1952-04-07

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
BEING THE 94™ SESSION FOR THE PERIOD 1867-1952

[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 7, 1952


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: t desire to table copies, in English and in French, of the white paper in connection with the budget, 1952-53.


Mr. Croll:: May I ask the minister whether the white paper he has tabled is to be printed in Hansard? If so, will he make the necessary motion to have that done? I think it is desirable that it should appear in Hansard.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was proposing to move tomorrow that it be printed as an appendix to tomorrow's Hansard, as has been done in past years. Printed copies will be available for hon. members today and tomorrow. In order to avoid duplication, I thought I might ask the consent of the house to have it printed in tomorrow's Hansard together with the budget speech.



INCREASE OF QLTORUM FROM TWENTY TO THIRTY

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 179, respecting the quorum of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to increase the quorum of the House of Commons from at least twenty to at least thirty members. By doing so, we shall merely re-establish, to the nearest round figure, the proportion stipulated in 1867, when the Commons had only 181 members as compared with our present membership of 262.
I believe this is the first bill to be based on the authority of the parliament of Canada to amend the constitution of Canada in matters exclusively federal, apart from certain specified exceptions, according to the amendment to the British North America Act of December, 1949.
I should like to say that I am indebted to Dr. Maurice Ollivier, our parliamentary counsel, for his help and advice in drafting this bill. Dr. Ollivier is always most helpful to hon. members who seek his advice, but 55704-74
because of the extra time and attention he has given to the drafting of this bill, in the light of its constitutional aspect, I felt I should like to thank him publicly at this time for his counsel and assistance.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 143, respecting the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts.-Mr. Cameron.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Rowena Ann Christena Turner Rae.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	174,	for	the	relief	of	Jozefa
Majcher Wozniak.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	175,	for	the	relief	of	Helen
Semegen Boodanoff.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Mary Ann Munro Kelly.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Esther Maron Feldman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	178,	for	the relief	of Joan
Alexander Jacobs Epstein.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S.	St.	Laurent	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the question asked on Thursday last by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) with respect to interim payments for war claims for persons in real need.
As I explained to the house on March 10, a scheme was devised whereby payments would be made to claimants coming under categories laid down in the compensation rules which were established by order in council P.C. 667 of February 4, 1952, and which was published in part II of the Canada Gazette on February 27.
Those persons who fall within the rules will receive interim payment if their claims are established; and that is a definite decision.
Thus far, some sixteen persons have made application for interim payment, and those applications are now being processed. Hon. members will understand that this is a fairly complicated problem, and a good deal of detailed information is required before payments can be made. I am advised that the applications are being dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
HS2	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition): Mr. Speaker, there is one thought that I should like to place before the Prime Minister in connection with what he has just said to the house. When he speaks of claims being established, that could, of course, mean the total figure of the claim. Where there may be some doubt about the total figure of the claim but no doubt about there being some substantial measure of claim, I would suggest that some system be devised under which interim payment could be made so that very needy cases, of which I know the Prime Minister is aware, could be dealt with without further delay. I think this would prevent real hardship without the necessity for awaiting the determination of the larger amounts which it may take more time to deal with.
Mr. SI. Laurent:: I am sure that those who are processing these claims have this consideration in mind, and my information is that they wish to have, in connection with one we both have in mind, something on record to show that there is real need.



MAINTENANCE OF INDUSTRY AS MARKET FOR SURPLUS MILK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or, in his absence, to his parliamentary assistant. What action, if any, is proposed by the government to preserve and to maintain the Canadian Cheddar cheese industry as a market for surplus milk? My question arises out of an article appearing in the London Free Press on Saturday morning.


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member for Middlesex East that everything that can be done will be done. We had the cheese and the dairy men in here discussing the matter with us some weeks ago. As this is a matter of government policy, it will be announced in due course.



FLOOD CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry Oliver White: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier). In view of the impending disaster owing to high lake levels, does the government intend to take immediate steps to prevent Pelee island from being entirely covered by water?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a general impression that whenever there are flood waters anywhere in the country there is on the federal government a responsibility to see that no damage is done or that whatever damage is done is repaired.
The other day I tried to point out to one of the hon. members that that is not the responsibility of the federal government. Floods in the various provinces are primarily the responsibility of the local authorities. Whenever it happens that there is a catastrophe of such magnitude that the local authorities feel it is beyond their power to deal with it, they apply to the federal government for assistance. There have been three or four cases in which the magnitude of the catastrophe was felt to be such that it took on a national aspect, and the federal government co-operated with the local authorities in an effort to alleviate the consequences to the individuals who had suffered. But unless the flooding of Pelee island can be attributed to some works for which the federal government has responsibility in connection with navigation- or navigable channels, it is not primarily a responsibility of the federal government.
There have been many requests for inspections by officers of the Department of Public Works in connection with the floods that are occurring at this season of the year. Those inspections are being made for the purpose of ascertaining whether the disasters are in any way attributable to works for which the federal government is responsible. But that is as far as we can go under the present constitutional distribution of responsibilities.
If there is a situation at Pelee island which can in any way be attributed to federal works, I am sure that the engineers of the Department of Public Works will investigate the matter and make an appropriate report to the minister of that department. But if it is something which is not attributed to federal works but is rather a calamity arising out of the course of nature, then only if the local authorities, through the provincial government, made representation that the consequences were such that the provincial authorities were not capable of taking care of them, would the federal government feel called upon to consider whether they should recommend to parliament that the matter be treated as one of national magnitude.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Has Ontario asked for aid in the Pelee island, Detroit river and lake St. Clair

districts or any other district in that province? Has it asked for aid for the province of Ontario?


Mr. St. Laurent:: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. But that is not something that the province would have to do immediately following the occurrence of the disaster. They themselves would naturally investigate and be in a position, if they came to the federal government, to make representations that would show that there was something of a national character that had to be dealt with. Because I have not received any representation does not mean that there may not be some made after the Ontario government has ascertained the extent and magnitude of what has taken place.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, without being unduly concerned about the constitutional division of authority, in view of the concern which this matter is causing not only in Ontai'io but also in the United States, may I suggest that an examination be made by the departmental engineers to see whether in fact there is any practical way in which this serious situation can be dealt with?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sure that that is
being done by the officers of the Department of Public Works. It is not only in respect of these international waters that examinations are being made. I know that representations are coming from sections of the province of Quebec asking for federal assistance in connection with damages resulting from the action of waters at this season. I know that the inspectors of the Department of Public Works are examining all these situations, because quite frequently the assertion is made, not always founded on fact, that the disaster is in some way attributable to works done by or omissions of the Department of Public Works in connection with navigable waters.


Mr. Fraser:: This must be the only thing that the government does not control.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I did not understand what the hon. member said.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. M. Ferrie (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Resources and Development if he will table the correspondence between the government of Saskatchewan and himself with regard to highway No. 35 from Nipawin to Flin Flon in the years 1951 and 1952?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development): Subject to the general reservation with regard to approval by the provincial government respecting their correspondence, I shall be glad to table the correspondence.



AMERICAN AIR LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has had a complete report on the circumstances surrounding an incident where eight Canadian employees of American Air Lines were required to take a lie detector test only to And that the test was to be made in Buffalo instead of in Toronto as they had expected?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: The answer is no.


Mr. Fulton:: Has Colonel McCormick any comment to make?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does the minister propose to take steps to prevent such unwarranted action on the part of United States companies operating in Canada?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The matter will be investigated. ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE ORDERED ON MARCH 12

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):: Will the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture be good enough to advise the house when we may expect the correspondence relative to foot-and-mouth disease which was ordered tabled on March 12?


Robert McCubbin: will look into the matter and see what can be done.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: should like to ask the Minister of Labour the present position in respect to fishermen being considered eligible to receive unemployment insurance.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of this question. The unemployment

Private Bills-Divorce insurance commission carried out a survey of the fishing industry in 1951, excluding the fish processing portion of the industry which has always been insurable employment. Consequently we have a good deal of information and I can give my hon. friend a long answer or a short answer. I think I shall give him the short answer, and then if there is any further information the hon. member would like I shall be glad to provide it.
It was found that those engaged in the industry could be classified as follows:
Number Percentage
Masters and owners	
14,094	16Wage earners	
6,172	7Sharesmen	
49,148	56Lone workers	
18,762	21Total number	
88,176
The commission further found that the sharesmen, being in effect self-employed, are not suitable for coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act. To insure the wage earners who are employed under a contract of service would not solve the problem as they number only 7 per cent of the total labour force in this industry. Anomalies would be created because of the great extent to which fishermen pass back and forth between the status of wage earners, workers on shares and lone workers, not to mention woods and farm workers. The nature of the industry, which is highly seasonal, makes it very difficult under present procedures and conditions to apply unemployment insurance even to the wage earners.
As my hon. friend knows, the difficulties which I have outlined apply with special emphasis to the Atlantic coast fishing industry.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 32, for the relief of Lillian May Holloway O'Brien.


Mr. Speaker:: I notice there are a number of divorce bills on the order paper; is it the wish of the house that I call them?


Mr. Coldwell:: One at a time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I ask that these bills should be considered one at a time. Last Friday evening we did suggest that the group of bills in connection with which the evidence had been placed before hon. members might be taken together. However, that suggestion was not approved by the sponsor, and I have had no

indication today from the sponsor as to his wishes regarding these bills. Consequently I gather that he desires that they should be dealt with as they were on Friday evening, one at a time.
I do not propose going into a prolonged discussion on this bill. In this case I have read the evidence, and I notice that it is quite clear as to the reasons for seeking a dissolution of the marriage. But I cannot refrain from pointing out that once again investigators are involved.
In this particular case the chairman of the Senate committee, Hon. W. M. Aseltine, made the statement that in his opinion the petitioner, in this case a woman, should not have been put to the expense of having an investigator to investigate this case since there was a birth registered by a mother who was not the wife of the person accused of the offence in this particular bill. As the hon. senator said, once again we have an investigator, and unnecessarily so in this case.
One odd thing about this case is that when the investigator who had made the investigation, Abe Golden, was called to give evidence as a witness, the crier reported that he was engaged in the other committee room. In other words, he was engaged in another divorce case in which he had been the investigator. The chairman then asked the solicitor for the plaintiff, Mr. Garber, if it would interfere with the proper presentation of his case to have another witness called in the meantime. Mr. Garber said that it would not, and Harry Maxham was then called. The evidence states:
Harry Maxham appeared as a witness on behalf of the petitioner, and, having been duly sworn, testified as follows . . .
I do not want to put the testimony on the record, but here apparently are two men in partnership as investigators in connection with this type of case. Apparently they are so busy that one was appearing in a case in another committee room, and the result is that the evidence given is not that of the witness who actually swore to the accuracy of the charge, if you care to call it that, but that of the partner who testified on behalf of the other investigator, Mr. Golden.
This is something that indicates once again the position in which the house is put with respect to divorce cases. I am not criticizing the members of the other place, nor am I criticizing the committees of the other place which investigate these cases. A year or two ago, at the invitation of the chairman of one of their divorce committees, I attended one morning and observed the manner in which they dealt with divorce cases, and I must say that I had no quarrel with the manner

in which the committee dealt with them at that time. The case now before us was in all probability inquired into with a lot of other cases, and under pressure, because, as I have already indicated, one of the witnesses was actually engaged in another divorce hearing in another committee room. Such circumstances indicate clearly the pressure under which the hon. gentlemen of the other place operate in handling divorce cases.
I doubt whether more than a handful of the members of this house have read the evidence in the case now before us, but I believe it is one where there may be justification for the plea that is made. Hon. members are very tired indeed of discussing divorce cases. We are very tired of having cases of this sort come before us, and we are tired this afternoon because once again more cases are before us. If the motion for second reading is challenged I do not know what the result of the vote will be, but, as I pointed out on Friday night, many hon. members refuse to have anything to do with divorce cases. On Friday night there were three votes. Out of 256 members available to vote, seventy-six voted in the first instance, seventy-seven in the second case and seventy-nine in the third, indicating most clearly that hon. members do not want to have anything to do with these bills.
I think it is wrong that those who, because they are in attendance in the house, feel they are compelled to vote on these cases, are called upon to exercise that obligation. I do not think it is fair that those who belong to religious organizations that do not tolerate divorce under any circumstances should be called upon to consider them. I think that the bill now before us should not be proceeded with until the house has had an opportunity to give serious consideration to any alternative proposals there may be for removing this obligation from members of the House of Commons and placing it where these cases can be dealt with in a different manner and apart altogether from the membership of this house.
I realize that it is not right and proper for a minority, no matter what we think, to inflict our view upon the majority. Perhaps in discussing these cases only a minority of hon. members are vocal, but I believe in this instance the minority represents the opinion of the majority. The same thing applies to the cases themselves. I do not think a majority has the right to say that nobody shall grant divorces, because minorities have a right to individual and personal freedom; but I do not think this house should
Private Bills-Divorce
be compelled to deal with the case now before us or any of the other cases on the list today.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):	*
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house further consideration of this bill should be deferred until this house has had an opportunity to discuss alternative methods of dealing with this divorce application.
I am limiting the amendment to the one particular bill, because in that way I believe that what I am suggesting is within the rules of the House of Commons. I am not anxious to force this matter to a division, and if the Prime Minister or the government generally care to give some assurance to the house that an alternative method of dealing with this divorce application and others that may come before us hereafter will be adopted, I shall not press the matter to a division.
I do not want to call for a division with respect to this particular bill, because I think there is some validity in the plea made for dissolution of the marriage. I think, however, that something must be done about this matter, because the present procedure is making the House of Commons a butt for ridicule. I think the dignity of parliament is undermined when we have to discuss bills of this description, and I know that members of the other place feel very much the same about the question as many hon. members of this house. Indeed I know that the chairman of one of the divorce committees of the other place last year said he would not accept the chairmanship of or membership on one of these committees again. Therefore I move this amendment in order that we may try as a parliament to refer this matter to a place where it can receive proper consideration and so that we may be relieved of a most unpleasant responsibility.


Mr. Pouliot:: May I ask the hon. member a question? What is the alternative that the hon. member would suggest?


Major James William Coldwell: I refrained from mentioning any alternative because I wish to remain strictly within the rules of the house. I think that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has suggested an alternative on a number of occasions. He has suggested removing this matter from parliament and placing it under a federal court of law that would sit only in the city of Ottawa. Therefore no court would be established in the province of Quebec or in the province of Newfoundland. We would simply transfer from this house to a federal court sitting

Private Bills-Divorce
in Ottawa the responsibility of making proper judicial decisions which we of necessity cannot make.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman has said that he wishes to remain strictly within the rules, but I am afraid that assertion of his desire is not in accordance with the amendment he has moved. The effect of the amendment is that the bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be deferred until the house has had an opportunity to discuss alternative methods of dealing with this divorce application. But there is no alternative method. If it is a bill for divorce, the constitutional procedure is that it comes here from the other place, is given first and second readings, and is then referred to a committee to ascertain whether the facts upon which the prayer is based can be established to the satisfaction of that committee. I do not think there can be any alternative way of dealing with a private application to parliament for extraordinary relief in the form of a bill. It seems to me that the amendment is nothing but an enlarged negative which would deny second reading of the bill because what it suggests is something that can have no other practical result.
With respect to the other matter, I know the hon. gentleman is as anxious as I am to avoid religious controversies in this country. He has said he realizes there are religious denominations which do not admit of divorce. There are other denominations which do, and he says, I think quite properly, that the majority should not force upon the minority who do not believe in divorce the acceptance of divorce as a legal institution.	[DOT]


Major James William Coldwell: Or vice versa.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: On the other hand the larger minority should not force upon a smaller minority the position that there could never be any divorce at all. That is the position of my hon. friend, and I think generally hon. members will feel it is reasonable. In democratic institutions the majority must not disregard the honest views of the minority. It must try to accommodate itself to those views in matters that do not endanger the safety of the civil state. Likewise I think the larger minority must seek to accommodate itself to the honest views of the smaller minority, where it does not endanger the safety of the civil state.
As the hon. gentleman knows, this matter has been under consideration many times. A few years ago earnest consideration was given to a system under which there would be official examiners who, on applications for divorce based upon adultery, would

inquire into the facts and make reports. Then there might be one omnibus bill that would have as a schedule the reports of these examiners in all these cases, so the matter could be dealt with on one occasion and only one during each session. It seemed that might have something to recommend it, because it would not mean the establishment of divorce as a legal institution but would be merely another method of enabling persons to make application for special legislation to deal with their special cases. The only difference would be that instead of dealing with one application at a time, after all cases had been investigated the reports would be annexed as a schedule to an omnibus bill, and they would be dealt with at one time.
After consideration by the gentlemen of the other house, however, it was found that they would not be agreeable to this change. They felt that if they were going to take the responsibility of adopting the legislation they should satisfy themselves as to the facts. This house might very well take the same view and say it wanted to satisfy itself by firsthand examinations of the witnesses as to the propriety or otherwise of exercising special jurisdiction.
Because of the diverging views at that time, and because there was no other alternative but the one suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which means establishing divorce as a legal institution to which one has a right if he establishes certain conditions, it was felt that the old system, with all its inconveniences and all its annoyances, which had been working for a number of years and had not occasioned any serious religious controversies, setting up one section of the population against another section, was after all less harmful to continue than to try some other system.
I have never attended any of these hearings in the other place. However, I have been told by the gentlemen who have attended, and who have also attended hearings in the courts, that the proceedings in the other place compare very favourably with those in the courts of Canada where divorce jurisdiction is exercised. Perhaps it is not our normal function to deal with these matters, but it is no more disagreeable for us individually to deal with them than it is for the gentlemen who sit on the bench in our courts of law. It is unfortunate that human nature should be such that these cases do arise. If there were not the honest and conscientious conviction that in certain cases divorces were a good thing the solution would be to deny divorces. But there are some who have the

honest and conscientious belief that under certain conditions divorces are right and produce better results than their denial. On this continent of North America one can doubt whether it is only in cases where there is the conscientious conviction that a divorce is going to be beneficial that divorces are granted. The proportion has become alarmingly great. Under those conditions, when you cannot make a change that is apt to be better than what you are changing from, is it not as well not to attempt a change?
Perhaps I should not have said this on the point of order, but I do urge the point of order in regard to the motion which would deny second reading of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: First may I say that some of us over here appreciate the forthright statement just made by the Prime Minister, even though he was just discussing the point of order. With respect to that point of order, if I may say so with great respect I think he has answered it himself. The Prime Minister doubted that it would be possible for us to do what the motion asks, namely, discuss alternative methods of dealing with these divorce applications. Then he proceeded to do that very thing, to discuss one alternative method, if not two. That is all the motion asks, that this house be given an opportunity to discuss alternative methods of dealing with these divorce applications. As my leader has already pointed out, he is not presenting this motion with any desire to divide the house but rather with a view to having a discussion on the question and a statement from the government. In effect we have had a bit of a statement already by the Prime Minister, and I would hope that after some discussion from various quarters of the house there might be a further statement.
With respect to the point as to whether the motion is in order, I would remind Your Honour that it is based upon the authority of citation 657 of Beauchesne's third edition. I need not read the whole citation because it has been put on Hansard so often, but it does make it clear that on the motion for second reading of a bill it is possible to move an amendment stating-
-some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principle, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution . . .
And so on.
On the basis of that citation frequent amendments have been moved to government bills, public bills and private bills along the lines of the amendment now before us. With respect to private bills I would point out that
Private Bills-Divorce
on two or three occasions similar amendments have been moved to pipe line bills. For example, on November 18, 1949, at page 1979 of Hansard, one was moved by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). On November 25 of the same year, at page 2256 of Hansard, one was moved by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis).
I believe I should read the terms of that amendment, because of its similarity to this one. It reads:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that further consideration thereof be deferred until this house has had an opportunity to record its opinion . . .
And then a certain opinion is spelled out. This amendment asks precisely the same thing, that further consideration of this bill be deferred until the house has had an opportunity of entering into a discussion of this matter.
While I am on my feet, and since the question of possible points of order has been drawn to Your Honour's attention, I should like to say that this motion does not refer to the subject matter of a bill standing in my name on the order paper. It stays clear of that. I submit that any discussion of this motion should not involve a discussion of that particular proposal, but that it could involve a discussion of any other proposal that hon. members may have in mind. In fact, I would say that is one of the reasons for presenting the motion in this form. My proposal is contained in a bill which is before the house and the country; opinions have been expressed upon it. There are those who support my proposal and there are some who do not like it. But all agree that we do not like the practice now being followed, so here is an opportunity for members of the house to suggest other methods that might be considered.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in those terms the amendment is in order. I believe it would be desirable to have a discussion to see what the ideas of hon. members are as to other possible methods, in addition to the alternative methods to which the Prime Minister referred in his remarks.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I think the hon. member should distinguish between the precedents he cites and this motion. This motion seeks to defer consideration of this bill until there has been an opportunity to discuss alternative methods dealing with this specific divorce application. This divorce bill arises out of a petition to parliament to grant a special dispensation. It does not involve the setting up of divorce as an institution. The only procedure for dealing with this application is by an act of parliament, and at this stage there is no alternative which can be suggested to

Private Bills-Divorce
the motion that we agree or refuse to agree to the second reading of this special act of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out to the Prime Minister that in the case of each of the precedents I cited a particular bill was before the house, but the amendment suggested doing something else before we would agree to the second reading of the bill.


Mr. Mclvor:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. When these bills are sent to the committee, is there an opportunity given to the committee or to any member of the house to examine them?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The rules of the house are not for interpretation by the Prime Minister, but the rules concerning private bills imply that they are sent to a committee so that the committee can assert to the house whether or not the allegations upon which the application is made are founded in fact. It would be within the powers of the committee to require the attendance of witnesses and the production of papers, or to make any kind of investigation that would enable the committee to say to the house whether or not, in its opinion, the allegations had been established.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I just say a word on the point of order? It occurs to me that there is a striking similarly between the amendment offered on an earlier occasion when a private bill to incorporate a pipe line was being discussed, and the amendment offered on this occasion. Your Honour will recall that under the Pipe Lines Act, there was a provision made by parliament that on subsequent occasions individuals who wished to incorporate a pipe line company would come before parliament requesting an act of incorporation. It was when those individuals, in compliance with that law, made their request and the house was proceeding with the bill based on that request that it was suggested by way of amendment that the bill be not further proceeded with but that the house should then consider the advisability, instead of incorporating pipe line companies, of placing all pipe lines under public ownership.
This suggestion was placed before the house, and the amendment was regarded as being in order. It seems to me it was practically identical in form with the suggestion which is now made. Pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act certain petitioners have appeared before this parliament, and a bill, in accordance with their petition, has been framed. It has been considered by the Senate and is now before the house. The suggestion here is that instead

of proceeding with that bill the house should consider alternative methods of handling this problem of divorce, and this specific divorce, which is exactly the same as saying that instead of proceeding with a pipe line bill we should consider alternative methods of handling pipe lines. I submit that the point made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre as to the earlier amendment having been in order establishes clearly that this amendment is in order under these circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: We have before us a motion for second reading of a divorce bill. The amendment is:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house further consideration of this bill should be deferred until this house has had an opportunity to discuss alternative methods of dealing with this divorce application.
It has been brought to my attention that similar amendments have been allowed in the past. I have not before me the wording of the similar amendments, but I do not think it was suggested that the wording was exactly the same as the wording of this amendment. In any event, on both occasions which were mentioned, I do not think any objection was made to the regularity of the motion. I do not think I was asked to give a ruling on the motion, so the point of order was not considered. If I am wrong in that respect, I should like to be corrected now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe that is so, but the motions were put to a recorded vote.


Mr. Speaker:: That has no bearing on whether or not the amendment was in order. We did not discuss the regularity of the amendment at that time; therefore I made no ruling. I am not in the difficult position of having to change my ruling.
Amendments to second readings of bills are made under the provisions of citation &57 of Beauchesne's third edition, wherein it states:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill,-
This amendment does not come within the scope of those words.
-or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction,-
The amendment does not come within the provision of those words.
-or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress;-
I suppose it might be argued that this amendment is opposed to its progress. I do

not think the meaning of the words, "otherwise opposed to its progress" can be interpreted as bringing in such a wide amendment as this.
The citation continues:
-or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
I do not see how this amendment comes within the provisions of citation 657.
If I recall correctly, those who contended that the motion was in order based their contention first upon the fact that similar amendments have been allowed in the past. I have stated my position in regard to that point. The other contention was that it came within the provisions of citation 657, and as I have stated I do not think it comes within the provisions of that citation. The motion seems to be a negative one. It is stated in the motion that the house should not give second reading to the bill until the house has had an opportunity to discuss alternative methods of dealing with this divorce application. I do not know when, if ever, and I do not think any hon. member knows when, if ever, the house will have an opportunity to discuss alternative methods of dealing with this divorce application.
The suggestion is that the second reading should be held up until a situation does happen which may never happen. I doubt whether it would be in order to hold up the bill under that circumstance.
The other point which has been raised by the Prime Minister is that this amendment proposes to hold up the second reading of the bill until the house has had an opportunity to discuss alternative methods of dealing with this-I emphasize the word "this"-divorce application. Our rules do not provide for any other method of dealing with this divorce application. Under all the circumstances I cannot allow the amendment to stand. Is the house ready for the question?
Motion (Mr. Winkler) agreed to.


Major James William Coldwell: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



JEAN MARIE WEEKS OPZOOMER

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 34, for the relief of Jean Marie Weeks Opzoomer.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Gagnon:: On division.
Private Bills-Divorce


Major James William Coldwell: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



MARGARET ELIZABETH STRANGE COLTON

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 37, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Strange Colton.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the other two bills that have been given second reading are bills in connection with which the evidence had been distributed. We come now to the first of a large number of bills up for second reading today in connection with which we do not have the evidence. I might point out that when we started this afternoon there were 111 divorce bills on. the order paper for second reading. Forty of those are bills in connection with which the evidence has been distributed, leaving 71 in connection with which we do not have the evidence.
I wonder whether the hon. member for Lisgar, who is sponsoring these bills, is in his mood of last Friday night or in his mood of last Tuesday night. I wonder whether he might consider allowing the 71, in connection with which we do not have the evidence, to stand?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I agree to let them stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lisgar has consented. Does the house consent to the applications for divorce in connection with which the evidence has been distributed being read collectively at this time?


Major James William Coldwell: Not collectively.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think what the hon. member said was, he was prepared to let the 71 stand.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not follow him.


Mr. Howe:: Let us take them one by one as they come.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us settle one point at a time. Is it agreed that the bills in connection with which the evidence has not been distributed shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed. Is it also agreed that the bills in connection with which the evidence has been distributed shall be read collectively?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If I have the numbers I will put the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do I have to go to bat again? In addition to the two that have already been read, Mr. Speaker, the bills in connection with which the evidence is in our hands are the
1170

Private Bills
following: 46, 52, 58, 59, 67, 68, 69, 70, 78, 88, 95, 97, 100, 102, 103, 109, 111, 113, 114, 115, 118, 121, 122, 123, 131, 133, 134, 135, 137, 139. I stop 'there to suggest that there is a typographical error on the order paper in the name in connection with Bill No. 139.


Mr. Sinnoit:: You must find them interesting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The next ones are: 140, 143, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 162. These bills total 38, and with the two that were passed previously make 40. I think that is enough divorces for the House of Commons to pass in one day.


Mr. Sluart (Charlotte):: That's what you think.
Motion stands.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

Howard Waldemar Winkler: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Nancy Jean Tolmie Dawson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Eileen Shirley Guttman Fagen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Rhoda Hayes Goulet.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Malfice Ciccone Nadeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Andre Roy.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Libertia Vinivar McClusky Rutherford.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Therese Michel Paquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Alice Courey Salhany.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Alfred Ernest Farebrother.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Mollie Balacan Pantel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Arline Silverman Cohen.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Margaret Lois Long Fordham.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Rose Godfrey Slutsky.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Gladys Cecelia Fisher Waugh.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Sheila Ruth Coppelman Mitmaker, otherwise known as Sheila Ruth Coppelman Mintz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Dora Katz Schniederman.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Helene Philomena Schenker Champ-Renaud.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Gregorij Sergeij Anker-Jakerov.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Florence Margaret Parsonage Velleman.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Georgine Jun Ruzicka.-Mr. Weir.

Bill No. 118, for the relief of Joseph Edgar Eaton.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Kenneth Ashby Lambe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Lillian Ethlyn Crouse McManus.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Marie Leopoldine Gabrielle Asselin Adler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Frederick Charles Butler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Thomas Richard Markey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Vera Jane Carroll Ross.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Ruth van der Walde Crowley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Ruth Friefeld Ragoza.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Cyril Frederick Hembling.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Denise Gelinas Gilmour.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Hilda Irene Gordon Diamond.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Dorothy Esme Graham Snell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Sergius Messier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Samuel Long Adamson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Sadie Isaac Kannon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Yvonne Yvette Lalonde Faucher.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Edith Olive Catherine Cramp Midgley.-Mr. Winkler.


Major James William Coldwell: I am one of those in the house who did not read the evidence. I do not propose to be recorded as having consented to these bills being passed unanimously. Since my silence may be construed in that way, I do not propose to be put in that position.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Major James William Coldwell: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bills read the second time.



SECOND READING-SENATE BILL

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 61, respecting the British Northwestern Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Henry.

Mr. Loaier Brisson (Saguenay) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 91, respecting Gulf Pulp and Paper Company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill make a brief statement about it?
(Translation):


Lomer Brisson: Mr. Speaker, the Gulf Pulp and Paper Company was incorporated under chapter 85 of the Statutes of 1902, as the "North Shore Power Railway and Navigation Company" which, under chapter 99 of the Statutes of 1914, became the "Gulf Pulp and Paper Company".
This company is subject to the terms of part III of the Companies Act, 1934. Section 190 of the Companies Act provides that no company subject to the said part III shall use any of its funds in the purchase of shares in any other corporation, unless in so far as such purchase is specially authorized by its act of incorporation. Section 145 provides also that any company coming under the terms of the said part may be exempted from any of its provisions.
The Gulf Pulp and Paper Company owns certain waterpower on the Ste. Marguerite river, in Saguenay county, which were granted to it by letters patent in 1903. The company also fully owns a wide stretch of land along the river. They have also acquired certain rights from the Quebec government in order to develop more profitably the waterpower in question.
Plans have been made for the construction of a dam on the Ste. Marguerite river with a view to developing a minimum of about 25,000 horsepower. The construction costs will amount to approximately $6 million. This development is being undertaken jointly by the Gulf Pulp and Paper Company and the Iron Ore Company of Canada. As you know, the latter company is preparing to develop the iron deposits of New Quebec and Labrador. The power from the Ste. Marguerite river development will be used for the mining of these iron deposits at the Sept lies terminus.
We understand that the development of these deposits is part of or closely related to the defence program. This development will also benefit the Gulf Pulp and Paper Company, which is now unable to operate twelve months a year, as it lacks water during the winter months. This inconvenience will be remedied by the construction of the dam, which will store water the year round. We forgot to mention that the Gulf Pulp and Paper Company is now manufacturing wood-pulp.
Private Bills
The Gulf Pulp and Paper Company and the Iron Ore Company of Canada have agreed to form a new company with a view to developing the waterpower in question. This company is named the Gulf Power Company. Moreover, both firms intend to subscribe to the capital of the newly-formed company an amount of about $1,600,000.
However, as under section 190 of the Companies Act, the Gulf Pulp and Paper Company is not allowed to subscribe to the capital of the new firm, we are asking parliament to amend the act incorporating the Gulf Pulp and Paper Company in order to enable the company to acquire shares in other companies. Besides, that power is normally granted ordinary companies and provided for in subparagraph (e), subsection 1 of section 14 of the Companies Act, 1934.
Section 13 of the act incorporating the Gulf Pulp and Paper Company also limits the borrowing power of the company to the amount of its capital stock issued as paid-up and unassessable.
We feel that we should take the opportunity of completely revamping section 13 of the act incorporating the said company, so as to grant it the ordinary borrowing powers provided in subsections 1, 2 and 3 of section 63 of the Companies Act, 1934.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the hon. member say who are the present directors of this company? Who is behind this bill? Who are the present directors?


Mr. Cruickshank:: Is the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) a director of the said company?
(Text):


An hon. Member:: No, he is not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am asking the hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to have an answer to my question. I think it is a reasonable one. We are not dealing with abstractions; we are dealing with men; and I should like to know who is behind the move to have that amendment?


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is the question I asked, only in French.


Jean-François Pouliot: You asked it in Latin.
(Translation):


Lomer Brisson: Mr. Speaker, the two companies involved are the Gulf Pulp and Paper Company and the Iron Ore Company of

Private Bills
Canada, of which Messrs. Charles Bigonesse, of Quebec city, and Jules Timmins, of Montreal, are the respective managers.
{Text):


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will this bill be referred to the banking and commerce committee?


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that this bill will be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It should go to the banking and commerce committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. J. N. Corry (Perth) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 92, to incorporate the Perth Mutual Fire Insurance Company.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member give us an explanation as lucid as the one we just had?


James Neilson Corry: This company was organized on October 2, 1863 under chapter 52 of the Consolidated Statutes of Upper Canada, 1859. The original name was County of Perth Mutual Fire Insurance Company. It was originally on a mutual plan only. In 1877 the name was changed to Perth Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and they commenced operations on a cash basis as well as continuing the mutual plan. They were licensed in the province of Quebec in 1938, and also in 1938 obtained supplementary letters patent in the province of Ontario to write all classes of insurance except life.
In 1947 the company was licensed in the province of British Columbia, and in 1950 in the province of Alberta. Therefore it has been writing insurance in four provinces and by way of re-insurance in the whole dominion. The present company, it is expected, will be absorbed by the new company which seeks incorporation, and the directorate and the management will be the same as the present directorate and management.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Mr. LaCroix:: 1.	What are the names of the Individuals or companies who submitted tenders to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, on March 25. 1952, in connection with the building of two hundred houses at Ste. Foy, county of Quebec-Montmorency?
2.	What was the amount of each tender?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	(a) Community Enterprises Limited, Montreal, P.Q.; (b) J. Paquette, Rosemere, P.Q.; (c) G. Archambault Limitee, Montreal, P.Q.; (d) Jobin Francois Inc., Quebec, P.Q.
2.	Contracts were called on the basis of provision of three alternate types of heating. The contract was awarded on the basis of provision of hot air heating only.
Hot Air	Hot Water	Hot WaterHeating	Heating	Heating "K" houses only(a)	$1,778,720	$1,804,160	$1,783,280(b)	$1,785,650	$1,859,650	$1,823,290(c)	$1,787,060	$1,808,780	$1,788,180(d)	$1,796,000	$1,821,200	$1,800,560


COST OF LIVING INDEX
Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	From what unions or locals, if any, has the government received requests for public hearings on the cost of living index, and its projected revision?
2.	What organizations and/or groups, if any, have been invited by the dominion bureau of statistics to meet with statisticians and present their views on the cost of living index?
3.	What organizations and groups, if any, have met with the dominion bureau of statistics and/or presented written submissions on the cost of living index and its projected revision?
4.	What are the terms of reference under which the dominion bureau of statistics has operated and is and will be operating with regard to the cost of living index?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, District 8; United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, District 5 Council and Local 523; United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union; Vancouver Enamel Workers' Federal Union, No. 291.
2.	Canadian Association of Consumers; Canadian Chamber of Commerce; Canadian Congress of Labour; Canadian Federation of Agriculture; Canadian Manufacturers Association. Canadian Retail Federation; Confederation Des Travailleurs Catholiques du Canada; Congress of Canadian Women, Lake-head Chapter; International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, District 8; Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, District 5 Council and Local 523;

United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union; Vancouver Enamel Workers' Federal Union, No. 291.
3.	Canadian Association of Consumers; Canadian Chamber of Commerce; Canadian Congress of Labour; Canadian Federation of Agriculture; Canadian Manufacturers' Association; Canadian Retail Federation; Confederation Des Travailleurs Catholiques du Canada; General Motors Corporation; a group of university and other economists outside the federal government service; statisticians of other countries; Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.
4.	The Statistics Act, 11-12 George VI, chapter 45. See specifically, section 3(a) and section 32(1).



ORDERS IN COUNCIL


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Have any orders in council been issued at the instance of both the Departments of Defence Production and Trade and Commerce, or either of them, that have not been published, and are not to be published in the Canada Gazette, nor made public?
2.	If so, how many?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I had intended to answer this question orally, but in the absence of the hon. member I think perhaps it had better stand. It provides for no limitation as to time, and I am sure the hon. member does not want to impose the obligation of referring to records since confederation in order to tabulate the number of orders in council. If it is allowed to stand I should be glad to give the hon. member the information he actually requires.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



ADVISORY COUNCIL ON MANPOWER

Mr. Hees:: 1.	What was the date on which the last meeting of the advisory council on manpower was held?
2.	Was a report of the proceedings of this meeting published?
3.	If so, to whom were copies of this report sent?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	February 26, 1952.
2.	Yes.
3.	The report was sent to the following: the news services (Canadian Press, British United Press, and Reuters), members of the press gallery, the Ottawa Journal, the Ottawa Citizen, Le Droit, English and French weekly newspapers, some editors of English and French daily newspapers who have requested copies of all releases, farm papers, labour papers, Ottawa radio stations, Department of Labour officials, unemployment insurance commission officials, chairmen, secretaries, and members of regional, local, and national
Questions
employment committees, national employment service offices, other government offices (dominion and provincial), trade union officials, associations who have requested to be on regular mailing list, members of the national advisory council on manpower, and to a miscellaneous list of individuals who have requested all news releases issued by the department.



CITY OF OTTAWA


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	How many postal zones are there In the city of Ottawa?
2.	What geographical area does each zone cover?
3.	How many mail carriers serve in each zone?
4.	At what hour does the mail carrier report for duty and at what hour does he terminate his duties for the day in each zone?
5.	What are the average number of loads carried daily by the mail carrier in each zone?
6.	Is the mail carrier compelled to undertake any duties in addition to mail carrying and delivery?
7.	If so, what is the nature of these duties7
8.	Do these additional duties, if any, differ by zones?
9.	If so, what are the particulars of such duties for each zone?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Four.
2.	Zone No. 1, west, Loretta avenue; north, C.N. crosstown tracks, Loretta avenue to Rideau canal, thence Rideau canal from crosstown tracks to Mann avenue; east, Hurdman road; south, Rideau river from Bronson avenue to Hurdman's bridge.
Zone No. 2-west, Rideau canal and Hurdman road; south and west, St. Laurent boulevard; north, Ottawa river.
Zone No. 3-east, Loretta avenue and C.P.R. crosstown tracks; south, Carling avenue; west, Ninth avenue; north, Ottawa river.
Zone No. 4-west, C.P.R. crosstown tracks; north, Ottawa river; east, Rideau canal; south, C.N. crosstown tracks.
3.	1, 23; 2, 38; 3, 24; 4, 36.
4.	Letter carriers report for duty at 7 a.m. and 1 p.m. and terminate when their duty is completed. The time of completion varies, but period of duty is usually within 8 hours.
5.	One and two delivery walks, two loads daily; three delivery walks, three loads daily. Bundles are dropped for the carriers as required either in relay boxes or at suitable authorized points.
6.	Yes.
7.	Routing mail for delivery; endorsing reasons for non-delivery on undelivered mail; collection of postage due; collection of c.o.d. amounts.
8.	No.
9.	Answered by No. 8.


Jean-François Pouliot: PROVINCIAL REVENUES-EXPENDITURES ON HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CARE
During each of the last five years: 1. What was the total revenue of each province? 2. What amount has been spent by each province for health purposes and hospital care? 3. What was the population of each province? 4. What proportion of its revenue has each province spent for health purposes and hospital care?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	TOTAL NET GENERAL REVENUE BY PROVINCES^)
Fiscal Years ended nearest Dec. 31-	New- foundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskat- chewan	Alberta	British Columbia
					Thousands	of Dollars				
1947	(!)	4,658	32,389	28,844	193,756	223,213	34,004	53,312	47,510	72,0041948	m	4,730	32,667	28,453	203,258	220,024	35,902	56,332	62,957	100,6781949	17,424	5,091	34,249	29,431	207,040	235,421	38,042	61,275	88,363	124,2651950(3)	20,859	5,488	35,612	32,188	238,404	249,706	39,350	64,043	104,663	133,2581951 (*)	23,632	5,440	38,989	38,667	237,802	255,356	40,949	65,044	84,507	134,166
(') Does not include institutional revenue; interest, premium, discount and exchange; grants-in-aid; and shared cost contributions received from other governments
(2)	Not available.
(3)	Preliminary.
(*) Estimates.
2.	NET COMBINED GENERAL AND CAPITAL HEALTH EXPENDITURES^)
Fiscal Years ended nearest Dec. 31-	New- foundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskat- chewan	Alberta	British Columbia
					Thousands of Dollars					
1947	(2)	673	3,166	2,083	19,404	20,303	3,091	13,992	5,293	10,4341948	o	749	3,646	2,741	27,251	28,175	4,138	13,210	7,621	14,8301949	6,530	897	4,215	2,962	30,514	33,796	4,904	17,421	9,968	31,8441950 (3)	5,332	956	4,855	3,253	38,005	33,508	5,616	20,138	11,961	32,1261951 (*)	6,551	902	4,603	4,954	31,463	38,982	5,510	20,832	12,116	32,725
(*) Includes hospital care. Shown "net" after institutional revenue, grants-in-aid and shared cost contributions received from other governments have been deducted.
(?) Not available.
(3)	Preliminary.
(4)	Estimates.
1174	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
3.	POPULATION
As of June 1-	New- foundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskat- chewan	Alberta	British Columbia
					Thousands					
1947(0	(0	94	615	488	3,710	4,176	739	836	825	1,0441948(')	(0	93	625	498	3,788	4,275	746	838	854	1,0821949(0	345	94	629	508	3,882	4,378	757	832	885	1,1131950(0	351	96	638	512	3,969	4,471	768	833	913	1,1371951 (Census)	3G1	98	643	516	4,056	4,598	776	832	939	1,165
0) Estimates.
(2) Not available.
4.	NET COMBINED GENERAL AND CAPITAL HEALTH EXPENDITURE EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NET



GENERAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
-	New- foundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskat- chewan	Alberta	British Columbia
					Percentages					
1947	(0	14-4	9-8	7-2	10-0	9-1	9-1	26-2	hi	14-51948	(0	15 8	11-2	9-6	13-4	12-8	11-5	23-5	12-1	14-71949	37-5	17-6	12-3	101	14-7	14-4	12 9	28-4	11-3	25-61950(0	25-6	17-4	13-6	10-1	15 9	13-4	14-3	31 4	11-4	24-11951(0	27-7	16-6	11-8	12-8	13-2	15-3	13-5	32-0	14-3	24-4
0) Not available.
(2)	Preliminary.
(3)	Estimates.
Cn
Questions


Jean-François Pouliot: During each of the last five years: 1. What was the total revenue of each province? 2. What amount has been spent by each province for educational purposes? 3. What was the population of each province? 4. What proportion of its revenue has each province spent for educational purposes?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	TOTAL NET GENERAL REVENUE BY PROVINCES(i)
Fiscal Years ended nearest Dec. 31-	New- foundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskat- chewan	Alberta	British Columbia1947	
1948	
1949	
1950(3)	
1951 (4)	(s) (!) 17,424 20,859 23,632	4,658 4,730 5,091 5,488 5,440	32,389 32,667 34,249 35,612 38,989	[DOT] 28,844 28,453 29,431 32,188 38,667	'housands of 193,756 203,258 207,040 238,404 237,802	Dollars 223,213 220,024 235,421 249,700 255,356	34,004 35,902 38,042 39,350 40,949	53,312 56,332 61,275 64.043 65.044	47,510 62,957 88,363 104,663 84,507	72,004 100,678 124,265 133,258 134,166(') Does not include institutional revenue; interest, premium, discount and exchange; grants-in-aid; and shared cost contributions received from other governments. (2)	Not available. (3)	Preliminary. (4)	Estimates. 2. NET COMBINED GENERAL AND CAPITAL EDUCATION EXPENDITURE([DOT])	Fiscal Years ended nearest Dec. 31-	New- foundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskat- chewan	Alberta	British Columbia1947	
1948	
1949	
1950(3)	
1951 (4)	p) (2) 4,319 4,349 5,310	721 757 869 950 1,039	4,761 5,870 8,274 9,623 10,048	2,435 3,313 5,350 5,927 7,751	Thousands of 37,342 37,958 39,815 40,275 40,818	Dollars 44,707 48,563 50,842 56,150 63,307	5,137 5,795 6,960 6,506 6,714	7,961 9,720 9,564 10,624 10,293	7,350 11,908 11,610 15,276 16,794	13,708 17,846 22,650 28,713 22,641
(t) Shown "net" after institutional revenue, grants-in-aid and shared cost contributions received from other governments have been deducted.
(2)	Not available.
(3)	Preliminary.
(4)	Estimates.
1176	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions



POPULATION

[Stage Direction]
As of June 1-	New- foundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskat- chewan	Alberta	British Columbia
					Thousands					
1947 p)	o	94	615	488	3,710	4,176	739	836	825	1,04419480	o	93	625	498	3,788	4,275	746	838	854	1,08219490	345	94	629	508	3,882	4,378	757	832	885	1,11319500	351	96	638	512	3,969	4,471	768	833	913	1,1371951 (Census)	361	98	643	516	4,056	4,598	776	832	939	1,165
(*) Estimates.
O Not available.

[Stage Direction]
-	New- foundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskat- chewan	Alberta	British Columbia
					Percentages					
1947	o	15-5	14-7	8-4	19-3	20-0	15-1	14-9	15-5	19-01948	o	16-0	18-0	11-6	18-7	22-1	16-1	17-3	18-9	17-71949	24-8	17-1	24-2	18-2	19-2	21-6	18-3	15-6	13-1	18-219500	20-8	17-3	270	18-4	16-9	22-5	16-5	16-6	14-6	21-519510	22-5	191	25-8	20-0	17-2	24-8	16-4	15-8	19-9	16-9
(') Not available. (2) Preliminary. (*) Estimates.

Questions
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers

Mrs. Fairclough:: 1.	Have any purchases been made by the Department of Defence Production for requirements of shortening for the various service camps in Ontario and Quebec, during the period April 1, 1951 to March 31, 1952?
2.	If so, how many pounds of shortening, and how many pounds of lard?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Shortening, 320,451 pounds; (b) lard, 65,078 pounds.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS

Ellen Louks Fairclough: What were the total amounts paid in unemployment insurance benefits in January, February and March, respectively, of the current year?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: January, $14,012,496.88; February, $15,571,156.15.
March figures are not available yet.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Thatcher:: What was the total amount of money spent during the past fiscal year by the federal government in the printing of departmental reports, bulletins, or publications of any nature, excluding Departments of National Defence and Defence Production?


PUBLIC SERVICE-SUPERANNUATION
Wilbert Ross Thatcher: How much money has the government paid into superannuation or pension accounts (a) of civil servants, permanent and non-permanent; (b) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (c) of members of the permanent forces; (d) of judges (1) in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1947; (2) in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1948; (3) in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1949; (4) in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1950; (5) in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1951; (6) in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1952?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North) moved: ;
For a copy of all correspondence, contracts, agreements and other documents exchanged from January 1, 1946 to date, between any department of the government and Otaco Limited, of Orillia, Ontario.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask that this motion be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


RED DEER RIVER PROJECT
Mr. Quelch moved:: For a copy of the final reports by P.F.R.A. officials to the federal government on the Red Deer river project.

He said: I understand that there is some uncertainty as to whether or not these reports are ready; therefore I would ask that this motion stand.
Motion stands.


NON-COASTAL ESKIMO TRIBES
Mr. Knight:: For a copy of any reports made to the government during the years 1947 to 1950, inclusive, respecting certain tribes of non-coastal Eskimos living in the interior northwest of Churchill.


Mr. Winters:: From a quick review of the files I know of no correspondence other than intradepartmental reports. I shall be glad to have the files searched again and if there is any correspondence other than reports from departmental officials I shall be glad to table it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am quite agreeable, as long as the minister is going to make that search. I can assure him that there are documents other than intradepartmental reports.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Courtemanche:: For a copy of payrolls and lists of materials purchased in connection with the construction of a wharf at Lac du Cerf, Labelle county, since February, 1951.


STANDING ORDERS
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Hallon) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the standing orders of this house should be amended1 in regard to debates and in regard to procedure in standing and select committees in order to bring the rules of debate more in line with present day needs and that, inter alia, such amendments should specifically provide: (a) for the passage of allocation time orders by this house with respect to any measure brought before it and that motions for allocation time orders should be put by Mr. Speaker, including all underlying amendments, after sixty minutes of debate have elapsed; (b) for the fixation in standing orders of a time limit on debates on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and the debate on the budget, after the expiration of which periods of time, the motion and all underlying amendments would be put by Mr. Speaker; (c) for the limiting to one half hour of the debate on all procedural motions and underlying amendments; (d) for provision that at the expiration of the seventh allotted day the chairman of the committee of supply and ways and means shall forthwith and without further debate put every question necessary to dispose of all of the votes of the departmental estimates under consideration; (e) for the requirement that at least four members should rise in their seats to express opposition for a request for unanimous consent to a suspension of the rules, otherwise unanimous consent of the house to be presumed when requested.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to admit frankly at once that I do not claim to have any profound knowledge of the standing orders or of the rules of debate. In 1951 the house was in session for eight months. A check of Hansard discloses that if members on the government side of the house had taken up as much time as members of the opposition groups-


Mr. Koseworihy:: Why should they?


Hughes Cleaver: -we would not have finished the work of the house in twelve months. One would have thought that after being in session for eight months the house could have completed its work in an orderly fashion in time for hon. members who live some distance from Ottawa to be home with their families at Christmas. But on the Thursday before Christmas twenty-seven members of the Conservative opposition-the total membership of that group is less than one-fifth the total membership of the house-apparently made up their minds that that was not going to happen. Because of three succeeding amendments to a procedural motion -which by the way if introduced in the house at Westminster by a minister of the crown is carried without any amendment being permitted and without any debate- the house spent all of that Thursday discussing what hours we would work on Thursday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The procedural motion was not introduced by a minister in that case.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You will get your chance.


Hughes Cleaver: I will let any hon. member follow me who wants to split hairs on niceties. I am just interested in the broad general lines and am giving the reasons for introducing this resolution.
To me the only thing which that Thursday before Christmas clearly demonstrated was the fact that our rules are urgently in need of amendment. Under the rules of the house there was nothing at all to prevent a similar performance the next day and the day after.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That was the government's
fault.


Hughes Cleaver: While it is a primary and
cardinal rule that the opposition has the duty and the right to discuss thoroughly and to criticize all government measures, I suggest that there is one rule much more important than that, a rule which must be followed if in the final analysis we are to continue as a democracy-the right of the majority to Tule.


Mr. Hodgson:: With an iron hand and with a steamroller behind you.
Standing Orders


Hughes Cleaver: The British House of Commons has a membership over twice as large as ours and serves a population four times that of Canada. I think it is an understatement to say that in Great Britain they have problems of government quite as difficult and as important as our own, but notwithstanding that fact, by an orderly procedure and certain other features of their standing orders and rules of debate they are able to perform their task in much less time.
A three-way exchange took place on March 5 last which I think headlines in a few words what I want to say. I quote from page 136 of Hansard as follows:


George Alexander Drew: I say this with the utmost seriousness. The laughter of hon. members in regard to this matter merely indicates that they have overlooked the fact that the House of Commons at Westminster, which we follow to a considerable extent, has no time limit on speeches; but because of the planning of debates, and the indication ahead as to when the debates are to take place, it is able to do the extremely important business which is carried on there in a much shorter time than we do ours.


Mr. Claxton:: Because it has a timetable.


Mr. Whitman:: There are no filibusters there.
The house at Westminster is able to do the extremely important business which is carried on there in a much shorter time than we do ours. We have the reason.


Brooke Claxton: Because it has a timetable.
Then the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Whitman) gives us one of the causes for the great delay which takes place in this house. He says:
There are no filibusters there.
I hope the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) will not change his mind. I hope he meant what he said-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: He is not here today.


Hughes Cleaver: -and I hope he will support-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He is here today.


Hughes Cleaver: -this resolution. I have purposely drafted my resolution in terms wide enough to permit any and every member of the house who wishes to do so to give his views as to ways and means by which our debating practice can be improved. The first paragraph of my resolution is very general in its terms. Then I follow with five amendments which I suggest. You, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the house have heard the leader of the Conservative opposition, the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) and many other members comment favourably from time to time on the practice a' Westminster. Therefore I took the trouble to read the British Hansards, and I hope the house will bear with me while I put on the record under broad headings what takes place

Standing Orders
in one week in the British house. Apparently the practice there is that on Thursday the government announces the business of the house for the whole of the following week. I should now like to read from the British Hansard of February 28 of this year:
Business of the House


Mr.   Attlee@: May I ask the leader of the house
to state the business for next week?
It is not for one day but for "next week". The answer is as follows:
Monday, 3rd March-Supply (2nd allotted day):
Committee stage of the civil estimates and estimates for revenue departments vote on account, 1952-53.
A debate will take place on the appointment of Lord Waverley as chairman of the royal commission on the taxation of profits and income.
Tuesday, 4th March-Supply (3rd allotted day):
Then follows the detail.
Wednesday, 5th March-Debate on defence, which will take place on a government motion to approve the white paper.
On looking up the British Hansard for March 5 I find that Mr. Churchill opened the debate. In the motherland the debate on defence is of course quite as important as the debate on defence in our House of Commons. Defence is a very important subject at the present time. The debate on this subject was limited to one day. It started at 3.35 p.m. and continued until 9.58 p.m. when the question was put on a recorded division. Sixteen members took part in the debate and their average speaking time was about eighteen minutes. The house then proceeded with the other work indicated on the agenda for that day and sat until 2 a.m. On the following day, March 6, the house dealt with the navy estimates, and anticipating that the debate would go beyond ten o'clock a motion was moved extending the hours of the sitting. It was in this form:
That this day the business of supply may be taken after ten o'clock and shall be exempted from the provisions of standing order No. 1, sittings of the house.
That motion, as provided for in their standing orders, was carried without amendment and without any debate. The standing order in that regard is standing order No. 1, paragraph 6(b). On March 6 the house went on with the navy estimates. Then on Friday the house reached private members' day, half of which I believe is taken up with private members' bills and the other half with private members' motions. On checking through the record for that week I find the agenda for the entire week was carried through in regular fashion as announced on the Thursday before without any quibbling or any cross-fire about it. The government simply announced that on this, that and the other day the house would do a certain part of the business of the country.

Hon. members may wonder how that can be brought about. Apparently in the British rules there are two instruments. One is closure under standing orders 29 and 30. Any member may move closure but to be operative it must have a majority support of 100. The other remedy is the passage of time allocation orders with respect to individual subjects, commonly termed the guillotine. It is very seldom used. The first occasion I could find when it was used was back in 1932, and if members would like to refer to the 1932 British Hansard, fifth series, volume 269, page 1320, they will be able to obtain full information with respect to it. I could not find any recent illustration. Apparently the very fact that the power is there is all that is necessary to achieve the result. I understand the practice, is that the parties of the house, through their whips or other representatives, reach an agreement as to what time of the house will be devoted to a particular subject. Then after the length of time is decided upon the Speaker allots the time to the government and the opposition in total. In turn the whips of the parties reach agreement among their own members as to the members who will speak and the amount of time they will be allowed. I am told that if any member is foolish enough to abuse his privilege of speaking and takes more time than is allotted to him the Speaker just does not see him again for a session or two. The end result of all this is that there they have an orderly procedure. Every member knows in advance what subject is coming up on a given day. He has full opportunity to get ready for it. The time of debate is limited to the point where time is precious. They do not have any of this dreary reading of well-written essays. They have a lively and constructive debate on the subjects before them. Time is precious and should be treated in that way.
If I may come now to the five specific amendments I have suggested I should like to state at once that so far as I am concerned, after even a short study of the British practice, I should very much like to see our House of Commons follow the practice of Westminster in its entirety. I am frank to admit, however, that I believe it would be such a shock to some members of this house that a transition period might be necessary, so we should be perhaps a little more moderate in adopting the practice at Westminster.
Now coming to the five specific amendments, the first is:
(a)	For the passage of allocation time orders by this house with respect to any measure brought before it and that motions for allocation time orders

should be put by Mr. Speaker, including all underlying amendments, after sixty minutes of debate have elapsed.
Hon. members who would like to read up on this subject will find it fully dealt with in the fifteenth edition of May at page 461 and following. As I mentioned a few moments ago, I have not been able to find any recent record to give the house in regard to time allocation orders.
My next suggested amendment is:
(b)	For the fixation in standing orders of a time limit on debates on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and the debate on the budget, after the expiration of which periods of time, the motion and all underlying amendments would be put by Mr. Speaker.
I have turned up British Hansards in regard to debates on the address. Hon. members will recall that the last session at Westminster was perhaps one of the longest and most hectic in many years. The government had a slim majority, and there was the threat of a general election hanging over the house for practically the entire period. On looking up the record I find that six days were devoted to the debate on the address. The mover of the address took thirteen minutes; the seconder took ten minutes. On the first day, October 31, 1950, seven and one-half hours were devoted to the debate. There were eighteen speakers, including the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister. The average length of the speeches was twenty-five minutes. To summarize the debate on the address that session, it took forty-five and one-half hours; there were one hundred speakers, and the over-all average was twenty-six minutes per speaker. I ran across one thing that rather interested me, which I would like to mention now. On the fifth of the six allotted days Mr. Speaker made this statement, which will be found at page 606 of British Hansard, fifth series, volume 480. The house was then considering the housing amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I call the amendment, I am afraid I must inform the house that there are about fifty members who would like to speak today.
That was a short day. Twelve members spoke. When the time arrived for the vote on the amendment, it was taken; the other thirty-eight speakers simply did not have a chance to speak.
With respect to the debate on the address during the present session, it started on November 6 and concluded on November 13, lasting only six days or thirty-eight and one-half hours. There were 107 speakers and the average time per speaker was twenty-one minutes. The mover took thirteen minutes; the seconder took eleven minutes. Many speakers took less than fifteen minutes. It
Standing Orders
was a brisk and sparkling debate. It was quite obvious that no member was reading his speech. Every member who took part in that debate had something on his mind he wanted to get over to the house. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we would have a much better attendance in this house if our procedure were similar to that at Westminster.
Now I come to the next suggested amendment:
(c)	For the limiting to one half hour of the debate on all procedural motions and underlying amendments.
In view of what I have already said in reference to what happened the Thursday before Christmas I need make no further comment on this proposed amendment:
The next proposed amendment is:
(d)	For provision that at the expiration of the seventh allotted day the chairman of the committee of supply and ways and means shall forthwith and without further debate put every question necessary to dispose of all of the votes of the departmental estimates under consideration.
Under standing order 16 the British House of Commons provides that twenty-six days, being days before August 5, shall be allotted to the business of supply in each session. Hon. members will have noted that during the week I quoted the house was told what allotted day that day was. A very careful record is kept, and on the twenty-fourth day all outstanding votes are put without further debate. In framing my recommendation as I did I felt that it might be considered too drastic to accept in toto the British practice in regard to estimates, though as far as I am concerned I am all for the practice at Westminster. My suggestion was simply that we incorporate in our rules a provision whereby a serious filibuster on the estimates could not develop.
Now I come to the last suggested amendment:
(e)	For the requirement that at least four members should rise in their seats to express opposition for a request for unanimous consent to a suspension of the rules, otherwise unanimous consent of the house to be presumed when requested.
I bring this up because of the fact that from time to time* in connection with the work of the house, particularly in connection with committee work, often for good reasons bills will come quite late before the banking and commerce and other committees, and suspension of the rules is necessary unless the applicants are to be put to the trouble and expense and delay of coming back to parliament at another session. Usually consent is obtained without any difficulty. But on one occasion during the last session it did not look as if unanimous consent was going to be granted. I do believe that the

Standing Orders
work of the house should not be held up at the whim of one member. The suggested amendment is that it should be necessary for four members to rise in their places, not simply shout out that they object, and indicate that they are objecting to the granting of unanimous consent.
To sum up briefly, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish any member of this house to feel that this resolution is intended to encroach in any way upon the right and duty of an opposition group to criticize or discuss legislation that is brought before the house. I believe that is a paramount duty, and a paramount right. I believe that recently Mr. Churchill stated this in a very clear fashion when he was a member of the opposition. I shall read from a part of one of his speeches:
The house is not only a machine for legislation. It is a great forum of debate and the process of legislation is not necessarily smooth because it is rapid and violent. The house ought to have the opportunity of moulding and shaping the laws which afterwards have to be obeyed by the people.
As I mentioned a short time ago, in addition to that cardinal rule, to me it is equally important that we should have majority rule. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: In joining this debate, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the remarks I shall have to make will be in somewhat unprepared style because I have not made any notes for a criticism paragraph by paragraph of the hon. member's resolution. Today I want, if I may, to discuss one or two matters which have been very close to my heart and attention during these years in the House of Commons. They are related to matters of which this resolution forms at least a part.
In common with others who have sat in this house for a good many years and have witnessed its deliberations, I have felt that there were streamlined reforms which parliament, in the light of its importance to the Canadian people and to democracy, ought to institute. I am quite sure that any of us who have, for instance, conversed with those who have sat in the galleries of this august chamber from time to time have found some rather interesting criticism from those who have witnessed for the first time the procedures of the great House of Commons. I am not going to detail those criticisms because they are so well known to every member that I need not bore the house with a repetition of them. There is no doubt in my mind that, whether of not we like it, there is a desire on the part of the public and the members of all parties to see if we cannot get a somewhat better procedure and better general working conditions in this parliament.

One thing that has concerned most of us throughout the years has been the disposition towards longer sessions of the house, and in some instances of late to more sessions. I am not so sure however that all the criticism which has been levelled against parliamentarians concerning the length of time we sit here is entirely deserved. It may well be that we take too long in many of the discussions that are held, but do not let us forget the extent of the business which this parliament now handles as compared to what it was when I first came into this house with the hon. member who moved this resolution. A comparison between the work in those days and what it is now indicates that perhaps we are conducting the business of the house in almost as rapid a fashion as we were then.
Perhaps we could take as our yardstick the amount of money which is now requested in the estimates. I recall being appalled and dismayed-an opposition member always is appalled or dismayed over something-over the fact that we were spending almost $500 million in the budget of 1936. I cannot recall now what I said at that time, but I am quite sure that I took the government to task in no uncertain way and told them to make sure they would never let that kind of thing happen again. Of course, as usual, my advice was not heeded, so today we are in a position where eight and a half times that amount of money is being spent in one year by the federal government. It may be said that that is not an indication of the extent or comprehensiveness of the work of parliament, but it at least does serve as a yardstick for measuring the breadth of subjects with which parliament is concerned in these days. There, was an added acceleration during the time of the war, and during the period of rehabilitation and reconstruction there was a still greater acceleration of that situation until today I am quite certain that many of the modes of procedure which were quite good in 1867, or even in 1936, are not now adequate. The sooner we can come to the conclusion that some changes have to be made, the better for parliament, the better for the country and the better for democracy itself.
I do not think we can approach this with any degree of dogma. We have to consider all the suggestions which are made in good faith from all sides of the chamber. This is not a party matter, it is a matter of settling our democratic procedure in this chamber for the conduct of business.
One thing which, from time to time, has been criticized in the press and in other places is the long-winded speeches that are made by backbenchers for the consumption

of their own constituents. I am going to take issue with anybody who says that. I have never believed, since I came to this house, that time was wasted in listening to the ordinary private member on the back benches. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I very often find them more interesting, more instructive, and I am quite sure more informative as to the exact position with respect to Canadian affairs than some of those who have almost become professional in their advocacy of certain things on all sides of the House of Commons. Therefore I want to put in a word for the back bencher. I myself was a back bencher geographically for a long time. I have never considered myself anything more than that, although I now sit in the front row. I think that when we get to the position, in parliament where we become just advocates for advocacy's sake, we lose our identity and our power and our influence, because actually the man who is on the back bench and who is representing that part of Canada which he knows best has something to contribute; and when he contributes, even if he speaks for only forty minutes, as is the case now, we ought to consider what he says, and the government ought to take heed, because he does represent a section of Canada just as though he were sitting beside the Prime Minister of Canada. That is of great importance.
When we take visitors through the House of Commons they often ask us to point out the seat the Prime Minister occupies. They always look at the Speaker's seat, because they have the idea that it must be the Prime Minister's. When you show them that the Prime Minister's seat in this house is the same as anybody else's seat, so far as its structure is concerned, they marvel at it. The reason is, of course, that in a great sense every member of the house has equal rights. Having that in mind, of course these rights have to be preserved. I do not want it ever to be said that we should get to the point where we can have just a little ring of members around the front who are doing all the debating and while the people on the back benches keep quiet for the rest of their lives. That is not what we should be doing.
More than that, when I hear people saying that the reason why we should have shorter speeches is the time that the back benchers take up, I take issue with them. I have never believed that. I have never been in favour of reducing the time of the ordinary back bencher who makes a speech perhaps once or twice a year for the people and on behalf of the people whom he represents in one part of Canada or the other.
Standing Orders
When we come to the question of the length of time of speeches-and this has been a thorn in the flesh of every committee that has dealt with the subject-I personally on many occasions have thought that we could reduce the time of speaking. I know I did not have complete support from many sections of the house; nevertheless I did think that in the broad scheme of streamlining the work of the House of Commons there might perhaps be included somewhere a representation of that kind because, after all, it is much easier to make a long and windy speech such as I am making now in the house than it is to make a well-ordered, concise and effective speech like some of the others that have been made and will be made in this debate. I remember on one occasion hearing a very prominent statesman say that he had taken three days to prepare a speech which he was going to make in twelve minutes. He said; "If I were going to make a two-hour speech half an hour's preparation would be sufficient".
I now come to the part of my hon. friend's resolution that has to do with the allocation of time. I hope that he will not press this resolution, because I fancy the purpose and the objective he has in mind will be sufficiently served when his motion is debated and we are given an opportunity to discuss these matters which are of such vital interest to every commoner here. I do think the government's position particularly would be misinterpreted if one of its supporters were to press to a vote such a drastic proposal as the allocation of time in the House of Commons, because I would be forced at this stage to vote against it, and I do not like to vote against my neighbour more often than I have to.
On the question of arranging the time of the house, the hon. member mentioned the United Kingdom parliament. I hear a lot about the United Kingdom parliament, and in a good many respects I think it has served a purpose that no other democratic institution has. I remember going into the library of the United Kingdom parliament on one occasion and seeing there a plaque with a Speaker's name on it going back as far as 1277. I thought to myself, well, that is a pretty long time to be in the adventure of democracy and in the experiment of government. It is not much wonder that sometimes we, who have been a nation for only a little while, feel that we should take some of our advice from those who have been experimenting with this institution for so long. But there is one thing that my hon. friend did not mention, and which goes to the root of some of our problems, and I am not sure that any of us in the House of Commons can

Standing Orders
cure it. It is this. In the British house there are substantially only two political parties, although I must confess that in all fairness to the government we ought to mention at least under our breath the Liberal party, which does occupy some seats there now.
It is a vastly different business in the United Kingdom from what it is here. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister, his whip, and the Minister of Public Works, who handles the day-to-day affairs of the government leadership, can testify to the truth of what I say. When you have an official opposition, and then other groups to the left of that again to the number of two, and sometimes more than that, you have a problem which it is more difficult to solve than that in the United Kingdom, because there they have their procedure and their method of handling debates which have grown up through the years. I am quite certain that nothing in the way of too drastic solutions will reach the objective that we all have in mind, namely, the streamlining of the House of Commons.
When I first made a speech on this subject I fancied myself a regular Sir Galahad in these matters, and somehow or other I thought that all hon. members would gather round me after I had spoken and say, I heartily agree; we will bring in all these reforms. But I found there was hardly anybody who thought the same as I did. There were some of them who thought along the same line on some things I said and some of them supported me; nevertheless I found there was a wide division of ideas. When it came even to the question of how long we should sit in the house, I found that we never were able to get a completely unanimous opinion. But I want to say this to you, Mr. Speaker: I do not think we have to pass this resolution, or any other resolution, or have any more committees, so far as the sitting time of the house is concerned. I am in favour of going back to the hours we had at the last of last session, and keeping with them until we finish.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Would you be willing to reduce the time of the speeches to thirty minutes?


Gordon Graydon: I would be willing to reduce everybody else's except the one I am making now.
In so far as the United Kingdom parliament is concerned, there is another point I want to raise. As has been very properly pointed out, debates there are naturally concentrated. It is a remarkable example of how they concentrate in close quarters around the subject at issue. Those of you who have witnessed those debates can corroborate me. Debates in the

British house have a relation, to the subject that few debates could have in this chamber. Our set-up in this chamber does not make for discussion of that kind. I suppose when we get the loudspeakers on our desks-


Mr. MacDougall:: God forbid.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member may have Victoria day on Monday by then, and he will not have to work. In any event, one of the troubles with this chamber is this; and in what I am now saying I am not suggesting it should be changed. On the other hand, we have got to consider the fact that this chamber is more like a cathedral than it is like a debating chamber. With a man away down at one end debating with the hon. member who just interrupted from down at the other end, how can you expect a profitable debate from the standpoint of those two members? It is not possible to have that sort of debate in this chamber, but it is possible in the United Kingdom chamber in which no member has a seat allocated to him. The result is that you see the cabinet, the secretaries, the under-secretaries and so on all huddled up, close together. I remember seeing the late Hon, Ellen Wilkinson- who was a very small woman anyway, and who was a member of the Attlee cabinet- when she was sitting in the house. There were two big cabinet ministers sitting on each side of her and she was squeezed in between them into about four or five inches of space. It is the economy of space, of course, which makes the House of Commons at Westminster the great debating chamber that it is.
We must take things as we find them. You cannot perhaps change the complexion of this chamber or the geographical position of its seats; and perhaps the best thing we can do is to have a loudspeaker system so that we can at least hear what everyone says. But even with that system, in a chamber built as this one is, I do not think you will find that closeness and proximity in debate between members which is characteristic of Westminster.
I should now like to come to one other matter among those that have been raised. Having in mind the extension of the work of the House of Commons and of the government. how best can we fit our rules and our procedure in to take care of it? I know it is the old story about the question of the estimates and the like. I think we ought to do one of two things with some of the estimates. The estimates of the Department of External Affairs are now sent to the standing committee. Those who sit on that committee-I do not know whether other hon. members in the house have the same

opinion-think it is a good committee of the house. We think that during past years it has done some useful work. It could not have had the success it has achieved had it not been for the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bra-dette). As to the other estimates, I know there are arguments pro and con as to whether they should go to committees. I remember Mr. Neill, who sat for the constituency of Comox-Alberni, on one occasion, after I had raised the question of sending the estimates to committees, said to me: You had better be careful, young man, because you are in opposition; and this is no kind of proposal to come from the opposition benches.
That may be so. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we have two things to consider when we are deciding whether we should send the estimates to committees. First of all, we may as well admit right now that our whole committee set-up is out of date and is, to a large extent, a useless appendage appearing in our Hansards in the early part of the session. Some of the committees never meet at all. They are completely out of date. So far as the committees relate to the various departments of government, I am not so sure that we should not now consider having our standing committees set up with some relation to the matters that those committees will be investigating or those various items of legislation that are brought in by the ministers. As it is now, often one does not know to what committee something should be sent, because the committee set-up is so far out of date. You do not know whether matters should be sent to one committee or the other. I am strongly of the view that we should now make some attempt to alter our entire set-up with regard to the standing committees. The present set-up, in my opinion, is a relic of the horse and buggy days. Just because this was the way a thing happened to be done at the beginning of this century, I do not see why we should still be carrying on with these relics of the past.
There is a real job to be done in connection with our committees, having regard to changing the structure of them. When that is done, then of course you have a good chance to send the estimates of a particular minister's department to the appropriate committee. For instance, if you have a standing committee on public works, the estimates of the genial Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) would, of course, be referred to that committee, provided that the house so agreed; and so it would go all down the line. Having that procedure in mind, it would seem to me that we could remove from the House of Commons a good deal of time-consuming debate on certain questions. If you go through
Standing Orders
Hansard some time, you can observe the kind of questions that are asked of the ministers in the committee of the whole, and the answers that are given; and you will find that there is not much wonder that there are a great many members who are not in the chamber at those times. The taxpayers in the galleries say: Why are they all out, and why do only a few show any interest in the proceedings? The answer is this. You have one minister there, and you have half a dozen questioners who are interested in that particular line of work; other people who may be interested in something else altogether, of course, await their turn on some other occasion. Nevertheless, a large part of the committee's work in parliament is taken up in the discussion o,f matters in which only a few members are or can be interested. Instead of that procedure, I suggest that if we had our estimates going to standing committees, we would have every single member of the house somewhere on those committees, taking his place, and we would thereby eliminate all the boredom that from time to time is expressed by backbenchers because of having nothing to do, not being able to speak and not being able to take their proper part in administering the affairs of the nation. Right there in those committees they would have their chance to speak, to do a job for parliament, for the constituencies and for the country. From the backbencher's point of view particularly, I think that suggestion has great attractiveness.
It may be that we should not take the whole of the estimates of every department out of the committee of the whole. I know that there are some arguments that can be adduced both for and against that course. But after the administrative item has been debated in the committee of the whole-and this item gives every member a good chance to speak, whether he happens to be on any particular standing committee or not-and after it has been passed by the committee, the detailed estimates following could readily go to the standing committees that I would suggest. In a sense that would be a compromise between those who want everything to go to a committee and those who want to have everything dealt with in the committee of the whole house.


Mr. Weir:: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Gordon Graydon: Yes.


William Gilbert Weir: I have two things in mind, one dealing with matters after they have been accepted-and by that I mean reports of committees the following year-and one dealing with matters of policy before committees.

Standing Orders
My point is this. If you are having estimates generally referred to committees, would you expect the answers to questions to be given by departmental officials or to be given through the ministers?


Gordon Graydon: I think the government whip will admit that we have had some experience in the committee on external affairs. It has worked out in this way:	We usually
have the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) attending in the committee for one, two or three days. I think you can always count on the departmental officials sticking up for themselves and when a question concerning policy is asked they will always say that that is a matter for the minister. I cannot think of any instance where we got into trouble in the committee on external affairs in that regard. I thank the hon. member for bringing up this question because it gave me an opportunity to refer to the only experience we have had along these lines. I am simply suggesting that it might be adopted in connection with other estimates.
I am satisfied that there are many other things that can be done in connection with streamlining the rules. When I got up I had no intention of making a speech anywhere near as long as that made by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), but I do want to express some of the things that have been revolving in my mind in connection with house work. We hear a lot about the limitation of speeches and procedure in connection with rulings by Mr. Speaker. I think things are much better now than they were, but one thing we do still have is long-winded statements by ministers of the crown at the opening of the house. When such a statement is made and another hon. member gets up to reply he is likely to be ruled out of order. If it were not for the great leniency and wisdom and discerning judgment of His Honour I suppose we would have to be silent after these long statements are being made.
At first I was quite innocent about these statements. I used to think that just before a minister left his office something urgent had come up about which he had to make a statement. But then I noticed that quite often a minister would appear jittery and nervous if he did not get in his statement on the order for motions fairly early. Then I would look up in the press gallery and I would see the sheets flying around and v/ould realize that copies of the statement had been sent to the press before it was given to the House of Commons.
That sort of thing could develop into a species of insidious propaganda. It is an

important duty of the opposition to see that it does not go as far as that. I must say that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is not a great offender in that regard. When he is, we always tell him about it. I think these long-winded statements on the part of the government should be made short and to the point. More than that, I do not think any manoeuvres or conspiracies should be indulged in with backbenchers. I am only imagining this, but I can hear a minister saying to a backbencher, "I am going to get into trouble if I make a statement on the orders of the day because the opposition will object; how would you like to ask me a question and then nobody can say anything if I give a long answer?" That has been done although I have always been innocent enough to believe that the minister and the member had never had any previous communication.
This is the sort of thing I want to mention because this is the sort of thing that disturbs the House of Commons. I am hopeful that this lecture

for which I am not charging anything-will be taken in good part by those who need it most. As a matter of fact, some of those on the government benches who need it most are out of the chamber while some of those who need it least are present.
The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) will think that I have rambled a long way from his resolution but I think he will understand that it provides a broad vehicle for discussion in a frank and open manner. The hon. member made reference to the reading of speeches. I am afraid my thinking is not very orthodox in this connection. I would rather have a 15-minute speech read from a manuscript than listen for 30 or 40 minutes to a speech which had not been prepared, such as the one I am making.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: I remember when I first came to the house I was told that I should be able to speak on my feet without having to look anywhere except across at the other benches. I have always tried to do that, but it is a rather hard rule to follow. At times statements must be made by members of the government or members of the opposition in which questions of policy may be decided by one or two words. I think we have to use common sense in this sort of thing. I have never objected to ministers using rather extensive notes when they are dealing with questions of policy. I have spoken on external affairs on occasion and I have felt it necessary to have extensive notes or perhaps to quote partly from a speech that I had had typewritten.

But there is one thing I think we should get rid of. Oftentimes a member will read a speech containing phraseology which is so different from that which he normally uses that we would not recognize it as the remarks of the same man. That is what I object to. I have always had a suspicion that somebody else has had a hand in its preparation. When members come down here to represent constituencies they have the duty to speak on behalf of their constituents without the assistance of other people who may put in their mouths words that they would not normally use.
There is one thing I should like to have particularly noted by the backbenchers. More and more backbenchers should speak. I know my hon. friend will say that this resolution is designed to bring about that very thing, but there are other ways of doing it. Hon. members are sent here by their constituents. Their constituents may realize that they are not great public speakers, and perhaps that is why they have been elected. I do not think anyone in this house should be fearful about getting up and expressing his thoughts even though they may not be expressed in the language that might be heard in the appeal court of Ontario or of some other province.
After all, the House of Commons is not an appeal court. A person who has not a good education has as much right to be heard here as anyone else. This is the place for everybody to be heard, whether he is educated or not. This is the place where the people who sent them here should hear them, even though their voice may be halting and hesitant. I do not thing anyone should have any fear that he is inferior to anybody in this chamber, because he is not. In this chamber one person is as good as another whoever he or she may be. I should like to see that view adopted as a battlecry so far as members of parliament generally are concerned. As I said before, I enjoy the contributions made by those who do not speak often and who usually speak seetionally. Even if they do speak about their own sections I am often more interested in hearing what they have to say because it gives me a better idea of Canada as a whole. We should hear what people from various sections of Canada have to say, and the speech from the throne and budget debates provide an opportunity for that. I have spoken a lot longer than I intended, but I really should be allowed some special consideration because I am speaking in reply to a government motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Standing Orders


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member did not put that badge on it but I am going to do so for him.


Hughes Cleaver: I am sorry but I cannot accept it.


Gordon Graydon: In any event, in so far as our work in the House of Commons is concerned, I am not one who thinks that we should be complacent as to the present rules of procedure or the present conduct of debate. I have not felt that way for a long time. I think there are many people who are distressed and disturbed that we do not handle our business with better dispatch. Although on this occasion I have not given the house very much information, and perhaps there has not been a great deal of intellectual content in my remarks, at least I have done what I have urged the backbenchers to do. I have spoken my mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of us in the house agree that there is room for improvement in our rules of procedure and in some of our practices. Indeed there are a few suggestions I shall make while I am on my feet, but I think I should make it clear at the outset that I do not agree with the suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) in the motion now before us. Since I intend to express my opposition to most, if not all, of that motion, the responsibility devolves upon me to show that there are other steps that could be taken and to indicate the things that I think might be done.
In the first place I think it would add materially to the debates that take place in the house and to the endeavour to deal with our business more effectively if we could adopt hours of sitting at least similar to those that were in force toward the end of last session. I am sure if we could get it established for all time that we would adjourn at ten o'clock at night it would improve the spirit, morale, good will and everything else around this place.


Mr.   Coie@Maiapedia-Maiane: What do you mean by "everything else?"


Stanley Howard Knowles: After all, most members arrive here pretty early in the morning. They get here around nine or nine-thirty every morning, and I suggest that by the time it is ten o'clock at night it would be a good idea to call it a day. I suggest that far from that extra hour shortening the session it actually lengthens it because many speeches made during the last hour are merely made to keep the debate going or because tempers are frayed as the result of the long time that members have been here during the day.

Standing Orders
With respect to hours, I would point out that last year's committee, which sat under the chairmanship of Your Honour, recommended that the hours should be from 2.30 to six o'clock on each of the five afternoons, Monday through Friday, and from eight to ten on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday evenings.
Some members on the government side have suggested that that involves too great a reduction in the number of hours from those we now sit. The present sitting hours of the house-apart from our committee and office work-amount to twenty-seven a week, and the hours I have just quoted would total only twenty-three and a half. Some members feel that is too great a reduction. I suggest as a compromise that we could reinstate the Friday evening sitting from eight to ten in the proposal made by last year's committee, and that would be a little closer to the total number of hours we now sit. As a matter of fact it would mean a loss in the total number of sitting hours of only an hour and a half a week, and I am sure we would more than make up for that if we were to adjourn at ten o'clock at night.
I am one of those who feel that we could, to the advantage of the debate and the advantage of the speeches we make, including the speeches of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, reduce the length of speeches to thirty minutes, as suggested by the committee last year. I think that would be all to the good. I am one of those who feel that a change of that nature should not be forced upon the house when there is a substantial body of opinion against it, but I hope more consideration will be given to it.
The other type of suggestion that I offer for helping to streamline procedure is not in the nature of specific changes in rules. As a matter of fact I do not think you can achieve the objective of streamlining the business of the house merely by changing the rules. If you have an issue before the house about which there is feeling, over which there is contention, time is going to be taken on it no matter what rules you try to put through. What really matters if you are trying to expedite the business is that there be an understanding between the government and the opposition as to what is being proposed, and some measure of good will back and forth. I do not mean by that that the government and the opposition are going to agree on the things we are doing. We cannot agree when we are opposed to measures that are brought down, but I feel that the house could be taken into more of

the government's confidence by the government telling us a little more in advance what business it proposes to have the house discuss.
Frequent references have been made already today to practices followed in the United Kingdom. One of their practices is for the leader of the house to tell the house on Thursday of each week what the business will be for the days of the succeeding week. Here our practice for the most part is to be told at eleven o'clock at night what the business will be for the next day. I submit that is not conducive to a feeling of co-operation and good will between the two sides to the debate on any question.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Would the hon.
gentleman permit a question? How can we announce a week ahead of time the business for each day of the next week when we have no limit on debates? We never fix a limit on the debate on external affairs or the debate on national defence, and I do not know when we will complete those debates. If I were to announce the business for the first week we reconvene I would probably be far from the mark.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a fair question but the minister has given the answer to it. If the government were to give us an indication as to future plans a few days ahead or a week or two ahead, so that we would know what would follow the debate then in progress, I think there would be more of a disposition on the part of the opposition to move on from one debate to the other.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Alphonse Fournier: They would have to change quite a bit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As it is now, announcement is made of one debate at a time and we get that at eleven o'clock the night before it starts. The disposition of members is to settle down into that debate as if that is all there is.


Alphonse Fournier: Will the hon. gentleman permit one more question? Tonight I am going to announce that tomorrow we will continue the debate on national defence, get into committee of supply and I will call four departments. The budget will be on at eight o'clock. After the budget we will take up the Japanese treaty. Do you think the house will follow my directions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What will we do on
Wednesday?


Alphonse Fournier: We will revert to the Japanese treaty, if the debate is not concluded. Will the house follow that advice?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am having the satisfaction of seeing my suggestion accepted while in the middle of making it. I thank the minister for having given us an indication of what will be the business for the next two days. I was about to say to him and to the government that in the last session or two and particularly this session some progress has been made toward this goal.


Alphonse Fournier: Not in the length of debates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a moment. We have made progress in that the government has acceded to requests from the opposition to arrange for particular debates. For example, we had the debate on external affairs and we are having a debate on national defence. The minister seems to think those debates were lengthy. I do not think it was out of the way to have a debate for four and one-half days on the important question of external affairs, and so far we have had only two days on national defence.


Hughes Cleaver: The debate lasted two days in Britain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will get back to Britain in a little while. We have had those debates, and I believe hon. members on all sides, whatever their views, will agree they were good debates. I feel that it will save time later in the session for members to have the feeling that they had the opportunity to debate these important questions.
When you consider the matter of trying to achieve fair play and co-operation back and forth, I want to say quite frankly that it is a two-way proposition. If the government will play ball with the opposition by letting us know what their plans are, what matters are to be brought up and what debates we are to have, the opposition should not just talk for the sake of talking. But on the other hand I submit the government should not expect the opposition to close off debate just because a deadline creeps up on us, as happened with respect to the supplementary estimates last week. I say this is a two-way street. The opposition has a responsibility; but so has the government a responsibility not to crowd the house by giving us matters that have to be disposed of within too limited a space of time. As I said a moment ago, I feel we will make more progress if we have some understanding of what our program is and some planning of the work of the session. I feel we will make more progress that way than by trying to alter the various rules of the house.
Standing Orders


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. gentleman would permit a question, would his party give us their plans for every day next week and what they intend to do?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If we were transplanted to to the government side of the house we would do so.


Alphonse Fournier: You always come up with something new.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will be away from here next week, but I can promise the Minister of Public Works, since he wants to know our plans, that the week after that we will make our contribution to whatever subject is before us each day, as determined by the government.


Alphonse Fournier: And taking a lot of time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) has made some specific suggestions. I have already indicated that I do not agree with them, that far from expediting the business of the house I think they would actually delay it, in that their adoption by the majority of this house would make the members of the opposition and minority groups feel that restrictions had been placed upon them. As a matter of fact, despite his attempt at one point in his speech to say he did not want to limit free debate and the right and duty of the opposition to criticize, nevertheless two or three times the hon. member showed his hand. He started right off by comparing the time taken during a previous session or two by government members and the time taken by the opposition; and he had a great deal to say about what he called the filibuster that took place during the session at the end of 1951. As the hon. member knows, I was a little annoyed at the length of a certain debate, and I tried to do something on one occasion to bring that debate to a conclusion. I regret to say I was not successful.


Mr. Cole (Maiapedia-Malane):: Is the hon. gentleman willing to suggest to the house that no member should speak more than once
a week?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I would not make any such suggestion. The fact of the matter is that members are sent here by the people of the constituencies of Canada to bring their best judgment to bear on the issues that come before the country. How people can expect to bring their judgment to bear on these issues by sitting in their seats and not saying anything is more than I can understand.

Standing Orders
If I may get back to where I was before the last interruption, I was pointing out that the hon. member for Halton made it clear in his remarks that his main desire is somehow to cut down the amount of time the opposition is taking. He showed his hand in that respect in his opening remarks, and he revealed it again two or three times during the course of his speech.


Hughes Cleaver: That is perfectly right; I admit it. I think the government supporters are entitled to as much of the time of this house as the opposition groups. I may be wrong, but that is the way I feel.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no quarrel with that statement, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member did not propose that government members be given more time. No such proposition needs to be put forward; they have the right now to take all the time they wish. What he proposed was that methods should be adopted by a majority vote of this house to place restrictions upon those who are now exercising their right of speech in this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never mind saying oh, oh. I point out that each item the hon. member has placed in his omnibus resolution with the possible exception of (e), about which I will say something when I come to it, is restrictive in nature. Each proposal is an attempt to cut down the length of time to be taken by members of the opposition. That is my quarrel with this motion, that its underlying basis disregards the principle of free speech and the freedom of members of parliament to exercise their rights and their responsibilities when they come to this house. I would like hon. members to listen again to citation No. 1 in Beauchesne's third edition:
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law, as Bourinot so aptly says, are: "to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority: to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every member to express his opinion within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time-"


Hughes Cleaver: That is fair enough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me hear you say "hear, hear" to the next clause:
"-to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse."
Where are the hear, hear's now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good. Similarly I ask hon. members to remember citation 818, which is

taken from John Hatsell, a parliamentary authority of the late 18th century, who said:
"So far the maxim is certainly true and founded on good sense that as it is always in the power of the majority by their numbers to stop any improper measures proposed on the part of their opponents-"
That is right, and it should be that way. The majority should have the right to rule and the right to have the Anal say. But, says Hatsell, it is also true that-
"-the only weapon by which the minority can defend themselves from similar attempts from those in power are the forms and rules and proceedings which have been found necessary from time to time and are become the standing orders of the house, by a strict adherence to which the weaker party can alone be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for the hon. member for Halton to say that it is the right of the majority to rule and to make the final decision, but it is another thing to suggest that the majority should use that power in a wanton manner to restrict the right of speech, to restrict the opportunities of members on the government side or the opposition side to participate fully in debate.
Although I shall not take time to read it because it is a lengthy one, members should read citation 20 in this same edition of Beauchesne. It appears on pages 11 and 12. In this citation Dr. Beauchesne has quoted at length from the very well known speech by Edmund Burke made to his constituents at Bristol in November, 1774. The reason I remind members about this citation, and of the quotation from Burke which is included in it, is that I believe it emphasizes the importance of every private member of any parliament-


Hughes Cleaver: Of every private member, and not just members of the opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the point. I am going to stick with this argument for a moment and put on the record a few sentences from Edmund Burke:
But, his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These, he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
That whole statement of Burke's, and that speech to his electors was on the point that, what was being elected to parliament was not a rubber stamp but a human being, with powers of judgment, and one whose responsibility it was to bring those powers of

judgment to bear upon the issues of the country in the interest, not only of one constituency but of the whole realm. I urge upon all members, as I am sure they all have, to read that statement of Burke's to remind themselves of the importance in this house of every private member from every constituency in this country.


Hughes Cleaver: Having concluded that, would the hon. member mind if I asked a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member going back to the question he asked a moment ago?


Hughes Cleaver: No. My question is this. Do you not admit that all four recommendations which I have put forward in my resolution are less restrictive as to debate than are the rules in Westminster, or is he criticizing Westminster?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The situation at Westminster and here are different in so many particulars that it is almost impossible to make a comparison. May I point out-


Hughes Cleaver: All your quotations are from the old country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that frequent reference is made to the fact that at Westminster they fix these periods of time at the end of which a vote is taken. I would point out that if there are members who still wish to speak on the day the vote is to be taken the debate sometimes continues all night. Indeed you have these 23-hour sessions. In other words, so long as people still want to speak-


Hughes Cleaver: I must quarrel with the hon. member on that point. The debate only carries on when a motion is made for it to continue; otherwise a vote is taken at the end of the agreed period. I cited one case where, during a debate on the address, fifty members wanted to speak but only twelve spoke and then the vote was taken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No doubt it happened the way the hon. member says it was recorded on that particular occasion, but I have been over there and seen the members of that parliament in action. It is not always acceptable to a member to withdraw, and if he does not wish to withdraw that day's sitting continues until those who wish to speak have spoken. Sometimes a debate goes on continuously for 23 hours, or longer. You have, therefore, a case where you are not denying to the private member his right to be heard for fifteen minutes or seven minutes, whatever it may be, if he wishes to do so.


Hughes Cleaver: All I am asking for is the
Westminster practice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, you are not asking for the Westminster practice at all. You are
Standing Orders
asking for a curtailment of the practice that is now in vogue here. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that this whole business of comparing Westminster with the situation here has been gone into by others. It was fully investigated by Dr. Beauchesne in the days when he was clerk. He prepared a lengthy report on this matter which Mr. Speaker Fauteux presented to the house back in 1947. The report pointed out that there are great differences, geographical amongst others, between the United Kingdom, where you have a small compact country, largely homogeneous, as compared with the wide expanse of our country and all the different interests we have from coast to coast. This report is to be found in the Journals for Friday, December 5, 1947, from pages 7 to 32.
A portion of that discussion, which is to be found on pages 10 and 11, points out many of those differences that exist between that country and ours which result in it being necessary for us to pay some attention to the British practice, but to recognize also that we have ia Canadian situation, and that we have to develop a parliamentary practice of our own based on British principles and yet clearly Canadian. I would point out that in that same report which was presented to this house by Dr. Fauteux-I think it is fair to say he had the assistance of Dr. Beauchesne in preparing it-he said this, as reported on page 10 of the Journals of December 5, 1947:
The mere object of shortening sessions must not be the aim of any revision of our rules. The duties of a representative parliament are too important to be performed in a hurry. No question should be decided until it has been fully discussed.


William Gilbert Weir: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make an interjection. The hon. member, in his reference to Burke's speech about the duties of a member of parliament, interjected an inference to the effect that members who did not make speeches but merely voted were rubber stamps. I do not think that is a proper inference to be made. In its implication it naturally refers to a greater extent to government members than it does to opposition members. I venture to say that even in the governments of the United Kingdom a lot of members have voted with their parties, even though they have not made speeches, and in that sense the hon. member would refer to them as rubber stamps.
I believe that the hon. member will agree that members on the government side, and even in his own party, quite frequently vote without making speeches. Whether or not they are voting exactly according to the dictates of their conscience we do not know, but in that sense they are rubber stamps. Government members, may I point out, have opportunities that opposition members do not have

Standing Orders
of becoming informed on matters of policy. I think it is quite improper, therefore, for the inference to go out that government members are really rubber stamps voting along with the party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is six o'clock, but may I just say this. I have no objection to the point made by the member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) that some members may feel they can express their judgment by voting just as much as by speaking. My point is that if a member feels he should express his judgment by speaking, he should not be restricted in that right or cut off from doing it.


Alphonse Fournier: Except if he repeats the same speech five times in the same session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would agree with that. It is strange that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) did not hear me when I was making suggestions with which he agreed. Now that I am making a few with which he does not agree, he is making these frequent comments.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. CRIMINAL CODE

Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, may we revert to motions for the purpose of my filing the report of the royal commission with reference to the Criminal Code under the chairmanship of the Hon. W. M. Martin, Chief Justice of Saskatchewan, and the new draft consolidated Criminal Code, which is an integral part of this report?


STANDING ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cleaver:
That, in the opinion of this house, the standing orders of this house should be amended in regard to debates and in regard to procedure in standing and select committees in order to bring the rules of debate more in line with present day needs and that, inter alia, such amendments should specifically provide:	(a) for the passage of allocation time
orders by this house with respect to any measure brought before it and that motions for allocation time orders should be put by Mr. Speaker, including all underlying amendments, after sixty minutes of debate have elapsed; (b) for the fixation in standing orders of a time limit on debates on the address

in reply to the speech from the throne and the debate on the budget, after the expiration of which periods of time, the motion and all underlying amendments would be put by Mr. Speaker; (c) for the limiting to one half hour of the debate on all procedural motions and underlying amendments; (d) for provision that at the expiration of the seventh allotted day the chairman of the committee of supply and ways and means shall forthwith and without further debate put every question necessary to dispose of all of the votes of the departmental estimates under consideration; (e) for the requirement that at least four members should rise in their seats to express opposition for a request for unanimous consent to a suspension of the rules, otherwise unanimous consent of the house to be presumed when requested.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, just before six o'clock, at least just before the last interruption before six o'clock, I was dealing with the point set out in the report on procedure which was presented to the House of Commons on July 5, 1947, by Mr. Speaker Fauteux. I had drawn attention to two or three sentences, particularly these:
The mere object of shortening sessions must not be the aim of any revision of our rules. The duties of a representative parliament are too important to be performed in a hurry. No question should be decided until it has been fully discussed.
I should point out that in that same paragraph it is made clear that we do not want to go to the other extreme and waste time in unnecessary repetition. But the point is clearly set out there by Dr. Fauteux, and has been confirmed by Dr. Beauchesne, in his studies of these matters, that we should realize the important question in relation to parliamentary debate is not whether we get it over in a hurry or spin it out at length. Rather the important aspect is the quality of the debate, the quality of the legislation dealt with and the responsibility that we bring to our task as members of parliament.
If I might refer back to the interjection made by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) just before six o'clock, I have no objection to those hon. members who feel that they can make their contribution by saying little or nothing during the course of a session. Neither do I have any objection to the plea made indirectly by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) that there be opportunity given to government members to speak more than they now do. There is no doubt as to their right to speak as often as they wish, and far from putting any restrictions on them, I would be glad to see them take a greater part in the debates of this house than they do at the present time. But, Mr. Speaker, what I do object to is the attempt which is involved in the motion now before us to restrict those who are speaking, and, according to the hon. member for Halton, that happens to be the members of the opposition.

I pointed out that the resolution before us, at least in so far as four of its points are concerned, is definitely restrictive. Their aim is to set up a system whereby this house, by a majority vote, would determine that certain debates would last for only a certain length of time. The result of that, Mr. Speaker, is inevitable. The result would be that in some of those debates there would be hon. members who wished to speak but would not have an opportunity to do so. They might be members of the opposition; they might be members of the government side of the house. I contend that members who are sent here should have the right to speak on issues that come before the house, if they wish to do so, and that is why I oppose the hon. member's proposal.
I have no objection to any changes in the rules that are agreed upon by the house as a whole which are fair to all and equal in then-application to all members. But a set of rules like these would not be equal in their application. These rules, if put into effect, would result in some members having the right to take part in certain debates, and other members being denied that right.
If I may come back to Burke's statement again, I suggest that the constituents in every part of Canada send their members here to bring their best judgment to bear on the issues before this house, and that the electors in every constituency have a right to expect that their member will have the right to speak if he wishes to do so. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I feel that the house should not entertain the first four proposals in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Halton.
As I have said, there are frequent references to the practices at Westminster, and there are many things at Westminster that we would do well to follow; but I submit, as Dr. Beauchesne and Dr. Fauteux have pointed out, there are vast differences between that country and this. We have to develop procedures and ways of doing things that fit appropriately the Canadian situation.
One of the proposals that are before us is Cc):
For the limiting to one half hour of the debate on all procedural motions and underlying amendments.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That is long enough for anyone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Springfield says: "That is long enough for anyone." I think the hon. member misunderstands paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) does not say that speeches should be reduced to thirty minutes. If it said that I would agree with it. What paragraph (c) says is that the total time taken by all the members of this house 55704-76
Standing Orders
on a procedural matter shall be limited to thirty minutes. Mr. Speaker, I might take that long myself, and no one else would get a chance.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: No, you are wrong.


An hon. Member:: Don't we know it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was hoping that there would be some comment, and I hear there is. Mr. Speaker, it is true that the important debates in this house are on matters of substance, not on procedure, but there are times when a point of procedure and procedural proposals can be extremely important in their bearing on the rights and privileges of the members of parliament, and to suggest that in no case should a debate on a procedural motion last more than a half hour is, I suggest, unduly restrictive of the rights and the privileges of hon. members.
The other points (a), (b) and (d) are related to debates in various ways, but all have as their aim the limiting to a certain definite period of time all the debate that can take place in this house. If such a limitation could be brought about debate by debate as it comes along, by agreement in the house, I am all for it, but to lay it down as a rule, passed by a majority vote of this house, will not expedite the business of the house; it will annoy those who are frozen out by such a measure, and you will actually have the debate increased and the length of the session increased by time being taken on other items.
I said earlier that I would say a word with regard to subparagraph (e) which reads:
For the requirement that at least four members should rise in their seats to express opposition for a request for unanimous consent to a suspension of the rules, otherwise unanimous consent of the house to be presumed when requested.
There are those who regard that as a plausible suggestion. I think it is one to be looked at very carefully. What it suggests is that we should make it easier to suspend the rules of the house. It is now possible, Mr. Speaker, to suspend any rule of this house in the proper manner, by notice being given, that notice appearing on the order paper and it coming up after the required forty-eight hours' notice. What this motion would suggest would be that that procedure could be got around, and that at any time the house could be asked to suspend any of its rules, provided that there were fewer than four members who did not object. Well, that raises the whole question as to whether it is a good idea to suspend rules. Rules are established by a parliament like this because we believe they are a proper way to carry on our business. They are sanctioned by long usage and by all the traditions of our

Standing Orders
democratic process. To suggest that they should be lightly set aside is, in my view, open to question. I know of occasions in the time that I have been here when there has been before the house a measure that seemed agreeable to everyone, and. so we have been asked, by unanimous consent, to suspend the rules and to go through two, three, four, five, six or seven stages in one day. I remember in particular the bill with respect to re-establishment credits which was introduced toward the end of world war II. That was a measure that we were all anxious to support. It was introduced toward the end of the session, and the late Mr. King suggested that inasmuch as we were all in favour of it, perhaps we could let it go through all its stages in one day.
For anyone to suggest that we should stick to the rules seemed a bit out of place in that particular atmosphere, and so it was permitted to go through. Within the next two or three days, however, we began to get public comment as to some shortcomings in that legislation; but we no longer had the opportunity to express any of those views on the floor of this house because we had by-passed the usual procedure and had put the bill through all its stages in the one day. I think that if, on that occasion, one hon. member had felt that the conscience of the house should be pricked a bit and if he had said, "No; I think that at least one of these stages should stand over for another day", it would have been better. In that event those views which people had and which they communicated to us a few days later could have been expressed on the floor of this house. I mention that as one example. There are others that have taken place since I have been here. I mention that one in particular because that is one of the rules, the suspension of which is so often requested.
I can agree that in many cases it seems unnecessary to wait for another day, we will say, for third reading of a bill for which there is general support. But what happens here is that if we let third readings go time after time without waiting for the next day, it becomes almost a practice of the house; and then anyone who wants to hold it up is told that is no longer the practice of this House of Commons. It is that sort of thing that makes me suggest that we should be extremely careful about changing the rule with respect to unanimous consent. I do not think we should agree that anything has unanimous consent unless it actually has unanimous consent, and that rule should apply very definitely with regard to the standing orders of this house.
I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, on this note. I simply want to say that I feel

that there are improvements that could be made in our rules and in our procedure. At the opening part of my remarks I suggested some of the changes that I thought should be made. I have spoken in particular of the hours of sitting, of the length of speeches, and of planning the work of the session. I think we have made some progress; and I think that the reason we have done so is that we have had so many committees on house procedure. I know that some of those who have been on those committees feel frustrated; they feel that we meet for hours on end and that we do not make much progress. The fact of the matter is, however, that we talk these matters out and we reach some agreements and those agreements get reflected in the way the business of this house is conducted.
I think we should continue to attempt to improve the rules of this house and to improve the procedure of this house in that way. I do not think we should try to do it by means of a motion of this kind coming before the house, being voted on and being passed by the majority of the house against the will of a substantial minority. After this discussion has taken place-and there is no doubt as to the value of the discussion, whatever our various opinions may be-I hope the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) will consent that the motion be adjourned or that it be postponed to another day and that he will leave to the committee method the whole question of trying to improve the rules of the house on the basis of good will and co-operation rather than on the basis of the majority using its power to introduce restrictive changes which would defeat their own purpose.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, I believe that members on all sides of the house agree that certain changes should be made in the standing orders. In regard to this question that appears to be the only point upon which there is any unanimity. But the minute you start to discuss any changes, you then get a multitude of different views; and few members appear to be willing to compromise on their stand. I think that fact is borne out by what has happened in the various select committees that have been set up during the past few years to deal with the question.
Last year a special committee was set up to bring down' recommendations as to ways and means of expediting the business of the house. That committee had before them the experience of what had happened on former occasions, and they therefore hoped to bring down some worth-while recommendation. They realized that the only chance of getting a recommendation from the committee was

to bring down suggestions that would represent a fairly close approximation to unanimity. The first question they tackled was that of the hours of sitting. There was a high degree of agreement on that point; but many of us in that committee felt that it would not be possible for that committee merely to recommend that change in the hours of sitting. After all, that committee has been set up for the purpose of helping to expedite the business of the house. Therefore, if they had merely recommended that we shorten the hours of sitting, the net result would have been the lengthening of the sessions of the house rather than the shortening of them. Hence it was considered wise to tie in with that recommendation one to the effect that the length of speeches should be cut down from forty minutes to thirty minutes.
Unfortunately, that recommendation did not gain the same degree of agreement as did the one for a change in the hours of sitting. But even on that point there was a fairly high degree of support. Seventy-five per cent of the parties supported it, the Conservative party being the only party that was opposed to it. For that reason-and I would say for that reason alone-it was considered wise to make the recommendation in regard to the hours of sitting as a permanent affair, which would have required an amendment to the standing orders; but in regard to the shortening or the limitation of speeches, the recommendation was merely that as an experiment for one session we would have the speeches shortened from forty minutes to thirty minutes.
Personally, I thought that was a reasonable suggestion and I had hoped that it would receive the support of all parties. But as I mentioned a moment ago, the Progressive Conservative party could not see their way clear to support it; and for that reason, I presume, the government did not see fit to proceed with the recommendation. I still think, however, that the government would be fully justified in proceeding on that recommendation, because it would certainly improve the hours of sitting. I think everybody would feel in a better mood as a result of having the sittings adjourned at ten o'clock instead of eleven o'clock. It would also help to expedite the business of the house because, if that recommendation had carried, we would have seven and a half speeches a week more than we now have under the present sittings; that is, if everybody used his full time, we would have forty-eight speeches a week whereas at the present time we have only forty and a half. Not only would it improve the general sittings of the house and meet 55704-764-

Standing Orders the favour of all members in that regard, but it would actually increase the amount of business that could be handled by the sittings.
I now want to deal specifically with the proposals contained in this resolution. I think the hon. member for Halton did a service to the house in bringing this question before it. I do not agree with the resolution but at least it can be said that we are having an interesting discussion on this question. In so far as we in this group are concerned, I may say that we can support only the last paragraph, namely paragraph (e), which provides that at least four members should rise in their seats to express opposition for a request for unanimous consent to a suspension of the rules.
That is the only section we are prepared to support. The reason we are opposed to the others is that paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) would require the apportioning of time for speaking. I think all members will realize that it would be very difficult to apportion the time on an equitable basis. If there were just two parties in the house it would not be so difficult, but with four parties it would be quite difficult to apportion time on an equitable basis. What would the basis be? The hon. member for Halton suggested that it should be left to the whips to decide, but the whips would have to have some basis on which to work. Would it be on the same basis as that used for setting up committees? Would it be on the same basis as that used for apportioning time over the C.B.C.? We would certainly not agree to that.
The hon. member for Halton suggested that there should be equal time for the opposition and the Liberal members. I would point out that there are a number of reasons why the opposition need and should have more time for speaking than the members of the Liberal party. I think the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) gave one of the best reasons why members of the opposition should have more time to speak than the members of the Liberal party. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was speaking, the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa objected to the use of the term "rubber stamp" in regard to Liberal members who did not speak. He said he objected to that term because Liberals did not have to speak as much. He pointed out that they had other opportunities to express their opinions and discuss with the government what should or should not be done. He said that they had other opportunities to ask that certain bills or legislation should be amended.
The opposition does not have the same opportunity and for that reason, if for no

Standing Orders
other, the members of the opposition are justified in demanding that they have a longer period of time in which to express their points of view than the members of the Liberal party. I think the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa made a good point in that regard although he may have been bringing it up for a different reason.
The government has a majority and can put through whatever legislation it wants to. You may ask: How can they get legislation through if there is a filibuster? The government has power to impose closure, although they do not like to use it. But the only power the opposition has is to advance arguments in order to convince the government that legislation should be changed. Sometimes the opposition must speak at great length in order to convince the government that legislation should be changed. We have recent examples of how as a result of argument put forward by the opposition the government finally realized that their legislation was not wise and changed it.
This happened in connection with contracts at the last session. As a result of a strong protest by the opposition the government changed their legislation. I recall some years ago the same thing happened during the budget debate in connection with depreciation. The opposition objected to certain depreciation provisions and debated all day, and the next day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) brought down an amendment to carry out the very thing the opposition had been asking for.
It is on such occasions that the opposition must have time in order to put forward their arguments, and put them forward forcibly. I am convinced that if the proposals contained in this resolution were carried out they would greatly restrict the efficient operation of the opposition. I think all members will agree that it is not desirable that the efficiency of the opposition should be cut down or restricted.
There is one other point I want to bring up and perhaps the members of the Liberal party will not agree with me on this. The opposition actually represents more voters than do the members of the Liberal party. A vast majority of the Liberal members got in with minority votes and therefore the opposition in this house must express the opinion of a greater number of voters than the members of the Liberal party can speak for. So I think there are three good reasons why the apportionment of time should be on the basis of more time for the opposition than for the Liberals. But I repeat that it would be very difficult to accomplish such an apportionment and I think it would be far better for the

government to leave that question aside altogether. I come now to paragraph (c) which reads:
For the limiting to one half hour of the debate on all procedural motions and underlying amendments.
Surely the hon. member for Halton could not have been serious in making that suggestion. I do not think any hon. member will suggest that such a thing would be feasible. Imagine some point of order coming up in the house and the first speaker being the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. No one else would have a chance to speak as he would probably take the whole half hour. Even if somebody else was allowed to speak for a few minutes, he would want to reply. If you limited it to a half hour you would just have one member speaking and the rest of us would not have a chance to say anything. We could not possibly support this section. I am also very much opposed to section (d) which reads:
For provision that at the expiration of the seventh allotted day the chairman of the committee of supply and ways and means shall forthwith and without further debate put every question necessary to dispose of all of the votes of the departmental estimates under consideration.
Suppose we were dealing with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture which contain many items. An hon. member might be interested in an item at the bottom of the list and might feel that he would never have a chance to speak on it because the time would be used up. He would be forced to take up that matter on the first item and the result would be that every member would be bringing up his own particular matters on the first item and you would have a most disorderly debate. Section (e) reads:
For the requirement that at least four members should rise in their seats to express opposition for a request for unanimous consent to a suspension of the rules, otherwise unanimous consent of the house to be presumed when requested.
We would not oppose that. I think it is only reasonable that if all hon. members except one desire that a certain rule be suspended, then that rule should be suspended. I think any party in the house should be able to find four members to object if they wanted to object and the government would then not be able to proceed. I do not think one member should be allowed to hold up proceedings. He may happen to be in bad temper or have a chip on his shoulder and out of pure devilment want to stop the proceedings.
I think there are changes that could be made in the present rules which would greatly expedite the proceedings and increase the efficiency of the house. It should not be very difficult to bring about these changes.

First, I think we should change the hours of sitting as recommended last year by the committee so that the house sits from two-thirty o'clock in the afternoon until ten o'clock at night. Then the length of speeches should be reduced from forty to thirty minutes. As I pointed out, if that were done and if every member who spoke took his full time you would actually have seven and a half more speeches in the week than you have at the present time. There would be a more pleasant feeling in the house and at the same time more work would be done.
There is one other matter which would not require a change in the standing orders and the rules; it simply requires that the present rules should be carried out. Speeches should not be read in this house. I know some hon. members will say that that is easier said than done, that it is hard to enforce that rule. There are many occasions when it would be quite simple to ask a member to stop reading his speech. When a member holds up his speech and is reading it word for word and line for line, what he is doing becomes quite obvious. It is all very well for him to say he is just referring to some very copious notes but it is easy enough to tell when a member is reading a speech, and I say that so long as that is a breach of the rule it should not be allowed. If on the other hand the house feels that members should be allowed to read their speeches, then let us amend the rule and permit them to do so; but as long as the rule exists I think the practice of reading speeches should be discontinued. I am satisfied that if the rule were enforced it would also help to expedite the business of the house. Speeches would be far more interesting to listen to and we would know for certain that a member was expressing his own views instead of perhaps merely reading views expressed by somebody else and put in the form of writing for the member.
Those are the three things I think should be done. I think we would be making a big mistake to try to carry out the recommendations covered by the resolution. I am satisfied that in the first place it would take a very long debate on amending the rules to put a thing of that kind into operation, and in the second place I think if it were done it would cause a good deal of confusion and dissatisfaction in the house.


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to the speeches that have been delivered since the beginning of this debate, and I must tell the house that there are some points of view that have been expressed with which I agree and others with which I do not agree.
Standing Orders
Let me take the last point made by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) about the reading of speeches. I have sat in the House of Commons for twenty-eight or twenty-nine sessions. That is a long time. I have had quite an experience listening to speeches whether read or delivered extemporaneously. In my opinion there is a psychological problem involved. Sometimes you see a member get up for the first time in a deliberative assembly and after talking for five or ten minutes he then tries to fill out the rest of his speech with the remainder of the strength left in his legs. That is psychological. He cannot face such an assembly whereas he can face a crowd on the hustings, on a public platform.
Everyone here will admit that the atmosphere of the House of Commons is quite different from that of the public platform. When you are on the public platform you have many friends gathered around to support you. In the House of Commons you have people who are very objective in their thinking. They are of different parties but they are accustomed to listening to speeches. Some of them read newspapers. Others talk. Others go out and others come in. They attend to their own business. Do you think such an atmosphere helps a speaker who is a little shy and timid in delivering a speech without reading it? I think the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) was right this afternoon when he said he had no quarrel with those who read speeches.


Gordon Graydon: Provided they write them themselves.


Pierre Gauthier: I shall come to that. I am not prepared to say that all the speeches read in the house have been prepared by others. Most of the time the speech is prepared by the one who is speaking. He cannot express himself properly without reading his speech because, in vulgar language-I do not quite know how to express it otherwise-he has not got the guts to express himself.


An hon. Member:: Intestinal fortitude.


Pierre Gauthier: As my hon.
friend says, intestinal fortitude. Therefore he has to read his speech. In academies of science, philosophy and so on all the speeches are read and the level of the discussion is not lowered because of that fact. Speeches are not longer because they are read. I think some of the speeches delivered in the house-mine, for instance-would have been better if they had been prepared ahead of time in written form, and I am accustomed to the House of Commons.


Gordon Graydon: You are pretty good.

Standing Orders


Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: When you take the time to think carefully and assemble your arguments properly I think you make a better speech, advance better arguments and come to the point you want to make in a better and quicker way. Therefore I do not think the rule forbidding the reading of speeches is such a good one. It is one of the rules we find in this thick volume of Beauchesne forming that spider web through which only the experts of the house can see clearly, and even when they see clearly they cannot agree. Even the experts disagree. When I first entered the house as a member I looked at that fat volume and said: Maybe all these rules have been manufactured so as to make a better appearing volume. I said to myself: It is better looking when it is fat and big; it looks learned. That is what I thought. I think we should do away with all these rules and have our own House of Commons rules. Then when we do not agree we would not be obliged to go to the bottom of the page and find a little remark that kills all the other articles that have been quoted before. That is what happens here too often.


John Lorne MacDougall: I quite endorse the
remarks that have been made and I wish to ask the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) if he would be in favour of having a public bonfire of the first, second and third editions of Beauchesne. I certainly am.


Pierre Gauthier: It all depends. I spoke of the psychological aspect a few moments ago. It all depends on whether you did not suffer any repression in your childhood and can look at the fire without being scared. To prove what I was saying about the reading of speeches, I should like to refer to something that happened when I was a provincial member in Quebec, and it concerns a member who had experienced some ten sittings. I was the whip of the Liberal party, and one morning Mr. Taschereau asked me to get a few members to make a good debate on horticulture. Therefore I got members of the opposition and the Liberal party and they started speaking. The member to whom I have already referred, and who had the experience of ten sittings, started to speak about small fruits. He tried to cross the blue line and he could not do it. He had small fruits in his mind and on his lips and he could not get away with it because suddenly he got scared of the house. He got shy and noticed the way members were looking at him. That is a problem that can arise in the case of any member listening to me at the present time.


Gordon Graydon: Stage fright.


Pierre Gauthier: I am sure of that, and that is why I advocate that the rule forbidding the reading of speeches should be abolished. The result would be that better speeches would be delivered. I do not quarrel with anyone who reads his speech whether he be the chief of the opposition or a minister of the crown. There is a way of shortening the session. I think I would favour a thirty-minute time limit on speeches. In an old French classic of Boileau there is this saying:
Ce que l'on congoit bien s'enonce clairement,
Et les mots pour le dire, arrivent aisement.
That means that a man who thinks clearly and who knows his subject well does not have to take forty minutes or an hour in order to tell the house his understanding of the subject and what he knows about it. He can do it in thirty minutes. It is an exceptional subject that requires more than thirty minutes to discuss. I do not say that a minister, or the chief of the opposition, or the leaders of the other parties might not take more than thirty minutes when they have a special question to discuss, but in my opinion almost any matter can be fully dealt with in half an hour.
There is another way of shortening the session; and I speak from experience, because I am one of those in the house who are guilty. I believe some hon. members make too many and too long speeches for propaganda purposes. I have had some of my speeches printed and sent to my electors just for propaganda, and I know some hon. members do the same thing. I see thousands of copies of speeches leaving the House of Commons, and very often they are just for propaganda. If you could cut out half of this propaganda, that would be a way of shortening the sessions.
I said what I have to say about the rules. I think they should be changed. I believe we should have a committee of this house to go over those rules and draw up new ones on which we could all agree. I have no doubt that under such rules the work of the house could be dealt with just as well as under the rules we now follow. I have no quarrel with anyone who disagrees with my point of view, but I do believe we could shorten our sessions by getting together in a committee and trying to work something out. That would take a lot of good will, a lot of objective thinking, and a deep sense of co-operation.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), who introduced this resolution, drew attention to the situation in the British House of Commons and attempted to show that less time is devoted to parliament in England than

in Canada. To repeat a famous phrase, I think that is a "terminological inexactitude".
I checked in the very volume to which the hon. member referred, May's Parliamentary Practice, fifteenth edition, to ascertain the length of British parliamentary sessions. I find that they had sessions of seven and one-half months before the war and eight and one-half months after the war, which rather exceeds the length of the sessions of this house.
The hon. member also referred to filibusters here, and suggested they had none in Britain. The all-night sessions they have had recently, however, would seem to come pretty close to filibusters. He also mentioned the debate on defence which took place there on March 5, describing it as lively and constructive, indicating the number of members who took part and the average length of their speeches.
I would point out to hon. members that in that debate there was a better division as between the government and the opposition than is usually the case here. Eight members on the government side participated, with ten from the opposition benches. I think that indicates a greater element of freedom on the part of private members in the British house. I suggest it would be useful if we had the same degree of participation here by private members on the other side. Much as I enjoy listening to the ministers, there are many private members on the other side who have information which should be conveyed to this house.
The hon. member also indicated that in the British house the type of debate, attendance in the chamber and so on were much better, and he seemed to attribute that to certain rules they have which are not applicable here. I cannot see that there is a great deal of difference. There are occasions when the British house is crowded, when the atmosphere is tense and a great debate is in progress. There are also occasions in this house when there is a great air of expectancy, when the chamber is crowded and debate is lively and constructive. There are plenty of occasions in the British house when it is just as dull as it is in this house. I have sat in the galleries over there and have seen very scattered attendance. As far as I can see the only advantage they have over us is that the Prime Minister and those sitting in the front benches can put their feet on the table by the dispatch box, as 1 have seen Mr. Attlee do. I have listened to debates there that were no livelier than many debates here. After all, they go through the same routine. There are lively debates, and there are debates dealing with routine matters which do not attract much attention.
Standing Orders
I suggest that Mr. A. P. Herbert's book "Independent Member" gives an idea of what transpires there; and it indicates that the situation is not very different from that in Canada. As hon. members will recall, Mr. Herbert was a member of the House of Commons for about sixteen years, during which time he was very active and influential.
I am going to read one or two short passages from his book to indicate that things are not so different in the British house. If anyone imagines that everyone there pays rapt attention when a member is making a speech, let him listen to what Mr. Herbert says:
There is movement everywhere. It is like making a speech in a beehive and those who remain motionless are not necessarily attentive, or even silent. Ministers and whips must confer upon the course of the debate, check facts and figures, read documents about something quite different. A member will come in with a resolution or amendment to another bill, to which he is seeking signatures. He goes from friend to friend, and there is a whispered colloquy with each . . . Then there will be a few couples having private conversations about their holiday plans, about the party meeting, about the latest scandal, or the by-election, or the pretty girl in the Speaker's gallery.
As to the reading of speeches, I agree with what was said by the hon. member who preceded me. There are occasions when it is helpful to a person to be able to at least refer to his notes. As Erskine May puts it in his book on parliamentary procedure:
A member is not permitted to read his speech, but may refresh his memory by a reference to notes.
Then he goes on to say:
The chair does not as a rule intervene unless appealed to, and, unless there is good ground for interfering in the interests of debate, usually passes off the matter with a remark to the effect that the notes used by the hon. member appear to be unusually full, or that the hon. member has provided himself with rather copious notes.
I think perhaps that is the best approach to that question. Now and then members of the British house read their speeches, and dealing with the preparation and reading of speeches Mr. Herbert has this to say:
Mr. Churchill, they say, dictates the first versions of his great speeches; but what a time even that must take! Some humbler folk, like myself, are incapable of dictation; that is, being writers first and speakers afterwards, perhaps, we more surely find the satisfying phrase and sequence in the act of writing.
At first, I used to write out every word of a speech and have it typed-not for reading but for remembrance. To get good phrasing and a lucid line-unless you are a Churchill or a King's Counsel -I still think this is best, though now I much resent the expense of time and trouble. After that, if I may advise the beginner, it is a good thing to write the heads of the argument, with any choice quotations or figures, on the back page, or a blank page, of the bill, white paper, or what-not. It is natural and proper to see a member flourishing the bill which is under discussion: and-who knows?-he may have jotted down those brilliant arguments during the debate. I find myself often repelled by the other method-by the member who has an

Standing Orders
evident bundle of notes like a pack of cards. Sometimes, as each little page is done with, he puts it down on the bench beside him. Sometimes they are turned over like the pages of an almanac.
I believe that would indicate that they have the same trouble there that we have here. He instances, too, the difficulties facing a member of the house who finds himself without an audience. You might be interested in the following, speaking about a backbencher:
The backbencher must be in his place when the debate on the bill begins: but there is small chance of his going into action for two or three hours. The minister, whose opening is delayed, perhaps, till three forty-five, takes a leisurely forty minutes and the front-bencher on the other side is nearly as long. When he sits down it is five o'clock and most of the house goes out to tea, which is always hard on the Liberal spokesman, who is next. Your member, Mr. Smith, wishes very much that he could go out with the other happy members and have a cup of tea. But that would endanger his chance of being "called" by the Speaker, so he must sit and listen to this dreary Liberal (all other speakers are dreary when you are waiting to speak yourself).
I suggest that conditions in England are not so different from conditions here. I should like to deal with what the hon. member said about the allocation of time orders. Again he drew his example from England, and again I should like to quote from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, chapter 19, which mentions methods of curtailing debate, on page 454. It reads:
The principal methods available for the curtailment of debate on particular items of business in the House of Commons are the following:
1.	The closure of debate (of which there are two principal forms) (i) the ordinary closure; (ii) closure on the words of a clause.
2.	The selection of amendments.
3.	The allocation by orders of limits of time for discussion.
Further on he says:
They are probably a permanent feature of modem procedure, but they are still felt to be an unfortunate necessity and not to be justified except against obstruction or by pressure of business. This is especially true of the first and third of these methods-
That is closure and allocation time orders.
-the employment of which has become decreasingly frequent in the last twenty years.
I believe the important problem that faces us in this resolution is the desire to impose a restriction on the rights and privileges of private members of the house. I would point out that there is no restriction on cabinet ministers, who may speak at great length on almost any occasion. In December the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) filled eighteen and a half pages of Hansard, while the other day the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) filled ten pages of Hansard, consuming an hour and a half. His counterpart in England took one hour of time in a similar debate.

I noticed, too, on looking through Beau-chesne, which someone wants to destroy but which I think should be saved, that in 1943 on a non-confidence motion on defence preparedness the Speaker ruled that four ministers, who had in some way or another an interest in the matter of defence, had the privilege of speaking for an unlimited time. If that ruling should be invoked again it would place unusual powers in the hands of the ministers who are already powerful enough in so far as the rights of private members are concerned.
The proposal we have before us is part of the process of erosion of the functions of parliament. We are talking about reducing the time of the session, shortening debates, restricting the length of speeches and things of that nature. I believe that that is due to a misconception of the functions of parliament. Parliament is not an administrative body, it is what is known as a talking shop, a place for debate. We look to the cabinet and the civil servants to carry out the administration. Parliament's job is to examine government policy, legislation and expenditures, and to call for the redress of grievances before the granting of supply. There is no other way to do these things except to talk. I believe every member admitted to the house should have the same right to express himself as any other member, irrespective of his position in the house. He may have something to contribute to the debate which has not been thought of by others. Time and again I have heard it mentioned, although I have not been here so long, that the subject matter under discussion has been fully debated; everything has been said, so let us have a vote on it. It does not necessarily follow that everything has been said. Someone else may rise and throw some light upon the subject; consequently I am against any restriction of the debates in the House of Commons.
The length of speeches has been discussed many times, and it is not a new topic. It is mentioned in every parliament and I suppose in every legislature. It is often a topic of conversation for the general public. My interest in this matter was aroused last October when I found in the Financial Post of October 20, 1951, a headline which read, "How improve parliament's efficiency." The question which was submitted to a number of gentlemen across the country was, "What are your suggestions for improving the efficiency of parliament?" Summarizing their suggestions, it came to this: Members talk too much and too often. The most frequently voiced suggestion for improving

parliamentary efficiency thus becomes limiting the speeches, especially in debate on the throne speech and on the budget.
The gentlemen who made these findings were quite distinguished, some of them being experienced in legislative assemblies, but others were not. I do not propose to read out their names, but by occupation two of them were university people; four were editors; two were members of provincial legislatures and two were senators. I do not know whether or not that is effrontery on their part. Six of them were businessmen. However, they were expressing a general opinion with regard to parliament.
It has been suggested here that debates be limited to thirty minutes, and consequently the sessions would be reduced and everybody would be happy. I looked into this last fall to see just how much there was in that idea.
I recalled that at one time debates were unlimited in the House of Commons, and that in 1927 the forty-minute rule was established. Therefore I looked back at the Journals of the House of Commons from 1900 to 1950 just to see what the situation was. I assumed that from 1900 to 1927-that is a period of 28 years-when unlimited time was allowed members in the House of Commons, the sessions must have been very long, and that after the forty-minute rule was introduced in 1927 the sessions must have been appreciably shorter. I found that the average for the 28 years before the forty-minute rule came into effect was 143 days, and the average for the 23 years after the forty-minute rule came into effect was 146 days. I suggest that reducing the speeches from the unlimited time to forty minutes was not the answer necessarily to the problem of the length of the sessions of parliament. On the basis of that examination, I fail to see how a reduction from forty minutes to thirty minutes would solve the problem that we are attempting to deal with here. If from unlimited time to forty minutes did not reduce the sessions, from forty minutes to thirty minutes is not going to do it either.
My observation, in the time that I have been here, shows that many speeches in this house do not run for the forty minutes. Some do, but not all run for the forty minutes. There are quite a number of speeches of ten minutes, fifteen minutes, twenty minutes and twenty-five minutes, and it balances out. Therefore I think the forty-minute rule is still a sound guide. In any case, I have been making an attempt to restrict my speeches to thirty minutes or under. I am afraid I am going to fail tonight, but I should like to have the right to speak for forty minutes, and by self-discipline try to restrict myself to 55704-77
Standing Orders
twenty minutes, twenty-five minutes or thirty minutes, but I would still like to retain the right to speak for forty minutes. I do not think it should be taken away from anyone. If a minister of the crown can speak for an hour, an hour and a half, or two hours, surely a back bencher should be permitted to speak for forty minutes to explain to the minister how wrong he is.
We talk about the length of the sessions. As to the two sessions of 1951, I am not sure whether they established a record for Canada, but when I was looking through the Journals of the house I discovered that certainly up until 1951 the record for the length of a session was set in 1904. In that year they met on March 12, and adjourned on October 24. They had off only Good Friday, Easter Monday, May 24 and July 1, and two or three scattered days like that. There was no long Easter adjournment. They sat for seven and a half months, dealing with quite a number of very important problems, a great deal of railway legislation, immigration and I think redistribution. In that year they discussed the problems that we are discussing now. Almost fifty years ago, and at the end of a very weary seven and a half months' session, they spent a few minutes lamenting the fact that they had been away from home so long, and so on, and they made some suggestions as to what should be done in the future. A Mr. Boyd deplored the length of speeches. He suggested more preparation between sessions and condensation of speeches to fifteen minutes or twenty minutes. He referred to Cromwell's action in removing the mace and locking up the House of Commons, and estimated that no harm would result if the same thing were done in Canada.
A Mr. Robinson urged earlier commencement of the session and suggested that they should start say in January rather than in March. He pointed out the serious effect on a farmer who, in the year 1904, had to miss the spring sowing and the harvest. A Mr. McCreary thought that better preparation on the part of the government would help out, with the help of their office staff, and suggested that they start in December, adjourn for two weeks at Christmas, and then continue in January and attempt to finish in April. Mr. Borden, later Sir Robert Borden, suggested that the government should bring down its business earlier, and then the government spokesman-and we can all pretty well guess what he would say-who was the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Cartwright, made the suggestion that there should be shorter speeches and no Hansard.

Standing Orders
This is not a new problem, and it is perhaps difficult to find a solution. I think we have to recognize the fact that fairly long sessions have to be held in the governing of the country of Canada. During the period when our population was about 5J million, members of the house were spending five months engaged in their duties here. Now that the population is 14 million, five to six months seem essential. There are means of shortening the session, by using some of the rules which are established such as under special circumstances the moving of the previous question and the imposition of closure, if there is an obvious obstructionist move on.
If government business were brought down earlier in the session it would be helpful. If contentious legislation were brought forward earlier in the session, that again would be helpful; but generally I think it is a matter of arrangement and consultation among the various parties in the house. It has been obvious that, since the war, sessions have extended in length. This has been the practice in England. The House of Commons there and here find themselves sitting longer since the war than before. That is due in this country, as in England, to the development of the so-called welfare state, greater government interest in general affairs of the people, and the tremendous burden that is placed upon us by our difficulties in international affairs.
I would suggest that the hon. member who has introduced this legislation should reconsider the matter. I think that throughout it is aimed at the restriction of debate in this house, and that by arrangement and consultation between the parties many of our problems can be solved. We do not want to be forced into the position where stringent rules are applied, restricting in any way the liberties and privileges that have been built up in the House of Commons ^ver many hundreds of years. It has been a slow process; it has stood the test of time. We can make the necessary adjustments here and there that will solve some of our problems, but I think we must recognize the fact, whether we like it or not, that the sessions, in order to conduct the nation's business, will have to be fairly lengthy.
I cannot say that I am enamoured of this particular type of life, but having put our hands to the plow we must stay with it until somebody decides that we should be retired. Under these circumstances, I think we must give our attention to the nation's business. I have noticed this. The very people who say, parliament talks too much, and it takes too much time, will be the very ones to

criticize, if something is missed by parliament. They will be the first ones to say: No one raised his voice in the House of Commons, with regard to such and such a measure which went through in the dying days of the session. You cannot have it both ways. Either you must permit full debate, full discussion and full investigation of the business of the government, and you must devote the time to it, or else it would be simply a matter of assenting to most of the propositions that are put before us without investigation and without that close attention that surely is required from people placed in the responsible positions in which we find ourselves.


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I should like to commend the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) for having introduced today an important resolution with respect to parliamentary rules and procedures. I am not yet as familiar with the intricacies of those rules and procedures as is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), so I will confine myself to some general observations about this subject, that is to say, what could be done and what should be done to improve our parliamentary system.
No one can contest the right of this house to arrange and rearrange its procedures to fit the purpose of a sound and full discussion of the problems which have to be met efficiently by this parliament. The modernization of procedure is already an old question which has been debated in Great Britain and in Canada for many decades. Some improvements have been concurred in during the course of events which have taken place in this country. I do not want to use much of the time of this house but I should like to show that, in 1927, this parliament had been studying this question; and from the beginning of the century up to 1949 some improvements had been brought in. One of those improvements is standing order 37 which limits the speeches of members to forty minutes. The question that we should ask ourselves today is this: Is it possible again to reduce the time allowed to members for the discussion of issues brought before us, or are those issues so wide in importance that we cannot make up our minds within thirty minutes-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Ten minutes.


Maurice Boisvert: -and bring, before this house, ample considerations which would help this chamber to take a proper decision? Let me quote the Speaker of that time, the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux. who was elected

in the constituency that I have the honour to represent in this house. On resuming a debate on a similar question, in 1927, he said as reported at page 1345, of Hansard of March 18, 1927:
"On one occasion after the war. in 1920, I happened to be in the House of Commons, and the proceedings were most interesting to me. Asquith had been elected for one of the Scottish seats, Paisley, I think it was. He was introduced on that day, and he gave notice of a motion to consider the state of Europe after the war. That was surely a big issue. The motion came up the following day by mutual agreement between Lloyd George and Asquith. Asquith spoke for thirty minutes on the state of Europe after the war, and Lloyd George followed and closed the debate in twenty-five minutes. Surely a member can say all he has to say in less than forty minutes. I was in favour of making the limit thirty minutes. The best English ever heard in this house was spoken under closure, in twenty-minute speeches. The speeches were to the point, couched in excellent language, went to the root of the question, and delivered, I may say, with warmth and eloquence for fear of the guillotine. I say to the house, let us be practical. We say that we model our rules upon the English pattern. In England they have reduced materially the length of speeches. They do their business,- yes, and they administer the affairs of a great empire in rather short sessions of the house. Why should we be provincial in this matter? Let us imitate the great mother of parliaments; let us be broad-minded and businesslike.
I think that these considerations which were brought before the house, in 1927, could apply today for better reasons than those which were given in 1927.
The question of shortening the length of time of speeches in this house should be welcomed by the members of all parties. If we do not reach an agreement about the way of debating our problems, we are going to see the development of a by-product of discussions-I mean the filibuster. The filibuster is in great honour in the United States. By definition it is a way of preventing a government from adopting the legislation proposed1 to the country for the good of the country.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Not necessarily.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Good or bad.


Maurice Boisvert: It may bring satisfaction to some members and to some party of the opposition's side. It may be very pleasing for a party or for a member to see that they are or he is restricting legislation day by day, speech by speech, and inch by inch. But we are not elected for such a purpose. We are elected to make laws for the good of the country. We are elected to pass legislation which is supposed to affect the wealth of the nations.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Like pipe lines.
Standing Orders


Maurice Boisvert: By filibustering we do not achieve that aim of doing good for the country. To those who like filibustering I will say that, in the long run, it ruins the confidence of the people in the democracy.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, oh.


Maurice Boisvert: It brings ill effects to parties in the opposition.


An hon. Member:: And to the government.


Maurice Boisvert: For many years we have been offered various ways of shortening the debates and shortening the sessions. I will say that Mr. Beauchesne-who is so often cited by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-in 1943, in the preface to his third edition of his book on parliamentary rules and forms, recommended modifying our system in order to make it more elastic and better for the house. Mr. Beauchesne in his third edition wrote this:
"The procedure of the House of Commons was simplified by the amendments made to the standing orders in the session of 1927, but there are still certain deficiencies and it is imperative that special orders be adopted if the house wants further to expedite the passage of legislation."
It was imperative at that time that we should take further steps to improve the procedure in this house. Some good suggestions were made then. He recommended that an attempt be made to reach agreement between the various parties so that speeches could be shortened and debate reduced to a few hours of debatable subjects. If we are to take days and days, weeks and weeks and months and months discussing matters, as we did last session when dozens of speeches were made repeating the same thing, I do not think it will be good for this parliament. We live in a country where speed is the main thing. When everything goes fast, we in this parliament should not have to sit and listen for long hours to the discussion of matters which are of no interest even before the debate is closed.
For two months last session we discussed certain subjects but during this session we have heard nothing about them. That indicates that the interest which seemed so apparent toward the end of last session has faded. This has been the case with many other debates. I am strongly in favour of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Halton because I have faith in democracy, faith in freedom of speech and in freedom of discussion.
No one has said anything to convince me that it is the intention of this resolution to
1204

Standing Orders
do anything that would interfere with freedom of speech, freedom of debate and freedom of discussion. It has been said: "that to be a slave of old tradition is as great a folly as to be a slave of new quackeries". I think we have heard and seen many quackeries since this parliament has been charged with the administration of the country. Let us get away from these quackeries and be simple and natural in our arguments. Let us provide rules for our parliamentary system for the good of the nation and the best of our parliament. Now I would like to say a few words in French and I shall be quite brief in the remarks I intend to make in my own language.
(Translation):
Any institution, excellent though it may have been and still may be, which does not reform, loses its power of resistance through the ravages of time and of public opinion. The natural political evolution of a nation calls for reform. It is far better to adapt our parliamentary forms to this inevitable change than to see the very foundations of our system shattered, sooner or later, by disastrous revolutions.
A nation's parliamentary system may be compared to the shores of a continent. It is wonderful to see how, against the blows of the waves, continents take on shapes which reduce the effects of this incessant beating upon their shores.
That is why I would like this parliament to have, from time to time, control over its own procedure so that it may be adapted to our times. Speed is a characteristic of the present day. While everything, save parliamentary debate, moves with ever-increasing rapidity, we spend endless hours discussing subjects which, in a great many cases, cease to have any importance, even before the debate is brought to a close.
I therefore support, most enthusiastically and with the greatest conviction, the resolution moved by the hon. member for Halton.
(Text):
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Halton on having brought before the house a matter which is of such importance to Canada.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take only a few minutes of the time of the house. I think I should be given credit for having introduced a similar motion in 1940. I have never read a speech yet and I do not intend to. The only speech I have ever read was one written for me by Torchy Anderson, a member of the press gallery; Blair Fraser; the Minister of

Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner); and Mr. Brock-ington. I read that one into the record and it sounded fine to the people at home, but I have heard lots of other stuff. I have listened to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and I have listened to other hon. members of this house since 1940.
I told you how you could reform the other place and I want to tell you how you can reform this place. I placed all this on the record in 1940. There are just two simple rules that need to be enforced. I mentioned before how two members from the press gallery and two distinguished gentlemen had written the only speech I ever read. I do not know which one was the worst. Probably my reading was.
If you would enforce the rule that speeches be not read and limit speeches to a maximum of twenty minutes, we could improve our proceedings. I can say without fear of contradiction that there are not five members in this House of Commons who can make a speech lasting forty minutes that is either interesting or entertaining. If you enforce that rule I will keep under twenty minutes and I will not read a word of what I have to say. I am quite well aware that I can have an excellent speech written for me by somebody else that I can put on Hansard and send out to my constituents as these gentlemen do who read their speeches.


An hon. Member:: Not all of them.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I do not care whether you like it or not. Any man who reads his speech must have had it written for him by somebody else.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have never read a speech yet. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will make a speech on anything at any and all times. I admit that, but I want to say, so far as Fraser Valley is concerned, that despite what the hon. member who introduced the resolution says, nobody is going to limit me when it comes to speaking on any subject if I see fit to do so on behalf of my constitutents. I say this is the solution, and some of the junior members to my right might listen to this. When the member moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne and the seconder only speak for twenty-one minutes and all from memory we do not need forty minutes to say what wonderful ridings we have, and members of the house do not need to take five minutes to extend congratulations to the mover and seconder on the wonderful speeches they have made. That is nonsense. Let us get down to the two rules. Limit any

speaker to twenty minutes and entirely eliminate the reading of speeches that in ninety per cent of the cases are written by somebody else.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say.


An hon. Member:: Do not read it.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I agree with the hon. member who has just sat down. I would also pay my tribute to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) because he prepared his case so clearly and did not read his speech. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said that we do not want a little ring. That is what we want to eliminate. There are too few members occupying most of the time of the house. What has happened in this debate? The hon. member for Halton introduced the question. One member from the Progressive Conservative party, one from the C.C.F. party, and one from the Social Credit party, representing one-third of the membership of the house, take more time than those representing two-thirds of the membership of the house. That is not a proper proportion.
I agree that no member should need forty minutes with the exception of the leaders of the parties and, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has said, a member should not need to read his speech if he has had time to prepare and think about it for days and days. If he cannot remember it when he comes into the house how can he expect hon. members to listen to it when it is poorly read? I do not think we need forty minutes. When we were students we were told that a short address with more punch in it was far more important than a long dry address with energy left out.


An hon. Member:: That is a long time ago, Dan.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I have only been in the house a short time. At least, that is what it seems to me. In that period I have seen two reforms. Last year the hours were changed and this year we are back on the same old hours. I think we should adjourn at ten o'clock at night and that a man should be able to go home and sleep a little while before twelve. The other reform we have had is that ladies were allowed to go into the gallery without their hats. We have that reform today. Perhaps we will see more of it in the spring of the year when they are getting tired of their old hats anyway. I think that the ladies should be allowed to knit in the gallery. There are clubs knitting for the Red Cross, war services and relief causes. If the ladies
Standing Orders
got tired or could hear somebody then they could knit, enjoy themselves and serve their country.
There is another reform I should like to mention. I have spoken of it before. You, Mr. Speaker, stand up reverently in the house and lead us in worship but the galleries are empty. Not even the representatives of the press are allowed to enter. The prayer you use in your service is in keeping with the teachings -of the Great Teacher who said that whosoever will may come. I hope that this reform will take place soon and that people will be allowed in the gallery to join with us in bowing their heads and worshipping the Supreme Being.
I know that a book on science ten years old is out of date with the exception of the science of government. The science of government certainly does need to be reformed, and the hon. member for Halton said that the rules of the house need to be amended and improved. If we do not improve them it is a sign that we are not doing what we should, but the word "liberal" means reform without any "pro" before it or "co" or "so" tacked on it. It means that we can grow and reform.


Mr. J. A. Bradette (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be very long in presenting a few of my viewpoints about the rules of the House of Commons. Before I proceed I want to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) for his resolution which has given us an opportunity to discuss at some length a matter that has not only been before the public but before parliament for many years; namely the reform of the rules and procedures of the Canadian House of Commons. A day such as this makes every parliamentarian and every Canadian realize the logic, the artistry, if I may call it that, of the British parliamentary system on which our own parliamentary system is largely based. Early in the session there is an opportunity to discuss resolutions brought forward by private members. I do not believe there are many democracies that have perfected that system to such a degree, and I for one, although I am in favour of the drastic changes in our present procedures and rules, will go slowly as far as some of them are concerned because after all we are considering procedures which have -been tried and tested not only for years -but for centuries, but which in our times are not fulfilling their purposes.
I want to say a few words about a statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). He referred to the time taken by ministers of the crown. I think it would be unfair for me to mention the time of the house that has been taken on

Standing Orders
some discussions, and rightly so, by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) for the simple reason that the leader of the official opposition, no matter what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre may think, has more responsibility than the average member of parliament. The same principle applies just as forcibly, if not more so, to the ministers of the crown and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) because after all they have the responsibility of bringing legislation before parliament. They have the responsibility of presenting it in a forceful and clear way and of presenting it in a manner that will be understood by every member of the House of Commons with all the necessary details. That is why I do not like that kind of reflection and comparisons are generally odious. I do not like the insinuation that ministers of the crown have been taking more time than they should have. I for one have been here for many years and I have never found a case under any conditions or circumstances where I felt that I had the responsibility on my shoulders that a minister of the cabinet has on his, and subject to criticism if their statements were not fully and clearly presented.
I also listened very attentively this afternoon to the speech of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), who was very active on the rules committee last year. In his remarks I thought he showed good judgment, as he does in all instances; but there was one thing with which I do not agree. He almost regretted that he did not read his speech this afternoon. Let me tell the hon. member that while his remarks may not read so well in Hansard, while the phraseology may not be just as chiselled as he would like, his personality with vibrancy was brought to us this afternoon; his eloquence was displayed once again. That is something you cannot put in print; yet it was felt in this parliament and in the galleries. So on that score alone I believe the house will gain a great deal if speeches are not read. The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) thinks the reading of speeches is a good thing for the house. My view is that this House of Commons is becoming more and more like a conference or a reading room; and that was never the intention that it should be so. I know my own constituency sent me here and after receiving their directive and after having been in contact with them for many years, and they want me to express their sentiments as I understand them, no matter how bad my delivery may be or how poor my English pronunciation.
Another practice in this house which I think is deplorable, and which has come into
[Mr. Bradette.l
being only in the last thirty years, is the quoting of citations from newspapers, editorials and periodicals. It almost seems that some hon. members are not able to put two words together unless they have a quotation to help them. This is not parliamentarianism; they are not expressing their own sentiments. I think it would help shorten the sessions if all members would try to express their own ideas, as I know they want to, and express themselves in a very practical way, which they can always easily do.
When I make that statement I have in mind one of my dear colleagues from northern Ontario, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Little), who is ill at the present time and for whom we all hope a speedy recovery. In all the years this fine man has been in the House of Commons he has not spoken more than half a dozen times, and never more than five or ten minutes at a time. But his speeches were right to the point; they were logical, and were appreciated not only by members of this house but by his own constituents, and he gave all his time and talents to his duties as an M.P. That is the kind of parliamentarianism my electors at least expect from me, and that is what is expected from all of us.
So I do not believe members should be allowed to read their speeches; and when I say that, Mr. Speaker, I mean no reflection upon you, for I believe you have done a wonderful job if any Speaker ever has. A member may have been helped in preparing his speech, but he should make' a point of giving it in his own language; he will give a better speech. I remember one occasion when two very good members had well written speeches which I do not believe they took time to analyse or scrutinize. The first thing they knew they were saying some things in this house they never intended to say and for that reason alone they were defeated at the next election. These are things which are worth considering by a member of parliament.
As far as I am concerned I hope and pray that rule will be implicitly obeyed; and that is quite possible. I do not say the Prime Minister or the members of the cabinet or the leader of the opposition or those who speak for them should not be allowed to prepare their speeches, because it would be impossible for them to improvise on the very important problems they have to discuss. As far as the average member of parliament is concerned, however, my experience is that if he is left to himself he is much more eloquent and receives much more attention from the house and also from the galleries if he does not read his speech.

As most hon. members are aware, for three years I served as Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. That was during war, when we were dealing with the war appropriation bills, which concerned nearly all departments of government and which dealt with billions of dollars. During those years we spent three or four months on that bill alone. One of the things I cherish about those years is the wonderful co-operation I received from every section of this house. One day a member of the Progressive Conservative party thought he had been harsh with me, and before we adjourned at six o'clock he came over and said, "Joe, I am very sorry." I replied, "Don't be sorry. I know what you said came from the head, not from the heart." It was always a surprise to me that under our rules we could get through our sessions during the war years in five, six or seven months. If hon. members had not tried to play the game and to abide by the rules it would have been possible to spend the whole year here.
Of course we all realize, as the public realize, that to be elected in our own constituencies we must have something of the gift of the tongue, we must be able to express our sentiments. On every measure that comes before this house there is the natural temptation for each of us to get on our feet and speak. You can readily realize what would happen if we followed that impulse. We all understand that a certain amount of individual and collective discipline is necessary on the part of hon. members. This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned party discipline and referred to the whips and so on. I can tell the hon. member I have been here for over a quarter of a century, and I still have to hear from the whips any directive as to how I should vote on any matter. I say that very sincerely. After all, we are free people when we come here. We are the masters of our own actions and only responsible to our electors. At the same time I am sure the hon. member and his own leader realize perfectly well that unless a certain amount of direction is given within all the parties the result will be chaos, not only within the party but in our whole parliamentary system in most of our activities. So I hope such charges will never again be levelled, because I cannot visualize a single member of this house being a servile servant either to a whip or to his own party and I never heard of a whip using undue pressure.
At the same time there is need for a certain amount of co-ordination, and I speak very feelingly on that score. At times measures
Standing Orders
brought in by our own government are not very popular in some sections of the country.
I will always remember one budget a number of years ago, when Mr. Ilsley brought the Canadian dollar to par. That was a blow to the gold mining industry of my section, as it was a blow to the constituency of the hon. member for Timiskaming. It would have been easy for me to vote against my own party on that measure, but I knew that in bringing the Canadian dollar to parity the government was doing a thing which was good for Canada as a whole; and when I received a mandate from my people it was not to represent just my own constituency but to represent the whole of Canada, because this is a central house for Canadian politics. So we went into our constituencies and told our people that though the measure was going to hurt a fine industry, at the same time it was better for Canada and the Canadian people as a whole. As a result we were never criticized on that score, as our constituents understood the situation.
I repeat, and I address myself particularly to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that there is no such thing as trying to make slaves of us as far as the party is concerned. That would not be Canadianism; that would not be any part of the Canadian system. I do not believe he ever tried it in his own party, and I think that statement applies equally to other parties in this house. We are free men representing free people in a free parliamentary institution. If parliament should decide to pass this resolution I believe it would solve most of the problems we are facing at the present time; it practically means the implementation of all the changes that we intend to make.
I repeat that if everyone wanted to speak on all subjects it would be utterly impossible for parliament to finish its work within twelve months. It is not fair for members to say that they must speak on all occasions, because if this was done the work of parliament would never be done. For instance, only last Friday that fine newspaper the Montreal Star mentioned the fact that after the minister had spoken in the debate on national defence, there were no spokesmen from the Liberal side. To some extent there was an insinuation or a criticism of this party. I cannot believe, as some members say, that the opposition members have a greater obligation than the members on this side. After all, we also have a responsibility towards our constituents and to this parliament. If we wanted to use mathematics as a basis, which cannot be applied to any parliamentary system, it would be possible for us on this side to speak as often as the members on the other side.

Standing Orders
What would be the result? The session would be prolonged almost indefinitely, but there would be no reason for criticizing those on the government side, if they decided to do so.
For five years I sat on the opposition side of the house, and to some extent they were happy years because we could express our sentiments on almost anything; we could get on our feet almost any time. However, as a man who has been loyal to his party I do not wish to make an issue of it because it is a good party with good leadership. The same thing applies just as forcibly to the other parties. The members belong to good parties with good leadership. For instance, sometimes I have had to follow the directive of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) when he has said: "Joe, spare us one of your fine speeches today because we want to get through with the measure." I complied with the request, which was a fair one. I never spoke on these matters, and I have never regretted it. It is possible to have these limitations within the other parties, and it would make for better results in our deliberations.
This afternoon the member for Peel put forward some new aspects of the subject, and I admire him for it. However, he tried to strike quite a blow at the ministers by saying that before the orders of the day are called on many occasions they make lengthy statements to the house. If I correctly understand his party's views on several occasions they have blamed the government for not giving enough information, so I do not know where the ministers should begin or stop. After all that is the proper time for a minister to give the house information to answer questions, some of them asked the previous day. So far as I am concerned personally, I feel that the member for Peel is very glad of the information given. Under our system it is possible for the government not only to give information through members of the cabinet but also through private members who may express their sentiments, and this is always conducive to good legislation.
Although I do not believe in the motto I often hear it said that the primary duty of the opposition is to oppose. In my opinion that principle is not dynamic enough nor strong enough, it is too sterile, too static. The opposition has a duty to be more than passive. Without divulging any secrets I may say that when I was deputy speaker the fine old gentleman who was on my left used to say to me on several occasions that one of the great features of the Liberal party was that anything good propounded by the Conservative party or any other
CMr. Bradette.]
party was made their own in no time. This could be one of the good features of the opposition parties too, and the mere role of opposing is not constructive enough to be helpful to that party.
Last year I was in favour of the sitting hours that we adopted, although in my own mind I was not convinced that it would be conducive to shortening the session. Unless we shorten the length of the speeches to at least thirty minutes, then I do not know where we would end. You cannot cut down the time of sitting, and at the same time maintain the length of the speeches without lengthening the session. It is humanly impossible. I say that quite sincerely. If we were not in favour of shortening the speeches we would come to the same situation we face in all sessions. Towards the end of the session, after we have had a general discussion on nearly all the measures and all the departments leaving only the statutory items, about which most of us can do nothing, we would have to stay here three or four weeks, sitting mornings, afternoons and nights, just as we have done in the past. This is a terrific ordeal for every one of us who has to stay until the end of the session. I repeat that if we want to modernize our procedure we must, to some extent, copy the British parliamentary system and adopt the suggestions in paragraphs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) of the resolution.
We would not lose very much by adopting most of the British system. I do not mean that these changes should all be made this session. We should try to eliminate repetition. When I was the deputy speaker-I am speaking to you from my experience- the most difficult problem was to keep speakers on the subject. When we considered the estimates of the Department of National Defence, for example, we had a general discussion on. the administration item which at times lasted for days. When we were considering the different items it took me all my time to keep members of parliament on the beam, as we say. You cannot make human nature other than it is-and it is a fine thing that it is so-and that illustrates to some extent the urgency for the allocation, of time during the speech from the throne and the budget debate, as well as some important governmental measures on which a lot of leeway is given to the members of all parties to express their opinions but the number of speakers should be very limited. For instance, take the government party. On a certain measure two or three members will speak because they are familiar with the problem. The same principle should be applied in the same manner to the other parties. They all could

have two or three members who are studying the matter mentioned in a certain bill, and they would be the only ones that would speak on it. It would be quite easy to know in advance how many speakers there would be on each subject, and then you could allocate a certain time for the debate. If we adopted that method, it would be one of the finest ways of modernizing the procedure in this house.
It is true that some members of parliament believe it is necessary for them to speak, otherwise some of them will not be here after the next general election. They are afraid their opponents will say, "We have paid you $10,000 for one year and you never made one speech". So far as I am concerned, if I look after my departmental work, if I am active in my committee work, if I look after my correspondence carefully, if I receive my constituents as visitors in my home-I never keep any office hours-I need never worry about the next election, even if I did not make a speech here. After all, there are several other ways for members of parliament to utilize their knowledge, their activities. There are committees of this house in which members could spend a lot of time, and. their time would be usefully employed. I do not say this in a critical way, but I notice that some members who are great debaters on the floor of the house are often not very active committee men. In my opinion that is a sad thing because those men, with their fine analytical minds and with their knowledge of certain aspects of our Canadian life, could do a marvellous job in committees, although they would not get the same publicity there that one gets on the floor of the house. Speaking personally, I spend at least four or five hours every week in government departments working for my constituents, and that takes up quite a bit of time and activities. I do not believe members of parliament need to worry if they do not make speeches in the House of Commons because their constituents would be quite satisfied if they realized their representative was being a true servant of the people.
I thank the house for the kind attention it has given to me, and I wish to compliment again the hon. member for Halton for his fine presentation. The discussion has been good. It has been an illuminating discussion because many many angles have been brought forward, which have not been brought forward heretofore in the House of Commons and all speakers expressed themselves forcibly. All through the thread of the discussion you could readily see the demand, the inner
Standing Orders
demand, of every member of this house to see the rules of parliament revised and modernized.
Even during this debate, and in previous debates, owing to the heavy national majority that the government has, there was talk of steam rolling and so on, which statements are simply ridiculous. Well, I must make this statement. Perhaps the time is not over-ripe to amend our rules of procedure, but the time may come before very long that we may have to do it. Public opinion will request it because, although this is not a business organization or institution, we must to some extent modernize every aspect of our parliamentary system realizing the new situations and conditions that we have to face so that every member of parliament will be given an opportunity to take part in the activities and thereby conduce to shorter sessions. If we do that I believe that we shall be accomplishing great and needed work. I repeat, the time may come, even if the house is not unanimous in the reform and in the amendments to the rules of the house, when the majority in the house may have to have its voice heard on that score and have these changes passed by the majority.
Last year we put into practice some new experiments in the rules committee under your fine leadership, Mr. Speaker. We came to a unanimous decision only on the hours of sitting. When we came to the shortening of the time of the speeches we did not have a unanimous decision. We cannot have one without the other. In this matter, as in all others, it is a matter of compromise, of give and take. I make this appeal to every member of this house. Forgetting party lines, forgetting party affiliation, let us put our minds together and modernize our parliamentary rules so that those who come after us will be very thankful indeed for what we have done, which will mean not only a lot to our parliamentary system but also to the whole of the Canadian nation.


Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, before coming to this House of Commons I had formed the opinion that the debates that took place in this house were fixed and set by a direct set of rules. Since being in the house I have not become an authority on those rules, but I did not need to be an authority to find that the state of perfection which I had thought existed in this house does not exist at the present time, and that the rules are greatly in need of amendment, and that it is time that we brought the rules more in line with the present-day needs, as set out in the resolution presented by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver).

Standing Orders
The previous speaker, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), has stated that eventually we shall be obliged to amend the rules of this house because of the criticism of the public. I think there has been criticism by the public for many years. In fact, I am informed that it was the late J. W. Dafoe who described a parliamentary debate as that vast repository of talk. We have had various criticisms of the way in which the business of this house has been conducted. Some lengthy sessions have become longer and longer. It is my opinion that these sessions have been extended because of the length of the speeches that have been delivered in the House of Commons.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made the statement this afternoon, or implied, that a member was not doing his duty unless he spoke at great length in the House of Commons. To my mind that is not the sole duty of a member of the House of Commons. As has been said by the hon. member for Cochrane, there is correspondence, departmental work, and many other things in the riding that have to be taken care of. I believe that the people of our constituencies-and I have talked to many of them-expect their business to be conducted in an efficient manner and with dispatch. They wish action and a great deal less verbiage in the house. I do not know whether hon. members are aware of the fact that by June of 1952 this parliament will have been elected three years. Out of the three years or thirty-six months that we shall have been elected, we shall have spent in session in Ottawa twenty-five months. Out of the thirty-six months we have had the opportunity to be at home for only eleven months.
It seems to me that the business of a member of parliament is not confined solely to debates in the House of Commons. I think a member has an obligation to get out about his riding and find out what is going on in the particular constituency that he represents. The way that we are going on in this house, we are apt to be living in an ivory tower in Ottawa out of touch with the common people who elect us and send us here to do their business. It is about time we had the opportunity to return to our home constituencies for a portion of each year, when we would have an opportunity to go out on the highways and by-ways of our constituencies and talk to the people and get an idea of what they know and what they feel about the issues that are being discussed here in the House of Commons.


Mr. Gibson:: They are not so dumb.


Harry Peter Cavers: I agree that the business of government has become more complicated in

the last twenty years, but it is not necessary to prolong debate in order that we may have a reasonably lengthy session. People in Canada are concerned because we cannot finish the business of the country in a five-month session and we are obliged to have two sessions each year. I wish to quote an excerpt from a recent editorial in the Ottawa Journal, which reads as follows:
Every member of parliament knows well that there is atrocious waste of time in parliament, debates which sensibly could be confined to a day are dragged on through weeks in complete futility.
Of course there is such a thing as freedom of speech. No one in this house denies the right of freedom of speech to those members who are elected to do the country's business; but as I have seen parliament in action, I am convinced that there is a repeated and persistent abuse of that privilege. Freedom unbridled may become licence. That is why I say I commend the hon. member for Halton for the resolution which he has placed before us tonight. I think there is a great deal of merit in that part of his resolution which limits the time of speeches in the debate on the speech from the throne, in the budget debate and in any other particular debate.
No hon. member need feel that he will not have an opportunity of expressing himself in this house. I have yet to see the time when any hon. member has been refused the right to speak during any of the debates, and I believe that would continue if a limited time were placed on each debate. Then, I think the time of speaking could be reduced from forty minutes to twenty minutes. When I was a law student some years ago, I recall very well a lecture by a former member of this House of Commons, and an eminent counsel, Mr. Arthur G. Slaght, Q.C. Mr. Slaght on that occasion told members of the class that it was impossible for the average speaker to be able to hold the attention of any group, particularly a jury, for more than half an hour. I am sure there are few members in this House of Commons who can hold the interest of the House of Commons for longer than twenty minutes, and do it successfully. Therefore I congratulate the hon. member for Halton. I hope that this resolution will come to a vote, and that it will receive the support of the majority of the members of the House of Commons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it has been said that soul-searching and selfconfession have certain advantages. Indeed I remember an occasion-I think it was just at the spring session of last year-when somebody who perhaps was not overcharitable said that the Senate had never discussed anything so intelligently as when

it discussed the necessity of reforming its own rules. Applying the same feeling, I suppose one might say that the House of Commons is probably never more profitably engaged and never appears in a better light than when it is confessing its own faults, admitting its shortcomings and trying to find ways and means of devising improvements in its procedure.
That is what we have been doing a good deal of today. From what we have heard, it seems that many members feel that the house wastes too much time. There has been a process of self-accusation. If that selfaccusation results in true penitence and reform, I suppose that some good-perhaps more than appears on the surface-will have been accomplished. This thought reminded me that there is an apt verse in the bible- and I found it in chapter 15 of St. Luke- which I have just obtained from the table. I may say that I found it with the help of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is an authority on many subjects.


An hon. Member:: The bible too?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is verse 7 of chapter 15 of St. Luke, and it reads as follows:
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.


An hon. Member:: Actions speak louder than words.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think you will perhaps see, Mr. Speaker, that considerable good has already come from this debate, in signs of repentance on the part of hon. members. We in the opposition here have heard accusations oft repeated-and with, I think, a good deal of sincerity-that we take too much of the time of the house that is, that numbers of members of the opposition, out of all proportion to the actual size of the opposition parties, monopolize the discussion in the house at the expense of the unfortunate but numerically larger government party. I am sure that you will have observed, .Mr. Speaker, that we have already taken those admonitions to heart and that so far there have spoken in this debate seven members of the government party as against only four from the opposition benches.


An hon. Member:: You will make up for that.


John Lambert Gibson: How long have they spoken?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the course of this debate we have already heard a great deal about the question of filibuster. "Filibuster", of course, is a word which is applied by those -who wish to put through a measure and who
Standing Orders
find themselves opposed. It depends entirely on the point of view with which you approach the measure, as to whether you call the speeches made for or against the measure a filibuster or constructive criticism. Bearing in mind the fact that seven members from the government side have spoken today- when, under our rules, debate on the resolution is strictly limited to the one day, as against only four from the opposition side- one wonders whether these members are indulging in a form of filibuster or merely in constructive criticism of the practices and procedures of this house.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: How do their speeches compare in length of time?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have already heard a good many suggestions, in addition to those set forth in the resolution by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), as to how our procedure could be improved, and how we could save the time of parliament and shorten the session. I should like to make a suggestion. This is the first 'one; perhaps I shall have more to make later. I think that this suggestion would be just as easy to implement and that there would be just as much agreement as to its desirability and as to the methods by which we might have it implemented, as there will be on any of the other suggestions which have been presented to you, Mr. Speaker, in such profusion in the course of this debate. My suggestion is one which will appeal particularly to the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), who contributes so succinctly, although so seldom, to the debates in this house. My suggestion is that a method should be found of dealing with those long Thursday-to-Tuesday week ends indulged in largely by the members from Ontario and Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Lambert Gibson: That is not fair. They work harder than we do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that I am not attributing any blame. I am merely pointing out the fact. If that problem could be solved and if somehow or other the members from those two provinces could be made to realize that, in fact, the House of Commons is just as attractive a place over the week end as are their home constituencies, I believe that we should be able to get through the work of the session in considerably less time than that which is now taken.


John Lambert Gibson: No. They speed it up by going home.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You well know, Mr. Speaker, that it is inevitable and natural that when a

Standing Orders
practice such as this is recognized and has practically come to have the force of law by virtue of custom, it must follow that during that period none of the really serious work of the session or none of the serious legislation which may result in votes is taken into consideration, as a rule, on Fridays or Mondays. I throw out the suggestion not in any spirit of criticism but merely as seeking to call the attention of Your Honour and of the house to a problem which faces us and one whose solution, I am quite sure, is not beyond the powers of sagacity which you, Mr. Speaker, have shown you possess in such generous measure.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Gladly.


John Lambert Gibson: One Rhodes scholar to
another.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member-and to the one absentee member from British Columbia; and I am not referring to the hon. member for Kamloops-may I ask the hon. member if he would agree that those of us from British Columbia, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland should have at least two passes a year on Trans-Canada Air Lines in order to compete with the former members from British Columbia who now reside in Ottawa?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I will not express any opinion on the merits of the suggestion with regard to passes on Trans-Canada Air Lines. I would, however, say that it would vastly increase the difficulties of the whips of all parties in maintaining a quorum in this house-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Never mind the whips.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -if, in addition to the members from Ontario and Quebec, it were made possible for the members from farther away to get home over the week end.
Sometimes I think that we should be serious about these things, and that we should ask ourselves the question whether, in the long run, we shall do ourselves or anybody else any real good by debating so seriously the question of improving our methods here and increasing the efficiency of the House of Commons.
I am not always certain that it is a good thing to be purely efficient. I am not certain that we get only advantage from subjecting ourselves to the suggestions of efficiency experts. I was impressed by something which was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) in the course of his speech this afternoon

when he spoke about the problems which confront a member of parliament and the serious tasks which he has to undertake. One thing has impressed me in the course of my comparatively few years as a member of the house, and it is this. I do not think that there is anything that the members of parliament could do by way of improving the procedure here which would really meet with the approval of the people of Canada. I think that they to some extent rather like to have the House of Commons and the members of parliament whom they can always make the butt of a useful joke. That is something that is useful to a man looking around for some story to tell in a meeting.
A member sometimes gets the feeling that nothing he can do is right. If he talks in the House of Commons, he is accused of wasting time. If he remains silent in the House of Commons, he is accused of lack of interest and letting important legislation go through that is full of flaws and defects which he should have pointed out and brought to the attention of the government. If the session is long and a member stays here during the whole session, he is blamed for not coming home and meeting his constituents and for getting out of touch with the people at home. On the other hand, if he skips part of the session and goes home and is seen around his constituency, he is wrong again and is accused of being overpaid, never seeming to do any work at Ottawa. I did not know that members of parliament can ever really become perfect.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to know that there is one perfect member in the house. It increases one's faith in human nature and in our parliamentary institutions. It seems to me that the important thing to do in this parliament, as in any other human institution, is to make the best of the resources which are at our disposal. The resources which are at our disposal here are the human resources made up of the sum of the members of parliament who are here trying to do the best they can for their country and their constituents.
While it is true that we must occasionally give serious attention to the methods and procedures under which we work, I feel very strongly that it would be most unwise for us to take a resolution of this sort which is written down on the order paper containing suggestions which have been worked out conscientiously and simply to say that those are the changes we are going to make regardless of the opinions or feelings of those who

have some doubt as to the extent to which it will curtail the right of debate.
I do not want to repeat what has been said many times this afternoon, but I think it is important to remember that parliament is a forum for discussion. That is what the word means. I do not want to be disagreeable or critical, but I certainly must take issue with those who say that the sole function of parliament is to pass legislation. I submit most earnestly that one of the important functions of parliament is to examine legislation before it is passed. In my view that is the reason why our rules have been worked out even to the point of being in the view of some hon. members cumbersome, defective and inefficient so that it is hard to get legislation through quickly.
I should like to make one or two perhaps more serious remarks. I do agree that there is a necessity for an overhaul, perhaps improvement and some streamlining of our procedures. I sometimes think of the rules of parliament as they are in existence today as being something like the one-hoss shay about which Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, the one that was built in such a logical way that it run one hundred years to a day and then all of a sudden, as the poem goes on, ah, but stay, I will tell you what happened without delay.
It would take me a long time to tell you what has happened to the rules of parliament, but I do believe that they are in danger of suffering from what happened to the one-hoss shay. If we do not patch them up, if we do not revise them, if we do not streamline them, if we do not try to bring them more into conformity with fundamental things, one day they may collapse about our ears in a manner similar to the one-hoss shay. The time may come when resentment builds up to such a point that we may perhaps be irritated, if you like, or consider ourselves forced into doing something rash and reckless and extreme with the rules which would result in an improper limitation of debate.
I think it is useful for us to look at our rules and I think we should approach them with the recollection that these rules were devised to deal with a country of some three million people in 1867, not quite one hundred years ago but getting on toward it, and that they have not been modified substantially or brought up to date since that time. They were sufficient for a parliament with the volume of business that existed in 1867, but they are hardly adequate to deal with the volume of business that a nation of fourteen million people has today, with all the many problems and difficulties that confront such a nation.
Standing Orders
I think we should take a good look at the House of Commons in London which has always struck me as having more elastic rules which seem to make it easier to conform to the increased pressure of business than do our rules. But I do not think we can do what the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) has suggested, and take any single set of rules or procedures for limiting debate which might be applicable to the House of Commons in London and apply them in the form of a strait-jacket, as it were, to our procedures here without undertaking certain other fundamental revisions of the rules and procedures of this house which would make them a more suitable framework around which to apply the restrictions to which the hon. member has referred.
I am not going to speak at length for the very good reason that I am not an expert on the rules either of this house or of the House of Commons in London. However, there is one thing which does strike me as the central point around which the rules of the parliament in London are made so flexible and which enables that House of Commons to curtail debate without there being any suggestion of unfairness or of the majority party forcing its will upon the minority. In my view the whole feature revolves around the position, the dignity and authority of the Speaker in the House of Commons at London.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will believe me when I say that I speak in no sense of criticism in referring to the position of the Speaker here as not being the same as the position enjoyed by the Speaker of the House of Commons in England. If that is so it is for no other reason than that it has been our custom to change our Speakers with every parliament. As is well known, in England the Speaker is not changed with every parliament. Although it is not any part of the written law, the custom there has resulted-I may be putting it rather carelessly-in the Speaker's having a more independent position than he has here.
When the Spearker there rigidly applies some rule, enforces limitation of debate or disciplines a member, there is never any feeling that it is done for reasons of partiality. The Speaker there is absolutely impartial, and that is recognized. It seems to me that until that same fundamental principle is accepted here and we can have the same curtailment of debate as is possible over there, which would be accepted without any suggestion inside or outside the house that there was unfairness or partiality, it will be extremely difficult for us to adopt these restrictions which the hon. member for Halton has set forth in the resolution.

Standing Orders
Perhaps I can say in a few words what I perhaps have not succeeded in saying very clearly. It would not toe logical to adopt only some of the methods by which debate is curtailed in the parliament in London without adopting the other features without which the discipline necessary to insist upon that curtailment and enforce it would be non-existent or which would result in extreme resentment by members if discipline were enforced. It seems to me that it would enhance the dignity of parliament and make it more likely to have voluntary acceptance of rigid enforcement of discipline on the part of the Speaker if the Speaker's appointment in this House of Commons were permanent, as in the British House of Commons.
We have to meet certain other difficulties in Canada that do not confront the parliament in London. There is the tradition, which I think is a very proper one, that the Speaker in Canada should be on one occasion of English-speaking origin and on another occasion of French-speaking origin. But I think that could be perfectly well maintained without the frequent rotation of Speakers that we have in Canada. Whenever a Speaker chose to resign or retire and a new Speaker was appointed the same principle could be followed, but I regard it as unnecessary to change Speakers with every parliament. I believe it would raise the tone of our debate and make it possible for the Speaker to discipline us, which we all need on occasion, much more readily if the same system were followed here as is followed over there.
I do wish to say, however, that we should bear in mind always that distant fields look green, and that although there are some ways in which the procedure at Westminster perhaps is preferable to our own, nevertheless they have their trials and difficulties too. They have the same complaints about tedious debates and about too much time being given to one subject in comparison with another. That reminds me that I want to correct the record in one respect. Several references have been made to the debate on the resale price maintenance legislation at the last session. I had not realized that the views expressed by opposition members on that occasion had made such a deep impression on hon. members on the government side. We heard them this afternoon speaking of an endless and protracted debate. Indeed the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) in referring to that debate said that they had listened to speeches for three weeks. That was not good enough for him and he increased his figure to two months. If hon. members will check the record I believe they will find the subject was discussed for four

and a half days before the Christmas break and for two days after the Christmas break. Of the four and a half days preceding Christmas one day was entirely devoted to a discussion of procedure. On that occasion the procedural discussion was not initiated by a minister of the crown but by a private member, our good friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Therefore on a subject of tremendous importance, a step which was to bring about a change in a long established system affecting all retail business in Canada, after a debate of only three and a half days hon. members opposite were found to say that this thing was being unnecessarily and needlessly protracted, and indeed we even heard suggestions that it was time to apply closure. I suggest that we maintain a sense of proportion in all these things and that hon. members opposite as well as members on this side remember that whether or not a debate is a filibuster depends entirely upon the point of view of the person who is using that word.


Mr. Sinclair:: How do you classify the two and a half hour speech you made in that debate?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want to correct my hon. friend. The speech was just an hour and fifty-eight minutes. It was a lengthy speech but I submit it was an important subject, and I classify it in the same category as that of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) who introduced the debate on that occasion and spoke for even longer than I.


James Sinclair: But you are not a minister.


Gordon Graydon: Neither are you, Jimmy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps there is not too much reason for members opposite to be concerned about the length of time taken by members on this side. I sometimes wonder at the violence of their criticisms because I am quite sure they all had and still have a great deal of respect for the memory of a former minister of this government, a person who was a great friend of us all and who was admired and respected by us. I refer to the late Hon. Humphrey Mitchell. That very wise and sagacious parliamentarian, experienced man of affairs, man of common sense, is reported to have said on one occasion-and I can well believe he did so because it sounds like the sort of remark he would have made in giving advice to newcomers, young members like myself-that far more members have talked themselves out of the house than have ever talked themselves into it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: By all means.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Does the hon. member also recall that the former minister of labour said: If that is what a university education does, thank God I quit when I was 14 years of age.


James Sinclair: Another sagacious remark.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member has not made it clear exactly what a university education does.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We are listening to it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think he would have to be much more specific before he could expect me to agree with him. But if there was any force at all in that remark of the former minister of labour I cannot see that there is very much occasion for violent criticism or opposition by members on the government side when members of the opposition wish to exercise their right to speak.
Coming back to the remark with which I was about to close before I was sidetracked momentarily, I think it is important to remember that although there are certain desirable features of the procedure of the House of Commons in London they obviously have their troubles. They apparently not only have their long week-enders, their t.n.t. boys, Thursday to Tuesday, but they also have their fair share of what an hon. member sitting near me the other day called "leopards behind the curtain". According to a report about parliament appearing in Punch for March 19, it appears that in the House of Commons in London on Monday, March 10, there was one of those occasions when most of the members were engaged in meetings outside behind the curtains and in private rooms around the parliament buildings. The article in Punch has this to say:
The subject under debate on the floor was the army estimates, which were destined to keep the house until nearly three the following morning. But the greater interest lay in countless other gatherings in the palace of Westminster, at which plans for (a) the downing of the Bevanites; (b) the triumph of the Bevanites, and (c) compromise, were eagerly debated.
After listening to some of the points made by the comparatively few speakers who remained in the house and took part in the discussion, a striking similarity to what was said the other day by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) with respect to the defence debate, the article goes on to say:
It took still longer for the house to dispose of the estimates, not so much because there was anything to talk about as because it is the tradition to take a long time over the estimates. But most of the opposition side stayed at their private meetings, "out of doors," as Mr. Churchill always puts it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been again today, as there has been on very many other occasions
Standing Orders
during the last ten years since I have been here, a debate upon the desirability of making some improvements in the rules governing our sittings. There have been a number of suggestions but it has been quite as apparent today, as it was on other occasions, that it is very difficult to get anything like 250, 255 or 262 well disposed gentlemen to agree upon changes in the practices that have grown up that would constitute real improvements.
However, I have had a check made of the Journals, and since 1926 there have been more than a dozen occasions when the desirability if not the necessity of improvements has been discussed; and as the hon. gentleman who just spoke said, the rules are very much the same as when they were designed to take care of a parliament representing three million people, with affairs very much less difficult and complex than those that have to be dealt with at the present time. During the last two sessions we had experiments with changes with which some were quite well pleased and others not so well pleased. On December 13 of last year a report was submitted to this house by a select committee that had been set up to consider with Mr. Speaker the recommendations that might be made. There did not happen to be any time to give consideration to that report, because it would have been the practice to refer it to the committee of the whole. I sat through more than one day of discussion of the rules in committee of the whole which produced nothing but the interesting speeches to which we listened; and there seemed no time last session to do that. But in the report submitted at that time there are suggestions and recommendations which certainly appear to a great many to have substantial merit. No doubt suggestions have been made here today that would appear to a good many to have substantial merit.
Certainly there will not be another opportunity before Easter to get back to this question. In order that the discussion today may not be lost or wasted, like some of the former discussions in this house, might it not be advisable to reconstitute the committee to which I have just referred to consider with Mr. Speaker all these suggestions that have been made? If I had the unanimous consent of the house I would move the following motion-and I trust the mover of this resolution will not be offended at this course of action-instead of trying to reach a decision here as to whether or not the precise form of this resolution could or should be adopted:
That a select committee composed of members to be named later be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker this resolution (Mr. Cleaver's motion)

Standing Orders
and the debate thereon, together with the proposals and suggestions contained in the report of the select committee on the procedure of this house presented on December 13, 1951, with power to send for persons and papers and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house, and that the said resolution be now referred to the select committee thus appointed.
That select committee might again recommend some further trials, if not definite changes in the rules. A number of hon. members on both sides of the house, or if not both sides at least belonging to the parties habitually seated on the respective sides of the house, would favour, as I gathered from the applause that marked some of the statements made in the course of the debate, the adoption of the hours we were using toward the end of last session. Even if we got no further than that and did not have the qualification the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) felt was necessary, that is to say a concurrent decision to restrict speeches to thirty minutes, I am sure a large number of members-I do not know whether it would be anything like unanimous-would prefer the hours we were using and would feel that by self-discipline we might make up the time those hours would take from the regular week. I think if we did reappoint this select committee it could make another try, and I would hope something constructive would come from it.
There is much to be said for the point of view expressed by the hon. member who last spoke as to the impossibility of fitting into our system parts taken out of the rules of practice of the parliament at Westminster. They have been the result of a gradual growth accompanied by qualifications which we might not have as an accompaniment if we embodied them in our own standing orders and proceedings. It has been suggested for perhaps two or three sessions that we could fix separate debates. Well, this year we had a separate debate on external affairs. We have one on defence that has not yet been completed but which I hope may be completed tomorrow. It may be we will find that is something that makes for an improvement in the order of debate.
I think much is to be said for the suggestion by the hon. member that the authority of the Speaker over the House of Commons at Westminster is very great, and helps to maintain an orderly conduct of the discussions without any feeling of resentment. Well, I do not wish to be unduly complimentary, sir, but it is my impression that during the sessions you have occupied that position the dignity with which the affairs of the house have been conducted and the impartiality you have displayed have been such as to give

confidence to everyone that rules with some elasticity which you might be allowed to apply would be applied in a dignified and impartial way, and that this would also help not to throttle freedom of speech but to eliminate unnecessary repetition without there being any feeling of resentment.
I would be very reluctant to ask the house to vote by a majority something that any large section of the house felt was unfair. I do not think it would be practicable to get the work of the house done if there was a lasting feeling of unfairness in the minds of any substantial group in the house. I think that would defeat our purpose. While such modifications as we do get may not be acceptable to everyone, they should be such that no substantial group would feel that the majority was abusing its power. I think the only way to achieve that kind of result is to have these matters further considered by a committee the members of which will be suggested by the various groups. They may not be able to make many unanimous recommendations, but I would hope they would be able to have unanimous recommendations on rather more than has been found possible so far; and that in any event there would be a spirit of generosity on both sides that might allow us, for the remainder of the session after Easter, to have the hours that we had during the last session, and that the establishment of those hours would create a desire to have them operate in such a way as to not prolong the session unduly. If I have the unanimous consent of the house, I would submit this motion to re-establish this select committee, the names to be specified at a later date, and have the select committee consider this resolution, all the suggestions that have been made in the course of the debate as well as all the suggestions that the committee dealt with in the report that was tabled on December 13 last.


Gordon Graydon: Will the Prime Minister permit a question? I was not quite sure of one point in the Prime Minister's amendment to the motion of the member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), and that is whether or not the new committee would have the power to go beyond the terms of the motion of the member for Halton and the suggestions that were made, as well as the suggestions which were passed or considered by the report of that special committee on December 13? I should think that perhaps it would be advisable to include an extra power there so that the committee, if they felt it was desirable, might go further and consider other matters.
May I make one other suggestion to the Prime Minister, and I hope he will not mind

my doing so. Might it not be advisable, in view of the fact we are just about to end our activities for the Easter recess, for the house to agree upon the question of hours of sitting set out in the report of December 13 so that we could start with those hours after the Easter adjournment?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to the last suggestion, there has been no notice of this, and the house is hardly more than half full at this time, so I think it might be regarded by everyone as unfair to make a decision. If the committee is set up perhaps the whips could submit the names, if not tomorrow by Wednesday, so that that committee could be constituted at once. The last time the committee was set up, the day after it was constituted it brought in a recommendation concerning the hours which was concurred in, so I think that no time would be lost if it were done in that way.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps that would be better.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As to the scope, the motion provides for referring not only the resolution but the debate of today, and I think the debate has covered pretty generally everything that would be apt to be required to be considered. My intention was not to limit consideration of the committee in any way whatever, and if the committee found that the debate of today and the suggestions that are in the report of December 13, 1951, did not extend to everything that they should consider, it would be very easy for them to make a report and ask for further powers. I am sure the house would be only too glad to grant those further powers.
I trust that this committee would be a committee of the same members as at the last session, and probably the names would be readily available. They could be secured not later than Wednesday, and the committee might even have a meeting before the Easter recess; then a report would be available for consideration as soon as we got back. I am afraid that some of those who have had objections to changing the hours would feel it was not quite fair to have done it without notice, by unanimous consent of a house which was not even half filled. I hope the hon. member will feel that that is perhaps true, and my reason for taking that attitude is not that I do not want it done, but that I think it might be done in a more acceptable way if it came as a report from His Honour the Speaker and his committee.


George Alexander Drew: I am somewhat concerned about the actual form of this motion. I am merely anxious to put through a motion that is effective. As the motion which is before me reads, it would appear to be a separate
Standing Orders
motion, standing by itself. I am wondering how it is related to the motion of the member for Halton now before the house, to which this motion refers. May I point out that it is not drafted as an amendment to the motion by the member for Halton.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is why I asked for unanimous consent to present it. We have followed the procedure of 1930. There had been a motion of this kind before the house, and then it was moved that the original motion and amendment be referred to a committee appointed to deal with all matters connected with pensions for returned soldiers, and that the committee have power to consider the advisability of doing such and so. I thought that this would permit the resolution, the debate on the resolution, and the other matters that are not before us this session but that are expressed in the report that was tabled at the end of last session, to be referred to this committee and get the consideration of the committee. Then, they would come back to the house in the form of a report from the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: It seems to me that to regularize the procedure it would be necessary for the member for Halton to withdraw his motion, then have a vote on this motion separately. As I understand, the Prime Minister is suggesting that the subject matter of the hon. member's resolution should be referred, along with the committee report that was made to the house and any suggestions that have been advanced in today's debate, to this special committee. If any other members have valuable suggestions to offer the committee, or the committee itself has some valuable suggestions, I understand they might be considered. It seems to me there is no limit to this. To get the procedure in proper order, I think the hon. member for Halton should withdraw his motion, that is without prejudice to the resolution or the subject matter of it, then the Prime Minister's motion might be carried. The whips might be asked to name a committee tomorrow morning, and possibly they could have a meeting right away.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In 1930 it was not considered necessary for the motion which was then before the house to be withdrawn. It was a motion to have the board of pension commissioners consider pensions, and the motion was not withdrawn. It was a motion that all the words after "that" be struck out-


Major James William Coldwell: It was an amendment.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, it was moved that the motion and the debate on it be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs. The hon. member for Halton told me he had

Standing Orders
no objection to withdrawing his motion, but I told him I did not think it was necessary. I thought it might be referred to the committee and that, being referred to the committee, it would disappear from the order paper. I would not wish to be discourteous to the member for Halton, so I asked him and he told me he had no objection if that were required, in order that the matter might go before the committee.


George Alexander Drew: It is only a question of draftsmanship, but the Prime Minister has just pointed out that the motion to which he referred, and which he is using as a precedent, actually called for the striking out of certain words of the earlier motion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, there had been a motion and an amendment, and instead of deciding either the motion or the amendment the Prime Minister moved that the motion and the amendment be referred to the committee, and it was on that precedent that this procedure was drafted. I do not think there is any point in taking much time over these procedural things. I think we are all agreed that the subject matter should be considered by this select committee under the chairmanship of the Speaker. The hon. member for Halton is, I understand, prepared to withdraw his motion. If any hon. member feels that is more desirable-I do not think it is necessary-it could be done so that we will not be embarrassed by any dispute on procedure.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I point out that it is just because these things do become precedents, as the Prime Minister himself mentioned in relation to something that happened in 1930, that I am suggesting a change in a few words that I believe would bring this in order, if the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) is withdrawing it. I suggest that it read:
That a select committee composed of members to be named- later be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Halton and the debate thereon . . .
But then that would specifically refer to the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Halton which is now being withdrawn. I am only concerned about the fact that this will stand without any subsequent argument.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not quite clear as to what the hon. member means. Does he suggest that with his change, the motion should be withdrawn?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If it is withdrawn, then it should be the subject matter of the motion that is referred, but not the motion, because once it is withdrawn it ceases to exist.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The subject matter.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. gentleman has not noticed the last two lines of the resolution before him. They read:
. . . and that this resolution be now referred to the select committee thus appointed.


George Alexander Drew: I took it you read the resolution which you have in your hand.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: No, it was intended to be a resolution submitted by the hon. member for Halton.


Gordon Graydon: I suggest that this debate be referred to the committee, too.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, it should be a very good illustration of what is required to be dealt with. We are sometimes pretty technical, and it may very well be that it would be desirable for the committee to provide some elasticity. Perhaps the simplest thing for me to do will be to withdraw this, because I am getting into a muddle that I did not anticipate and I did not want to bring about. I am quite prepared to withdraw my motion.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, then, if I am going to leave it, I am going to leave it as it is.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the desire of the house that I read the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed to.


George Alexander Drew: It will create an interesting precedent for some future time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will resume the debate on the motion to go into supply and discuss national defence. We hope sincerely to conclude this debate and call an item in the following departments: trade and commerce, resources and development, national health and welfare, and labour. Then we will consider the resolution to approve a treaty of peace with Japan.
It is understood that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will make his budget speech at eight o'clock. I suppose the opposition financial critic will adjourn the debate and the house will revert to its ordinary business.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, while it may be that the government will not be willing to consider it, I do suggest the advisability of proceeding with the motion to set up a redistribution committee.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I myself am becoming a little muddled. I thought we had an understanding that we would have two debates; one on external affairs and one on national defence. Discussing it with my -colleagues today, I insisted that we continue this debate on defence.


George Alexander Drew: Let me make this quite clear. I am not suggesting that there be an interruption of the debate on national defence. But, following the hope expressed by the minister that that debate would terminate, I was merely suggesting that when that debate terminated there might be an opportunity to proceed with the resolution dealing with redistribution.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to that, Mr. Speaker, I think I should volunteer this word of explanation. I may have to withdraw the resolution, the notice of which I have on the order paper, and substitute another, because I am told that under the rules there cannot be any amendment moved that would expand the powers of a select committee. Though I do not want to sponsor anything that I would have to oppose, I want to make it as broad as possible, so that the house can cut it down if it chooses to do so, but so that there will be no procedural obstacle in the house expressing the whole of its views. I thought I had just that in the form of the resolution that is on the order paper, but I am told I have not; that there would toe other points of view that it should be possible to discuss, but that could not be raised by amendments that would be in order to the notice as I have framed it, and I have been asked to frame it in proper terms so that the other matters could by amendments to mine be properly discussed and not be ruled out of order. This is also a matter which
Business of the House
has difficulties on its merits, and I should like to avoid having procedural difficulties in the matter submitted. I feel that I am not doing this as the Prime Minister; I am doing it as the leader of the majority party, whose duty it is to provide an opportunity for a full discussion of the subject.
Another draft has been prepared, which I have submitted to the critics to see if that would allow the discussion of everything that it might be desirable to add, and I may have to ask tomorrow for permission to withdraw this notice and substitute another. I hope it may be possible to do that, and to have it ready for Wednesday, if I can get the dispensation of the forty-eight hours' notice for the new form.
I am told that my form would take care of one set of difficulties, but would raise another set of difficulties that could not be overcome by any amendment that would be in order, and that in order to make it possible to have the other set of difficulties taken care of I shall have to broaden the terms of my proposal, or the Speaker would find himself obliged to rule out of order certain amendments that it may be desired to suggest.


George Alexander Drew: I agree with the Prime Minister that it is most desirable that in a matter as important as this there be no question of the adequacy of the resolution. When I made the suggestion it was with the idea that possibly the members of that committee might, if possible, meet and have certain information placed in their possession before the Easter holiday, tout I agree that it is more important that the resolution adequately cover all contingencies.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 8, 1952