Arthur Edward Martin MALONEY

MALONEY, Arthur Edward Martin, Q.C.

Personal Data

Progressive Conservative
Parkdale (Ontario)
Birth Date
November 26, 1919
Deceased Date
September 20, 1984

Parliamentary Career

June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
  Parkdale (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour (August 7, 1957 - February 1, 1958)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
  Parkdale (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 9)

February 1, 1962

Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):

I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to have this opportunity to speak on the important matters raised by the hon. member for Skeena in Bill C-5, which he has just explained to his colleagues in the house.

I have read the amendments that he proposes to the provisions contained in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, studied with some care the supplementary notes which accompany his suggested amendments, and listened with attention to the explanation he has just given us. I must confess that the amendments he proposes find favour at first blush with me, but at the outset I must say I only hesitate to give the proposed amendments stronger support because I feel the house would be ill advised to cut off one of the steps in conciliation procedure without at least consultation being had by the Minister of Labour with representatives of the Canadian labour congress and with representatives of management.

It is better that the bill proposed by the hon. member be considered by the Minister of Labour. It is better that the hon. member's recommendations, and the ramifications of carrying them out, be considered by persons who are more qualified than either the hon. member, myself, or any of us here, to determine the advisability of changes such as those he suggests.

Industrial Relations

In saying that I do not mean to minimize the weight that ought to be attached to the opinion expressed by the hon. member who, down through the years, has made considerable study of the matter; but I would feel happier in confirming my own predisposition of sympathy towards what he recommends had I the benefit of knowing what they think, and of having the viewpoint of persons of the type I have described.

The purpose of the legislation now existing is directed towards conciliation procedures. The principle upon which the legislation rests was defined in a very interesting paper read by Mr. Bernard Wilson who, at the time, was assistant director of the industrial relations branch of the Department of Labour and has since become the director of that branch, to the 14th annual conference of the Canadian association of administrators of labour legislation held in Regina in 1955. He said that the principles upon which presently prevailing compulsory conciliation procedures are founded are threefold. First of all he stated:

(1) The public should not suffer from hasty or ill considered strike or lockout action.

(2) There should be no strike or lockout pending compulsory conciliation.

(3) Public opinion, informed through the investigation and report of a board of conciliation, would exert an influence toward reasonableness in labour relations.

What I find significant about Bill No. C-5 and its presentation to the house by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is that he recognizes the need for the retention of compulsory conciliation procedures but is advocating changes that would have the effect of eliminating one of the steps that up until now has formed part of those procedures. My reason for saying this is that the hon. member says, in the explanatory notes of the bill:

This bill proposes to improve the above system of collective bargaining in the belief that it is unduly time-consuming and that the stages of negotiation repeat themselves in certain aspects with the resultant tendency to promote industrial unrest. The method used is to eliminate the conciliation board and give its authority to a conciliation officer.

So that the hon. member would eliminate step No. 3 in the presently existing conciliation procedures. The fundamental principle upon which the conciliation procedures rest, as indicated by Mr. Wilson in the extract I mentioned a moment ago, is to avert the cause of a strike that would cause inconvenience and hardship to too large a number of people. The right to strike is never, surely, questioned by anyone in this house. It is true it is a powerful weapon, but it has been used on many occasions in the past in this country

Industrial Relations

and on this continent to advance the cause of the workingman, and a just strike deserves public support.

A strike, it is true, is capable of causing much hardship and much inconvenience, not only to the workers themselves who go on strike but to other persons who are not even remotely connected with the strike. One of the tests of the justice of any strike is, I suppose, the extent to which steps have been taken prior to its institution; the extent to which preliminary procedures have been exhausted and have been conducted by the parties in a spirit of good faith.

The present conciliation procedures-which are only briefly mentioned in the explanatory notes-are more thoroughly dealt with by Mr. Wilson in the paper to which I referred a moment ago. He describes the procedural stages as being four in number and says they are these:

(1) Direct negotiations by the parties. This is basically a collective bargaining procedure but is considered a conciliation stage here because it must be completed before conciliation can be requested. In my view, there is nothing to prevent the parties from being mutually conciliatory; unlike mediation, third parties need not be present.

The hon. member for Skeena does not suggest that stage No. 1 as it presently exists be eliminated. Stage No. 2, according to Mr. Wilson, is as follows:

The appointment of a conciliation officer (in nearly all provinces), upon application if direct negotiations have not resulted in agreement.

(3) The appointment of a conciliation board, if a settlement has not followed from the appointment of the conciliation officer.

It is stage No. 3 that the hon. member recommends we should eliminate. Stage No. 4 is not part of the legislation but is part of the prevailing practice. It is described by Mr. Wilson in his paper as being:

Post-conciliation board conciliation, in which industrial inquiry commissions, chief conciliation officers, deputy ministers and ministers of labour seek to bring the parties into agreement on the basis of the recommendations of the conciliation board or on any other basis possible.

Again, the amendments proposed to the existing legislation by the hon. member would not eliminate this present practice from the procedure that is followed. It is of interest, I think, to give some brief consideration to the extent to which strikes have been avoided in the past with reference to the various stages presently existing in the conciliation procedures.

I am informed that if we examine the statistical data with reference to federal projects for the fiscal year 1959-60, some 76 per cent of disputes within federal jurisdiction were settled at the conciliation officer stage of the procedures now prevailing in

the act; that is to say, a little over 75 per cent of the disputes terminated on the desk of the conciliation officer.

The figures apparently would indicate, too, that the average settlement over a period of about 11 years is 62 per cent. In 1959-60 the figures that have been made available to me would indicate that out of 91 disputes dealt with to finality in that period, 69 were settled and the remaining 22 either went before a conciliation board, lapsed or were in some other way settled.

Apropos the same branch of my subject matter, that is to say extent to which disputes have been settled with relation to the various presently existing procedure stages, Mr. Wilson in his paper had these comments to make:

To illustrate statistically, there are a great number of disputes settled by the direct collective bargaining negotiations provided for by collective agreements or by legislation. No figures are available but they would amount to all agreements signed in any period less those in dispute. Figures are available with respect to settlements in the remaining three stages of conciliation. For instance, of 46 railway disputes assigned to conciliation officers over an eight year period, 21 of them were settled without requiring boards of conciliation. Of 24 of the remaining disputes that were submitted to boards, 12 of them were settled directly by the boards. Eight of the 12 remaining disputes were settled by post-conciliation board intervention. One dispute lapsed and strike action was taken in three disputes.

It will be seen that, of 46 disputes, only 3 resulted in strikes; that it is the final result that matters and not the settlement failures along the way.

The main criticisms that we hear expressed of stage No. 3 of the present procedures, the stage which the hon. member for Skeena recommends that we should eliminate, is first of all the expense of the conduct of these conciliation boards. Then second, and perhaps just as important, is the allegation that the personnel who constitute the boards are invariably-as I read it somewhere

called partisan special pleaders whose object is not to settle the dispute at all but to have the point of view of their party to the dispute prevail with the chairman of the board, and that in the result the chairman carries on under pressures being brought to bear upon him on both sides that render any possibility of worth-while decision remote and unlikely.

I think there is a good deal of merit in many of the criticisms that are voiced about this stage of our present conciliation procedure-the expense, the partisanship of those engaged in it, though one has every sympathy with the points of view put forward by those who appear at these boards. These are factors which cause me to wonder about the advisability of retaining the conciliation board as one of the steps in the present procedure.

The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) in his explanatory note and, I think, in his comments a little while ago, said that the conciliation board procedure, prolonging as it does the over-all conduct of the procedures generally, had a tendency to create industrial unrest. I heard some criticism of that point of view; someone stated that the hon. member was making the mistake of assuming that by cutting off the procedure he was cutting off the dispute. I am not sure this is really a fair criticism of the objective of the hon. member in the presentation he has made to the house.

There are features of this bill, as I have already intimated, which commend themselves to me. I only refrain from giving them stronger support because of my desire to be given the opportunity to study the bill with the guidance of persons such as the representatives of the Canadian labour congress and of Canadian management, who are better qualified than either myself or the hon. member, in my opinion, to advise the government what kind of changes in the existing legislation would work out in the most satisfactory manner. I am not satisfied that I fully appreciate the ramifications which would follow if we were to agree without further guidance or study to the recommendations made by the hon. member, particularly with regard to the recommendation that we abolish the procedures presently provided for before the conciliation board.

Full View Permalink

June 30, 1961

Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):

Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs could inform the house as to the progress that has been made in attempting to persuade the authorities of Czechoslovakia to bring about the release of Mr. Milorad Cop.

Full View Permalink

May 23, 1961

Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):

Mr. Speaker, I will only say a few words because I know there are other hon. members who

are anxious to speak on this important piece of legislation. As I participate in the debate tonight, I cannot help but call to mind the arguments advanced in this house on February 18 and February 25, 1960, when we debated the bill so eloquently and so skilfully presented at that time by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee). I recall very well the excellence of his argument and the excellence of the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who spoke in support of it. I recall, too, the excellence of the speeches delivered by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) who spoke against it. I remember the ardour and the emotions that those speeches and the other speeches evoked in the persons who participated in the debate.

I feel that the debate that is taking place today is the culmination of a long effort by the pioneers in this field, of many distinguished members of this house, including Mr. Thatcher, the member for Vancouver East and the member for York-Scarborough. I feel that in this piece of legislation the government has very sensibly and very carefully incorporated what was obviously the thinking of the public as expressed in the debate at that time by the various members of parliament who participated in it.

This is really, in my opinion, a very historic day in Canada. I recall that on the occasion of the debate in February, 1960, the attendance in the house was good and I particularly recall how crowded were the galleries as the citizens of Canada listened so intently to the speeches that were given then. Today is really an historic day. I regret that more members of the public are not here to share in its importance. I think we have reached a real milestone. The administration of justice in Canada has been advanced today by the presentation of this bill in a way that is of far-reaching importance.

I want to extend my congratulations to the government, particularly to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and to the Solicitor General (Mr. Browne), because after all those are the members of the government primarily responsible for the subject matter of this bill and for the way in which this matter has been brought before parliament. I will not forget in a long time the magnificent speech that was given this morning by the Minister of Justice. It will go down in the history of this country as one of the really important contributions to parliamentary debate in Canada. I am sure he must feel proud to know that in his capacity as Minister of

Criminal Code

Justice he has occupied the position of presenting a bill of such great importance in the history of our country, a bill which is imaginative and realistic.

This measure is not, as some members have said, an important step in the right direction or a first step in the right direction. I was looking last night for a means of describing how important an advance it is in the development of our criminal law. At that time I had the pleasure of meeting the well known and popular young columnist from the Ottawa Journal, Timothy Burke. I told him what was going through my mind. I told him I thought this was far more important than a first step, and I should like to find language that would be adequate to describe how important an advance in our criminal law it was. He told me the expression for which I was groping was that it was a seven league stride. This is indeed what it is. This is far more than just a first step in the advancement of criminal law in Canada.

There were some members who participated in the debate so far who expressed some doubt about the degree of support the measure would receive from various elements in the country. Speaking on behalf, I think I can say without any hesitation, of the entire bar of Canada in the practice of criminal law on the defence side, I think I can assure the government that the bill would receive their universal support. I think that the members of the bar who practise in that area of the criminal law express views that are entitled to the respect and consideration of this house.

There are those who will find it difficult to reconcile the fact that somebody like myself and the hon. member for York-Scarborough, who have expressed such strong views and have advocated so long the abolition of the death penalty, could now support this measure. I do not unsay a single word I have uttered in that respect over the years. Nor do I recall a single syllable that I spoke in this house on February 18, 1960. I

firmly believe that the death penalty is absolutely useless and that it has no more deterrent effect than a sentence to life imprisonment would have. On the other hand, I have always felt, and particularly so since the debate took place in February, 1960, that abolition lacked that basic public support which is required if laws of abolition are to be successful. There is no law that is more peculiarly required to have public support than a law abolishing the penalty of death. I believe in abolition, but I believe it must be effective abolition and it cannot be effective abolition without the support of the public, and of a great majority of the public.

I recall that last summer, I think it was late in June, there was an outbreak of capital

Criminal Code

crime in the city of Montreal. As I recall it, there were some 11 murders in approximately eight or nine days. I often thought to myself that if the bill presented by the hon. member for York-Scarborough had ever become law, every one of those crimes would have been attributed to the new law of abolition and we would now be confronted with a campaign to restore the death penalty. If the death penalty is to be effectively abolished, therefore, there must be public support. It is not sufficient to appeal to the government to bring about abolition. What the people who favour abolition, who sincerely believe in the wisdom of abolition, have to do is to create in the public an awareness of the futility of the penalty of death. Public support is an essential element of abolition.

What impresses me so much about the present legislation is the transfer to the jury of the obligation to decide whether or not an individual should be sentenced to death. As someone who has practised in the criminal courts for some 17 or 18 years now, I may say that my confidence in the jury system, my confidence in the integrity of the jurors, my confidence in their ability to somehow or other ultimately arrive at the right result in every case that comes before them increases day by day. I have faith that when they, as the representatives of society, are confronted with the issue of deciding whether or not the sentence of death should be passed, they will somehow or other arrive at the right decision. Of that I am sure. There are those who say-and I agree with them-that the new law will greatly reduce the number of occasions when individuals charged with murder will be convicted of capital murder; that is under the new law. Of that there can be no doubt, and that is exactly as it should be.

I was particularly pleased to see that, even in cases of murder where there has been a conviction, before sentence of death is passed the jury will be asked whether it is their desire to recommend clemency. That is a very forward step. That matter created a good deal of injustice I always found in the past. There were many juries who did not realize that they had any right to make such a recommendation or that there was any custom that would permit them to make any recommendation of mercy. However, I always felt that in these capital cases there were many juries in the past who would have recommended mercy had they been aware of the fact that it was within their province so to do.

This legislation will lend some standardization to that procedure in the future. In the past certain inferences were drawn from the failure of a jury to recommend mercy; and

often juries which refrained from doing so, as I have indicated, did so because they were unaware of their right so to do or of the fact that a practice had grown up permitting them so to do if they so wished.

One feature of that aspect of the new bill which causes me a little bit of concern, and which I perhaps could mention more appropriately at the committee stage, is whether or not a majority recommendation from the jury with respect to clemency would be accepted. It occurs to me that perhaps not only should a recommendation of mercy be permitted by the entire jury but that if any member of the jury or any part of the jury desires to make such a recommendation it should, under the authority of that section, be forwarded to the Minister of Justice.

I am also very glad to note that under the new bill there is no interference with the present power of commutation and that there is no curtailment of the right of the governor in council to review every capital case in which the sentence of death has been passed. That is a power that should never be given up. I have in mind at the moment particularly the cases of individuals who are at present under sentence of death in Canada. I do not know how many there are; I imagine there are some 10, 11, or 12. It strikes me- and I say this with the greatest possible respect-that the government should consider the advisability of commuting every one of those sentences. It seems to me that under the present state of the law, or at least under the state of the law as it will be when this bill is enacted-as I so much hope and expect it will be enacted-a jury will be asked whether or not it will recommend clemency. It seems to me that the government, in reviewing the sentences of those who are at present under sentence of death, would be required to ask itself this question: What would the jury have done in the case now before us had this provision of the law been effective before today? There being some doubts as to what the answer of the jury might have been had that question been presented to them in such cases, it seems to me that very careful consideration should be given to the advisability of commuting every one of those sentences of death which have been imposed and which have not yet been carried out as of today.

Also, in the case of killings that result in the course of the commission of a felony, I should like to see either some consideration given to an amendment to the present bill or careful and discreet use of the power of commutation in order to make sure that the capital penalty is not exacted in any case in which death resulted, even in the course of the commission of a felony, in circumstances

Criminal Code

that were accidental. That situation is not uncommon. The Rowe case in London, Ontario, a few years ago is an illustration of a death which resulted in the course of the commission of a felony but which was committed in circumstances that were unintentional and accidental. I should like some thought also to be given to the applicability of the sentence of death to accidental killing perpetrated, even though it may have been in the course of the commission of one of the felonies enumerated in what is now section 202 of the Criminal Code.

I was very much impressed to see the appeal procedures that are provided under the new bill. There is an automatic right of appeal to the court of appeal of the province. This does not represent much change from the present practice. However, the present bill greatly enlarges the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada. It gives that court jurisdiction to review something that it never has the right to review up until now. I refer to issues of fact in a case of this sort. Up until now the Supreme Court of Canada had jurisdiction only where a question of law was involved in respect of which that court had given leave or in respect of which there had been a dissent in the provincial appeal court whose decision was under review. This additional safeguard I think is further evidence of the desire of the government to see to it that, before any human life is exacted, no safeguard be overlooked.

The present law is a great improvement on the present English law which makes distinctions that have been absolutely unworkable. For example, it is capital offence in England to kill your victim by shooting, but it is not a capital offence if you were to kill him by some slow process of torture that would not amount to shooting. The law in England has proved to be unworkable. The law presented by the government today has avoided any of the unworkable features of the law at present applicable there.

I was hopeful that this debate would proceed in a way that would be non-political. It has been characteristic of this house and of every legislature of the commonwealth, to the best of my knowledge, that debate on the subject of the penalty of death and other related subjects should avoid the characteristic of political controversy. By and large, I think that we have suceeded so far today in the house in following the same pattern. One or two of us have overstepped the line a bit, in my opinion, but I should like to think that hon. members who speak from now on will, regardless of their political affiliations,

approach this bill with that non-political outlook that I think it requires if it is to be effectively discussed and voted upon in this house.

I conclude then by saying that I admire the government for the courage it has shown in what it has done and for the excellence of the legislation it has presented and that I look forward to the day when the public of Canada, schooled in the needlessness of the penalty of death, will agree some day there should be presented a bill that will bring about its complete abolition.


Full View Permalink

March 27, 1961

Mr. Arthur Maloney (Parkdale):

I rise on a question of privilege personally affecting me in my capacity as a member of this house. The question of privilege arises out of newspaper and radio publicity concerning evidence which was given on Wednesday, March 22 last in magistrate's court in Toronto during the course of a preliminary inquiry conducted by His Worship Magistrate Joseph Addison into charges against three men, Mr. Robert J. Wright, a former constable of the Ontario provincial police, Mr. Joseph McDermott and Mr. Vincent Feeley.

Among the charges facing these three gentlemen are charges of conspiracy to bribe a police officer and conspiracy to pervert the administration of justice. The witness whose testimony was given the publicity to which I now refer is an officer of the Ontario provincial police named Scott, who is represented as being an undercover agent of the Ontario provincial police and who purports to have kept notes of conversations he had with each of the three accused. Part of the conspiracy which the crown seeks to establish in this case is that the accused tried to bribe officer Scott in order to obtain information as to raids proposed to be made by members of the police force against a number of alleged gaming houses.

During the course of the preliminary inquiry into these charges one of the documents filed as an exhibit was a brief which I am informed contains instructions designed to facilitate a successful prosecution of an alleged gaming house known as the Ramsey club in Niagara Falls, Ontario.

The crown alleges that the brief was prepared at the instance of the accused who were interested in securing a conviction against the then proprietors of the Ramsey club in the hope that a competitor in the gambling business would thereby be eliminated. During the preliminary hearing on Wednesday last, March 22, police constable Scott, while giving evidence as a witness for the crown and while being questioned by counsel for the crown, testified with reference to conversations that he alleges he had with 90205-6-212J

the accused ex-police officer Wright. The evidence he gave on that occasion with reference to the alleged conversations with respect to the brief I have mentioned is as follows. I quote briefly from the transcript when he was being questioned by counsel for the crown on that occasion, and it reads as follows:

Q. What, if anything, did Wright say on this occasion to you, as to any activities of his when he had been on the force?

A. Well, for one thing, he referred to a brief. This brief was common knowledge to both Wright and myself, and dealt with a set of instructions, how to go about prosecuting what we call the old Ramsey Club at Niagara Falls.

Q. And when you say the brief had been common knowledge to you and Wright when Wright was on the force, why had it been common knowledge to you?

A. Well, Wright saw this brief, and I saw this brief, and we both acted upon it, along with other officers of the branch, in an attempt to prosecute that club.

Q. This was, I take it, a typed brief, with details as to how to obtain a conviction against the old Ramsey club?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that had been seen by each of you, when Wright had been on the force?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you say the old Ramsey club, are you referring to, from your knowledge, the Ramsey club in its location and alleged management referred to here, or some other club?

A. Different management, sir.

Q. Yes, and prior to the present Ramsey club?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Yes, well I have interrupted you.

A. He went into-he told me that this brief was drawn up by lawyers, and also, or included in which was Dave Humphrey, and also he-Wright himself, in composing this brief, and the way he described to me-the way this brief got into the anti-gambling branch-in that he said the brief was given to Fred Maloney, the federal member of parliament, who gave it to Jim Maloney, the minister of mines in Ontario, who in turn gave it to Inspector Stringer of the Ontario provincial police, and Inspector Stringer gave it to Sergeant Anderson of the anti-gambling branch.

Q. And, speaking from your knowledge, apart from what Wright told you, you have indicated that the anti-gambling branch did, in fact, receive a brief, as you have described?

A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Speaker, the first point to be observed is that my name is not used at all. While officer Scott was giving this evidence he was referring, I suppose in order to refresh his memory, to the notes he alleges he kept of the conversations he professes to have had with ex-officer Wright. An examination of the notes to which he was referring as he gave his evidence reveals likewise that my name does not appear in them at all but refer to

Question of Privilege

someone else altogether; and the minister of mines for Ontario is designated as "Jim Malone". I will not mention the name of the other person referred to in these notes in the hope that I will help put an end to the character assassination that was commenced when this evidence was given in court. Some of the newspapers, however, for reasons best known to themselves, saw fit to take the liberty of inserting the name "Arthur Maloney" when in fact it had not appeared at all, and this was the news report that went across the country.

As someone who has tried to build up an honourable reputation in this place it seems to me that those responsible took an inexcusable licence with my name.

To their credit, there were certain newspapers and radio stations who, doubtless shocked that such gossip should be admitted in evidence at all in a court of law, refrained from mentioning any names in their press reports. The Ottawa Journal and the Globe and Mail of Toronto so far as I am aware are cases in point. This is true also of radio station CFRB in Toronto. And the Globe and Mail, so far as I am aware, is the only newspaper that took the precaution to refer to the fact that the name "Arthur Maloney" was not used in court at all.

Because, however, of the wide publicity given to the matter and to the suggestion contained in this publicity that my brother and I had seen the brief, I asked and received permission from Magistrate Addison to appear before him on Friday morning last, March 24, to make a statement both on my own behalf and on behalf of my brother, who is indisposed. I stated to His Worship then and I repeat now that neither he nor I at any time heard of such a brief or saw such a brief. It was never at any time delivered to me, nor did I at any time deliver it to him. It has in fact never been in the possession of either of us. To this day I do not even know what the document looks like.

I think I am bound to say that crown counsel in cases such as this has to assume the responsibility of not leading evidence in a public courtroom that is not only inadmissible and irrelevant but contrary to what he knows to be the facts, especially when it involves the use of names that are bound to receive wide publicity.

Why this piece of false and unfounded gossip was admitted at all as evidence is something that I will never be able to understand. Crown counsel last Friday attempted to undo the wrong that had been done by saying this in court:

Although the stories that had been passed to me as to how this brief came to Inspector Stringer were conflicting; that that did not support an

allegation by Wright to Scott that it had gone through the hands of Arthur Maloney or his brother, but were inconsistent with them.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, crown counsel has admitted that the facts in his possession contradict the suggestion that the brief was ever in my possession or in that of my brother. Among other things Mr. Ford said on this occasion were these:

Your Worship, first, I am very happy to say Mr. Maloney's reputation is, as we all know, completely untarnished, and I think this is an unusual opportunity extended to him. I feel it should be and I for one am happy to accept, as I would always be happy to accept, his personal say.

During the course of my presentation to His Worship the magistrate I complained about the failure of crown counsel to have informed the court that there was no evidence whatever to establish the unfounded statement that the brief had ever come to me or to my brother. Thus, on Friday, Mr. Ford stated as follows:

Now, my learned friend, Mr. Maloney, suggests that in addition to the statement made by the crown yesterday, that a statement ought to be made that there was no evidence to support any innuendo-first of all, there is no innuendo, and it's not part of the crown's case that my learned friend, Mr. Maloney or his brother are in any way implicated in this case.

In the concluding part of his statement to the magistrate Mr. Ford said:

On behalf of the crown, and with respect to the court, I was happy to accept Mr. Maloney's statement that he, personally, and through him, his brother, had no part in this. I say again that I accept his statement, that there was never, at at any time, any intended innuendo that they had any part in any way in the matter involved.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in view of what I think was a grave injustice done both to me as a member of this house and to my brother, I had no alternative but to rise today on this question of privilege to set the record straight, in the hope that those who caused the injustice will see to it that what wrong they have done is now set right.

Full View Permalink

June 9, 1960

Mr. Maloney:

Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words I should like to add to the discussion that has taken place on the estimates of the


Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I listened with much interest to the remarks that were made by my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and also to the remarks that were made by the first spokesman for the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

I have always been at a loss to comprehend what really was in the mind of the late Mackenzie King when he laid down the basic character principle to which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred with a large measure of support and approval. Whether it be a fair interpretation of the late hon. gentleman's words, the principle is none the less construed as meaning that the immigration policy of this country should be such as to control the immigration to Canada in a way that would overt the possibility of too large a proportion of the population belonging to races that are neither Anglo-Saxon nor French.

It seems to me that if that is a true construction of what is meant by the basic character rule it ignores a very important fact. That fact is that today in Canada about 28 per cent of our population is neither Anglo-Saxon nor French. If the basic character principle is as I have attempted to enunciate it, it strikes me that regard must be had to that very large percentage of the population that falls into racial groups which, as I say, are neither Anglo-Saxon nor French.

If the basic character principle of the late Mr. King is a principle of strict application, surely as long as we have large numbers of individuals who are desirous of coming to Canada from the countries of central and eastern Europe we should not shut the doors to desirable persons from those countries while the English, the Irish and the Scotch wait to make up their minds.

I listened attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East, who enunciated what I suppose can be fairly described as a policy of restricted immigration. That appears to be good C.C.F. philosophy. It also appears to be good Canadian Labour Congress philosophy. I suppose that in view of the new but as yet unnamed partnership between the C.C.F. party and the Canadian Labour Congress it is not surprising that the hon. member should give voice to sentiments such as those he expressed during the course of his remarks today. An immigration policy as restricted as would be the policy advocated by the hon. member and by the congress would, in my opinion, as I have stated on previous occasions in this house, be an unrealistic policy and one lacking in farsightedness.

The hon. member for Vancouver East obviously belongs to that group of individuals who suppose that immigration aggravates conditions of unemployment. The hon. member for Fort William discussed that topic a few minutes ago, and both he and I spoke on the same subject on the occasion of the debate on the address earlier this session. As the hon. member and I then pointed out, the opposite is in fact true. I think if one examines the percentage of Canadians who are unemployed in the various provinces, one will find that unfortunately those provinces which have attracted the smallest number of immigrants suffer today from the largest percentage of unemployed. On the other hand, if one examines the figures for Ontario one finds that whereas since the last war Ontario has absorbed 50 per cent of the immigrants who have come to Canada, this province has the lowest percentage of unemployed.

I was particularly sorry to hear the hon. member for Vancouver East give voice to what I call the old nazi bogey. I think I know the hon. member well enough to know that he did not intend to smear the German immigrant population of Canada, but the clear impression which would emerge from his remarks-an impression which I hope and feel sure he did not intend-is that the majority of the German immigrants to Canada are either nazis, former nazis, or nazi sympathizers. It is my experience, and I am sure it is the experience of all my colleagues who represent constituencies part of whose population consists of German immigrants, that nothing could be further from the truth. In a long association with many immigrants who have come to Canada from Germany I have found them to entertain the same feelings of revulsion that are entertained by any of us when we contemplate the terrors and the horrors of the Hitler regime.

The hon. member is not alone in the impression he created. On the same theme I have in mind the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It has been brought to my attention, in connection with the point I am now making, that the C.B.C. has seen fit in the last year or less to resurrect for its late night movies some of the old nazi horror pictures. This accomplishes nothing in the field of entertainment for fellow Canadians, but it has served to keep in mind the kind of prejudice that ought to be done away with. We have taken steps to invite people from Germany to come to this country to make it their home. Many people have come in response to that invitation and it is unfair, I would think, for a government owned institution such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in Canada. In that respect I think a tribute also should be paid to the editors and publishers of the foreign language newspapers of Canada, which are now published in such large numbers and have such a wide circulation among this ever-growing and increasingly important part of our population.

Those, Mr. Chairman, are some of the sentiments that I wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to express.

Full View Permalink