Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):

Mr. Speaker, before motions are proceeded with, and in view of the discussion we had yesterday, I should like to make a suggestion to the house. I have before me a motion moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) which was passed on March 12 and referred to yesterday. This reads as follows:

For a copy of all communications that passed between veterinary officials either provincial or federal and the federal Department of Agriculture, together with all records since the 17th day of November, 1951, relative to the cattle epidemic of vesicular stomatitis or foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan, also all certificates or statements of analysis showing the results of the chemical examination of suspected specimens of either of said cattle diseases.

I should like to say to the house, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the first part of the motion, "for a copy of all communications that passed between veterinary officials either provincial or federal and the federal Department of Agriculture", cannot be acceded to because I have not been able to find any such documents on the record. Then the motion goes on:

. . . together with all records since the 17th day of November, 1951, relative to the cattle epidemic of vesicular stomatitis or foot-and-mouth disease in Saskatchewan . . .

There is some doubt in my mind as to whether there is very much in the way of records in connection with this matter. There are on the files of the department, either here or at Regina, but mostly here, communications between the officials of the department. That is to say, one official would say to another, "we are doing so and so," and suggest to him 55704-107

what he should do. I submit that that kind of record has always been considered to be privileged, provided that the minister desires it should be privileged. This has been the general practice, and I think one can easily understand why it should be so. I am not going to refer to Beauchesne or Bourinot in connection with the matter, further than to say it is indicated in many places that unless that were the general rule it would be difficult to carry on government as a government should be carried on. I quite agree with that.

That has been the general practice. As a matter of fact, shortly after I came into this house no less a parliamentarian than the late Lord Bennett gave me a lecture on it which I have never forgotten. I think it has been generally admitted that kind of thing is privileged.

I realize that this is a rather unusual situation in that everybody has been more or less stirred up over the fighting of foot-and-mouth disease and is naturally interested in it. If the house agrees, I am quite prepared to table what is looked upon as privileged- that is, to table all the communications which are on the file. There is nothing in any of them that the government need be concerned about making available. They are the usual communications that pass back and forth between officials when they are administering anything in any department. I am quite prepared to table them all, but I should like to suggest to the house that it might approve a motion which I should like to move without notice. I know that the rules of the house require that I give two days' notice.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

To alter the order, I presume.

Mr. Gardiner:

Not to alter the order at all. I am prepared to accept the order in spite of the fact that it is poorly drawn.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

It was drawn well enough to cause the minister trouble.

Mr. Gardiner:

I now move:

That the subject of the prevalence of foot-and mouth disease in the province of Saskatchewan and its attendant ramifications be referred immediately to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.

Mr. Ross (Souris):

A nice cover-up.

Mr. Gardiner:

Again I say that I know I require the unanimous consent of the house. If I have not unanimous consent, then I should

1682 HOUSE OF

Foot-and-mouth disease-Documents like the house to take it as a notice of motion and we can discuss the matter at a later time.

I think it should be recognized by the house that the officials of the department have some interest in this kind of thing. It is all very well to say that we in the house have an interest in it. We have, but men who have made their lifework the work of a department have some interest in it too. Because of the discussions that have taken place here, I assume that the meetings of the standing committee on agriculture are going to be more or less of a trial of the individuals responsible for the administration of the health of animals branch of the Department of Agriculture. In fairness to these men I think I should not place on the table of the house documents which will be a part of the evidence-practically all the evidence that will be produced -before the country and put the officials in a position where they will have to wait three or four days or a week and listen to the discussion of these documents throughout the country and see it in the press without their having any opportunity to be heard.

I think it would be helpful if we could permit this matter to be dealt with immediately by the committee. The committee is meeting tomorrow morning. It was being called to consider the wheat board report and to organize for that purpose. Instead of doing that it can occupy its time by going immediately into this question. My suggestion is that by unanimous consent the house should agree to the committee going immediately into a discussion of the question tomorrow, with the knowledge that I am quite prepared to put all the documents on the table of the house, whether privileged or otherwise, and leave them in the hands of hon. members.

Mr. Coldwell:

May I ask the minister a question? Perhaps I should address the Minister of Justice. Do these documents include the report I asked for yesterday, namely, the report made by "F" division, C.I.B., Regina town station, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, dated March 20, 1952, with respect to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act?

Mr. Garson:

Replying to my hon. friend's question, I may say that in the administration of the mounted police we cannot permit the production of confidential police reports of this kind. If we do, we destroy the whole value of securing them, for reasons which I explained yesterday.

Mr. Coldwell:

I understand there is no security involved in this case.

Mr. Garson:

The position is that when police reports are prepared upon any matter at all they are prepared upon the assumption that they are confidential and are not going to be produced anywhere. A lot of information is put in them on that basis that would under no circumstances be put into a document which was not prepared with that in view. Therefore for many years the department has resisted the production of such documents, and we must continue to do so. For that matter I do not think they would' shed a great deal of light upon the question in any event, because what should be concerned here is largely a matter of people speaking about animal diseases who are qualified experts in that field.

Mr. Coldwell:

I understand the report

discusses the quarantine and the manner in which it was carried out. It seems to me that is of as much importance to the committee as any other document.

Mr. Garson:

With respect to the last point raised by my hon. friend, if he is concerned about establishing the facts as to the quarantine there is no reason why he cannot establish them by having the policemen called who were in charge of establishing the quarantine and having them give their evidence orally to the committee. That would be much more satisfactory than reading a report with speculation and the like in it.

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):

To

begin with, I want to say that the minister's explanation today is merely an exculpatory method of refusing to carry out the will of the house.

Oh, oh.