Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):

May I

ask the Minister of Finance when he expects to be in a position to make an announcement concerning the proposed appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the economy of Canada?

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):

am not in a position to make an announcement at the moment, nor is it probable that I will be for some time; but if hon. members are thinking in terms of discussing the matter, there will be an item in the supplementary estimates for consideration.

Mr. Fleming:

It was not with a view to discussing it. It was with a view to eliciting from the minister whether we may expect an early announcement by the government about the appointment of the royal commission and its personnel.

Mr. Harris:

Not for the time being, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Rowe:

A change of policy?

Mr. Drew:

That is a very informative answer.

Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):

should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister noticed the finding of the Ontario court of appeal in a perjury case, as reported in the Toronto Star of May 14? If so, is he planning to introduce any amendment to the Canadian Criminal Code to take care of the point successfully raised by the defence lawyers?

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):

The charge to which my hon. friend has referred, which was in effect dismissed by the Ontario court of appeal, was a charge of fabricating evidence laid under section 177 of the old code. Subsection 2 of section 171 of the old code, which contained a reference to proceedings before parliamentary committees, related only to proceedings for perjury under section 170 of the old code, and therefore was held to have no application in the case which came before the court of appeal. The fault which I have just referred to was rectified when the new Criminal Code was enacted.

Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):

I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Has the minister or his department given consideration to the implications of the findings in the judgment of the Ontario court of appeal, to the effect that parliament is not a court, with a view to introducing legislation or taking whatever action may be necessary to make it clear that parliament is a court?

Mr. Garson:

I indicated that in the reply, Mr. Speaker, which I gave a moment ago to the question of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I said that in the drafting of the new code we had examined those sections of the old code in question and had endeavoured, I think successfully, to correct the point which was dealt with by the Ontario court of appeal in this case, in which the charge was laid under the old code.

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):

Arising out of the minister's answer concerning whether or not parliament is a court of record, the minister mentioned an amendment that has come into effect. In the new code it is simply provided that it is an offence when perjury is committed before committees of the house or Senate; but the larger question as to whether or not parliament is indeed a court of record will be left in a very doubtful position unless an appeal is taken from the decision of the court of appeal of Ontario. After all, we have always accepted that parliament is a court of record.

4166 HOUSE OF

Inquiries of the Ministry Would the minister consider either appealing that case on that point or bringing in an amendment?

Mr. Garson:

The question that was asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam dealt with a legal point which had arisen in this Ontario case. We have been trying to get a copy of the reasons for judgment of the court of appeal of Ontario in that case, and failing that we have been in communication with the deputy attorney general of Ontario seeking confirmation of our own impression that the point involved in that case had already been taken care of by the provisions of the new Criminal Code. Now, not having seen the reasons for judgment of the Ontario court of appeal, I am not in a position to say whether they are capable of the more extensive implications the hon. member for Prince Albert is now imputing to them.

I am, however, rather inclined to think the Ontario court of appeal judges were dealing only with the interpretation of the relevant section of the old code in reaching the conclusion they reached in that case. The question was whether the accused, upon the facts, was guilty of an offence under section 177 of the old code. This question, again, turned upon whether those proceedings before a parliamentary committee were court proceedings within the meaning of this section 177 of the old Criminal Code; and not I think upon whether they were court proceedings in the larger sense in which my friend from Prince Albert now refers to them.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

The minister will look into it, anyway.