1966-03-11

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Yesterday the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) raised a question of privilege affecting the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin).
Yesterday I referred hon. members to citation 104(5) of Beauchesne's fourth edition which determines the Chair's responsibility in such instances.
I also pointed out that even where a prima facie case of privilege exists it does not necessarily follow that a subsequent motion will be accepted by the Chair. I further stated yesterday that the matter of privilege put before the Chair related to the propriety of action or words of the Minister of Justice. The closing words of my ruling were as follows:
I can come to no other conclusion than that the motion as drafted now cannot be accepted by the Chair because it is too general in terms and. according to precedents, does not specify the charge levelled against the minister.
I also referred hon. members to Bourinot's fourth edition, at page 162, as follows:
A reference to a committee is no doubt the proper procedure in all cases in which there are reasonable doubts as to the facts of the course that should be pursued, especially when it is necessary to examine precedents or witnesses.
From the earliest days of our parliamentary history, the only motion that has been moved and accepted in such cases is one to refer the matter of the alleged breach of privilege of this house to the Committee of Privileges and Elections. I believe that in 100 years of Canadian parliamentary practice, there has never been an exception to this procedure.
Following my disallowance of the motion made by the hon. member for Calgary North, the following motions were submitted:
Mr. Nielsen, seconded by Mr. Harkness, moved:
That the Minister of Justice do resign.
Another motion came from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), in the following terms:
That the Prime Minister immediately call for the resignation of the Minister of Justice on the basis of the improper conduct of the minister in the making of improper accusations against the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker and all privy councillors in the former government.
Later on, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), seconded by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), moved:
That this house call upon the Minister of Justice to substantiate the charges and allegations he has made against the Leader of the Official Opposition and members of the former Conservative government now members of this house.
In considering all these motions, one must note that they are all couched in language that assumes that the Minister of Justice is in fact guilty of improper conduct, or of the use of improper language, even before the allegations have been established, and it is I submit no answer to this difficulty to argue that the Chair has declared there is a prima facie case of privilege.
Whether there is or is not an actual breach of privilege, beyond the appearance of things, beyond the prima facie aspect of the case, is not, of course, for the Chair to decide. In other words, the motions assume as a conclusion that an actual breach of privilege has been established. With respect, I submit that this type of motion cannot be moved consequent upon a question of privilege. As I said yesterday when I commented on the motion of the hon. member for Yukon, these are substantive motions which cannot be accepted under the guise of a question of privilege.
Hon. members will recall that during the course of my observations yesterday, I drew the attention of the house to a decision of Mr. Speaker Michener on questions of privilege, on June 19, 1959, and it seems to me the proposed motions are invalid also on the basis of the opinion expressed by Mr. Speaker Michener at that time.
At page 583 of volume 105 of the Journals for 1959 Mr. Speaker Michener is recorded as follows:
Members of the House of Commons, like all other citizens, have the right to be regarded as innocent
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice until they are found guilty, and like other citizens they must be charged before they are obliged to stand trial in the courts. Parliament is a court with respect to its own privileges and dignity and the privileges of its members. The question arises whether the house, in the exercise of its judicial functions with respect to the conduct of any of its members, should deprive such member of any of the safeguards and privileges which every man enjoys in any court of the land.
Further, at page 584, and I repeat what I quoted yesterday:
In my view, simple justice requires that no honourable member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the house or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
In the case before us no hon. member has taken the responsibility of making a specific charge against the minister. I repeat that in my view the responsibility devolving upon the Speaker under our practice in a case of alleged privilege is to ascertain whether there has been a prima facie breach of the privileges of the house, or of any member thereof.
May I refer hon. members to Abraham and Hawtrey's Parliamentary Dictionary, at page 40, where it is stated:
What the Speaker has to decide is whether, assuming that the facts are as stated, the conduct complained of could reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
As hon. members know, it is for the Speaker to determine points of order as they arise, and in the situation before the house, even though a prima facie case did obtain, for the reasons I have explained I cannot come to the conclusion that any of the motions moved yesterday are in order.



MUNSINGER INVESTIGATION-MOTION FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, since we are still considering the question of privilege and a motion might still be accepted on the question of privilege, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the house recommend to the government that the substance of the statements made by the Minister of Justice to the House of Commons on Friday, March 4, 1966, his subsequent statements made on Thursday, March 10,	1966, regarding
the Munsinger case and the complaint of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), made subsequently, be referred to a judicial inquiry for consideration and report.


Hon. Marcel Lamberl (Edmonton West):: Who is the author?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Edmonton West ask who is the author. Let him stop making insinuations and if he has any charges to make, let him rise and make them. If he is brave enough, let him rise and make them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I ask who is the author of the motion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if he has a charge to make, let him do so. He is too scared to do that.


An hon. Member:: Seconded by Mr. Pickersgill.


Mr. Starr (Ontario):: You mean written by him.
Mr. Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion to the effect that the words, after the word "that" in the first line of the amendment of the member for Lapointe, be deleted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair would like to have an opportunity to rule on the admissibility of the motion before considering an amendment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I make a few remarks about the validity of this motion? Before an amendment is moved or accepted, I should like to deal with my own motion. If you wish to render a decision on the validity of my motion, I shall speak afterwards.
[English]	.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, if I might speak on the question of the admissibility of the motion, I would suggest to Your Honour that it is an acceptable motion. The question of privilege still is before the house, is still before Your Honour, and has not been disposed of.
I might refer Your Honour to page 382 of May's sixteenth edition where it is set forth that a question of privilege is one that can only be decided by the house itself. Your Honour has seen fit to rule out the three previous motions that were raised on the question of privilege. If this motion is not accepted, then of course the situation will resolve itself again into what we had yesterday.
I would suggest, in order to allow the debate that is necessary on this question, because of its urgency, that the motion be accepted and any amendments thereto.
March 11, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the Chair to overlook the rules and practice and give the house an opportunity to enter into debate. Obviously the Chair will not do that. The Chair will rule according to the practice and standing orders of the house.

Order. A motion has been moved by the hon. member for Lapointe. I must say regretfully that his motion is just as unacceptable as the one he moved yesterday. It is a substantive motion requiring advance notice, and as I mentioned in the ruling I just rendered, and for the reasons I explained a moment ago, the motion is not acceptable.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that my motion is substantially the same as the amendment and as the one I intended to move yesterday, could not this be construed as a notice I am now giving, and on which I would like a decision within 48 hours which would be according to the usual time limit.
[EnglishJ


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether there are copies of this motion available?


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that I did not hear the hon. member for Red Deer.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, are there copies of this motion available? If they have been distributed I should like to point out that I did not get one.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion was disposed of when it was ruled out of order, and it is not now before the house.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That this house call upon the Minister of Justice to substantiate the charges and allegations which he has made against the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Privy Council of the former government.


Mr. Caron:: It is the same as yesterday, the very, very same.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ontario, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has moved that the house call upon the Minister of Justice to substantiate the charges and allegations he has made against the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Privy Council of the former government. I wonder whether there is any point in 23033-161
DEBATES	2543
Administration of Justice asking hon. members to address the Chair as to the admissibility of the motion. I should point out to the hon. member that this motion is substantially the same as the three that were moved yesterday. I think it would be unfair to the house for me to read again the judgment I have delivered, but I will do so if the hon. member wishes. I have given the reasons why I think this type of motion cannot be received. I therefore rule that this motion is also out of order.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be of benefit to the house if you would repeat the reasons and indicate the type of motion that might be acceptable. I recall a case in 1956 when a question of privilege was raised in this house based on statements in newspapers. The newspapers were handed to the Clerk who read out the statements. The Speaker assisted the hon. member who raised the question of privilege in framing his motion. I suggest, sir, that you might give some advice to this house regarding this particular matter. We are doing our best to co-operate with the Speaker in this regard but we think that an unprecedented occurrence has taken place here in the House of Commons, and it may well be that new ground must be broken regarding the type of motion that might be introduced under these circumstances.


An hon. Member:: Hire a lawyer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the case to which the hon. member referred was one which affected the Chair and the Speaker, which is why that procedure was followed at that time.
For the benefit of hon. members, perhaps I should read again a part of the ruling which I read a moment ago and which applies to the motion just proposed by the hon. member for Ontario.
I made reference to Mr. Speaker Michen-er's decision of Friday, June 19, 1959 when I ruled on the first motion yesterday, and it seems to me that this also applies to the motion just proposed by the hon. member. The proposed motions are invalid also on the basis of the opinion expressed by Mr. Speaker Michener on June 19, 1959, as recorded at page 4930 of Hansard where he said:
Members of the House of Commons, like all other citizens, have the right to be regarded as innocent until they are found guilty, and like other citizens they must be charged before they are obliged to stand trial in the courts. Parliament is a court with respect to its own privileges and dignity and the
March 11. 1966

Administration of Justice privileges of its members. The question arises whether the house, in the exercise of its judicial functions with respect to the conduct of any of its members, should deprive such member of any of the safeguards and privileges which every man enjoys in any court of the land.
And then further on page 584 of the Journals of the House of Commons of Friday, June 19, 1959:
In my view, simple justice requires that no hon. member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
I would repeat what I said yesterday and draw the attention of the house to these words which also appear at page 584:
In my view, simple justice requires that no honourable member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the house or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
In the case before us no hon. member has taken the responsibility of making a specific charge against any hon. member. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) asks for the advice of the Chair as to what kind of motion could be received. This cannot be done; the Chair can only rule on what is actually before it and cannot rule on hypothetical cases or in the abstract.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that the motions that have been made are out of order in that they do not subscribe to the rules governing privilege, and you have quoted Mr. Speaker Michener to support your judgment in this matter. I recall that Mr. Speaker Michener was at that time given a good many days by the opposition to think over his ruling, and not a matter of a few hours. We are all the more grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving your ruling in such a short time on such an important matter.
I think I should point out, however, that while you have ruled these motions out of order, for very good reasons, it is of course within the responsibility of the government to set up a judicial inquiry at once by order in council. The government is perfectly willing to do that at once. The Minister of Justice is most anxious to see it done and to have these allegations gone into at once by a judicial inquiry.


Mr. Pugh:: What allegations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps my hon. friend
would keep quiet until I have finished, just for a change.


An hon. Member:: Your Minister of Justice should have kept quiet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If and when this order in council is passed, and it can be done quickly because we have precedent for this kind of thing now, there will be a supply motion on Monday and the opposition will have a chance to raise the subject as a grievance or as a vote of no confidence in the government for the way it has handled this matter and in connection with any action we have taken over the week end.


Michael Starr: No, sir, not until the Minister of Justice gets up and names names.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, with reference to that which the Prime Minister has now said, it is my contention that before a matter can be referred to a judicial inquiry it must be a matter certain. We have had so far no indication beyond rumour, beyond scuttlebutt, of any foundation for the statements made by a minister implicating a group, without specification. I would ask how it is possible to refer anything of this kind to a judicial inquiry. Those people involved must know what they face; it is the elementary principle of justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is a body of Privy Councillors, 15 or 20 in number, to suddenly appear before a judicial inquiry and be faced then by an accuser-


Mr. Woolliams:: A witch-hunter.


Michael Starr: McCarthyism.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -without knowledge of what they are to face?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will be in the order in council.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Prime Minister says it will be in the order in council. Has the Prime Minister detailed knowledge which he has failed to disclose to the house?


Mr. MacEwan:: Tell parliament, tell the House of Commons.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is the point. All the opposition has been asking is that the minister stand in his place like a man-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -and let him name names. On previous occasions names were named.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
March 11. 1966


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He has not got names. He says he has not seen the file. There is not even a file that the Prime Minister can suggest should be referred to the judicial inquiry, unless he has knowledge which he fails to disclose to the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend should look into the situation and should read the order in council setting up the Dorion inquiry. Perhaps to clarify this I might read to the house, and I shall be glad to table this, a communication, a letter which I have just received from the Minister of Justice on this matter, and it reads as follows:
My dear Prime Minister:
On Friday. March 4th, as recorded on page 2211 on Hansard I stated that the Leader of the Opposition "was accusing us of hiding the truth, of hiding evidence from the committee."
I added that he was "the very last person in the house who can afford to give advice on the handling of security cases in Canada," and I also said "I want the right honourable gentleman to tell the house about his participation in the Mon-seignor case when he was Prime Minister of this country."
To this the right honourable gentleman replied "1 am not worried. Have your commission look into it. Put it on the agenda."


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the general one you
mentioned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The letter goes on:
I have subsequently indicated that the Leader of the Opposition had failed to place the file on this case before the law officers of the Department of Justice for their advice, that the information given to the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister concerned a case in which security risks were involved.
I have alleged that the Leader of the Opposition mishandled this case and that he failed to seek the advice of the law officers of the Department of Justice as to the appropriate method of dealing with the case, and I am willing and anxious to have these allegations considered by a judicial inquiry which will be free to examine all aspects of the case. I will abide by the result of such inquiry, fully conscious of the consequences.
I have made and make no other charges.
Yours sincerely.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Holy, holy, holy.


Michael Starr: You cannot get away with that.


An hon. Member:: Cardinism.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair
recognizes the hon. member tor Ontario.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and shocked by the Prime Minister's reading a letter of this kind, knowing full well that since those utterances were 23033-161J
Administration of Justice made, that are set out in this letter, the Minister of Justice has had a press conference in which he has gone beyond what happened-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: -on Friday. I am shocked and surprised now that the Prime Minister is an instrument and an accomplice to the spreading of rumours that are being spread around by the Minister of Justice, who has disgraced his position, which is one of the most respected positions in this country, to do with the meting out of justice.
The Minister of Justice in his press conference stated that there were more than two ministers involved. That means that any number can be involved. It is not enough that the Prime Minister stands in his place now and says, "We are prepared to have a judicial inquiry". It is not enough. Names have to be named now, before that inquiry is made. I specifically ask the Prime Minister, is it his intention, and does he do this intentionally? Does he intend that the cloud of suspicion should rest upon the heads of all those who are innocent?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: And if it is not, if it is not his intention then he should now clear the names of all those upon whom the cloud of suspicion has been cast by the Minister of Justice in his act of Cardinism, as is pointed out in all the newspapers across this country, who are ashamed of the Minister of Justice in the way he has conducted himself in that portfolio. The charges are not only levied against him, but the Prime Minister who is the head of the government is being implicated.
I think all of us in the House of Commons should see to it that the position of the Prime Minister of this country, whoever he may be, cannot be besmirched by anyone who wants to practise the sort of thing that the Minister of Justice is doing at this time.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Prime Minister either deliberately or unintentionally is confusing the entire question which is before the house. The question before the house is the question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Charges have been made by one of the Prime Minister's ministers, charges which have not been substantiated, charges which reflect very seriously upon members of this house, and some who may be outside this house.
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
All the Prime Minister proposes to do is to set up an inquiry of which he will frame the terms of reference on the basis of a letter which was written by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin).
The Minister of Justice was very careful in that letter to refer only to his remarks which were made in the House of Commons. He makes no reference at all to the charges he made that this case would be worse than the Profumo case; that more than one minister was involved in the Munsinger case.
What the Prime Minister seeks to do now is this. Instead of having a proper investigation into the question of privilege, he is picking out carefully selected statements by the Minister of Justice on the terms on which he would like an investigation. I must tell the Prime Minister that he is not going to satisfy the members of this parliament or the people of Canada by having carefully framed terms of reference made in the corner by the government and passed by order in council, and using that as a substitute for a proper investigation.
I say to the Prime Minister that I think parliament is presenting a very unedifying spectacle to the people of this country, and the responsibility for this lies squarely on the Prime Minister's shoulders. One of his ministers has made very serious charges, charges which he says he makes without even having seen the Munsinger file. The minister either has to rise in the house and withdraw the statements he has made at a press conference, or he has to substantiate them.
As the man chiefly responsible for the conduct of this house and as leader of the government, the Prime Minister has a responsibility to see that ministers act with proper maturity and decorum. A minister of the crown, supposedly in possession of confidential information, cannot use his position to make wide accusations which reflect on the honour and integrity of other members. He has a responsibility now to urge his minister to do one of two things-withdraw his remarks or substantiate them. We are not going to be satisfied with an inquiry, the terms of which are drafted by the government.
If I understand Your Honour's ruling correctly, a motion on a question of privilege cannot cover the matter of an inquiry. It may be better to send this matter to the committee on privileges and elections, although I do not think this will satisfy anybody because it will probably just become a donnybrook. If the

Prime Minister wants an investigation, I say to the Prime Minister that he will have to have terms of reference which are acceptable to those in all parts of the house. The terms of reference will have to set out the charges made by the minister, not only in this house but outside the house. The minister will then have to appear before such an inquiry and substantiate his charges, and place his seat and his portfolio at the disposition of that inquiry. The terms of reference of the inquiry must be such as to cover the charges which have been made, and the letter read by the Prime Minister from the Minister of Justice certainly does not cover the very serious allegations made by the Minister of Justice the other day.
I hope the Prime Minister will try to settle this matter, and settle it quickly. We spent all day yesterday on this and it would be a terrible thing if parliament becomes another shambles today. I suggest that the Prime Minister agree to an inquiry of which the terms of reference include the charges made by the minister outside the house and the questions of privilege raised by members inside the house; that the terms of reference make it abundantly clear that it is the Minister of Justice who has to accept responsibility for substantiating before the inquiry the charges which he has made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my mind goes back to the other day when my hon. friend was in very hearty agreement with the policy of the government when it decided to draft an order in council in regard to a judicial inquiry. At that time there was no talk from him that such judicial inquiry was not what was required.


Michael Starr: A name was named then.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In previous cases an inquiry was instituted.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is referring to a case in which I was involved-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Colin Cameron: That was a case of allegedly fraudulent electioneering-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I may be permitted to continue, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend became very indignant about charges being made without names being named. He has been in this house the last two or three years
March 11. 1966

when charges have been levelled against Privy Councillors in the government. We have been accused collectively of every crime in the calendar.


Michael Starr: But names were named.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No names were named.


Michael Starr: Yes, they were.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend from Yukon kept insinuating: "Wait till next week when I get my answers, when I get my files; then heads will fall". No names were mentioned.
Now my hon. friend for Burnaby-Coquitlam, who had never a word to say on the previous occasions, becomes very indignant when I say that we will set up a judicial inquiry which will go into all aspects of this matter and the allegations in question. I stated, and I stated it last night, that we would do that. I have also said that if my hon. friend and hon. members opposite do not like this they can vote no confidence in the government on a supply motion and throw it out. My hon. friend was not in the house last night perhaps when I dealt with this inquiry, as reported at page 2532 of Hansard. I dealt in my statement with all the points which he has mentioned this morning as being suitable for the inquiry. What more do they want? He does not want this matter to be submitted to the committee on privileges and elections, and I would agree with him. He will get the order in council enabling the judicial officers concerned to go into all aspects of this matter. On that inquiry the Minister of Justice will stake his seat in this house. What more do they want, Mr. Speaker?
I have before me a great many clippings of statements made by members opposite about cleaning up the mess, prosecuting wrongdoers and international crime getting into the office of the Prime Minister-all that kind of thing. Were names named then? Of course they were not. We have been subjected to this kind of treatment now, for too long over here. And reputations have been ruined over here.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Because a member of the government did not pay a furniture bill until all the furniture had been delivered he was pilloried and persecuted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now those gentlemen on the other side of the house who have been so free
Administration of Justice with their accusations over the last few years are getting a little of it, and they don't like it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have said we will set up a judicial inquiry which will go into all the aspects of this case, all the allegations made-the references made in the press conference as well as the references made in the house. And I hope this will satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It now becomes apparent why these charges have been made by the Minister of Justice. Apparently this is part of a counter campaign-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -to relieve the government's feelings after all the attacks to which they have been subjected. I want to say to the Prime Minister that whatever attacks have been made on the government by members on this side of the house, at least the charges were made in the house where they could be replied to, and not outside the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When a minister of justice tries members in other parts of the house in a trial before a press conference, and then refuses to get up in the house and substantiate what he said, it becomes very apparent that what the government is trying to do is tell the people of Canada that while they may be bad, the people in the Conservative party are no better. This is a queer way to run a country.
The Prime Minister asks: What more do you want? We want the Prime Minister to let us see the terms of reference so that we may be sure they contain something more than the statements which are found in the letter of the Minister of Justice. We want set out in the terms of reference what the charges of the Minister of Justice were before the press conference-


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


Erik Nielsen: Could I ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Public
Works.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Yukon can ask his question afterwards. I have to recognize one or the other. One at a time; the Minister of Public Works.
2548	COMMONS DEBATES	March 11, 1968
Administration of Justice


George James McIlraith: I wanted to ask the hon. member if he did not feel that the undertaking given by the Prime Minister last night is sufficiently wide. I will quote it as it appears at page 2532 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to read the amendment. It is that we should:
"-take such steps as are necessary to establish a judicial inquiry into the security case referred to by the Minister of Justice and by the Leader of the Opposition on March 4, 1966, at Hansard page 2211 .... referred to by the Minister of Justice in a press conference on March 10, 1966 .... and referred to in a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Calgary North at the commencement of proceedings this March 10, 1966."
This, it will be seen, includes the statements made at the press conference.


Some hon. Members:: No, it does not.


George James McIlraith: I am asking the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam specifically what is the difference between what he is asking and what was offered in that undertaking. Would he explain that, because it seems that the government has already indicated its willingness to accept what he is requesting?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would be glad to do that. First, I was pointing out that the letter of the Minister of Justice this morning, which the Prime Minister seemed to indicate would be the basis of an inquiry-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -does not contain any reference to the charges. Second, the amendment which the Prime Minister was quoting last night as reported at page 2532 of Hansard, says only-
-into the security case referred to by the Minister of Justice and by the Leader of the Opposition on March 4, 1966, at Hansard page 2211 .... referred to by the Minister of Justice in a press conference on March 10, 1966-
A reference to statements made at a press conference is not the same as "containing the charges". It seems to me that if there is to be an investigation, then the charges, specific statements by the minister, must be referred to the committee.


Mr. Favreau:: Which ones?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This should be done in clear-cut terms-


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon seeks the floor for the purpose of asking a question.
(Mr. Speaker.]


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let me finish the sentence. Merely to ensure that the inquiry shall include a reference to the statements made by the minister at a press conference without anything specifically being in the terms of reference as to what those statements were, and what those charges were, would seem to me much too inept.


Erik Nielsen: The question I have to ask the hon. member, because of the importance of this matter, is this: Does he not agree that regardless of the terms of reference there cannot be an inquiry outside this house to determine a question of privilege affecting this house? Does he not agree that no inquiry can deal with the privileges of parliament -that no outside body can take away from parliament the right to settle this question of privilege here?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The answer to that question is obvious. If the matter is to be dealt with by this house, then the gentlemen to my right who are aggrieved have it in their power to move that this question be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. If they wish to do that, that is the place to have it settled. But if the Prime Minister is going to have an inquiry set up, all I am anxious about is that the inquiry should be specific and that the charges which the minister made in public be delineated and that the responsibility be upon the minister to substantiate them.
I think there ought to be included in the terms of reference some specific quotations from the statements made by the Minister of Justice at the press conference as they appear at page 2483 of Hansard. All I am saying to the Prime Minister is this-that merely to hold an investigation into the Munsinger case is not enough.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
If the Minister of Justice had made no charges, then I would be satisfied to have an investigation into the Munsinger case, but since the Minister of Justice had made specific charges, then the onus is on him to substantiate those charges and they should be set out in the terms of reference.


Michael Starr: That is right. He has to name names.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I will take up but a few moments of the time of the house. I would like to return to Hansard of Monday, March 7 where, as recorded at page 2297, in the right hand column, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) at
March 11. 1966

that time indicated the institution of a judicial inquiry, and I quote from there:
-but not Into any particular case. This has been done already through the order in council in connection with the case before the committee. The inquiry will be into the operation of our security procedures generally, with a view to ascertaining first, whether they are now adequate in light of present circumstances for the protection of the state against subversive action; second, whether they sufficiently protect the rights of private individuals in any investigations which are made under existing procedures.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that the terms were sufficient at that time, and are now, to inquire into the case that is under discussion had not the impropriety and unnecessary intervention of the minister taken place. But that impropriety having been created by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin)-and it is certainly substantiated by everything and everyone who has participated, and who has observed outside the house-we are now beyond this, and the minister must rise in the house and answer for the statements he has made, for the course he has followed. This is all we ask.
A few moments ago the Prime Minister asked the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) "What more does the hon. member want"? I suggest, without putting words into the hon. member's mouth, that this is what we want. We want the minister to rise in his place and answer for the things that have taken place since that time. We want him to substantiate his charges.
That being done, Mr. Speaker, we can return to the ordinary business of the house, but from my very humble position in this party and on this side of the house I must inform the minister, and the supporters of the government, that we will not move until this happens-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: We will not move into any other area of discussion. We will not move into any other area of business because we feel this is important not only to the members of the house, but now to the entire country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, just for the sake of the record, to see how some of these things develop, I refer to an article which appeared in the Toronto Telegram on Tuesday, March 8, written by Mr. Douglas Fisher. I do not have to go through the whole terms of this article, but it points out very clearly how this and other matters are handled, presumably
Administration of Justice by the government, with the press. Here is a man with whom I have not always agreed, and I think all members of the press gallery have not agreed with him from time to time, but he has his finger on the key of things. This is the way this whole matter was projected in the first place. I think the minister had the advantage of the press, so that he proceeded to do what he did this week.
All we are asking from the government of the country for the sake of the members under suspicion, is that the Minister of Justice rise in his place and conclude this argument so that the house can proceed, so that this despicable situation, created by himself, is terminated by himself, not on Monday but today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister without Portfolio, on a point of order.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, since there is no motion or matter of business properly before the house I wonder whether the house could not be persuaded and you, Mr. Speaker, could not be convinced that we should move to a proper item of business in the house, so that the matters can properly be substantiated where they should be substantiated, through a judicial inquiry-


Eric Alfred Winkler: You heard what I said.


John Napier Turner: -to take them out of the heat and passion of this place in order that parliament can get on with the business of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, since yesterday we have been witnessing a spectacle which is not a pretty sight outside parliament, according to the reports we see in the press and the news the whole population is getting.
Insinuations have been made right and left. It seems that both sides of the house are trying to bring out everything ugly and dirty to debase and belittle the dignity of the House of Commons.
Since yesterday, we have been listening to the Conservatives complaining about the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin), on March 4, asked the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) what part he had played in
March 11. 1S66

Administration of Justice the Munsinger affair, since it is now generally admitted that there is a Munsinger affair.
The Conservatives feel ofEended. They said the Minister of Justice is making insinuations right and left. Insinuations right and left, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of them in the last four years in this house, since we came here, at least from the Conservatives.
A little earlier the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said, quite rightly, and please note that I am not a Liberal at all, I am not at all interested in protecting the Prime Minister's seat or that of any minister, but I will say that for years the Conservatives have been making treacherous attacks against people who did not deserve that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Against whom?


David Réal Caouette: They even insinuated that the former Postmaster General, then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, received in his office criminals, that is what I said, or people connected with organized crime in Canada. When the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) asked the minister in the house: "Where were you when Rivard or his lawyers or his accomplices came to your office?" Insinuations were made.
More were made also a little earlier when the hon. member for Edmonton West asked the hon. member for Lapointe: "Who prepared the motion you have just submitted to the Speaker?" As if the hon. member for Lapointe was not as intelligent as the hon. member for Edmonton West.
The hon. member for Lapointe can eat up one by one fifty members like the hon. member for Edmonton West. We have heard insinuations since 1962, during all the previous sessions, and particularly since yesterday.
When the Minister of Justice asked what part the Leader of the Opposition had played in the Munsinger case, the latter should have answered, but instead he said to the Minister of Justice: "Give us proof". And please note, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Justice had been, for three weeks, the target of all kinds of sarcastic remarks from the official opposition; they were trying to belittle him, to flatten him out with the Spencer case, which was discussed here for approximately three weeks.
When, in a moment of impatience, the Minister of Justice asked the Leader of the Opposition: "Why not tell us about the part you played in the Munsinger case?" the immediate reply was: "Bring us before a judicial commission or a judicial inquiry."

The pure are not all to be found among the Conservatives. Since yesterday, the Prime Minister has been offering to set up a judicial commission or a judicial inquiry where the statements made by the Minister of Justice himself will be dealt with and the actions and participation of the Leader of the Opposition examined by a judge or commissioner. Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the Conservatives are afraid of such a judicial commission.
We of the Creditistes wholeheartedly support the proposal made by the Prime Minister, who is willing to have that commission set up immediately, within the next 48 hours, so that the Munsinger case can be fully examined and cleared up.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the statements or, if you prefer, the insinuations made by the Minister of Justice will be studied. Should he be proven wrong, I would be the first to ask for the minister's resignation, but let us give him the opportunity to go before that judicial inquiry.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Will the hon. member permit a question? I am a little mad and I am a little sick. I think it was a sickening spectacle I saw, and I am going to comment on that.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The question I have is this: If the members of your party had been the subject matter of the press conference held yesterday, would you have been supporting the government as you are suggesting you are going to support it; in other words, would the inquiry, rather than the principle of having the names named, satisfy you?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's press conference can be looked into by the judicial inquiry just like any other question.
If the judicial inquiry's report or decision should indicate that the Minister did not act according to justice and order, we can always convene the committee on privileges and elections, before which any minister or member can be called and judged.
Mr. Speaker, we support the right hon. Prime Minister's suggestion. The Conservatives should quit acting like hypocrites and accept the judicial inquiry now offered. Let us cease giving the Canadian people the shameful spectacle the Conservatives are now inflicting upon the house.
March 11. 1966	COMMONS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You are not involved yourself.


David Réal Caouette: Fifty Lamberts; I am not afraid of Lambert syrup.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We are not interested in loud-mouths.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, being one
member in this house who has had some experience with a judicial inquiry such as the Prime Minister has suggested, I would like to say a few words to the front benches on this side, through you Mr. Speaker, and issue a word of warning. Before I do so I also would like to refer the house to an article written by Doug Fisher in December 1963. He was talking about judicial inquiries-you laugh; go ahead. This is what he says in respect of this type of inquiry, and it was in January 1964 he wrote this article:
It seems the Liberals felt that an inauiry of the right kind, for the right neriod, might open a can of worms-
I suggest this is the reason the Prime Minister made this suggestion. Then he goes on further to say:
A strange thing that a committee designed to check into a question of privilege (i.e. into a personal insult) ends up asking for an investigation into a phase of the Department of Agriculture.
I mention this, Mr. Speaker, to point out what can happen with these so-called judicial inquiries. I have said in this house many times that they are not judicial inquiries, that they are political inquiries, and last night as I saw the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister walking into this house-as I saw the Minister of Transport walking into this house licking his lips-I knew that history was repeating itself; it was the establishment again coming up with some idea of how to get out of this mess and how they could, by suggesting a judicial inquiry, shove it off on to some unbeknown judge who would work on their behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Justice are jumping in their seats-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
DEBATES	2551
Administration of Justice


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, a suggestion has been made that a judge would be placed in the position-


John (Jack) McIntosh: I have the floor-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On the question of privilege, the hon. member suggested that a member of the judiciary of this country would be made a tool of this government. By doing so he reflects on the government and on our judiciary.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In general terms, the hon. member knows no comment should be made which reflects on the judiciary.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I will not withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, because I made no accusation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I said I believe something, and I still believe it. I would point out that in the composition of this judicial inquiry I was talking about the commissioner at that time was a defeated Liberal candidate, and all his legal counsel were either defeated Liberal candidates or-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot allow the hon. member to continue this line of argument. I want to remind him, and all hon. members, that I have allowed all hon. members from all parties represented in the house on both sides of the chamber to participate in this debate this morning, following upon the ruling which I delivered shortly after eleven o'clock. Now there is still nothing before the house. The only way this debate can continue would be if a new question of privilege were raised, because as hon. members realize, in the course of yesterday, we were discussing a specific question of privilege that was held in abeyance to give the Chair an opportunity to study the motions which were made subsequent thereto. Certainly we must reach a point where an item has to come before the house, since there is nothing now. Unless a new question of privilege is raised, I would suggest to hon. members that we should call orders of the day.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to Your Honour that the question of privilege that was raised yesterday is still before Your Honour and still before the house.
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice


An hon. Member:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Yes it is. The motion has been disallowed by Your Honour, but the question of privilege is already before us. There are other motions which could be moved. I think we should allow the government the widest possible opportunity to extract themselves from the situation in which the Minister of Justice has placed them.
Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and the ruling by Mr. Speaker Michener, upon which you partially based your ruling, and which I thought was correctly cited by Your Honour, applies exactly to the question of privilege that is before this house. The question of the members of the Privy Council, and the Leader of the Opposition who have been slandered and who have been subjected to accusations and insinuations, both inside and outside this house, by the Minister of Justice, must be dealt with on the basis of privilege, which this house and only this house has the jurisdiction to dispose of.
The rulings, as I said to you, sir, make the point that no hon. member should be deprived of the safeguards which apply to everyone in ordinary legal proceedings, and that no member should be subjected to an investigation of his conduct by an inquiry by the committee on privileges and elections, or by any other process, without specific charges being made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: This is exactly what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, abetted by the hon. members for Lapointe and Villeneuve, are attempting to do in the case of the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Privy Council on this side of the house who have been slandered by the Minister of Justice. Is the Leader of the Opposition not entitled to have those same safeguards as referred to by Your Honour and by Mr. Speaker Michener? Is the Leader of the Opposition not entitled to the same rights and safeguards which Your Honour has claimed for any member of the house?
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Charges have been made against the Leader of the Opposition and against members of the Privy Council. Is the minister to be allowed to slander the Leader of the Opposition with impunity?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: They laugh; they consider it a joking matter, but it is one of the most important and gravest matters ever brought before this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: They treat it as a joke.


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


An hon. Member:: Even the Prime Minister laughs.


John James Greene: I wonder whether the hon. member could help us. He has stated a precedent that there can be no inquiry unless specific charges are made by a member. Could he help us by telling us what member made what specific charges and risked his seat as a precursor to the Dorion inquiry?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member was here in his seat in November of 1964 and he not only heard me name people, dates and places, but he heard me refer to sections of the Criminal Code of Canada in making those charges.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member now speaking on the original question of privilege? What worries the Chair is that if we are now on the original question of privilege the hon. member has already taken part in the debate and can only speak once to that question. He cannot get up and speak twice, three times or more often on the same question of privilege. He is in a bit of difficulty if he is speaking on the same question of privilege in seeking to address the Chair at this time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order and with no reflection-I think I must preface my remarks in that way all the time because of the sensitivity of members on the opposite side-on Your Honour's observation, the Prime Minister and several other members of this house have participated more than once during what has been a general discussion on the question of privilege. I am simply availing myself of the same right that other members have availed themselves of during this discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member. There was an exchange this morning following the suggestion made by the right hon. Prime Minister. The Chair was lenient and allowed members to discuss the suggestion. Now that this apparently has been set aside we should return to what is before the house,
March 11, 1966

and the only thing we can have before the house is a question of privilege. If we have a specific question of privilege before us each member is entitled to speak to it once, but not more than once.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
At the start of this sitting, a while ago, I moved a motion which was rejected by Your Honour on the grounds that it was a substantive motion, which therefore required 48 hours notice.
Now, as I gave 48 hours' notice and sent such motion in writing, it is by that very fact accepted. As that was the only reason for its rejection, my motion, therefore, is in order and can be discussed.
That is why I maintain that it is now the matter under discussion, because the motion I had moved had been rejected for the sole reason that it was a substantive motion and required 48 hours notice.
Thus, it is before the house. In fact, it is the only acceptable motion before the house, whether it be discussed now or in 48 hours, but it is accepted, since the 48 hours' notice has been given officially.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour has pointed out that no member can speak twice in the same debate. I submit to Your Honour that you quite properly allowed a discussion on the question of privilege which was raised yesterday and which is still before the house. I submit that members are not confined to speaking once in a debate prior to the house being seized of a proper motion. Your Honour has quite properly allowed several members to speak more than once. I think this is very essential in order that-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. members have spoken more than once because there were three questions of privilege. Hon. members did raise different questions of privilege yesterday, and made a point of saying that these were different questions of privilege, as is recorded in Hansard. The members who moved the new questions insisted that they were different questions of privilege which
23033-162J

Administration of Justice would give rise to different motions. Of course if we had a new question of privilege the Chair would allow hon. members to speak a second time to the second question, and a third time to the third question. However, there is not now a new question of privilege before us. It may be that the hon. member proposes to move a new motion, and if he wants to do so it should be done very soon.
I understand the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wishes to speak to the point of order.


Mr. Pickersgill:: No, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the point of order because it might be useful at least for this member to indicate where he thinks we are.
Yesterday the member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) raised a question of privilege. There was some considerable debate before Your Honour made a ruling. Your Honour ruled that in your opinion there was a prima facie case of privilege. At the same time you ruled that the particular motion the hon. member for Calgary North moved was not acceptable. Let it be clear that you did rule there was a prima facie case of privilege.
On the basis of your ruling that there was a prima facie case of privilege the debate went on and other members sought to move motions. Some motions were ruled out of order and some you took under advisement. This morning at eleven o'clock you gave your ruling from the Chair on the motions moved yesterday. You ruled them out of order. Immediately the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) rose and his words were to this effect, that Your Honour has ruled the motions out of order, but the question of privilege is still before us. Whereupon he sought to move as a motion what he attempted to move as an amendment yesterday. Your Honour ruled that motion out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry; Your Honour did rule that motion out of order, whereupon the debate continued.
In the course of the debate the Prime Minister, by bringing in a letter from the Minister of Justice, managed to get the house discussing the subject matter of the very motion the hon. member for Lapointe had

March 11. 1966
Administration of Justice tried to move, and so the discussion has gone on. The ruling that Your Honour is citing to the effect that a member can speak only once is a well known one, but it applies when there is a motion before the house. It applies to a proper debate. I regret that this discussion is still going on and I would support Your Honour in any effort you might make to suggest that we have had sufficient discussion as to whether or not there is a point of privilege. I am sure Your Honour has the understanding of the house, namely that you have tried not to clamp down but to let the matter resolve itself if it could be resolved. Since you have allowed members of all parties to continue to discuss the general question of privilege, and various proposals such as the one made by the Prime Minister, I do not think you can now apply the ruling which applies only when a motion has been made.
I submit that we are procedurally still where we were yesterday when the hon. member for Calgary North raised his question of privilege and when you ruled that although his motion was not in order there was a prima facie complaint of privilege.
I think it should be noted, sir, that the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Calgary North was not in regard to the Munsinger case, but rather in respect of certain actions on the part of the Minister of Justice. Your Honour ruled that the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary North was a prima facie case of privilege. I submit that Your Honour having allowed the Prime Minister to discuss a proposal for an inquiry, which you say cannot be voted upon, and other matters than the actions of the Minister of Justice in this house, then it is pretty difficult procedurally to stop this discussion.
I therefore rise procedurally to defend the rights, in terms of consistency, of members to continue discussing the point of privilege. At the same time, as a member of parliament who, as my leader has expressed, has the concern of all of us for what this discussion is doing, I hope that we can soon agree that we are getting nowhere by this discussion. I hope we can soon agree that it might be better to let this debate come to a conclusion, and let those who are affected by it make a decision as to what they should do on Monday. The Prime Minister has made it clear that even though the house may not be satisfied with the kind of inquiry he proposes, it is the government's intention to go through with it, and the government can do that because it is

an order in council matter and not a house matter.
If I may sum up what I am trying to say, I think Your Honour is in difficulty if you try to tell members they cannot continue the discussion because of the way the debate has gone, but I think you should also have the support of the house in any reasonable effort you make to bring this discussion to an early conclusion.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was interrupted by a point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister seeks the floor on a point of order.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have been watching the proceedings of the house since yesterday afternoon very carefully and I have been deeply worried about the kind of situation in which the house has got itself. Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Your Minister of Justice put us in this mess.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am speaking from a purely procedural point of view at the moment, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made a very important observation. Those of us who have been in the house for any length of time, and those of us who have made an effort to understand the rules of the house, know that a question of privilege is not an aimless exercise in debate; that it has always been the position of Speakers that if a question of privilege is raised it is the obligation of the Speaker as the first step to determine whether it is a prima facie case of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: The Speaker has done that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Speaker has discharged his responsibility in that respect. Having taken that course, it is up to the house to formulate a remedy and to put a motion before the house. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre took that position yesterday. At various times yesterday afternoon, in the evening and again this morning we have been engaged in a debate with no proceeding whatsoever before the house. It is obvious from the authorities, and one such authority is citation 113 to be found on page
March 11, 1966

102 of Beauchesne, that "a question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the house power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy."
This has been the traditional course. I have observed on previous occasions that when a question of privilege has been raised and when the house has been unable to formulate a remedy or a motion for the consideration of the house, the Speaker has terminated the debate. That has been the position. There are certain obvious traditional methods that could be applied in this case, if hon. members sought to do so, in the way of a motion. This has not been done and I understand the reasons and agree with them. For example, the traditional course that has been employed is to send a matter of this kind to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


Erik Nielsen: After charges have been
made.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I could quote precedents of cases and subject matters that have been sent to the standing committee on privileges and elections when no charges were asserted. If you look at the celebrated case before Mr. Speaker Michener when the conduct of the hon. member for Peel was brought into question, that is the most definitive statement on privilege that has ever been made by a Speaker in this chamber. Mr. Speaker Michener took several days to formulate his decision. In that case he took the view that he would not send the matter of conduct of the hon. member for Peel to the committee on Privileges and Elections in the absence of specific charges. He also stated that there were precedents in the history of this parliament when cases were sent to the committee without the formulation of specific charges. So that is a course that could be employed. Why is it not being employed? It is not being employed because I believe it would be a futile course. Yesterday I was deeply moved by the speech made by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), who rarely intervenes in debate, but when he does he does it effectively, and he did so last night.
I appreciated his point of view. He understands that the situation which is facing the house cannot be resolved by sending this matter to a parliamentary committee. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) took that view, and I think hon. members obviously understand that this question cannot be resolved in that way. The

Administration of Justice course which is the traditional way of solving such a problem, applying a remedy or imposing a reparation, referred to in Beauchesne, has not been employed. We understand the reason.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? Is it not also traditional that a member of this house who makes charges must substantiate those charges or take the only other alternate course?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Or specify them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand that it could be moved by any hon. member that this subject matter be sent to the standing committee on privileges and elections. That could be done. It is a motion that would have to be held to be in order. But it is not being done for obvious reasons, and I agree with those reasons, because sending this matter to a standing committee of this house will not resolve the important question raised by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Hark-ness). For both these hon. gentlemen I have a very great respect and I respect their moral position.
The government is suggesting that a judicial inquiry be established under a judge. We have employed this remedy, imposed this reparation, in previous cases. It has been advocated by hon. members in all parties confronted with a question of personal integrity or civil liberties that the proper way to deal with such matters is through a judicial inquiry. The hon. member who is the Whip of the official opposition has stated that he will not proceed to other business. I suggest to him and to all hon. members that the only way in which this matter can properly be resolved is to refer it to a judicial inquiry.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What matter?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has read a letter from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in which the Minister of Justice stated-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: He did not read the one letter he should have read.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that he wanted his allegations-


Erik Nielsen: Accusations.
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If you want to call them accusations, that is your word, but in the letter he stated that his allegations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to interrupt the minister. My understanding is that the minister took the floor on a point of order while the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had the floor.


Michael Starr: May I ask the minister a question at this point? He said the proper way to proceed is to have this matter referred to a commission of inquiry. Without specifically naming persons or laying specific charges, is the minister implying that he wishes the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton and the hon. member for Calgary North to appear before that inquiry? Is that what he means?


Erik Nielsen: And all the rest of them.


Michael Starr: These hon. members for whom the minister said he had such great respect.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have.


Michael Starr: Yet you want them to appear before such an inquiry.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not suggested that.


Michael Starr: Well, what else is going to be done?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has been suggested, and hon. members ought to be very clear about this, by the Minister of Justice that the former prime minister mishandled a security case. That is the nub of the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Lewis:: On March 4, not on March 10.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The issue here is a statement, an allegation, a charge if you like, by the Minister of Justice that the former prime minister mishandled a security case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister that the hon. member for Yukon had the floor. I can only assume that the hon. member for Yukon has no objection to the minister continuing at this point. If he does object, then he has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I was speaking on the point of order that was raised.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that we not complicate things too much. The minister might like to complete his remarks, with the assent of the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: I thought I had the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona perhaps did not notice that the hon. member for Yukon had agreed to allow the minister to raise his question.


Mr. Nugeni:: Mr. Speaker, you have heard the minister on a point of order. You have heard several. I have been waiting to speak on the point of order. I would ask Your Honour to bring the minister to order. It is not up to the hon. member for Yukon to grant permission. After completing the point of order the minister started on a question of privilege. I would still like to speak on the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might suggest to hon. members that the minister should be allowed to complete his remarks. If the hon. member wants to speak after, I shall be pleased to recognize him.


Erik Nielsen: I should like to hear the minister, and I intend to rise after he has finished.


Colin Cameron: The minister had agreed to answer a question which I think I started. My question is: Is the minister proposing that this commission of inquiry is to confine itself to the investigation of the charges made by the Minister of Justice in this house, or is he excluding the charges that he made at the press conference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: All right, Favreau.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is absolutely clear that the judicial inquiry will investigate all aspects of this matter.


An hon. Member:: What matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And the letter of the Minister of Justice to the Prime Minister which was read earlier indicated willingness on the part of the Minister of Justice-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to have all aspects gone into. His statements in the house, his statements at the press conference in regard to this matter can be gone into and gone into
March 11, 1966

thoroughly. The Prime Minister, speaking in the house today, has undertaken to the house that this course of action will be followed.
I simply say to hon. members opposite that this is the only reasonable way, the only fair way that this matter can be brought to a conclusion. It is the only possible way that will resolve the kind of issue of principle that has properly agitated hon. members opposite.


Michael Starr: Not only that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Especially the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton and the hon. member for Calgary North.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Minister of Justice is not shirking his responsibilities.


Michael Starr: He is so.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He is not.


Michael Starr: He has lost his responsibilities.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He has made allegations and he has stated-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He has stated-the Prime Minister has stated that if the allegations of the Minister of Justice are proved to be unfounded then he stakes his seat on the outcome of that inquiry.


Michael Starr: One moment-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What more courageous act do you want from the Minister of Justice?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Let him stand up. Let him stand up.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is now ready to stake his political future-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Let him stand up.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and his seat on the outcome of this inquiry. All I am asking-


Michael Starr: Would the minister permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All I am asking is that hon. members realize what the Minister of Justice is prepared to do and what the government is prepared to do in terms of a comprehensive inquiry into all the allegations.
Administration of Justice


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, what I say now will be somewhat inconsistent with the course I have followed because I have talked extensively myself, but there is no motion before the house. There is no action that the house can take on this matter. In the absence of any motion, in the absence of a remedy formulated by the house that can be decided upon, I suggest it is the obligation of the Chair, and I suggest this respectfully, at an early moment to suggest a course of action that would bring the house back to the order of business.


Michael Starr: I should like to ask the minister a question.


Mr. Flemming:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since the minister has introduced my name into the debate I think I should correct the interpretation he made of my remarks. I am sure he would want me to do this. My remarks are found on page 2535 of yesterday's Hansard, about half way down the left hand column:
In my opinion, the Prime Minister is doing a great disservice to this country if he does not demand that the Minister of Justice get to his feet just as soon as it can possibly be arranged and give to this house the basis of the statements he made this morning to the gentlemen of the press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: I am stating that purely for the benefit of the minister so that he will not be under the mistaken impression that my remarks applied to what was said in the house last Friday and did not apply to the press conference which the Minister of Justice had with the gentlemen of the press.


An hon. Member:: He knew what was said.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the minister before we go any further? It is a repetition of the former question that the minister did not answer. Does he think, with regard to his usage if the words "fair and just" in what he said, that it would be fair and just that upon the setting up of this inquiry the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton and the hon. member for Calgary North should appear before that commission to justify their innocence in this affair?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I did not suggest that for a moment.


Michael Starr: How can you proceed in this matter without the Minister of Justice specifically naming the people involved?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

March 11. 1966
Administration oj Justice


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the question of privilege before the house before the point of order intervened. I was dealing with the point that a commission of inquiry or the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections cannot possibly deal with this matter now in the absence of specific details which the minister is obliged to give the house. Otherwise any such inquiry must of necessity have before it all Privy Councillors, past and present, of the former administration, including the Leader of the Opposition, because of the sweeping charges that the minister has made.


An hon. Member:: A few over there, too.


Erik Nielsen: "More than two", he said at his press conference. Contrary to some opinions which have been expressed to Your Honour this afternoon, the Minister of Justice in the debate last Friday, as found on page 2211 of Hansard, used words that directly accused the Leader of the Opposition of participation-"participation" was the word he used-in the Munsinger case.
Sir, these slanderous remarks cannot be allowed to pass with impunity. The proposals of the Prime Minister, of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and of the Minister of Justice in his letter, a letter which I submit should be tabled immediately as our rules require, to the effect that the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition be investigated, cannot be allowed to be accepted by the house. The proposal by the Prime Minister in the house this afternoon, not being required to be substantiated in any way whatsoever by a specific charge by the minister, in lieu of withdrawal or resignation, cannot be allowed to be accepted by the house.
I submit, sir, that the words of Mr. Speaker Michener apply directly to the present situation and to the case of the Leader of the Opposition and make it immediately incumbent upon the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister here and now to make their specific and detailed charges. They must either do that or they must withdraw, or the minister must resign his seat in the house. There can be no departure in my submission from this principle. That is the essential and the only issue that is raised in the question of privilege before the house, and it can only be resolved-
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Erik Nielsen: -by this house.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to ask the hon. member for Yukon why he did not resign after false insinuations were made against the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay)?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members opposite applaud that question but if the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) had taken the trouble to recheck, as I did last night, he would have found that not on one but on three occasions on November 25 I said that I was not casting any reflection on the then minister of citizenship and immigration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members groan but that appears on the record on three separate occasions. The Minister of Transport has his Hansard there and can look it up. In my submission, Mr. Speaker, no inquiry can deal with the privileges of parliament. No outside body can take away from parliament the right to deal with its own privileges regardless of any terms of reference that may be set up.
What, sir, is the position of the Prime Minister? In what position has he placed himself? He has offered to set up a royal commission to investigate the actions of a former prime minister. Does he really expect the house to support that? I suggest not, sir. How many inquiries does the Prime Minister want in this field? When the Minister of Justice raised the matter the Leader of the Opposition-


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Leader of the Opposition said he wanted one.


Erik Nielsen: When the Minister of Justice very injudiciously and emotionally inserted the words "Monseignor case" into the debate last Friday he drew this remark from the Leader of the Opposition, as reported at page 2211 of Hansard:
I am not worried. Have your commission look into it. Put it on the agenda.
No other member can suggest any other interpretation of those words uttered at that time than that the Leader of the Opposition meant that that case should be made the subject of the second inquiry which the Prime Minister announced on Monday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question? How could the Leader of the Opposition on Friday have been referring to a royal commission which
March 11. 1966

no one had suggested at that time and which was not even decided upon until Monday? The hon. member should at least get his chronology right.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the record will show that not only were we discussing the desirability of setting up an inquiry to deal specifically with the Spencer case but also one to deal with national security generally. The decision was made on Monday-at least, it was announced on Monday-but the matter certainly entered the discussion during the debate.


Eric Alfred Winkler: No doubt about that.


Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister has set up an inquiry to look into the Spencer case. He has announced a further royal commission into the whole field of security.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Security procedures.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, security procedures. That is the charge that the Minister of Justice is making, that when the Leader of the Opposition was prime minister he mishandled the Munsinger case. He accused him last Friday, of participation in the Munsinger case.
The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that the Munsinger case be put on the agenda. The Pr.me Minister obviously noted that suggestion because he referred to it yesterday. But it was referred to by him in a very curious and twisted form. The Prime Minister is now suggesting a third royal commission into an identical field.


An hon. Member:: No, no.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, yes. In announcing the appointment of a commission into security procedures last Monday the Prime Minister made it quite plain that such a commission would cover the whole field of security procedures and the adequacy of measures The Minister of Justice has now charged that this case-I refer to the Munsinger case-was a bona fide case of security.
The Prime Minister said that the second commission which he announced on Monday was going to look into the whole field of security procedures. If, without having seen the file, the Minister of Justice is right and th's is a bona fide case involving security, why not refer it to the second commission announced by the Prime Minister on Monday last? The Minister of Justice has criticized the act ons of the Leader of the Opposition when he was prime minister in handling the case vis-a-vis its security aspects. It properly belongs as a subject of the general inquiry
Administration of Justice announced by the Prime Minister. He has not, so far as I know, dealt with the morality aspects no doubt considering this beyond his purview. In the face of the Prime Minister's announcement on Monday last the statements made by the Minister of Justice are such as would come before the inquiry set up by the government on security measures. The Prime Minister knew this and the Minister of Justice knew it. But the minister could not wait-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like, very respectfully, to rise on a point of order. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman is not now discussing anything which has any relation to any purported question of privilege. He is making an argument that this case should be referred not to the inquiry that my right hon. friend suggested this morning but to some other inquiry. That might be an interesting matter for debate-


Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister actually held that out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to a point of order dealing with procedure. I have listened very respectfully to hon. gentlemen opposite and I think the same standard should apply to both sides of the house.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: My point of order is this.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order,	please.	There is a
point of order before the house.


Malcolm MacInnis: Then on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Why not allow the minister to complete his point of order and I will recognize the hon. member after?


Malcolm MacInnis: My
question of privilege arises out of remarks just made by the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow the hon. member to raise his question of privilege after the minister has completed his remarks.


Malcolm MacInnis: I would call Your Honour's attention to the fact that the rules require that an hon. member should raise a question of privilege immediately and I want to raise a question of privilege as the result of a remark made by the Minister of Transport.
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice Mr. Speaker: "Immediately" may mean one or two minutes later. I suggest to the hon. member it would be so much easier to allow the minister to complete his remarks. I agree with the hon. member that if he feels his question of privilege should be raised at this time he should raise it and I will recognize him. I was just asking for his co-operation in allowing one statement to be finished first. There is before the house a statement being made by the hon. member for Yukon, a point of order which has been raised by the Minister of Transport, and now a question of privilege on the point of order. It seems to me this is not a very good way to carry on the debate. I should like to hear the minister and then the question of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: On my question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Very well. If the hon. member insists on raising his question of privilege now I will hear him.


Malcolm MacInnis: I raise my question of privilege because I recall that a previous Speaker ruled the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi out of order because seven seconds had elapsed. My question of privilege is that the minister has stated that the Chair should see that both sides have equal opportunity in the matter of raising points of order or questions of privilege, whatever the case may be. I would call to Your Honour's attention that again the Minister of Transport is continuing to abuse the rules by rising without recognition from the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will recognize him now.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, so there will be no misunderstanding, I did not make any admonition to you, sir. I merely said to hon. gentlemen opposite that I had listened politely to them and I hoped they would listen politely to me, as I think most of them want to do. My point is this, sir. The hon. gentleman is embarking upon a debate which seems to me to have wandered very far afield from any possible question of privilege. In the course of his remarks he said there had been no specific charges made. If there have been no specific charges it is hard to see how there can be any question of privilege before the house. If all that exists is a grievance-


Mr. Brand:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: There can only be one point of order raised at a time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was speaking to a point of order. There cannot be a point of order on a point of order.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon on a question of privilege.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: On a question of privilege affecting the Chair, I believe that a ruling once made by the Chair cannot be challenged. This is now being done by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not seeking to challenge any ruling. I was rising on a point of order with respect to the speech now being made by the hon. member for Yukon. My point of order is a simple one. The hon. member has said there are no specific charges. If he looks at the record he will see he was complaining there were no specific charges. If there were no specific charges, I do not know what question of privilege he was talking about. It seems to me that under the guise of privilege he is seeking to develop a grievance. There is a procedure under our rules for dealing with grievances. That procedure will be in effect on Monday, if the government's plans continue with respect to a motion for supply. At that time the life of the government will be at stake and hon. gentlemen will be able under the rules to challenge the government and defeat it if they can.


An hon. Member:: Just you wait.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If, as the hon. gentleman himself has said, there are no specific charges to be considered, he cannot be speaking on a question of privilege and therefore, since there is nothing else before the house, there is no justification for his continuing his speech at this time.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I should like to bring to the attention of the house that Your Honour has already ruled that there is a prima facie case of privilege here; yet this decision is being argued by the Minister of Transport.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order spuriously made by the Minister of Transport, he has twisted my remarks out of all proportion. As he knows, I detailed a whole list of the charges the Minister of Justice made both in the house and in the press. I put this on record in Hansard yesterday. What I meant when I referred to specific charges, as I believe the minister knows, was that no inquiry, whether a judicial inquiry or an
March 11. 1968	COMMONS
inquiry by the Committee on Privileges and Elections, can hope to cope with the sweeping charges made by the Minister of Justice unless it requires the attendance of all Privy Councillors of the previous administration, past and present, and that specific charges must be brought against those to whom the minister referred when he made his statement to the press.
The Minister of Justice must name names if it is expected we will ever get anywhere with that matter. He must substantiate what he has said or he must resign. This is what I was referring to, as I believe the minister knows.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member mention any citation in any of the authorities which gives the slightest justification for the course which he, in his pontifical fashion, suggests must be followed by the minister? The other day Your Honour recited Mr. Speaker Michener's famous ruling and there is certainly no warrant for such a course there. Mr. Speaker Michener said there must be a specific motion and we do not have such a motion before us today. The hon. member put a question to me and I will reply to it if I am permitted to do so. The only charge which I have seen is the charge by the Minister of Justice that the Leader of the Opposition mishandled a security case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know of no other charge. If the hon. member does, let him state it instead of making these insinuations.


Erik Nielsen: I do not know where the Minister of Transport was yesterday. I put them on record yesterday.


An hon. Member:: Read them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I suggest to hon. members that the debate should be carried on without any shouting from one side of the chamber to the other.


Erik Nielsen: The minister should read them; they are on the record. It was not simply a charge that the previous prime minister mishandled this case. There is a charge, appearing at page 2211 of Hansard, that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was prime minister, participated in the Munsinger case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Erik Nielsen: There was a charge by the Minister of Justice that more than two Privy Councillors are involved in this case and that
DEBATES	2561
Administration of Justice it is worse in some respects than the Profumo affair. I listed many more examples in Hansard yesterday. When I made reference to specific charges-the hon. gentleman knows this-what it was intended he should understand was that the minister had an obligation before any proceedings can be taken to name the ministers he thinks are involved, without having had reference to the files, and a further obligation to substantiate the charges he has made both inside and outside this house.
One of the outstanding political commentators in the minister's own province, Mr. Claude Ryan of Le Devoir, said this morning in analysing the minister's conduct, and I quote a translation;
Instead of following a line of conduct dictated by logic and tradition, Mr. Cardin performed one after the other, (coup sur coup) two acts which showed his real stature, that of a small-time politician (petit politicien) of partisan spirit.
And again:
Already, the manner in which the minister last week revived the Munsinger affair was disgraceful (disgracieuse) and unworthy of a Minister of the Crown.
Yesterday, the minister went farther. Making use. of information which he did not officially possess, dealing with files not under his authority, he accused "a number" of former Conservative ministers of having been involved in an incident about which he admits he knows neither the details nor the exact significance. Without having consulted his Cabinet colleagues he demands an inquiry into the Munsinger affair, exposing himself once again to a new repulse from a leader acting only through fear and opportunism.
Mr. Ryan refers to the statement that the minister was tired of charges by the Leader of the Opposition that the Liberals were plunged in scandal. Then he goes on:
Coming from a man to whom this country has confided the administration of justice and who enjoys, on account of his position, extremely powerful instruments of pressure, such proposals are absolutely unacceptable.
This is not just the opinion in the province of Quebec; it is the opinion across this country. The editorial I have just read, written by a noted editorial writer in the minister's own province, sums up precisely the case for the opposition in this affair, that a minister shall not use his high office to blacken with impunity members of this parliament. I point out to hon. gentlemen on my left in the Ralliement Creditiste and in the Social Credit party-


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.
2562	COMMONS DEBATES	March 11, 1966
Administration of Justice


Erik Nielsen: -that if this tactic is allowed to go unpunished by this parliament every member of this house is open to the same treatment.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take the liberty to mention to the hon. member for Yukon that the time allotted to him under the rules expired some 12 minutes ago. According to the information I have from the table he started making his speech at 12.10, and the Chair has made allowance for the many interruptions. Allowance of some 10 minutes or so has been made for the points of order and questions of privilege that were raised while the hon. member had the floor. So, with regret, I have to advise him his time has expired.


Mr. Peters:: On a point of order, may I ask Your Honour if it is possible to revert to the old standing orders and adjourn for lunch?


Mr. Speaker:: It is a very worth-while suggestion but the Chair is in no position to accept it.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what has been said by members of my own party that this is a debate that should be as short as it possibly can be. However, I want to add a few words, not in the spirit of attack and counter-attack, smear and counter-smear which seems to me to be the root trouble that has caused the morass or mess we are in at the present time. I want to try to make a contribution, if I may, to some sort of resolution of the difficulty we are in.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question before the hon. member proceeds? What does he mean by smear and counter-smear, particularly counter-smear?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not think I want to answer that question in any detail now. Surely all members of the house know there have been attacks and counter-attacks, insinuations and counter-insinuations, and if they do not know that I am afraid-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Substantiate that.


Francis Andrew Brewin: -they do not appreciate what has been going on in the house for some time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member now entering into the debate is making vague, unsubstantiated charges against members of

the house. He is talking about smear and counter-smear, attacks and counter-attacks, but I am particularly interested in this reference to smear and counter-smear.


An hon. Member:: Well, you have done a lot.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is making an unsubstantiated attack on members of the house. Let the hon. member mention any smear or counter-smear in which I have been engaged, because I am one of the members of the house.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I remain on the question of privilege. If the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), uncourageously standing behind the curtains, has accused me of smearing, then I ask Your Honour to have him withdraw that remark.


Gilles Grégoire: I told you-all the Conservative party.


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


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is the Chair going to permit the hon. member for Lapointe to interject from behind the curtain a remark in reference to smearing and allow it to stand without even asking him to withdraw the remark which was made behind the curtain?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member please sit down. Remarks made outside the curtain are made outside the official confines of the house and I doubt that the Speaker has any right to rule on them.


Gilles Grégoire: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have given the floor to the hon. member for Cape Breton South. If he has finished his remarks I will hear the hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: It is very easy to substantiate all these things and to prove my case I should like to table Hansard for the last two years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member for Lapointe that this has already been dealt with very effectively.
March 11. 1966	COMMONS


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) thinks I have made any particular reference to him I can assure him I did not. I want to get on with what I hope will be a contribution to the solution of the problems before the house. I want to say that I could not help but regret the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) at the opening of the House of Commons today when he read a letter from the Minister of Justice, because it seemed to me that if that letter and that statement had been somewhat different we might be moving toward some sort of a solution of this matter. What I regret about the letter and the statement is that they seemed to omit from their recital of the facts what is the basic problem facing this house, that is, not the statements made in the house but the statements made in a press conference by the Minister of Justice in which a blanket allegation was made against certain members of the house.
I for one, Mr. Speaker, think that a judicial inquiry, at least as a preliminary, would be far preferable to a reference to a committee of the house where political passions and political feelings are bound to be aroused, and I approve of the proposal for a judicial inquiry. I concede the point that this house cannot abandon its right and duty to consider in the ultimate analysis the questions of privilege that members of the house may raise, but I can see that a judicial inquiry, with all the protection a judicial inquiry has, would at least be a better thing than a reference to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. But if we are to have a judicial inquiry we must have adequate and proper terms of reference.
Here I am not trying to discuss technicalities of what Mr. Speaker Michener's ruling was at some other time or whether the terms of reference are in order or out of order or are too broad. That would be a technical detail. But what I do say to the house is that these terms of reference must incorporate the specific words, the basic problem that exists here now, the charges made by the Minister of Justice against a group of members of the house.
Mr Mcllrailh: Would the hon. member permit a question? This very point was dealt with last night, and it was very clear that the remarks made by the Minister of Justice in the press conference on March 10, 1966, would be included. I thought that was made
DEBATES	2563
Administration of Justice clear by the leader of the government when he spoke.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I heard what the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) said earlier in this debate. So far as I know, the reference made last night was not incorporated in the statement made by the Prime Minister this morning. I say that if the Prime Minister will undertake and make it clear-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I think I will permit it after I have finished making these few remarks. They will be fairly brief and I do not think I will be able to make my point if I try to answer a whole series of questions. What I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the government and to the Prime Minister in particular is that we want it abundantly clear that the terms of reference specifically refer not only to statements made in the house but to the statements made or alleged to have been made in the press conference which reflect on members of the house.


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: And I want to go a stage farther. In this instance I want to support the words of the hon. member for Yukon, because I want to make it perfectly clear that in my view no judicial inquiry would make sense unless the specific persons charged with offences were named in the terms of the inquiry. I know that no judge would want to hear a blanket charge against 15, 20, 30 or 100 people. Who is to appear? Who is to be called? The minister will have the obligation later, if such an inquiry is granted, of stating clearly and specifically whom he is charging.
I say if he has that information now, why should we be kept in suspense over it? Why should the people of Canada be kept in suspense? I say you cannot have the judicial inquiry proposed by the Prime Minister without specific charges being made.
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
It is a fundamental principle of justice, so far as I know, that these charges should be made clear and not be blanket allegations. If it were true that the Minister of Justice did not have enough knowledge to say who they were, then of course he never should have made the statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
March 11. 1966

Administration of Justice


Francis Andrew Brewin: If he does know, then why should the suspicion not be removed from those who are not charged and not affected by this matter so that they do not have to be condemned by the senior law officer of the Crown in Canada by a blanket aspersion against them? We should be sure that there is no attempt to deal with this matter in the Committee on Privileges and Elections where the chaos might exceed even what we have seen in the house. That is not the right way to do it. Let the government choose a judicial officer of the highest calibre and let him deal with this matter. But before that let us have it perfectly clear that the grave matter which this house is now discussing, the matter of the imputations made by the Minister of Justice in his press conference, is incorporated in the terms of reference, and that these imputations must be specific and not under the guise of some generalities.
I have had enough experience with judges and I respect them, most of them in any event, despite what one hon. member said. I know their approach to these things. If they can limit the matter or cut it down they will do so. As I say, right in the terms of the inquiry we should have the charges and they should not be the general charges we have heard so far; they should be specific charges within the minister's knowledge and based on the files he controls. If there are no such charges then he should withdraw and resign.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the last speaker a question? The hon. member made reference to me and my thought in respect of judges. I am not quite sure he knows what my position is so far as judges are concerned. I would ask him, as a result of his remarks this morning, whether he disagrees with the editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail today and particularly the part which says:
But an inquiry is no longer sufficient.
This is what the people of Canada are thinking. The editorial goes on to say, and again I repeat this is what the people of Canada are thinking:
Never in the history of Canada's parliament has a cabinet minister behaved with more irresponsibility than Mr. Cardin. The Munsinger case was to come before a judicial inquiry. He took it away from that inquiry. But he did not take it before the jury of parliament. No. He took it to the jury of rumor and scandal-mongering, on hearsay evidence, and in cold blood after a full night's consideration. Canada's Justice Minister did this.
Mr. Cardin must resign.
But his resignation will not, in itself, restore confidence in the government. Mr. Cardin told the Globe reporter-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John (Jack) McIntosh: -that Mr. Pearson-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member now should proceed to the question he was going to ask.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He asked it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat it. I ask the hon. member for Greenwood whether he agrees with what I have already read from this editorial, particularly the last sentence which says:
Mr. Pearson appeared as little more than a "me-too" accomplice in a smear campaign.
I am suggesting to the member for Greenwood in respect of a judicial inquiry that with his experience in such inquiries he knows-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John (Jack) McIntosh: My question-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is a very long and extended question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question by saying that, however good the editorial is, I am not trying to express opinions or make judgments as an editorial writer. I have nothing but respect for the Minister of Justice and I am sorry he has got himself into the mess he has. I am directing myself to a question of principle. I do not intend to associate myself with an editorial, although it may be just. The aspect I am dealing with is how this house can get out of the mess it is in.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Does the hon. member for Greenwood not agree that a judicial inquiry such as that proposed by the Prime Minister and instigated by the Minister of Transport would end up in more of a smear?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I really cannot anticipate what a judicial inquiry would end up in. All I can say is that this is the best known procedure we have for investigating facts which have to be investigated.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order before the minister speaks, just a moment before the Minister of Agriculture rose the Minister of Justice wanted to rise and you did not recognize him. I suggest that maybe he should now be heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of
Agriculture is recognized by the Chair.
March 11, 1966	COMMONS


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I was interested, first, in respect of the question in which we are now involved and in the approach taken, which I respectfully submit was very useful to the house, by the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to our procedures. In this regard I hope I may also add some contribution to the debate in respect of the point made by the hon. member for Greenwood concerning the nature of any reference and inquiry.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare did, that the instituting of an inquiry is not a removal of the processes of the house in any way, shape or form. Inasmuch as tnere is no procedure apparently, as the current debate has indicated, whereby this question may be resolved in any proper and meaningful manner under the rules of the house, I submit that such an inquiry is for the very purpose of determining judicially any facts and conclusions, which will be approached in a judicial manner and on which the house can then take further action.
I point out quite respectfully that any findings made by a judicial inquiry are then for this house to take action on. If in fact a motion of censure against the Minister of Justice is substantiated by reason of the findings of fact of that judicial inquiry, then of course this house has recourse to those findings on which to base such a motion.
I see no other useful way in which we can proceed than in the way which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has pointed out. This is the only logical and, in fact, the only procedure available to us. I did wish to make the point that it is not an extra-territorial procedure in so far as this house is concerned but rather an effective and just method whereby we can determine judicially the facts on which any further action which this house deems necessary should be taken. It does not remove the matter from the ambit of control of this house in any way, and it is the only proper and just way in which this house can proceed further.
I might also respectfully point out, with respect to the point made by the hon. member for Greenwood in respect of the matter of a specific charge, that we have a precedent in this regard. I suggest this precedent was useful in the case in question, and the house gave unanimous consent, if I recollect rightly, at the time to the procedure which was employed in respect of the Dorion inquiry.
DEBATES	2565
Administration of Justice Again this house was not abandoning its responsibility. This house felt, in view of some of the allegations which had been made, that a judicial finding of fact should be made so that if further action were deemed necessary by the house it could be based upon such a finding and not upon mere allegations, rumours or suspicion. I think that is what we are trying to do here.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
With respect to the precedent that we have, in that instance the inquiry was not based on specific charges but rather on an investigation of general incidents that had occurred, general suspicions that had been aroused and general allegations that had been made to see if in fact a judicial conclusion could be drawn by that inquiry on which action by the house could be taken if the house deemed it necessary. If it was a question of having to make charges prior to an inquiry I submit that those charges, according to the rules of the house as I understand them, would have to be backed up by the member making them who would forfeit his seat if they were not fulfilled. I do not think hon. members can have it both ways. Either the inquiry is based, as I have suggested, on the idea of determining judicially the true facts regarding the many allegations that have been made or it is based on charges and conclusions from those charges. If the charges were not substantiated the hon. member who made them would forfeit his seat.
If the latter course was the procedure followed in the Dorion inquiry, then I would respectfully refer the house to page 10534 of Hansard for November 25, 1964, where the hon. member for Yukon is recorded as having made the following statement:
He should make a clean breast of the whole thing to the Canadian people-
He went on to refer to the then minister of citizenship and immigration. To repeat, he said:
He should make a clean breast of the whole thing to the Canadian people, all of whom are wondering about the minister and the procedure he has followed in this case. Likewise the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should rise and tell the committee what he knows. I challenge him to rise now and tell the house where he was when the bribe was offered. I challenge him to rise now and tell us where he was when the bribe was offered.
Later, as reported on page 10535, the hon. member for Yukon is recorded as having said:
He cannot deny-I do not impute anything to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-that what
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice I have said is a fact. There is contained in the police report a reference to the fact the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was in his office at the time the bribe was offered.
The then minister of citizenship and immigration denied this fact as recorded at page 10534 of Hansard where he stated:
The hon. member for Yukon, in his question put to me, made an innuendo in trying to know where I was at the time that supposed offer was made to Mr. Lamontagne.
I want to tell the hon. member and the whole house that at no time before the occurrence of those supposed events have I been aware of anything with regard to that matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Charges were made in the house and answered in the house.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, this is the submission I want to make in this regard. If in fact this other inquiry, which I submit was a precedent and quite a proper precedent for this house, was the result of the house wanting to determine in a judicial fashion, by a proper inquiry under all the auspices and protections of a judge, whether there were facts on which further action by the house should be taken, and if that inquiry was based on a charge by a member, surely when the then minister of citizenship and immigration was completely vindicated by Mr. Justice Dorion the hon. member for Yukon should no longer be with us. I suggest he is still here as big as life.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What sort of sophistry is that?


John James Greene: I respectfully suggest this. I know that the hon. member for Yukon would obey the rules of the house and that he has respect for its rules and traditions. If in fact the Dorion inquiry was based on that premise, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have resigned.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the minister unless he wishes to be interrupted but would he permit a question at this time?


John James Greene: I would prefer to finish my statement, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: What about the press conference yesterday morning?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that the minister is now dealing at length with the Rivard case and we on this side of the house claim the right to do the same thing.


John James Greene: With all respect, I am trying to be helpful as best I can with regard to the procedures that I think we are embarking on here. I am trying to help the Chair and the house generally with respect to the nature of the proceedings as they are now before us.
As has been pointed out earlier, I think we have no specific and proper procedures within parliamentary rules with which to solve this very difficult and serious problem. I merely suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this precedent is a sound one, for the reasons I have stated. The Dorion inquiry was not based on charges and the result that the member who made those charges either had to substantiate them or resign. Rather, it was based on a genuine concern of the whole house and a unanimous desire to wash all the linen that had to be washed with regard to the Rivard case in a judicial way and thus determine whether any further house action should be taken. If it were otherwise in this case, if it were a case of charge and responsibility, as the hon. member for Greenwood alleges it might be, then obviously the hon. member for Yukon would have had to resign.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You are wrong.


John James Greene: I suggest it is quite obvious that the precedent is before us and that the purpose of such an inquiry is that the house may determine the facts judicially in respect of a situation such as this. I think that is what an inquiry would be set up to do. I do not suggest for a moment that hon. gentleman opposite, who have been so judicious in trying to finding truth, light and probity everywhere in this land by seeking evidence in respect of bankruptcies, searching files from Vancouver to Montreal, eliciting facts, truth and light, were not most concerned in this regard. I feel very sure they were sincere in their purpose. I do not think for a moment that they have changed their coats or all of a sudden suffered a metamorphosis. What was efficient to bring out the truth last year should be efficient to bring out the truth this year, namely, a judicial inquiry. I do not think that all of a sudden by some magical potion within the past year this has become an undesirable procedure.


Thomas Miller Bell: How about the press conference yesterday morning?


John James Greene: I do not think for a moment that hon. gentlemen opposite are attempting to prevent the shedding of light on these matters in a judicial fashion by carrying on debate here and by preventing the inquiry
March 11. 1966

from being brought into being. I know they are concerned about the truth and bringing out the truth about the matters involved in this case. I merely suggest to them that the best way we can bring out the facts in a judicial and fair way, under proper rules and procedures where witnesses are protected and where the judge with all his experience will be able to see to it that the process is not used to blacken anyone's name unfairly, is to set up an inquiry. I think we have a precedent for this in the Dorion inquiry which was accepted unanimously by the house at that time. Hon. members thought that was a wonderful procedure and I do not think the procedure has become any worse, any less responsible or effective as a result of the fact that it is now one year older.
I do suggest with respect to the qualms of the hon. gentlemen of the New Democratic party, which are quite proper, that this would not be some kind of a narrow restricted inquiry to prevent enlightenment with regard to the very situations on which we require to be enlightened, that they have the undertaking of the Prime Minister to the effect that the inquiry will be sufficiently broad that a judge may find on all facts pertinent to this matter, including the press conference and including anything that was said in this house.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this morning when I rose and stated the case for this side of the house I did not disagree with the terms as stated by the Prime Minister regarding the judicial inquiry. We do not object to them now, but what we want and what must take place in this house today is that the Minister of Justice rise and substantiate his charges, his statements and all the inferences in his press conference. When that is done the situation will be resolved. It is that simple. So far as this minister is concerned, he should talk about dairy policy.


John James Greene: I will not speak of specious points of order, Mr. Speaker, because they have been made ad nauseam. But I do in all sincerity believe this is the best and the only way that I know in which this matter can be resolved in a manner that is just and proper and will still leave this house with full authority and responsibility to do whatever is deemed proper, whatever is deemed just and whatever is deemed to be in the best interests of the house after it has all the facts as found by the judicial inquiry.

Administration of Justice


Eric Alfred Winkler: Are you going to allow this type of press conference to go on?


John James Greene: If there is no such finding of fact by the judicial officer who has the authority to do so at the hearing, if in fact any allegations that were made at the press conference are found to have no basis in fact, with the result that a member was traduced contrary to the rules of the house, then the house will have every authority and right to take action.


Malcolm MacInnis: What is the Minister of Justice laughing at?


John James Greene: But such action by the house should be based on a finding of fact by the judicial authority and not through a procedure which does not exist, which is the position in which we now find ourselves.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


John James Greene: I would be pleased to do so.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the minister suggesting a commission of inquiry whose terms of reference would be headed "Prove your innocence"? My question is similar to that asked by the hon. member for Ontario this morning. Before that commission of inquiry would various hon. members from this side of the house be called to prove their innocence?


John James Greene: I certainly would not agree to an inquiry of this nature. I quite appreciate the difficult position of some hon. Privy Councillors opposite. The inquiry, as the Prime Minister has indicated, would give some respected judicial person broad authority to inquire into all the facts and certainly would not be for the purpose of putting anyone personally on trial. Any action pursuant to the findings of such an inquiry would be for the house to take and not for the judicial inquiry to take.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question? What is to prevent the Minister of Justice calling another press conference on Monday morning and making similar charges?


John James Greene: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think this would be the very salutary benefit of the appointment of a commission of inquiry as quickly as possible. As the hon. member for Calgary North so properly requested last night, such an inquiry should be set up immediately because the matters with which it would be concerned would be sub judice and it would be most improper from that
March 11. 1966

Administration of Justice point on for the minister or anyone else to comment upon them until the judge had made his findings.
I think it would have the very good effect of enabling this matter to be determined calmly by a judicial tribunal while we in this house carried on with the business of the country, which is what the people of this country wish us to do.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


John James Greene: Yes.


David Lewis: Has the minister been made aware of the fact that a Toronto newspaper now carries the story that the Munsinger woman, about whom we are talking, has been found alive in Germany and has offered to come back to Canada any time she is invited to do so?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. More:: Resign. You have given us false information.


John James Greene: I do not have that information, Mr. Speaker, because I do not have my ears attuned to the press gallery as keenly as my hon. friend. But surely this is all the more reason for holding a judicial inquiry with the broadest scope possible and as quickly as possible so that this good lady-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: I use that term in the broadest possible sense, Mr. Speaker-so that this good lady may be permitted to give her evidence to enlighten the house.


David Lewis: Would the minister allow
another question? Would the minister undertake-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for York South rising to ask a question?


David Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister permit another question? I am serious. I am not trying to be funny. This is far too serious a matter. Can the minister or the Minister of Justice on behalf of the government undertake that if the story is true that Miss Munsinger, if that is her name, is alive, the government will immediately take steps to bring her back to Canada in order that the truth may be known?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture does not yet have extradiction matters under his authority.


David Lewis: That would not be necessary. She has offered to come here.


John James Greene: I can only re-echo the words of the Prime Minister. He has given his undertaking that it will be the broadest possible inquiry and I personally feel very certain that every effort would be made, including no doubt making it as easy as possible for the good lady to get here, so we would have all the evidence it is possible to get for this inquiry.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister a question?


John James Greene: Yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister is an experienced lawyer. Does he feel it is elementary justice that all members of the Privy Council at that time who may be involved should have to parade themselves before a commission or be called before a commission to prove their innocence?


John James Greene: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is in the nature of a trial of any individual.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is it not?


John James Greene: I have great confidence in the members of the judiciary and feel sure these matters could be resolved in such a way by a capable and experienced judge that nobody would be personally indicted before that inquiry unless he were shown by the facts to be guilty of an offence against the state.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You would never go yourself.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and I think it is time we set out our position once again because in my view the Minister of Agriculture has probably misunderstood it. I want to draw an analogy which I am sure will appeal to the Minister of Agriculture because he practised law in an area which has given him an appreciation of a community in the true sense of the word. What the minister is really asking for is not a judicial inquiry but an inquisition. Suppose, for example, there was a robbery in the community of the Minister of Agriculture; would everybody in the community be brought before the bar of justice for trial with regard to the robbery, without anybody being named? That is the situation that exists here. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is not asking for a judicial inquiry at all; he is asking for an inquisition in respect of Privy Councillors who sit on this side of the house.
March 11, 1966

We have said that we have nothing to hide. I do not know the facts. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) said he has not seen the file but he disclosed many things and made many revelations in a press conference which he would not disclose in this house. I see that the Minister of Justice is not in his seat. He is never in his seat when something important and embarrassing to him is being dealt with.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What we are asking the Minister of Justice to do is-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Bow River.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad to see the Minister of Justice back in the chamber. We are asking the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister or somebody else to name these people. Let the Minister of Justice name them. If he is wrong in this regard, then of course he will lose his seat and resign as Minister of Justice. Let us have them named, because what the Minister of Justice has said has resulted in the whole front bench of this party standing charged. Who is to go before this inquiry?
I again draw the analogy of the community of the Minister of Agriculture. If there has been a robbery in his community, does everybody in the community appear at the trial? Does everybody go on trial? The only kind of justice of that nature that T have ever heard of is under a dictator like Hitler who took whole villages and towns and laid them to waste. Is that the kind of Justice the minister refers to?
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)


Mr. Stewart:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Always.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would tell the house what specific persons were mentioned in the order in council that brought on the Dorion inquiry?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can certainly answer that, and I am glad you asked that question because I was just coming to it.


John B. Stewart: Who?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will you listen? You have asked a question. Let me answer and give me a hearing. That is all I am asking.
Administration of Justice


John B. Stewart: You have it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will name some of them. Some of the people who were mentioned in the debate on that occasion when the charges in question were made were not members of the house. That differentiates this matter entirely from the Dorion inquiry entirely. Some of those people were executive assistants. One was an executive assistant to the Minister of Justice; another was executive assistant to another minister. They were not members of parliament. They were not Privy Councillors. That goes to the very crux of my argument. This is a matter of privilege for this house. That is the situation. It affects hon. members of the house.


An hon. Member:: If we-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Therein lies the difference.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman agree to the establishment of an inquiry on terms comparable with the terms used in establishing the Dorion inquiry?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have made my position very clear. It is that if the minister knows the Privy Councillors or the members of parliament or whoever he is charging in this house, if he has the names, let him stand in his place today and name those names.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John B. Stewart: Will you read into the record the terms establishing the Dorion inquiry, terms which you are not now willing to accept.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not going to get into an argument. Let the Minister of Justice name those people. Let him deal with this in the way he was asked to in the Spencer case. I think the Minister of Justice would have to agree, because he admitted when I dealt with the Spencer case that I made a moving speech, that something has to be done. When the Minister of Justice mentioned Privy Councillors, does he mean every Privy Councillor in this row here?


An hon. Member:: And outside the house?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And outside the house, and those that may be on the other side of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Whom does he mean? Who stands charged before this kind of bar of justice? That is why I say he does not want an inquiry. He wants an inquisition. That inquisition would be the kind of inquisition
March 11, 1965

Administration of Justice that would try to smear the whole Conservative party. This is really what is behind all this. I listened to the Prime Minister this morning and I was ashamed. I have always had respect for every Prime Minister of this country, whether Liberal or Conservative, because he has always been from one party or the other.
The Prime Minister today rose in his place and he was annoyed that the opposition dared to stand up. He pointed out that one executive assistant from the Department of Justice now stands charged before the bar of justice in a court room. Because the Conservatives have dared to stand up he now says, "I am going to punish all Privy Councillors accordingly."
That is the Prime Minister's case. That is why the Globe and Mail and all national newspapers are critical of the Minister of Justice and of the Prime Minister. In fact, the Globe and Mail has gone so far as to demand the Prime Minister's resignation because not only has he lost control of the House of Commons but he has lost the confidence of the people. Therein lies the crux of the whole thing.
What remedies are before the house? The Minister of Justice should do this. What would be wrong in the Minister of Justice naming these people in committee of the whole of the House of Commons? This, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of privilege for members of the House of Commons and for Privy Councillors not connected with the House of Commons or who have not sat in the house. Therein lies the difference. Therein is how we can differentiate this case from the Dorion inquiry.
The Minister of Agriculture must appreciate that difference. I ask him this, and it is a question I wanted to put to him when he was on his feet. I wanted to hear what he had to say because I have always felt he would be fair. Does the Minister of Agriculture believe that every Privy Councillor on this side of the house should appear before that inquiry? Does he believe that, without knowing the people involved, they should come before it as if it were an inquisition and prove their innocence? Is this the kind of justice the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice now recommend? Is this the kind of justice they are recommending, that a judicial inquiry be set up where people are not named and where everybody has to prove his innocence? If that is the new system of justice I say to 
the Minister of Justice that, although he has tried to resign on at least one occasion, he will not have to resign. He will be fired.


Erik Nielsen: That is his case.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Because that is what he is asking Canada and the members of parliament to do. He is asking the Privy Councillors to prove their innocence. He is saying: We will not name you. Bring in the whole community. Charge everybody. Everybody will go through the smear and then we will find out what the facts are. He does not want to find out the facts. He wants an inquisition to be imposed on the Conservative Party as a punishment because we dare to raise our voices in the House of Common and particularly because the hon. member for Yukon dared to raise such serious matters as were dealt with by the Dorion Commission.
That is the punishment and the price the Conservative party must pay for daring to bring before this house a situation so serious as was disclosed in the Dorion report. That is what the Minister of Justice wants. He wants recriminations. He want reproaches.
Is this the kind of thing I mentioned to him with regard to the Spencer case? Is this the kind of tradition I mentioned with reference to his own family? I have read in the newspapers that he wanted to quit and go back to the practice of law in his community. It would be hard for him to practice the kind of law which obliges persons to prove their innocence or countenances the setting up of an inquisition.


An hon. Member:: Robespierre.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Justice is guilty of malicious slander, inside and outside the house, never before equalled by any other Minister of Justice or any other member of the House of Commons.


Erik Nielsen: That is their charge.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In a situation such as this let him stand up in the House of Commons and let him name these people. If the lady in question is alive that may put a different aspect on the situation.


Erik Nielsen: That has been looked into


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let the Minister of Justice say who should appear before that commission, who should appear before that judicial inquiry. If not, then the Minister of Justice should consent to be cross-examined by the house in committee of the whole to enable members to find out the facts with
March 11. 1966

reference to this matter. This to me is the crux of the whole situation.
Several ministers of the government and several hon. members have raised this question. Not as a member of parliament but as a Canadian I want to say that we should not spend two or three days debating such a question unless it is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me just ask this question. Whose primary responsibility is this? Is this the Prime Minister's responsibility? Is it the government's and particularly, sir, the Minister of Justice? Is he responsible?


Erik Nielsen: He will not get up.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In regard to the press conference he was cowardly because he would not say inside the house what he has said to the press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Now he says, and I charge him with this, "I have not read the file". If he has not read the file how can he tell us what is in it? Has he got someone else to read the file to him? The Minister of Justice should, and I say this not only as a member of parliament but as a Canadian, stand and clear the air. He should make these charges so that we can get back to the business of the House of Commons. I say, and I do not care if it costs me my seat or if I lose the next election, that if we are going to have this sort of inquisition we must consider some of the most important aspects of the law. We have to consider the freedom and liberty of the individual. We have to consider the freedom and liberty of the Privy Councillors. Since when did a different law apply to Privy Councillors in this country than applies to the average citizen?
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: You should ask the hon. member for Yukon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. gentleman talks about the hon. member for Yukon. I am proud of the hon. member for Yukon who has dared to stand up in his place in this House of Commons. I know why the Liberal house leader says that. It is because in his own heart he does not condone today what is going on in his own government.


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member is interested in having this matter cleared up, that could be done in the proper way very quickly and very easily since it is a security matter,
Administration of Justice by having a judicial commission of inquiry appointed. The hon. member knows he is making this scene because he is afraid to have this matter investigated.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would be very surprised if the house leader ever charged me or any member of the House of Commons with being afraid. I may be guilty of many faults but I do not think I have ever been afraid. I say to him that we would be prepared to have an inquiry of any kind, and I would be the first to agree to it, if the Minister of Justice would name names, set out the circumstances and disclose what is in the file. Therein lies the difference.


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


John James Greene: The hon. member had some doubts, as I understood it, as to the difference in procedure between this case and Dorion. I think he invoked some argument that it might not be proper for Privy Councillor after Privy Councillor to be called as witnesses. I would ask the hon. member, what is the difference between this and the Dorion inquiry, where no member of parliament was named-


Erik Nielsen: Yes, they were.


John James Greene: Please let me finish. I have granted that courtesy to hon. members opposite and I would ask them to do the same for me.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will answer that question now.


John James Greene: May I finish?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No. Surely I can answer the question.


John James Greene: I have not completed my question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Bow River agreed to a question from the Minister of Agriculture. We might hear the end of the question and then he can reply.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let him put a question but not make a speech. I know he is getting used to that stuff which he uses in his department.


John James Greene: I trust I will have many years to get used to the department. What I wish to ask is this. Within the terms of reference of the Dorion inquiry no cabinet minister or member of parliament was named. I believe I am correct in that.
March 11. 1966

Administration of Justice


Erik Nielsen: We are talking of leading up to the inquiry.


John James Greene: I am speaking of the terms of reference. No one was named. Yet members of parliament and Privy Councillors were called before that commission, as could have been any member of parliament or Privy Councillor. I see no difference between the two.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Agriculture has confused two things. One is the terms of reference in the order in council and the other is the charges made by the hon. member for Yukon and perhaps others which led up to the order in council. The hon. member for Yukon named names. He gave the dates, he gave the places and the persons involved. Some may have been in the House of Commons; others were outside the House of Commons. The Minister of Justice has yet to name anyone except that he has implicated a whole slate of Privy Councillors in the Conservative party. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture understands the logic of the situation. He is quite right. Any member of parliament could have been called before the Dorion commission. Any witness might have been called. He himself might have been called as a witness. But they were not called as unnamed accused.


George James McIlraith: Yes, they were.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the Minister of
Agriculture tell me of any precedent either in law or in parliament which allows charges to be made against people who are unnamed? What it is is an inquisition. That is what he wants. This is the punishment that the Minister of Justice and his party seek to impose because we have looked at the dirt and the skeletons in the closets of the Liberal party. This is the punishment. We have the threat of the Prime Minister and the threats made by other ministers.
To you as house leader, sir, I say this. Many of us entered this house in 1957 or 1958 but you are a senior member and have been here a long time. Although we differ in our politics we have learned to respect you. Personally I think you have made a lot better house leader than the former house leader. We have often admired your fairness. But today, sir, you asked me a question, the import of which you yourself do not accept in your own mind, namely, that Privy Councillors may be charged but not named. In view of the kind of lawyer you are and your prestige in the city I cannot believe that you

agree with that kind of justice. I am sorry to hit you that hard because I have always thought of you as a gentleman.


George James McIlraith: Do you know any more jokes?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the kind of remarks the hon. member for Bow River is making now are an indication that it might be a far better practice to direct his remarks to the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it does not relieve me of my responsibility to the Chair if I am forced to answer hon. members across the way. Therefore I am remiss if I do not address you on all occasions. Let me summarize, Mr. Speaker. In this situation the house should go into committee of the whole and ask the Minister of Justice who are involved, what files he has seen, what facts he has, what evidence he has, and what is behind all these smear tactics. When we have this information then the situation will be different. There will then be a fair inquiry, not an inquisition.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture-it is unfortunate he has slipped from the chamber-reminded me of someone who would take a pail of water and throw into it a handful of fine sand. All he did was to blur the picture. He was making use of red herrings and going off into the Rivard matter which has no connection with this particular case.
The minister and others should distinguish two matters in their minds. First of all, there is the one to which no exception is taken by the opposition and that is the inquiry which was put forward and referred to on March 4. Although I joined the Privy Council much later than others, I am still a Privy Councillor and by inference implicated-


Erik Nielsen: By the minister.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -at a press conference outside the house. It has been instructive that the minister has not had the moral courage and intestinal fortitude to stand up in the house and say what he said outside. I find it singularly touching to have all these complaints coming from the government side about smears and what have you when the hon. member has the privilege of standing up and denying all the accusations which he made outside this house.
March 11, 1966

Let us not talk about furniture scandals. That matter was dug up by an enterprising newspaper man. He first brought up the story and the two ministers in question could not rush quickly enough to make exculpatory or incriminating statements, depending on which way you look at it, to the press. But the press put out the story. Nothing was said about it by the opposition.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
The former Minister without Portfolio was chased out by his own administration. Mr. Dupuis was put out by his own side. The former member for Dollard was not mentioned by the hon. member for Yukon until that hon. member, then parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, identified himself in the house. Let us not have this nonsense about things being said outside the house. When we have had anything to say we have said it inside the house face to face. I should like to see the Minister of Justice stand up and accuse any one of these Privy Councillors, colleagues of mine in this house, if he has the guts to do it. That is what I want.
This business of being led on at a press conference does not excuse the minister. If he has made a statement he must stand by it. This is not a picayune thing. This is a wholly serious matter involving by inference morality and security. There was the allegation that it could be even more serious in some respects than the Profumo case. Well, I know some people like great headlines and anything which involves a radius of six inches from the navel is always more attractive to them. I agree entirely with the assertions of the hon. member for Greenwood on the matter of principle.
In order to make this perfectly clear, and taking account of those who would assert that there are no charges against the minister, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr):
That the general and unspecified charges of involvement in the so-called Munsinger case against an unspecified number of members of this house, all Privy Councillors, made by the Minister of Justice, at a press conference on the morning of Thursday, March 10, constitute an unwarranted and unsubstantiated attack on the character, integrity and privileges of the said members, and this house directs that the Minister of Justice must forthwith from his seat specify and substantiate his charges and in default thereof he will withdraw such charges and allegations, apologize to the said members and to this house, and resign from this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I know you are seeing this motion for the first time. Bearing

Administration of Justice in mind what Your Honour has said about other motions I would submit to you that this motion does in a number of respects-I trust in all respects-meet the requirements in that it prefers a charge against the minister and directs certain action. It is specific. It refers to one particular incident and not to a whole course of conduct. It is a substantive motion in so far as the terms of privilege are concerned. It is entirely within the terms of privilege and therefore it is not subject to standing order 41 in requiring notice to be given. I submit that on all counts this motion meets the requirements.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say that the hon. gentleman would perhaps agree with the Chair that if in 100 years of parliamentary history motions of this type have never been accepted before there is a prima facie case against the motion now proposed.
I cannot agree that this motion should be accepted, certainly not for the reasons the hon. member has mentioned. He himself says it is a substantive motion. I am in full agreement with that. It is a substantive motion and because of this, in the same way as the other motions made yesterday, I submit it might have been moved in other circumstances as a private member's motion. The motion requires notice and for this reason it cannot be accepted by the Chair.


George James McIlraith: We do not have copies of the motion. Is there a copy available?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sorry. It is a manuscript. It was sent to the Speaker only. I myself have no other copy. I apologize to the house but this has been the practice on many occasions.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members have noted, the Chair was seized of this motion at the last moment. I was not in the chair myself when it was moved originally and I took it for granted it had been read into the record. In any case, perhaps hon. members would allow me to read the motion at this time.
That the general and unspecified charges of involvement in the so-called Munsinger case against an unspecified number of members of this house, all Privy Councillors, made by the Minister of Justice, at a press conference on the morning of Thursday, March 10, constitute an unwarranted and unsubstantiated attack on the character, integrity and privileges of the said members, and this house directs that the Minister of Justice must forthwith from his seat specify and substantiate his charges and in default thereof he will withdraw such charges and allegations, apologize to the said members and to this house, and resign from this house.
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, when you ruled earlier today on various motions which had been presented Your Honour did not deal with the motion which I outlined and which I indicated my willingness to present, the general text of which appears at page 2520 of Hansard of last evening. I think it is common ground on all sides of the house that a motion might be presented to refer this whole matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and that this would be in order. It is, equally, common ground that this would probably not be a satisfactory course. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) has described it as futile. I think it was the Prime Minister who suggested it might lead to a donnybrook. In any event, I think it is common ground on all sides of the house that a reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections would not be satisfactory.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
But, sir, my submission to you is that if a reference to a standing committee of the house would be in order then inevitably so must a reference to the committee of the whole be in order, and it is such a motion that I want to place before the house now. The motion I propose to move-I regret it is only in my own handwriting-seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) is:
That the house do now resolve Itself into committee of the whole in order that hon. members may have an opportunity to examine the Minister of Justice so that he may advise the committee what evidence he has to substantiate the charges made inside and outside this chamber which have reflected upon members of Her Majesty's Privy Council.
Sir, before you put it to the house may I just add these additional comments. My submission to you is that if this matter of privilege can be referred to a standing committee then obviously it can be referred to the committee of the whole of this high court of parliament itself. I suggest to you, sir, that this is the technique whereby we can reach finality in this matter this day.
I personally am sick at heart at this spectacle in parliament which I believe is the most wonderful democratic institution in the world. I say it is time we returned to dignity, honour and the conduct of gentlemen. The Minister of Justice of this country has become the minister of injustice. He has degraded parliament and the Prime Minister has become an accomplice after the fact. My

motion will bring this whole sordid business to an end and bring it to an end this day, and the man who sits over there will stand up, speak up, or shut up.


George James McIlraith: On the matter of receiving this motion, Mr. Speaker, and on that only, may I point out that a motion has been presented by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), which has not been disposed of.


Richard Albert Bell: It has.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry; I was mistaken. I intended raising a narrow point and I reserve the right to raise a question as to the propriety of this motion after it is put.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you have given your ruling on the motion presented by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), even before reading it.
The house leader was probably not here then, but the motion was certainly dealt with exactly like the previous motions.


Mr. Speaker:: That is correct. The motion had been judged out of order. We now have before us the motion put forward by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell).

The house has before it a motion moved by the hon. member for Carleton which I will read as I understand hon. members, and in particular the Minister of Public Works, want to comment on it. It is moved by the hon. member for Carleton, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona:
That the house do now resolve itself Into committee of the whole in order that hon. members may have an opportunity to examine the Minister of Justice so that he may advise the committee what evidence he has to substantiate the charges made inside and outside this chamber which have reflected upon members of Her Majesty's Privy Council.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it must be obvious that this motion is a reference to the inquisition hon. members were speaking about a few minutes ago. It seems to me that what is being attempted here by hon. members, who were so anxious to protect the rights of hon. members, is to have the authority of a motion to conduct an inquisition on their part. If they propose any action against the Minister of Justice surely they must take the responsibility in the traditional way and make charges against him. When they make charges, then those charges can be investigated.
March 11, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: What about the minister's charges?


Thomas Miller Bell: Doesn't that apply to the minister?


George James McIlraith: Yes, that is my whole point. It does apply to the minister. The minister is alleged to have said certain things in a press conference yesterday-


An hon. Member:: Does he deny them?


George James McIlraith: -the text of which I do not have before me. Because they involved matters that raised grave concern in the house, and I think quite properly-I am on record as having said they are of grave concern to the house, the Prime Minister is on record as having described them in that way and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Hark-ness) is on record as having described them in that way-it seems obvious it is desirable that the matter be disposed of in an effective and quick way. And in view of that, it is well to consider this motion in perspective. The first suggestion was from the Prime Minister, that because of the gravity of the subject matter-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I thought the minister was rising to speak on whether or not the motion was in order. Would he address himself to that point?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the minister that at this point he should limit his remarks to the legality of the motion moved by the hon. member.


Michael Starr: It is pretty hard.


George James McIlraith: No, it is not hard.


Michael Starr: Then try again.


George James McIlraith: The difficulty here is that hon. members opposite, and they may well be within their rights, have not seen fit to make charges arising out of the conduct of the Minister of Justice.


Michael Starr: He has made the charges, not us.


George James McIlraith: And that being the case, they have no right to conduct these proceedings by way of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question?


Richard Albert Bell: Would the minister permit a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes, in just a moment. That is my point; unless they are prepared to make a charge they have no right to avail themselves of the procedure they are seeking to use at this moment.
DEBATES	2575
Administration of Justice


Michael Starr: The minister has made the charges.


George James McIlraith: If they wish to make
charges against the conduct of the minister outside the house, then they should make them.


Richard Albert Bell: Would the Minister of Public Works permit another question? Does the minister agree with his colleague that at this stage of our proceedings this whole matter might be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections? If it might, then wherein is there any difference of principle in it being referred this afternoon to the committee of the whole so that we can settle it and be done with the whole thing today?


George James McIlraith: I understand the hon. member's motion perfectly well. Referring the subject matter to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, while that may be technically possible, would be a futile exercise.


Richard Albert Bell: I agree.


George James McIlraith: Because it involves a security matter.


Richard Albert Bell: I agree.


George James McIlraith: And exactly the same arises where you deal with the matter in committee of the whole. It does not matter which committee. That is the point I wish to make in answer to the hon. member for Carleton. It is precisely the difficulty confronting the house in this case. It is the difficulty that has been running all through the discussion. That being so, the correct method in my view is a judicial inquiry into the whole matter where we can get to the facts as quickly as possible but regrettably not as quickly as hon. members opposite and I should think all members in the house would wish.
That is the only way that this matter can be cleared up. The motion now before the house is defective for the same reason as the other motion, and for the additional reason that it seeks to achieve, without any charge being laid, what cannot be achieved without the laying of a charge-as the judgment in the Pallett case shows.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the minister permit a question?


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Public Works acquaint himself with the background of the
2S7S

March 11, 1966
Administration of Justice question? He referred to alleged statements outside the house. Would he confirm with the Minister of Justice whether or not the minister is prepared to deny them? The minister referred to it as a security matter. Would he acquaint himself with the fact that security was not necessarily involved but a security risk? He had better get acquainted with the background.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I was a little confused by what the Minister of Public Works had to say about the necessity of charges being made so that the matter could be dealt with properly. Surely the minister should now realize there have been charges laid and that in fact this house has given formal recognition to that situation by agreeing that there is a question of privilege which has arisen out of the charges made by the minister.
If we follow the logic of the Minister of Public Works, any time a member makes charges another member must charge him with something before this house can deal with the matters. Surely the initial point has been made that the minister has levelled accusations against members of the house and the house has recognized that a question of privilege arises because of those statements by the minister. The problem the house now faces is what do we do with the question of privilege which has arisen? How do we deal with it?
In the interest of the members affected by the charges levelled by the minister it is essential that the matter be cleared up immediately. The Minister of Public Works has admitted that the procedure of an inquiry in fact adds to the difficulties in respect of, shall I say, the burden on the Privy Councillors who are maligned, because this shadow would remain over their heads.
The procedure suggested by the hon. member for Carleton, therefore, is the only one which this house can immediately recognize. It recognizes the right of the Minister of Justice who has made these accusations to stand up and say what he meant by them, to giye the information and delineate the accusations he is making against those persons whom he feels should be accused. It also gives all the accused, all the Privy Councillors, the right and the means of determining whether they are in fact suspected by the minister.
I submit that to refuse this suggestion would be for the house to say that it is right and just that the Privy Councillors shall have

this suspicion hanging over them. I submit that that in itself is a breach of the privileges of those members brought about by the whole house. I submit it is not within our rights as members of this house to ask other members to bear such accusations if the house is capable of clearing the air on this matter.
The method suggested is the only one suggested so far, Mr. Speaker, which takes care of all the complaints. Many members in the house from all parties have spoken on this matter and not every member has suggested that a motion to refer it to the Committee on Privileges and Elections would be in order. It is recognized that the committee of the whole house has all the powers, rights and privileges of any of its lesser committees. The right to refer the matter to the committee of the whole house must be even stronger than the right to refer it to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I would ask Your Honour to remember the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare this afternoon. I presume he was speaking for the government side of the house and therefore obviously the government has taken the position that the Committee on Privileges and Elections could be seized of this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of very interesting points which have been raised by hon. members who have taken part in this debate. I cannot agree with all of them. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, who has just resumed his seat, based part of his argument on the allegation that there is a question of privilege that has been recognized by the house. I do not agree with him on this point. What the Chair has said is that there is a prima facie case of privilege. Whether there is an actual case of a breach of privilege is not for the Chair to determine and is not determinable until the matter has been studied in a satisfactory way.
The usual way to do this is before the Committee on Privileges and Elections, as I said a moment ago when a previous motion was moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West. That has been the procedure followed for 100 years in our Canadian parliament and no argument has been submitted to me that this procedure should be departed from at this time. The hon. member says that the house has all the powers in the committee of the whole that the Committee on Privileges and Elections has, and that is a fact. For that matter the house itself has all the
March 11, 1966

powers of the committee of the whole, and what would be gained by moving from the house itself to the committee of the whole? I suggest nothing at all can be gained in this way. The motion as presented suggests that the committee of the whole consider this matter and that the way to do it is the way in which the hon. member for Carleton would want to do it. I should like to refer to citation 230 (1) of Beauchesne which says:
The ordinary function of a Committee of the Whole House is deliberation, not enauiry.
For this reason I suggest the committee of the whole house should not be asked to conduct an inquiry or take over the responsibility which normally is assigned to a standing committee of the House of Commons. With respect, I also suggest to the hon. member that the motion to the effect that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole is a substantive motion which requires notice.
Lastly, I point out to hon. members that the issue here is the alleged misconduct of the Minister of Justice and that because of this a specific and detailed charge must be made against the minister himself. It is sometimes a little difficult to reconcile the two aspects of the case. There is the aspect that the minister is alleged to have made accusations relating to Privy Councillors and this is the very thing for which the minister is being reproached. But actually the question of privilege is based on the alleged impropriety of the words used by the Minister of Justice and in that regard a specific charge has to be laid, according to the terms of the judgment of Mr. Speaker Michener which I read into the record this morning.
Perhaps I have used too many reasons, but if I am wrong on one or two I may be right on the other two or three. So for all these reasons and the legal argument I must deny the motion of the hon. member for Carleton.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question for information? It is not intended to be embarrassing. Did you draw to the attention of the house that the practice over 100 years has been the reference of matters of privilege to a select committee? In the course of your investigations have you found instances of privilege similar to the one we have been discussing during the past few days? It seems to me that this is somewhat different from other instances of privilege

Administration of Justice that have come to my attention as I have endeavoured to study the past history of this institution.


Mr, Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that questions of that type cannot be asked of the Chair and I do not think I should be called upon to reply.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, not being of a disputatious disposition or belligerent nature I will try to do my best to lower the temperature but do nothing to lessen the anxiety which I am sure we all feel about this very important matter. If I may say so, sir, in passing, I have great admiration for the good nature and good judgment you have displayed in these difficult times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It seems to me that we have some potential contradictions of interrelationships which obviously we are having difficulty resolving. In the first place, it seems that while we cannot desist from talking we cannot procedurally progress in any particular direction. This a very serious situation and we must as a parliament come to a decision as to how to deal with this very important matter. We cannot go on arguing forever, because damage is being done while we are arguing and while we are waiting.
I believe one fundamental has been nailed down today, and we must never lose sight of it, that questions of member privilege and members' privileges, individual and collective, are matters for this chamber. We do not even have to go to our rule book for that; we can go to the British North America Act upon which this very institution is based and founded. The immunities and privileges are ours to decide and in the final analysis a member of this house has a responsibility, as the old British expression suggests, only to his peers, and that does not mean only to the House of Lords in that connection.
If we are having difficulty in finding proper motions perhaps I may invite the minister to introduce, through his own comment to us, a solution to this problem. I agree with what you say about whether we should reach this decision as a house, as the committee of the whole or as another committee, but I would invite the minister to assist the whole house in this great problem.
One of the problems, as I see it, and I am only speaking for myself, is that we recognize that privilege is ours but for reasons of
March 11, 1986

Administration of Justice security and other reasons it may well be that this house should properly translate the question to another body. The body that has been mentioned is a commission of judicial inquiry. Before the house can do that it seems to me it must assure itself that none of those things which are precious to it for the preservation of its own privileges are in any way diminished. One of these comes to mind immediately, and it has been mentioned. We are reluctant to translate the area of scrutiny from ourselves to another judicial body until the privilege of some of our members is protected. I think this is the reason for the continual demand that names be named. What I believe we mean, in the proper sense, is that people be unnamed so that our members are protected before the arena of consideration has shifted from here to some other body.
The other aspect that impresses me is that we are also now faced with the suggestion that an act of the executive of the government, by order in council, empower a body to look into aspects of conduct and utterances which, as I have mentioned before, have reflection upon the house and some or all of its members. I should think that this chamber, before embarking upon such a step involving the relationship between the executive and legislative branches, which is the essence of our parliamentary system of government, would wish to know a great deal more about what are likely to be the terms of reference.
I would invite the person most able to help us in this regard, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) himself, to assist us in this very important matter. Certainly we have to move in some direction and I should like him to assure us that the members sitting in this house are not themselves involved in any of the allegations he is reported to have made in any part of this country. I should like him to let us know the manner in which he is or is not making use of security flies in such a course as he has embarked upon, which has brought all this to a head.
The issue relates, of course, to conduct or, most certainly, to the utterances of one of the ministers of the Crown, a member of a government which exists by virtue of the continuing confidence of this chamber, and their relationship to us is of the essence, even if some of the members of our body are not involved. I think it is extremely serious that, as governments change and long after they

have changed, security flies involving people no longer in office are being ransacked and discussed publicly.
I am not one of those who are fully prepared to condemn the Minister of Justice outright, although he has made great mistakes. If I may say so, I think he has suffered a great deal. Perhaps if his Prime Minister had backed him last Friday and backed him down this Friday we would not be in the situation we are now in.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, just a word or two or rather some questions I should like to ask the Prime Minister.
The Conservatives are now suggesting that the house should go into committee of the whole to study the matter and then refer the whole thing to the committee on privileges and elections, if need be.
Right now, if you happen to be walking anywhere in the corridors of the parliament buildings and to meet newspapermen or radio and television commentators, we are told that, according to confirmed reports, Miss Munsinger is very much alive and living in Munich.
Is the government exercising any control over the news which is reaching us today in parliament? Is Miss Munsinger alive? If newspapermen can state that telephone calls are being exchanged between Canada and Munich and that Miss Munsinger has allegedly revealed names at this time, is the government or the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) controlling such news now? And if it is true that Miss Munsinger is alive and ready to come here and say what she knows about the Munsinger case, I cannot see why the Conservatives are insisting so much today on the whole thing being referred to the committee of the whole or the committee on privileges and elections.
The government should take it upon itself to have her come to Canada and to set up, as proposed this morning by the Prime Minister, a judicial inquiry where everything would come to light, so that the members of the government, Conservatives, Liberals or Creditistes, and all the population might know what this is all about.
I would like the Prime Minister to answer this question. Is it true that Miss Munsinger is alive and living in Munich? Has the government been informed of the telephone calls made today between Canada and Europe to
March 11. 1966	COMMONS
get information? Is it true also, as I was told a while ago, before coming into the house, that Miss Munsinger would have left Canada after being threatened?
I would like more details. The deeper we go into this case, the darker it gets. I would like the Prime Minister to tell us if he knows anything, if he is convinced or has had the confirmation that Miss Munsinger is still alive and can comply with the requests which the Conservatives have been making so vigorously since yesterday afternoon.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) permit a question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Does he not realize that if the usual course is followed we can expect to have Miss Munsinger on "This Hour Has Seven Days" next Sunday?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister
might make a telephone call.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: He has already phoned.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister could go on "This Hour Has Seven Days" too.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He has been on.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He could go on again.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, last evening we heard the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) make a very moving appeal to the government in order to solve this particular situation and bring the facts to light. In so doing the only course open to the government is for the Minister of Justice to name names. In his appeal last night the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton placed his finger on one very important matter, that of the Minister of Justice speaking on behalf of the government.
Today very few of the Privy Councillors on the government benches have stood up in defence of the Minister of Justice. We had a very unacceptable defence from the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) similar to the defence he put up last week which eventually turned out to be unacceptable even to himself. The same will probably apply in this case and the chair will again be pulled from under the Minister of Justice. A defence was put up by the Minister of National Health and Welfare
DEBATES	2579
Administration of Justice (Mr. MacEachen). I was very sorry he saw fit to take part in the debate today. I thought he could better serve his country in Nova Scotia where he had promised to be.
We also heard the defence put up by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith). I would call your attention, sir, to the fact that he referred to the statements made in the press conference by the Minister of Justice, although he has not even taken it upon himself to acquire complete information from the Minister of Justice and find out whether the minister now wishes to deny the statements carried by the press. He also referred to it as a security matter. Here again he differs with the Minister of Justice who referred to it not as a security matter but possibly a security risk.
These defences which have been put up by the government have continued to weaken their case. We also heard a defence from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene). I might say that his remarks would allow me, if the precedent he set were followed, to go into the Banks and Doyle affairs and suggest that we could probably have an exchange of fugitives with the United States in which we would give them Doyle in exchange for Banks. I say this because the Minister of Agriculture in his wanderings dealt with many, many questions.
The Prime Minister in his defence referred to the character assassination of Privy Councillors and to the furniture deal. I placed the original question in respect of that matter on the order paper at the advice of the house authorities because I was told it was the type of question that could not be asked on the orders of the day. Following their advice the question was put on the order paper. The answer came in a very unusual way. We had the confessions of two ministers and later their resignations. The Prime Minister and members on that side of the house like to point the finger and talk about insinuations. There were no insinuations. There was a simple question on the order paper, and if these members were involved in any way it was because of their confessions and resignations. This backs up the fact that character assassination is not necessarily carried out on this side of the house but is carried out by hon. members opposite.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Maiapedia-Malane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) has no right to say in the house that admissions were made by the ministers who, at the time, answered the charges laid by a member of the Conservative party.
On the contrary, it will be seen, by referring to Hansard of that day, that I categorically denied there was anything improper in the transactions. In any case, when I handed my resignation to the Prime Minister, I pointed out that I was taking the same stand I had taken at the time, to the effect that there was nothing improper in those transactions and that they had nothing to do with my resignation and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his words, because there never was any admission and I am still convinced that the transaction was normal.


Malcolm MacInnis: I am
not going to dispute the words of the former-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have no intention of disputing the words of the former minister. I referred to the fact that all this took place after a question appeared on the order paper. The former minister has given his reasons and I accept them. But it does not stand up to the statement made by the Prime Minister this morning when he brought up the question of the furniture deal and referred to us on this side of the house as character assassins. It was not I or any member on this side of the house who ran to the press after that question appeared on the order paper and confessed to the fact that we were involved with bankrupt furniture companies. The minister did not resign for that reason, and I withdraw my statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to suggest to all hon. members who take part in this debate that they should try to limit their comments to the question of privilege which has been submitted to the Chair and is being considered at the moment.


Malcolm MacInnis: Having arrived in this house in the same way as all hon. members on that side of the chamber, through the procedure of a vote in my riding, I feel I am privileged to make statements in respect of furniture, in respect of Hal Banks, in respect of Doyle, in respect of Rivard,

Dorion and everybody else in the same way as the minister was given that privilege earlier today.
The former minister claims he did not resign because of the furniture deals. Why, then, did the Prime Minister bring that question up this morning? Why did he bring out this morning the suggestion that there were character assassins on this side of the house because of the furniture deals? Those were the Prime Minister's own words.
I referred to the defence put up last week by the Prime Minister in respect of the Minister of Justice, which defence was unacceptable to himself in the long run. The defence that has been put up today is a very weak one. There are many members of the Privy Council on the other side of the house and not all of them, because they recognize this situation for what it is, have stood up to defend the Minister of Justice. There is no justice in defending a minister who has made a blanket charge which refers to so many members of the house. I am not a lawyer and am not in a position to deal with what is justice in this country but the action of the Minister of Justice is, according to my understanding, a complete reversal of the principles of justice. It is my understanding that under our system of British justice you are innocent until proven guilty. But the position in which this government has placed former members of the Privy Council is this: You are all guilty until you come forward and prove yourselves innocent. This is exactly what the government is trying to do today in its feeble and unacceptable defence of a minister who should do what he intended to do last week and resign. I suggest that the next time the Prime Minister gets a letter from the Minister of Justice he should open it and take action on it.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak without provocation and without too much passion on this matter. I am not going to preface my remarks by saying I have a great regard for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin). I have had no regard for him since a speech he made in this house back in 1962.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I have lately re-read that speech twice. I will not bandy around such niceties at this time. It seems to me, sir, that we have had a great many lawyers participating in the motions and speeches before the house. I am
March 11, 1966

just an ordinary layman and backbencher. I once remember being told that arguments between lawyers were a layman's delight. I think this might be right. They are entertaining for a while. Whether that holds at all times I am not sure, and I am saying this in a kindly way to my friends who belong to that profession.
I should like to see some light cast on what is going on. Some of us want to know exactly what we are dealing with and what is going on. First of all, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we are confused by questions of privilege before the house and this has of course confused the whole debate. We have the matter of the Munsinger case and the direct charge the minister levelled that the former prime minister mishandled this case and participated in it. Those are two direct charges the minister made. Therefore I do not think there is any great problem in the house in resolving how to proceed on these charges.
We also have the allegations that the Minister of Justice is alleged to have made in a press conference. These have to do with an entirely different matter and no investigation of the Munsinger case can clear this matter up. The situation to which I refer is the alleged statements of the minister making a blanket allegation against the conduct of every Privy Councillor who served in the government of that day. This, I think, is conduct unbecoming to our Minister of Justice.
We have asked him and we are pressing that he use the opportunity given in the house to state his charges in a definitive manner so that those who are not involved in any way whatsoever will have the cloud that they carry removed from them. Surely a man of honour, if such he be, would want to do this at the first opportunity. Why he hides behind the eloquent words of his colleagues and the confusing statements of the Prime Minister and others in this matter is something I do not understand.
What is he charging these Privy Councillors with? First of all, he said, "Well, the lady is dead". We have reason to believe today, because of evidence that has been uncovered, that this statement is false. We shall have to see definitely whether it is or is not. However, if this statement is false the Minister of Justice, having made it public at a press conference, is derelict, neglectful and unfit for the job he holds.

Administration of Justice
Surely the Minister of Justice should know better than to make a statement at a press conference or any other place if he has not the facts to base it on. It would appear now that the statement that the lady was dead is false. That is one thing. As I read events, the Minister of Justice is unfit to continue in the position he holds.
What is his charge against the Privy Councillors? Is he charging that they were responsible for a security leak? Is the charge one to the effect that they were guilty of improper moral conduct? The minister has already said that this case is worse than the Profumo case. I point out that Profumo did not have to leave the British parliament because of his improper moral conduct outside the house. He had to leave parliament because he lied to parliament. Does the minister think that any former Privy Councillor lied to parliament? If he does, he has the responsibility to get up in the house now and say so.
I do not know much about procedure but I am going to say that the house cannot itself resolve this second matter. The first one I am forgetting about and it should not be confused with the second matter. In the first one the name of a man, the former Prime Minister, has been mentioned. The second matter involves every former Privy Councillor. A blanket allegation of that kind coming from the Minister of Justice is something that he and only he can satisfy this house on by getting up and stating who the former Privy Councillors were and on what he based that allegation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here for two days and I have heard many things. As a new member who has not participated in some of the battles of the past but as a member who perhaps vicariously is affected by some of the subject matter under discussion, I rise now to say a few words. The few words I will say will be said with somewhat of a heavy heart. I say them with a heavy heart because what is going on in this house illustrates the black hand of political assassination which hit parliament and still holds parliament in its grip. That hand is a hand of the past. Others fought elections in the past and all of us here have fought the past election. But this country wants this parliament to move ahead.
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice
I have not met the Minister of Justice personally but I have heard many high tributes about him previously. Why then, after the Prime Minister resolved the difficulty the house was in one week ago, did the Minister of Justice resurrect the coals and stir up innuendos and insinuations which obviously would be provocative? It must have been obvious that his logic when he did that and his good sense and reason went out the window.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
If this parliament illustrates anything and if this debate illustrates anything, they illustrate that the political passions of the past are polluting the problems of the present. I refer to political passions because obviously there must be some other passions which are affecting the present.
I have the highest regard for the Prime Minister as a person but I have been disappointed in him in this debate. I have been disappointed that he has come forward and has again tried to justify the untenable position of the Minister of Justice. As for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I disagree with some of the remarks of my colleague from Cape Breton South (Mr. Mac-Innis). I think the Minister was trying to exercise some reason and moderation. Nova Scotia is a land of moderation because there they have a lot of difficulties. The people of Nova Scotia move in moderate ways. I expected the minister to exercise some logic and moderation in this debate. However, in listening to his words with interest I was somewhat disappointed when he did not go one step farther in explaining the alternatives that this house could follow in order to get out of this morass of political name calling. He did not go that one step farther, and I would ask him as a newcomer why it would be wrong for the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister to stand up and name the two or the one who are affected in a vicarious way?
This whole matter is causing concern. Allegations have been made about the conduct of Privy Councillors and it is suggested that some of them come before a royal commission. Well, Mr. Speaker, there are some members of the Privy Council who will never be able to appear before a commission. That is what I am directing the attention of the house and of the Prime Minister to and that is why this matter has to be cleaned up.
In talking in homes, any homes, or in reading the local newspapers it is apparent

that this matter should be cleared up. Whether it is this minister or that, it should be cleared up. If there are men, they ought to be named.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is why I should like to know from the Minister of National Health and Welfare what would be wrong with that type of situation? As I say, what is happening in parliament is causing great concern across the country. There is sickness at the morass we are in. I should like the minister to answer that because there are many who perhaps can justify themselves who have left the government. We have a Lieutenant Governor in the land today who is a Privy Councillor. Also in defence we have another Lieutenant Governor who unfortunately will never be called before a judicial committee. And there are others who will never march before the judicial committee proposed by the Prime Minister.
This party has made it clear that it is in favour of a judicial committee. The debate which took place between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister clearly shows that we are in favour of a royal commission on security. But this personal passion, and battles of the past, pervert the thinking and logic of today and it cannot continue. I submit that hon. members opposite should use their basic common sense-and there are many hon. members opposite with basic common sense-and listen to the allegations. They should listen to the names of those involved, and then let us have an inquiry so that this matter can be cleaned up once and for all.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to my colleague from Digby-Annapolis-Kings. Is he aware that my objection to the presence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, (Mr. MacEachen) who has made an unquestionably poor attempt today to defend the Minister of Justice, (Mr. Cardin) is because of the promise of the minister, along with the minister of mines, to go to Nova Scotia to look after the welfare of 6,000 miners, a matter which he has sidestepped in order to attempt to defend a minister here.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I might point out that there are 20 million people whose welfare is now concerned in this debate and whose problems will remain unresolved because of it.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, that prompts a further question.
March 11, 1966	COMMONS
May I ask the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings whether he thinks the Minister of National Health and Welfare is able to do anything for 20 million people when he cannot do anything for 6,000.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak for a moment on a question of personal privilege. It is a fact that I, in company with the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Pepin) had intended to be in Halifax and Sydney today to undertake discussions with the provincial government and representatives of the coal industry on the union and management side. In view of the parliamentary situation and my responsibility as a member of the government, I decided to postpone the trip but not to cancel it. I called the Premier of Nova Scotia last night at 11.30, who understood the situation perfectly and agreed with me that we would have a meeting at a later date.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on the question of personal privilege which has been raised by the minister, am I to understand from his remarks that the minister was to meet with the interested parties today, including the provincial government in Nova Scotia, the U.M.W. and the Dominion Coal Company?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is so.


Malcolm MacInnis: In
reply to that question of privilege, I raise one myself. I spoke with the interested parties concerned yesterday, including the president of the U.M.W., who informed me by phone that he had not been invited to this particular conference in Halifax today, a matter which was confirmed by the provincial minister of mines for Nova Scotia. So now the minister has lied to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) knows that he cannot say that another hon. member has lied to the house; that is elementary. There are many rules which are being disregarded in this house today, and just as many rules were disregarded yesterday, but we must draw the line somewhere. I cannot, and hon. members would not want me to, allow an hon. member to say of another hon. member that he has lied to the house. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw.
DEBATES	2583
Administration of Justice


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I will quite unequivocally and willingly withdraw my remark that the minister lied to the house, but I would substitute the statement that he has certainly misled it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member cannot say of another hon. member that he has misled the house. He can say that the remarks made by the hon. member are perhaps incorrect. Well, perhaps I could correct myself. He cannot say that an hon. member has wilfully misled the house.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member did not say
that.


Mr. Speaker:: Very well, I will accept that.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because of the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who is quite concerned with this problem as are all hon. members from Nova Scotia, I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not forget the question I posed but will be able to answer it. Members of the backbenches spoke with him last night because they are somewhat disillusioned with parliament, and that might be the feeling of backbenchers on both sides.
I can understand that the Minister of Justice wanted to resign because some of the backbenchers in the house are fed up with parliament, but can he educate us by telling us what would be wrong in the minister or in the Prime Minister standing up in the house and naming one or two names?


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, after listening for a day and a half to the debate about Miss Munsinger, I notice that as the discussion wears on, more and more things are stirred up. It has been just found out that Miss Munsinger is alive and today we read in the papers that even the Attorneys General are beginning to stir things up in their respective provinces, adding a little spice.
Here, the more I hear the more I think that holding a full and complete inquiry into this case, as suggested, might contribute more to the security of the country than could have been expected at the beginning. And, in that connection, I am basing myself on an article published on Thursday, March 10, 1966, in a Montreal newspaper. It deals with remarks made by the Quebec Attorney General, or
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice Minister of Justice, Mr. Claude Wagner. The article reads as follows:
Will Wagner clear up fully the case of the "Polonaise"?
And here I wish to add that it is not Chopin's.
It is current knowledge-
-and I am quoting textually-
-in the capital-
Quebec City.
-that the last remark made by Mr. Claude Wagner about some federal members, particularly Mr. Erik Nielsen, "I-
-here Mr. Wagner is quoted in brackets:
-"I know what he has; but he does not know all I have-", I easily find his answer. It would seem that the words "all I have", coming from the Minister of Justice, mean that he undoubtedly has a complete list of all the people connected with organized crime in Canada, whose hold over the "belle province" is getting stronger, starting from the higher ups and going down to the lowest member of the gang. That list, which will be made public later, includes the names of influential people in judicial quarters and, in informed circles, it is said openly that some ministers will soon find themselves before the court, although it is not made clear whether they are members of the provincial or the federal cabinet.
More and more, there is talk also about the "Polonaise"-
Not Chopin's.
-who would be involved in fraudulent bankruptcies and arson cases.
And all I can tell you is that things have been stirred up.
Following that article and the comments by Mr. Wagner about that matter, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister or, if he is not here, to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin). Within the limits of the inquiry, within the terms of reference, which the government has in mind, will it be possible to get the documents of the Quebec Minister of Justice, and if all that is linked to the same racket, about which so much pressure was exerted from the official opposition, so that an inquiry would be set up about fraudulent bankruptcies, it might then be appropriate if there is a connection in all this, to get to the bottom of all this and clean up, once and for all, the case of fraudulent bankruptcies as well as the Munsinger affair. I should like to have a reply from the Minister of Justice on all this, that is whether he feels it would be appropriate to include everything Mr. Wagner has in his files, so as to bring to light the whole Munsinger affair and fraudulent bankruptcies if they are connected. I feel that the two matters should be included.
[Mr. Langlois (Megantic).J


Mr. Ovide Lailamme (Quebec-Monfmo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of rising in this discussion, but in view of the position taken by the opposition, it will necessarily keep on at least until six o'clock tonight. I want to endorse the words of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) to the effect that the work of the house is progressing very slowly. When he makes this remark, I think he should understand that, for the last three years, due precisely to lack of seriousness and insinuations which have been made and personal matters which have been raised in this house, particularly by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I have the feeling the Canadian people could stand one day's delay more or less to put an end to all these personal questions and return to the normal pursuance of the business of the house.
I also have the feeling that much more is being learned through the radio at this time and I respectfully submit, after all the speeches made by the members of the New Democratic Party, that the Munsinger affair would have been brought to light in any case, as is being done now by the press and that, at one time, we would have heard the members of the New Democratic Party and of the Conservative party accuse the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin).
Yet, those members spent 15 days discussing the Spencer case, that is the case of an alleged spy, simply because they would have received from someone a telegram saying he had been badly treated. For fifteen days, they sided with the Conservative party, just to examine that matter. But today they are opposed to the setting up of an inquiry proposed by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and offered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). That is the stand they take, while for 15 days they maintained that the Spencer case should be dealt with in a non-partisan manner and by means of a judicial inquiry.
Then, why not refer this one to an independent judicial inquiry, a commission made up of non-partisan people, in order to clear it up once and for all and so that we may return to the business of the house?
I hope also that this will be a lesson to the hon. member for Yukon and show him that a member is not here for the sole purpose of making insinuations while hiding behind parliamentary immunity.
March 11, 19G6	COMMONS
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
[English1


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Halifax):: As another new member of this house, and as a backbencher in the sense in which we still accept the word, I feel I must make one or two comments before I leave this chamber this afternoon. I share with my colleague from Digby-Annapolis-Kings the concern felt by all Nova Scotians and all Canadians about what is happening here in Ottawa today as well as what happened during the last three or four days.
I can no longer feel that high level of respect for this house that I felt when I came here less than two months ago. The events of the last few days are beyond understanding. We have done nothing except try to establish one single point. But the attempt has failed. The minister remains in his seat. I appeal to him for the sake of all that is human and all that is good: stand up and comply with the wishes of the majority of members in this House. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go home today carrying with me any responsibility for the shame which has been brought upon this house and the members in it.
I have had conversations today with people in Nova Scotia. They are concerned. The press is concerned. All news media are concerned. Even the children in grade seven of the school in the village from which I come are concerned. There was a debate among children in grade seven in a small classroom in Nova Scotia today. They are curious. Why are they curious? Why should some 20 members of the Privy Council be subjected to this continuing and apparently unending doubt which has been cast upon them? These are moral questions, all of them. These men undoubtedly came here with much the same purpose as I did, to try to serve those people who wanted representation in this house and who were prepared to support them and show their faith in them.
I cannot sit here silent, so great is the indignation which swells up in me, first, because we are not doing what I came here to do. But more important than that, I cannot accept the position in which these men have been left; it is repugnant to everything I have always cherished. I know no level of ethical or moral responsibility which would accept the silence of the other side of the house.
Let us end this shadow of accusation which surrounds these honourable men. Let them, and let the Canadian people go home this week end able to rest assured once and for all
23033-164J
DEBATES	2585
Administration of Justice about the facts of this affair. I believe we should sit here until the Minister of Justice rises to his feet. Nothing is more important than the principle which has been violated in the past few days. If we are not prepared to do it, the Prime Minister must accept the responsibility of demanding-


An hon. Member:: He has left the house.


J. Michael Forrestall: He usually does that. Part of his nature in the last few days has been to face his responsibilities from outside the house. He always goes behind the curtain.
I say we must go on with the work we were sent here to do. By all means, let us get on with the business of this house. Let us get some legislation before us, and act. But I am not prepared, now, nor will I be six months from today, to act on anything in this house until the aspersions which have been cast have been cleared up.
I am not going to move from this house until we have heard from the minister. I do not think any hon. member can move from this house until this matter has been cleared up. I do not know how they can do so while these charges are hanging over the heads of every member on both sides of the chamber. The principle of the minister going outside this house to make charges is one which I do not cherish. Surely, the minister himself cherishes a higher sense of his responsibility than that. Let him name names. Then let us get on with the job we were sent here to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Royal.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Everything seems to be at a standstill at the moment and it appears that the discussion will not advance further unless the names are given, at least according to what the two previous speakers have just said. Well, the names have now been revealed on the radio and in the newspapers. It is said-


Mr. Vincent:: Who gave them?


Gilles Grégoire: Miss Olga was found and she gave the names. That being the case, does the question of privilege still stand?
I English]


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, the Chair is of the opinion that if the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) has a point of order he should state it now.
2586	COMMONS
Administration of Justice [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Precisely, if I rise on a point of order, it is to ask whether there still is a question of privilege before the house. Names have been named. Those named are not here. Is there a question of privilege affecting persons who are not members of the House of Commons? The question of privilege does no longer stand.
Exact information has been asked for and given. Does the question of privilege still exist? I suggest we put an end to these discussions, and proceed to something else. To end all this, Standing Order 24 says:
A motion for reading the orders of the day shall have preference to any motion before the house.
There is no motion before the house. The orders of the day were not read today and I wish to move that the orders of the day be now read, so that we may carry on with the business of the house. We have heard enough of the same old thing, over and over again. Some action is now called for.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe-


Gilles Grégoire: I have a motion now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -on a spurious point of order has attempted to introduce a motion, and it should be ruled out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: I have a motion on the table.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is a smuggling procedure.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: An hon. member is not allowed to rise on a point of order and make a motion,-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my motion is on the table.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: -especially when the hon. member for Royal had been recognized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that the motion he has moved is a superseding motion, but as a superseding motion there must-


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please-but as a superseding motion it must supersede something which is already normally before the house. I must admit that at the moment there is no motion before the house. There is no motion which can be superseded by a further motion moved hv the hon. member for Lapointe, and therefore I declare his motion out of order.

DEBATES	March 11, 1966


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, since you did not ask for the opinion of the house before, may I respectfully submit that the speaker, last night, ruled that we were still on Bill S-10. It is at that stage that the discussion of the question of privilege was carried on. Since we are now considering Bill S-10, my motion is in order.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, you have recognized me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I should point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that the orders of the day have not been called. While it is quite true that at a certain point in our proceedings yesterday the house was discussing Bill S-10, the house has not reached that stage today. The hon. member for Royal.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: What are we debating?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Exactly the same thing, I would say to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), as was the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and everybody else who has taken part in this debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have not spoken in this debate. I only raised a point of order.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I did not say you
had.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I only raised a point of order, which I raise again, and that is if the hon. member's motion was out of order then there is nothing before the house. To what is the hon. member for Royal speaking?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: A question of privilege.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am speaking to the same question of privilege that the Prime Minister of Canada spoke to a little while ago, and to which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) has not the courage to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I know you know a great deal about other procedures in the house, but you are not going to interrupt me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Don't be too sure.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions I should like to ask and leave on the record. Perhaps they will be answered
March 11. 1966	COMMONS
when some of the members on the government front bench have the courage to speak in this debate. The first is to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau).
I am wondering whether the file, or the alleged file, on the Munsinger case was presented to him during his tenure of office as Minister of Justice and, if it was presented to him, what action did he take upon it?
The second question is to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell), a man for whom we all have a great deal of admiration and respect. I wonder whether the actual transfer of responsibility for the R.C.M.P., from the ministry of justice to the department of the Solicitor General, has taken place? I know it has not been done by legislation, but I wonder whether it has been done by administrative order. If so, has the Solicitor General seen the Munsinger file? If he has seen it, what action has he proposed?
Now, the interesting thing about this case, if there is any interest left after the vile words of the last couple of days, is the suspicion left that the minister's press conference of yesterday was part of a deliberate plan, of which the minister is chief protagonist. This suspicion is confirmed by the silence of the Minister of Justice. The suspicion is further confirmed by the insinuations, repeated many times by many hon. members, about the similarity of the Dorion inquiry to the matter before us now.
I did not happen to agree with the Minister of Justice in the way he managed, if that is the word, or behaved in connection with the Spencer case. However, I did agree that he exhibited a great deal of courage, personal courage, and loyalty to a party. If these are things to be boasted about, I think he is entitled to that credit for his courage in putting, as the papers have said, his Prime Minister and his party before his own personal inclinations. But this courage of Tuesday and Wednesday melted and slipped away on Thursday when he took part in his really quite extraordinary press interview, and so on. As a matter of fact, I do not suppose a minister has had the distinction lately in this country of being the reason for a new word creeping into the language.
In a book which a philosopher wrote about 20 or 30 years ago when other situations were facing this country, he posed the question, "When our children ask us 20 years from now what did you accomplish in those days
DEBATES	2587
Administration of Justice we shall perhaps be glad to answer, like the French revolutionists after the terror, 'I survived.' "
The thing that concerns me, and a great many other members, is the survival of this institution. This is what this privilege is about. Many of us who have been part of this institution for the last little while are almost inclined to despair. This is a place apparently where men can be destroyed. Not only can their future usefulness be destroyed, but those of us, the flotsam that are left after such attacks, can be destroyed in spirit, and I think this is bad for the country. I do not boast when I say this. I do not think it matters very much about me as an individual, but I think it matters a great deal about this place as an institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: -and this place is being fouled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, what I cannot get through my head is that there are some men here who are willing to conspire to do irreparable damage to this institution. They damage its usefulness and they damage themselves as they go about their business outside the house where they are brave men. But inside the house they have no courage. God knows, there are enough people who question this parliament and whether parliament is an institution which can survive. There are inquiries, there are columnists, and there are people dealing with this all over the world. Here we sit, locked in this unseemly mess. It does damage to this place, and yet the minister sits there without any courage to remove a smear which has been done to men of honour, two at least of whom are not even alive to answer the charge.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Some of us, in our way, have tried to study this by research, even by experiment, because that is what we are doing now with the new rules; we are experimenting. Here we have a mockery, a travesty of the experiment. However, we have tried in our simple way, perhaps, to make this place work so that people can regard it and respect it as an institution and so that children do not debate its usefulness.
March 11. 1966

Administration of Justice
Some of us care whether or not this is a place of excellence-a funny, old fashioned term, a funny, old fashioned thing-to say, excellence; but there are some of us here who seek it.


Mr. Herridge:: Good old Victorian term.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The hon. member might be permitted to slip in occasionally one of his dangerous philosophies related to a Victorian term. I use that term, whether it is Victorian or what it is. I emphatically deplore our record, and I say "our record", because we have all been smeared by this type of thing. We are all a little lesser people because of it. We all have to go home to our constituencies and try to explain away our strange week here. We have to tell people what we have been about.
What in God's name have we been about here this week? What have we been up to this week? We have been witnessing a conspiracy enjoyed by a frustrated minister who wishes to commit hara-kiri and is willing to take other people down with him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: This man has demeaned and soiled this place, but does not have the courage to stand up in this house, and make the charges he loves to make when the press sit around his office. He will not do it now because he knows there are procedures which he cannot bear to have brought into play against him. That is why he will not get up. This strange man likes to go about in other places and environments making smears and statements; that is what he likes to do and that is why it will be hard to explain in the years that follow what we have been doing in these days.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker stated emphatically that the Minister of Justice is not brave enough to rise and name names. Now, they are not giving any names themselves, but they insist that names be given. If no member is brave enough to name names in the house, some people outside the house have that courage.
In the Toronto Star of this afternoon-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of order. My question of order is that the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) has indicated his intention to read into the record

a story which has appeared in the Toronto Star, and perhaps in other press media in this country, stating facts which, unless they are read into the record of this place whereby immunity is gained, may constitute slander or libel against certain individuals. That is the first point.
Second, if the member for Villeneuve persists in reading into the record the story which he indicated it is his intention to read, from the Toronto Star, he must not only take the full consequences as a member for doing so but he must take the consequences that the minister has assumed in making these charges. I have seen the story, as have other hon. members. If he reads it, he is making precisely the charges, the minister made, but more specifically than he had the courage to do.
I therefore suggest to Your Honour that it is completely out of order for the hon. member to read into the record this Toronto Star story without adopting the views and opinions contained in the story, and taking the full consequences for his actions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) spends his time in the house reading press releases, press reports which may at times incriminate one or several persons.
Under the circumstances, I am not the one who wrote this item in the Toronto Star, but I am reading the report published today in that paper. I am not saying that the report is truthful but that someone outside the house has the courage to name names, that someone outside the house phoned to Munich this afternoon and talked to Miss Gerda Muns-inger.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member now is disclosing his purpose. He says he is going to read, from some article in the Toronto Star, the names of certain persons who allegedly are involved in some of these circumstances. There are some questions which immediately come to mind. What truth is there in the article? Are we assured of that by the hon. member? Is this a method of protecting the Minister of Justice who will not make the disclosure in the house? Is this a roundabout method of making further unsubstantiated charges? This all, sir, is a travesty of the
March 11. 136E	COMMONS
proceedings of our house, for the hon. member for Villeneuve to attempt this. I suggest that you rule out of order his attempt to read into the record what he now has disclosed to us he is about to read.


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order,
Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do, that a member has never been required in the house to state he endorsed a press report. In this connection, I challenge the members for Winnipeg South Centre and for Yukon (Messrs. Churchill and Nielsen) to say that they endorse categorically and unequivocally all the press reports which their leader and themselves have read in the house in the past two years. I challenge them now to endorse them, because they will not do so.
In the past, members have always read press reports to support their arguments; it has always been accepted and allowed. I do not see why, suddenly, the Conservative members object to this procedure.
It is claimed that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) has risen to defend the Minister of Justice. I shall reply that the Minister of Justice can take care of himself and needs no help.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the moment we are engaged in a debate on a question of privilege in respect of newspaper reports of statements that were made, in part outside this house to newspaper reports, by the Minister of Justice. It is, of course, obvious that the statements made by the Minister of Justice were blanket statements in that they covered several individuals. I suggest to Your Honour that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) now intends to take part in this debate by reading a further story that appeared in a newspaper. By doing so he is actively joining with the Minister of Justice in violating the privileges of the members of this house. The house has already decided there is a prima facie case of privilege. The hon. member, in attempting now to join in the action which has been found by this house to be improper, is flying directly in the face of the rules. The Chair has the right and duty to order him not to do so.
DEBATES	2589
Administration of Justice


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the story to which reference is made, but I assume it names some individuals. If it is allowed to be read into the record we shall have no means of knowing, unless the Minister of Justice summons his courage, whether these names are the ones the Minister of Justice had in his mind when he made his lamentable press report.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Colin Cameron: We shall merely be adding to the slander, if it is slander, and to the suspicion the minister aroused by making these statements without naming anyone. I suggest to Your Honour that you should prevent this from happening unless you have an undertaking from the Minister of Justice that he will immediately rise and tell the members of this house whether these are the names he had in mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has no knowledge of the contents of the article which the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) was about to read, but I point out to him that he would not be in order in reading statements of other people which appear in quotation marks which he would not make on his own responsibility in the house.
So far as reading newspaper articles is concerned, I should like to refer hon. members to citation 157 (3) (b) of Beauchesne's fourth edition which states:
It is out of order to read extracts in a debate if they: (b) reflect upon any proceedings or any determination of the House,-
Let me read further from citation 157 (5) which states:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the House and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the House.
May I go further, and read from paragraph (6) which states:
On the 17th March, 1933, a member quoting a newspaper in debate was ruled out of order by the Deputy Speaker who said: The rule is quite clear, that the quoting of a newspaper, an author or a book which reflects upon debate before the House, either directly or indirectly is entirely out of order, because members are here to give their own opinion and not to quote the opinion of others . . . Members may quote an article or a book stating facts, but a commentary on any proceeding or any

March 11. 1966
Administration of Justice discussion in the House, with the object of swinging an opinion to one side or the other, is out of order.'
The Chair, therefore, declares that the point of order raised by the hon. member is well founded.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the claims of the Conservatives a minute ago that I endorsed the statements contained in today's Toronto Star, this does not mean that I endorse them.
Every day in the house, we hear newpaper reports and comments read by hon. members who do not necessarily share the views expressed.
The same thing has happened several times to the hon. member for the Yukon. It did not mean that he endorsed them-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the hon. member is commenting now on the ruling which the Chair has made. He is criticizing that ruling, and I think he is out of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the least questioning your ruling. I am speaking of what is happening in the house, continuously and daily, according to the tradition of the house.
We have known for 25 years the orders Mr. Speaker has just read. Yet, do all members always abide by those rules?
We are never supposed to read in the house articles from the outside, but we use them every day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member for Villeneuve is still criticizing the decision of the Chair, and I think he should be restrained from carrying on in this manner.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple matter. The question is whether, in fact, Miss Gerda Munsinger was located in Munich, Germany, this afternoon. In Canada, we called her Olga, as the newspapermen did, and we wonder if it is true that she is actually alive. According to the Toronto Star-


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker; the hon. member is now referring to a woman by the name of Munsinger. The Minister of Justice told us she was dead, so this story must obviously be false. Are we to be subjected to these false stories being read into the record? The Minister of Justice told us that the woman he named during his press conference was dead. She has now been revived or resurrected by the hon. member for Villeneuve. Obviously the story he is relying on cannot be true because we have to accept the statement of the Minister of Justice, speaking as a minister of the Crown and presumably with the approval of his colleagues in cabinet. What kind of nonsense is this we are hearing about some woman who does not exist?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we want to know, and here I quote-

The Star says it has located the Munsinger-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the Star reports-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is not allowed to quote from newspaper articles, how come the question of privilege was raised on the basis of newspaper reports?
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), as well as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), did quote newspaper articles on a question of privilege.
March XI. 1966	COMMONS


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
recognize the very fine point which the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) has raised. I should point out to him, though, that when the initial reference was made to newspapers it was not a reference to a proceeding taking place in this house. I suggest to the hon. member for Lapointe that there is a distinct difference.


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Whose privilege?


Erik Nielsen: The privileges of all members of this house. Your Honour has made a ruling. It is beneath the dignity of the Chair to have hon. members argue the merits of that ruling once made. The ruling has been made and it behooves no hon. member to take issue with that ruling, which is precisely what the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is doing.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We accept the ruling you made a moment ago and the hon. member for Vil-leneuve will abide by it.
But you certainly have read, in Beau-chesne, citation 157, paragraph 5, which says:
(5) It is not in order to read articles in newspapers-
And so on-
-emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member-
We have the right to quote newspaper articles as long as it is not out of order. If you let the hon. member for Villeneuve read this article, you will find that it is not out of order. If it is against the rules, then the Conservatives can rise on a point of order.
It is permissible to read newspaper articles when it is according to the rules. To know if in this it is out of order, let them allow the member for Villeneuve to start reading his article. That is normal.
But they are afraid, Mr. Speaker, that is all.
There can be no harm in reading the article, it will not violate citation 157, paragraph 3, 5 and 6.
DEBATES	2591
Administration of Justice
But to find out, the hon. member for Villeneuve must first read the article, otherwise you will never know. That is what we want.
We respect your ruling. The hon. member for Villeneuve will comply with it. I have read what he wishes to read. It is going to hurt, but it is not out of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Press, and I quote in English:
The Star says it has located Gerda Munsinger, centre of a new sex-and-security debate in the Commons, alive and well in a Munich apartment.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Yukon on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: My point of order is this. Your Honour has ruled that unless the hon. member adopts as his own the opinions in the article which he intends to read-


David Réal Caouette: Oh, no.


Erik Nielsen: -he cannot read them into the record of this house. The rule is clear. The hon. member for Villeneuve knows what is in that press article, as I and many other members do because we were reading it in the lobbies. What is being attempted here is to read into the record statements which are now libellous but which will receive the cloak of immunity once they are read in this house.


David Réal Caouette: They are in the paper today.


Erik Nielsen: That is fine, and if they are in the paper today that paper must take the responsibility for them and the possibility of having libel suits brought against it for the publication. But we in this house should not lend ourselves to abetting the creation of what constitutes libel by having the hon. member for Villeneuve read into the record something which has appeared in the press.
If the hon. member for Villeneuve wishes to take the responsibility of adopting those views as his own, let him read them into the record. As far as I am concerned there is nothing I am afraid to have read into the record. The hon. member must accept that responsibility and adopt those views as his own. He is afraid to do that, just as the minister is.

March 11. 1966
Administration of Justice [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In your ruling a while ago, you did not mention that the hon. member for Villeneuve would have to accept the responsibility for the article. You mentioned citation 157, paragraph 3, subparagraph (b), and paragraphs 5 and 6. None of them stipulates that a member who reads a newspaper article assumes the responsibility for it.
Moreover, when members read to the house statements the press attributed to the Minister of Justice, not one of them took the responsibility for them.
Let the hon. member for Villeneuve read his newspaper article, which will be according to your instructions and rulings of a while ago. You did not mention at any time that the hon. member for Villeneuve had to accept the responsibility for it. I say, at this point, that in his usual fashion, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) distorts the Speaker's statements, and that is a serious matter when one's mind is that crooked.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the ruling that Your Honour made was that the hon. member would be out of order in reading this article.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: If I might remind Your Honour of what you said, it was that unless the hon. member adopted the views contained in the article as his own, he would be out of order in reading it. Your Honour said that if he wanted to read it he would have to do so on his own responsibility. I ask you, sir, to ask hon. members to stop arguing against the ruling you have already made. You have ruled that it would be out of order for the hon. member to read the article and I ask you to ask him to stop reading it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move that the house do now adjourn, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr).


An hon. Member:: Chicken.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Who is chicken around here? Let the minister get up and talk.


Michael Starr: There hasn't been a backbone on the front benches opposite for two days now.


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


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[Mr. Nielson.1


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order.


Michael Starr: The motion is not debatable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A point of order may be raised at any time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not debatable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order. The point of order is that there does not seem to be any proceeding before the house and the motion is therefore not in order.


Michael Starr: The minister has risen on a point of order, but that is not a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Michael Starr: There is no point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Are you annoyed, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It might be just as well if hon. members gave the Speaker the chance to make a ruling. He is going to make it anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yesterday during the proceedings of the house pretty much the same situation arose. The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) was making a speech and the floor was taken from him, legitimately of course, by a point of order. When a point of order is put to the house, no member has the right to move that the house adjourn until the hon. member who was making the speech at the time has the floor again. I therefore declare that the motion is out of order at this particular time. The hon. member for Villeneuve.


David Réal Caouette: I go on in English-

In a copyright story from Munich by staff writer-


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-
March 11, 1966

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; I repeat the rule to the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette). The rule is quite clear, that the quoting of a newspaper article, or the author of a book, which reflects upon debate before the house either directly or indirectly, is out of order. I am not familiar with the contents of the article which the hon. member for Villeneuve is attempting to read, but it appears to the Chair, that he is about to read from an article which reflects upon the house and in doing so, he would be out of order.
May I also say to him that in the first part of the ruling I made a few minutes ago I suggested to him that he would be out of order if he were to read from statements appearing in quotation marks containing comments which it would be out of order for him to make on his own. I had hoped the hon. member for Villeneuve would co-operate with the Chair in this regard.


David Réal Caouette: I am in no way reflecting upon this debate. I am not accepting anybody else's words. I simply want to question the government, or the Minister of Justice, as to what is true in this?
It seems to me that, at this time, there are Conservatives who have an interest in knowing the article, in approving or disapproving it.
When I hear the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) say that I must take the responsibility for what is written in the report, I might ask him when does he take the responsibility for what he says in this house.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I want to say with regard to my participation in any of the debates in this house, that in ratifying the views and comments which I have read from the press, and other sources, throughout the whole eight years or more that I have been here, I have done that on my own responsibility as a member.
I agree with your opinions with respect to any articles that may be read into the record. That is the point of order. If the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is prepared to take the responsibility for the article he wants to read, then I suggest to you, sir, and to all members who are responsible for the words they utter in this house, that he should go ahead and read the article.
Administration of Justice
As long as the hon. member takes responsibility, and adopts the views and opinions stated in the article as being his own, he may read it. He is obliged to take responsibility, and so is the Minister of Justice with respect to stories which appear in the Ottawa Citizen this afternoon. What has happened may well take those newspapers off the libel hook on which they may have been. It ill behooves this house to adopt procedure which would have that result.
Mr. Speaker, you have made a ruling. You have asked the hon. member for Villeneuve to desist. I suggest to you, sir, that he should be restrained from reading the article.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, it is not of course the business of the Chair to decide what effect the article referred to will have outside this house. The jurisdiction of the Chair is within the house itself. Again, I say to the hon. member for Villeneuve that if the article he intends to read in any way reflects upon the proceedings of this house, then he is out of order in reading the report.


Michael Starr: Quite right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I had hoped the hon. member for Villeneuve would help the Chair in this regard.


David Réal Caouette: I take full and complete responsibility for the question I put to the government. And I can take it outside the house, by asking the same question, that is: "What is true in this?" That is what we want to know, for the guidance of the Conservatives also; we want to know exactly what took place.
Taking the responsibility for the question I have put to the Minister of Justice, I have a right to quote this report.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Villeneuve is trying to do by the back door what he cannot do by the front door. Your ruling precludes his quoting from that article. If he wishes to state in the house the contents of the article we shall be pleased to have him do so on his own responsibility, by adopting the views of the writer of the article, which, as a responsible member of this house he must do.
I suggest to you, sir, that you have made your ruling. The hon. member for Villeneuve is persisting, and should not be allowed to do so.


Michael Starr: He should be named.
March 11. 1966

Administration of Justice [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon is taking devious ways to prevent the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) from reading a press report.
Let him quote the standing order stating that the hon. member for Villeneuve must assume responsibility for what he reads. Paragraph 1 of citation 157 of Beauchesne reads as follows:
The practice of reading extracts from newspapers to support an argument in debate has been followed in the British house since 1840, when Speaker Peel-
Whom he never knew.
-with the acquiescence of the house, allowed a member to proceed to read passages from a newspaper.
Let the member for Yukon tell us where in Beauchesne, May, Bourinot and all the others standing orders in English or in French-


Some hon. Members:: Pascal.


Gilles Grégoire: Pascal or any other, it is said he must assume responsibility for that. The only duty of the hon. member for Villeneuve is to see that he does not go against the ruling you made and to comply with the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 7 of Beauchesne, citation 157.
If you want the hon. member to comply with them, allow him to read this press report, and you will see. But the member for Yukon objects even before a line is read. You cannot judge whether it is in order or not, because he is afraid of the article being read. How true it is, Mr. Speaker. Since a few minutes ago, they all look cowed. Just look at them. They even want to adjourn-
1English1


Richard Albert Bell: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


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


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to you, may I point out the standing rules of the house?
ITranslation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I have the floor. Would you sit
down?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That's the boy. You fellows know how to do it. The same old gang.
IMr. Starr.]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is a little difficult for the Chair to listen to more than one member at the same time. At the moment the Chair proposes to listen to the hon. member for Saskatoon.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With all due deference, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the decision you have recently made, and refer the hon. member for Villeneuve and yourself to Provisional Standing Order 12, subsection (1):
Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case. No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, nor shall any such decision be subject to an appeal to the House.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that this article does not involve any member of this house.

The Star says-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


David Réal Caouette: September 1,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


David Réal Caouette: The minister says-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, order. The Chair is having some difficulty. I have advised the hon. member for Villeneuve that he is not to read an article which reflects upon the proceedings of the house. The proper citations have been given to the hon. member and to the house. If the hon. member reads the article and it does reflect upon the proceedings of the house, he is out of order.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Raymond Langlois: I rise on a point of order. Without reflecting in any way on your decision, Mr. Speaker, you might find this article does not reflect on this debate but contains a few statements of historical fact which might enlighten the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-
Some hon. Members : Sit down.


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members opposite need not shout "Sit down."
March 11. 1966


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Villeneuve has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order. I have here a citation which may assist Your Honour. At page 133 of Beauchesne Your Honour will find paragraph (8), which reads:
A member having made assertions in speeches out of doors, relative to other members, and having repeated them in the House: Decided, that the proper way of proceeding with a view to ulterior measures was for the newspaper containing the expressions in question to be read by the Clerk at the table and for the admission by the member in question that he used them to be taken in a formal manner.
I would suggest that, on the basis of the preceding paragraphs to that citation, the article in question, which is in the possession of the hon. member for Villeneuve and which has been seen by a good many of us-I might say that the specific article has been seen by myself-be placed in the hands of the Clerk at the table. In that manner we may decide whether or not the substance of the point of order which I raised in the first place is indeed valid.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I make this point of order in a spirit of good will and in an effort to pour oil on troubled waters.
In view of the fact that it is now known that Fraulein Gerda is alive in Munich and is prepared to testify-


Gordon Minto Churchill: How do you know that? What is your evidence?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and in view of the precedent established last week by the Prime Minister, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) undertake to telephone Fraulein Gerda and ask her whether she wants an inquiry, and whether she can give names and later come to Canada to testify? Would he permit the leaders of all opposition parties to listen in on the telephone extension?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on the point of order, sir.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is the minister going to reply?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to speak to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in which he ridiculed, quite properly, the ministry. The reason I want to speak now is that he mentioned a person who the Minister of Justice told us
Administration of Justice and informed the press and the public was dead. How can there be any rhyme or reason in discussing this situation when this person is dead? Does the hon. member know that she is alive, or is the minister going to tell us from his own knowledge that the woman is alive? Is somebody posing as a person who used to be here?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member a point of order?


Mr, Churchill:: My point of order is that the hon. member for Kootenay West raised a point of order, mentioned the name of some woman living in Germany and was asking questions of the ministry. We have been assured by the ministry that the person so named is dead. What sort of farce is being made of this place?


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Would the hon. gentleman cite the passage in Hansard where the Minister of Justice said this woman was dead?


Michael Starr: That appears in the press.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said in Hansard, because we cannot quote newspapers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I suggest that the information as to the death of the woman came from the Minister of Justice by way of one of his notorious press conferences. We have been asked, as has the public, to accept statements made at these press conferences. If the woman is now alive, then what the minister said at a press conference was false. Other things which he said at a press conference are possibly false also. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn. Let the Minister of Justice rise right now and tell us that he knows, on his own authority that this woman is alive, is living in Germany, and is the woman who was reported to have been in Canada. He is afraid to do this.
fTranslation]


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apparently Conservative members have the floor although I had caught your eye and you had recognized me.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) says the Minister of Justice stated that Miss Munsinger was dead, always according to press reports, but as late as Thursday last, the Minister of Justice said that according to his information, Miss Munsinger had died of leukemia four years ago. The Minister did not affirm that she was

March 11. 1966
Administration of Justice dead. He said that according to available information, she was supposed to have died four years ago.
Today, we learn that she is not dead. We learn from an article by Mr. Robert Reguly that Miss Munsinger is still alive-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, would you ask the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre to sit down and remain glued to it so that I can finish what I have to say?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve was raising a point of order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He had started to read a press report when I rose on my point of order. He was reading a press report to the effect that this woman is alive.


David Réal Caouette: I raised a point of order, as did the hon. member a moment ago, and I did not interfere with his right to do so. I ask the hon. member, therefore, not to interfere with my right.


Erik Nielsen: Then do not try and smuggle in the report.


David Réal Caouette: Oh, we know you.


Mr. Ricard:: We know you, too.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the point is to get the facts straight.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre claims the Minister of Justice stated that Miss Munsinger was dead. That is not exactly what he said. Apparently, he stated that according to information, she had died four years ago. So today, March 11, 1966, we discover she is very much alive and that she has spoken over the phone with Mr. Reguly of the Toronto Star and the story has it-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; a few moments ago the Chair was going to suggest that it return the floor to the hon. member for Villeneuve. Now, it is not so sure. I again ask the hon. member to refrain from quoting from this newspaper article and to proceed with his remarks.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton Soulh):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have an hon. member who gets up on a point of order and
[Mr. Caouette.J
raves away for 15 minutes without reaching it. My point of order is that reference has been made to a woman living in Germany who earlier was reported dead.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I have read the press reports, now, and I point out to you and to all hon. members of this house, that there is a dissimilarity in the names. The names are not even alike.


Raymond Langlois: On a point of order; this is the first time in this house I have seen the official opposition in such a pitiful state that they are afraid of the dead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am not making a statement, I am asking questions. The Conservatives do not understand anything about that. Have I the right to ask questions of the government and the Minister of Justice? I am not doing anything against citations 156, 157, 158 or 398 in Beauchesne. All I want is to ask questions, I am not making any statement myself. I take full responsibility for the questions I ask.
Is it true, for instance-I put the question to the Minister of Justice or to a former Minister of Justice, in case there is one who might wish to answer on the other side-that Miss Munsinger was very well acquainted with Hon. Pierre Sevigny, the former Associate Minister of National Defence, at Ottawa?
Now, the Munsinger case, as it was brought before the house-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think this is quite irrelevant to the proceedings now before the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I have the floor, then, if the hon. member is ruled out of order?


David Réal Caouette: I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that I have the right to ask questions.
So, is it true, as mentioned in statements we can read today, that another minister in the former Diefenbaker government knew "Miss Munsinger" perfectly well?
Now, is the Munsinger case, as mentioned in the article, a sexual affair or a matter of security in Canada?
March 11, 1966


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The minister does not know.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, if it is merely a case of sex, it is none of parliament's business. If, on the other hand, it is a security case, then it concerns the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a question of privilege. I heard the hon. member for Vil-leneuve say, or read out "another minister involved in the case". No name was given. Sir, this is a continuation of a campaign of innuendo and smear now being undertaken by the hon. member for Villeneuve. I wish to speak on this question of privilege. This is the type of thing to which we have been raising objections in the last two days. We have been raising questions of privilege because of accusations made against members of the Privy Council by the Minister of Justice at a press conference. Now, the hon. member for Villeneuve, who has told us he is accepting responsibility for statements he was reading from some newspaper article, is making accusations against members of the Privy Council without naming them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The words he used were "another minister". This is on all fours with the type of question of privilege we have been raising with regard to the Minister of Justice at his press conference. This situation has reached the stage where parliament is simply being degraded.


An hon. Member:: By whom?


Gordon Minto Churchill: By members like the hon. member for Villeneuve, the Minister of Justice and others who are casting slurs and putting members of the House of Commons under suspicion.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: They are working together.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My question of privilege affects me individually, it affects members of the House of Commons and certainly it affects all members of the Privy Council who served in an earlier government. This cannot be allowed to persist. This will bring about the destruction of parliament. That is what is happening. If members, whether on the government side or in any party in this house are to be permitted to make accusations like that without putting the name in front of the house-


An hon. Member:: That is what you wanted.
Administration of Justice


Gordon Minto Churchill: -without making a charge, we have reached the stage where we are living simply on rumour, innuendo, falsehood, smear and gossip, a stage where there is no confidence any more in this institution. This is a serious situation. That is why I am dealing with this particular question of privilege at this time.
It is an unfortunate turn of events that the hon. member for Villeneuve should join with members on the other side of the house, and particularly with the Minister of Justice, in attempting to disparage members of this house. The privileges of the house are of the greatest importance and members have always been greatly concerned when there has been any interference with, their privileges. We have heard today from many able speakers in the Conservative party about what is being done to this institution by this kind of procedure. We have heard from men who came here a few weeks ago, proud, as they should be, of the fact that they had been elected to this institution, and who then found that it had characteristics of which they were not aware. Indeed, until recently we who have been here much longer were not aware of those characteristics which downgrade this institution in the opinions of these members and of the public.
Now the hon. member for Villeneuve has added to our troubles by this accusation he has made on his own responsibility, without naming any person, but covering with a blanket of smear or innuendo the members of the Privy Council of the former administration. I feel this is something which cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. I am sure a number of my hon. friends will wish to speak on this question of privilege because we cannot, by our silence, appear to give consent to this type of attack which strikes at the very root of our system and which, if it is permitted to go on, will destroy this parliament.
Had I been speaking earlier on the other question of privilege which was before the house until a few minutes ago I would have dealt with the responsibility that rests on the Prime Minister. I did not have that opportunity. I have it now in connection with the matter raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve and I am taking advantage of it. I hope the Prime Minister of this country will intervene in an instance where members of this house are placed-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order.
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am speaking to a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is on a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: He is making a speech.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am on a question of personal privilege, and I raise this question of privilege because of the attack made on me, and made on members of the Privy Council of the former administration by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). That is why I am talking. I was going to say I wish that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), custodian as he is of the traditions of this institution, would intervene. When members like the hon. member for Villeneuve cast these slurring remarks about hon. members and infringe on their privileges, I wish the Prime Minister would come here and add his voice to mine in condemning that type of action.
I wish that the dean of the House of Commons, the respected Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), who has lived in this institution for 30 years or more-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -would raise his voice in condemnation of the action of the hon. member for Villeneuve. That is what I would like to see happen.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order-


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is why I am speaking on this matter of personal privilege, and I cannot be interrupted on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is already on a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is on a question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Not any more; that is what I want to point out to you.


Erik Nielsen: Are you the new Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: The hon. member for Villeneuve had the floor.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Winnipeg South Centre was given the floor on a question of privilege, and I hope that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) would allow him to continue.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Villeneuve had the floor earlier but he raised a matter which brought me to my feet on a point of personal privilege and I am entitled, as Your Honour knows, to speak on this matter of personal privilege. I was showing how his unfounded accusation, for which he must accept responsibility, and for which he certainly should be reprimanded, was derived from some press report or another, referring to a woman whom the Minister of Justice assured us, according to his information, had been dead for over four years.
Is this an impostor who has brought names and accusations into public print to serve somebody's purpose? I say immediately that this matter should be investigated by the Minister of Justice and the R.C.M.P. to see whether or not we are being imposed upon by someone posing as the person whom the minister told us died four years ago. On the basis of this statement, which seems to be the statement of an impostor, the hon. member for Villeneuve accepting that statement as his own, has made an accusation against hon. members of the house.
That, sir, is the type of privilege of which all members should take note. Otherwise, if this goes on, if some other hon. member later today makes some other statement of similar character, then it is a question of one accusation after the other, and it is an infringement of the rights and privileges of this house. It is a shocking state of affairs that we should have reached this stage. I accordingly move, Mr. Speaker, seconded-


Alexis Pierre Caron: You cannot. It is impossible.


Erik Nielsen: It is a question of privilege.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am making this motion, founded on my question of privilege, and I move, seconded by Mr. Winkler:
That the hon. member for Villeneuve be called upon to substantiate the charges made against a member of the Privy Council, or resign his seat.
March 11, 1966	COMMONS
While you are looking at my motion, sir, I point out I have had it framed, in this way in order that the hon. member for Villeneuve may be brought to account; that he may stand in his place and make his charges, clearly and distinctly, and prove his accusation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to raise a purely technical point of order. We have been purporting-I never quite understood how-to be debating one question of privilege all day. Now, if another purported question of privilege-and I do not know whether you can raise another one in the midst of debate on the first one-is raised, does this mean that the first question of privilege is now superseded, and we cannot return to the debate on it. Are we dealing only with the second question? It seems to me Your Honour should address yourself to this point before considering whether the motion itself is in order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question? Since the minister is wondering how we could raise a question of privilege during another question of privilege, would he turn around and ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) who raised one himself this afternoon?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is what he did. Touche.


Thomas Miller Bell: That trip to Vancouver was too much for the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish I was still there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; yesterday and again today on a couple of occasions it was the view of the Chair, particularly yesterday as expressed by Mr. Speaker, that a motion to adjourn could not be moved on a point of order.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Earlier today that same ruling was made by the Chair. Now, it would appear that if the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre could not have been a point of privilege, it might be considered as a question of order. But if that were so, then the Chair would have to rule this motion out of order as has been done in the two previous cases, and the Chair so rules.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, speaking to this point of privilege, it seems to me that what I had to say to the house this morning has now almost come to pass and most surely will. We
DEBATES	2599
Administration of Justice are seized again with another question of privilege created by a statement from another member of this house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Eric Alfred Winkler: I am on privilege, if you don't mind. I have been recognized, and I am speaking to the matter of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, is the hon. member for Grey-Bruce on this question of privilege or a new one just at the moment?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lapointe on a point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, you have not yet ruled on whether or not the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is a prima facie question. The Chair has not yet made a decision on that.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre did not raise a real prima facie question of privilege, since the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) mentioned an article in the Toronto Star and asked: Is it not true that according to the article in the Toronto Star this person, and that person are involved in the affair?
The member for Villeneuve did not make any charge but took a newspaper article published today and asked whether it was true, as reported in the article, that this person and that person were involved.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) had not really raised a question of privilege since the hon. member for Villeneuve only asked "whether it was true that...", with regard to a newspaper article. This often happens during the question period when the right hon. Prime Minister is asked "Is it not true, as reported in a newspaper article, that a minister made such and such a statement?" The usual question is: "Is it not true that a newspaper quotes a minister as having said such and such a thing?" In such a case the hon. member who
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice asks the question does not assume responsibility for the matter nor does he decide whether or not the newspaper statement is true.
All the hon. member for Villeneuve did, and Hansard will prove it, was to ask a question, namely "Is it not true" or "Is it true that such and such would know Miss Munsinger, as reported in the Toronto Star?"
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, no question of privilege can be raised and I would ask you for a ruling in this connection.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I listened with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Lapointe. I recognize that his point is well taken.
I do not think it is possible to rise on a question of privilege about another question of privilege, as stated a little earlier by the Deputy Speaker of the House (Mr. Batten).
There might have been a point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but I agree with the hon. member for Lapointe that there is no prima facie case of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It takes so long at times to make hon. members of the official opposition understand-


Mr. Speaker:: On the other hand, before the hon. member resumes his speech, I take it upon myself to give him a word of warning. He cannot do indirectly what he is not allowed to do directly. In other words, if he feels that he cannot make certain statements on his own, he cannot make them indirectly by reading a newspaper article because he knows that he then assumes that those statements are justified and takes responsibility for them personally. I wish to remind him of that and I am sure that he will keep that in mind while he continues his speech.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will heed your advice. I am not making or repeating any statement concerning anyone. I am just asking the government some questions. I have the right to ask questions and I take the responsibility of asking my question or questions.
A few moments ago, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) said: The hon. member should complete his charges.

I am not accusing anyone, I am asking questions. For the last two days, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and other hon. members have been asking the government to give names, more names.
Well, today we are getting names and I am asking questions to find out if it is true or not that such and such was implicated in the Munsinger case.
I said a while ago, Mr. Speaker, that if the Munsinger case is nothing but a private matter, an intrusion in people's privacy, it has nothing to do with the nation's parliament, with the federal parliament. If it is a matter of national security, then the whole Munsinger case must be brought out in the open, from A to Z.
Now, I asked the government: Is it not true that Miss Munsinger, or Mrs. Munsinger, had-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would remind the hon. member for Villeneuve of my recommendations of a while ago, and ask him not to forget the rather serious responsibility he is taking at the present time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of my responsibility in asking those questions. Anyway, we will see the answers to these questions, probably all over the Canadian press tonight or tomorrow. All I want to ask, without mentioning anyone, or pointing to anyone, is this:
Is it true Miss Munsinger attended a banquet of the Conservative Party, in Montreal, at which the Leader of the Opposition and most of the cabinet members were present?
Is it true, according to what we hear, that Miss Munsinger is willing to come to Canada as a witness, that she is still living, and living in Munich?
Is it true she is willing to come to Canada to say all she knows about the case which concerns her?
Is it true she has said:

-"if they keep pushing my name around in Canada" but if so wanted protection, expressing fears for her life from a Montreal businessman-racketeer.

Is it true that Miss Munsinger said that?
Is it true that this is why the government offers the Conservatives the immediate creation of a judicial inquiry to discover the short and long of this Munsinger story, because we still hear about it, day after day.
March 11, 1986	COMMONS
We have now lost two days discussing this case and, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that if the security of the state is, or was, in danger, with this Munsinger affair, we have said all that can be said about the matter in this house, and I suggest that a judicial inquiry should be established.
If this matter concerns only personalities, I do not see what the interest in the private lives of people may have to do with this case, in this house, because a man's private life belongs to him, not to the Canadian Parliament.
I want to be very clear. What we seek here is not to accuse anybody, but rather to get the truth, to know where we are going.
If the Conservatives are so sincere and so eager to get names, why do they object to a judicial inquiry? Why do they not agree to what the Prime Minister of Canada has been suggesting since yesterday? Why do they not want to co-operate, so that we can go back to the orders of the day and get to work-
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Villeneuve has asked a question I wonder whether he would allow me to answer it for him. He just asked why we did not want an inquiry at this time. Does he wish to have an answer?


Alexis Pierre Caron: No, not now.


David Réal Caouette: Not just now, in a minute.


Michael Starr: Well, do not ask questions then.


David Réal Caouette: You take note of all my questions and then you can answer. You will have plenty to answer.
fTransIation]
On the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker.
We have been discussing this case since yesterday. Why are the Conservatives turning down the offer of the Prime Minister which seems to me quite reasonable, coming from him? The Prime Minister granted them what they were asking for in the Spencer case and now the Conservatives are not interested in granting the same privilege to the Prime Minister, that is, to set up a judicial inquiry in the Munsinger case.
Mr. Speaker, all the time we are discussing any matter or matters which might reflect on someone's reputation or might have something to do with a person and the security of the state, 20 million Canadians are watching
DEBATES	2601
Administration of Justice the members of parliament and witnessing the spectacle that has been going on in the House of Commons for the past two days, when we should be dealing with legislation, while allowing the setting up of a judicial inquiry which would settle the Munsinger case and enable us to clear up the matter
Why are the Conservatives not more concerned about the legislation which we should be passing in the house in order to help the Canadian people?
There are poor and destitute people in Canada. There are legislative measures to fight against poverty in Canada, but we forget those who are hankering after justice while we linger over the discussion of a case that goes back four or five years.
The Conservatives refuse the judicial inquiry suggested or advocated by the Prime Minister of Canada. I said this morning, and I say again this afternoon, that we support the suggestion to set up this judicial inquiry in order to settle the Munsinger case once and for all.
Afterwards, if some people made any blunders, whether it be the Minister of Justice or anyone else, we could always refer the matter to the committee on privileges and elections and discuss the matter or the findings of the inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of saying any more today. However, I will say that it is a shame to keep every one here in parliament, to discuss a matter that should have been settled yesterday by adopting the suggestion made by the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Justice is told: Name people, lay your charges, name people.
The Prime Minister says: A judicial inquiry will provide all the names. It is no longer wanted. When truth is offered, it is refused. Someone must stick his neck out.
It is said: The Minister of Justice has exposed all the former ministers of the Diefenbaker government.
Mr. Speaker, things are not seen in this light outside parliament. To save a few small specimens of their breed, the Conservatives call on any prejudice. And at this time, every prejudice is good, according to them.
Mr. Speaker, let us stop all these insinuations and, as I said this morning, we have heard plenty of them in the last four years.
In fact, what is to be said about the insinuations made against the former Secretary of State, the former Justice Minister and the former Postmaster General?
March 11. 1966

Administration of Justice
It does not mean that I am in agreement with everything these people have done, but much has been made of these rumours and insinuations were spread throughout Canada, indicating that we had five or six French Canadians who were bandits and racketeers in Canada. The Conservatives did this, Mr. Speaker.
Let us stop wasting time around the Munsinger affair, and let us accept the Prime Minister's suggestion that a judicial inquiry be instituted to throw light on the question so that we, the legislators, can go ahead and start working for the benefit of 20 million Canadian citizens who are expecting results from our legislation.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to reply to the questions asked by his new found friend?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Gordon Minto Churchill: His friend wanted answers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the house has been at an impasse now for two days and it is apparent that we are getting nowhere. It seems to me we have to find some way of resolving this matter, and resolving it as quickly as possible, so that the business of the house may continue in a normal way on Monday. There is no value at this time in placing the blame on one side or the other for these two days which we have wasted. I think the question now is, can we find some answer to the problem.
The hon. member for Villeneuve has said the answer lies in accepting the Prime Minister's offer of a judicial inquiry. I want to say that as far as we are concerned we have already indicated our willingness to have a judicial inquiry, providing the terms of reference are clear and specific. This was not true of the motion which was moved yesterday by the hon. member for Lapointe, which was used as the basis for the Prime Minister's offer.
I want to make it clear that merely referring the Munsinger case to a judicial inquiry, placing the onus on all the parties involved to prove their innocence, is wrong.


Erik Nielsen: That is the principle.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The reason this inquiry is being precipitated is that the Minister of

Justice made certain charges outside the house. If there is going to be a proper inquiry, those charges must be contained in the terms of reference and the onus must be on the Minister of Justice to prove those charges, not on the other parties involved to prove their innocence.


Erik Nielsen: That is right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, our objection has been that there has been no specific reference to the minister's charges. He has never made those charges in the House. I was somewhat concerned when a few minutes ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) asked the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) whether he could quote from Hansard to show that the Minister of Justice had ever said that Olga Munsinger was dead. Of course, the statement about Olga Munsinger being dead was made by the Minister of Justice outside the house.


George James McIlraith: He never said it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me that the investigation is going to confine itself largely to the charges the minister has made in the house, and the only charge he has made in the house is that the Leader of the Opposition did not handle this security case properly.


Erik Nielsen: He said he participated in the Munsinger case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read yesterday's Hansard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask a factual question? Has the hon. gentleman read yesterday's Hansard and the answer of the Minister of Justice which occasioned all this debate. I think he will find that he has circumscribed his point more than he intended to.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am saying that the important thing in the terms of reference is whether or not there will be specific charges made by the minister, either by taking a transcript of his interview with the press and attaching it to the terms of reference contained in the order in council, or by having the minister rise in this house and repeat the statements he made at the press conference.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: Precisely.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not know who is speaking for the government at the moment, it may be the house leader, but I ask whether they will undertake, so that we can get on
March 11. 1966	COMMONS
with the business of the house, to have the terms of reference of this judicial inquiry ready by Monday. Could we see copies of the order in council and the terms of reference at that time? If there could be general agreement as to those terms of reference, this matter could be dropped and we could go on with other business. I fear that if we do not resolve this matter over the week end it could result in a protracted and endless debate throughout the whole of next week.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may clarify one point arising out of the hon. member's remarks. I thought the Prime Minister made this very clear last night, in a house with a very thin attendance, when the question arose shortly after seven o'clock that what was to be included in the terms of reference of the judicial inquiry in addition to the other things that have been mentioned-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Give us the page reference.


George James McIlraith: It is spelled out at page 2532 of Hansard. To be included in those terms of reference was all the remarks made by the Minister of Justice during the entire press conference, and the press conference is identified. When the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party was speaking earlier today I interrupted him because I sensed that he did not get the significance of what was said yesterday. I tried to clarify it for him in the form of a question. I thought I had done that.
I want to make it very clear that this has been the position since last night when this proposition was accepted by the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Calgary North was concerned with the need for speed in getting the matter forward, and he went on, after raising a question about timing, because he was concerned about any possible delay he said this:
I think perhaps this might he the best way to deal with this matter-
Then, he went on to say that he wanted to be assured about the speed in setting up the commission. He immediately received that assurance from the Prime Minister. As to the undertaking with regard to the necessary order in council, the order in council could be ready very soon. There is one point that troubles me a little in this connection, and that is the naming of the judge or judges concerned and obtaining the necessary consent. There is usually a requirement that the
DEBATES	2603
Administration of Justice judge receive the consent or permission of the Chief Justice to act. That kind of arrangement usually applies.
I think the Prime Minister's statement as it appears in Hansard is very, very clear about the willingness of the government.


Mr. Korchinski:: But not his statement of this morning.


George James McIlraith: I think the willingness of the government to proceed in this way and immediately is very clear. I believe the Prime Minister made plain in the house yesterday and today how he regarded this matter, the need for dealing with it quickly and why there was that need. I dealt with this matter yesterday; and I was very specific on that point. I hope I have clarified the points that were concerning the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam. If I have not, I will do my best to clarify them further.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of clarifying anything. I was fully aware of the discussion which had taken place. The point I wanted to make was that the press conference held by the minister is not a matter of official record. As my colleague for Greenwood pointed out, when a judge sits down to look at the terms of reference, he wants to deal with the record.
It seems to me that there ought to be in the order in council the specific things which the minister charged, first of all saying that there was a security risk, saying that two or more Privy Councillors were involved, saying that-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, so that I may understand the hon. member better, because I am a little confused at this point, if the whole press release is before the judge, how can that situation be improved upon by picking out excerpts from it?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is not a press release.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: To the best of my knowledge, there was no press release.


George James McIlraith: The press conference.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Which was spread over an entire hour.


George James McIlraith: There is a transcript of the whole thing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If there is a complete transcript which can be included, and if the onus as set out in the order in council is placed on the minister to substantiate before the judicial inquiry the statements he made at that press conference, we would be satisfied with the terms of that order in council.
2604	COMMONS DEBATES	March 11. 1966
Administration oj Justice


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to clarify that point. I wanted to make it quite clear that the Prime Minister stated what the consequences would be if the things that were said in the press conference were not substantiated. That was made clear earlier today.


Malcolm MacInnis: Let the
minister get up and deny them.


George James McIlraith: The position taken by the Prime Minister today was very, very clear on that point.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about names?


George James McIlraith: The hon. member says, "What about names?" The hon. member knows perfectly well that the correct way to deal with this matter is not to give names. He certainly should not try to go on with this bluff, which he has been pulling all day,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: -trying to prevent the proper resolution of this very grave matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the minister prepared to name me?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Come on.


George James McIlraith: I will not be sucked into that trap. That is bluff of the poorest sort by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


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


William Arnold Peters: Five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. member that, much as I personally would like to move into private members' business, this cannot be done because we are still on the item of business that has precedence. If we returned to anything, it would not be private members' business; it would be government business. The hon. member for Red Deer.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a question for the house leader.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The house leader has resumed his seat and the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Red Deer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, could we have unanimous consent to call it five o'clock? Surely, we have had enough.
[Mr. Douglas.)


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there is unanimous consent we could, of course, call it five o'clock. If there is unanimous agreement we could go on with private members' business at five o'clock. But it can only be done on that basis because, normally, if we suspended consideration of the question of privilege now before the house we would go on to government business. We would call routine proceedings.


Erik Nielsen: As long as it does not prejudice the matter of privilege before the house, we would agree. The first matter of business, of course, on Monday would be the question of privilege before the house. Is this agreed?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Of course; I am sure there is no difficulty about this. While I am on my feet I wish to make a further appeal to hon. members to consider the rulings that were made by the Chair yesterday and today. These rulings indicate to hon. members who have taken part in this debate how the matter can be resolved in the house from a strict procedural standpoint and in accordance with the rules. I had hoped that hon. members would see the situation in the light of the ruling that had been made by the Chair. I hoped that by six o'clock today some way might have been found to resolve the difficulty in which we are at the present time. Obviously, this will not come to pass this afternoon. However, I invite hon. members to give consideration to the rulings I have made, and to the suggestions I have made, as to what should be done by hon. members if they want to present a motion that will be acceptable to the Chair and that will be satisfactory according to precedent. If this were to be done at some time we might resolve the difficulty in which we are.
By agreement we have called it five o'clock?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that on Monday the first item before this house will be the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot assure the hon. member what will be the first item of business on Monday.


Erik Nielsen: Then I cannot go along with it.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no agreement.
March 11, 1966


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong the debate at this time if it is the consensus that we should adjourn. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be tragic if we should cut off the debate at this time and come back again on Monday to start at the same point we are now.


An hon. Member:: Maybe not.


Robert Norman Thompson: We have not accomplished very much in these two days, except to lower further the image this house should enjoy, and to bring disrepute upon all of us who are part of it.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in support of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) that some basis for negotiation or for agreement might be reached that might continue over the week end. Then, when we return on Monday we will have an alternative to what we have before us at the present time. There must be some answer to the problem which would avoid having to come back and continue with the same question of privilege. Unless something is done, we might continue in the same direction we are now going for another week.
I urge, in the name of reason and common sense, that all those here this afternoon realize that what is now happening is just further dividing us, and keeping us from the work that we should be doing. It is increasing further the differences of opinion and the bitterness which has developed out of this debate.
It seems to me that what we have seen happening here these last two days has provided a sorry spectacle, the consequences of which will be tragic if there is not a complete change of direction.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Who started it?


Robert Norman Thompson: In recent years, this parliament has been dominated by some men who have used it as their private toy, as an arena for private vendettas. We have seen men fearful of the truth hiding behind bluster and innuendo. We have seen men playing to the gallery for publicity. We have seen the even more sinister fact of alliances growing up based on differences of race and language, as well as those on party lines.
It is difficult to say where the bulk of the blame should be placed; whether on the lack of leadership of the government, or the obstructionist tactics of the official opposition.
Administration of Justice Allocating the blame is not our desire at this time.


Mr.   Kindi@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish the hon. member for Red Deer would name the people who are causing the roadblocks that he mentioned just now.


Robert Norman Thompson: The allocating of blame is not the major concern at this moment.


Mr.   Kindi@: You said the official opposition. I say, withdraw that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: It does not have to be withdrawn, Mr. Speaker, because the record of Hansard and the press for the last couple of years is evidence of all this.
How long do we think we can continue to wrangle in this house while the direction of the country shifts? If we do not give leadership and administration, someone else will. It is only by dint of good provincial governments providing leadership in their own areas that we have been allowed to bicker away the years that we already have.
Look at the situation we have here. We have banks trying to operate under an act that is technically no longer in force-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes it is.


Robert Norman Thompson: -and is due for drastic revision. We have put off and put off this revision, and we are about to put it off again. Why has this happened, Mr. Speaker? It has happened because of what goes on in this house.
We have farmers trying to survive under agricultural legislation that is so far behind the times it is laughable. We have educational institutions trying to compete in an age of advanced technology, supported by an uncertain and haphazard grant structure.
We embark on unwieldy state welfare procedures, such as the ill conceived Canada Pension Plan foisted on us without any real study of priorities and needs.


Miss LaMarsh:: You had better check that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that the hon. member is not applying himself to the question of privilege that is before the house at this time. I appreciate the fact that hon. members who have taken part in the debate have not always limited themselves to the subject at hand. However, the hon. member's remarks seem to be quite some distance from the question of privilege, and I ask him to return to the consideration of that.
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I respect your advice, and I compliment you on the way you have handled yourself and this house during the last several trying days. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that a lot has been said by people in these last couple of days which has not been relevant to the question before the house. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, not one member of our party has spoken. This is the first time I have spoken. Beyond that, what I am saying is directly relevant to the particular situation in which we are now.
If we do not solve the problem which faces us at this time, when we come back on Monday we shall go on in exactly the same way as we have today. What I hope to say is very much part of the argument that, I think, relates directly to the question that you have before you, and that all of us are endeavouring to consider.
We have talked about the question of the free vote on capital punishment, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime we have a mounting list of convicted murderers with commuted death penalties and no clear policy about that, so far as this house is concerned. We have a growing crime rate and increasing evidence of international crime syndicates, as well as subversive groups strengthening their position in the country.
We have small businessmen forced out of business by discriminatory taxation policies that have grown up with no clear direction. Why has this happened, Mr. Speaker? Because we have spent the last four years calling each other names, and because we have had filibusters.


An hon. Member:: That is an election
speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; the hon.
member for Red Deer said a moment ago that what he has to say relates to the situation of the house. We should not discuss the situation of the house at the present time. We should discuss the matter before the house, which is the question of privilege.


Robert Norman Thompson: I am only following something which I thought Mr. Speaker said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) seeks permission to ask a question of the hon. member for Red Deer.


Mr. Kindt:: I wonder if the hon. member for Red Deer would let the house know who shot the cow and the pigs?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Who had the gun?


Robert Norman Thompson: That kind of question, Mr. Speaker, indicates the type of man asking it. If he wants to know he might ask the R.C.M.P.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are actually filibustering the business before the house instead of proceeding with some of the matters about which we have been talking. Our collective responsibility to 20 million people demands that we do something else. All I have tried to say is that the discussion before us should be terminated. It was brought on by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). We shared the concern he expressed in his original presentation because we know him and respect him. We can understand the position in which he was placed as a result of the remarks which were made at the press conference and carried in the press. I sympathize with him, but I know he is a reasonable gentleman. He knows that some agreement must be arrived at.
When the Prime Minister suggested there should be a judicial inquiry with certain provisions, the hon. member said it seemed to be the only way to resolve the question. So, in principle, he agreed to it, provided certain items were included in the terms of reference.
Therefore, it seems to me that before we leave here tonight there should be some basis for negotiation over the week end to resolve this matter. As the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) said, it would seem that the only basis on which to arrive at agreement is to accept the suggestion of the Prime Minister that a judicial inquiry be set up. The hon. member for Calgary North specified the need for urgent action. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said there must be satisfactory terms of reference. We agree with this, and I think it is the only logical answer. I can see no other answer.
Certainly an answer will not be found by coming back here on Monday and wrangling all day. My suggestion would be this; Could not the hon. member for Calgary North and, if he wishes, somebody else as well, meet with the Prime Minister with a view to coming together and working out terms of reference satisfactory to both sides? This would enable the government, through an
March 11, 1966

order in council, to bring about this inquiry. This would seem to be the only possible way of doing it.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Robert Norman Thompson: You may ask questions afterwards. We have listened to the hon. gentleman talking hour after hour for the last two days, and my remarks are short and to the point.
I plead with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General, who is directly involved by virtue of his responsibilities, and with the hon. member for Calgary North and others on the Conservative benches who are Privy Councillors and directly involved in the implications and innuendos now before the house, to consider this suggestion.
I cannot help but recall the remarks made last night by the Minister of Forestry in the previous government, who was speaking right from his heart on the matter before us. Can we not somehow come together and agree on terms of reference in order that the inquiry can go forward and dispose of this question? If we do not, the only other way to dispose of the matter is to forget about it and go on with our work. However, it seems that is asking too much in view of what has appeared in the press and been put on the record during today and yesterday.
My only reason for bringing this suggestion to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is to emphasize that nothing constructive will be gained if we continue on Monday as we have today. The only way we can resolve the matter now is to agree on a certain course. Surely, as men we can find some area of agreement so that we can move forward and let the matter be taken care of, in a satisfactory way. Actually, I do not think any way would be entirely satisfactory because the matter is too dirty and messy, but let us at least resolve the problem so that we can turn to other matters before us.
I plead with you, Mr. Speaker, to use your influence in this regard. You have let the debate go on and on and on today. At times I have wondered whether there is any basis for our carrying on in this way. I also plead with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and members of the official opposition to get together and work out a basis on which we can move forward.
2607
Administration of Justice


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question before he resumes his seat. Would he inform the members of the house how parliament can set up an inquiry based on unsupported allegations about unnamed people mentioned in an unseen report?


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to be an authority as far as the law is concerned. As I have listened to some of the arguments made today I have been rather happy that I do not belong to that particular profession. But I would say to the hon. member for Yukon there is no other way to resolve this matter, so let us get on with it. If the Minister of Justice is wrong in what he has said to the press or the house, then he has put his own political life at stake. If certain Privy Councillors, who are rightfully indignant and concerned about the matter, have been wronged, then the matter must be righted. We cannot keep a cloud hanging over them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question in that connection. Is each member of the Privy Council to appear before this commission to prove his innocence? That would be a distortion of justice in this country.


Robert Norman Thompson: I do not profess to know the technical answer to that question, but my opinion would be no. This would not be necessary, providing the matter is being handled in the right way and in the right place.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then who appears before the commission?


Robert Norman Thompson: We can get together and work that out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to say anything provocative xo any section of the house. I do not intend to move any motion at this time, but I am wondering whether we have not had enough for today. If we cannot hope that over the week end this matter will be resolved, would the house agree to letting Your Honour call it six o'clock?


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing myself to you at this time, not filled with high-strung emotions but with all the timidity that is in me.
I ask the Minister of Justice to please settle once and for all the matter that has been before us for two days.
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice
The members of the Ralliement Creditiste and of the Social Credit party are asking the house to concern itself with the nation's business. Well, I want them to know that we think exactly the same thing. They have but one thing to do and that is to ask the Minister of Justice to make charges here in the house.
We do not want the charges to be levelled by proxy, through the press, but right here in the house because, for my part, I do not wish to sit in this house with anybody who might be a security risk. If there is such a person in the house, let the minister name him. After that, the other members and himself will be able to continue sitting here.
For years, the hon. members opposite and especially those from the province of Quebec have been accusing the Conservative party of scandal-mongering. Well, I ask them now, who is looking for scandal? We are trying by every possible means to find out if a scandal exists, and you do not even have the courage to rise and make charges.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal party thinks this is the way to enhance the prestige of the province of Quebec in this country, they are mistaken. We, from the province of Quebec, have been accused throughout the nation for too long. Today we see before us a minister from our province who lacks the courage to stand up and make charges.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time that we put an end to this business. I beg the Minister of Justice to deal with this question once and for all by rising in this house and making direct charges instead of making allegations or other statements through the medium of the press.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock; Come, come.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I should like to submit again to the consideration of hon. members that we might call it six o'clock if there is unanimous agreement.


Erik Nielsen: We are quite prepared to call it six o'clock provided the question of privilege will not be prejudiced in its place on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that the Chair can give no such assurance. It would be normal thM this would be the
[Mr. Keays.J
procedure. But I do not think I should be required to give an assurance of any kind to the hon. member for Yukon.


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: For two days, I and a number of other members have sat here quietly with mounting confusion and indignation about what has been going on here. For two days, attacks have been launched on the Minister of Justice for remarks he made outside the house at a press conference as well as inside the house. I should like to remind hon. members opposite that remarks made by the Minister of Justice outside the house are not privileged, and those who feel themselves damaged or injured by them have a perfect right to take the appropriate action in the courts. This course is open to them if they feel they have been slandered.
I appreciate that this is a serious matter and that in addition to this right in the courts they have the right to take appropriate action in this house. The fact remains that they do not want to take appropriate action.
Yesterday, three motions were presented, all obviously bad, and held to be bad by the Chair. I have a great respect for the knowledge of the rules possessed by some hon. members on the other side of the house. I am confident that some of them know full well what is the appropriate motion to put if they feel they have been libelled by the Minister of Justice. If hon. members opposite feel they have been libelled, let them put that motion and vote on it. If not, let them keep quiet.


An hon. Member:: What motion?


Ian Grant Wahn: Turning for a moment to the remarks made by the minister in the house with regard to the Leader of the Opposition, let me say they were most specific. There can be no criticism of his remarks on that score. They were very much to the point. If they offend the privileges of this house, let a motion be made. All day we have sat here. The Chair has invited members of the opposition on a number of occasions to bring forward the appropriate motion. Not one of them has sought to do so. Yet, they cannot say they do not know what the proper motion would be.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is the hon. member of the opinion that there has been no breach of the rights and privileges of members of this house? What is his answer to that?
March 11. 1966	COMMONS


Ian Grant Wahn: I say: Put the motion which you know to be the appropriate motion and let the house decide. I am only one member of this house. This question will be decided by the house itself if members opposite have the courage to put the appropriate motion.


Malcolm MacInnis: The hon. member referred to what he calls the appropriate motion. Is this an admission on his part that there is a breach of privilege?


Ian Grant Wahn: I cannot make any sense out of that question. If the hon. member wants to put it again when I have finished, I will be glad to listen to him.
Despite your request, Mr. Speaker, members opposite have not put the motion they ought to have put if they felt they had been libelled. Instead, they have prolonged this debate until we are all completely tired. Let them put the motion. They have had reasonable time. They cannot be permitted to prolong the debate indefinitely.


William Arnold Peters: Who will stop them?


Ian Grant Wahn: Your Honour has cited the relevant extract from May. I should like to refer again to May's 17th edition at page 396 where it is stated:
Certain matters cannot be debated save upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House.
Because we have not had such a motion we have been wasting hours of our time. The citation continues:
Among these are the conduct of the sovereign, the heir to the throne or other members of the Royal Family, the Governors-General of the Independent Territories, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, members of either house of Parliament and judges of the superior courts of the United Kingdom-
Attacks have been made on the Minister of Justice for two days, but no proper motion has been put. This is in violation of the citation I have just quoted. It goes on:
These matters cannot, therefore, be questioned by way of amendment, or upon any motion for adjournment. For the same reason, no charge of a personal character can be raised, save upon a direct and substantive motion to that effect.
This ruling has been violated and I think it has been violated for far too long. May, at page 454, states to the same effect:
Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the royal family, the Lord Chancellor, the Governor-General of an independent territory, the Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, Members of either House of Parliament-23033- 1651
DEBATES	2609
Administration oj Justice
The Minister of Justice is a member of this house. For two days he has been attacked and the opposition has not put forward a valid motion, despite repeated requests by the Chair. This cannot be permitted to go on indefinitely. This is a breach of privilege as far as the Minister of Justice is concerned, and it is also a breach of my privileges. We are sick and tired of continuous vindictive attacks by members of the opposition. The rules are not being respected. Will you not call on members of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, to put the appropriate motion? If they do not have the courage to do so, let them keep quiet.


Erik Nielsen: I am glad to see the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in his seat as well as the Prime Minister who has suggested a separate judicial inquiry into the matters we are discussing. I should like the Prime Minister to answer this question: how can you base such an inquiry on allegations made by a Minister of the Crown about persons whom he will not name? How can you base such an inquiry on a report which the minister who has made these accusations has never seen?
It is in my submission utterly ridiculous that parliament should lend itself to such a procedure. There is no matter for an inquiry such as that suggested by the Prime Minister. There is a matter for an inquiry such as the Leader of the Opposition suggested when he took part in the debate-the second inquiry announced by the minister on Monday.
This question before the house is a question of privilege because of the unsupported slanders which the minister has made, and only the house can decide this matter. If the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam want an inquiry, then the minister must rise in his place and make a specific charge, naming names. Upon that basis an inquiry might be possible, but not upon the basis of those allegations and accusations which have been made by the minister on information he has not even seen and on a file of whose existence, if it exists, we have no knowledge.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The minister nods his head that it does exist. We do not know this. The minister has not seen it. Parliament surely cannot set up an inquiry based on unsupported allegations, based on unnamed people, based on an unseen report. In any case, we have before us a
March 11. 1966

Administration of Justice question of privilege which can only be dealt with by the minister getting on his feet.
I ask the minister, I ask him now, did he make the statements which appeared in the press? I ask him did he say that two or more former Conservative ministers were involved with a former East German spy? I ask him did he say-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Are you reading from a newspaper?


Erik Nielsen: I am taking responsibility for the remarks I am making, which I always do in this house.
Did the minister say that he would ask the cabinet to reopen the case? Did he say there was an R.C.M.P. file? Did he say he had not seen it? Did he say he was briefed on it? Did he say that the opposition leader did not handle the case properly, and should explain? Did he say that the Opposition Leader never referred the matter to the law officers of the crown? Did he say that he learned about the case in another department?
These are the questions, the answers to which we must have before we can set up any kind of inquiry. Did he say that it was worse than the Profumo case?
I ask him now to rise in his place and answer. If he had done so at the outset, perhaps we could have come to grips and set up terms of reference, or enlarged the terms of reference of the second inquiry which the Prime Minister announced last Monday. But the minister has remained silent throughout and ignored the obligation which he has to substantiate the charges he made, the key to the whole issue.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Can the hon. member for Yukon tell us whether the questions he is now asking the Minister of Justice are based on newspaper articles? Futhermore, does he take full responsibility for the questions which he is asking at this time?
A while ago, you told me that I should assume responsibility for my questions. Does the member for Yukon assume the same responsibility? Are the questions he is asking now derived from newspaper articles?
Should the member for Yukon be treated differently from another member?
Let the member for Yukon begin by practicing what he so vehemently preaches.


Erik Nielsen: Well, the hon. member obviously was not listening, because I said I was taking full responsibility for what I was saying, as I always do in the house. Did the Minister of Justice say that the Liberals were tired of hearing of-to use the phrase I saw in the press-


David Réal Caouette: Which press?


Erik Nielsen: -of "Diefenbaker's" insinuating that the government was plunged in scandals? Did he say that the Liberals were going to fight back hard, using the same tactics? Did he say "We know she had been engaged in espionage prior to coming to Canada"? Did he say two or more ministers were involved? Did he say government action at the time was justified but it was too late now? Did he say that the girl was dead? Did he say he was not in a position to comment whether there was a security leak? That is an extremely important question, which he should answer in the house.
Did he say that his objective was to press the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) to explain his conduct in not turning the case over to the law officers of the Crown? Did he say these things?
He can cut all of this debate short by rising in his place and making the accusations here and now. It is for this reason, sir, that the proposal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) does not and cannot meet the breach of privilege which has been established here.
The Prime Minister can set up an inquiry. He can set up as many inquiries as he pleases but this, sir, cannot remove from parliament parliament's right to deal with its own privileges and the breach of those privileges which has taken place. There is only one way in which this matter can be resolved. It must be resolved by the acceptance, by the Minister of Justice and by the government, of the time honoured, of the traditional, of the mandatory obligation upon any member of the house to back up in the house the charges which he makes. That is what the minister must do now. He has no option, sir.
He must rise in his place and make his charges, or withdraw them. If he does not do this, sir, he must resign. There is no other way in which parliament can be satisfied. To continue on the course adopted by the Minister of Justice and by the Prime Minister, is simply to set the Minister of Justice against parliament. It is to set this government
March II, 19B6

against parliament. To such a confrontation I suggest there can be only one end. Parliament must and will remain supreme in the adjudication of its own privileges. The minister has the obligation now to end the matter by rising in his place, specifying his charges, substantiating those charges, or he has an obligation under our time honoured practices to resign his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: Mr. Speaker, I feel as a new member of the house that I must make a few comments on the events of the last few days on this point of privilege. I must say that I have been amazed and shocked at what I have seen. The spectacle of a minister of the Crown, heading one of the most important portfolios in the government, making wild and unsubstantiated charges and refusing to stand up in his place and substantiate them, and as a result leaving every Privy Councillor of the former government and, indeed, every member of the house under a cloud is shocking.
I am sure, although I am not a member of the legal profession, that it would be very difficult indeed to lay any information in a court without specifying against whom you are laying the information. Yet here, in what is supposed the highest court in our land, we are faced with this incredible spectacle.


George James McIlraith: Lay a charge.


Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I wonder if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin) realizes what he is doing to our country, to the house, and to the honour that this house has had over these many years in our history. I submit that the responsibility for what is happening falls on his shoulders.
This man, in a moment of petulance, brought the business of government and the affairs of a nation to a halt. Then, I hear some members to my left blaming it on the party which I represent. It is inconceivable to me that this sort of thing can happen in this country. I am sorry indeed to have to say that the minister has sowed the wind and not only this parliament but the people of Canada will reap the whirlwind. I say it is up to him now to stand up in his place like a man and make the specific accusations; make them now before the nation, before this parliament.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The idea of having a judicial inquiry which may drag on for a long time and leave a
Administration of Justice cloud of sexual involvement with this alleged spy over the Privy Councillors, is something which is incomprehensible to me. I think there is a very serious charge here that has to be abrogated by the minister. I think it is up to him now, not next week or next month, to stand up like a man, face his peers, and make his accusations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. members for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) today, I do feel that members in this house perhaps were not listening very well when we had what I thought was a very good contribution to the debate from the hon. member for Regina City. Certainly, he gave us a complete rebuttal to the suggestion of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works when they tried to tell the house that the inquiry is the answer.
I point out also to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that he would not be so eager to hear about an inquiry if he had listened to the hon. member for Regina City. I believe there is more than one point of privilege in this case. I can well understand the minister wanting to investigate his own charge that the Leader of the Opposition, when Prime Minister, was guilty of improperly handling a case. Certainly, that is an allegation against one man, and the sort of thing, I suppose, which, if taken seriously, would be a proper subject for a board of inquiry. However, we also have the allegations that members of this house were involved. This is the question of privilege with which we have been dealing.
I have thought, Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate that perhaps the question of an inquiry was out of order really. What this house must deal with, and what we have been trying to deal with, is a question of privilege. It is true that two or three motions which we have presented have been ruled out of order. I had one more ready, but my colleagues advised me it was much the same as the others, and likely would be out of order too.
Merely because we are having a little procedural difficulty in finding the right motion to deal with the matter does not make it any less necessary for the house to deal with the question of privilege. I submit that the house now, if it wished to vote for the inquiry which the Prime Minister is talking about, would still be left with this question of
March 11, 1966

Administration of Justice privilege on its hands. There is not one member in this house who can stand up and say it is not important. Certainly, the type of allegation made against these Privy Councillors is most serious. It is most improper, I submit, for the minister to make this charge.
The action and the attitude of the Liberal party in connection with these charges is most unjust, i am certain, if I were to make a suggestion that adultery had been committed by members of the Liberal party, and there was some outcry about it, some of the members opposite would not think an inquiry before which all the members would have to appear would be the right way to solve the problem.
However, apparently they have gone along with the Minister of Justice and his method of handling this matter. The Minister makes charges against hon. members here. When there is a legitimate complaint about those charges and we say substantiate them, the attitude of hon. members opposite is, let us inquire and find out. I would suggest to hon. members that they honestly and sincerely think about that. I suggest there are two separate questions. This inquiry into the handling of the matter is one thing, but the allegations and imputations against the persons and reputations of members in this house is a separate and distinct matter.
I invite the Prime Minister to get up and suggest to the house, since he appears to be so willing to have an inquiry, how he would handle the privilege part of this question. I really am a little amazed that this government is now so willing, anxious, and in
such a hurry to investigate. I suppose they are anxious because of the security risk involved. The Minister of Justice sits there saying nothing. The indication is that he heard about the case two or three years ago, perhaps somewhat vaguely involving security risks, and he now brings it forward in this nebulous manner.
Mr. Speaker, obviously there is a question of privilege for the whole house involved in the manner in which the Minister of Justice carries out his duty in connection with questions of security in this country. If there is a security risk involved, and if the minister has had this information for two or three years, I suggest he should resign for being so delinquent in his duty that he did not bring it forward before this time. There has not been one reason put forward by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Justice in respect of why the minister brings it forward now, and only now. If it was so serious, why let it lie quiet all this time? Could we have an answer to that?
It appears that this minister and the party over there are taking the attitude which I thought I had illustrated so well when I mentioned that were I or someone to make an allegation that someone over there was an adulterer, the best way to investigate this allegation would be to bring in every one in the party before a board of inquiry to ascertain the facts.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 14, 1966