not take the trouble to tell the house that these allegations were investigated by the present minister of justice for the province of Quebec, Mr. Claude Wagner, who, whether we like him or not. whether we consider him controversial or not, has the courage of his own convictions and does not give a damn-if I may use that expression in this house-whether he embarrasses Dr. Marcoux, his party, the Liberal party or any party for that matter.
When Dr. Marcoux went up and down the province of Quebec making these statements Mr. Wagner called him to his office, provided him with police protection and demanded and obtained a full investigation into the allegations which had been made by Dr. Marcoux. He came to the conclusion that there was no basis for prosecution and no basis for these allegations. You can turn around and tell me that the Minister of Justice for the Province of Quebec is incompetent, that he is dishonest, that his findings were politically inspired, but I do not share that view.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. At no time have I referred to the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec as being incompetent and not knowledgeable. The hon. member is misquoting what I said. 1 said that no inquiry had been made so far as the federal government and the federal Minister of Justice are concerned. I did not refer to the Minister of Justice of Quebec. I have a great deal of respect for him and at no time have I questioned his ability. The hon. member is putting words into my mouth and alleging things which are not so. He was asked by a certain member of his party to do a hatchet job and that is why he is saying these things.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Does the hon. member say that I was asked to do that by a certain member of my party?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will name him if you like.
Supply-Justice


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Does the hon. member mean that I was asked to do a hatchet job? Surely, with the talents of the hon. member for Bow River, one of the leading lawyers in the province of Alberta, he should know that I would be the last man to be singled out to do a hatchet job. If the hon. member is not inferring that the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec is incompetent, why is he now demanding a review? Either he is competent or he is not. If he is competent, that should be the end of the Marcoux case. That is my main point. I think the hon. member will realize that because he is particularly sharp both as a member and as a lawyer. Either the Minister of Justice of that province did his job in investigating the Marcoux case or he did not. If he did, then the members of this house have no right to ask the federal government or parliament to investigate again matters covered by the provincial Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am not a lawyer. Perhaps I am all wet.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will agree with you on that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I was referring to the hon. member's speech in Hansard. I wish I could find the place now to which I was referring. The hon. member started out by using words to this effect, "One thing we must not do is to interfere with our judges and the administration of justice; they must be above politics". Then in the next breath he intimated that the investigation by the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec was incomplete. I cannot reconcile those two positions. I may be wrong and perhaps the hon. member for Bow River is right.
Using his best Perry Mason manner the hon. member for Bow River asks, what is the use of pursuing the Rivard case? What are the facts? If the hon. member wishes to review his own words he will find that he intimated there was undue haste in getting Rivard out of the country and beyond the jurisdiction of our courts. Is that not the inference he wishes to be drawn against the Department of Justice of the province of Quebec? Does he not wish the inference to be drawn that the department hastened procedures to get Rivard out of the country for some particular reason? I am sure if I took the trouble I could quote the hon. member for Bow River who criticized this government for delaying extradition proceedings when

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice
Rivard was in jail. Now he is accusing the government for speeding up those proceedings. If I am a little confused it is not only because I might be a little stupid in not understanding this-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I must agree with you there.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -but because I might be excused for thinking that there is confusion between two conflicting positions. Perhaps I should conclude because I am afraid I am beginning to use the weapons that the hon. member for Bow River uses. I made a mental note not to do so. I have heard what he has had to say repeated in the past. I have always listened to my hon. friend and have tried to be here whenever I knew he was going to speak. My hon. friend has a stereotyped pattern of speaking. He gets up and says to the minister involved, "I don't want you to think that anything I say is a reflection on you personally. I am criticizing your department. There is nothing personal in this." Then he outlines positions taken by former federal ministers of justice. He does not refer only to the Department of Justice but to former ministers and talks about St. Laurent, Fulton, and Fleming. What else is that if it is not by inference an attack on the personality of the present minister?


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. 1 regret that the hon. member for Verdun has exhausted his time for his speech.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Can he not go on?


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. Has the hon. member for Verdun unanimous consent to finish his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I know that other and more eloquent members wish to follow who will contribute a great deal to this debate. However, I know that the hon. member for Bow River wishes to ask a question. Since I have unanimous consent to continue I think it is only fair to devote the time at my disposal to the answering of his question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question is very simple. What I wish to refer to I have heard on many occasions outside this house. It has to do with the question of why Hal Banks was not charged when the Conservative government was in office. I ask the hon. member, is it not a fact that the report of Mr. Justice Norris, the making of which was the reason

for the commission, says that witnesses were afraid to come forward to give evidence because of the kind of violence surrounding this whole situation-let me finish-but that because of the nature of the royal commission where witnesses could be examined and cross-examined and because two men had the courage to speak, feeling that they had the necessary protection, the evidence was given which had not been available to the Department of Justice prior to that time? That is why the royal commission was set up. It was set up to obtain evidence so that Banks could be charged.
I ask the hon. member that question and also this one. Why did his government take so long after that report to charge Banks and why were there not terms in the bond of recognizance with respect to his leaving the country?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You are sure those are all your questions?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Again, I am simply a layman. It seems inconceivable to me, with the spirit of justice that prevails in Canada, that there was such an intolerable situation between 1958 and 1962-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Read the Norris report.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You have asked a question. I have read the Norris report and I am trying to answer if you will let me. It seems inconceivable to me that between the years 1958 and 1962, when the Progressive Conservative party was in power and the hon. member for Kamloops was minister of justice, that there should have been any single Canadian who was afraid to appear before the courts of Canada to give evidence. This is an intolerable situation and this is just what you have with respect to the matter-


Michael Starr: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to say something?


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. The hon. member for Verdun has the floor to answer a question put by the hon. member for Bow River.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member for Bow River said that between the years 1958 and 1962 there were citizens of Canada who were afraid to exert their civil liberties and privileges and to testify in the courts of the land.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly they were afraid.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We all know why they were afraid. They were afraid of being beaten up. Is it not the function of the Department of
February 25, 1966

Justice to provide protection? By the hon. member's own words he admits that the Department of Justice did not provide protection between 1958 and 1962. People who were afraid then found the courage to appear before the commission after 1962 when we were in power. I am not going to insult anybody in this house by saying that since we have come to power everybody is free, because speaking as an individual I suggest that the Spencer case raises the question in my mind whether the rights of Canadian individuals are properly protected. Did not the hon. member for Bow River inquire whether the only reason that no action was taken against Hal Banks was that people were afraid to come forward and testify? If that is true, it is an indictment against the party in power at the time which could not provide protection to average Canadians who would have been willing to testify provided they would not be subjected to physical violence.
I would also say this in answer to my hon. friend's question. I feel more inclined to thing, after listening last night to the hon. member for Kamloops, that the reason Hal Banks was not brought to trial between 1958 and 1962 was the opinion of the Minister of Justice at that time, based on the co-operation which he believes is now non-existent between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and senior officers of the department, that regardless of whether Mr. Banks was guilty there was not sufficient evidence available to warrant his being brought to trial.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
I agree with this. I think these are the true facts and I believe the hon. member for Kamloops is to be commended for not bowing to political expediency. It would have been the popular political thing to do. The hon. member for Bow River yielded to this temptation yesterday when he resurrected the Dorion brawl, the Rivard brawl, the Hal Banks brawl. He even sought to resurrect the old joke about watering the rink at Bordeaux jail. I thought the hon. member was more capable than that.
When the hon. member for Bow River seeks constantly to resurrect these things it is he who is following a course of political expediency, not the hon. member for Kamloops. It is difficult in matters like the Hal Banks case to remain objective. Nevertheless we must seek to do so. I appreciate the opportunity which the hon. member for Bow River has given me by his question to speak beyond the time allotted to me.
Supply-Justice


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think I should say a word or two very briefly to clarify the situation which has just been the subject of discussion. I do not intend to take time which would otherwise be available for other hon. members to take part in these proceedings. Hon. members will realize that I have not had an opportunity to go back to my notes-


Maurice Rinfret: Is the hon. member rising to put a question or to address the committee?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am asking for the right to address the committee in order to clarify the situation to which reference was made by the hon. member for Verdun. I wish to make a brief explanation, a statement of clarification.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Give him a chance. You want this to be a closed issue.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I was under the impression that the hon. member for Kamloops was rising to put a question to the hon. member for Verdun. I recognize the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, may I say that if the hon. member for Kamloops defines the word "brief" as the hon. member for Verdun defined it I will certainly be happy to be recognized. But if the hon. member for Kamloops is using the word "brief" in its literal sense I would be pleased, if it would meet with the approval of the Chair, to let him take two minutes for any explanation he may wish to make.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. Is it agreed by the committee that we should now recognize the hon. member for Kamloops?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Leboe:: On point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe the committee would have no objection to allowing the hon. member for Kamloops to reply immediately so that when the discussion is read in Hansard it will be uninterrupted by references to other subjects and will make sense. The hon. member intends to speak very briefly and in the circumstances I believe the committee would certainly allow him to do so.


David Lewis: That is why I was prepared to yield.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Kamloops should make his remarks at this time?


An hon. Member:: No.

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice


Mr. Aiken:: A point of order has been raised. I think it has been traditional in this house and is even a requirement that a member who wishes to set the record straight must do so at the first opportunity and that the making of such an explanation does not interfere with the order of speakers. I know the hon. member for Kamloops does not insist on his right but it has always been considered a requisite when explanations are to be made.


Maurice Rinfret: I thank hon. members for enlightening me on this subject but it is the intention of the Chair to recognize the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: If the hon. member from Kamloops does not rise I will. I do not intend to follow the hon. member for Verdun who said he was not a lawyer and was therefore, "all wet". He is not. The hon. member also said in a moment of embarrassing modesty that he was "a little stupid". He is obviously not that. I must say I admire the hard and losing struggle he waged trying to be nonpolitical.
I rise to deal fairly briefly with one matter, namely, the Spencer case. I rise because in my respectful submission the Prime Minister of this country made on Wednesday a statement which was not only astonishing but outrageous in its expression of disregard for basic principles of justice and civil liberty. I rise also because of a personal experience in connection with a client some years ago to which I wish to refer.
What the Prime Minister said in effect was that he had studied this case, looked into it, discussed it with his ministerial colleagues, given many hours to its consideration, and was therefore in a position to assure the house that Mr. Spencer was treated fairly. In fact, the Prime Minister says he was treated with scrupulous fairness.
What the Prime Minister is saying to the house and to the country is that when he, the Prime Minister, looks into a decision and decides it was a fair one that closes the matter. He arrogated to himself on Wednesday the attitude and the power of an unrivalled autocrat. He showed qualities of presumption and arrogance which make me sad as a Canadian, for no one person, no matter how high his estate in the country, has the right to say: I am the one, and when I tell you I have investigated a decision and it is just, you are to accept that it is just.
I have never in all my years of studying political science heard or read a statement so outrageous and so derisive of respect for civil
[The Deputy Chairman.]
liberties. In the area of civil liberties no one person can arrogate such powers to himself. I say, without apologizing for dragging it in, that one could be inclined to pay more attention to the assurances of the right hon. gentleman if one had not had experience of his bad judgment in previous affairs of this sort, experiences with the Liberal party in its behaviour toward the Japanese during the war and its behaviour in the Gouzenko investigation. If we had not had these experiences and the example disclosed yesterday of the unrivalled, unlimited and shabbiest use of pork barrel politics in appointments to the other place, we would be inclined to pay a little more attention to the statements of the right hon. gentleman.
Lest anyone misunderstand me let me say this: I assure the house that the other place is welcome to Mr. Hazen Argue, that discredited politician and anachronistic appendage of Parliament, as far as I am concerned. I would merely draw attention to the fact that we have made progress in our civilization. The thirty pieces of silver have now become half a million dollars, which is what Mr. Argue has been paid for being what he was.


The Chairman:: Order. I would suggest to to the hon. member for York South that the remarks he is now making are entirely out of order.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)


David Lewis: May I proceed to deal with the subject of the Prime Minister's speech? First I want to analyse the reasons he gives for stating that we must accept his conclusion as being right. At page 1682 of Hansard for February 23 the Prime Minister stated:
I should like to put before the committee very briefly the considerations which led me to this conclusion-
To the conclusion that an inquiry is not necessary. Then he gave three reasons. I have never, Mr. Chairman, in appearances before judges, before boards-indeed my memory goes back to my high school days and undergraduate days in university-heard more obviously invalid reasons in support of any conclusion. His first reason is:
-Mr. Spencer himself has admitted, voluntarily admitted, Improper activities-
Who knows that? How does the Prime Minister know it? Was he there? Did he hear the voluntary admission? To whom was that voluntary admission made? By what reason does the Prime Minister think that the members of the committee should accept that statement? Is it merely because he makes it?
February 25, 1966

He makes the statement obviously without any personal knowledge whatever, accepting some note given to him no doubt by some underling of the Minister of Justice. A more outrageous suggestion as a reason for accepting his conclusion is hardly imaginable.


Erik Nielsen: It is not true.


David Lewis: An hon. member says it is not true. I have not the faintest notion whether or not it is true but I do know that no responsible leader of this country should make such a statement when he was not present at the time the conversation took place and offer that statement as an excuse for parliament to accept his conclusion. Having made one spurious suggestion he goes on to another:
In the second place it was Mr. Spencer himself who disclosed his identity-


Erik Nielsen: That is not true.


David Lewis: My leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the other day punctured that unctuous inaccuracy, Mr. Chairman, and I choose my words carefully. Obviously the man was branded. He was fired. What more active part does the right hon. gentleman want to play in identifying Mr. Spencer? Does he want to make a trip to Vancouver and point him out to the R.C.M.P.? Is that the only way in which his government becomes involved? It is a gross misreading of the facts to make that statement. To cap it all, to cap this entire structure of disregard for the most elementary procedures of decent and civilized justice, the right hon. Prime Minister said:
-before a final decision was taken to dismiss Mr. Spencer he was given a hearing-
Just listen to the use of that word "hearing".
-by a senior official of the Civil Service Commission, at which he had every opportunity to state his case.
I challenge any hon. member, I challenge the Minister of Justice, I challenge the Solicitor General to give the committee another case of sheer, utter nonsense that compares with this statement in terms of any decent, legal inquiry. Some member of the Civil Service Commission met with Mr. Spencer, had some conversations with him and the right hon. gentleman calls that a hearing. What an outrageous use of words.
If the right hon. gentleman did not mean to mislead the committee, because he knew perfectly well hon. members could not be misled, in my respectful submission he could only have meant to mislead the people of Canada by using this kind of language to describe
Supply-Justice
that kind of conversation between an official and Mr. Spencer.
Finally, having given these completely invalid, unacceptable explanations for his conclusion, the right hon. gentleman then misrepresented the request that was made of him. May I interject to say that in all my political activity I have always taken the position in speeches outside this country that, whatever party I belong to, the Prime Minister of this country is the leader of this country. It therefore hurts me beyond words to find the leader of this country behaving in the shabby way that the Prime Minister has done in the case of Mr. Spencer. I say "shabby" because after giving us these spurious reasons for rejecting it he misrepresents the request that was made of him.
At the bottom of the right hand column on page 1682 the Prime Minister said:
If these procedures could not be used in this way in appropriate circumstances, or if all the details arising out of them must be made public, and names made public, then the protection of our national security against subversive action would be greatly prejudiced if not made impossible.


An hon. Member:: Right.


David Lewis: This is right if it were true, but no one asked the right hon. gentleman for a public inquiry. The request of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and of the Leader of the Opposition was for an inquiry by a third party, if necessary in camera. No one requested that this inquiry be open to the public and the press. The request made of the government was for a hearing, as it were, before a third person, before a competent tribunal and in camera if necessary. No one is interested in hearing names as was suggested by the right hon. gentleman.
This brings me to an actual example I want to place before the committee. In my professional capacity as counsel for labour unions I happened to be involved in such a matter some years ago. I shall deliberately leave out names and make my references a little vague so that the person involved cannot be identified. An employee of one of the federal crown corporations in right of Canada was refused something to which he was entitled under the collective agreement on the express ground of security. We took the matter to arbitration under the collective agreement.
We could not get anywhere in arbitration because the lawyers for the crown corporation involved refused to give us any reasons.

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice
They said, "Security reasons make it impossible for us to tell you why this person did not get what, under the collective agreement, he was entitled to."
With the assistance of the chairman of the board of arbitration we then saw the then minister of justice, the hon. member for Kamloops. He did, and I give him credit for doing so, precisely what we have not been able to persuade the government to do now. We persuaded him to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the facts of that case in camera.
The person appointed royal commissioner was the dean of law at the University of British Columbia. The accusers of my client-I will call him that-were not there when we were there nor were we there when they were there, but this entirely independent person who had no axe to grind, who could not be motivated by a desire to protect any underling who had gone wrong or to cover up anything else, who could be accepted as completely independent and disinterested, heard the other side and then, when I appeared with the employee, gave me information as to the facts he had received which in his view could be released to me.
He did not give me facts, if he had any-I do not know whether or not he had-which in his judgment it would not have been wise to give me from the point of view of Canada's security. However, my client felt he had a thoroughly good hearing because the commissioner gave him every chance to explain every question that was raised.
The result of that inquiry-I emphasize this and I ask the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to note it-was that the person involved was cleared by the dean of law of the University of British Columbia and compensated for his loss.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
At that time the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and officers of the Department of Justice had reached the conclusion that the man was guilty. It was only this independent inquiry which removed that guilt. I ask, Mr. Chairman, what possible harm to the security of Canada could conceivably occur if the dean of the University of British Columbia or a member of the judiciary of Canada were given the information which the minister has, heard this information in camera, listened to Mr. Spencer and his counsel in camera, and then told the members of this house and people of Canada what his conclusions were. If that were done by a third, disinterested

person, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I am pretty sure, said on Wednesday, and we were told that Mr. Spencer was properly dismissed, then so far as we are concerned that would be the end of the matter.
I again appeal to the minister and the Solicitor General and through them to the right hon. Prime Minister to institute such an inquiry, because in civil liberties even more than anywhere else the appearance of justice and the fact of justice must coincide.
I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the most unfair part of the treatment of Mr. Spencer, so far as I have been able to see, is the fact that he has been deprived of his pension. His age, I understand, is 57. He has been dismissed from his job and his pension is taken from him.
As the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam quite properly has said, the government is imposing a fine on this man without a trial. This should be looked into. In other words, I am suggesting there be an independent inquiry both in respect of whether or not this man is guilty, and second, in respect of whether or not even if he is, it is fair and just to deprive him of his pension. Dismissal is surely punishment enough and there is no need to add to that punishment by depriving him of what he has earned as he worked. I do not know the gentleman, but this action well may leave him in terrible penury.
I do not like to be sentimental about these things but I do remind hon. members, Mr. Chairman, if they need reminding-and I am sure they do not-that ever since the rights of individuals have been recognized by our society we have learned time and time again that the easiest thing in the world is to neglect those rights and to neglect them in unctuous self-righteousness. It is precisely those people who beat their breasts and say I have considered everything, I have looked at every angle, I have studied each word, I have gone into every detail and this is my conclusion-it is precisely those who make this kind of assertion who most easily ignore or innocently overlook the rights of people into whose lives they have so carefully looked.
We have also learned over the centuries that when civil liberties have been recognized in democratic countries the only way to make sure they are not eroded is to take a stand every time they are attacked. I submit that it is the high duty of the government and of the
February 25, 196S

Prime Minister to make sure that they do not leave even a possibility of suspicion that injustice and unfairness have ruled in the Spencer case. I appeal, despite the decision the Prime Minister has announced, that he and his ministerial colleagues reconsider and accept the suggestion that a third person be appointed to make an in camera inquiry into this whole case.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks about fraudulent bankruptcies in Canada and in the province of Quebec in particular.
In 1962, I asked the Minister of Justice to make an investigation in that regard, but he did not do anything. I asked the same thing again in 1963 without any results. Bankruptcies kept on happening. The situation has not improved in the province of Quebec. It is a terrible disaster, especially with regard to the province of Quebec.
It is a very good year for those experts in fraudulent bankruptcies. Mr. Chairman, we must put a stop to the exploitation carried on by those crooks in the business world. The Minister of Justice must do something, because the situation is serious.
Several murders have been committed in the last five or six years; people have disappeared from the surface of the earth without leaving any trace. Several were shot to death by notorious bandits. The Department of Justice has got to do something.
Reference was made to the Spencer case. In my opinion, the case of the fraudulent bankruptcies is ten times worse and yet the Department of Justice has still not done anything in this matter.
The fraudulent bankruptcy racket is so widespread, so complex in its organization and so fantastically far-reaching in our part of the country that it could plunge all local business into the most complete anarchy. The damage caused by those bankruptcies has been tremendous, because when you are confronted by those gangsters you feel insignificant, quite small and lost. Many citizens, lawyers and legal practitioners do not even want to have anything to do with those fraudulent bankruptcies because they fear for their lives.
Business is overrun to an outrageous extent by these crooks who rob us, ruin us, push us around and crush us. The fellow who purchases goods for next to nothing in these illegal bankruptcies makes enormous profits 23033-1141
Supply-Justice
because he can sell the goods at ridiculously low prices that defy competition. No store, no industry can compete against fraudulent bankruptcies.
The gang of crooks we think we know, Mr. Chairman, includes some respected and wealthy businessmen as well as professional crooks. They have found in this racket a unique opportunity to rob with maximum safety and respectability, because today fraudulent bankruptcies have become so perfect, so easy, I dare say even so legal, that one can emerge with barely a scratch.
Go out and see if you can find many fraudulent bankruptcy swindlers in prison; yet there are many in Canada. In my estimation, the bankruptcy racket is probably the safest and the most lucrative business at the present time.
They are definitely a gang of professionals familiar with every swindling trick. Most of them have a police record, and those who have not are no less dangerous; they may even be more dangerous because the police is not keeping as close a check on them as on the others and, consequently, they are more vulnerable.
They are wealthy; they own stores chocked full of goods from fraudulent bankruptcies. And their credit standing is good with all business and financial firms. They are shrewd; they belong to businessmen's organizations; they know a lot of people and have friends everywhere, even in clubs, hotels, credit offices, finance companies and banks.
They also have friends in the police force. They have legal advisers; they live in princely fashion in stylish apartments.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Henry P. Latulippe: Businesses in a fix become the prey of those wise guys. They take advantage of it to make propositions to them. With their consent, they purchase those businesses and make them paying concerns within a few days. They deposit money in the bank, they pay cash for a certain time. Those people resort to every means to gain the confidence of manufacturers and suppliers.
Once the business has regained its good standing, they buy any type of merchandise and make it disappear at once. They build warehouses which burn down in a short time, and you can be sure, Mr. Chairman, that insurance companies have to pay tremendous amounts in insurance.
These people resort to all sorts of schemes. Their criminal minds make use of every imaginable means to fatten their fortunes.

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice
I suppose the minister is beginning to realize that the Bankruptcy Act is a federal, not a provincial act. It is not up to the provincial government to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
Does the present act allow a person to go into bankruptcy? It does, because under the present system, it is impossible for quite a number for businessmen to avoid bankruptcy.
The system under which we are operating is financial nonsense. Those who benefit under the present system do so at the expense of others.
Our financial system, Mr. Chairman, is basically wrong. I ask the Minister of Justice to do all that is humanly possible to improve our economy and to prevent the series of fraudulent bankruptcies. Mr. Chairman, fraudulent bankruptcies lead to many others. This has created a disturbing situation in the province of Quebec and even in the whole country. I am speaking of the province of Quebec because I know of several of these bankruptcies and frauds there. I also know about some losses and all sorts of goings on. Those are terrible things, Mr. Chairman.
Therefore, I ask the honourable minister of Justice to punish those citizens as others have been punished. I know people who were sentenced to six months and even a year in jail for stealing $5 or $10. On the other hand, there are people who stole millions of dollars and were sentenced only to two or six months in jail. A person who steals but a small amount is punished much more severely than if he had stolen millions of dollars.
So, Mr. Chairman, because of this deplorable situation, I ask the Minister of Justice or his department to make the Bankruptcy Act inoperative. I ask him to close the door to all bankruptcies at this time, because there is no legislation, there are no rules to protect our citizens adequately, even from the standpoint of finance and human life.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister of Justice to padlock the Bankruptcy Act. I ask him to take this Act under his jurisdiction immediately, in order to take over all bankruptcies, fraudulent or otherwise, existing in Canada at the present time.
What the Minister of Justice must do is to actually give justice. We want justice in this matter. In the past three years, the federal government has done nothing in this regard. It is up to the federal government to intervene in those cases of fraudulent bankruptcies. We must put an end to those things and

the best way to do it is to make things secure by means of the padlock law, which has been used in many other circumstances. Let us use it with respect to the Bankruptcy Act and put some order in the economy of Canada and its provinces.
Let us give justice to families who have suffered from those murders. In the past five or six years, the criminals, the notorious bandits in question, have committed several murders for which we are indirectly responsible. It is time to settle this situation and I ask the Minister of Justice to restore some order in this field.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes this afternoon to make some comments regarding the report of the justice committee on juvenile delinquency in Canada. This is a very important matter and up to this time an opportunity has not arisen for comment in connection with the recently released report of that committee. I intend to indicate how I believe the house and the department should act on this report and I hope the result will be speedy action.
It seems to me from reading the report, Which is very lengthy and detailed running almost to 400 pages, that the committee has done a thorough and painstaking job regarding the methods of dealing with juvenile delinquency. Many of their suggestions are logical and could be put into effect quickly.
The report dealt particularly with methods of dealing with delinquency, which I believe that was the basic task of the committee. Certainly that is the major item covered by the committee's report. The committee did not attempt to deal with another aspect of delinquency relating to prevention and control, though it did make some suggestions as to what could be done along these lines.
I should like to mention some of the recommendations made by the committee as examples of the things that could be put into effect quickly without much difficulty to the department. The first is the suggestion that we set a minimum age of responsibility for juveniles at 10 or 12 years. This seems to be a logical and well-founded suggestion based on the evidence received by the committee. The committee recommends the establishment of a standard maximum age beyond which an individual is no longer considered a juvenile. The age suggested by the committee is 17, to be recognized across Canada. This also seems
February 25, 196S

to be a logical and reasonable conclusion reached as a result of the committee's inquiries.
We now have an unfortunate situation because in some provinces people are considered to be juveniles at 16 and in others the age is 18. This recommendation should cause very little difficulty. There are other recommendations such as permitting news media to attend juvenile court hearings. I think this is a good suggestion. The committee deals with the mechanics of the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the method of dealing with juveniles themselves. The basic idea behind granting permission for news media to attend juvenile court hearings seems to be as much a case of providing a check on the juvenile court judges and the courts themselves as anything else. I think it is a very good idea.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)
The field of juvenile delinquency is one in which very few are expert and these judges are appointed from all walks of life. Various courts are conducted in very different ways. I believe that while privacy of hearing is good for the child to the extent that no publicity ought to be given thereto, it can be very bad when judges use their own procedures and methods of dealing with people who are not represented by counsel and in many cases have not been formally charged. Therefore I believe that the recommendation that news media, including television and radio, be present at juvenile court hearings is a good one so long as the names of juveniles are withheld.
Another recommendation which could easily be adopted is that with regard to changes in nomenclature. The committee suggests changes in the words "delinquency" and "juvenile delinquents" and prefers the description "young offenders". I do not know that it matters a great deal and I am not too impressed with the conclusion in this regard, but if this is a general feeling there is certainly no objection to it.
There are a number of other recommendations such as requiring the presence of a juvenile's parents at a hearing. This is a good suggestion. I believe that in many cases parents who do not take the trouble to go to court when their children have been charged are themselves blameworthy and the judge should have the opportunity of dealing with them directly by discussion at the trial.
I think the recommendation to limit very severely the right of juvenile courts to commit children to a training school is a good
Supply-Justice
one, because in many cases it is too easy merely to get the child out of the way by sending him to a training school when you cannot think of any other solution. I believe the same situation exists in the adult courts and many people engaged in penology are now satisfied that too many people are committed and too little benefit comes from it.
The committee also investigated thoroughly the procedures which have grown up in the juvenile courts and I think they came to proper conclusions with regard to many of them. While the procedure in juvenile courts is of a very informal nature, judges are sometimes inclined to deal with the children who appear before them informally as well. By that I mean they often are inclined to assume children to be guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
Many of the suggestions the committee made were for the protection of the child in the juvenile court, making sure he is properly advised and represented, that any statements made are properly brought into evidence and that, while the penalty may not be too severe, before any conviction or finding of guilt is made it must be made on evidence. I think these suggestions are all valid.
There are some suggestions, however, that require more consideration. I should like to detail some of them and I think they should be considered by a committee and brought into effect as quickly as possible. The first recommendation that in my opinion causes some difficulty is the use of juvenile court records in adult courts and outside the courts. I believe the committee dealt with the question too loosely. It is my view that juvenlie court records should not be released to anyone except on the order of a judge who has already convicted a person in adult court. That is a matter of opinion but I believe it deserves consideration.
The committee suggested that a youth examiner system be investigated. They did not come to any conclusion in this respect. This system is in use in Israel and under it, instead of bringing young people into court as witnesses and in some cases even as defendants, a third person is entitled to discuss with the child the evidence he wishes to give and then give the evidence for the child. I believe this is an excellent suggestion and should be investigated. It has often been said that children are caused more harm than good in the courts, especially if they are very young and

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice
are submitted to examination and crossexamination at an early age when they cannot form firm opinions on the various subjects put to them.
There is another matter that a committee of the house or some other body might inquire into. This concerns taking basically welfare matters completely out of the Juvenile Delinquents Act and dealing with them under provincial legislation. I understand that discussions are even now under way with provincial authorities in regard to this matter. The problem of delinquency as related to crime and the federal government's responsibility in criminal matters was in question in early years. It was felt when the Juvenile Delinquents Act was introduced that if a child was not to be classed as a criminal perhaps he should be dealt with under provincial welfare legislation. However, it was confirmed in the courts that the Juvenile Delinquents Act is a valid federal statute relating to federal responsibility for criminal matters and it has been dealt with on that basis.
I think the committee has wisely suggested that the time has come when the fringe elements which have been drawn into the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the juvenile courts ought to be removed. These are elements in which only the question of welfare is involved and not the commission of an offence. This is also a good recommendation and deserves consideration.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
I should now like to make some criticism of the report because, while it deals fully with the matter of handling juvenile delinquents, it has left virtually untouched a large field of problems concerning the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency. I do not say this in criticism of the committee because I do not believe it was set up to conduct an investigation into social welfare matters. The committee was made up of persons who basically were concerned with the methods rather than the social aspects of juvenile delinquency, and it recognized this in its report.
First, the committee found that statistics are not complete enough in order to come to conclusions on many of the social problems that are involved in juvenile delinquency and for that reason they were not able to come to such conclusions. Second, their second last recommendation suggested that demonstration projects under various aspects of delinquency prevention and control should be undertaken. I think that this was probably the

most important recommendation of the whole report because, while methods of dealing with juveniles can be changed, approaches altered and courts made more formal or less formal, these changes do not purport to deal with the cause and effect of delinquency and its prevention and control. Therefore, I believe this aspect requires a good deal more consideration than that given by the committee.
I suggest that some excellent work is being done in Ottawa and in many other cities in Canada in the social and welfare aspects of juvenile delinquency. But much more work of a pilot project nature is still required. For example, we find that while delinquency can be examined and dealt with in court and delinquents sent to training schools, in many cases the delinquents of today are the adult criminals of tomorrow. The success of the juvenile courts in dealing with young people foreshadows what will happen in the adult courts.
In the result, I should like to suggest that the reasonable and logical recommendations of the committee should be put into effect as quickly as possible; I think there is no problem there. The recommendations which require further study should be given that study and then implemented as quickly as possible.
The money required for pilot projects in delinquency prevention and control should be provided. I think we would all agree that criminal instincts or tendencies develop in a person's early years. Our penitentiaries are full of people who might have been valuable members of society had they been properly dealt with when they were young.
The cost of the penitentiaries branch and its administration is tremendous, as we can see from the estimates. The costs of administration of justice which are costs of the provinces are very great. We lose all across the line when a person becomes first a delinquent and subsequently a criminal. Society loses both financially and from a manpower and social point of view.
The starting place, Mr. Chairman, for criminals in this country, except those criminals we import, is at the juvenile age. We have to start with these young people, and I think that the report of this committee provides a good foundation for this.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to urge that, regardless of the method by which the recommendations of the committee are dealt with, recommendation No. 99 concerning the immediate establishment of pilot
February 25, 196$

projects in co-operation with the provincial authorities should be undertaken. Pilot projects are fairly easy to undertake, because they can be undertaken in a municipality or an area where real work is required and the results can be seen. Yesterday we saw that in the United States the administration is going to deal with the problem of water pollution by cleaning one river from source to mouth in one complete project. In that way they can eliminate everything which causes water pollution.
I should like to see this same approach to the problem of delinquency. I should like to see money put into certain areas to enable a complete job to be done which will also provide the foundation for similar work in other municipalities and areas of the country. I think that this recommendation is the most important one. The money used in implementing it will be well spent. It is only a drop in the bucket compared with what we spend in trying to apprehend, convict and incarcerate criminals in their later years. We have delayed too long.
The recommendations of the committee are not alarming. They find that the problem of juvenile gangs is not a serious one in Canada. They find that the main problem is damage to property, not damage to persons. They find that across the country many of the juveniles who are brought into court never return and that it is only the hard core cases which come back to the adult courts. For this reason I think we should make an immediate start to deal with our juvenile delinquents, and the best way to start is by employing the system of pilot projects recommended by the committee. I hope the government will give immediate consideration to setting up a pilot project or projects along this line and will either refer the remainder of the recommendations in the report to a parliamentary committee or take action on them in those fundamentals about which there is no disagreement.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in the discussion of these estimates, although I acknowledge that the Prime Minister himself remarked in his statement regarding the Spencer case that we could participate in a debate afterwards, I must emphasize that I rise in defence of civil liberties in this Canada of ours.
I have not been brought to my present convictions on the injustice that has been
Supply-Justice
meted out to Mr. Victor Spencer in Vancouver during the past several months by speeches which have been made in this House of Commons during the past few days. I have had this conviction ever since the month of November when I was advised that the Department of Justice had acted as judge, jury and executioner in the case without a hearing-when I say "hearing" I mean hearing; I do not mean a conversation with a senior official of the Civil Service Commission -without a hearing at which he could face his accuser, a hearing at which he could retain counsel on his own behalf.
I submit when the rights of one man, of one Canadian citizen are trampled upon in this country, the rights of all are trampled upon. I will not sit idly by and watch it being done.
I have to say with a heavy heart that I heard the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac state that the question of bankruptcies in the business world of Canada was ten times more important than the Spencer case. It makes me sad to think that there are members of the Canadian House of Commons who would place material gain before the individual free rights of native born and naturalized Canadian citizens.
In presenting his statement on Wednesday, February 23, the Prime Minister made this comment, as found on page 1681 of Hansard:
I know that the issues involved are important and I know that they have aroused very real uneasiness in the minds of hon. members.
I was very, very pleased to have the Prime Minister make this statement. He knows that it has aroused very real uneasiness in the minds of hon. members and I am one of those in whom very real uneasiness has been aroused.
On Wednesday night last we all had the opportunity of hearing the President of the United States in his 40 minute address discuss the problem of Viet Nam. It was a masterful presentation of the facts from his point of view. You may remember that during the course of his remarks he made an allusion to Macaulay who, when writing about Southey's "Colloquies", said "Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely".
I should like to take part in a free discussion of the Spencer matter at this time.
Macaulay wrote and I repeat, "Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely", and discussing it

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice
freely does not consist of having a senior official of the Civil Service Commission journey out to Vancouver and speak to a junior civil servant with regard to some accusations which were levelled against him by people who did not give him an opportunity to meet his accusers in the courts of the land.
I was first elected to this house in June of
1962.	After ten months in opposition, following the 1963 election the Liberals took over the government seats. As I have listened to the inquiries being made of the cabinet whether or not a judicial inquiry had been authorized into this Spencer affair, as we have been calling it since November when the man was first identified by name, I began to wonder if this was not where I came in, in 1962. Everything seemed to be such a repetition of the answers that were given to the opposition in November of 1964 with regard to the Rivard affair, which was later investigated by Chief Justice Dorion of the Quebec Superior Court.
Over the past few weeks I have been reading all the Hansard transcripts of the discussions in this house dealing with the question of whether there should be an investigation into the 1964 allegations that employees in the federal government had been throwing offers of bribes round the halls of this building. The answers that were given at that time were the same as the answers being given with regard to this spencer matter when we ask, will there be a judicial investigation of the Spencer affair in order that the man may be able to clear his name before the Canadian public?
Last Wednesday we were told by the Prime Minister with regard to the Spencer affair that-and I quote:
Having studied all the facts of this case, I do not feel it is necessary or useful to initiate a judicial inquiry into this matter. The procedures that have been followed by the R.C.M.P. are exactly the same procedures that were followed when my right hon. friend was in the government.
If you turn to page 10397 of Hansard for November 23, 1964, you will find that the then minister of justice, in answer to questions being asked of him by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for the Yukon on the Rivard affair, said:
An inquiry was made immediately, upon my recommendation, into all aspects of this matter. When the inquiry was completed, the H.C.M. Police felt there was not sufficient evidence to recommend a prosecution.

This is the former minister of justice talking on November 23, 1964. Does that not sound like:
The procedures that have been followed by the R.C.M.P. are exactly the same procedures that were followed when my right hon. friend was in the government.
The then minister of justice continues on page 10379:
It was our joint assessment of the evidence that there was no case for the laying of information on the state of the evidence obtained.
Then he goes on:
As far as the minute details of the file, the names of witnesses and the persons interviewed are concerned, I am advised by the R.C.M. Police that this forms part of the contents of a report made by them which, as in the case of all reports of the R.C.M. Police to the minister, remains confidential in the public interest.
He then added:
I think it is also my duty to repeat to the committee that there has been an inquiry, and that the R.C.M. Police, the commissioner and myself, on an assessment of the whole evidence, do not feel or believe that there is sufficient evidence to justify the laying of information in the present state of the material obtained.
Now I quote from the Prime Minister's statement of last Wednesday:
However, before a final decision was taken to dismiss Mr. Spencer he was given a hearing by a senior official of the Civil Service Commission. Then we are told:
-neither at this hearing nor at those held by Canadian security officers-
That would be the R.C.M.P., of course.
Now we carry on to read the statement of the former minister of justice:
-it is not the practice of the R.C.M. Police or the Minister of Justice to refer matters to the law officers of the crown for opinions unless (a) the matter is brought to the attention of the minister for that purpose or (b) he is satisfied that there is room for opinion. There has not been a formal submission to the law officers of the crown in this case.
He is referring to the fact that the R.C.M.P. had made a definite statement to him. According to this report there was not sufficient evidence to recommend prosecution in the Rivard matter. We were told in the statement by the Prime Minister last Wednesday that there was not sufficient evidence produced to justify a prosecution in the Spencer case. On November 23, 1964, page 10397, we were told:
-it is not the practice of the R.C.M. Police or the Minister of Justice to refer matters to the law officers of the crown for opinions unless-there is room for opinion.
I do not know whether or not that means a difference of opinion. I continue quoting:
-he is satisfied that there is room for opinion. There has not been a formal submission to the law officers of the crown in this case.
February 25, 1966

We are told in the matter of Spencer that the law officers of the Crown had advised against instituting criminal proceedings against Mr. Spencer and that proceedings were not taken. From that we can judge that there was room for a difference of opinion and that a reference was made to the law officers of the Crown. This is very interesting. I would like to see the papers on the matter. I took part, in opposition, in discussions on motions for production of papers with regard to the levy of tariffs by the former government. I was told that these papers are confidential.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
It is interesting to find that in one case the former Minister of Justice tells us he did not refer the matter to the law officers of the Crown because he did not think there would be room for opinion. This time we find there has been such a reference and we were told no action would be taken in the form of a judicial inquiry. We know what happened in the previous case of 1964. There was a judicial inquiry and much came out of that inquiry which would never have been adduced if there had merely been acceptance of the statement of the then minister of justice. Why should we believe there is nothing to be brought forward in favour of Spencer at this time just because we are told it is not necessary or useful to initiate a judicial inquiry into this matter?
I would not be speaking this way with regard to civil liberties if I were not greatly upset by the fact that a minister of the Crown in a nation-wide television broadcast had named this man. If ever a man was accused without having an opportunity to speak on his own behalf, this was the occasion. They argue that his name was already known because he had disclosed it to a newspaper reporter who had interviewed him. But how could his name be kept unknown in the city in which he worked when it was realized he was no longer in the service of the Post Office Department where he had been employed for some time? His fellow workers were well aware he had been removed from his employment and they were naturally curious that a 57-year-old man should be removed. Without doubt there was talk in the Vancouver post office and in the city of Vancouver about this man's disappearance from the federal service. But it was altogether improper, unjust and indefensible for a minister of the Crown to go on the air over a national television network and name 23033-115
Supply-Justice
the man involved in the case even though he himself had said in a statement made in the fall of last year: "I must be the man involved".
This man is entitled to a full and complete hearing. If it must be held in camera I would have no objection. But to condemn him to a life under surveillance, to remove his pension rights and to fire him without due process of law is contrary to all the principles of-dare I say British justice or must I say "Canadian justice"? When the red ensign was hauled down in the spring of 1965 in this country we did not expect to see the enforcement of British principles of justice go out the window the following winter. I myself will fight for the maintenance of the great principles of British justice-I will call it Canadian justice if you wish-but if this man is not given a hearing I will not have much respect for Canadian justice. I will still fight for British justice.
He is entitled to a hearing. He is entitled to face his accusers personally. Whether or not such a hearing is held in public I do not care provided it is before a third party who is objective in every sense of the word. I do not believe that a man who has had an opportunity of speaking only to a senior officer of the Civil Service Commission and to Canadian security officers has been given a just and proper hearing or one which justifies removing him from his job.
I ask this question: Would they be able to separate this man from his income had he been working for anybody other than the federal government? What would his position have been had he been working in the mines or for the Pacific Great Eastern Railway or for some of the big fruit growing companies of British Columbia? I suggest it would not have been a simple matter to have separated him from his position in those circumstances, because he had never been tried or accused in open court. I say that the defence of the civil liberties of the individual is the first burden which should rest on every member of the House of Commons no matter on what side he sits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: There are some amazing coincidences in the cases of Rivard and Spencer. I referred to one of these the other day in conversation with an hon. member. It had to do with a discussion whether someone had said "heads will roll" or "heads will swim".
One hon. member read a newspaper clipping and it turned out that Mr. Spencer had

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice
said "Heads will swim". Now hon. members will find that very expression used as recorded in Hansard of November 23, 1964 at page 10387 at the bottom of the column. The hon. member for Yukon was speaking and he said:
I feel that If such an offence had been made by anyone other than Mr. Denis, charges would have been laid so fast it would have made his head swim.
I do not know why these coincidences occur. I begin to think this is where I came in. When I hear of these objections to a judicial inquiry with regard to the Spencer affair, all I need do is change the name to Rivard in order to hear exactly the same record-


John George Diefenbaker: And change the Minister of Justice too. The same old tune.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Anyway, what was done in this case was very different from the treatment handed out to Mr. Belec and Mr. Poi-tras. These are two gentlemen from the city of Montreal who were employees of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. What happened in this case? We have not been given full official details of what occurred but from a press release we understand that certain moneys were unaccounted for and that these funds were under the control of the two men I have mentioned. A court was held to decide this matter. I say "a court" because under the appropriate act dealing with the R.C.M.P. this parliament has given authority to the R.C.M.P. to make certain arrangements to deal with internal discipline. A court was held to investigate the accusations brought against these two highly placed officers of the force. One of them, an inspector in the province of Quebec, is the only commissioned officer in the 98 years of history of the R.C.M.P. to be convicted of a crime in the R.C.M.P. courts.
The R.C.M.P. brought in one of its senior men from Edmonton and a just hearing was held. These two men were brought before the hearing. They then appealed the verdict handed down by this official from Edmonton. The appeal went before the commissioner and was referred to a review board. The appeal board gave its verdict and delivered it to the commissioner. We understand that the commissioner of the R.C.M.P. wished to dismiss summarily these two highly placed officers of the R.C.M.P. working in the province of Quebec in the city of Montreal.
What happened? The matter was referred to the cabinet before any such drastic step was taken. It affected pension rights. After

many months of probing and inquiring we came up with the facts to which I have referred earlier in this house. I spoke on this question at some length on June 30, 1965. I have here copies of the orders in council in which these men who had been found guilty by a properly constituted court of failing to account properly for funds placed under their control were retired. They were anxious to retain their pension rights.
The cabinet goes to work and considers the many years of fine service these men gave up to the time the defalcations were discovered, and by special order in council Chief Superintendent Rene John Belec was compulsorily retired from the R.C.M.P. on a pension of $6,624 per annum.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Where was Mr. Spencer then? He was a junior clerk in the Vancouver post office and had no access to secret or confidential papers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Yet at the same time the Treasury Board, approved by His Excellency the Governor General in Council, recommended that:
Sub-Inspector Joseph Hosanna Maurice Poitras, who was compulsorily retired from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force-
Be paid a pension
-at the rate of $1,526.80 per annum from December 9, 1964, until such date as he attains the age of 65 years and thereafter at the rate of $1,953.30 per annum.
These two men were given a trial by the properly constituted court of internal discipline of the R.C.M.P. They appealed and the verdict of the appeal court was referred to the cabinet with this result.
What about Mr. Spencer? We know he has had no open trial. We know he was not before any properly constituted court. Where is his pension? Gone with the wind. Where is his job? Gone with the wind. The man can whistle for his welfare and future so far as the Prime Minister's actions are concerned. I maintain that there has to be an investigation into the matters concerning this affair.
How can we say that two representatives of a great foreign power were engaged in certain espionage activities and therefore should be asked to leave the country and then turn around and say, "We cannot prove it with regard to the man they were supposed to be dealing with; there is not sufficient evidence on which to obtain a conviction"? If we cannot prove that the Canadian citizen was cooperating with these representatives of a
February 25, 1966

18C9
foreign power, then the foreign power should be asked to send back its two representatives to Canada.
I say you cannot have it two ways. I say you cannot condemn people and tell them, "You must leave the country", and then say to our own citizen, "We cannot hang anything on you so we will just place you under surveillance, remove your pension rights, take you off your job, but we are not able to secure a conviction in open court. The security officials who have investigated the matter have said so".
We are trampling on the rights of every Canadian when we take that action with regard to this man Spencer in Vancouver, and I ask that we have a judicial investigation by a third party, in camera if you will but a third party who will enjoy the confidence of every member of the House of Commons.
Referring again to the opening days of the Rivard affair-I do not think I missed a moment in the House of Commons while the session was going on-on November 23, 1964, as recorded at page 10386 of Hansard, the then minister of justice said:
The reason I personally have decided that until further evidence were obtained it would not be fair to lay a charge is only because the laying of charges in a case where one knows there is no chance of judicial success is an act of smear, a lack of charity and an injustice-
If in the present case I had personally ordered the laying of a charge, I would have betrayed my conscience and acted against the principle that would govern an honest citizen, because I might have brought about the condemnation without trial .... of two young men whose future ought not to be placed in jeopardy-*
The minister of justice of that day stated:
If in the present case I had personally ordered the laying of a charge I would have betrayed my conscience and acted against the principle that would govern an honest citizen, because I might have brought about the condemnation without trial .... of two young men-
That being so, what does one say about a minister of justice who appears on a national television network and makes the statement, accusing a person who has had no opportunity of a legitimate trial, that he has been participating in espionage activities? I say, Mr. Chairman, you cannot have it two ways.
I have another interesting report, again one of these repetitious pieces that I would like to put on the record. In 1964, again on November 23, as recorded at page 10,391 of Hansard the then minister of justice stated:
-A full report was made to me and discussed with the commissioner on September 18 of this year. I do not want to mislead the house and give 23033-1151
Supply-Justice
the impression that the commissioner has made a decision. It was not up to the commissioner to decide. We discussed his views on the matter from the standpoint of police investigation and fact finding as a result of the investigation. With regard to any decision respecting the lodging of a complaint in the light of the report and that conversation, I, of course, must take responsibility because under the statute the legal adviser to the crown is the Minister of Justice, and not the commissioner of the R.C.M.P.-
In the statement made by the Prime Minister on Wednesday we are told that it is not necessary or useful to initiate a judicial inquiry.
The procedures that have been followed by the R.C.M.P. are exactly the same procedures that were followed when my right hon. friend was in the government.
We are also told that Mr. Spencer did not protest at the hearing held by Canadian security officers, which would be the R.CM.P., and that the R.C.M.P. again advised the present Minister of Justice that an action for criminal proceedings would not bring a conviction. Speaking of the word "conviction", I have here in my hand a copy of the Official Secrets Act of the Dominion of Canada chapter 198 of the statutes. In section 14(1) we read:
For the purposes of the trial of a person for an offence under this act-
Well, that is very nice. It says:
For the purposes of the trial of a person for an offence under this act-
Suppose you do not have a trial under the act? I guess this would not apply but we are told Spencer was violating the Official Secrets Act. When this act was passed in 1939 it is a certainty that the government intended that anybody accused of an offence under it should get a trial. That is why it says:
For the purposes of the trial-
It does not say trial by a representative of the Civil Service Commission or by a security officer of the crown.
Section 15(1) says:
Where no specific penalty is provided in this act, any person who is guilty of an offence under this act shall be deemed to be guilty of an indictable offence and is, on conviction, punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years;-
I am not quarreling with the Official Secrets Act but I should like to see it enforced. I do not want to see it evaded because every evasion of the law of the land simply sets a precedent for further evasions in further aspects of the law. I quote again section 14(1) which says:
For the purposes of the trial of a person for an offence under this act-

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice
And section 15(1) which says:
Where no specific penalty is provided in this act, any person who is guilty of an offence under this act shall be deemed to be guilty of an indictable offence and is, on conviction, punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
There has been no trial in the case of Spencer so how could there be a conviction?
I have been reading about the similarities between the Spencer affair and the Belec and Poitras case because of the pension angle and because of the Rivard affair. Only yesterday I read the comments of the hon. member for Athabasca, as recorded at page 2562 of Hansard for June 17, 1965. He is a former member of the R.C.M.P. with 23 years service in the R.C.M.P. and the Canadian army and this is what he said on that occasion:
The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is in a very unenviable position. On the one hand, he is permitted to exercise almost unlimited discretion and in certain cases the government is willing to stake its reputation and its whole future on his judgment. On the other hand, other decisions made by the same man are either completely ignored or overridden. I suggest that you cannot have it both ways.
In the case of Belec and Poitras the R.C.M.P. recommended that they be dismissed but these two men went to the cabinet and one of them was given a very handsome pension and the other a worth-while pension. In this case the R.C.M.P. report was overridden. In the case of the Rivard inquiry we were told that the R.C.M.P. maintained that no convictions could be obtained if charges were laid, but look at what the situation is today when this matter is pressed?
We are told again in the Spencer case that it would be impossible to convict Mr. Spencer if charges were laid on the present evidence. I say that Mr. Spencer must be given his day in court even if it is in camera before a judge of the highest courts of this land or before a small committee of the House of Commons. I do not object to the inquiry being in camera but I would like to see the judge a third party, not someone directly interested in this matter.
There is much that can be said about this matter. I could bring in the Landreville case.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
People are running around telling us we must not condemn him without trial, this is not fair, this is against Canadian justice, people are making accusations against Mr. Justice Landreville and he has no opportunity to answer them. What about Mr. Spencer? He is just a little fellow from Vancouver but
[Mr. Cowan.)
Mr. Justice Landreville, in terms of the street, is a big shot. He was mayor of Sudbury. He has appealed his income tax assessments to the Tax Appeal Board because they were so heavy. He is a member of the Supreme Court of Ontario. We are told, do not pre-judge the case, apply British justice and fair play. I say if that is the argument they are going to use with Mr. Justice Landreville, and I believe in his being given justice and fair play-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member for York-Humber has expired.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr, Chairman, before coming to the house in early January, I had, on many occasions and like most Canadians, read press reports about the Victor Spencer case. Since I have been sitting here, that is, since January 18, I have heard this name spoken much more frequently than that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) or of the leader of the government (Mr. Pearson).
I have heard the name of Victor Spencer repeatedly, much more often than I heard members of the house propose pieces of legislation beneficial to the Canadian people.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that parliament is a place to speak one's mind and that the duty of an opposition is to oppose. However, I believe there are reasonable limits beyond which one cannot step without being discredited before the public opinion. In fact, I know that public opinion is getting fed up with these useless discussions that serve only to obstruct government business. Yet, the opposition continues to talk of the Spencer case with an enthusiasm worthy of the best causes.
I have the feeling that Mr. Spencer's defenders speak on his behalf with more ardour, conviction and devotion than they would to defend Her Majesty the Queen of England, the integrity of Canada or the freedom of a citizen wrongly imprisoned.
What is this all about? Involved is a citizen who, we have serious reasons to believe, took part in seditious or dangerous activities against this country, who acted treasonably toward his country in favour of a foreign power.
I realize that the opposition is entitled to ask questions, as I said before, but this has got to stop somewhere. The opposition is justified in suspecting that something fishy is
February 25, 196G

going on in high places. I know that the opposition is justified, in each case, in invoking the rights of man.
What I do not understand is when members take advantage of this to keep harping on the Rivard case, Banks and Doctor Mar-coux. All those things have been settled either by the courts or by inquiries. At any rate they were settled last year during the last election campaign, when the federal government had the opportunity to examine its conscience and consider the penance imposed by public opinion, since it was deprived of the strong majority it was seeking.
I think that these things should be considered settled and the Canadian people given the legislation for which they are waiting.
Let us return to the Spencer case. I think that the government must have found some extenuating circumstances to proceed as it did. Everyone knows that it is not always easy to establish legal evidence. But when national security is involved, the government is entitled to take certain precautions, because this becomes a matter of the public good.
When speaking of human rights, there is a distinction to be made, since public good has priority over private interest. This should be remembered in relation to the present case.
I am told that Mr. Spencer confessed. I agree with the opposition that the government should not have taken his pension away; in my opinion, the government should have given it back to him. It belongs to him; he must live, as well as his family, even if he took part in seditious activities.
I do not want to speak very long, Mr. Chairman, because it would be illogical. In view of the remarks I wanted to make, I would like to propose a compromise. Everything that is being said leads to what? Are we trying to make a martyr out of Mr. Spencer for his various supporters? That seems obvious to those who, like me, do not belong to any party.
What is being achieved? Parliament is paralysed, the people who are expecting a constructive legislative program are paying the price of that debate, and Mr. Spencer has been pilloried.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose a compromise:	the government
should, in the circumstances, agree to hold a judicial inquiry in camera as soon as possible, if the opposition will agree not to obstruct any longer business of the house by coming
Supply-Justice
back all the time to the Rivard, Marcoux and Hal Banks cases.
We are considering estimates covering money already spent. We will have the opportunity to come back to those matters and we should try to come to a truce. A very successful effort was made last night, and I think the persons responsible for this deserve congratulations, so that the legislative program that the people are anxiously awaiting may finally be introduced.
Changes were made within the cabinet; the responsibilities of individual ministers were redistributed also. We know that the members of the cabinet are planning the legislative program that the people are clamouring for. If some people keep on staging filibusters on matters such as the Spencer case, we will never do any constructive work.
Let us not forget that there are more important matters than the Spencer case. The sick are waiting for the health insurance scheme; the unemployed are waiting for legislation to get work; in business men are waiting for the economy to improve; old people are waiting for a pension fund. And we spend weeks and weeks discussing matters already settled.
In spite of the importance of individual rights, I maintain that those matters are more important than the Spencer case.
I should like to suggest once again this compromise that should be acceptable both to the opposition and to the government: let the government, in a gesture of self-denial, agree to a confidential judicial inquiry, since state secrets and national security are involved to a certain extent, and let the opposition agree to stop harping on the same old stories, such as the Dorion inquiry, the Rivard case and so on. I am shocked to see the Prime Minister who, after all, with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) is responsible for the administration of the country, compelled to prevent a greater evil by setting up a surveillance such as the one to which was submitted this individual accused of spying.
I am surprised to see that the Prime Minister is being attacked not only by the members opposite but that even some of his friends are taking pot shots at him from the rear and compare cases in no way similar since the case of Mr. Belec of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has no point of comparison with Mr. Spencer's case. The latter is a traitor to his country whereas the former and his compatriot spent a lifetime defending their country. The charge laid

February 25. 1966
Supply-Justice
against them was a very light one and if the government was harsh on them, it is because they were police officers who cannot be allowed even the smallest peccadillos.
The Canadian people will not be happy with the discussion going on around the name of Spencer. What is required is a legislative program to meet the needs of the people. They are fed up with these insignificant and endless discussions. As an independent member, wishing to take neither side, I would suggest that both sides meet half-way. Let the government immediately agree to this in camera judicial inquiry and let the opposition put an end to this nonsense and let us get on with constructive legislation.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal very briefly with the Spencer case but before doing so I should like to inform the Minister of Justice that it is my intention to discuss bankruptcy frauds in general. I am going to leave specifics aside until question No. 577 on the order paper has been answered. It is one which sets forth some very pertinent questions to be answered by the ministry. If the Minister of Justice is prepared to answer those questions during the course of our consideration of his estimates on Monday I will be pleased to follow him in making my remarks about this subject. In any event, I want to have those answers before I engage in any specifics regarding bankruptcy frauds.
At this time I want to deal very briefly with the Prime Minister's statement of February 23 wherein he stated, as recorded at page 1682 of Hansard and as repeated by the hon. member for York-Humber this afternoon, that at no time did any spokesman of the government identify Spencer. That is simply not true. Mr. Spencer was approached by a Vancouver reporter, Tom Hazlitt of the Vancouver Province. Mr. Spencer identified himself to Mr. Hazlitt but Mr. Hazlitt kept that information in confidence. It was the Minister of Justice himself who on a television broadcast first mentioned the name of Mr. Spencer.


Mr. Cardin:: That is not true.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure the minister will recall that that is the case if he searches his memory carefully.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is not the case.


Erik Nielsen: The minister will have to satisfy me and a good many other members of this house to the contrary. The hon. member for York-Humber put his finger on the 
situation and he is a member of the minister's own party. The leader of the New Democratic Party skirted the fringes of the real facts in this case. Whatever the minister says, the fact remains that Mr. Spencer's name was first mentioned by him to the public.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is not a fact.


Erik Nielsen: He did so on a television broadcast. Before leaving that matter I join with those who demand that an in camera inquiry be held in order to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence upon which Mr. Spencer was dismissed and denied his pension rights. The minister is following exactly the same wrong course followed by his predecessor, acting as the prosecutor-


George James McIlraith: That was the Leader of the Opposition.


Erik Nielsen: I will have something to say about the Leader of the Opposition vis-a-vis the Minister of Justice in a moment or so. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister have acted as chief prosecutor, judge and lord high executioner in the most arrogant and unjust way possible, in precisely the same way as the former minister of justice acted regarding other matters that have already been discussed in this house.
The Prime Minister in his statement of February 23 said:
The law officers of the Crown had advised against instituting criminal proceedings against Mr. Spencer-
Why is that so? What is being covered up? Mr. Spencer said that heads will swim. Whose heads, and why will they swim? These are very pregnant questions which are being left unanswered. If proceedings should be taken against others, if there have been offences of which Mr. Spencer could inform us then these would come out before an independent judge or commissioner sitting to ascertain the facts, not only with regard to whether justice is being done in this case but in others as well.
If evidence does not exist upon which proceedings could be taken against Spencer then why was he dismissed and why was he denied pension rights? If evidence did exist upon which proceedings could be taken, why were they not taken? If, as the Prime Minister said in his statement, much of the evidence would be inadmissible in a court of law, what is the danger of taking proceedings, because that evidence would be inadmissible in any event? Who is the Prime Minister to set himself as the arbiter of what is or is not admissible evidence?
February 25, 1966

Members have already dealt with the Hal Banks case. The hon. member tor Verdun in a posturing manner criticized the previous government for its conduct in dealing with the Banks matter. Last session when the Industrial Relations Committee was sitting I tried day after day to place evidence before that committee but I was prevented from doing so by a majority comprised of Liberal members, of which the present Minister of Agriculture was the chief spokesman.
That information was made available to law enforcement officers in this country and the books of the S.I.U. were seized. Unless I miss my guess, there will be sufficient evidence upon which to base extraditable charges against the elusive Mr. Banks. The Liberal Party had a majority on the Industrial Relations Committee the last time it sat and they were supported by our friends to the left. I am surprised to note that the hon. member for Winnipeg North has called for the production of the Norris working papers, because his party supported the Liberal objection to the introduction of this evidence before the Industrial Relations Committee the last time it sat.


Mr. Cashin:: The Liberals did not have a majority.


Erik Nielsen: They did when supported by our friends to the left, as they do today with that same support.


Richard Joseph Cashin: I am just trying to help you get your facts straight.


Erik Nielsen: My facts are usually borne out. We now have a Minister of Justice telling us, as he told us last fall and as he told the press when the matter of the Sefkind bankruptcy files came up, that he has no responsibility in this field. He invited the Leader of the Opposition to peruse those files but would have nothing to do with my request to look at them.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is right. You are not a privy councillor, are you?


Erik Nielsen: He said there was no responsibility and it was not a federal matter at all.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: What are you quoting?


Erik Nielsen: He said it was a matter that concerned only the province. He said that again in his own official press release of September 9, 1965, which has not yet been quoted verbatim to him.
It is of interest today to consider some of the words the Minister of Justice used in this
Supply-Justice
press release which was issued by the minister in connection with accusations made by Mr. Kierans of Quebec when he was the revenue minister. He suggested that the federal Department of Justice was being negligent and indifferent in the administration of the Bankruptcy Act. Mr. Kierans charged the justice department with "considerably hindering" the Quebec war against the underworld and demanded that the new justice minister, the one who sits before the committee this afternoon, tighten up on bankruptcy controls in the light of the Mercier commission report made public last month.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
What did the minister say in his press release of September 9, 1965?
I was surprised and shocked to read the account in today's Gazette of Honourable Mr. Kierans' speech to the Canadian Paper Trade Association at the Seigniory Club yesterday. Mr. Kierans is reported to have accused the federal Department of Justice of negligence and indifference in its administration of the Bankruptcy Act and with "considerably hindering" Quebec's war against the underworld.
He said on page 2 of his release:
In the first place there is, unfortunately, considerable confusion on the subject of "fraudulent bankruptcies"-
There certainly is and it has been magnified by the creation of-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: By you.


Erik Nielsen: The minister says by me. He has not even heard me yet. I have said nothing about bankruptcies yet, but he is accusing me already-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: You said it last November.


Erik Nielsen: -of confusing the issue. This confusion has been magnified by the creation by this government of a Cerebus ministry with three separate heads. This has confused the matter even worse. If this government ever expects to tackle organized crime in this country on an organized basis, it certainly will not be done by the disorganized decisions that have resulted in the trifurcation of the Department of Justice. The minister went on to say in his press release:
-and it would frequently be more appropriate to talk about fraudulent credit rather than fraudulent bankruptcies.
That is wrong. The problem the government is confronted with in connection with bankruptcies is not fraudulent credit; it is fraudulent bankruptcy. That is the racket

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice
that is operating in this country. Then the minister said:
The real complaint is frequently that certain people are obtaining credit unscrupulously with no intention or likelihood of meeting their debts after disposing of the goods they obtain.
What is the minister trying to do by using this kind of language in his press release, if it is not to minimize what has been referred to as a cancer on legitimate business in this country? The press release continues: Bankruptcy is the inevitable result but it is usually a consequence of what has been done rather than a means, in itself, of defrauding creditors.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is right.


Erik Nielsen: How far can the minister go in minimizing the seriousness of what confronts his department and the government in these fraudulent bankruptcies? Bodies are being dug up all over the province of Quebec.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Does the fact that bodies are being dug up all over Quebec or any other place mean it has something to do with bankruptcies?


Erik Nielsen: Does the minister sit there and endeavour to suggest to me that the murder of Payette is not linked with fraudulent bankruptcies?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Can you say that it is?


An hon. Member:: He says anything.


Guy Favreau: He says what he wants to say.


Erik Nielsen: I will deal with that matter when the minister has answered the questions that I have placed on the order paper.


Guy Favreau: How?


Erik Nielsen: I could now name the five companies that this gentleman was connected with, but I am not going to do that. It will be done after the minister produces the answers to those questions.


George James McIlraith: Oh, a threat.


Erik Nielsen: No, it is no threat at all. The minister has an obligation to explain these matters and he is going to make those explanations. I for one am: going to see that those explanations are forthcoming.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, so there will not be too much confusion could I ask, what explanations does the hon. member want me to give?


Erik Nielsen: Obviously the minister has not read question 577 on the order paper. Those questions are specific; they were placed there two weeks ago.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is a question?


Erik Nielsen: It is a series of questions and there are other questions I want to ask the minister about. But I suggest to him that he certainly cannot sit in his place today and deny what I put to him concerning the unfortunate demise of Mr. Payette.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Anyway, Cowan stole your headlines today.


Mr. MacEwan:: You know all about sewers.


Erik Nielsen: The minister said:
It has always been understood that the suppression of pre-bankruptcy fraud is the responsibility of the provincial authorities as a part of the administration of criminal justice by the provinces. The federal role, on the other hand, exercised through the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, has always been understood to be, essentially, the supervision of the trustees.
As long as the minister maintains that attitude so long will bankruptcy fraud flourish in this country.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: That is why I want a revision of the act.


Erik Nielsen: The minister says he wants a revision of the act. Obviously he has not read the act, as he has not read my questions. Let us look at the act for a minute or two, if the minister thinks he is being curtailed by its limited provisions. Mr. Mercier did not think the minister was limited by the provisions of the act. The act says in section 3:
The Superintendent shall, without limiting the authority conferred in subsection (2), from time to time make or cause to be made such inspection or investigation of estates as he may deem expedient-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: "Of estates", not of the frauds that precede the bankruptcy.


Erik Nielsen: Who is talking about frauds that precede bankruptcies? We are speaking about bankruptcy frauds that have been flourishing and growing over the last three or four years. Repeated representations have been made, and recently, to the minister and his opposite number the Attorney General of the Province of Quebec. If there is any doubt about the fact that organized crime of which bankruptcy frauds are an essential ingredient flourish in this country, one has only to refer, if the minister has done so and I trust that he has, to the background paper that was presented to the last federal-provincial conference.
I believe the content of that paper deserves to be placed on Hansard so the general public of this country that does not see papers tabled in the House of Commons will have an
February 25, 1966



insight into the seriousness of the situation that confronts the government and the country generally in this matter of organized crime.
The R.C.M.P. report very bluntly set out that since the elimination of the first syndicate in the middle-1950 period organized crime has been growing and flourishing in Quebec and elsewhere in the country. They say on page 2 of the paper:
Since that time there has been a steady increase in the development of organized criminal groups in Canada, composed of both local criminals and of those foreign criminals who have managed to settle in this country.
From Canada, these groups maintain a close working relationship and personal tie with many of the U.S.A. based syndicates, and it is significant that many of these U.S.A. groups have recently been labelled as "Mafia" by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Organized Crime. The Canadian groups also maintain connections with criminal elements in Southern Italy and Sicily, which the Italian authorities call "Mafiosa", and with criminals in other urban areas of Canada where the commercial development and high population density offers potentially fertile breeding grounds for development of lucrative crime.
We find these groups at present centred mainly in the more densely populated commercially developed areas of Ontario and Quebec. Their criminal activities fluctuate into nearly all fields of lucrative crime. We find them active in such things as extortion rackets, stock frauds, gambling, labour racketeering, narcotics, counterfeiting, bankruptcy fraud, illicit liquor, arson fraud, business manipulation and other forms of racketeering.
These groups have over the years developed a fairly efficient and well organized administrative system-
The paper explains that the group is broken down to levels such as directors, administrators, often called lieutenants, and labourers or the common criminals. It continues:
Many pose and are accepted as members of the business world, or as members of reputable professional fields.
We find these leaders posing behind pseudolegitimate business fronts, such as construction firms-
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I am sure the minister has heard of Scalia Development Incorporated, in Montreal, Quebec, and one of the principals involved in that firm. I am sure he has heard of his background.


Guy Favreau: There is no mystery about that. That material has been tabled in the house.


Erik Nielsen: Has it now? The only tabling of anything similar in the house which I know of was an answer by the Solicitor General last Monday to a question concerning Guiseppe Cotroni in Kingston. That is the
Supply-Justice
only similarity I have seen so far. Then meat markets, real estate, export-import businesses, steel brokerages, labour consultants, law firms, and so on, are referred to. The report goes on to say:
They evoke an air of respectability. They live in the best neighbourhoods. They contribute to church and charity and live quietly. They are good neighbours. They are affable to the general public.
I could go on and put the whole of this background paper on the record. On page 5 of the R.C.M.P. report appears the following:
Therefore, to operate successfully and continually they must have two factors in their favour: inefficient enforcement of existing laws; immunity from prosecution and interference.
To both those statements I would ask the question: Why?
The present division of jurisdiction and responsibility among the many police forces in Canada contributes-
The report uses the word "somewhat"; I would say "significantly"-
-to inefficient enforcement of existing laws, especially where the criminal group may conduct their activities simultaneously within the jurisdictional areas of several different police forces.
There is one national police force in this country. That police force must be encouraged to assume its full national role in the fight against organized crime. There must be obtained, from the provinces with regard to those areas where there is overlapping jurisdiction, agreement that the police force will be clothed with the undisputed authority to deal, and deal effectively, with organized crime. This is not going to happen if one province says "Out you go; we can look after our own business here". Organized crime must be fought on an organized basis, and you will not achieve that result either by a trifurcation in the Department of Justice or by having the R.C.M.P. pussyfooting in their investigative roles in the various provinces.
The report goes on:
The second factor is of great importance to the group. To obtain immunity they must ingratiate or make "pay-off" to someone in authority-be it the police, civic authorities, politicians or influential members of the community. The by-product of this action is corruption-a breakdown in the administration of justice, of government function, and of the moral fibre of the community.
Then reading toward the bottom of the page:
When the legitimate competition is eliminated-
Speaking about bankruptcy frauds.
-they can then bilk the general public by exorbitant prices, unethical business operations, bankruptcy and fraud.

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice
The Mercier report, quoted briefly by another participant in this debate, is one of the most condemning documents I have seen in a good long time. It stipulates that trustees appointed by the federal minister responsible-because therein lies the ultimate responsibility-are involved in these frauds. The Mercier report pointed out that notwithstanding this knowledge these trustees remained as trustees.
The minister knows that, notwithstanding evidence of fraud in the lumber business in his own province, these companies have been allowed to operate year after year with the same principals. I ask, why has nothing been done? Evidence has been submitted by a lumbermen's association which would justify proceedings under the Criminal Code or the Bankruptcy Act. Yet no action has been taken, and I ask why?
When I listened to the minister's interjections I was taken back to a speech he made in the House of Commons a few years ago. He now sets himself up as the Minister of Justice of this country whose only thought is to be pure and fair; who is always preoccupied with seeing that justice is preserved in its purest possible form. I sent up to my office for this speech of his, which was made on February 22, 1962.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I hope you are going to quote it all.


Erik Nielsen: If I were the minister I would be ashamed to ask that the whole thing be quoted. As reported at page 1141 of Hansard that day, he said:
The Prime Minister must be reminded-
This was the time when the present Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice was sitting over here.
-that in our democratic form of government the Prime Minister is not above the truth.
Then he went on to say:
In deference to the Chair I will drop the phrase "above the truth". The Prime Minister's speeches in the house, which should set the note for useful and constructive debates, degenerate into criminal court debating tactics filled with personal insinuations, half truths and sophistry such as will not be found in the records of Hansard-


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Erik Nielsen: I hear someone say "That is right". Hon. members will hear some more of this before I am through. The minister went on to say:
While the Prime Minister is himself the greatest offender in the House of Commons in this respect, he accuses the opposition of lacking in political

chivalry and of adopting smearing tactics, considering himself like Caesar's wife to be above reproach.
Then, as reported on the following page, he accused the Prime Minister of that day of toying with the truth, and went on in these words:
From the first day the Leader of the Opposition was chosen head of the Liberal party the Prime Minister, by his cynical attitude, words and disparaging remarks about the Leader of the Opposition, has revealed that in the deep recesses of his soul there burn the envious fires of the little greeneyed monster.
Then he continued:
But surely the Prime Minister betrays his greatest weakness by his continued disparaging, insulting and indeed inaccurate statements on the career, and indeed the reputation, of a great Canadian diplomat, who, by the way, has also become a great leader of the Liberal party.
The minister made a very impartial and fair speech. Was he toying with the truth again? The words with which he concluded his speech are words which I am going to throw right back to him:
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
To use the vocabulary of the Minister of Finance, that is a blatant lie; it is a nazi-like lie; it is a fascist lie with strong overtones of McCarthyism.
This is from page 1145 of Hansard of February 22, 1962.


An hon. Member:: Somebody should read it for him.


Erik Nielsen: That is the Minister of Justice today.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I was quoting what I know.


Erik Nielsen: You were wrong.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I was quoting the words of the Minister of Finance.


Erik Nielsen: I was in the house when the minister made that speech.


Gordon Minto Churchill: So was I.


Erik Nielsen: I remember his using those words.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I was quoting the Minister of Finance at that time.


Erik Nielsen: Does the minister now say that the report is erroneous? The minister should have risen at the time to correct Hansard, if he did not like it.
What is the minister doing now with regard to the Spencer case, if it does not tit within the category within which he attempted to bracket the Prime Minister of that day.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but-
February 25, 1966


Guy Favreau: Let him go on; let him go on.


Maurice Rinfret: Is that agreed unanimously?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Favreau: Let him go on.


An hon. Member:: He has not said much; let him go on.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure that the hon. member for Lapointe will be able to make a contribution to the debate. He usually makes his contributions from behind the curtains.
Mr. Chairman, if the minister is prepared now to rise and give me the answers to questions I placed on the order paper, I would be prepared to go into specifics.


Mr. Deachman:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I did not consent to the hon. member's continuing. I do not see that his address warrants the time of the house.


Guy Favreau: No, no; let him expose himself.


Grant Deachman: We do not wish to listen to him any longer.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Trained seal, sit down.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. The Chair had the impression that there was unanimous consent to permit the hon. member for Yukon to continue his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: The President of the Privy Council has made an observation which I am quite sure has been noted in Hansard, and which should not be allowed to remain unanswered. He says, "Let him expose himself".


Guy Favreau: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: "Let him expose himself." I say, let the government make some explanations.


John George Diefenbaker: The Supreme Court of Canada, indeed.


Erik Nielsen: Let the government make the explanations it is obliged to make, and I shall be prepared to bring forward the company names which the minister already knows about, in any event.


An hon. Member:: You are withholding information.


Erik Nielsen: I am not withholding information. The government has an obligation to answer questions put on the order paper by members of the house. All that it is doing by
Supply-Justice
its delay is attempting to gain some sort of position. Let me tell the government that it is not going to gain that position. Members of the government are going to answer questions, and they are going to answer them truthfully, because when I see the answers to these questions I will know whether they are truthful and whether they are fully answered. That is the reason I say, and feel, and have no hesitation in expressing, that you can only delay for so long.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: There is no delay, and we have already answered truthfully.


Erik Nielsen: The minister knew his estimates were coming up. I will reserve my remarks until he has answered the question.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Nobody is refusing you.


Erik Nielsen: In so far as the interjection of the President of the Privy Council is concerned, he is an expert in the business of exposing one's self.


Mr. Monleith:: He should know.


Guy Favreau: I shall prove it, even when we are not under oath.


Erik Nielsen: When I heard the rumour about the possibility of this gentleman's being appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, I wondered, Mr. Chairman-I wondered.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Justice knows that there is a serious situation confronting the government with respect to these bankruptcy problems. Indeed, the Minister of Justice in Quebec has informed the general public of Canada, through the press, that he does not expect these gangland slayings to stop where they have. Already eight people have been done away with. There have been press speculations, and indeed statements by the government in Quebec or government spokesmen in Quebec, that bankruptcy frauds and arson frauds are not connected. However, when one looks at the histories of the individuals who have been put out of the way he cannot help but conclude that there is a very positive connection indeed.
I should be very pleased to go into much more detail with respect to the companies concerned, and with respect to the principals in these companies. I urge the minister therefore to ask his officials to give urgent attention to the business of answering the questions I have asked, because they will give rise to others, as well. Particularly, I want a full answer as to the reasons for the change of superintendents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
1818	COMMONS
Supply-Justice


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, could I put a question to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)?
A few moments ago, the hon. member for Yukon referred to the Montreal lawyer who was murdered recently. Was it the hon. member's intention to say, in his words, that the murder or the death of this young Montreal lawyer would be, or is, related to the matter of fraudulent bankruptcies in Montreal?


Mr. Habel:: No, that is what he intimated.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Justice has the responsibility of answering that question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Chairman, that was not my question. The point was not raised by the minister, but rather by the hon. member for Yukon, and I should like very much to get an answer from him, because he rises in his place and makes statements. But there are some who knew this lawyer Payette, of Montreal. Therefore, if the hon. member has a statement to make-


An hon. Member:: Let him make it.


Gilles Grégoire: -let him make it, let him say it, let him make an assertion, for once.


Erik Nielsen: A good many people I am sure knew the deceased, Mr. Payette, including members of this house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, that is not an answer. If the hon. member for Yukon does not want to answer, let him shut up.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You have no right to answer. [English]


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. The hon. member for Leeds.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman-


Guy Favreau: We will adjourn the court.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I should like to ask a question, if the hon. member for Leeds will allow me-


Maurice Rinfret: Does the hon. member-


Gilles Grégoire: Just one question, Mr. Chairman


Maurice Rinfret: Will the hon. member for Lapointe please sit down.
The question is whether the hon. member-

DEBATES	February 25. 196G

The hon. member for Yukon has had the unanimous consent of this house to continue his speech. Will the hon. member for Yukon permit the hon. member for Lapointe to ask him a question.


Erik Nielsen: I have done that.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Yukon has been answering two or three questions, and the hon. member for Lapointe wishes to ask another question.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: My question is the following: In the course of his remarks the hon. member for Yukon claimed it would be useful to have only one authority in this fight against crime in Canada. Was it his feeling that the provinces should withdraw from the authority they now have and let everything be done by the R.C.M.P.?


Erik Nielsen: I do not mind answering that question very briefly. My view is that the war against organized crime must be given national direction. This can only be done by clothing a national police force with the authority to operate in an organized way, and provincial authorities must co-operate to the extent necessary to make this possible.


Mr. Matheson:: One of the matters which is of the greatest concern to us in these estimates is that raised by members of the Official Opposition and supported by members of the New Democratic party with respect to what is now called the Spencer case.
I believe one question which should be answered is this: Who dismissed Spencer? My understanding is that it was the Civil Service Commission, an agency not responsible to government. If Spencer has been deprived of his pension rights it is because the Civil Service Commission is convinced that, in light of all the circumstances, this is the proper course to take. If the commission was not satisfied after their inquiry, what about the 11,000 postal workers? They have not always been silent recently, but their silence in this particular case is eloquent. I submit that these loyal Canadians recognize subversion and dissociate themselves from it.
We should ask ourselves here-because the public may not be clear on this: What precisely are the provisions under which this man's employment was terminated? I refer
February 25, 1966

hon. members to section 50 of the Civil Service Act which is 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.
In case Canadians may wonder whether this is something weird and wonderful and new, I think it might be useful to refer to the debate which took place on September 19, 1961 concerning clause 50 which deals with tenure of office. I read from Hansard of that date at page 8576.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, clause 50 introduces something which is extremely peculiar. Section 50(1) reads as follows:
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.
Later he says:
I therefore move that clause 50 be amended by the deletion of subclause (2).
The hon. member for Carleton, the responsible minister, made this contribution, in part:
This particular subclause is merely a preservation of the over-all prerogative of the crown. It is in the existing act and it was never repealed.
Later he went on to say:
I think it is significant that the maintenance in this bill of this particular subclause which the hon. member seeks to delete was approved by all three members of the civil service commission who appeared before the special committee as witnesses. It is also significant that no representations of any kind were made in relation to it by any of the civil service staff associations. I think the hon. member is well aware of how carefully in clause 60 new provisions have been set forth dealing with dismissals and the right of appeal. This particular provision merely preserves the over-all prerogative of the Crown, one which I am sure will not at any time be abused. In view of this I shall ask the committee to reject the amendment.
My hon. friend from Ottawa West, now Minister of Public Works and leader of the house, whom I acknowledge as one of the most competent, experienced and wise persons on matters of government from the opposition bench made this interjection:
The subclause as it now stands reads:
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.
This appears on first reading to be very wide in its language and undoubtedly it is but I do not see any way of restricting that right-
Supply-Justice
He is speaking of the right of the governor in council to dismiss on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission. The hon. gentleman went on to say:
It seems to me that a government has to be held responsible for the administration and the discharge of its duties and that in line with that responsibility there must be this power of dismissal.
Later, he added:
I recall a situation which developed in this country some 15 years ago in which this power was of real value to a government.
We all remember what happened 15 years earlier-the Gouzenko inquiry. I regard the exchange which I have just read as being one typical of two experienced lawyers, well versed in matters of parliament and with a thorough knowledge of the interests of the civil service. They are agreed that there must be some exceptions. I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member for York South. I am prepared to accept at its face value the observations made by the Prime Minister when he said:
I have examined this situation personally. I have studied all the reports, all the documents concerning this case. I have spent a good many hours, Mr. Chairman, in doing so because I know that the issues involved are important.
I accept what he says finally, by way of conclusion:
I believe Mr. Spencer's dismissal and his loss of pension rights under the law was lawful and just. I do not believe his rights as a person or as a citizen have been violated. On the contrary, I believe he has been treated with scrupulous fairness.
May I say with the utmost sincerity that had those words been spoken by the Leader of the Official Opposition or by any minister charged with this responsibility I would have accepted them as meaning precisely what they said.


David Lewis: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he saying that section 50 of the Civil Service Act means that the governor in council has the right to dismiss arbitrarily without cause and without ever having to account for his actions?


John Ross Matheson: I think it is clear that section 50 provides no limitation to the right or power of the governor in council to remove or dismiss any employee. The usual dismissal section of the act is of course section 60 which provides for notice of dismissal, the right of appeal and so on. Subsection 4 provides for cases where there is an appeal.
Supply-Justice

February 25, 1966
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Subsection 5, by way of conclusion, provides that the governor in council may dismiss an employee pursuant to a recommendation under this section. What I am saying is that section 50 is an extraordinary section. I believe section 50 is important for the security of Canada. I most seriously care about this matter and I believe the Prime Minister and those charged with the preservation of security in this country care about it too.


David Lewis: So do all hon. members. Do not arrogate to yourself that monopoly.


John Ross Matheson: Perhaps by way of reply I might simply say that I have here an editorial which appeared in the Christian Century of February 22, 1933 under the heading, "Communism Knows There is a Revolution." I believe that what is said in that editorial spells out exactly what is happening today. It may be that my hon. friend from York South does not agree, but I believe that there is a great power contest in the world, and Canada would like to see this power contest cease. We would be very happy if the confrontation could be avoided. Obviously persons who are protagonists in it are good customers and we would like to have them as good friends. I am referring not only to the Russians but also to the Chinese, and I think our external, as well as trade and commerce policies must be directed towards the end of bridging divisions in every conceivable fashion. But we are not blind, we recognize there is an ideological contest of vast proportions and that Canada, by virtue of its friendly relationship to the United States is being subjected to the most powerful propaganda campaign at this particular time. Of course, as was said we had difficulties in 1946 and no doubt pressure will continue. It is the duty of the Minister of Justice, mindful of the great burden of preserving civil liberty, to be also mindful of the preservation and security of the nation; and that preservation and security is a first responsibility of government.
Since I became a member of the house in 1961, far too often have I heard the R.C.M.P. pulled down and derided by people in the house and outside it. I believe Canadians owe an enormous debt to these people who, in many instances, remain silent, do their work for the security of all of us, and oft times are underpaid and understaffed. This is a force the activities of which are spread over the saving of lives, maritime patrol, traffic control, surveillance over narcotics,-indeed, covering a very wide range of fields. The fact 
that with so little offence, they have been able to accomplish so much in the security field, when we are right in the centre of a confrontation between forces, communist and west, is quite remarkable.


David Lewis: Would the hon. member be good enough to indicate how the security of Canada would be endangered if there were an inquiry into the matter, by a judge or some other person, held in camera, and the result of that inquiry presented to the house and the country?


John Ross Matheson: I think there are certain facts in this case not known to my hon. friend and not likely ever to be known.


David Lewis: And which would not be known if the inquiry were held in camera.


John Ross Matheson: I do not want to dilate on this point at length. We have taken a position which can easily be characterized as unpopular. However, I think it has been a responsible decision after weighty consideration of all the facts. It is not a popular decision but I would like to think we will be supported in it, just as we would support the right hon. gentleman opposite if he were faced with this problem. I think there are more things in this chamber upon which to join forces than to cause differences.
I wish now to touch on the charge of bifurcation or trifurcation of the Department of Justice. I do so because, frankly, for years I have felt that the Department of Justice was a very overloaded portfolio in the Canadian government. This was a department that called for a variety of responsibilities, in some cases responsibilities which conflicted with each other.
May I briefly summarize some of the responsibilities of the Minister of Justice before the reorganization.
1.	To administer a large department charged with the responsibility of advising all other departments of government.
2.	To advise as to legislation.
3.	To recommend as to judicial and quasilegal appointments.
4.	To advise as to constitutional change, and to advise concerning highly complex dominion-provincial relations.
5.	To administer this vast quasi-military force, the R.C.M.P., with all its diverse duties, spread across 3,000 miles of country.
6.	To administer the penitentiary service.
7.	To administer the parole service.
8.	To administer anti-combines legislation.
February 25, 1966

9.	To administer bankruptcy legislation.
If we look at this work in comparison with Ontario or the United Kingdom it shows that what has been attempted in the past is far too much for any one minister. Duties which in England would be covered through the home office, the attorney general and the solicitor general were all combined under one minister in Canada. The province of Ontario has its attorney general, a minister of reform institutions and a provincial secretary. Indeed, Ontario is presently discussing appointment of a solicitor general. I cannot help feeling that no minister of justice, because of the weight and variety of his duties, has been able to give any substantial consideration to more than one or another of these many responsibilities.
I would point out these facts, that since the final tabling of the Fauteux committee report, which you will remember was the result of the efforts of Hon. Stuart Garson and his letter of December 11, 1953, the report being dated April 30, 1956, we had as minister of justice Hon. Stuart Garson for 417 days, Hon. Davie Fulton for 1,875 days, Hon. Donald Fleming for 257 days, Hon. Lionel Chevrier for 287 days, Hon. Guy Favreau for 513 days, and Hon. Lucien Cardin for 163 days.
The point I am making is that with the complexity of these responsibilities I do not believe we have ever had a minister of justice who truly got on top of the full variety of these responsibilities.
While it may not logically satisfy all requirements I think there is a certain harmony in putting the R.C.M.P., the penitentiary service and the parole service in one packet.
This is not inconsistent with the British experience and practice. I believe the splitting of the department shows serious evidence of the concern of the government with respect to all the problems we have heard discussed today, on the one hand problems of security, and on the other hand problems of economic supervision and control.
In this latter connection I am thinking of fraudulent bankruptcy and combines legislation-legislation which, in its character, is essentially economic-
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
One subject that is of most concern to me-and this is because of interests I have had over 15 or 20 years-is improvement and development with regard to the field of penology. I have read carefully, after hearing it, the address of the Solicitor General. It was
Supply-Justice
modest, it was factual, and as usual for him gracious in all its utterances. But to me it is eloquent in what it does not say. As you will remember, the Solicitor General in reporting to this house spoke of the size of our prison population, the overcrowding of institutions, the great need for more research in criminology, and the problem of Staff recruitment. I was disappointed, if he will forgive me, in what he said in respect of the building program. Personally I have been anxious in respect of this building program. The minister told us that during the next eight months five new medium security institutions will be opened at Springhill, Cowansville, Wark-worth, Drumheller and Matsqui, the costs of which would be $40 million. I can tell the Solicitor General that there are many people who are interested in criminology and penological science who are concerned about the character of some of these proposed buildings.
Personally I think we have made some serious mistakes. I think Matsqui is a gross mistake, but also that it is an honest mistake where Canada has attempted to do something. When I look over to my hon. friend for Bow River I think that Drumheller, for many reasons, is a mistake.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Have you ever been to Drumheller?


John Ross Matheson: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then how can you say that it is a mistake?


John Ross Matheson: Because it is so hard to get there is one reason you should not put an institution in that place.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Hard to get there?


John Ross Matheson: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How silly can you get.


John Ross Matheson: May I make this observation that the penitentiary at Drumheller, Alberta is being built in an out of the way place.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You had better go to western Canada and stop being so parochial.


John Ross Matheson: It lacks proximity to medical, psychiatric and university facilities. Difficulties will arise in helping the offender avail himself of these services. Staff may become stagnant because of a lack of access to the academic world, consultative services and other community resources. I might tell my friend, who is snickering over there, that one of the concerns of the international

February 25, 1968
Supp ly

J ustice
penology group that met in Stockholm this summer was to site prisons in places where there would be a variety of such services. I think, for instance, of the complex which has developed around Kingston, which has excellent psychiatric and psychological assistance, good medical facilities, excellent facilities in the way of the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society, and a school of law. Because of the psychological care which has been available to many of these institutions they have been vastly improved. I can tell you that every one of the 60 students at Queen's Theological College is undergoing constant supervision and training in the various institutions in Kingston which include the Kingston maximum security penitentiary, Joyceville, Collin's Bay, and the prison for women.
I say that with the professional and expert assistance that is available, there is as much hope for the penitentiaries here. I am not impressed by the emphasis on architecture and the building program which will cost Canadians something like $110 million. Personally I hold the view that we have far too many people in Canada in prison.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There are a few people I would like to see in jail.


John Ross Matheson: Perhaps if the committee will bear with me I could refer to extracts from document No. 19 of Sunday, January 23, 1966, under the directorship of Ross McLean of the C.B.C. This is called "A Sense of Captivity". One inmate said:
You don't have to think. Everything's done for you. You sit back and sink into the weeds, you might say, and become an automat.
I am concerned about the separation of many people whom I have known in penitentiaries which I have had occasion to visit, people who have had long separation from their wives and children.
Listen to this:
In 1960 or 1959 I had a visit from my wife. At that time the visit was over, we were leaving the visit, and she was going out to North Gate. This working crew was coming in, and one of the men stepped out of the line to grab the baby, and the copper that was walking the men he yelled at him.
I said it's all right. Anyways he took the baby and held it, held the child, the boy in his arms, and you'd have to see the expression on this man's face and how sad this was! And this guy bugged me for months after till I came over here, asking me, how was the kid? Could I have a picture of your child? And this man was no degenerate, it was a normal man. Just this craving to see a child or to be able to pick up a baby again.

I happen to know of two or three cases which fall into this category. I am concerned for instance even about the limitation on the correspondence of the inmate to his wife. Here another inmate is speaking of the homosexual problem:
I don't know, it is hard to explain. Some person needs somebody else, because if you do not have somebody you fall apart yourself.
What does Mr. McGibbon, the commentator, say:
A prison is all the things we deny those who have offended us .... is a hiding place for mistakes we've made . . . problems we couldn't solve . . . guilts we can't abide ... is an institution of last resort. When all the other institutions . . . the homes, the schools, the churches, courts and counsellors . . . have failed. A prison is a state of mind where tensions you never quite walk off remain to (haunt) your dreams.
I am concerned too about some of the statistics we find in Canada. It is clear that many of the people at the present time are going to return. In fact some people say this figure is as high as 80 per cent. Ninety per cent of those in penitentiary will one day be released. If this is so, surely the great burden is to examine ways, means, and techniques to improve what I think in many respects is an ineffectual and ineffective prison system.
May I go on with some of the comments which we heard on this recent program. Again this is Mr. McGibbon:
Our Canadian prisons today are the price we pay for thinking that if we forget the criminal, he will cease to exist. But he will not cease to exist until we admit that he does exist and until we make it possible for him to learn to exist as a man in our free communities.
Again Mr. McGibbon:
-in prison the need for human dignity is such a shrieking thing.
Personally I do not believe we are making proper use of our prisons. I would like to see more of the special institutions. I am pressed in this direction by the fact that I had occasion during the war, early in 1940, to be involved with a group of 125 men released from Dorchester penitentiary. For a while I could not believe how these people who came from such a place really could be much use to their country. I did not think they knew very much. But it took me just a few weeks to develop a little humility and realize these were persons, just as myself, and maybe in some respects better than myself. When I look back over that group of 125 men, it seems to me we need more of the work camp approach as a technique of correction.
February 25, 1966

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am depressed by the fact that inmates in the Canadian penitentiaries are employed for very short periods of time, in many instances only two and a half or three hours a day. Often the work is demoralizing and unproductive. It was Agnes McPhail of the C.C.F. party who years ago complained about the lack of work for prisoners. If that sounds Dickensonian I invite hon. members to read her speeches to see how absolutely right she was. I see no lack of logic in the suggestion that we should develop techniques whereby prisoners are paid for work, to encourage them and to help them to maintain their dignity. Perhaps they should not be paid full wages, but at least a portion of a wage.
I should like to see methods developed in respect of parole allowing prisoners to work hard in their special skills or at hard labour in order to decrease their period of incarceration. I am convinced that this could be done.
A year or more ago I made a proposal to the effect that we could develop our waste lands in the north through the use of prisoners who are serving time. I think back to my experience with those 125 men who learned to soldier with the first division, and how magnificent they were. I am convinced that if we used the arctic and transport equipment developed by the army, we could put these people on islands in the Arctic to develop bases, docks, landing strips and other communication facilities. It is my belief that these men would pull themselves together under such conditions and become eligible for parole, and some of them might even wish to remain there.
Here in this lovely part of Ontario I have studied by cruiser the wonderful Rideau canal system, built many years ago by Colonel By and the Royal Engineers. It is being allowed to fall to pieces in certain spots. I am convinced that inmates could perform the masonry required to repair this canal system. Surely this would give people in penitentiaries some encouragement to rehabilitate themselves. This whole idea might sound fanciful and ridiculous, but I do not believe that it is.
Perhaps these ideas sound logical to me because of my regular participation in the deliberations of inmates, many of whom I find are not very different from the members of my own family and my friends. Some of them have had far less in the way of privileges, while some of them, I agree, are vicious, psychotic and dangerous requiring permanent custody. If we in Canada are deeply
Supply-Justice
concerned about civil rights and the rights of individuals we should start by studying what is happening in our prisons.
I have been impressed by the work that Isabel Macneill has done at Kingston.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. The hon. member's allotted time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Maurice Rinfret: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Ross Matheson: I am very grateful to my hon. friends for permitting me to continue for a few minutes longer.
Isabel Macneill, as so many of you will remember, came from the maritimes from a fine old Halifax family. Many will remember that she commanded the Wrens during the war. What she has done in the area of penal reform has increased penological science. I should also like to refer to Rev. J. A. Nickels who stands high in the services being carried out at Kingston penitentiary.


David Walter Groos: Hear, hear.


John Ross Matheson: I note that my hon. friend remembers him as the padre of his frigate some years ago. These two fine individuals have done a great deal for the penitentiaries they have served. Let me quote what Isabel Macneill has said:
Prison itself ... is the punishment and everything that happens after admission . . . should be geared to re-education-
She has suggested that 60 per cent of the girls now in prison have been convicted under narcotics charges. Let me present very briefly the impressions of one or two of these inmates. One states:
My first night here I couldn't even sleep because all I could see was the bars, you know the reflection of the bars on the wall and uh . . . it made me cry in fact I cried half the night.
I don't think it could be described really. It's just three walls and the bars, a floor and ceiling and a bed.
Another inmate states:
I'm in my 50's and there are other around in this age group, and I'm learning more about crime than I'll ever learn in my life. I don't know whether this is important for my rehabilitation.
I think it is about time we got some of those people out of those maximum security prisons into open prisons.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? I note that the

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice
hon. member for the Northwest Territories is in his seat, which prompts me to ask the hon. member for Leeds whether he has consulted with that hon. member about his idea to send these convicts to the north, and whether the hon. member for the Northwest Territories is in agreement.


John Ross Matheson: I have discussed this idea with several hon. members. I have discussed it with other people who have been involved in the exploration and development of the north. I am not suggesting that many inmates should be sent to the north. Perhaps I should explain my proposal. It is my belief that men who are physically fit should be allowed to volunteer as members of crews to be moved up to the north by aircraft-travelling with light equipment, sleeping in tents, in an effort to further develop these waste areas.
The men who could stick out this kind of existence would be far better off than living in a small cell. I have discussed this with other individuals and I am sure there are a lot of young men in our institutions in excellent physical condition who would be delighted to be given an opportunity to work amid the glories of our northland. I have had the opportunity of visiting the north, particularly during my university days. I am sure this program would give these men a challenge and would help them change their whole attitude.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a good deal more about this subject, but I will not at this time as I am sure there are other members who wish to contribute to the debate. In concluding let me say that I do agree with what has been said by Alan Peyton, a prison superintendent. He said:
An offender must be punished, I don't argue about that; but to punish and not restore, that is the greatest of all offences.
We are spending far too much money today to keep each man serving time in a penitentiary. I suggest the maintenance cost runs between $2,700 and $3,000 per year. To that figure one must add an additional $2,000 paid in support of many prisoners' families. I suggest if we have that kind of money to spend we should spend it in ways which will encourage these people to rehabilitate themselves. As Walter Scott said, "It's no fish ye're buying, it's men's lives". There are many fellow Canadians who are still obscurely fighting the last fight of virtue, still clinging to some rag of honour, the poor jewel of their souls. They need our help.

I believe we have much to do and I am grateful that the Prime Minister has seen fit to reform and reconstruct the justice department in order that we should pay real attention to crime in all its aspects, including the rehabilitation of prisoners.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief this afternoon. I wish to refute the suggestions made by the hon. member for Leeds who recommends that dangerous convicts should be taken out of maximum security and set free in the north. I want to point out the folly in the hon. member's suggestion that we should use inmates in public works for the repair or construction of the Rideau canal and other projects in Canada. Public works should continue to be done on contract by the lowest bidder.
After listening to arguments about civil liberties and justice I want to point out a strange paradox that exists. The government is not inspiring confidence on the part of the public through their policies. According to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice this man Spencer is under continuous surveillance in spite of the fact there has been no trial or inquiry into his alleged actions. On the other hand, the inmates in our penal institutions who have been tried and convicted should be kept under surveillance and enforced security, yet this is not the case.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Therefore we may deduce that there are civil liberties and penal liberties, apparently. This situation should not exist in the sense that has recently been demonstrated. I refer to the recent prison break from Collin's Bay penitentiary. This break took place on Wednesday, February 9, when four dangerous men were successful in escaping from that institution. It has been said around Parliament Hill and the area from which I come that it is now easier to get out of a penitentiary than it is to get in.
My constituency is adjacent to Kingston and the institution there. The people in the area of Bay of Quinte, Kingston and the upper St. Lawrence are very concerned about these prison breaks and the security in our institutions. Security in our penal institutions should at all times be beyond criticism and must indeed be constant and rigidly enforced.
I would refer to the questions I placed on the order paper and point out that they have been there long enough for answers to be
February 25, 1966



given. I waited a reasonable length of time after the recapture of these men before asking these questions. The first question is to be found on page 82 of the order paper and was lodged with the government on February 15:
Has there been a special inquiry into the factors and/or persons contributing to the prison break of three dangerous prisoners from Collin's Bay penitentiary on Wednesday, February 9, 1966, who were later captured near St. Catharines and, if so, will the government report to the house the findings resulting from this inquiry?
Until I get answers to these questions I must assume that the attitude of the government to this matter is negative. I understand that the prison staff were forewarned of this break. If this is so there is absolutely no excuse for this lack of security and carelessness.
The fact that vigilance was at the time not practised or performed by the guards closest to the escapees set off a chain of events that is most regrettable and in fact can never be corrected. I understand that most of these prisoners were nearing the date when they would be eligible for parole. What a sad case this is. Their action has terminated the chance of their ever being paroled. They have ruined their lives by their actions and will now serve the original sentences plus an additional, appropriate term for breaking out of prison. Moreover, they have grievously jeopardized and harmed the life of their innocent female victim. I refer to the woman they captured, robbed, tortured and in fact are alleged to have criminally assaulted. All this damage was done because security, vigilance and the action we require from guards in these circumstances was absent or was not performed. I understand that the rifle of one of the guards would not fire. In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I would quote my question that appears on page 93 of the order paper. This question was lodged with the government on February 18:
With respect to the recent escape of prisoners of the Collin's Bay penitentiary, was the utilization of one of the rifles issued to a guard impeded by grease on the bolt?
This question concerns the public of this country who deserve and expect protection. My next question was:
Do guards at penitentiaries have daily inspection of their rifles and. if not, what is the reason?
Then I asked:
Is it mandatory that penitentiary guards shoot in order to prevent an escape of a prisoner or prisoners and. if not, what is the reason?
We were informed that one guard did not, would not or refused to shoot at the escapees.
Supply-Justice
The question is, why? This is a very serious question, Mr. Chairman. We are dealing with the basic element, the real meaning of government, the protection of persons and property. I for one, and I believe all hon. members will not allow this principle to be weakened.
In summing up my point, Mr. Chairman, I would say it is evident to all hon. members that the level of security in this penal institution has been lowered or at least is of a variable nature. This has been demonstrated by the regrettable incident to which I have referred. I ask that this matter and all matters pertaining to penal security, the action of guards, the rules and the enforcement thereof in our penal institutions as they apply to vigilance and the full practice of strict enforcement of security, be referred to our standing committee on justice at the earliest possible date.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to preface my remarks by adding my congratulations to the Solicitor General upon his appointment to this portfolio and for his forward-looking approach with regard to penal problems and their solutions. I also extend my best wishes to the Minister of Justice in the difficult job he has ahead, and agree with the government that it was necessary to separate the numerous departments that were previously within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. I thought that any remarks I made this afternoon would be anti-climactic to those of the hon. member for Yukon, but I notice he is adopting a legal ploy and is trying to get as much information as he can from the government before making a frontal attack.
I direct my remarks to the ever-increasing problem of bankruptcy and state categorically that the Canadian public and in particular the Canadian businessman is amazed and shocked at the inaction of government with regard to amendments to the Bankruptcy Act which are necessary to deal with fraudulent company and personal bankruptcies. There has been no revision of the act since 1949, in spite of active interest by concerned groups in the business community. My hon. friend the member for Greenwood the other day set forth the many organizations which have presented briefs to Ministers of Justice and in regard to which no action has been taken. For example, a very full brief from the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto was submitted in 1961 and in 1963 a full brief was

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice
submitted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Then in 1965 we had the Mercier report which dealt with fraudulent bankruptcies in Quebec as they affected the Department of Revenue of that province.
In addition to these briefs there have been numerous articles in periodicals and newspapers concerning the probems of bankruptcy. I refer to an article under the dateline Friday, February 4, which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star, written by Alastair Dow who reports a speech by Mr. Biddell, the President of Clarkson, Gordon and Company, one of Canada's largest firms of bankruptcy trustees. This article reads:
Bankruptcies, he said, have grown from "a minor problem to a national disgrace" since the last time the Bankruptcy Act was revised, in 1949. He added that the tendency of government is to ignore the problem, to sweep it under the rug . . .
Biddell came from a modest family, and he says it agitates him to rub shoulders every day with people who have taken a financial beating because of bankruptcy abuses. He has seized upon his mission also because of the inaction of government.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
"If there's anything that motivates me, it's people who won't move to solve a problem".
The problem, as Biddell sees it, is far from insurmountable. "It wouldn't be difficult at all to revise the Bankruptcy Act.
"This isn't going to be a one-shot war. You have to change laws to fill the loopholes as people get smarter, the way the Income Tax Act is frequently revised. It's about time we got started on the Bankruptcy Act".
The day is long past when bankruptcies could be considered a private matter between debtors and creditors.
This indicates the attitude of the president of one of the largest firms of bankruptcy trustees in the country. Added to that is the growing number of bankruptcies that have taken place in the last two years. At page 27 of the brief submitted by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants in October 1963 the following statement appears:
From the point of view of government responsibility, bankruptcy is big business. The administration of the Superintendent's Department in 1961 included the supervision of the administration of some 3,876 estates with estimated liabilities in excess of $157,000,000.
That was in 1961. In 1963, according to the January issue of the Canadian Credit Institute publication:
The number of bankruptcies and resultant defaulted liabilities have been growing at an alarming rate and amounted to 3,677 commercial failures and $196 million in defaulted liabilities in 1963 compared with 1,303 and $25 million respectively in 1950.
According to Dun and Bradstreet, they have calculated that 2,597 businesses went

broke in 1965, leaving a trail of debts totaling $175,855,000. So you can appreciate the growing increase in the number of bankruptcies from 1950 to the present day.
One might ask, why this great increase in the number of bankruptcies? I think it is the duty of members to find the reasons for this, and I hope to offer constructive criticism. I think we have to look at the classes of persons involved, and their attitudes, to determine just what are the reasons for these bankruptcies.
The first class of person, Mr. Chairman, would include the previous minister, and perhaps the present minister, and their attitude toward the conduct of bankruptcy matters. I think the attitude that suggests that the provincial government is primarily responsible for enforcement of the administration of justice in connection with criminal activities under the Bankruptcy Act, and that they only are responsible for the supervision of trustees, is a wrong attitude to take. I suggest that the problem should be tackled on the same level as we tackle problems under the Combines Investigation Act.
I suggest that we should set up a separate department to investigate these allegedly fraudulent bankruptcies, a department staffed by men with experience in accountancy and company law. I also suggest we retain special counsel to prosecute the cases. This is done in the case of combines investigation, and although there could be many criticisms of it I think that the same practice should be followed.
I am sure that the Minister of Justice would agree he is having difficulty in the province of Ontario persuading the Attorney General of the province to set up a separate department to investigate these bankruptcies. I understand there is reluctance on the part of the Attorney General to appoint someone separate and apart to investigate these allegedly fraudulent bankruptcies. At the moment, my only knowledge of any investigations in Toronto are those conducted by two members of the fraud squad of Metropolitan Toronto who are not experienced enough in corporate law relating to fraudulent bankruptcies to be very familiar with the subject. The crown attorney in Toronto, because of shortage of staff, is very reluctant to let one of his assistant crown counsel devote his full time to processing these fraudulent bankruptcy cases. It is public knowledge that these cases take a minimum of four to eight weeks to process.
February 25, 1966


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Gilbert: Certainly.


Erik Nielsen: Is the hon. member aware of the provisions of section 3(5) of the Bankruptcy Act, which sets forth that the superintendent of bankruptcy, federal office, may engage such accountants or other persons as he may deem advisable to conduct any action outside of the office of the superintendent?


John Gilbert: Yes, I am familiar with that provision. I am also familiar with the fact that the Minister of Justice has not taken appropriate action under that provision. I am just dealing with what happened in Toronto, Ontario, in regard to the fraudulent bankruptcies that occurred in that area. So here you have an Attorney General reluctant to appoint somebody to conduct an investigation. You also have two men on the fraud squad who are inexperienced in these intricate matters; and you have the crown attorney for the city of Toronto unable to let one of his assistants devote his full time to the subj ect.
I would agree with the hon. member for Yukon that what is really needed is an investigation of these bankruptcies on a national scale by the R.C.M.P. You need officers from the R.C.M.P. as well as accountants and lawyers familiar with company law. You need that type of person, rather than having to depend on various branches of provincial administration. That would be my respectful submission, Mr. Chairman, to the minister in connection with this problem. The second reason for the difficulties in bankruptcy has been the improper actions of the trustees. In some areas it would appear that competition between bankruptcies and proposals has brought about practices which involve virtual collusion between debtors and the trustees they employ, which is against the interests of the creditors. To strengthen that point I should like to read briefly from the Mercier report, wherein is set forth the actions of some of the trustees in Quebec. I would suggest that the same comments could be applied to the actions of some of the trustees in Ontario.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This is on page 11 of the Mercier report:
In virtue of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, the trustees represent the interests of the creditors and nearly all their powers are conditioned by the approval of the inspectors appointed
Supply-Justice
by the creditors. It was shown that, in practice, certain trustees are the "potentates" of the quasitotality of the bankruptcies which they administer. Because of their extensive knowledge in bankruptcy matters, they usually manoeuvre the unsuspecting inspectors as if they were puppets. In many instances, it was established that certain trustees had cleverly arranged the appointment of one or more of the inspectors. It is all so easy that the creditors and inspectors in good faith showed a disinterest that the Commission has already brought to light.
Amongst the many grievances lodged against the trustees during the inquiry, the Commission held the following: To begin with, there is the conflict of interest. On this point, it seems necessary to remember that in many instances of assignment or proposal, a conflict of interest is found between the trustee, who acts for the bankrupt and who is in fact his client, and the creditors whom he has the obligation to protect.
Then I continue:
In a number of cases, the trustee was paid his fees in advance from the bankrupt or obtained a bond: this situation presents itself particularly in summary matters where there are practically no assets. There is a real conflict since, for the trustee, it is no longer a question of protecting the creditors but of liberating a debtor.
The report goes on at page 12:
By incidence, it was noted that a number of trustees were more or less in the "business" of bankruptcy, and, in order to administer their offices with all the disbursements involved, they need a flow of bankruptcies. In order to effect this, many saw the advantage of maintaining good relations with the debtors rather than with the creditors.
On page 13 the report continues:
In many cases, it was noted that money, which was supposed to have been distributed to the creditors as dividends, was retained in the bank, without valid reason, for a considerable period after the settlement of certain bankruptcies.
Then the report takes a slash at some members of the legal profession. It says:
Testimonies, including one by a member of the bar, revealed that it is current practice, for certain trustees, to require and receive hush-money from lawyers representing the interests of secured creditors or of bidders promising in return not to oppose proceedings taken by the latter. It was also observed that certain representatives of trustees are using blackmail in order to obtain certain advantages or interest in the businesses which are operating under proposal.
These are some of the allegations which have been made against the conduct of trustees. I would ask the minister to strengthen the office of superintendent with regard to the issuance of licences and the conduct of these trustees.
The same comments could be applied to a third class, being the class of inspectors.

February 25, 1966
Supply-Justice
Again, the Mercier report sets forth the condemnation of the actions of inspectors, consisting in many cases almost of direct collusion or acquiescence in the actions of the trustees.
Another class which I think deserves criticism and reform is the class of finance companies. At page 16 of the Mercier report it says:
We should mention that the practice of several finance companies, to realize their security without accounting to anyone, does not seem to satisfy the elementary exigencies of equity towards the creditors, specially after taking cognizance of the facts discovered by the Commission during the inquiry, when it has been established that the agent or mandatory of a finance company, charged with realizing the security, was none other than an individual of doubtful reputation having been involved in rings of fraudulent bankruptcies.
In order that bankruptcy companies should be brought to the attention of the minister-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member. I find his speech very interesting. I wonder whether the hon. member might be able to tell the committee what he has in mind when he speaks of fraudulent bankruptcies.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister know?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, I know.


John Gilbert: against the debtor and are in a position to enforce their wishes on the rest of the creditors either by bankruptcy proceedings or the appointment of inspectors, or in any proposal that may be made by the debtor.
So we are faced with three classes of problems.


Erik Nielsen: That is only a partial list.


John Gilbert: As the hon. member for Yukon has said, it may be only a partial list. However, I believe the institute has brought forward recommendations which are well worthy of consideration. One of them is that there should be an amendment of the act with regard to the definition of a related person. They recommend that we incorporate into the act the provisions set out in section 139 subsections (5) and (6) of the Income Tax Act to stop this practice of placing all the assets in one company and all the liabilities in another.
The second suggestion relating to persons who are not dealing at arm's length is that any conveyances to persons who are not dealing at arm's length with the debtor should be considered fraudulent if they are made within a period of 12 months rather than within a period of three months as set forth under the present act. The third recommendation relates to persons who are not dealing at arm's length being unable to vote with regard to a proposal set forth by the debtor, unless it is to vote against the acceptance of that proposal. These are all matters of which we should take immediate cognizance. Legislation should be brought down forthwith to amend the act accordingly.
The second area to be considered is the area of proposals which a debtor makes. In this field there have been many abuses. Those most frequently complained of by creditors are that many debtors lodge proposals with the trustee without the means or even the intention of carrying them out. It is alleged that in many instances the purpose of such frivolous proposals is merely to enable the debtor to use the stay of proceedings obtained thereby in order to dispose of his assets to the detriment of his creditors.
Many debtors are assisted in such a scheme by the absence of any direct responsibility on the trustee acting in the proposal to control the debtors' assets. Again, the brief sets forth methods whereby actions of this type could be controlled.
The third recommendation relates to the re-organization of the superintendent's office.
Supply-Justice
Some of the recommendations set forth are as follows: 1. The appointment of an assistant deputy minister to the superintendent of bankruptcy. It is high time such an appointment was made. 2. The appointment of three assistants to the superintendent of bankruptcy whose duties would be to supervise the activities of registrars, official receivers and trustees; investigations of bankruptcy frauds and the processing of trustees' statements. I am sure the hon. member for Yukon would agree that in the past one of the problems has been that the burden of investigations has usually fallen upon the shoulders of the creditors rather than their being any active participation by the minister and his staff. This has been a most serious problem. Here again I agree with the hon. member that it will take a national force to combat the situation facing us today.


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member permit a question? Again I would refer him to subsection 5 of section 3. The expense of paying accountants and other persons to engage in these investigations is payable from the appropriation of the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy. If the minister had been exercising the authority granted to him the cost would have been paid in this way and there would have been no need for it to fall on the shoulders of the creditors. That is, if the minister is doing his job.


John Gilbert: I think the hon. member is again underlining the need for immediate action by the minister to advise the superintendent to look into these matters regardless of the expense, because he has the authority to do so under the act. I agree most heartily with that.
A final area in which this problem has arisen is that of personal bankruptcies. There has to be a new approach to the question of personal bankruptcy-a new attitude toward persons whose income is derived from salaries or wages, who have incurred large debts by overspending and who then find the present procedures an easy way in which to avoid the repayment of their debts. We must discover a method of ensuring an orderly payment of a bankrupt's debts, under budgetary control and supervision, in order that the debtor may repay his creditors 100 per cent. What I am saying is this: We need to take stronger action with regard to company bankruptcies, but we must also take a hard look at the activities of individuals who are taking advantage of the present provisions of

February 25. 1966
Supply-Justice
the act in order to avoid the repayment of their debts. I believe the Canadian public and Canadian businessmen in particular demand immediate action for the protection of all Canadians to restore confidence in the business world and to give strength to the enforcement of the law.


John George Diefenbaker: In the ten minutes or so remaining, it will be quite impossible to deal with the variety of subjects which warrant consideration. I have sat here throughout the debate waiting for the Minister of Justice, or one of the other ministers who now share the throne of justice, to rise and explain themselves with regard to the matters which have been referred to with such clarity again this afternoon, not only by members of the official opposition but by the hon. member for York-Humber who spoke as a Liberal supporting the government. His speech, I should have thought, would have been answered.
I wish to refer to the Spencer case. I was not here when this subject was discussed in the house the day before yesterday. But I say at once that the decision not to hold a judicial investigation into this matter is a gross perversion of the elementary principles of freedom. The excuse which is given, namely that the security of this nation would be interfered with, is simply a smokescreen, and nothing else.
This man has been pilloried before the Canadian people. He has been given no opportunity to answer. His name was spread across the nation by the minister, in a totally unjustified way, and it is now stated after all this cloak and dagger drama that he is not complaining. Well, that adds to questions that arise. Why? Across this nation people are beginning to wonder whether there is something behind this case that has not been revealed.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I do not have the time now to refer in detail to the press release of May 8, issued by the Department of External Affairs, but I shall do so on an appropriate occasion. It should be read and reread. It either meant something, or this particular case happened to arise at a time when something had to be brought up in order to cover up the revelations that were being made in the Rivard case.
From time to time it happens that security is undermined, but never before has a man been identified with a government failing to act. Why? Is there any reason to believe that

if Spencer speaks his threat will be implemented to the effect that heads will roll, or heads will swim? If there is not, then why not an investigation by judges, in secret if you will, allowing them to make their report? Otherwise I can only say that the Bill of Rights has been entirely denied-every principle of it.
What is the government covering up? Nothing, the minister says. If it has nothing to cover up why not have a judicial inquiry into this matter? That is the same kind of answer as the hon. gentleman's predecessor gave on November 23, 1964 when the hon. member for Yukon was speaking, and the former minister of justice said, "It is lies," and then within an hour admitted that he knew previously, and it was true.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-[DOT]


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman can make his question of privilege afterwards, if he wants.


Guy Favreau: I am not going to let the right hon. gentleman continue in the way which he has started now.

On November 23, 1964, when the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rose to deal with a certain file that had been brought to his attention-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this is not privilege. He is going to make the speech-he ought to have made, and made over and over again.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. I would ask the President of the Privy Council to make his point of privilege.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, my question of privilege is that I did not have to retract and what the hon. member for Yukon said then was inaccurate. I said he had lied when he said that one of the persons who had committed an offence against the Criminal Code was in my office. He was wrong.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. I suggest to the President of the Privy Council that if he disagrees with the allegations being made at the present time by the Leader of the Opposition that he should have the opportunity to reply afterwards.
February 25, 1966


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, we have been waiting for that explanation since November 1964, and I look forward to hearing the explanation because he said, "That is a lie."


Guy Favreau: Well, it was.


John George Diefenbaker: And it was not, and the hon. gentleman at that time misled the house.


Guy Favreau: That is a lie.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to be perfectly clear. Now we are again getting the same kind of answer in connection with Spencer. This afternoon the hon. member for York-Humber spoke the language of wisdom when he asked for action in this regard, but the government sits quiet. Why? Whose are the heads? Where are the heads that are going to fall or to swim? Spencer does not object. I would like to have the opportunity of examining Spencer and finding out what happened here, because it is a strange thing that he does not object. But he says if anybody dares do anything something is going to happen. I will come back to that next week. I thought this afternoon we would be able to get through, that the minister would get up and answer, but I can tell him and those associated with him that until this is answered we have a responsibility.
I now wish to deal with another matter in the few minutes remaining at my disposal. I have overwhelming respect for the R.C.M.P. I have said that before, and down through the years. I have known them since the days of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. But we have had the Rivard case, we have had the views expressed by the chief justice. If there is one thing above everything else that must be maintained it is that not even by way of suggestion may the mounted police, shall the mounted police, or dare the mounted police be used for anything that savours of the likelihood of politics, and they are being put in an impossible position by this government.
The commissioner of the mounted police ought not to be rushing into print. He ought not be the one who rises in defence of his force. That is the job of the minister. The commissioner ought not to be writing letters to the papers, and I am thinking of the letter that he wrote on November 25. No commissioner, however distinguished his record, in the past ever followed the course of writing
Supply-Justice
the letter which the present one wrote because of an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of July 8, and which stated:
The short, easy-going lawyer from Sorel, Quebec, moved smoothly and swiftly yesterday into the political hotseat of the Pearson administration, the justice portfolio.
Without waiting for the official swearing-in ceremony, Canada's new justice minister, Lucien Cardin, set up a meeting with R.C.M.P. Commissioner George B. McClellan.
It went on to say:
Commissioner McClellan and the force have been subjected to Increasingly heavy public and private criticism in recent months, especially since the publication of the Dorion report which censured the R.C.M.P.'s handling of the investigation of charges of attempted bribery and influence-peddling in the Lucien Rivard affair.
The two men met privately in Mr. Cardin's old office shortly after the former public works minister was sworn into his new job by Governor General George Vanier at Government House.
Mr. Cardin described the meeting as informal. "I don't like formal meetings," he explained.
That was in July, and on November 25 a letter appeared from the commissioner. I am not admonishing for what was done. I am pointing out that this kind of thing will grow if a government does not scrupulously assure that the R.C.M.P. shall not be in any way held to come under the scrutiny of those who have political purposes in mind. The commissioner wrote this letter:
I have listened with interest recently to your radio advertising campaign stressing the accuracy of Globe and Mail news coverage.
In this atmosphere, you may wish to have a few words with the writer of the attached article (regarding an informal conference between Mr. McClellan and Lucien Cardin) which appeared in the Globe and Mail and which is completely false. No such meeting took place between the Minister of Justice and myself as described by your reporter.
And this is signed "George B. McClellan, Commissioner, R.C.M.P., Ottawa."
It ends up with an editorial note at the bottom saying:
The source of the information in the article referred to was Mr. Lucien Cardin, the Minister of Justice.
I am simply pointing out that the mounted police must be preserved meticulously and courageously from the kind of thing that has been creeping in during the last couple of years, and it is on that I want to speak when the opportunity comes again.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit me to make one clarification?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Shortly after the article had appeared in the Globe and Mail I telephoned

February 25, 1966
Private Bills
the editor of the Globe and Mail to tell him there had been an error in the reporting of this incident.


John George Diefenbaker: My point is simply this; the commissioner should not have written this letter. It should have been your responsibility as minister. That is exactly the point.
Progress reported.



AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tisdale) moved: the second reading of Bill C-ll, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act (Hog and Egg prices stabilized half-yearly and regionally).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my bill is not a bill in respect of which heads will roll, but instead where eggs are rolling. I think the bill as outlined is one by which, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to amending the Agricultural Stabilization Act to:
(1)	provide deficiency payments for eggs, hogs, etc., on a cumulated regional price basis rather than on a national weighted average price;
(2)	have these deficiency payments made semi-annually instead of annually as at the present time.
In the explanatory notes it is explained that the purpose of this bill is to provide that the Agricultural Stabilization Board shall establish the base prices for hogs and eggs at and for every half-year instead of every year. A second purpose is to provide that these prices shall be determined regionally instead of Canada-wide and applied within the appropriate region: that is, the Atlantic provinces, the central provinces, the prairie provinces and British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to introduce this resolution for debate. This is not the first time I have placed this resolution on the order paper. It had been debated before without result or action taken by the government, although it is of great importance to the egg producers and hog producers of Canada, particularly to the prairie provinces.
You will notice in the motion, Mr. Speaker, that it provides deficiency payments for eggs and hogs on a cumulated regional price basis rather than on a national weighted average price.
[Mr. Cardin.l
I suggest that these deficiency payments be made semi-annually instead of annually at the present time. This is very important to the egg producers in the three prairie provinces, because when the weighted average price in Canada is calculated, the producers never receive a deficiency payment that is anywhere in line with the over-all price plus the deficiency payments received in other areas of the country.
To justify my argument I should like to give hon. members an example of the year 1964-65. The statement was made that the price support for eggs will be continued another year at the present level, the federal agricultural department has announced. In the year ending next September 30, the Agricultural Stabilization Board will support the price of grade A large eggs by a deficiency payment program at a national weighted average of 34 cents a dozen to producers.
The statement goes on to say that in the 1963-64 period, the national average price amounted to 32 cents a dozen, resulting in a deficiency payment of .02 cents a dozen to producers. The maximum for a deficiency payment, according to the Agricultural Stabilization Board remains unchanged-4,000 per producer.
This covers grade A extra large, grade A large, and grade A medium sizes. The program this year, however, provides that payments shall not be made on quantities of eggs that would result in payments of less than $2.00 per individual. To be eligible for payment producers must be registered with the stabilization board and must have marketed their eggs either through registered grading stations or to retail outlets as producer-graders.
In 1965 during the month of May on the prairies the price received for grade A large eggs averaged 17 cents to 19 cents per dozen, but at the same time in the east the average price received by the producers during this period was 35 cents. In Victoria and Vancouver it was 31 cents to 32 cents, and in Toronto and other cities it was as high as 35 cents.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Also for the record I should like to give you an example of another year. In 1962 when the average price in Canada was 33 cents per dozen, at the end of the year the stabilization board calculated that the deficiency payments for that year would be one cent per dozen. One cent per dozen for grade
February 25, 1966

A large was received right across the country, but in Saskatchewan the average price for the year was only 28J cents per dozen. If the price had been calculated on a regional basis, the producers on the prairies-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-would have received 52 cents per dozen deficiency payment bringing the price up to 34 cents, which was the board price. Instead of that they received only one cent per dozen because the average national price was 33 cents.
This in my opinion was unjust as far as the producers in the three prairie provinces are concerned. It is my opinion that deficiency payments should be calculated on a regional basis, and I would establish the regions in this way: B.C. one area, the three prairie provinces another area, eastern Canada a third area and the maritime provinces a fourth area. Deficiency payments should be calculated on a semi-annual basis because there are times of the year when the production is very high and the prices are low. There are other seasons of the year when prices are high and production is low.
This same suggestion should be applied to deficiency payments on hogs. As far as hogs are concerned, this matter may be more important than it is in respect of eggs. Everyone knows that in the fall when the farmers bring their hogs to the market prices are usually down. The farmers who are able to market their hogs in the spring always get a little better price. If deficiency payments were made on a semi-annual basis it would mean that whatever deficiency payments were paid to the farmers who received low prices for their hogs in the fall would be cancelled out by the higher prices received in the spring.
This is a very important issue to the farmer. Promises were made by all parties during the election campaign that this matter would be looked into. Proposals have been advocated by farm organizations across the country and I think it is time that the government paid attention to this situation and amended the stabilization act.
At the present time the stabilization board makes these payments from October 1 to September 30. That is the year for the calculation of these deficiency payments and that is the year in which prices are averaged.
I am aware of the stand taken by the stabilization board. This is not the first time I have presented this case to the minister. In a memorandum issued by the stabilization 23033-116J
Private Bills
board on regional price supports they argued that if deficiency payments were calculated on the basis of the difference between regional prices and regional support levels such a procedure would not provide over the years any significant benefit to the producer. They stated that, in general, regional support levels based on a ten year average for the regions would vary between regions during the support year. Thus payments would be essentially the same as those that might be made under a national program.
In addition the stabilization board suggested that such a policy would present many administrative difficulties, as it would doubtlessly lead to a proliferation of regions since our normal geographic and provincial boundaries do not, of necessity, coincide with marketing areas. It is my opinion that that is the biggest reason why the stabilization board is opposed to this idea. The problems associated with the selling in one region of commodities produced in another would make such a program almost unworkable, according to the board.
I cannot agree with this viewpoint. I think the administrative difficulties could be overcome and that the board's assumption that, under normal conditions, where prices are lowest costs are lowest, is not valid. The production cost to the egg producers on the prairies is the same as in other areas where prices are high. I do not think there is very much difference between the price of feed in the east and in the west. The cost of bringing the product to market areas is not very much higher in the east than it is on the prairies.
There are many other factors involved in producing hogs and eggs that are similar, but the prices for these products are much higher in the east than they are in the west. We in the west with our low prices are helping the producers of eggs and hogs in the east to qualify for higher deficiency payments.
I have brought this problem to the attention of the house on more than one occasion. Political parties when electioneering have told people that this problem needs to be solved, but when parliament assembles and the Throne Speech is read there is never any mention of proposed measures to alleviate this situation.
I note that the member on the other side of the house who intends to reply to my remarks is the same member who replied on other occasions. Perhaps that hon. member and I should get together to look at this

February 25, 1968
Private Bills
problem from a reasonable point of view. I am sure he could be convinced that this bill deserves approval and that my proposals should be implemented at this time.


Mr.   Patrick-T. Asselin@Richmond-Wolfe: to areas where production is scaled to demand. This of course distorts prices received in such regions. Egg production is characteristically seasonal in output. Although some provinces like British Columbia reveal only slight variations, others such as Saskatchewan reveal marked variations in marketings of eggs from one part of the year to the other. As a result of the variations in supply, prices react accordingly, with low prices generally prevailing in the December to May period and high prices from August to November.
Previous proponents of seasonal deficiency payments have suggested that the actual prices received during low price quarters be compared with the national prescribed price and the resultant deficiency be provided in the form of a payment to all producers. Since the actual market price is generally lower in the seasonally flush period of the year than the prescribed price, and higher than the prescribed price in the lower period of production, payments would generally be always made for the former period and not the latter.
This would have the undesirable effect of encouraging production and marketing during the flush period, in order to receive a payment, which would aggravate the seasonal swings in output creating greater seasonal discrepancies in marketings and in prices. Seasonal variations in marketings and the accompanying swings in prices tend to reduce consumption through consumer resistance to high prices and a concurrent switch to substitute products.
During the past several years the egg industry has come a long way in overcoming the seasonal patterns inherent in the industry. To change a seasonal deficiency payment scheme now would destroy years of painstaking evolution to a more even pattern of marketing. Price stability in the market for eggs and hogs is important. It is best achieved by allowing these products to flow freely to consumers in a nationally based market. In this manner the movement of commodities from surplus to deficit areas is made easier and prices tend to seek levels consistent with supplies in the immediate area, taking into account the cost of transportation to or from the market in question depending upon its position as a surplus or deficit area.
If artificial barriers are set up in Canada through the introduction of four separate
Private Bills
regions of support, as suggested in the proposed amendment to the Agricultural Stabilization Act, the free flow of eggs and hogs will be restrained as producers seek to obtain the advantages of regional support and price fluctuations will become more marked from region to region as price levels tend to be dependent on regional supply conditions only. Thus price stability will suffer.
In addition, as I have indicated before, not only will there be greater disparity in prices from region to region but also the introduction of semi-annual deficiency payments will' encourage the marketing of eggs and hogs in the low-priced six-month period when payments are most likely, aggravating seasonal price fluctuations from which the whole industry will suffer. Fair returns for labour investment cannot be maintained if prices are not stabilized.
Regional and semi-annual payments to egg producers may benefit initially the many small producers in western Canada but in the long run, as price differentials widen from region to region and seasonal swings increase, the small producer may not survive. In fact, while a Saskatchewan producer may become eligible for a larger payment than his Ontario counterpart, only a small proportion of the producers in this province will market sufficient eggs to claim the maximum benefit, while in Ontario the reverse is true. For example, in 1964 only 6.7 per cent of the 1,697 claimants in Saskatchewan claimed the maximum $80 payments while 27.6 per cent of the 12,383 Ontario claimants did so. It appears then, that only the large producers in the west will benefit from a regional scheme of payment.
As far as hogs are concerned, the calculation of regional and semi-annual prescribed prices in 1964 using the 1964 national percentage of the base price, that is 88.3 per cent, would provide no benefit to producers. In all parts of Canada the regional weighted average price remained above the regionally calculated prescribed price. Thus there is no benefit to be derived from such a scheme even in the short run.
It goes without saying that a plan involving the calculation of several separate base prices, several separate prescribed prices and the administration of several separate regions and seasons for payment will add tremendously to the government's cost of operation. If the benefits accruing from such a complicated method of stabilization outweigh the social costs involved in its administration,

February 25, 1966
Private Bills
then the added burden to the taxpaying public may be justified; otherwise it is not justified.
In conclusion, if we implemented the proposal to change the present deficiency payment scheme for hogs and eggs to one on a regional and semi-annual basis it could, instead of being beneficial to the agricultural producers concerned, disrupt marketing patterns, cause greater price instability, discriminate among producers because of location, create consumer dissatisfaction in the product, undoubtedly affecting consumption, benefit the large scale producer in certain regions and discriminate unduly against small producers in other regions. In effect, there is nothing to be gained by either industry in changing to the regional and seasonal system of support.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak just briefly in support of the bill which has again this session been introduced by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp). There may be validity in some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Asselin), but even if these prices had been calculated regionally there would have been times when the deficiency payment would not in fact have been any higher than it was in some other specific year. We do not deny that. But the fact is that there were cases-and I think the hon. member who introduced this bill outlined them very well-when the total price in so far as producers in Saskatchewan were concerned did not come up to the national average because they received so much less in the marketplace during the course of the year.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Under the old price support policy for hogs a few years ago, I recall this was a continual source of irritation to hog producers in Alberta. For the most part, hogs produced in Alberta were consumed either in Alberta or shipped to the Vancouver area on the west coast. While this price support policy was in effect the support price was established by taking into account the base price in Toronto and then subtracting the cost of freight from Calgary or Edmonton. That was not satisfactory at all, and as far as we were concerned there was no justification for it.
As I said, almost all the hogs produced in Alberta-I presume the same is true for Saskatchewan-were consumed in the area. In other words, there was no direct relationship

between the price paid in Toronto and the price paid in western markets because there was very little movement of that meat from the west to the Toronto market.
I also want to comment briefly on the question whether or not it would be beneficial to have a half-yearly calculation made, rather than an annual calculation as at the present time. I do not know how important this will be over a long period of time when one considers the ten-year average under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, but I believe there should be some detailed analysis made of the differences that may occur in the deficiency payments which have been made.
I noted when the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) introduced his bill that he made some calculations, and the figures he produced indicated that at least in two or three instances there would have been an improvement in the deficiency payment made if it had been calculated on a half-yearly basis. Therefore, until the argument advanced by the hon. member in introducing this bill has been explained away or destroyed, in the interests of the producers of eggs and hogs in certain areas I think we have to accept this study of prices and that there has been some disadvantage to these producers because the figures were calculated on an annual basis rather than a semi-annual basis.
One of the interesting point made by the hon. member who introduced the bill is this. According to some of the figures he used, when some of the producers in Saskatchewan added up the total market price received for their eggs, plus the deficiency payment which they received later, they were still several cents per dozen below the national average of 34 cents per dozen. When a similar bill to this was introduced in 1957 and 1958, I think it was intended that there should be a floor price established for these products and that producers all across the country would be brought up to that floor price, which would be determined by a ten-year average. Yet in the practical application of the present system it simply does not turn out that way.
I just wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that I support the hon. member's bill, at least in his attempt to correct some of the discrepancies he has described. As I said before, for the most part I believe that the eggs and hogs produced in the regions outlined by the hon. member in introducing the bill are consumed in those same areas. If that is the case there is surely no reason to penalize certain areas
February 25, 1966

Private Bills
by taking into account prices in other areas when deficiency payments are established.
So, Mr. Speaker, I simply say that we should either accept this bill and amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act in accordance with the provisions of the bill, or else we should have a far more satisfactory and complete explanation from those in the government who are responsible for the administration of this act, indicating that no real injustice is being done to producers in certain areas of the country.


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate my hon. friend, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), for bringing this matter before the house once more for thorough discussion. I might even go along with him as far as the semi-annual payment is concerned.
He said in his opening remarks that this provision would be more beneficial to the prairie provinces. This is Canada, Mr. Speaker. We cannot look at the problem from a regional angle alone. Therefore I must take exception to this proposal of my hon. friend from a national point of view, and from a national point of view only.
I think we should start at the beginning. What we must decide is whether the changes my hon. friend has requested should be made; and, if they should, whether it is actually possible to make the changes. Let us consider these matters in turn.
First of all, we must examine the proposition that producers everywhere should receive the same unit of return from one coast to the other. The very suggestion that the return should be uniform implies that there is something radically wrong with a pricing system which results in produce being sold at different prices in different parts of the country. In this regard it seems desirable to note some of the regional price variations, and in particular to explain just why they exist.
Let us start in western Canada with Canadian western wheat, which moves eastward to the market. The price the farmer receives at the country elevator declines as the distance between him and Fort William increases. Farmers living in western Saskatchewan certainly receive considerably less than those in Manitoba. In each case the cost of transportation is deducted from the basic Fort William price to determine each farmer's return.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The same situation exists in Ontario and in Quebec with respect to potatoes grown in the Maritimes. Potatoes are grown in Ontario and in Quebec, and what has to be taken into consideration when considering potatoes from the Maritimes is transportation.
The same situation applies to fluid milk going to Toronto from producers in Ontario. Those producers that are closer to the main market receive more, because of lower transportation costs. The same general principle operates wherever products are sold competitively and production takes place at varying distances from a common market. This explains why prices quoted for cattle, hogs or eggs on western Canadian markets must always be somewhat lower than those quoted at Montreal and Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, it also explains why farmers are willing to sell eggs right at home, right at the farm, for much less than they would accept if they took those articles to market. At the same time it does not necessarily follow that the difference between prices paid in varying places is simply the difference in cost of transportation. However, we know that that is not so. It has a great deal to do with whether there is a surplus, or a limited amount of the product to be sold at the time. All these things have to be taken into consideration. In fact unit prices and costs vary from region to region.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one question? Is that the reason why on the prairies we are getting perhaps 20 cents or 25 cents for our eggs, for which we have to pay 60 cents in stores? Is the difference in cost the added cost of transportation from Ontario, or some other place? It seems strange that our farmers get only 20 cents, and yet have to pay 60 cents in the stores.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Mr. Speaker, answering my hon. friend's question, I did not know that there was a great shipment of eggs from Ontario to the western provinces.


Reynold Rapp: Well, there is.
Mr. Roxburgh. I think very definitely that transportation costs play some part. I am in the fruit business, and we are competing in our area with British Columbia apple growers. I think it costs something like $1 a box to bring B.C. apples to eastern Canada. I think transportation plays quite an important part.

February 25, 1966
Private Bills
May I continue with what I was about to say. Under a competitive situation such as we have in Canadian agriculture, farmers in western Canada could not keep selling livestock products at lower prices than obtained by Ontario or Quebec farmers, unless costs to western farmers were lower than those to farmers in central Canada by at least enough to cover the cost of moving their products eastward.
After all, Mr. Speaker, the real test of whether farmers in one region make as much profit as those in another is found in the extent of their willingness to continue producing. Under competitive conditions farm products do tend to be produced where they can be produced most efficiently. I think we all realize that.
If this government, or any government as far as that is concerned, agreed to pay transportation costs by varying the size of deficiency payments from region to region, in the manner suggested, I think that farmers would tend to produce more where costs, other than transportation costs, were low, in order to get a unit return equal to that of producers producing in higher cost regions.
In time, of course, actions of farmers producing in low cost production areas would tend to reduce the level of the nationally weighted average market price, and therefore would reduce the level of the support price which is closely related to that market price. In the meantime, however, the farm production pattern of the country would be seriously disrupted and the costs to the government would be tremendously increased.
In the few remarks that I have made I feel that I have shown that it would be undesirable to pay these costs. For one thing, the act of giving different sized payments to farmers in different regions would certainly cause dissension among those farmers. For example, if the government gave a large deficiency payment to producers in one region, and gave a very small payment or no payment to producers in another region, I suggest that farmers in the latter region would object strenuously. They would claim that the government, by providing farmers in the former regions with large payments, was providing them with a special subsidy and that this payment or subsidy would improve the competitive position of farmers in the former region as compared with themselves. In other words, farmers in the latter region, receiving 
no payment or very little payment, would feel that there has been gross discrimination against them.
In other words, those farmers would feel that there had been gross discrimination against them, enabling farmers in regions where they received subsidies to enrich themselves through unfair competition.
May I just add this: Boy, oh, boy, I should not like to be in the shoes of the member of parliament representing a region where small payments or no payments to producers were made. If this were so, and if I were depending on the farm vote, perhaps there would be one less member on this side of the house.
The next important factor to consider is that a regional type of program would tend to remove a producer's incentive to dispose of his products to the best possible advantage. Let me illustrate this: There is little doubt that if a farmer, say in Saskatchewan, knew that he was sure to get a deficiency payment equal to the difference between the market price for producer in his own region and the national support price, he would not very likely try hard to move his eggs or hogs or produce to a higher priced market. The cost of the support program to taxpayers would be increased to the extent that producers failed to get the highest possible market price for their produce.
It is well to note that this tendency for farmers to lose their marketing incentive exists wherever deficiency programs are administered on any kind of regional basis. I am going to give one little example. If farmers in Saskatchewan had a regionally guaranteed support price of 27 cents a dozen for eggs, they would not feel any great incentive to seek somewhat higher prices in other regions if they found the market price in Saskatchewan falling below the 27 cents level.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
In connection with that type of regional program which farmers and their organizations have recommended, and which I think my hon. friend has also recommended, tending to give farmers everywhere the same total unit return, it would not make any difference where farming was carried on. It is necessary to recognize that all those who advocate this kind of program must assume that market prices in various regions will always be lower than the national support price. Any such assumption however is entirely invalid. The fact is that the regional market prices will
February 25, 1966

actually be higher than the national support price whenever the supply in the various regions is limited in proportion to the demand-in other words, in short supply.
Assuming the number and location of the regions to have been agreed upon, the next problem would be to administer the program in such a way as to insure that all produce was actually sold in the same region in which it was produced. Let me point out that the cost of getting farm products to a considerably higher-priced market in an adjoining region may be no greater, or even less, than the cost of getting it to a lower-priced but equally distant market in their own region. Under a regionally administered program, however, it would presumably be considered quite unfair for any farmers to receive a larger deficiency payment because market prices in their own particular region were lower than in a neighbouring region in which they had actually done their selling.
At the same time it is obvious that any attempt to force all farmers to do their marketing within their own regional boundaries would not only involve a lot of expensive policing but would seriously interfere with market practices and marketing connections which have long been specially advantageous to the particular farmers concerned. Note that word "force". We are hearing a lot of that word these days, and I do not agree with it all, I can tell hon. members that much.
To get back to the policing question: I do not know about the feelings of any of the members across the way, or even on this side of the house, but we seem to have reached a state where an extra police force has to be set up to look after everything parliament does, whether it is in the field of income tax, pensions, or anything else. I can tell hon. members that the independent farmer is going down fighting. He will fight any suggestions that he should be forced to do something he does not want to do. From this angle alone I think we are dealing with a ticklish problem.
It would be exceedingly unpopular, partly because it would be interfering with the farmer's freedom. And, my God, these days it is only the farm people of Canada who appear to have a little freedom left. It would be unpopular because, as I said, it would interfere with the farmer's freedom to decide where to market and also because it would force him to shift from a higher priced to a lower priced market outlet. At the same time 23033-117
Private Bills
it would be uneconomic since it would prevent a considerable amount of produce from following normal marketing channels.
To sum up I should like to say this. From what has just been said it should be obvious that adoption of a regionally-based type of program would lead to some extremely difficult and unpopular if not absolutely impossible administrative situations. It should be equally clear that it would result in very serious confusion and misunderstanding in producer ranks generally.
If farmers find difficulty in understanding how a single standard yearly deficiency payment is calculated it would really be hard work explaining to them the variation in deficiency payments from region to region. I think that on a national basis the proposal is completely out of fine.


Grant Deachman: In the two minutes that are left this evening on the subject of this bill I should like to strike a blow for the city man. In my constituency we have one farm and that is the farm belonging to the university of British Columbia. Its area is gradually dwindling and it will soon be wiped out by the engineering department and other departments of that university. Then we shall be entirely a city constituency.
When I look at this proposal, a city man reading about this bill, I see it is intended to stabilize the prices of hogs and eggs. What it really proposes to do is to keep the prices of hogs and eggs up, and as a city fellow who must pay for hogs and eggs I am not necessarily interested in keeping those prices up.
Can hon. members recall a year or so ago when there was a disastrous earthquake in Peru? This country, like all good countries, went to the help of the Peruvians by shipping them aid. They needed bandages, iodine, medical supplies and things of that kind. What did we send them, sir? We sent them a shipload of luncheon meat. Why? We did it because it embarrasses us to have so much luncheon meat on hand. The price of hogs, the price of eggs and the price of butter are kept up at artificial levels until we have storehouses filled with these commodities. So when there is a disaster we use it as an opportunity to ship out of the country whatever stores are embarrassing us at the moment. That is why we shipped carloads of luncheon meat to the poor Peruvians who were looking for bandages.

February 25, 1966
Private Bills
There have been occasions when we have shipped butter to India. But butter is a product which the Indians do not even eat; they have to convert it into another product called ghee before they can use it.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Peters:: On a point of order. I am sure we would be very happy to give the hon.
member unanimous consent to continue this speech. It is most interesting from an agricultural point of view.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private members' business is now expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 28, 1966