1960-05-09

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A statement made in this house by a minister of the crown with regard to a debate which took place recently, has been contradicted by the premier of a province and raises a question of privilege affecting all members of the house.
Addressing the house on April 26, 1960, the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) made the following statement, as reported on page 3 of the appendix to Hansard of that date:
A few days before his death, Mr. Duplessis stated that he would be in a position to submit, in October, a positive proposition to the ministers from Ottawa. It was the Hon. Paul Sauve who submitted that positive proposition. Federal ministers discussed it with Mr. Sauve and, at the time of his tragic death, only a few details remained to be worked out, which was done during a private interview between Mr. Antonio Barrette, Mr. Sauve's successor, and the Minister of Finance, sponsor of the bill which is now before us.
We have kept our word admirably, because Premier Barrette himself believes that this bill is consistent with the terms of Mr. Duplessis' proposal, which was submitted by Mr. Sauve, and later by Mr. Barrette himself.
According to a report in this morning's Le Devoir, the premier of Quebec, in a statement made yesterday in Joliette, spoke differently:
There was never any question of an agreement with Ottawa, but a decision taken by an autonomous government to settle a thorny problem. Thus, by proudly expressing our will, we finally succeeded in recovering for Quebec $10 million in taxes every year, and the $25 million lying dormant in Ottawa coffers.
We even got the federal government to admit that it will entirely vacate the field of education, thus finally winning out after years of struggle.
Under the circumstances, I think the Solicitor General owes it to himself to explain this contradiction between his own statement in the house and that which was made yesterday in Joliette by the premier of Quebec.


Mr. Pigeon:: There you go. Petty politics. Petty politics.
(Text):


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it must be quite obvious that there is no question of privilege whatever involved here. The hon. member for Laurier has chosen this vehicle, in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), to raise a question on a measure that is now before the house and on which debate will be resumed tomorrow afternoon. It must be perfectly obvious to my hon. friend, as it will.be to other hon. members who are acquainted with the rules of the house, that this matter is not a question of privilege, and that the hon. member had no right to raise it in the way he has.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be helpful if I were to make a brief report to the house concerning my visit to Istanbul. As hon. members are probably aware there were two meetings held there, one a week ago yesterday.
The first was a meeting of the foreign ministers representing the five western countries which are members of the ten-nation disarmament committee. The purpose of this first meeting was to prepare advice for the three western heads of government who are to participate in the summit meetings commencing on May 16 in so far as the question of disarmament is concerned; also to consider what progress had been made in the disarmament committee itself and what suggestions should be made to the negotiators acting- on behalf of the five western powers, and finally to prepare a report on disarmament to the NATO council which was to meet during the succeeding three days.
We took General Burns with us to Istanbul because, of course, our main interest there was the question of disarmament, and as you know he is heading the Canadian delegation on this important work. The progress that has been made to date by the disarmament committee has not been very satisfactory. The Canadian government is anxious

Istanbul Meetings on Disarmament that there should be a great deal more done when the committee resumes its sittings early next month.
At this first meeting I urged upon the other four western foreign ministers that everything possible must be done to get these negotiations moving; that it was very important to demonstrate to the five eastern nations on this ten-member committee and also to all other nations of the world that the west is very serious in its attempt to bring about a disarmament agreement.
We made several suggestions which perhaps would be of interest to the house. One was that the summit meeting should give direction to the ten-member committee, that instead of discussing further the general issues they should commence to discuss specific measures of disarmament. Mind you, that would mean that these directions would come from President Eisenhower, Prime Minister Macmillan, President de Gaulle and Premier Khrushchev. We had in mind that a joint declaration or recommendation, whatever you wish to call it, should be made to the disarmament negotiators.
Also we suggested that an attempt might very well be made to work out package deals; that is, take one measure of disarmament in which the west was interested and one of equivalent importance in which the east was interested and try to make a package deal with regard to these two particular aspects of disarmament. For example, the west might offer to negotiate a controlled limitation on force levels and related conventional armaments if the Soviet side would agree to negotiate on the nuclear disarmament measures in stages one and two of the western plan.
We believe this is a practical way to get things moving, and if package deals of that kind could be made in several instances the first thing we would know there would be a worth-while disarmament agreement.
Then we also suggested that when the disarmament committee meets again there should be certain informal off the record meetings of the negotiators. To date they have been having formal meetings, records are kept, and then after a matter of a few weeks the whole record is published, which means, as I am sure all parliamentarians will understand, that there is a great deal of talking for the record. We think it would be very useful if the negotiators could get into a huddle from time to time and really try to work out something among themselves. We do not say there should be no more formal meetings, but we think a mixture of


formal and informal meetings would be very beneficial. We hope there will be recommendations of this kind made by the summit to the 10-member committee.
Our suggestions were received very well by the other western foreign ministers and also, when the NATO council met, they were favourably received in the deliberations of that council.
Then a word or two with regard to the NATO council meeting. It was concerned primarily with preparations for the summit. Most of the time was spent in discussing what the three western heads of government should propose at the summit meeting. There had been three working groups set up; one on disarmament, of which of course Canada was a member; another on Germany and Berlin, of which Germany was a member in addition to the United Kingdom, the United States and France; and also one on east-west relations, which was composed of representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States and France and also one representative from the NATO council.
The council endorsed the report which the disarmament working group had submitted and affirmed it in the following words:
The alliance shares the aim of general and complete disarmament to he achieved by stages under effective international control, and supports the proposals of the western negotiators at Geneva to this end.
The council also made reference to the importance of tying in the United Nations with the work of this disarmament committee. The council asserted their view that these proposals provided the best means of carrying out the United Nations resolutions of November 20, 1959, and also regretted the unwillingness which the Soviet side had shown to discuss specific practical measures of disarmament.
Canada throughout has been very insistent that the United Nations should be kept in this picture. We regard ourselves as speaking on that committee for the various middle and smaller powers who are members of the United Nations, and as this world body has the final responsibility for disarmament we think it is of the greatest importance that it should be kept right in the picture. The secretary general of the United Nations, Mr. Hammarskjold, spoke to the disarmament committee at the last meeting they held, I believe, before recessing at the end of April.
On the question of Germany and Berlin there was a general endorsation of the approach which the three plan to use at the summit, and general agreement that it should be left to the discretion of the three how

best to present the western position in the light of developments at the summit. The NATO council reaffirmed publicly its view that the solution of the problem of Germany can only be found in reunification on the basis of self-determination, recalled its declaration of December 16, 1958, and once again expressed its determination to protect the freedom of the people of West Berlin.
The third broad group of subjects dealt with was east-west relations. This, of course, covers quite a wide area, including exchanges of contacts in cultural and information fields and the possibility of discussing trade, aid and other economic questions with the Soviet at the summit. There was also discussion of the concept of detente, which has become such a popular word-meaning a relaxation of tension, I think-and also the question of peaceful co-existence. The conclusions reached included these, that the NATO members desire a true international detente, by which they mean peaceful co-operation among all states, not merely an absence of hostilities. Then they added a condition. A condition of detente is that it must be applicable to all areas of the world, that peaceful co-existence is unsatisfactory if under its cover the Soviet union continues to engage in propaganda attacks on individual members. There would appear to be a detente in so far as Canada is concerned and the United Kingdom, the United States, France and so on, but evidently the situation is a little different in the case of West Germany and Greece, for example. They are being subjected to propaganda and pressures of various kinds, and the council did decide that a detente should be indivisible; in other words, it should apply to all the nations.
Canada supported the idea that the west should go to the summit prepared to discuss in general terms with the Soviet union problems of trade. We also expressed in the NATO council an interest in having a general discussion at the summit on the problem of limiting the traffic in arms through international reporting arrangements which would apply to both the importing and the exporting countries. In other words, a country which is exporting arms would list the exports with some international agency, and so would the receiving country. This work could perhaps be done by the international disarmament organization which has been proposed by the west, should there be agreement to set up such an organization.
In addition, at the conference there were several very interesting individual statements relating to developments in particular areas, but these are not of a nature which I could properly disclose to the house.
9. 1960
Istanbul Meetings on Disarmament
Just before we left Istanbul and later in London we had word of the incident involving the shooting down of a United States plane. The Canadian government regards this as a very serious incident, and we think it points up very clearly the vital need for a disarmament agreement. If incidents of this kind are to keep occurring, one of these days such an incident might trigger a nuclear war. We think it shows very clearly the need for both sides, the west and the east, to reach an agreement on disarmament.
Mind you, we believe in disarmament under control. An incident like this would not happen if there were a proper inspection system. I remind the hon. members that from time to time the present government has taken the stand that Canada would open her skies to inspection if the Soviet would do the same thing in an equivalent area on the other side of the Arctic. I have, for example-I will not repeat the statements that have been made on this subject by the Prime Minister-a letter the Prime Minister wrote Premier Khrushchev on May 9, 1958 which reads as follows:
If you are really anxious about developments in the Arctic and if you wish to eliminate the possibility of surprise attack across the polar regions, I find it hard to understand why you should cast aside a proposal designed to increase mutual security in that area.
The suggestion had been made earlier by Canada and rejected.
Let me repeat here, Mr. Chairman, that we stand by our offer to make available for international inspection or control any part of our territory, in exchange for a comparable concession on your part. I would hope that you would accept some arrangement along these lines not only as an indication of our good faith but as part of a first, experimental step in building a system of international safeguards against surprise attack. When there is, by your own admission, a danger of nuclear war breaking out by accident or miscalculation, it is difficult for Canadians to comprehend your refusal to engage even in technical discussions intended to explore the feasibility of an international system of control.
I am sure all members of the house will agree with the position of the government, which is that Canada will do everything she possibly can to bring about disarmament under proper controls and with a system of inspection.
I think too that this incident, in addition to showing the need for a disarmament agreement, indicates the importance of the summit meeting which is to be held on May 16. There has been some suggestion in the press that perhaps now there would not be any summit meeting. I submit that it is all the more important now that this has happened that the summit meeting should go ahead. Mind you, it is not going to be any easier because of the increase in tension caused by
3676	HOUSE OF
Istanbul Meetings on Disarmament this incident, but we hope there will be no suggestion whatever that the summit meeting should be cancelled. We think there is even a bigger job to be done by these four heads of government at the summit meeting which is due to commence just a week from today.
I must ask the forgiveness of the house, Mr. Speaker, for trespassing on its time in this way, but finally I should like to make it quite clear that the Canadian government was not aware of these activities, and evidently the United States government was not very much aware of them either. I have here a statement which was issued by the state department of the United States on May 7, and it contains this sentence:
As a result of the inquiry ordered by the President, it has been established that in so far as the authorities in Washington are concerned, there was no authorization for any such flight as described by Mr. Khrushchev.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will join with me in expressing the hope that now that both sides have seen just how serious incidents of this kind can be and just how little it might take to bring a world disaster, the nations of both sides will get down to business and really try to work out an agreement on disarmament.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, as the first one to comment on the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), I am sure I may express to the minister, on behalf of all of us in the house our pleasure at seeing him back in his seat looking fit and vigorous after his arduous assignment.
This is another chapter in a series of undoubtedly important visits for which the minister has made preparations. The one in Turkey is now shortly to be followed by a visit to South America. While the meetings in Istanbul were simultaneous and parallel with the commonwealth prime ministers' conference, one might have thought that before returning to Canada the minister would have gone to that conference and participated in the deliberations during the course of this week. The precedent for such participation at a commonwealth prime ministers' meeting was established at the last two prime ministers' meetings when the former secretary of state for external affairs accompanied the Canadian prime minister.
The minister has said that at the ten power disarmament discussion about which he has given a report not much progress was made in the matter of disarmament, as noted by those at the conference.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, if I may just correct that, I was referring to the meetings of the disarmament committee in Geneva which had taken place earlier.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; that is why I added the words "as noted by the conference". The minister was obviously less optimistic today in discussing disarmament than he was earlier this session. Then he thought there were very good reasons for thinking that success would result from the ten-power discussions. It may be that the minister now recognizes more and more that disarmament is unfortunately to a very large degree dependent on the solution of major political problems which confront the nations of the world, pre-eminent among those, of course, being the question of Germany. But the minister did say that it was agreed that something must be done, and we note with satisfaction the suggestions made as to what should be done at the summit meetings.
Mr. Speaker, we were already aware that the minister had taken the position at the conference that disarmament discussions might be furthered if there was less emphasis on general concepts than on proposals with regard to specific plans for disarmament. The suggestion of a package deal, of course, is not new, but it is worth trying again. We in this party share the desire and the hope that the minister's tempered optimism this time may be justified.
The minister has reported on the desirability of some informal meetings at the ten-power disarmament talks. That has always been the view of those of us in this party. The minister might have gone further and proposed that Canada take the initiative at the ten-power meetings and suggest bilateral talks on an informal basis, particularly between the United States and the Soviet union, for reasons which I am sure the minister will recognize as obvious, and this without in any way affecting the position or the prestige of the other two great powers.
The minister did not say whether at the NATO meeting, there was adequate discussion of the question of consultation, a matter that has interested this house in regard to defence matters before us this session, and also one that arises out of the very problem which the minister mentioned at the last, involving the shooting down on May 1 of a United States plane some 1,500 miles within the territory of the Soviet union.
The minister said nothing about the announcement yesterday, which undoubtedly must have come to the attention of the

NATO meeting, of the intention of the government of the United States to carry on certain underground nuclear tests.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out that this statement was made after the NATO meeting. We did not know about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now the minister answers my observation by saying that this declaration of yesterday by the President had not been brought to the attention of the conference as a whole; but that only points up the importance of more adequate consultation. It is difficult to conceive how the United States can be charged with having satisfactorily discharged her responsibilities in the matter of consultation if that matter was not brought by her to the attention of her NATO partners at the meeting in Istanbul.
We note with satisfaction the observation made the minister-


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the hon. member that the question of nuclear tests is being considered not by the NATO council but by the conference of the three nuclear powers. They are dealing with the question of a nuclear test ban.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister will understand, I am sure, that this elementary fact will be widely appreciated by all members of this house; but it is also closely related to the matter of disarmament. I find it difficult to understand how we can say we are fully consulted about matters having to do directly or indirectly with disarmament if such a fact was not brought to the attention of all the NATO partners.
I was about to say that we concur in the support the minister has given to the observations made by the secretary general of the United Nations, particularly having in mind that his observations had to do with the place of a United Nations police force in the enforcement of a partial or comprehensive system of disarmament.
The minister said nothing about participation by China in a disarmament agreement. This is a matter which has been discussed at the prime ministers' meeting, and it must have been touched upon at the meeting of the NATO council.
The minister did not say anything about whether the United States had given evidence of its desire to give more vigorous support to article II of the North Atlantic treaty. When the question of freer trade and trade on a basis calculated to promote peace was being discussed in the council meeting, one would have expected that Canada would put forward her traditional
9. 1960	3677
Istanbul Meetings on Disarmament view that one of the best ways of making NATO an effective instrument of collective action would be by recognizing the importance of economic as well as political co-operation.
Finally, on the matter of the incident of May 1, the shooting down of a United States plane by the Soviet union, there will be questions by some of us in this party on orders of the day, which we feel would be the most appropriate place to elicit further information. But we all agree with the minister that this is a matter that has engaged the concern and touched the imagination of most people in this country during the past few days. We can only hope that the timing of the incident as well as the incident itself will not in any way prejudice the very important talks which are going to take place within a few days among the four great powers.
I sincerely support the observation of the minister that if the open skies proposal had been accepted by the Soviet union this sort of incident would have become unnecessary. The minister referred to statements by the Prime Minister which relate to the application of the principle of open skies in the Arctic. I would remind the minister of the position taken by his predecessor and the former government in 1955, when they supported a proposal by President Eisenhower that there should be reciprocity of aerial inspection of military establishments both in the United States and the Soviet union. If that proposal had been accepted, international confidence would have been created and incidents of this kind would have been minimized. However, the Soviet union refused to accept the American proposal.
As I mentioned a moment ago, we shall have some questions to ask on the orders of the day. I do want to assure the minister once again that in these matters, despite areas of disagreement and emphasis, there is strong support in this parliament for the objectives which the hon. gentleman has in mind. We feel, however, that with regard to the question of disarmament upon which the hon. gentleman places such importance, and rightly so, there has not yet been produced- and I think the minister will not mind my saying so-either by himself or by the government, any evidence of the kind of constructive intervention that Canada could make in a matter of this great importance. It seems to us that this is not only an occasion when we should have support and unity among like minded nations; it is also an occasion when this country, exercising, as the minister earlier told us, its right of independent

Istanbul Meetings on Disarmament thought and action in the field of foreign affairs, should give more adequate evidence of having done so.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: The
members of this group are delighted to see the minister returned in good health and spirits. We had some fears for him, in view of the fact that for many years he had not wandered very far from his own doorstep, and particularly in view of the fact that a number of papers and persons in various parts of Canada have wondered if the minister would suffer from sea sickness, air sickness or home sickness. We see, however, that he travels well, and before pursuing the brief remarks I intend to make I want to compliment the hon. gentleman on the fact that his short European experience is also causing him to become quite a linguist.
I shall comment only very briefly on the minister's most interesting statement. I notice he said the progress to date in the disarmament committee was not very satisfactory, and we note his suggestion recommending that the summit meeting give directions to discuss specific issues. We think there is some validity in that suggestion, and also in the suggestion that there might be a package deal-I think the hon. gentleman later said a practical deal.
We were interested to note the suggestion that off the record discussions might take place. We are of the opinion that results of some usefulness might be obtained from that type of discussion, where people are not talking for the record. Even in this house members are tempted on occasion to speak for the record, for the press though, I might add, very seldom in this corner of the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do want to say, with reference to the disarmament committee and the minister's recommendation that the activities of that committee should be related more directly to the United Nations, that we are all in support of that suggestion. In connection with the minister's remarks in general to that effect we simply say that this group supports any honest effort to promote disarmament in the world at this time.
Now I wish to say a word or two about the other matters. As to the German question, I do not intend to deal with that matter on this occasion, because this group holds very strong and definite views with regard to that very important subject which we shall air at the proper time which, I judge, will be when the estimates of the minister's department come before us.


With respect to what the minister termed the incident over the Soviet union, I think that was something of an understatement; I would have said "the tragic incident over the Soviet union" in these particular circumstances. The members of this group have no hesitation in saying that we think this was a stupid action on the part of the military authorities of the United States, and one which indicates a complete lack of a sense of responsibility toward its other partners in the western world. In our opinion it was an irresponsible action which was most unfortunate at this time, and we trust that the minister and the government will protest it in the strongest terms to the government of the United States, and indicate to that government the state of public opinion in Canada on this question at the present time.
I am glad to note that the minister still expresses his hope for results from and strong support for a summit conference.
I would say also, with respect to the announcement that the United States intends to resume underground tests of atomic explosions, that the policy of this party is to work for a discontinuance of nuclear tests of all kinds. The minister has frequently advocated both in this house and in statements before the external affairs committee, a similar policy. We are of the opinion that this great blunder on the part of the United States military authorities should strengthen the determination both of the minister and of the government in the days ahead to pursue unrelentingly a constructive but Canadian foreign policy.


UNITED NATIONS
Howard Charles Green: I have a short statement to make about Canadian assistance to the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees.
In response to an appeal by the director of UNRWA, the government has decided to make a grant of $1.5 million worth of Canadian flour to the agency to assist it in providing adequate supplies of food to the Palestine refugees being cared for in various Middle Eastern countries. The number of these refugees is now about 900,000. This gift is in addition to Canada's annual cash contribution to UNRWA of $500,000.
In addition to the direct contribution this grant of flour will make to UNRWA's food supplies, it is hoped that by releasing agency funds which otherwise would have been spent on food this grant will enable UNRWA to

Inquiries of the Ministry
proceed with worth-while rehabilitation proj- Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State ects it has undertaken to improve the for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, may I ask economic welfare of these refugees.	that the hon. member allow this to stand
It is expected that this flour will be shipped until the Prime Minister returns? in the near future. Provision will be made to Mr. Pickersgill: I am quite agreeable to finance this grant out of the 1960-61 sup- that sir. plementary estimates for the Department of ' .
External Affairs.	Motion stands.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 83-Mr. Dumas:
For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of those employed, the period of employment and the amount paid to each person, in connection with the reconstruction, during 1959, of a wharf located on the west bank of the Malartic river, range 4, in the township of Malartic, Quebec.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: As the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are still investigating this matter, could the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.


REPRESENTATIONS ON SOUTH AFRICAN PROBLEMS, U.B.C. STUDENTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 96-Mr. Martin (Essex East):
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged from April 1, to date, between the Prime Minister and a committee of the students of the University of British Columbia, regarding current problems in South Africa.
Howard Charles Green: May I ask that this stand until the Prime Minister returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.


AIR SERVICE CONTRACTS, DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 97-Mr. Chevrier:
For a list of all contracts entered into by the Department of Defence Production with Spartan Air Services Limited, the Photographic Survey Corporation Limited, Renting Aviation Limited, Aero Surveys of British Columbia, Survey Aircraft Limited and Canadian Aero Services Limited, between January 1, 1955 and March 15, 1960, showing the dollar value of each contract, the goods or services supplied in each case and the branch or division of the Department of National Defence for which such goods or services were procured.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 98-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of any letter addressed to the Prime Minister by the Toronto Telegram or any reporter or editorial writer employed by that newspaper, regarding the administration of the immigration department, together with any replies thereto, since June 21, 1957.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of the admission made by the United States that an American aircraft shot down by the Russians was on an information-gathering reconnaissance flight, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of National Defence state whether Soviet planes have been flying over the Canadian Arctic or other parts of Canada for the same purpose during the last two years?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there has been no identification of Soviet planes flying over Canada. Mind you, there have been unidentified planes on occasion, but none were identified as Soviet planes.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister say whether this regrettable flight of a United States plane over Soviet territory was made with the knowledge or authority of NATO or the NATO commander?


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for NATO, but I would be fairly certain that the answer is no.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Did Canada itself or any minister of the Canadian government realize that such flights were being made over Soviet territory? I should like to ask a second question at this time. Is the Canadian government prepared to protest to the United States the making of this flight and request that no further flights be made in future?


Howard Charles Green: We were unaware of flights of this kind being made. I think the United States government is very well aware of the feeling not only in Canada but also in various other parts of the world with regard to these activities.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker-

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East.


Hazen Robert Argue: -a further supplementary
question, if I may-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already recognized the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question arising out of the last part of his answer. Since this incident was first made known to it has the Canadian government taken any steps whatsoever to inform the government of the United States of Canada's concern about this matter?


Howard Charles Green: There have been discussions at the official level, Mr. Speaker, but no formal protest has been made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So there will be no misunderstanding as to the nature of the reply, may I ask the minister whether he is satisfied beyond any doubt that the government of the United States is now aware of Canada's concern in this matter?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt of that. As I pointed out in making my statement earlier, it is quite evident that the government of the United States itself was not aware of these flights.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement he made a moment ago to the effect that the President of the United States was not aware of these flights, has the minister any comment to make on the newspaper report that the president had seen pictures taken on these flights on more than one occasion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member would have to relate his question to the responsibility of the Canadian administration, and he does not seem to me to have done so,


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in the light of answers to these questions may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and ask him if he can say what effect these disclosures will have upon the Canadian proposals for disarmament at the summit meetings. He has replied in part to this, and perhaps he may want to add something. I should also like him to answer this question. Would he comment on the statement made by President Eisenhower that he will propose the scrapping of military secrecy at the conference?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not care to comment on that statement. I did point out in my earlier remarks that we believe it is all the more important, now that this has happened, that there should be a determined attempt to reach some agreement on disarmament.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister seen reports of the Canada-United States meetings in Boston, in which it was stated that cuts by congress in spending on the Bomarc missile illustrate the need for the United States to remember the impact of its decisions in Canada? Would the minister comment on this conclusion and on the corollary which followed, that there should be more opportunities for frank exchanges of opinion on common problems?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his question. I had read the report appearing in this morning's Montreal Gazette. I would say, as I have said before, that there has been and continues to be close co-operation and consultation both at the administrative and at the military level between Canada and the United States in all matters pertaining to the air defence of this continent. This has involved very close exchanges of opinion on all common problems.
Of course, in so far as the recent recommendations of the House of Representatives and the appropriations committee with regard to the United States defence budget are concerned, no prior information was received by the Canadian government as to what those recommendations would be. All we have received is the printed report issued subsequent to the evidence which was given, the report containing the evidence before the committee. There has been no consultation, and no information has passed between that committee and the Canadian government.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What was the status of this parliamentary delegation which issued the statement referred to by the hon. member for Laurier?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was an unofficial exchange and meeting of members of the Canadian parliament and representatives from the United States.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of National Defence explain to the house how it was that on that committee there happened to be only members of the Conservative party?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker. I thought this was the meeting which was held during the Easter recess.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: No, it was held within the last few days.


George Randolph Pearkes: Well, I did not appoint them.


Mr. Fulton:: The Conservative members have the initiative to do it.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out Mr. Speaker, that any representatives at this meeting were in no sense official delegates from the Canadian government. We cannot stop half a dozen hon. members from going down and holding talks with people in the United States.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is the
minister aware that United States newspapers carried articles saying that trade, the Bomarc and other questions were discussed, and that the parliamentary delegation from Canada was led by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Jung) ?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A clear answer has already been given, which would indicate that the exchange visit which was mentioned was not in any sense official and on that account it removes it, it seems to me, from the responsibility of the minister.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of his answer to a previous question. I believe that my question is in order because it does deal with the responsibility of the government. I understand that the hon. members attending the meeting referred to travelled in a government plane. Is that correct?


George Randolph Pearkes: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Douglas Jung (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the questions asked by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). First may I say, as the nominal head of the group who went on a visit to Boston over the week end, that an invitation was extended to a representative of the Liberal party to accompany it. The invitation was accepted. However, owing to unforeseen circumstances the representative of
Inquiries of the Ministry the Liberal party declined at the last moment, and there was not time to approach another person.
In reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West, I am surprised that the question of transportation came up at all. Certainly, in no report in the press that I have seen has there been any intimation that we travelled by government transportation. Every person paid his own way down. This visit was motivated by a genuine and sincere desire on the part of Canadians who wanted to do their bit in bettering Canadian-United States relations.


George James McIlraith: I should like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for clarifying this matter. My question arose directly out of the answer given by the Minister of National Defence. I thought it highly desirable that it be clarified, and I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for having done so.


Mr. Ricard:: We are used to that kind of speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George James McIlraith: Apparently some hon. members on the government side were unable to hear the Minister of National Defence. Perhaps they can read his answer in Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Government members are very sensitive.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask whether the minister can inform the house when it is intended to start this year's dogfish killing program.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. As the hon. member knows, various dogfish killing programs have been tried and none have been entirely satisfactory. The 1959-60 program was not accepted by those engaged in the fishing industry to as great an extent as we had hoped, with the result that only about 40 per cent of the money voted by parliament for that purpose last year has been taken up.
For some time now study has been given to a further modification of this plan to make it more effective. I cannot say at the moment when further action will be taken, until a more practical program is fully evolved.

Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE



REPORTED REDUCTION OF FUND THROUGH FRAUD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister seen the statement made by his parliamentary secretary in a Montreal speech as reported by the Ottawa Journal, in which it is said charges were made that the unemployment insurance fund was being drastically reduced by fraud and "we know fraud exists. To deny its existence would be utter nonsense." Has the minister any comment to make on this statement, and will a thorough and complete investigation of this charge of fraud be instituted at once?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: There have been continuous instances of fraud in unemployment insurance as it pertains to claims for benefits, practically throughout the existence of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Charges of fraud have been laid and, of course, there is quite an effort made to recoup the moneys that have been overpaid. I imagine that charges of fraud will continue to be laid. We keep a watchful eye to see that we catch those who fraudulently accept unemployment insurance benefits.


Lionel Chevrier: Has the minister any doubt about the validity of the figures of live claims for unemployment insurance benefits as given here in the house from time to time? In view of the statement made in the speech in Montreal, has the minister any doubt about the figures?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: No relation whatsoever.


Michael Starr: I do not understand the question. Is it whether it is a correct figure that I am giving to the house from time to time. Is that what the hon. member means?


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps, in order to make the question more clear, I should preface it with what was said, as reported again in the Ottawa Journal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member probably goes too far in quoting. His question is perfectly intelligible. If he would repeat it perhaps the minister would understand it. I think he did not hear it.


Lionel Chevrier: The purpose of the question was to ask the minister whether he had any doubt about the validity of those figures which he himself gives from time to time-I think it is at the end of each month-in answer to questions put by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the figures I give in response to questions asked are those supplied to me by the unemployment insurance commission.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask
the minister a supplementary question. It has to do with his statement in relation to fraud with regard to unemployment insurance benefits. Will the minister say to what extent fraud has existed, since this appears to leave some cloud over some people receiving unemployment insurance? Can the minister say to what extent, if any, this has to do with the major reduction in the amount of money in the unemployment insurance fund?


Michael Starr: If the hon. member will put this question on the order paper I shall be glad to get the unemployment insurance commission to give that information.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister care to tell the house whether instances of fraud have had anything to do with the tremendous reduction in the amount of money in the fund? I do not think the minister should leave the impression that fraud is widespread and deleting the fund.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are the one leaving that impression.


Michael Starr: I do not know how the hon. member got the impression that the reason for the depletion in the fund has been fraud; it is probably one of the things-


Hazen Robert Argue: Your parliamentary secretary said so.


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker. It is one of the things that does have some bearing, and it has been going on and will continue to go on. Therefore if we catch it we shall try to recoup the moneys overpaid.


George James McIlraith: I have a supplementary question I wish to ask the Minister of Labour. It has to do with the subject matter of the previous questions put to him. I hold in my hand a press clipping, the heading of which reads:
Frauds Threatening Jobless Insurance.
This is the heading over the speech made by the minister's parliamentary secretary on this subject. My question is this. In view of the charges made by the parliamentary secretary-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: There were no charges made.


George James McIlraith: -has the minister ordered an investigation into this matter?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I think if I read the sentence from the text of what was said

by my parliamentary secretary to the unemployment advisory committee at Montreal on May 5, 1960 it may help. These are the words:
Before doing so, however, may I say that in comparison with the total volume of cases, fraud is almost negligible.


George James McIlraith: I have a further supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister what meaning he attaches to these words uttered by his parliamentary secretary, or at least attributed to him:
We know that fraud exists. To deny its existence would be utter nonsense.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 5 the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) asked the Minister of National Revenue whether the C.B.C. proposed to send planes to bring pictures of H. R. H. Princess Margaret's wedding back to Canada, and how much it would cost.
The answer is that I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that they did not send planes to bring back pictures of Princess Margaret's wedding. Arrangements were made, with the co-operation of the Royal Air Force, whereby the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television material would be flown to Canada and the costs shared by others whose material would also be carried in the planes. It is estimated that the total cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will be somewhat less than $30,000.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Postmaster General? Has the Postmaster General any report to make to parliament in connection with his trip to Paris, made for the purpose of obtaining the world fair in Montreal, which was lost by a very narrow margin?


Mr. Murphy:: Why were you not here last week?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Questions were asked along that line, Mr. Speaker, and answers were given by the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) last Thursday and Friday, which dealt with the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the Postmaster General think, as a result of his experience at this conference, that it would be in the interest of world peace to have the minister attend the summit conference?



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It will be very brief, as is my practice. Does the minister consider that the proposed amalgamation of the Toronto-Dominion Bank and the Bank of Nova Scotia violates the terms of the Combines Investigation Act? In view of the continuing amalgamation of private banks in Canada, is the minister concerned about the possible development of a private banking monopoly in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the hon. member's question is one that comes under the purview of the Department of Justice. If he wants to ask whether an investigation is being made he may do so, but to ask the minister for an expression of opinion in the way he has seems to be quite out of order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Supplementary to what I have already said, is an investigation going on in the direction I have mentioned?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No,
Mr. Speaker, there is not. In any event bank mergers, if any should come about, do not come within the anti-combines legislation. Any such amalgamation would be regulated by the Bank Act, under which they are examined by the Minister of Finance and the governor in council. I make my answer, however, on this basis, wishing to make it clear that I have no knowledge of any such proposed merger or amalgamation.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, in view of reports of what is likely to happen in another place I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he would consult with his colleagues to see whether it might be possible to have a joint committee of the two houses of parliament set up to investigate the problem of

Inquiries of the Ministry unemployment, so that the representatives of the people could have some part in that investigation.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that any committee had been set up in the other place to investigate the problem of unemployment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question of the Acting Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that the government spokesman in the other place has received authority from the cabinet to initiate a committee for the purpose of discussing unemployment in the other place, when that very privilege has been denied the members of this house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The first part of the question is in order.


Lionel Chevrier: Who is going to answer?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member could show that a committee has been set up in the other place to deal with unemployment, I think he could then properly ask questions with respect to this matter today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the Minister of Labour not aware that notice has been given by the government leader in the other place that he will move tomorrow for the establishment of such a committee?


Michael Starr: If the hon. member for Essex East will read the motion under which the committee is to be set up in the other place he will not find the word "unemployment" in that motion at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, weasel words of the government.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Essex East has now said "weasel words of the government". I say to him that the word "unemployment" is not in any motion to set up such a committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the Minister of Labour deny that if the word "unemployment" is not there words of similar meaning-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been following this discussion, and it seems to me that the only part of it that is relevant, and that is of doubtful relevancy, is that part asking the government whether it would consider joining in an inquiry. I say that is of doubtful propriety for two reasons. First, it seems to be rather hypothetical and, second, it seems to be asking the government for a declaration on a matter of policy. In so far as proceedings in the other place are concerned, questions of that nature are out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, if I cannot ask a question I am sure you will agree that I may rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Not to demonstrate what the motion is in the other place. I think that would be quite out of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I not raise a question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question of privilege he is always at liberty to raise it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will state my question of privilege and Your Honour, with wise judgment, will decide.


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked the hon. member to state his question of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was about to do that, but before doing so I wanted to pay a deserved tribute to Your Honour.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Stop clowning.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question of privilege is this. Having been denied in this house the opportunity of participating in a committee to study unemployment, have my privileges as a member not been violated by according that opportunity to members of the other place, particularly when I as a member of the house along with other members can be said to represent the people of this country more directly?


Mr. Speaker:: This house can only deal
with the privileges within its own walls, and if we become involved in matters having to do with the other place it seems to me we are out of order.


Joseph Warner Murphy: He will never be there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that a prayer?



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as house leader. I base my question upon the indication he gave on May 5 as to the business of the house for the present week. He indicated that on Wednesday we would consider the Combines Investigation Act amendments. In view of the fact that we have just received the printed amendments today, I would ask the minister to consider postponing their consideration until some time in the future in order that we may have an opportunity to give these amendments further study.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I announced the business of the house for Wednesday on May 6.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, on May 5 the minister indicated that Wednesday would be devoted to studying the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.


Lionel Chevrier: Look at the order of business given on the next day.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. Will he confirm or deny the report in the Ottawa Citizen of today that it is the intention of the government to charge a parking fee to civil servants who park their automobiles on the grounds of the government of Canada?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the article in the Ottawa Citizen of today, and am therefore unable to make any comment on it.



APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER GREATER DISPATCH OF BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (for the Prime
Minister) moved:
That a select committee, to be designated, be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business, with power to send for persons and papers, and to report from time to time its findings and recommendations to the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the rules of this house are one of the most important elements in the functioning of our parliamentary institutions. There are some who treat rules and regard for rules with a measure of impatience, but I think all hon. members will realize how vital are the rules of the house.
The aim of the rules must be to govern our procedures and methods in the house and to assure the orderly, efficient, fair and expeditious dispatch of the public business. Therefore there is a need, from time to time, to examine the rules and determine whether they are best serving these purposes. The business of the house does undergo change, and sometimes these changes in the business
9. 1960	3685
Appointment of Committee on House Rules that comes before the house do call for changes in the procedures of the house.
The house, over the years, has been faced with an increasing variety and scope in the business that comes before it to be transacted. There is the problem also of the lengthening of the sessions. Those hon. members who sat in this house in the long sessions of 1955 and 1956, and who attended the double sessions we had in some of the earlier years, will not need to be reminded of the way in which the business of the house has been lengthening the average session. I think all hon. members are aware also, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that the world's judgment of parliamentary institutions in the commonwealth and in the western world can no longer be taken for granted as a favourable verdict. We are judged, in all the parliaments of the commonwealth and the west, by the way we transact the public business as well as by the decisions which are reached and the courses of action upon which we decide.
Five years have passed, Mr. Speaker, since the last revision of the rules of the house was carried out. Prior to that the last previous one was in 1927, and it was not as extensive as the revision of 1955. Actually the committee which tendered its final report in 1955 had sat through six sessions of parliament. This committee study arose, in the first instance, as the result of an amendment introduced by the opposition on June 12, 1951 to a government motion resolving that the house go into committee of supply. It was one of those very rare occasions in this house upon which the government has accepted an opposition amendment to a government supply motion.
The committee was appointed on June 15, 1951. The proceedings and the terms of reference may be found in Votes and Proceedings of that year at page 505. The motion was introduced by the then prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, and it is probably an interesting reflection on the rate of political mortality in this house that of that original committee appointed on June 15, 1951, my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) and I are the only surviving members in this house. Later the personnel of the committee was enlarged, and in 1955 when it brought in its final report among the members who then constituted the committee and who are still members here are the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson), the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and four members on this side of the house who are now ministers.
There had been earlier reports from the committee and decisions taken in the light of its recommendations to alter the rules of
3686	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Committee on House Rules the house. As the result of one of those recommendations the hours of sitting were changed, the hour of sitting in the afternoon being advanced from 3 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and the hour of daily adjournment being advanced from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m. As the result of a later decision, the Friday evening session was eliminated and a Friday morning session introduced.
The terms of reference of the committee now proposed under this motion are precisely the same as those under which the earlier committee to which I have referred operated and introduced its final report in 1955. Indeed, from the beginning, in 1951, the committee's attention was directed by the house in these words, "to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business". The interpretation given to those words in the committee year after year, I may say, was broad enough to include improvements that might be judged desirable by other standards as well. The final report of the committee was introduced in June, 1955, and that report may be found at page 705 of Votes and Proceedings for June 14, 1955. It was a very extensive report, occupying some 66 pages of Votes and Proceedings.
The report of the committee was unanimous, although it was quite clear that unanimity was reached only as the result of compromise and some of the members of the committee, myself included, indicated that some elements of the report could only be supported by reason of accepting the report as a whole, on balance. The debate on that report began on July 1, 1955, and the report was finally concurred in on July 12, 1955.
Out of that extensive revision of the rules came some major changes. One calls to mind some of them, Mr. Speaker. First, there was the introduction of the limit on the debate on the speech from the throne, limiting that debate to 10 days in all with morning sessions. The second was the limitation of the debate on the budget to eight days; the third was the limitation of the number of supply motions to six, with a total of 12 days devoted to them; another was a reduction from 40 minutes to 30 minutes in the time accorded any hon. member when speaking in committee. A new procedure was also introduced in respect of the tabling of documents in the house.
Let me say just briefly, Mr. Speaker, that while in every case it might have appeared to some hon. members that the changes had the effect of introducing a curtailment, in some degree or other, of the rights of hon. members to engage in discussion or in otherwise unlimited discussion, I doubt very much
[Stage Direction]

if any hon. members today, after the experience we have had in working under these rules for the last five years, would ever wish to go back to the old rules or to repeal any of those changes that were introduced in 1955.
I am sure hon. members are aware that the mere revision of the rules of the house will not bring to perfection the proceedings of this house. There is the old and continuing problem of the enforcement of the rules. A former clerk of this house, Dr. Beauchesne, once said that if the rules of the house were enforced there would be no need whatever for revision at any time. He was referring particularly to the reading of speeches in the house which, of course, is prohibited by a rule which has been very difficult to enforce. Another of the rules is the one forbidding repetition in debate. There are other factors that must enter into the discharge of public business, such as the observance of the rules; the number of political parties represented in the house; the extent of the co-operation that exists in the transaction of the business, and so on. In addition there are such matters as the use of the committees of the house to transact as much of the business as can usefully and properly be transacted in committees without occupying the time of all hon. members. I think it may be said that committees of the house are being used today to the greatest extent in the history of this house. This leads to a more thorough review of the business of the house referred to such committees. There are some hon. members who will not be so certain that the time of the house has been thereby economized. Similarly, by giving more advance notice of the business of the house a contribution has been made toward expediting that business.
One other matter that was mentioned in earlier debates was the contribution to the expedition of the business of the house that ensues from carrying on debates so far as possible on a continuous, uninterrupted basis.
In connection with this proposed new study of the rules by a committee of the house, suggestions have been made from time to time as to various improvements which might be made in the house. The suggestions, indeed, are numerous and varied. It will be for the committee to study and assess them as it may see fit. There is, of course, Mr. Speaker, the matter of the rule respecting closure. I trust that the committee will be prepared to examine and report to the house on that rule.
Suggestions have been made from time to time about the method by which we vote in the house. One hon. member suggested in an entitled to comment on it, has confirmed in

to the introduction of mechanical devices such as have been employed in the House of the People in India.
Suggestions have been made that there are more supply motions provided for than are necessary. Some quarrel has been taken with the fact that on three of the Mondays precedence is given to private bills over private members' resolutions. Suggestions have been made from time to time about arriving at limited debates by agreement.
These are but a few of the suggestions which have been made from time to time and which I am sure the committee will think it profitable to study and report upon.
May I offer the view that the committee, if the house sees fit to set it up, may well study the means of improving the efficiency of our methods in the house and the dispatch of the public business in the most expeditious manner possible without the sacrifice of the essential rights of members. In this task I think the new committee may enjoy an advantage that was not enjoyed by the committee which sat from 1951 to 1955. At that time all of the members on the government side had had no experience in opposition, and all of the members on the opposition side had had, I think, no experience in government. That situation has been changed since and I think that those or some of those on the committee who are appointed from the government side of the house will have had experience on both sides of the house; and it may be expected now that those, or at least some of those who are appointed from the opposition side will have had experience on both sides of the house. This may well influence the views of members of this committee on some of the questions which come before it.
The committee will have the advantage of having as its-I do not say chairman, but as its, shall I say, moderator-the Speaker of the house. This is a committee that is appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in this study, and the benefit of his experience and his observations will be available to the committee as well as his opinion as moderator of meetings.
Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question? I believe in the previous committee Mr. Speaker was made chairman of the committee. Is the government going to make a similar recommendation to this committee?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, your predecessor was not appointed chairman of the committee. The committee recognized that it was appointed by the house to assist Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker of course presided,
Appointment of Committee on House Rules but I do not think the designation "chairman of the committee" is a proper one to apply to the Speaker. He presided at the meetings of the committee; the house designated the committee for the purpose of assisting Mr. Speaker.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in the light of the length of time which was devoted to the study of the rules by the previous committee, I do not think the house will expect the committee to come forward with a final report at this session. If that should be the case, I am sure the house will be pleased to set up the committee again at the next following session to continue its work. The appointment at the present session, however, will at least launch the committee and enable it to carry forward its work. If the committee should see fit to make recommendations about changing the rules at this session, that matter will have to be considered however the report is received.
I am sure it will be the wish of this house to demonstrate, not only to the people of this country but to others elsewhere who may be interested in watching the course of parliamentary government, that this parliament, the offspring of an ancient institution, retains all the virility and vigour required to enable it to undertake and to make such adaptations as may be required in the proceedings of this house to increase its efficiency, its decorum and its dispatch of the public business.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members will welcome the action being taken by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Fleming) in moving to set up this committee for the purpose of considering with Mr. Speaker the procedure of the house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that may be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business.
I was happy to note that in his remarks the Acting Prime Minister made it clear that he viewed those words as having the same meaning which was given to them by a previous committee of a previous parliament dealing with this subject. I take it that by his remarks he means he views the work of the committee as that of suggesting improvements in the procedures in the House of Commons. With that we all concur.
I also noticed with interest his reference in the earlier part of his remarks to the world's judgment of parliamentary systems. Any experience I have had in parliamentary matters over the years, and I think I am entitled to comment on it, has confirmed in
3688	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Committee on House Rules me the very strong conviction that of the competing systems of government throughout the world the one system that oilers to all human beings in any given country the best guarantee of the protection of their individual human rights and liberties, and the best method of guaranteeing those rights and liberties and evolving them into a working system regulating their day to day lives in political matters, is the parliamentary system. We are fortunate enough to have inherited that system.
Bearihg in mind the tremendous increase, of necessity, in governmental activities-that is, governmental activities in all manner and types of relationships to the individual citizen of the country-it is well that we examine periodically our procedure to make sure that the machinery through which the elected representatives of the citizens operate is working efficiently and that it gives full opportunity to those elected representatives to well conduct the country's business.
I take it that this is not a party matter; at least, I so view it. I view it as something pertaining to the rights of all members of the blouse of Commons; that is, all members regardless of where their responsibilities may lie, whether as members of the government, whether as government supporters, whether as members of the opposition. It seems to me that the whole basis of our system lies in the guarantee that the individual member, no matter what may be his particular responsibility, has his rights assured so that he may make a government answerable for its action -I shall have something to say on that later in my remarks-or that he may voice a grievance or assert his views as to the wisdom or otherwise of a particular policy. It is the guaranteeing of those rights which is important and, having guaranteed those rights, so organizing and so arranging matters as to make efficient use of the time available in any given parliament.
There is one subject upon which I owe it to myself to express a view. I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. gentleman refer to the subject of closure. Closure became the subject of political debate on the hustings, and I think all members will agree that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a definite commitment on the question of the closure rule, indicating that the government would deal with it. The hon. minister's remarks today gave an impression which I hope he did not quite intend. That commitment, to which I have referred, having been given by the Prime Minister, I hope it is not the intention to place it on the shoulders of a committee charged with advising Mr. Speaker. A stand has been taken on this subject and


I think the minister will understand my suggestion that, after reflection, he might take a somewhat different attitude. I should hate to see the work of the committee impeded by having to deal with this controversial subject, taken from the shoulders of the Prime Minister and the government of the day where the Prime Minister has placed it by his own actions, having made his representation with regard thereto to the people of this country. I think it is very important that the position of Mr. Speaker, be preserved at all times, and that there should be no question about a burden of this kind being placed on his shoulders. So I hope the Acting Prime Minister will understand my remarks-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You mean the former acting prime minister.


George James McIlraith: The former acting prime minister? I am not out of date, because the government did not announce the change. Then I hope the former acting prime minister, who also proved his great ability in an acting capacity in another field, will not misunderstand my remarks on this point, but that note will be taken of them.
With regard to improvements in the procedures of the House of Commons, although we note the hon. gentleman's reference to a quotation from a former illustrious clerk of this place to the effect that there was no need to amend the rules, we must bear in mind that members of the House of Commons are human beings and, as such, have human frailties. This being so, it is necessary from time to time to examine the rules in order to see if they should not be amended. As a matter of fact I, for one, am quite content with the fact that members of the House of Commons have human failings. I think that is a fortunate thing, and I should hate to see any other concept of society being asserted in this country.
An interesting question arises when we come to consider the procedures of the House of Commons. There is, of course, that part of our procedure which relates to the government itself, and which is not governed by the rules. Considerable responsibility lies on the government of the day with regard to bringing forward public business in an orderly way so as to permit the fullest discussion and the fullest assessment of the opinion of the house with regard to it. As an example of what I have in mind, it is interesting to note that we are today discussing this motion to set up a committee on the seventy sixth day of the session. On the last occasion when a subject of this kind was under consideration the debate on the motion to set up a committee was brought forward on the seventh day of the sitting of the house.

This raises the whole question of the timing of the bringing forward of public business for decision by the house. This can only in a very limited way be determined by the rules. All hon. members would probably agree that it is not desirable that a government be unduly restricted by the rules as to the time at which matters are brought forward for debate and discussion; on the other hand, it is highly desirable for the efficient functioning of the House of Commons that the government should exercise great wisdom in the timing of bringing forward items of public business. I am never quite sure whether the leader of the house requires other attributes as well as wisdom as a qualification for that office. Sometimes I think he should be possessed of intuition as well as wisdom. However, this is not intended as a criticism of the government of the day as far as the bringing forward of matters for consideration by this house is concerned. I wish, rather, to point out that this most important part of our daily procedure is not governed to any substantial extent by the rules.
Along with our consideration of this question there is another matter that might be mentioned, namely the whole question of a period of time which ought to elapse between the first reading of a government bill and its coming forward for second reading. It seems to me that a reasonable period of time should elapse between first and second readings of a government bill. For some time I have felt that insufficient attention has been paid to this small, but important, detail, and that the time of parliament could be saved, and a better-a more efficient-debate could take place if a proper period of time were to elapse. I believe that in earlier times, in another of the parliaments about which we have heard so much, there was a requirement of a 10-day delay. That protection has been removed, I believe, though I have not had an opportunity to verify the fact in preparing for this debate.
Then there is the whole question of committees. I have been very much concerned with what I consider to be the substantial damage being done to the procedure in the House of Commons because of the inordinately large number of committees now sitting. I doubt if the government itself realizes -because government members are not usually members of committees-the number of committees which are sitting and the frequency of those sittings. I wish to develop this subject today, because I hope the government will look into the matter.
9, 1960	3689
Appointment of Committee on House Rules
Mr. Pallet!: I wonder if the hon. member will permit a question. When he said "government members" did he mean that in a narrow sense?


George James McIlraith: I meant "members of- the government".


Hazen Robert Argue: He meant it in the correct sense.
Mr. Pallet!: "Narrow" is the word.


George James McIlraith: No. I am sorry.
Mr. Pickersgilh Does the hon. member for Peel consider himself a member of the government?
Mr. Pallet!: A supporter.


George James McIlraith: We now have a sharply increased number of committees sitting. I have not attempted to work out a tabulation but it would seem that we have about twice the number currently sitting that ever sat in any parliament since confederation. Although the government leader suggested bringing the business to a conclusion the other day we have not even at this time set up all the committees for which notice has been given on the order paper or indicated in the throne speech.
That brings me to this point. The practice in former days when there were very few committees was to have large committees. We now have some dozen or so standing committees as well as many special committees. I should like to place on the record the number of members on these standing committees. The committee on privileges and elections consists of 29 members; the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraphs, 60 members; the miscellaneous private bills committee, 50 members; the committee on banking and commerce, 50 members; .the public accounts committee, 50 members; the committee on agriculture and colonization, 60 members; the committee on standing orders, 20 members; the committee on marine and fisheries, 35 members; the committee on mines, forests and waters, 35 members; the industrial relations committee, 35 members; the committee on debates, 12 members; the committee on external affairs, 35 members; the joint committee on printing consists of 23 members of the House of Commons and the joint committee on the library of parliament consists of 21 members of the House of Commons. In addition there are a great number of special and select committees having in each case a very large personnel.
This has brought about a gradual change over the years that has been sharply accentuated in the last two or three years. The large number of members on each committee
3690	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Committee on House Rules means that each member of the House of Commons is on a great number of committees. The committees of necessity must meet concurrently. The result is that we have developed the practice over the last decade or so of having what one hon. member aptly described as a group of nomadic members moving from committee to committee, spending a few minutes at each committee sitting or indeed not attending committee sittings at all or not attending the meeting of a particular committee for days on end.
That is not an efficient way of doing committee work. I would hope that examination would be given to the question of the size of committees and the time of setting them up. The time of setting them up is not governed by the rules but is controlled by the government. The number of members, however, would be a matter for changes in the rules. Those changes could be made if my view is shared by other hon. members who may think it desirable although I recognize that some hon. gentlemen may have sharply differing views. I merely seek to indicate the present difficulty which in my opinion, for what it is worth, the committee ought properly to examine.
There is one other significant thing. A great deal of difficulty arises from committees sitting while the house is sitting. That difficulty would disappear if the committees were smaller. Incidentally, I know one ought not to make personal references but the experience I have had in committee work over the years supports the view that smaller committees are much more effective. The problem of attendance and the problem of conflicts with sittings of the house simply disappear if it is a small committee.
I think it is a legitimate comment to say that many supporters of the government find extensive committee work rather desirable because while technically they have as full an opportunity as anyone else to participate in house debates, in practice they do not always have as full an opportunity as they might wish when debates are limited either by the rules, as with the throne and budget speech debates, or on other occasions. It is simply not mechanically possible with large majorities. Indeed, I noticed that this matter was raised in the early sittings of the earlier committee on procedure. At that time it was thought that the government of the day had a large majority but the present government has an even larger majority than when this point was raised.
If an hon. member could be on one or two committees in a parliament instead of five, six or seven as at present he would find


it possible to attend the sittings of the committee and to take up the subject it is studying as his major and special activity. I have the feeling that it would enable fuller participation in the work of parliament on the part of that committee member. It would provide more effective participation and would give the hon. member an opportunity to develop as an expert on that subject because of his accumulated experience on the committee and his extensive study of the subject.
There are other matters of this nature that could be dealt with. One question that has bothered me is the period of the day in the ordinary day's sitting before orders of the day are reached. I refer to that whole period covered by the routine proceedings, the question period. It seems to me there should be examination given to a more effective use of that period. While I supported the change in the rules made in 1955 I now find in the light of experience one of the changes has represented a retrograde step although many of the changes in the rules I supported at that time have proved effective. The retrograde step to which I refer relates to questions. We now have on the question hour three types of questions, starred questions, written questions on the order paper and oral questions.
In 1955 a change was made concerning questions on the order paper. Instead of having them answered in the House of Commons, which was a very short procedure, they are not now further dealt with in the house at all but rather are answered by the appropriate minister filing with an official of the house the written answer. The appropriate official then sends notice to the person asking the question. That may be done at any time of the day. It is most unsatisfactory from the point of view of the person asking the question. In my view it is also highly unsatisfactory from the point of view of the procedure in the House of Commons and the loss of time involved. A consequence of the inefficiency of that procedure, because of what I have said and also because of the fact that the answers to questions are not printed with other similar types of information in the Hansard record but rather are printed at the end of Hansard, is that an hon. member is virtually compelled to decide whether or not he will make his question a starred question or try to frame it as an oral question. The result is a clumsy thing from the point of view of anyone referring to Hansard, a loss of time in the house itself and an unsatisfactory procedure from the point of view of the one asking the question.
I would hope that that matter could be examined. For my own part I should certainly like to see the written questions

answered at the appointed time during the proceedings in the House of Commons simply by the minister indicating the number of the question if he is answering. This is a very short procedure. It would have the virtue of having the questions printed in the appropriate place in Hansard, and all of this would tend to eliminate the great number of starred questions which require an oral answer, sometimes quite lengthy. It would obviate the necessity of them, and it would also obviate the necessity for asking some of the oral questions on the orders of the day.
There are other matters which require attention. Probably there should be some examination of the reason for and an explanation required when an order of this house is not, for one reason or another-[DOT] sometimes a very good reason-presented to the house within a required limit of time. There are some very bad examples of delay. For some of them there are reasonable explanations. In others, it is not so clear; there is no explanation. But, in any event, these are lesser problems which may require to be looked at. It seems to me they require the attention of the committee.
There is a rather interesting thing about this committee. It will have the benefit of the excellent work by the earlier committee on this subject; it will have the advantage referred to by the former acting prime minister of the day, if I may use an apparent contradiction in terms, and there is also the very good report from the select committee on procedure in the United Kingdom, ordered to be printed February 15, 1959. There is all that great fund of material available.
There is one other matter of which we should take some cognizance. When the changes were made in 1955 concerning the matter of the motion to go into supply it was decided that a vote would be required at a point of time on the evening of the second day. After that period and up until ten o'clock there is an opportunity for any member of the House of Commons to express a grievance against the government of the day. I think that that procedure might be looked at because, with the wider activity of government in an ever widening field-and that process has been continuing for many years and I expect it will continue as time goes on-it is desirable that some clear opportunity be given a private member to assert a grievance against the government; also that the appropriate minister concerned be given a designated opportunity to reply. As the procedure now stands, if there is an amendment to the amendment of the motion to go into supply, the amendment to the
9, 1960	3691
Appointment of Committee on House Rules amendment, under the rules, is put at 8.15 on Tuesday evening. It is voted on; then the bells are again rung, requiring the usual lapse of time before the vote on the amendment itself is taken.
It is a small thing, but the extra 15 minutes or 20 minutes there could be very useful and better used in the interests of parliament, in the interests of governing the affairs of the country, by a private member asserting a grievance with correspondingly an appropriate amount of time given to a minister. It may be necessary or desirable, Mr. Speaker, to strengthen this right of members to assert grievances, in view of the changed procedure and the limitation of the time taken for the supply motion, but also in delimiting it to protect the government and the appropriate minister in making a reply. In other words, the former practice, prior to the change in the rules, was that a supply motion was not restricted to any given length of time. All the minister had to do was to wait and then to take as much time as he wished to reply. That was not satisfactory; but there is, however, a period of an hour and 10 minutes or an hour and 15 minutes for the whole matter of grievances. That whole subject should be looked into.
Under the old procedure there was no limit of time for a statement of grievances by members of the House of Commons and there was a tendency in deference, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this was a difficulty that I am sure all Speakers had-to have a general debate on the subject of whatever the grievance was. It is a very difficult point to determine.
There is a whole subject there because this matter of voting supply is one of the most important functions of the House of Commons. We have, I think appropriately, limited the time of the supply motions but we have not sufficiently protected the use of the remaining time for the assertion of grievances or the statement of grievances by individual members of the House of Commons.
Then, there is another thing-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member's discussion of the rules, but there is a rule which compels me to do so and to advise him that his time has expired.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, my knowledge of the rules is not adequate but I thought the first speaker of the official opposition on any government motion had unlimited time. I may be in error but that was my impression. Maybe it is in reply to a want of confidence motion that the first speaker has unlimited time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; when speaking in opposition to a government motion.
3692	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Committee on House Rules


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think it is in order for the House of Commons itself to deal with its procedure from time to time as laid down in the rules. Of course, this requires that a motion be passed and that Your Honour, in the words of the former acting prime minister, will act as a moderator of the committee. I think we are particularly fortunate in this parliament in being presided over by Your Honour and I feel that there is every possibility-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has raised a point of order which I think is quite correct and which I improperly interpreted. The hon. member for Ottawa West has unlimited time and I offer him the floor again if he wishes to proceed.


Mr, Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prevent the house from hearing the leader of the C.C.F., but if I may be permitted to take a moment I should like to continue.
My view of the whole matter is that it is of the utmost importance, at a time in human society when there are competing systems and when our system, as was correctly stated by the minister in moving the motion, is under the test of world opinion, that we take cognizance of just what our practices and procedures are.
Without wishing to trespass on the time of the house although the rule gives me the right to do so-I will not take more than a very limited time. I want to make reference to an editorial which I read in the Ottawa Journal on May 7, 1960, not on this subject but on a related subject. I thought it was very good. It is entitled, "Bureaucracy Must Be Kept Under Constant Watch". The point of the editorial had to do with a speech delivered by Viscount Kilmuir, Britain's lord chancellor, at the University of Chicago law centre. The editorial contains this quotation from his speech:
Governmental bureaucracy must be kept under constant watch. A large number of regulations affecting the lives and homes of citizens have poured from the government; all manner of tribunals outside the ordinary courts of law have been set up... Procedures have been devised which appear to many of us to be dangerously restrictive of the liberty of the subject.
Then the editorial goes on to say:
Our modern economy being what it is, life now being so desperately complex, governments are compelled to delegate authority, to set up boards and commissions to do things which they themselves cannot do. But this should never be permitted to mean that the citizen is deprived of his rights, and especially of the inalienable right of his day in court.
That is what is meant by the saying about eternal vigilance being the price of liberty. And this vigilance, it should be added, is not something


to be exercised with respect to bureaucrats alone; it must be applied to cabinets as well, to cabinets whether they are Liberal, Conservative or of any party whatsoever.
The editorial was not intended to apply directly to the subject now under discussion, Mr. Speaker, but I think it does. In my opinion it is very relevant and important. The government of necessity is engaged in a great number of activities but the necessity of the government, because of the volume of public business to be brought before the House of Commons, to seek methods to expedite the business of the house should never be permitted to bring about a situation where any member of the House of Commons elected as the representative of citizens of this country is deprived of his rights and especially of his inalienable right to his day of argument on the point at issue.
The observation in the editorial that the price of the preservation of our system, with the benefits which I believe it confers on the human beings making up this country, is eternal vigilance is equally applicable. There must be eternal vigilance over the practices of parliament, over the correct procedures to apply to assure all members that their rights will be preserved, to assure the government of its right to bring forward its business and have it dealt with, to assure individual members of the opposition of their right to bring forward their grievances and to assure them of their right to make the government answerable to the elected representatives of the people.
In welcoming this motion, Mr. Speaker, I express the wish that the work of the committee may be useful in improving and strengthening our system of government.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that I was quite sure that a committee working with you as moderator would have every possibility of reaching some general agreement on proposed changes in the rules. I agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) when he says that our type of society and our parliamentary system in the western world are on trial today and that it behooves us to do everything we can to make them efficient and, I would add, to make them operate in the interests of the ordinary citizen of this country. The rules of the House of Commons are absolutely essential to our parliamentary system of government. These rules make provision for the government to accept its responsibility as the government of the country and for the government to accept the responsibility of introducing legislation into the House of Commons, but they also give members of parliament, particularly members of the opposition, the right within the rules to speak

out, to commend if desirable and to criticize at length anything that we feel is undesirable.
The basic foundation of our parliamentary procedure is set out in Beauchesne, third edition, citation No. 1. That citation reads as follows:
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; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse." In a close contest when the house is considering a highly controversial measure, the positions of parties are equalized; the government side may rely on its majority but the opposition is strengthened by the rules of procedure which both are bound to preserve and which the Speaker must enforce.
I believe that the members of the opposition parties who comprise the minority have the right to criticize legislation at length, at great length if in their opinion they feel it desirable, but that the government and parliament itself have the right to come to decisions on various questions before the house.
As the Minister of Finance has said, a committee of the house made a report in 1955. As a matter of fact, the changes then were really the first and only substantial alteration in the rules of the house since confederation. On other occasions steps have been taken to change the rules but these steps involved particular circumstances and the changes were not widespread.
In 1912 and 1913 a filibuster occurred and there was consideration of rule changes following the filibuster. In 1927 certain reforms were instituted but again not of the widespread nature of the reforms in 1955. After changes were made in the rules of the house in 1927 we went on for a number of years before any further move was made to alter the rules. The next motion to appoint a committee was moved in May, 1940, but further action was not taken because of the special emergency war conditions at that time. In 1944 a procedural committee made certain proposals which were studied in committee of the whole but never reached the house for decision. In 1946 a similar committee was appointed. In 1947 a report was made. On January 25, 1948, the Speaker's report was tabled in the House of Commons but nothing was done to bring it into effect. As the Minister of Finance has said, we continued until 1951 when a further committee was established and as the culmination of its work over a long period of time changes in the rules were adopted in 1955.
79951-0-233
9, 1960	3693
Appointment of Committee on House Rules
I point this out merely to show that the rules of the Canadian House of Commons have been effective. We have been able to conduct our public business under those rules, almost without change, for a very long period of time. There were some changes in 1955, and we have been conducting our business under those rules since that date. I do not know, myself, what the government has in mind. I do not know, for example, whether or not the cabinet has come to some general understanding as to what rules it feels should be changed or even as to what the objective should be.
I am not one of those who view parliamentary proceedings, as they now are, with great impatience. I am not one of those who feel that one of the most important things is to shorten the session and get out before a certain target date, to wrap up the business so that members can proceed to some other occupation. As I see it, the work of a member of parliament is becoming more and more a fulltime occupation. While we are always open to consider proposed changes in the rules which may be of benefit, those changes should not be hastily arrived at and the objective should not be to have a parliamentary session of a particular number of days or a particular length of time. These are not the main objectives that we should be considering in discussing the procedures of this house. I am all for the expeditious conduct of the business of the House of Commons; I am in favour of that, but one should not assume that it is always the opposition that carries on a given debate for a length of time or that that is the reason a certain procedure is taking a long time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That certainly applies to the Minister of Finance.


Hazen Robert Argue: The members on the government side of the house have been trying to get into the debates in recent sessions. As a matter of fact, for the first time they have insisted on a procedure of alternate speakers from the government side of the house with a speaker from the opposition side of the house. In other days we would quite often go around the parties. If one will look over the records of the House of Commons, I am quite certain I am correct when I say that in those debates the great majority of the speakers came from the opposition side of the house. Therefore, when members of the government party wish to become active they should not become more active at one moment and then, at the next moment, hurl accusations at the opposition about delaying tactics which are preventing parliament from adjourning on their favourite target date.
3694	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Committee on House Rules
There is another thing, Mr. Speaker. I am not trying to be critical of the government in this respect or of any member of the government, but I think there is a good deal of knowledge that comes with experience in connection with how the program for the House of Commons can be laid down for the efficient dispatch of the business. If the government wishes to delay the house, then I say here is the way to delay the house. They should take a controversial piece of legislation, announce it for debate one day and then postpone the debate for another week. If you could find four or five controversial pieces of legislation, you probably would not need to announce any other business because if you give 265 members a chance to consider making a speech, or making a second speech, you will get all kinds of speeches in the house.
In my opinion the only way to manage the affairs of the house and the legislation to be discussed is to take an item and stick to it until it has been concluded. Then you could go to another item of business. This hop, skip and jump method we have seen during this session, so far as the work of the house is concerned, I think has played a large part in the lack of progress, if you wish to put it that way, in this session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member said he was not being critical, but he is now being critical in talking about the hop, skip and jump method of dealing with legislation in the house. Would he give an example of this?


Hazen Robert Argue: I could refer to Bill No. C-56, the tax-sharing arrangements act, which has been going and coming. My colleague mentions the trans-Canada highway bill, and that certainly has been dealt with by the hop, skip and jump method. I think if the house leader would discuss with some of us the mapping out of the business of the house it would lead to a more orderly discussion and more orderly dispatch of the business of this house.
I do not believe there is any substitute for good will and good relations. Even if you make the rules restrictive I do not think you would gain the expeditious dispatch of public business half so well as you could by discussion and by agreement amongst the parties. If we are not adult enough to make some progress by such a method, then democracy will be in a bad way. Trying to throttle-this is no reflection on anybody-the members by prospective changes in the rules will not accomplish that result.
I have said that there is one way to conduct the affairs of the house that would lead


to the dispatch of business. This motion before us is an example of how not to do it, although immediately I qualify that statement by citing the reference of the Minister of Finance to the effect that in his view it was not likely the report of this committee would be adopted during this session. He said something later about an interim report, and perhaps we could act on that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not believe the hon. gentleman heard me correctly. I said it is hardly expected the committee would make a final report at this session.


Hazen Robert Argue: I accept that as being what the minister has said. I take it, then, that certainly the final changes in the rules will not be made at this session, unless there is unanimous agreement in the committee. If there is unanimous agreement, then I would be all for making any changes, any improvements, any moment we could reach that kind of agreement.
When the committee was set up to deal with the rules during the session of 1953-54 it was established on November 27, which was the twelfth day of the 1953-54 session. On January 14, 1955, the rules committee was established and, Mr. Speaker, that was the sixth sitting day of that parliamentary session. We are dealing with the initial stages of the establishment of this committee now, and I believe this is the seventy sixth sitting day of this session. Obviously, this is not the way to bring about the establishment of probably the most important committee this session, certainly so far as the rights of parliament are concerned, namely to have the initial discussion of this motion on the seventy sixth day of the session. It was mentioned in the speech from the throne when parliament opened, and I would suggest that this debate might have taken place months ago and the committee could have been set up and have considered the vastly important work being referred to it.
We had some changes in the rules in 1955, and I think in general the changes in the rules were beneficial. But I do want to point out some of the disadvantages that I feel have resulted from those changes in the rules. We have a fixed throne speech debate of ten days. We have a fixed budget debate of eight days. This may be resulting, I am not sure, in a shorter throne speech debate and a shorter budget debate than would otherwise occur. I think probably it means a shorter throne speech debate because of the morning sittings. But what has been the result? Certainly the effect as far as the country is concerned, as reported by our friends above us here, is that the debates are dead; the debates are inconsequential; that members are just waiting and everybody is waiting till the

tenth day is reached and we can get on with some real business. That is the attitude toward the budget.
I think there is a tendency when you embed a closure rule in the book or a series of closure rules-and that is what they are- to remove much of the vitality of the House of Commons. Reports go abroad, and I feel they are accurate generally, which say that when we have a fixed debate of one day on something, or two days, or ten days on the throne speech or eight days on the budget, the debates are dead, they are inconsequential, and everyone is just waiting around until the vote is called. The only thing you can draw from that is that we could have either wide open-ended debates or perhaps we could look at the length of the debate provided by the rules themselves. But I do feel that the best of parliamentary debate takes place when the members are not facing a fixed closure on the bill or the motion they are considering.
There were other changes in the rules brought about at that time, not all of which I think have been beneficial. There is one rule I would like altered. I do not put it for-word as the most important rule in the book, but I think that as it used to be in the book it was better for parliament than it is today. I refer to the periods of time allowed for consideration of private and public bills. Under the old procedure, every Tuesday and every Thursday for a one-hour period the House of Commons devoted itself to discussion of private and public bills.


Mr. Broome:: Would the speaker permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Ernest James Broome: How many public bills have we been able to discuss this session?


Hazen Robert Argue: We have not discussed many public bills, Mr. Speaker-


Ernest James Broome: And can the speaker tell us the reason?


Hazen Robert Argue: -but we have discussed a lot of private bills, and when hon. gentlemen opposite have made the request that we go to certain private bills having to do with companies of various kinds we have proceeded expeditiously momentarily to their discussion.


Ernest James Broome: I am talking about the other private bills.


Hazen Robert Argue: I know exactly what the hon. member is speaking about. I was saying that these two one-hour periods are devoted under the rules to discussion of private and public bills, with the exception of such allotted time during the course of the throne speech debate and the two days covered by supply motions.
79951-0-233J
3, 1960	3695
Appointment of Committee on House Rules If instead we reverted to the old rule whereby during the speech from the throne and during debate on supply motions we had this one hour for private and public bills, I feel it would be a better use of the time of this house.
I can remember, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure many members of the Conservative party can remember, the debates we used to have on interest bills when those bills came up perhaps every other Tuesday or every other Thursday. They came up rather frequently because there were more periods of time allocated for their debate. There used to be great consideration given to those bills when they were placed on the order paper by hon. members, and I think beneficial results took place. I believe that if the bills placed on the order paper having to do with high interest rates in the country had not been placed we would not have made the advance which was made, small as it was, of exercising some greater control over the interest rates returned by small loans companies. That is a question which I hope the committee will consider when the rules are before it.
I think that in addition to considering the efficient dispatch of business itself we should consider how we can make the House of Commons more effective in dealing with public questions which are of great importance. I know there is a temptation for government members to say that the thing to do is to have an expeditious dispatch of government business, and there is an inclination perhaps on the part of members of the opposition to discuss at great length the questions which members of the opposition think are important and are burning political questions.
I would like to see consideration given by this committee to the question of what changes there might be in the rules so that parliament, the government and members of the Conservative party, along with members of the opposition parties, might consider some of the basic, fundamental economic issues which face the people of this country in such a way as to bring about improvements in legislation. I think the committee should have a greater opportunity to make recommendations to the government. If anything, I think perhaps there has been some improvement in this regard from this government as compared to the former government.
I am not trying to make the point that things are getting worse, but I think it is a ridiculous procedure for a committee of this house to consider at great length burning questions and then, after their consideration,
3SSS	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Committee on House Rules to proceed in camera and have the chairman of the committee get up and say "Well now, this is the report", which I suggest he obviously has had written by the cabinet minister involved or it has been written in the cabinet minister's office.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh no.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, the Minister of Finance hac never heard of this of course, and the majority members nod to each other.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, both the hon. member and I have heard of it before, but I can assure him it is not done now.


Howard Charles Green: We are too busy to spend our time doing that.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I guess some of the members on the government side get their knowledge by a system cf osmosis, because whether it is done in the cabinet or not they seem to have a very good idea of how to keep the government off the hook and not embarrass any hon. members.
What I am hoping can be done is that some greater leniency be given as far as committees are concerned and as far as recommendations are concerned. I do not want to adopt the United States system, I am not advocating that; but I do think that committees under our procedure could be strengthened. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we consider the possibility of making provision within the rules for the continuation of committees of the house which are considering important public business so they can meet between sessions. I think it would be of advantage to the country to have such committees dealing with urgent public questions and making recommendations on which the government might be prepared to act. If the government would take the position that it desires to strengthen the work of committees and make it possible for them to report to the house in such a way that approved legislation will result it will help the Canadian government and give opposition members on such committees some satisfaction in having played a part. If anything it will strengthen the political position of the government. I think our main consideration should not be a party question at all but merely a question of finding ways and means by which we can best deal with the great public issues of the day.
The Minister of Finance mentioned the question of closure on which the government's position is clear. In the election campaign the government took the position that the rule of closure should be abolished. 

I hope the government will come forward with that decision. I hope closure will be abolished because I do not think it is good or necessary. I have not changed my view about closure. I hope that when the government is talking about closure it will not be inclined to place further refinements about the closure rule in the book of rules governing the procedure of this house.
A moment ago when discussing the question of private and public bills I was asked some questions. I feel that private divorce bills should not occupy the time of hon. members of this house. I do not think it is fair to parliament or to the people involved that they should be forced to come to parliament and follow this clumsy procedure to obtain what is called relief. I would hope this committee could consider ways and means of solving this problem in a way that will create no ill will or opposition in the provinces affected but by general agreement will see if some procedure can be adopted to remove the obstacles and difficulties of the present procedure. I hope this can be done without offending the susceptibilities of the people of Quebec or Newfoundland which we all respect. It could accomplish a very important goal, namely of getting these bills out of the House of Commons and into a court in the city of Ottawa or it could bring about some further refinement of the rules governing this question even within parliament itself so that the House of Commons might not have to deal with this difficult subject.
When the committee is set up I expect to have the honour of serving on it. I am hopeful that the rules can be considered in such a way as to bring about a more expeditious dispatch of public business. I can tell the Minister of Finance I will endeavour from this side of the house to be as vocal and aggressive in the protection of the rights of hon. members of the opposition and of the house as I am sure he and the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Green) would be if they had remained on this side of the house.
As I said in opening my remarks, in my view the government has the right and the responsibility to introduce legislation. Hon. members of the house have the right to speak on this legislation. The government has the right to expect that parliament in its own good time will come to conclusions on legislation. It is the fundamental right of hon. members of this house to speak out and if necessary to do so at length in opposing and criticizing government legislation. This right must be maintained. If it should disappear then parliament itself as an institution will disappear.

I would imagine that people in other systems of government looking at our parliamentary system would say it is cumbersome and inefficient but nevertheless it has served our nation well. I am in favour of rules that would expedite business but would oppose any rule which I feel may damage our basic democratic system and bring about streamlining at the expense of the fundamental rights on which our parliamentary form of government has been established.
We hope the committee will have successful deliberations and proceed on the basis of the procedure of the committee of 1955. In pointing out the method by which that committee proceeded I think I can do no better than to quote a paragraph from the remarks made by the then hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Stanley Knowles, who participating in this debate on July 1, as reported at page 5568 of Hansard, said:
Incidentally I might point out that the report being brought in in this way meets a basic condition which we have laid down every time the motion has been made for the setting up of a committee on procedure. We contended every time that the rules of parliament belonged to parliament as a whole and that they should not be changed simply by the government using its majority to put through such changes as might be convenient for the government. We took the position. not that all changes had to be unanimous but that they should be by general agreement. These proposed changes are by general agreement so far as the committee is concerned and so far as the four parties of this house are concerned. I think we can compliment ourselves as a House of Commons on the job that we have done in connection with this matter.
I would hope that the present committee instead of counting the members on the committee when proposed changes are to be made to the rules and saying, "The majority have voted a certain way," will say, "It is much preferable to have general agreement among all parties as to how our House of Commons procedure may be improved."


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house many minutes. I do not propose to make detailed suggestions as to changes in the rules, but there are two or three general observations I should like to make.
First of all, I should like to endorse what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) said in introducing this legislation about the great importance of it. I remember very well the labour that the minister himself put into the proceedings of the last committee, he and and the others concerned. I often think that the rules of debate which grew out of the wisdom of our ancestors and more lately of ourselves are in many ways quite remarkable. For example it is always remarkable to me to think that one man can stand up
9, 1960	3697
Appointment of Committee on House Rules and stop this whole assembly from acting if .it departs in any way from the rules.
What I chiefly want to bring to the attention of the house is that I think we ought to remind ourselves that all is not going well with democracy in the world. In support of that statement I want to read a sentence or two from a speech recently made by Mr, Adlai Stevenson. This came to me as a great surprise as perhaps it will to other hon. members. I was simply amazed at this statement. I confess I had the feeling that democracy was so obviously the wisest form of government that it was going to sweep over the world. I think that when we go back to the nineteenth century we can see that this was the feeling in Great Britain. The British went about the world trying to give to other people what they thought was the greatest thing in the world, political democracy. We know that they thought that it would sweep the world, but we also know what has happened since. This is what Mr. Adlai Stevenson said:
No wonder great political, social and scientific revolutions^ are sweeping the world and that instead of seeing tile world grew democratic we have seen 11 countries, I think it is, turh to other forms of government in the last few years. Democracy is not winning in the world. It is losing.
I take it that Mr. Stevenson who is a responsible man was careful as to the accuracy of what he was saying. Indeed, we do not need to go to Mr. Stevenson to find discontent with our parliamentary system. I find not infrequently in this house people who are bored to death with the proceedings here. I went home to Toronto on the train recently with a new member. I remember a phrase he used. He said, "I cannot stand this. How much longer is it going to go on? When are we going to start doing business? When will we begin to take action and stop all this talk?"
I will not philosophize about that but will simply say there are two kinds of government in the world. One is government by persuasion and the other is government by force. We all know what government by force is and we could use ugly words about it but it will suffice for my purpose to say that it includes the ultimate sanction, namely murder. On the other hand, government by persuasion does take time. It means that the rights of the minority must be respected. It means that every man must have his say and no other man is able to crack down on him and say, "You are talking foolishly," or "You are talking too long and you have to stop." Every man in a democracy is entitled to be as foolish as he wants to be within his time.
I think it is of great importance that this subject should attract more attention in this
3698	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Committee on House Rules house. I remember reading again and again in the careers of successful parliamentarians that one of the things they did when they came to parliament was to acquaint themselves with the rules of the house. I must say I did not do so and it is one of the things I deeply regret. I simply wanted to make that point and say how tremendously important I feel this is.
I am not going to attempt to make detailed suggestions. I thought that both the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) said interesting things. I was particularly interested in the comment of the hon. member for Assiniboia about the effect of a fixed period for the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and on the budget in reducing the quality of debate. I will not comment on that but I am going to say this. I feel that somehow or other we ought to be able to tone up the quality of debates in this house. I do not feel very proud or happy when I think what the ordinary visitor to the public gallery must often say to himself when he comes here on a brief visit. He may come in here and to my great regret he may see an hon. member standing up unashamedly reading every word of his speech and not even reading it well. There are people who can read so well that one hardly knows they are reading and if they can get away with it more power to them, but that does not happen often. I feel we are just stultifying this place if we allow what goes on now to continue; that is, having man after man stand up and unashamedly read a speech. It is deadly dull and bears no resemblance whatever to a debate. The hon. gentleman may have no reference whatever in his speech to what was said previously in the debate and he may be talking about something entirely new.
I said I did not intend to take many minutes of the time of the house and that is still my intention.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As far as I am
concerned, I hope you go on.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is one other thing. I mentioned this the other day to a party of members. Perhaps we could apply it to ourselves. I think there is a danger of having the maximum time for a speech become the minimum. I think it is regrettable that we almost automatically take the full 30 and 40 minutes as the case may be and use it up. I believe it would make a tremendous difference, more than we realize, if there were a greater number of speeches lasting for 5, 10, 15 or 20 minutes instead of the maximum of 30 or 40 minutes. I suggested the other


day-and I have not checked it yet myself- that I believe it is true that in the British house there are a large number of short speeches. I intend to check on that and see if it is so.
I still intend to keep my promise about speaking briefly but I have just one more thing to say. I love this place. I think this is a wonderful institution. This place not only maintains the laws but maintains the right of civil liberties, religion and education. Indeed, it is the background of everything we value and cherish. I like to think that in a sense we are the trustees of the past and of the contributions made by Macdonald, Laurier, Borden, St. Laurent and others we can think of. I believe that this committee's work is tremendously important. I hope it will not be hurried. I hope that members of the committee will not allow themselves to be influenced by the talk they hear inside this chamber and outside of it to the effect, "Why do you talk so much?" I would say that wisdom, by and large, comes out of abundant debate and we should not try to shorten it too much or we will find that we will suffer.
I apologize for intervening in this debate because I have really no practical suggestions to make. Somehow or other, though, men of our age should be able to stop what we all know is a distasteful practice, that is to say the reading of long, dull speeches-unashamedly read, as I say-without any pretence whatever of observing the rules of the house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the remarks just concluded appealed very much to me. I am afraid, however, I cannot join the hon. member in loving this place. I find it, so far at least, not an institution that is very lovable. That is one of the reasons I wanted to make some remarks today.
What has bothered me is that none of the speakers participating in this debate thus far has mentioned two points that seem to me worthy of consideration. One is a definite attempt to elevate the status of the average member of parliament. I am speaking of government members as well as opposition members. The curious thing is that in both Britain and the United States a debate is always ensuing among the people who observe parliament and among parliamentarians themselves about the efficiency of congress or the British house of parliament. In the last year in Great Britain there have been a number of substantial criticisms and a very good one was put out entitled "The Reform of Parliament" by the Fabian society. The British and the people of the United States are always knocking their systems about and

Appointment of Committee on House Rules
tearing them to pieces, applying interpretative and critical standards to what goes on in their legislatures. It seems to me that we do all too little of this.
It is perhaps presumptuous of me to mention this since I have only been here a few years and I cannot judge whether parliament in the good old days was better than it is now, but the status of the average member of parliament, whether he is a member of the government or the opposition, is not a particularly high one. I think it would be improved, for example, if we had more free votes in this house. I think it would be improved also-and this, of course, is not quite procedural-if members of parliament had more research and investigative facilities through this house and especially through committees. I think the committee that will investigate the rules should go into this question very thoroughly.
I also feel that my prime commentary in this house is that we are supposed to be the scrutineers and watchdogs, that the administration puts things into effect as a result of legislative policies introduced here and we check the administration and also the legislation. It seems to me we do not do a bad job of checking legislation but we do a poor job in our function as scrutineers. Here again it seems to me this can be improved by elevating the status of the member of parliament, by giving him more power on parliamentary committees to scrutinize.
Experienced hon. members of this house have said that more committees are sitting now than in the past. Quite frankly I am completely disillusioned when I think of some of the farces we have witnessed in committees in the past months. In one committee that sat recently a point of order was debated for three and a half hours. When there are as many as 60 members sitting on a committee you have to shop all around the house in an effort to find a quorum.
You have conflicts where members will be sitting on three committees. We have had situations in this house, according to the analysis I made last year, where the official opposition turned up for meetings of fewer than one third of the committees. Members are supposed to answer the call of a committee meeting yet in this particular situation, in the last session of the house anyway-if anyone wants to check the attendance records they will find this is so-the official opposition never bothered to answer the summons in two thirds of the cases. Therefore, from a completely different point of view I have arrived at a position not too far from that of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), who is worried about the fact
that we cannot get anyone to listen to us, and that we cannot even stand to listen to ourselves. He is concerned about it because of the past and the tradition. I have not shared in that tradition at all. I know this is not a stimulating change and in terms of debate we just do not have crisp and hard talk.
One of the things we might try is to emulate a British device which lets a private member issue what is in effect a written challenge to a cabinet minister to a half-hour on the spot debate with a 12-hour notice. The minister gets the notice in the morning and they have the debate at 9.30 in the evening.
One of the things we could introduce here is the system they have in the United States congress of yielding the floor. Here we have to ask permission to rise and ask questions, and usually the questions are designed just to throw the fellow off his stride. In the United States the speaker yields the floor and you actually get crisscross debate within the limits of the topic being discussed. I can think of a number of occasions where instead of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) or the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) resorting to the question technique, which I tend to feel most of the time is mere obstruction, if they could get up and ask the hon. member who has the floor to yield the floor for five minutes and state a position we could get a genuine flow of debate across this place instead of the situation that does exists, except for a few members, where most of us go behind the curtains or out of the place when debate is going on.
It is for these reasons that I think the committee has to take a very long look at the rules. Again, I say, I do not know what the situation was in previous parliaments but certainly this is far from an exciting one. I have noticed, in talking to academic people, and the criticism in the press, that it is coming to be recognized that many people are fed up with the House of Commons just being a talking chamber. I think the hon. member made the best case possible for talk. We need to keep that up, but why can we not make the talk more stimulating, more exciting? I think we have to examine this. I think particularly the party leaders have to look into it.
Is there any explanation for the fact that so many members hesitate to say something bold or new? In this regard, I was very pleased when the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) got up and made his speech, which received such wide publicity. Surely, as a member of parliament, he had the right to
3700	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Committee on House Rules get up and give his views on the agricultural situation. After it was over the whole impact seemed to be, how did this fellow dare to break party bounds. I heard members say, "What is the matter with him; has he gone off the deep end to get up like that and break the party line?" This emphasizes to me the point that we need more freedom from the point of view of party leadership and more encouragement from party leadership to speak our minds on issues.
I know Canada has very many subjects and topics that are divisive. I can think of one, the Chignecto canal. How is it going to affect Halifax? How about winter shipping on the St. Lawrence? How is it going to affect Halifax, Saint John and the St. Lawrence ports? Because these things are divisive in so far as our parties are concerned we do not bother to talk about them in the house; we do not bother to have the things threshed out in public. It seems to me that we should have much more of this and it would encourage private members, if we did have free votes on private members' resolutions and bills, to express themselves.
Therefore, it seems to me that if this house is going to be reinvigorated and revivified it has to come from the backbenchers. May I make this point, Mr. Speaker? It has always seemed to me in terms of abuse of the rules -the Minister of Finance started off that way -it is always the veterans of the house who abuse the rules most. This is an inescapable conclusion of mine. It is not the backbencher, the chap who has not been here too long, it is the veterans who ignore the rules; they have got the elan; they have the confidence. They get up and push it. What an example that is to show-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is referring to the Minister of Finance.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am referring to the Minister of Finance at the moment but the Minister of Finance is no greater sinner than the man who asked the question.
I do not know what the experience of other members may be in trying to assess the attitude of the people, the enlightened people of the country, who pay some attention to parliament, but the ones that I bump into are rather scathing. This is a fine thing if it is this government they are blaming it on but it is more than that. They are blaming it on the institution itself. They say there is something fundamentally wrong with it. I think the committee should spend worth-while time going into it.
One of the final points I should like to make is this. I think this committee should look into something that seems to me is really


depressing the status of the average member of parliament. I refer to the proliferation of royal commissions and regulatory boards. Every time you set up a royal commission, then almost invariably you remove a touchy topic from the centre of debate and put if off to one side, into the refrigerator, for a while. Every time you set up a regulatory board such as the national energy board, the board of transport commissioners, which has been with us for a long time, or the board of broadcast governors, you are creating a group not answerable within this House of Commons directly, to handle very tough and delicate particular situations. This is a trend in our complex society which you cannot pause or block, but it seems to me that this practice of removing subjects away from parliament, once or twice removed, puts us in the position where we no longer are as important as members of parliament used to be.
I need not go further, but I think it makes ministers much less important. I have always deplored the number of times ministers in this house are willing to use the fact that something is before a board instead of answering the question. I notice the way the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) is prepared to be so detached about the C.B.C. and the board of broadcast governors. I do not think we are going to reverse the trend of more regulatory boards but steadily we are removing from the scope of the members of parliament what used to be their immediate consideration. These boards are getting increasing authority and getting just that much further away from us. It seems to me the test of our system is going to be whether we can keep the average member of parliament within this chamber somehow with the feeling that he has something to say about this and that complexity which piles on to our agenda.
To bring this to a point, it is noticeable that in some of the other democratic countries, in Denmark and Scandinavia, indeed in Britain, there is discussion going on about the question of having somebody acting as a public protector. I understand the Prime Minister of Great Britain is now looking into the question of the ombunsdman, which is a Danish device of having what is in effect a public defender, because of the growth of so many boards and regulatory groups. It is felt that the individual citizen needs protection, and there should be one person to ask for protection from the state. We like to think of the member of parliament as a person to come to; but the Danish experience is that the ombunsdman is the man for this

task. He is a man who scrutinizes government regulations on the basis of the protection of the individual liberty. If any citizen of the state has any complaint at all he merely has to fire it at the ombundsman and the matter is investigated. I would not recommend particularly that we need an ombundsman set-up at the present time but certainly we need some way of enhancing the position of the member of parliament vis-avis the state and the apparatus that has grown up.
The point I wanted to make about committees was largely made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), namely that they should be smaller. I cannot see why we cannot have committees of eight to ten members. I cannot see why our committees cannot meet when the house is not in session. When dealing with certain matters I cannot see why they cannot meet not so much in secret but in camera. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was making his remarks on committees he was very clear, in setting out his intention to use them more, that he was following the British example and precedent. The British have much smaller committees than we do and they have a much bigger house membership. Their committee on public accounts breaks up into subcommittees which go out and visit sites. I think we could make very effective use of that kind of committee.
But the problem here, and this again is a problem for the party leaders and not for the select committee, is that if we are going to have smaller committees and give them more important tasks we have got to make the job worth while in terms of prestige and function. I do not know how that can be done except by insistence on the part of the party leaders that this is important work and that it has to be done. In Britain they do not have too much trouble in the House of Commons getting people who are willing to serve on these small committees for which there is very little publicity. If hon. members follow British parliamentary affairs they will know that their committees are unlike those of the United States and certainly unlike Canadian committees in that they are not in the centre of the public eye, but they do perform fairly steady and complete work by way of scrutiny, of which we do not manage to get nearly enough done.
It would certainly seem to me that if the committee to be set up wants to look for examples the best thing it can do is to constitute a subcommittee and send it off to look at the way other parliaments handle the problems that we are being confronted 79951-0-234
9, 1960	3701
Appointment of Committee on House Rules with here and try to find out why it may be that in Britain, Denmark, Sweden or the United States there is more fire or interest in their parliaments than we have in Canada.
Another procedural matter that I want to suggest that the committee should look into is the question of some kind of television or radio coverage of the actual proceedings of the House of Commons. I know that the oldtimers do not look upon this suggestion with much favour. They think it is a rather poor idea.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not see why the hon. member who has just interjected should interject because the kind of performance he puts on on television would give him an automatic advantage. I should like to suggest that one thing we can do is to start to televise the private member's hour once a week.


An hon. Member:: On divorce?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think if you focus attention several times during the session on what the private members are doing you would get more private members interested in their contributions to affairs. This may sound like a desperate remedy but I think it should be looked into. There is no reason at all why there should not be radio broadcasts from this chamber. Of course, with the present standards, the difficulty would be to get any radio station to take the broadcast, but I certainly think we could get some kind of broadcasting or telecasting that might be useful in drawing attention to parliament.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would you have all the speeches read then?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member says, "Would you have all the speeches read then?" I think the majority of the set speeches are read now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are you going to change all that?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I still feel that the rule against reading speeches could be enforced again if the leaders of the parties would lay down the law. I regret as much as any member the fact that member after member will get up and read his speech. I always wonder about the authorship of these treasured papers. It has always seemed to me such a silly subterfuge when even a cabinet minister, as happened once this session, will say that he is consulting his notes. I can understand cabinet ministers wanting to consult their notes in order to be sure what they are saying, but this destroys the whole basis
3702	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Committee on House Rules of the rule. I suggest that this committee should not only consider this rule but its abolition if we cannot make it stick. The only way we can make it stick is for the party leaders to lay down the law and see that the whips enforce it. An hon. member interjects and says that this does not work. I am getting the kind of interjection that suggests that what I am saying is not too popular.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member not agree with this? In saying this I admit I am doing so partly to correct the wrong impression I gave. Take, for example, the budget speech. I would not suggest that the budget speech could be delivered extemporaneously. There are occasions when I think ministers are perfectly entitled to read their speeches.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where members asking questions will read their questions. A question is usually a rather short range effort and it seems to me that is one place where members could do without reading.
There is one thing I should like to see before the debate closes. I should like to hear from some of the government members who have been chairing committees as to their views on the matter of giving committees more work. I see one or two of them in the house and perhaps we could have some suggestions from them as to how we can make our committees work more efficiently. While we are having more committee meetings, I am not convinced that we are doing much more with the committees. For that reason I should very much like to hear from some of them as to how they think things could be improved. It has not been the ministers who have been running these committees in terms of their actual day to day work and I think it would be worth while if we could have some suggestions from these people as to how the committees could be made more important.
The last suggestion I should like to make is one that finds a great deal of disfavour with the lawyers in the house or perhaps I should say that I understand that the lawyers do not like it. According to my understanding the fall months are the time when they can make some money in their law practices. Nevertheless it seems to me that we are very foolish to so arrange our sittings that we will probably spend a lot of time here this summer and then have to have a fall session. It seems to me it would be much smarter to have some kind of a split so that the summers are free. This should appeal to every


member who wants to get round his constituency. Certainly in my part of the country the summer months are the only months when it is really pleasant to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is going a bit beyond the scope of the committee. After all, he is talking about the sittings of parliament and he will recall that we are only one of the three elements of parliament.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We are only one of the three elements of parliament, but if one of the objects of the committee is to speed up our work and make the sessions more efficient one point they will have in mind is to determine how we can handle matters more quickly and more expeditiously. The only point I was trying to make was that the committee should consider that perhaps splitting the session in two would be a factor in the more expeditious handling of the business of the house.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this matter. I am very pleased that it is being discussed and that the committee is going to be set up because I too am very concerned about what members of parliament can and do accomplish. Throughout the country we hear continually about the committee work being done by backbench members of all political parties. I believe that throughout the country there is a belief that this is happening.
However, I was at a meeting of the Legion a while ago, and they asked me what had happened to the veterans committees in the last two or three years. They asked me, was it not true that the members of the veterans committees were veterans? Was it not true they were all in favour of the proposals that were placed before them? I said, yes, I sat on the committee and I was sure all members were in agreement. The committee had brought in a report, and while there was some amending of opinion to reach a unanimous agreement, that agreement had been reached and a report introduced. Then, they asked me a question which I feel we should ask ourselves: What happens after a committee brings in a report?
It is true that the backbench members attend committee meetings and give a great deal of consideration to these matters. They give to the committee whatever knowledge they have on the subject, and the committee comes to a conclusion. Then, Mr. Speaker, what happens when the committee reports? If the government and the backbenchers are going to stand on the record of the contributions they have made in committee, then

some consideration will have to be given to what happens to the reports of these committees. There was another committee of which I was a member, and it did an exceptionally good job. I believe the government and the people of the country would have received a great deal of benefit if consideration had been given to the proposals made by the estimates committee on defence expenditures, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith).


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What we are asked to do under this motion is to consider the establishment of a committee on the procedure of the house for the purpose of suggesting any changes that might be desirable to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business. So far I have not made reference to any hon. member-and we have had very interesting proposals made during a discussion of the procedures of the house in general terms-going beyond anything that this committee would be entitled to deal with. The reason I have interrupted the hon. member is that what the hon. member is talking about is a matter of substance, not of procedure. I believe that since we have had a fairly representative discussion, members should confine themselves now to the question which is whether or not it is desirable to set up a committee.
If the house decides to set up a committee, then there will be an opportunity to present all the matters which hon. members feel could be improved. This is not the time or the place to go through all these matters. With these observations for the guidance of the hon. member, perhaps he would continue.


William Arnold Peters: As I take it, Mr. Speaker, your ruling is we should discuss only whether or not it is desirable to set up this committee. I think we are all in agreement. We are always optimists. We believe that this committee would do some good, although I was just saying that, in my opinion, the committees with which I have had something to do in the past have not accomplished very much. If they have produced some good results, it certainly has not been apparent to the man on the street who is looking for legislation from these committees.
I should like to say something about what I believe should be done by this committee. I certainly have not been here very long, but as a new member I am of the opinion that the rules, no matter what they are, can be used. We have operated under various forms of the rules in the past. I believe that if this committee is going to reach any satisfactory conclusion it will have to be done, as my leader said a few minutes ago, by agreement. We find that, individually, as 79951-0-234J
9. 1960	3703
Appointment of Committee on House Rules people we are not too bad, put collectively we believe that those who belong to other parties are not very good. We usually find that the rules can be amended by agreement, but this cannot be done on a formal basis.
We find, at the end of a session, when an agreement is requested on a limited basis an arrangement is usually arrived at and, while we do not change the rules, we can generally reach our objective through cooperation. I should like to make some comments on some other matters, Mr. Speaker. I believe we would be very foolish to oppose the setting up of this committee at this time. There are a number of things I should like to see the committee do, although I do not believe some of the other committees have functioned as satisfactorily as we would have liked them to function. We will probably have an opportunity of discussing the various aspects of this matter on another occasion.


Frank Howard: I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that I would have the opportunity of making a few comments on a particular matter so that this motion could be considered by the house before six o'clock. Unfortunately, I have not been able to do so because of the length of the debate. I am not complaining about this one bit. The debate has been most helpful and most instructive, especially the suggestions made and opinions expressed by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), who has had so many years' experience and who, as he said, has such a love of parliament and parliamentary life. Even though my experience is of a much shorter duration-I hope it will continue for some years to come-I must agree with the hon. member and say those are my feelings as a result of my short experience in connection with parliamentary activities.
While the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was giving his opinion as to why it would be desirable to establish the committee at this time, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) interjected two or three questions. I did not catch the whole import of them, but I understood they were queries as to why we have not been able, as we had in the past, to deal with public bills in the hands of private members. This raises a question concerning the rules of the house as they relate to other types of bills, notably private bills relating to divorce. It was my thought that perhaps a very brief and general reference to that and other matters might be acceptable at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think the discussion proposed by the hon. member would' be distinctly out of order on this motion to set up a committee to consider the rules.
3704	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Committee on House Rules Mr. Speaker: I will note the hon. member's point of order and deal with it immediately after the recess.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Trade
and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) raised a point of order as we were about to adjourn. I think that at the stage the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) had reached I could probably not properly declare him out of order; but as he had indicated the subject which he wished to speak about, I should say that in my view it would be in order to suggest that the rules, or such special rules as the committee might consider appropriate for private bills relating to divorce, would be a proper subject for consideration by such committee. But to go beyond that and discuss the substance of the matters which would be relevant before the committee in dealing with that problem would not be in order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, that was the end toward which my remarks were leading, that this motion before us is to establish a committee to consult with yourself about the rules and procedure to expedite the dispatch of business, and that one of the items with which the rules deal, along with many others of course, is that of private bills originating in the Senate, in the other place, dealing with divorce. It was also my thought that this could be one of the specific subject matters with which the committee, once it is established, would concern itself.
In recent years, as Your Honour and other hon. members know, there has been a considerable amount of discussion in the committee of the whole, and to a lesser degree in the house itself, about this particular type of private bill. I am sure there is not a member here, or a member who is not here either, for that matter, who is not familiar with the discussion which has taken place during succeeding private and public bills hours and on days set aside for private members' business.
Because I think this also is a specific subject matter with which the committee might well concern itself, I should like in a very brief way to indicate some of the reasons why it might not be desirable for parliament to continue to discuss and deal with this particular class of private bill in the manner in which it has in the past or, indeed, for parliament to deal with it at all. I subscribe
CMr. Churchill.]

to the latter view, of course, which is the approach we have persistently used with respect to private divorce bills. If I may, I would like-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member indicates what he has in mind, I might say at the outset that it would be quite out of order to raise the issue whether or not parliament should deal with divorce bills, because that would be beyond the powers of any committee set up to consider procedural matters. As to the pros and cons of the procedure which might be appropriate, I think that, too, would be out of place here because that would be the subject matter of the representations to be made to the committee itself if and when it is set up.
I have allowed a certain latitude of discussion in this debate because it seemed to me to be a very useful debate for the guidance of the committee, but I think it would be out of order to attempt to indicate what are the kind of rules the committee should adopt. In effect, I am limiting the hon. member to comment on this motion to set up a committee to expression of the view that the committee might well deal with the problem he has raised.


Frank Howard: I quite well appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that it would be out of order to make reference to alternate methods of dealing with this particular class of bill if such reference applied to some structure, such as a court for argument's sake, outside parliament itself. That would properly not be within the ambit of the motion nor within the province of the committee itself if the motion which is before us were passed.
I think, however, it might be permissible if I make this suggestion. I think this is a question which could occupy the thoughts and attention of the committee itself. It has been my understanding, perhaps a misunderstanding but I would like to refer to it, that in discussing similar motions to establish other special committees in the past, by speaking in the house to the particular motion hon. members have taken the opportunity of expressing their ideas in this way and have drawn them, prematurely probably, to the attention of the committee. In that way the views of individual members of the house with respect to certain matters before the committee, in this instance before the rules committee, were made known to the committee rather than their appearing as a witness before the committee itself in order to suggest the particular way in which the rules might be altered to deal with divorce bills arising in the other place.
I think that inasmuch as Your Honour by your strong suggestion-if I may call it that

rather than ruling-has indicated I have probably reached the limit of the intent of my remarks, I should not go beyond what I have already said up to this moment. I would certainly like to have gone further in this discussion and I had in mind an amendment to this particular motion which I think would have been in order. However, I do not intend to move such amendment, but I might perhaps be allowed to reiterate strongly and sincerely that I think this is a field in which the committee can be of prime assistance.
I hope the committee in its wisdom will not be too rigidly bound by the fact that it should not think in terms of methods outside parliament, such as giving jurisdiction to the exchequer court, establishing a separate federal court or something of that nature. I do not say this to override your rulings, Mr. Speaker, but it is one thing the committee might well deal with. I hope it does, and I hope just as sincerely that it may come back to the house with some suggestion or recommendation in its final report which will allow a better or saner method of dealing with this class of private bills.


Ernest James Broome: I have one or two things to say on the subject of this motion. Someone said that democracy is the worst possible form of government other than any conceivable alternative. After a number of sessions in this house I begin to wonder whether the speaker really had the right idea. An overhaul of the rules is long overdue. As a member from the far west I am concerned, despite the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), about the useless waste of time that goes on in this house, and there is useless waste of time.
For instance, I can recall an occasion last session-and I trust I am not trespassing on the terms of reference of the committee- when one member, despite the fact that all the other members wanted to continue after ten o'clock, was able to negate the will of 264 others, by refusing unanimous permission to carry on. That happened not once, but several times. It is not democracy or protecting the rights of opposition parties for one member to be able to impose his will on this house as has been done in the past, or for two members to impose their will on the house as is being done in the present. I say that an overhaul of the rules is long overdue; not to take away the rights of the opposition, because we on this side would fight harder than anyone to prevent that, but to take away the right of individual members to make a mockery of this parliament, which is what is happening time and time again.
I should also like to see the words of the hon. member for Assiniboia carried out in
9, 1960	3705
Appointment of Committee on House Rules practice; to use his own phrase, I should like to see every member able to express his views. Yet in our only free ranging debates -the debate on the address and the budget debate-we Conservative members from British Columbia were represented by only one hon. member in both debates. If one adds the four C.C.F. members from our province, perhaps we had much more than a fair share of the time of the house, but speaking for backbenchers on this side we did not seem to do very well.
During the dinner hour I was analysing the debate on the address in the light of the rules as they exist at present, and I found that on this occasion 79 hon. members spoke; 32 Liberals, 8 members of the C.C.F. party and 39 Conservatives. I found that the C.C.F. group with 3 per cent of the members of this house had 10 per cent of the time spent in debating the speech from the throne, and 13 per cent of the time during the budget debate. The Liberals, with 17 per cent of the membership, had practically 40 per cent of both debates and the Conservatives with 78 per cent of the members had 50 per cent. If. one wants to talk about equality of treatment between individual members of this house, I say that this is not equality of treatment.
I Should like to see this committee go to work to bring in its recommendations as soon as possible. I do not care whether the recommendations are unanimous or not. I should like to see a free vote taken when the recommendations do come to us in order that everyone may vote the way he feels, because I am concerned about the waste of time that goes on; the fact that we deal with trivialities for hour after hour and, then at the end of the session authorize the expenditure of millions of dollars on estimates without giving due consideration to what we are doing.
It is a time for a change in these rules. It is time for a change with regard to filibusters. The hon. member for Assiniboia mentioned the filibusters of 1912 and 1913. We are enduring a filibuster right now during the time set aside for private members, yet the hon. gentleman has the nerve to ask us to give more time to carry on this stupidity and this arrogance; more time in which to impose the will of one, or two or three members on this house. I say the time is long overdue when we should change these rules, and the sooner the committee gets to work and the sooner we have this change the sooner parliament will be afforded the opportunity to give proper consideration to measures and topics which are really of importance.
While the committee is considering these questions I hope it will also give some attention to means by which the other place could
3706	HOUSE OF
Appointment of Committee on House Rules make more effective use of the undoubted ability which its members possess. There is a great job before this committee, and I suggest it should be formed right away and get to work as soon as possible.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Ernest James Broome: What is the question?


Frank Howard: I just wondered whether the hon. member was applying his reference to "arrogance" to myself.


Ernest James Broome: If the caps fits, wear it.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: had intended speaking on lines similar to those of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome). One matter which I think is deserving of the committee's consideration concerns the order of speaking in the house; I think that is just about what the hon. member for Vancouver South had in mind.
In recent years the Canadian people have taken to electing to this house large majorities. This was the case in 1953 and 1949. Regardless of the political complexion of the party in power we must, I think, recognize that it has become a habit with the Canadian people. This results in a large number of members, who have been elected by people who expect them to take an equal share with all other members in the business of parliament, having only a restricted opportunity to do so. Thus when debates are in progress the fact that the government party was four members to every one on the opposition side means that the backbench member on the government side has only one opportunity to speak compared with four afforded to members of the opposition.
I feel so strongly about this because I feel the reason the backbench members in the previous parliament under the Liberal administration became fed up with the proceedings-if they did; and I understand that they did-was this very same reason. Naturally, I do not want to see this happen to members who support the government at the present time. I feel that the opportunity to speak must be shared more evenly with hon. members on the other side.


An hon. Member:: Talk to your whip.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There was some reference this afternoon to the increasing, amount of interest in committee work. I feel that this has resulted to a large extent from the situation in the house. Hon. members on the government side who are desirous of speaking have waited time after time, turn after turn, while hon. members opposite put forward their views again and again. For this reason hon.


members have taken to attending committee meetings where they may express their views equally with all other members. This is perhaps one of the reasons why some complaint has arisen about attendance in the house about which mention was made this afternoon. Undoubtedly if an hon. member has an opportunity to attend a committee where he will have an equal chance to express his views which he feels he was sent here to do, he will take advantage of that opportunity in committee and perhaps neglect the business of the house or at least give it second priority, when it should have first priority in his order of business.


Mr. Cresiohl:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. Does the hon. member have any particular formula for a sequence of speakers to suggest to the house?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have two formulas.


Mr. Speaker:: With the leave of the hon. member, I will suggest that it would be more appropriate to present the formula to the committee, if and when it is established.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not refer to my formulas except to say that I feel the committee should consider a formula that would give a more equal opportunity of speaking in the house to hon. members on the government side in a situation such as this.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome) mentioned the two main debates, the throne speech debate and the budget debate. In many instances, these are debates in name only. Admittedly the first few speakers do raise issues but frequently in the throne speech debate there is merely an individual presentation by an hon. member who has particular problems or matters which he wishes to bring to the attention of the house. I feel that in the throne speech and budget debates an hon. member might very well have an equal opportunity with other hon. members without violating the well-accepted rule that Your Honour follows, that speakers in a debate ought to be taken alternatively speaking for and against the problem.
I was concerned about the question as to whether an hon. member was speaking for or against a motion should make any difference in the order of speaking. In looking in Beauchesne's fourth edition I found a citation which applies to the situation that occurred this afternoon. Citation 124, subsection 1 reads:
124. (1) In order to be allowed to speak more than 40 minutes under standing order 31 a member

who speaks immediately after a minister has moved a government measure must speak in opposition to the motion.
I think Your Honour was right in the first decision in relation to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) because he did not speak in opposition to the motion and therefore possibly should not have had more than 40 minutes. The point I am making is that the rules and practice in some cases have established a difference between whether an hon. member is speaking for or against a motion. This is a matter for the due dispatch of business to give all hon. members an opportunity to speak and do the job they were sent here to do, and in my opinion the committee should give serious consideration to it.


Mr. Rouleau:: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member tell me what prevents him from taking part more often in the debates of the house? He is allowed by the rules to do so.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I take advantage of every opportunity I can to speak in the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just a few brief remarks. I did not hear all of the debate but I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell), who I thought made a most thoughtful speech. I wish to point out to the later comers of his party who are somewhat critical of the time consumed by the opposition and the number of times they speak that the minister in his remarks which I commend to their attention and perusal clearly recognized the rights of the minority, the opposition in parliament, and also the function of the opposition. I thought the hon. gentleman was most fair and he indicated as always that he has a sound understanding of the principles of democracy and the workings of the parliamentary system. I ask those hon. members who have spoken recently to consider what the hon. member said and I urge them to learn from him because of his thorough grasp of the principles I mentioned and because of his sound suggestions about protecting the rights of the minority.
I wish to bring to the attention of the house something I mention at every appropriate opportunity in debates of this nature. In my opinion-and I think this opinion is gaining ground in this house-we have to do something about changing the times of our sessions. I understand the irritation felt by hon. members opposite about the time taken by the opposition. They have to sit and listen
9, 1960	3707
Appointment of Committee on House Rules to lengthy debates without the same opportunities of participating, in one sense, although they do participate in the real sense. Perhaps, however, it is not appropriate from the point of view of the government to allow too many government members to speak. I have known the government whip on occasions to send notes to speakers and say, "We want you to lay off and stop speaking." That is understandable when the government wants to reach a conclusion within a certain time. Perhaps a minister may be leaving town the next day or something of that sort.
We live in circumstances that have changed since the time our rules were established. As I read the history of parliament as recorded in Hansard since 1867 I find that at one point it was easy to conduct the business in three or four months. In recent years the multitude of activities in which the government has engaged has placed a greater load on parliament. It is not sufficient for us to come here in January and hope to conclude the business by July 1. It is a physical impossibility to do that properly. The government should give consideration to splitting the session.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not want to prevent the hon. member from expressing an interesting view but he will recall we are summoned here not by the rules and our services are dispensed with not by the rules. I am afraid the hon. gentleman will have to look to some authority other than the proposed committee to deal with the problem he has mentioned. The summoning of parliament and the prorogation of parliament is not a procedural matter with which this committee could deal. While it is an interesting subject and it was mentioned by another hon. member I do point out that in my view it is not relevant to this discussion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would I be in order in suggesting that this committee take up with the appropriate persons the idea that I am advancing now with a view to getting action from the right direction? I just wish to say I think we should split our sessions; come here in January and leave at the beginning of June, then recess, come back here in the middle of September and complete our work sometime early in December. I make that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I might be slightly out of order but I think the committee can give some consideration to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Estate Tax Act

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Estate Tax Act and to provide among other things:
(1)	That the deduction from aggregate net value allowed for the value of any gift made to a charitable organization in Canada be extended to the value of a gift made to a charitable foundation in Canada.
(2)	That the Canada Council be deemed to be a charitable organization for purposes of the act.
(3)	That there be included in computing the aggregate net value of the property passing on death any amount payable under a policy of insurance effected on the life of the deceased for the benefit of the family of the deceased, where such policy, immediately prior to the death, was owned by the employer of the deceased.
(4)	That where the property passing on the death of a person includes property the value of which was determined as of the date of death of that person according to prescribed tables of present values of annuities, and within four years of the date of death there occurs an event, such as a death or change in marital status of a beneficiary, that allows the value of the property to be determined having regard to the occurrence of that event, the property shall, on application made in accordance with prescribed conditions, be revalued and the difference in tax refunded.
(5)	That the four year limit, after which the minister may not make a re-assessment unless there has been fraud, misrepresentation or failure to disclose by the person filing the return, may be waived by the executor by notice to the minister.
(6)	That any enactment founded on paragraphs (1), (2) and (4) shall apply in respect of deaths occurring after December 31, 1958, and any enactment founded on paragraph (3) shall apply in respect of deaths occurring after March 31, 1960.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance, of course, was very brief on budget night on outlining some of the contents of these resolutions. I wonder whether he has any intention at this stage to expand on his statement?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I think there is nothing that I can usefully add at the outset to what I said in the course of the budget speech on March 31 concerning the resolution that is now before the committee. It has six paragraphs to it, each dealing with a separate proposed amendment to the act and I think that discussion could best take place on each of these seriatim, if this meets with the approval of the committee.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I take it that what we have in effect is one resolution with six paragraphs. We do not seem to have any certain rule in debate at this stage, but in the past it has been the practice of the committee-and I think it is a good one-to have somewhat of a general discussion, if necessary, at the opening of the debate stage of the resolution. After
[Mr. Herridge.l
that perhaps the Chairman calls the subparagraphs and we endeavour to confine ourselves to relevancy in respect of the contents of those individual paragraphs. Of course, I have no objection to this procedure being followed again this year.
The committee is well aware that this is the first occasion since the new Estate Tax Act was passed in 1958 that we have had to consider its effect.
I must again point out to the committee that we felt that we were rather pushed, particularly at the committee stage in the banking and commerce committee, in discussing the provisions of the new Estate Tax Act. It was one of those occasions when we were sitting very frequently in committee when the house itself was sitting and when there was urgent business in the house.
I was interested to find that even the members of the Canadian Tax Foundation, who met in their twelfth tax conference after the bill was passed, felt that sufficient time had scarcely been given to the public at large, and even those specialists, to digest the contents of this new legislation which even embodied a new principle. I am sure that the Minister of Finance has at some point considered the equivalent of a Hansard stenographic report of a symposium that was held after we passed this bill in 1958 by very eminent specialists in the estate tax field, representing both lawyers and accountants.
I was interested to find that at this 1958 conference of the tax foundation they seemed to seize upon the very points that were troubling those of us who were members of the banking and commerce committee in 1958 when we felt that there was rather undue haste in considering some of those items. Indeed, I think there is confirmation of a bit of a rush in the fact that some of the proposals of the minister today are in line with the recommendations that were advanced by opposition members and members of the public in 1958 when the minister's new estate tax was being considered; but he would not heed in any consequential manner any of the recommendations that were made at that time.
I know that when in November, 1958 this panel was discussing the new federal Estate Tax Act the first item they directed attention to was section 26 of the act which indeed got foremost attention from the banking and commerce committee and from the Senate. Hon. members will recall that the Senate amended the bill and in particular were concerned about section 26.
It is interesting to find that in this field of alleged and objectionable double taxation

the minister, on March 31 in his budget speech, indicated that in another section of the resolution before us, namely in the package relating to income tax amendments, some form of amendment in this field is being proposed. In view of the fact that this amendment refers to taxation of estates as well as to taxes on incomes I think it would not be out of the way at this stage, when we are discussing the Estate Tax Act, for the minister to give us a little more information than he gave on budget night about what his proposals are in this field. I think we could very usefully hear about that tonight as well as perhaps to follow it u.p, as we will when we come later to the present paragraph 14 of the Income Tax Act resolution.
In addition, we find that the Canadian Tax Foundation was concerned, as were the members of the opposition at the time, with the prospects for some form of co-operation and co-ordination with those provinces which have their own succession duty legislation. We were alarmed and concerned about the possibility of the lack of uniformity in the matter of tax credits which are an important thing to the individual taxpayer.
Hon. members of the committee will recall that this bill of 1958 introduced a completely new feature, in that it proposed to tax in estate matters persons domiciled outside of Canada. We were concerned about double taxation in this field and even avoidance of tax in certain instances. I commend to the minister's attention again the discussion on this subject by those very eminent specialists in estate tax matters.
Quite early this session the hon. member for Mount Royal asked what progress had been made in the matter of renegotiating, in consequence of the new Estate Tax Act, tax conventions particularly with the United States but also with other countries and the minister indicated, as found on page 919 of Hansard of this session, that negotiations were still in progress. I would hope that we could get another report from the minister tonight on this very important subject because it is well known that since the old succession duty act, which was the basis of the former tax convention with the United States, disappeared on January 1, 1959 taxpayers have been without the opportunity of the usual set-off that is provided by a negotiated tax convention with a country as important as the United States. We are also interested in having recognition of the new Estate Tax Act for this purpose by other countries as well.
Members of the committee who were members of the banking and commerce committee in 1958 will recall that members of
Estate Tax Act
all political persuasions represented on that committee were very concerned about what are now sections 28 and 29 of the new Estate Tax Act. With respect to section 28, I refer to the matter of a minority interest in a corporation and the deeming under certain circumstances that that will be equivalent to owning shares in a majority interest. As I have indicated, the new act has been in operation since January 1, 1959. Personally I have had no professional practice in this field but knowing that this was a matter of very keen interest on the part of all members of the committee and that the interest was such that the administration brought in an amendment to the bill in committee in response to our protests, I was quite interested in reading the rather cynical and frank comments of a symposium of experts-


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the hon. member relate this to the resolutions which are before the committee?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am dealing with a resolution indicating that it is proposed to introduce amendments to the Estate Tax Act and 1 am speaking generally to the first clause. I want to remind the parliamentary secretary that this is a rather unusual form of resolution in that it is my understanding that the government is under obligation to give notice to the house of any proposed amendment to the Estate Tax Act or similar legislation which might involve an increase in taxation. My understanding is that while it is customary and desirable, I would agree, to give notice of all changes of consequence that are proposed it is not necessary in practice to give notice in this form of amendment that might involve a reduction or decrease in the weight of taxation or something in the nature of a technical change in administrative practice.
When we are presented subsequently with a bill we find there are many clauses in these taxation bills of which there has been no notice in the resolutions in a detailed and definitive form. Therefore I am referring very broadly to some of the items upon which I should like to have an expression of view from the minister in view of the fact that this legislation has been in operation for some 17 months.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, a good deal of latitude has been extended to the hon. member in the hope that we would thereby save time and not be wasting time on points of order. However, we have heard a review of what happened in the standing committee in 1958, which is water under the bridge now and has no connection of which I am aware with the amendments now proposed. In addition, the hon. member is

Estate Tax Act
now going a good deal further and is embarking on a review of certain sections of the main act. There is no amendment to section 28 or section 29 involved in the present resolutions whatever.


William Moore Benidickson: Section 26.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has before him a resolution and it is my respectful submission, Mr. Chairman, that that gives him no right to start in to examine all the sections of the main act in detail and review the discussion that occurred on those sections when the bill was under debate two years ago. Surely this is going very far afield and I submit that the hon. member cannot relate this to any general remarks that he was making at an earlier time.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure you are familiar with the precedents when we have discussed budget resolutions in the past. When the minister sat on this side of the house he was, of course, one of the most arduous critics that we had when we were on the other side. He was as always very exhaustive in his analysis of any legislation presented to the house and in the many years that I have sat with him in the house he never at this stage confined himself as he is suggesting it would be proper for me to confine myself. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when we are discussing legislative proposals at the resolution stage it is certainly in order for the committee to consider alternatives to those proposals before the bill is finally *drafted and presented to the house. That is the traditional practice at the resolution stage. That is what a resolution is for. It is for the purpose of hearing the broad intentions of the government in giving notice of its intention to bring down a bill, and surely the government wants to hear from the opposition and other members of the committee in the informal way provided at the resolution stage as to what should be included in the bill before it is drafted and presented to the house.


The Chairman:: Order. Has the hon. member concluded his remarks on the point of -order?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Jacques Flynn: I would think that the point of order has some value. I might refer the hon. member to a decision two years ago as found in Hansard of July 22, 1958. There was a reference at that time by the deputy chairman to standing order No. 59, section 2, which, as everybody knows, provides that speeches in committee must be strictly relevant. The deputy chairman continued:
Now this is an amending act-

I think that is the case here. We have a resolution providing some amendments to the Estate Tax Act.
[DOT]-and when you amend an act it does not open up the discussion of the full act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there a ruling to that effect? Are you saying there is a ruling to the effect that when amendments to an act are brought in the whole act may not be discussed?


Jacques Flynn: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would you mind giving us the precise citation?


Jacques Flynn: It is found at page 2551 of Hansard of July 22, 1958. I would understand that any discussion as to alternatives to the items mentioned in the resolution would be relevant but certainly not a discussion of all the other clauses of the act which are not being amended by the resolution and which one hon. member thinks should be. Otherwise the old act would come under the discussion in such case. We are discussing resolutions to amend the act in certain respects. In order to be relevant, the discussion must be confined to the points which are raised by the resolution.


William Moore Benidickson: I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the governing clause which is the opening sentence of the resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Estate Tax Act and to provide among other things:-
In other words, the resolution itself indicates that what is before us in perhaps six spelled out points is not necessarily exhaustive and fully indicative of the intentions of the minister when he brings down his bill. Surely this matter cannot be one-sided. May I simply also say to Your Honour that you are referring to one ruling of last year. I say it is contrary to practice that I have known in 15 years' membership in the House of Commons. Surely just because we have a new administration we do not necessarily have, simply by interpretation by the chairman, new rules for the House of Commons. We have devoted the whole day so far to considering the proper method of changing the rules. We are setting up a committee for that purpose. But surely we do not somersault with respect to the traditional practice in our committee by the results of a ruling of one chairman.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, that is a most improper reflection on the Chair. An hon. member with the experience of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River does not do himself justice by proceeding in that way. He knows quite well that this matter

was the subject of a ruling in 1958 and that the ruling that was then made followed the established practice of the House of Commons.


William Moore Benidickson: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is ample authority for the proposition that the introduction of an amendment to an act, whether it is a taxing act or any other act, does not open the whole main act for consideration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the minister a question


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. gentleman has forgotten may I remind him and also the hon. member for Essex East of the ruling given in 1957 in the time before the change of administration by the then deputy speaker, the late Mr. William Robinson. It is to be found at page 3022 of Hansard of April 3, 1957.


William Moore Benidickson: Was that on budget
resolutions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This was a debate on a resolution to amend the Income Tax Act. The chairman intervened as follows:


Jacques Flynn: Order. May I intervene here to say that 1 believe to some extent we are repeating what would more appropriately be said in the budget debate. I have not interrupted the hon. member up to this point because I thought he was laying a groundwork for discussion of this resolution but I must point out to the hon. member that we are now discussing the resolution with regard to income tax which is very confined and set out in numbered paragraphs. I do not believe that a general speech of this kind is in order.
If I allow latitude to the hon. gentleman I of course must allow latitude to other hon. members to reply and we are in committee governed by the strict rule of relevancy. I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the proposals which are set out in this particular resolution.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough) :: Mr. Chairman, are you taking them one by one?


Jacques Flynn: I understand that in previous years-if my memory serves me correctly-I did call them for discussion paragraph by paragraph. That is up to the committee of course. If the committee agrees I would be glad to do it in that way but in any event we must confine ourselves to the resolution itself.
As to the resolution itself, Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the fact that the resolution opened with precisely the same formal opening words as the resolution now before the committee. It opened with these words:
Income Tax Act
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide, amongst other things:-
Then follows an enumeration. In that case it was a lengthy enumeration of over a dozen paragraphs with many subparagraphs. It is therefore quite clear that the hon. gentleman
Estate Tax Act
has misconceived the proper interpretation and that he is not at liberty to stray into particular subjects related to the principal act but which are not involved in the resolution now before the committee. He began by saying that he wanted to make some general remarks. Perhaps exception could have been taken to that statement but we did not wish to intervene if he had something to say that was a foundation for some specific remarks he proposed to make related to the terms of the resolution. But that is a different matter from what he is doing now, Mr. Chairman. He is now proposing to go into individual subjects that are not related to the resolution at all.


Leon David Crestohl: On the point just raised by the Minister of Finance, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that the introduction of this resolution is altogether different from the introduction of the resolution, for example, on the Excise Tax Act. This resolution reads as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Estate Tax Act and to provide among other things:-
With respect to the Excise Tax Act the introduction to the resolution reads as follows: Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act to provide:-
The wording is not "among other things". It states strictly: "to provide". We are now dealing with the Estate Tax Act resolution wherein it is stated "and to provide among other things". We can be told that we did not limit ourselves to the six items of the resolution because we made provision for us to be able to introduce "other things". If that is indicated, it is certainly althogether different from the introduction of the resolution with respect to the Income Tax Act. I think the committee ought to know what those other things might be. Otherwise far too much latitude is given and we can be taken by surprise later. I think we met that difficulty last year. My memory is not clear on this matter but I recall that we wrestled with that problem last year. I like the wording, for example, in the Excise Tax Act resolution which is the same type of resolution and which is as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act to provide:
And then follow paragraphs 1 to 6. The situation would then have been different and your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on relevancy would have been more accurate. I do not say it is not accurate as it is but it would have been more accurate if the introduction to this resolution had been:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Estate Tax Act to provide:

Estate Tax Act
And the items have been enumerated from 1 to 6 as they are here. But it says more than that. It says, "to provide among other things". "Among other things" certainly touches almost the entire act. Any section of that act can be amended in the bill that may come before the house if this resolution permits it to do so.


Thomas Miller Bell: If any significance is to be attached to what the hon. member for Cartier mentions-and I submit it ought not to be-may I draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that on April 3, 1957, in connection with the ruling read by the Minister of Finance, the resolution in relation to the Income Tax Act read as follows:
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide, among other things:-
There followed approximately a dozen enumerated matters or in other words, precisely what the hon. gentleman has referred to. On the basis of that type of resolution the then deputy speaker of the house, Mr. William A. Robinson, one of the distinguished deputy speakers of this house, ruled in accordance with what was read by the Minister of Finance, and that ruling has been followed on a number of occasions to which I could draw Your Honour's attention if it were necessary, both by his honour the deputy speaker Mr. Courtemanche and by his honour the deputy speaker Mr. Sevigny.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, may I say that the parliamentary secretary should then tell the committee whether there is any difference between the two methods of introducing the resolution, where in the one case provision is made for "among other things" and in the other case no such provision is made. Do they both mean the same thing? Is the latitude of debate identical in both cases? If it is identical, then why burden the resolution with the words "among other things"? If we are to be restricted to the six items, why put in the words "among other things" and not put in the same wording in the excise tax resolution? They both do not mean the same thing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Cartier has been a member of this house for some time and I thought he was well aware that the forms used with respect to these four resolutions are those which have been used in this house for many, many years, indeed, as long as any of us have been in this house. The form used here respecting the resolution concerning the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act is the form which has been in use with respect to those statutes and their predecessors for, I think,

as long as any hon. member of the present house has been in this house.
The reason-and I thought he was well aware of this-that a different form is used with respect to the amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the amendments to the Customs Tariff is that those amendments come into effect on budget night. The amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act normally, unless otherwise provided, come into effect on a date stated in the act or on royal assent.
Mr. Chairman, this is fully established procedure in this house. The formulas used here containing the introductory words have been established for many years. Every hon. member of this house knows that the bill to amend the Income Tax Act always contains many provisions which are not specifically referred to or spelled out in the resolution which precedes it. That has always been the fact. Sometimes you will have a dozen particular provisions selected for mention in the resolution and you may find the bill running to 30 or 40 pages of detailed provisions. There is nothing new about this. This is the well established practice of the house.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister is familiar with his intentions with respect to the bill, and I am grateful to the hon. member for Cartier for pointing out the distinct difference between the introductory words introducing the Estate Tax Act resolutions and the resolution with respect to the Excise Tax Act. Has the minister the intention of bringing in with respect to this bill to amend the Estate Tax Act items, under this basket of other things, which are not referred to in these six paragraphs which are before us in the document?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There will be some provisions, of course, as will be expected by hon. members who have had experience in this house, in the same way as matters are selected for special mention in the resolution respecting the amendment to the Income Tax Act. This is well known to all members.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate has very kindly drawn my attention to citation 268 on page 222 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, and this I would direct to your attention. The first paragraph says:
Though it is the function of the committee of ways and means to impose rather than repeal taxes, examples of the repeal of taxation effected in this committee are to be found upon the Journals.
This is the significant sentence:
Proposals for the variation or modification of taxation can therefore be made in the committee-

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if proposals for the variation or modification of taxation are appropriate for the committee of ways and means, surely it is appropriate to discuss certain suggestions to the minister with respect to variation or modification of taxation and the specific proposals as advanced by him in the resolutions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. member has been in this house long enough to know that there is still the rule of relevancy. That is what he is completely overlooking. He brings himself, he thinks, under one rule and therefore says, "Abolish or forget the other rules which apply".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this discussion with some interest and I will admit that one is restricted in the literal interpretation one wants to give to the situation by the mere citation of the observations made by Mr. Deputy Speaker Robinson in 1957. But each situation has to be governed in the light of the facts that attend it in the instance under immediate discussion.
This act is no more different than any other bill introduced into this house except that, as it is included in the ways and means chapter of the budget resolutions, the Minister of Finance gives it a quality altogether different from any other bill introduced into this house. Is it seriously to be argued that if a bill were introduced into this house dealing with some aspect coming within section 91 of the act, on the first clause of the bill an hon. member would be precluded from arguing that the bill was insufficient because it did not seek to embrace a particular situation? The Minister of Finance, if he follows me, certainly would not argue that that kind of argument could not be made. Of course an hon. member must speak about the bill before the house. In that sense he must make an argument that is relevant. But that does not mean that he cannot argue that a bill is insufficient because it does not include a particular provision.
As I follow the argument of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, what he was seeking to establish was that, if among other things not specifically mentioned in paragraphs one to six there was not included something in another section of the bill, then it ought to be included. Surely there is an undue restriction of debate to take any other position, and I do not think that the rulings which have been referred to intend to go that far.
This measure is no different from any other bill, and the fact that it is included in
Estate Tax Act
a ways and means resolution does not give it a character or restriction different from any other particular measure. If that is the case then it is an ordinary bill, and in an ordinary bill on the first clause it is open to an hon. member to say: "I agree with this section; I agree with all provisions in this bill, but the bill is deficient because it ought to go further." If an hon. member is precluded from paying that on this measure, why should he not be precluded on any other bill? I cannot believe for one moment that the Minister of Finance is serious in suggesting that an hon. member is not at least to be given that latitude, and that was all that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was seeking to do.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman's statements did not have such a ring of familiarity we would give them a greater degree of credence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are referring
to the Excise Tax Act in 1958.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: But the fact is that the hon. gentleman has argued this matter before in committee and it has been determined by the house. The hon. gentleman argued with his usual eloquence on July 22, 1958 in connection with the Excise Tax Act. The resolution which was then before the house had this lead:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act and to provide, among other things:
Then followed a number of enumerated matters. The hon. member made precisely the same argument. Indeed, I think he used the exact words which he used tonight.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No; the argument he used in 1958 was better than tonight.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, it was much better than tonight; I am sorry if the hon. gentleman is slipping as he ages. Mr. Deputy Chairman at that time said this, as reported on page 2551 of Hansard for July 22, 1958:
It is, of course, up to the Chair to follow the regulations set out here, and with regard to what was said by the hon. member for Ottawa West, standing order No. 59 does say in section (2)
"Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."
Now this is an amending act, and when you amend an act it does not open up the discussion of the full act. All hon. members realize that.
That is, except the hon. member for Essex East.
The Chair wants to be as generous as possible, of course, in order to help the thing go through, but we cannot let this grow into a debate on the entire Excise Tax Act, and therefore I will have to ask members to limit their general remarks to items that appear in this amendment. There is no other way, and that is the ruling of the Chair.

Estate Tax Act
The hon. gentleman from Essex East appealed that ruling, a ruling on precisely the matter which is now before the committee. The house upheld the ruling of the Chair. Perhaps the hon. member does not agree with the ruling which was then made and upheld, but at least as a believer in democracy, and as one who so vigorously applauded the speech which was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Greenwood, he should uphold the ruling which was then confirmed by the majority.


Leon David Crestohl: The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance owes a duty to the house as well as to himself to explain this matter further. Why is it that the present resolution does not use the words "among other things"? We are entitled to an explanation why this phrase is used sometimes and why it is not used at other times.


Mr.   Ball@Carleton: The Minister of Finance has explained.


Leon David Crestohl: He has mentioned what the practice was in the past, but that does not always mean it is right. Somewhere along the line it is bound to happen that an old practice is not right after all. That is not a sufficiently sound argument to convince me, to say that because a course has been followed for many years it is necessarily right. I do not say it is not, but I want an explanation why the wording is different in the case of this particular resolution. In 1958 the wording was such as to include the phrase "among other things". That could mean one thing, in which case why is the wording of the present resolution different, in that it does not include this expression "among other things"? What is the difference in the two forms of the resolution?


William Moore Benidickson: Of course, the Minister of Finance attempted an explanation, but his parliamentary secretary has pulled the rug from under him. The Minister of Finance made two points in answering the hon. member for Cartier when he asked for an indication of the meaning of this phrase "among other things". First, he said that the language in this resolution-and we have three or four-was in the form which had been followed from time immemorial. He said in the second place that the reason for the differentiation between one resolution and the Excise Tax Act resolution was that in one resolution the tax became effective on budget night and in the other it did not. The parliamentary secretary has just indicated that he does not agree with the Minister of Finance on either score, because

he has pointed out that the language introducing the Excise Tax Act in 1958 is not the same as it is now in 1960.


Richard Albert Bell: And for a good reason.


William Moore Benidickson: I would imagine that in 1958 the tax became effective on budget night.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you make your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I must say I have been somewhat astonished to discover that of all the members of this house the Minister of Finance should rely on a decision of Mr. Deputy Speaker Robinson. Some of us remember one famous occasion when the hon. gentleman was not willing to rely on decisions of the deputy speaker of this house.


Richard Albert Bell: To his very great credit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To his eternal discredit.


Richard Albert Bell: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is this relevant to the resolution?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is relevant to the
authority. The hon. gentleman did not think much of the authority on that occasion. It seems to me that what has been ignored entirely is the first phrase-the first four words-in this resolution. The resolution begins-and I point out Mr. Chairman, that it is a resolution, not a bill-by saying: "Resolved that it is expedient-" I have never been able to understand how there can be an argument that something is expedient without it being possible to argue at the same time that it is not expedient. Surely we are not to be restricted in our argument that something is not expedient because the language is different in some way and, as I apprehended, that is what the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was seeking to do.


Jacques Flynn: There is no doubt, I think, in the mind of any hon. member that standing order No. 59, section 2 applies here. Therefore, we must have strict relevancy. As to what may be the exact meaning of relevancy I understand there may be disagreement, but I do say that it has to be a reasonable interpretation; it has to be reasonably relevant any way in the opinion of an ordinary man.
Hon. members have referred to previous practice, especially the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, but all the cases which have been mentioned show that the Chair has applied the rule of strict relevancy in cases similar to this one, and no precedent has been mentioned to the contrary. The hon. member for Cartier has drawn the attention of the committee to the words "among other

things". The Minister of Finance has given an explanation, but from the viewpoint of the decision of the Chair I may say that I cannot open the door to unlimited discussion and abolish the rule of relevancy by holding that "among other things" makes it possible to introduce any kind of an amendment which is not mentioned in the resolution. An amending act does not permit discussion of the main act.
Of course, if later on when the act is introduced some hon. members think objection should be raised as to the sufficiency of the notice, then this may be discussed. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has also referred the Chair to citation 268 of Beauchesne. I would say that this citation has no relation to the subject of relevancy but rather to amendments in committee of ways and means. Of course, if an amendment is submitted to the committee, its validity can be examined, but in relation to its contents. I would refer the hon. member to citation 276, paragraph 2 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which relates to the previous one and which confirms the views I have just expressed. There may be a general discussion as to all the amendments which are indicated by the resolution, but the discussion must be relevant to any of those items, or all of them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I be permitted to ask a question for clarification? On the basis of the ruling which Your Honour has made or is about to make, one is precluded from discussing at this stage anything except the enumerated proposed amendments. I readily admit we are only discussing the resolution stage, not the bill, as I mentioned a moment ago. But there are more than these enumerated amendments about to be introduced, and they are covered by the phrase "among other things". So the situation is that one is at the mercy of those who know the contents of the bill if one is to be in order in discussing this matter, because obviously if one had any foreknowledge about the matters to be covered by the proposed amendments which are greater in number than those which are enumerated he could deal with all those undisclosed amendments.
However, one is precluded from doing so, not by the Chair and not by the rules but by the knowledge which is possessed only by the authors of the bill. Surely, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is in as strong a position as the chairman of this committee who does not, I presume, know the contents of this bill. It may be that the very matters which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has been discussing are matters which are covered by the phrase "among other things", not in the enumerated six clauses. The only one
Estate Tax Act
who is in position to govern the situation in terms of relevancy of which Your Honour speaks would be the Minister of Finance. Surely we are not to be placed in a position of that kind, and the hon. member ought to be allowed at this stage the latitude he seeks, because the very matters he mentioned may be among other things not referred to in the six clauses which appear on page 7.


Jacques Flynn: I thought I had dealt with the objection raised by the hon. member for Essex East. In my view, the resolution which is before the committee of ways and means can have reference only to the imposition or reduction of taxation. The bill itself may have reference to other aspects than those indicated here. If it does, then these new matters may be discussed in committee of the whole on clause 1 of the bill. Therefore, I would think that the ruling which I have indicated, and which I reiterate, should be accepted.


William Moore Benidickson: On paragraph 1-may I combine it with paragraph 2, because I think they are elosly related-I take it that under the statute as it existed one would be entitled to an exemption by reason of an intended charitable bequest if that bequest was made to an organization. A person may have an idea that he would ask his trustees to set up some scholarship which would be at the discretion of the trustees, and I take it that under the act, despite what the average testator might think, he is not entitled to the deduction from taxation as a charitable bequest. So what the minister is doing here is, first of all, indicating that specifically the act can be extended to a charitable foundation. In the definition will it later be indicated whether that is a foundation of the testator or other foundation such as The Atkinson Charitable Foundation, and so on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is, as I am
sure the committee will appreciate, a difference between a direct gift to a charity which is actually engaged in a charitable operation and a gift to an organization as, for instance, a foundation which through its trustees or board of directors distributes money among organizations which are directly engaged in charitable enterprise. Hitherto, under the Dominion Succession Duty Act and thus far under the Estate Tax Act only the former case has been treated as a gift to charity. Now it is proposed to enlarge the scope of the rule in order to provide that a gift to a charitable foundation shall be regarded for the purpose of the act as a charitable gift.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister indicate that under present law my rather rough interpretation was correct, that if a

Estate Tax Act
testator was indicating in a will that he wanted to set up some scholarships, to leave it to the trustees rather than, shall we say, specifically to a university or to an organization, that it would be invalid in so far as exemption from estate tax is concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The other question raised by the hon. member concerns whether the charitable foundation in question must be one set up by the testator himself. No, it need not be so, but I want to make the point clear that hitherto a mere gift to a charitable foundation, so-called, did not entitle that gift to be treated for the purpose of the act as a gift to charity unless the charitable foundation itself was engaged in a charitable enterprise. In that case the gift was brought under the first of the two cases, but it was because the recipient was actually engaged in a charitable operation. This is intended to enlarge the provision and make it clear that a gift to a charitable foundation, even though the foundation itself might not be engaged directly in a charitable operation but is dispensing funds among charitable agencies or organizations engaged in charitable operations, will now become exempt for this purpose.


William Moore Benidickson: Has the minister given consideration to the practice in the United Kingdom where I believe the matter of whether or not a bequest is for a charitable purpose is based on common law precedents with respect to what is a charity. I would imagine that in the first instance the taxation authorities have discretion to decide whether or not some personal arrangement for scholarships such as I have indicated was satisfactory for that purpose. If there were a dispute between the taxing authorities and the executors I suppose it would be settled by the law courts. In our case, it must be an organization, I think. Has the minister given consideration to following British common law with respect to a wider concept of what is a charitable bequest?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The provision in the act to which I direct the attention of the hon. gentleman is section 7(1) which provides:
For the purpose of computing the aggregate taxable value of the property passing on the death of a person, there may be deducted from the aggregate net value of that property-
Certain amounts. Subparagraph (d) specifies gifts to what may be called charity. In this particular case it is the value of any gift made by the deceased, whether in his life time or by his will, where such gift can be established to have been made absolute to:
(1) any organization in Canada that, at the time of the making of the gift, was a charitable

organization operated exclusively as such and not for the benefit, gain or profit of any proprietor, member or shareholder thereof.
In the interpretation of these words of the statute I do not think there has been any serious difficulty. Reference could, of course, be made to the common law and to the decisions of the courts as to what is a charitable gift.


Leon David Crestohl: I think there is a departure here, because the Canada Council is also known to hand out scholarships.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the next paragraph. We are dealing with No. 1 at the moment. That is No. 2.


Leon David Crestohl: I beg your pardon. I should like to discuss that.


Jacques Flynn: Is it agreed that we discuss this paragraph by paragraph? Shall paragraph 1 carry?
Paragraph 1 agreed to.	-
On paragraph 2.


Leon David Crestohl: Of course we all welcome paragraph 2, but I wonder whether we understand it in its entirety. The Canada Council is not restricted to dealing with charities pure and simple; they also hand out funds and provide for scholarships and bursaries. I wonder whether the minister envisaged that anyone who does make a bequest, which would be the equivalent of a scholarship or 10 scholarships or 10 bursaries in the same class that the Canada Council provides, would be in this position, that those bequests would be deductible even though they are not bequeathed to the Canada Council itself but are for the very same objectives? I am afraid that we are opening up a door here which I think would be very welcome to encourage scholarships and higher education.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I point out to the
hon. gentleman that to qualify under the act at present it would have to conform with the provisions of section 7(l)(d), which I read a moment ago. The gift in that case must be made to some charitable organization. The present paragraph is designed to make gifts to the Canada Council qualify as charitable donations. The Canada Council is a charitable organization within the meaning of the old Dominion Succession Duty Act and the present Income Tax Act. Hitherto, it has not been deemed a charitable organization for the purpose of this act. That is the reason why we are asking the committee now to provide for the purposes of the Estate Tax Act the Canada Council

shall in fact be deemed a charitable organization so that a gift to the Canada Council will be deductible from the aggregate value of the estate.


Leon David Crestohl: Does the minister not see the relationship there? The Canada Council will provide scholarships, and anyone who wishes to make a bequest through the vehicle of the Canada Council to provide scholarships will find that they will be deductible. If similar scholarships are provided through another vehicle, through another organization which does not fall within the scope of this section 2 or section 7(b)-


William Moore Benidickson: Or through his executor.


Leon David Crestohl: Yes, or even through his executor, they will find that they are not deductible. I can understand that this section is in a class by itself if the bequest is made to the Canada Council. Why should not a bequest which is made for the identical purpose but not through this vehicle or this avenue but through another one be deductible? I see a difficulty there. I do not want to say it will be a discrimination, but it certainly will be setting something aside and making an exception of a scholarship given through this channel as against a scholarship given through another means. If it is the intention to encourage the giving of scholarships and bursaries then the exemption should be allowed under the general heading of granting scholarships and bursaries and not restricted only to scholarships and bursaries given by the Canada Council.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The gift must still be through a charitable organization. In the case mentioned by the hon. member for Cartier, the form of gift, in order to acquire exemption, would need to be a gift to a particular charitable organization for the purpose of providing scholarships or bursaries. This would entitle the gift to the exempt status. It must still be a gift to a charitable organization within the provisions of section 7(1) (d).


Leon David Crestohl: I am sure the minister understood my analogy. The bequest ultimately goes for education and if the testator leaves a bequest to his executor and says, "I want this money to be used for scholarships of the same kind, class and category as those that are given to the Canada Council", why should that bequest not be deductible? That I cannot understand.


Mr. McMillan:: When paragraphs 1 and 2 are enacted they will apply in respect of deaths after January 1,	1959 instead of
January 1, 1960. Why is that so?
Estate Tax Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman will find the provision for the effective date-of the amendments in paragraph 6 of the resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member asked why that date was selected.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In order to give to the persons who might have made gifts under those circumstances the benefit of an exemption since December 31, 1958. It is a relieving provision.
Paragraph 2 agreed to.


Jacques Flynn: Shall paragraph 3 carry?


William Moore Benidickson: When the Minister of Finance briefly described his intention with respect to the amendment of the Estate Tax Act on budget night I think he made the comment that we would be faced with resolutions which on balance were neither specific, relieving nor adding new imposts. I find that paragraph 3 is indeed a new form of tax. That was something that escaped attention in the existing statute. Will the minister explain the past history of insurance of this kind? Has he any knowledge of what might be taken in as a tax if this particular item is passed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this in essence is more a matter of eliminating a doubt as to the effect of the present provisions than of imposing any new tax. This has reference to the provisions of section 3(1) (m) of the Estate Tax Act. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to ensure that death benefits arising out of employment which are now generally subject to estate tax will be taxable when they are in the form of life insurance payable to the beneficiary of the deceased.
Although life insurance owned by the deceased at the time of his death is now taxable, life insurance owned by the employer on the life of a deceased, for example, in a company group insurance scheme, may at present escape tax even if payable to a beneficiary of the deceased. This is a matter of rectification of an anomaly by our removal of the doubt in this respect. The words that appear in the paragraph: "for the benefit of the family of the deceased" were used in the resolution to make it clear that a policy owned by an employer on the life of a key employee which is payable to the employer would not be included.
Paragraph 3 agreed to.
Paragraphs 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Resolution reported.

Income Tax Act


INCOME TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act to make provision in respect of a new class of profit sharing plans under which
(a)	amounts allocated by the trustee shall not be included in the income of an individual who is a beneficiary under the plan until the year in which they are received,
(b)	no tax shall be payable by the trustee under the plan on the taxable income of the trust,
(c)	an employer may deduct in computing income for the year an amount which when added to his contribution, if any, under a registered pension fund or plan does not exceed $1,500 per employee.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I take it that the minister is dealing with the first resolution with respect to income tax. This is a new concept. Perhaps the minister would see fit to enlarge upon his comments made on budget night, particularly as he indicated that this house this session is not going to be asked to do more than to receive the bill at first reading. Our debate on the bill at this session will conclude at that stage.
I recognize that for certain types of profit sharing plans we will be completely reversing the stage at which we impose an income tax. It seems to me it would be appropriate for the minister to outline his expectations and plans at this stage. I realize he is following a precedent that we have had in the past with respect to the Estate Tax Act which we were discussing and also some years ago with respect to the Income Tax Act-I think it is a good practice-whereby a bill is introduced and those who are specialists in the field then have the opportunity between sessions to examine the intent of the minister. The minister also graciously indicates that he is prepared to receive comments, criticisms and recommendations in the interim before he really asks his colleagues in the House of Commons to accept any radical change in taxation methods.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to say something about the purpose of this resolution. As I indicated in the budget speech on March 31, it is our intention at the present session to introduce a separate bill to amend the Income Tax Act in respect of profit sharing plans and to carry that bill no further than first reading at the present session. Then between now and the 1961 session full opportunity will be afforded to hon. members, to persons interested in this subject and to the professional groups, lawyers, accountants and any others who may be interested, to study the measure and to assist us with their views.
This is proposed partly because this will be quite a new departure in the Income Tax Act and partly because this is a highly complex subject. It has been considered by the

Department of Finance for some years. It was considered before I became minister and my colleagues and I have had the problem under study for nearly three years since the present government came into office. I stress, Mr. Chairman, that what we are doing tonight is simply asking the house to give approval to the introduction of a separate bill for this purpose. The provisions will not appear in the bill to amend the Income Tax Act which will be introduced following approval of the second resolution under the Income Tax Act. In other words, this year we have two resolutions respecting the Income Tax Act. The second is the ordinary one with the detailed provisions which will be followed by the introduction of a bill to be carried through all stages with a view to coming into effect by enactment at this session. The first resolution will lead to the introduction of a separate bill and that bill will not be carried beyond first reading at this session.
Without trying to make this subject look too complex for this purpose because it is, as I have indicated, a very highly complicated matter, and without asking the house to spend a lot of time on this abstruse subject in view of the fact that it will be exposed for further study and there will be ample opportunity at the 1961 session to consider it as fully as the house may wish, let me give a general explanation of the purport of the proposed provision.
This resolution proposes that legislation be introduced to provide a new code of rules for taxing profit sharing plans. The existing legislation in respect of such plans will not be disturbed but the way will be opened for a new class of profit sharing plans. The main change in the tax treatment of plans coming under the proposed new legislation will be that employees will not be required to pay income tax on the amounts allocated to them each year under a plan if these amounts are held by a trustee and accumulated. The tax on these amounts will be deferred until the amounts are actually received by the employee.
Profit sharing plans take many forms but they can be divided roughly into two groups. There are what might be called the cash plans and what might be called the deferred plans. Under the cash plans, of course, the employer pays a bonus or makes cash distributions to his employees related to profits made in the year in question. This payment made in cash to the employees is the same as other remuneration for tax purposes and, of course, no tax complication or problem arises. Under the deferred plans the employer also makes an allocation of profits to his employees but instead of paying it to the

employees in cash the amount is turned over to a trustee to be held for each employee until he retires. These funds held by the trustee are then invested with a view to earning income. Accordingly each year the trustee for the plan makes an allocation in favour of each employee who is a member of the plan. These allocations are made up of the employee's share of the contributions on account of the profits made by the employer plus the earnings of the accumulated fund to the credit of the employer in the hands of the trustee.
As the law stands at present employees are subject to income tax on these allocations each year even though they may not receive these allocations in cash until many years later. Of course, the proceeds from the plan are not taxed when actually received if they have been taxed each year as they were allocated. This requirement that the tax must be paid each year on amounts allocated but not actually received is, we are told, discouraging participation in profit sharing plans. If so it stands in the way of achieving the full social benefit to be derived from having employees share in the prosperity of the enterprise which provides their employment. Moreover, if employees are discouraged from participating in deferred plans they will probably save less to provide for their years of retirement.
The proposed legislation will provide for tax deferment for those plans that elect to come under these new provisions. This means that amounts allocated by the trustee shall not be included in the income of the employee until the year these amounts are actually received. It will also be provided that the income of the trustee will be exempt. This exemption for the trustee exists under present legislation for profit sharing plans and also for trustees under registered pension plans and the R.R.S.P's, registered retirement savings plans.
Under the legislation at present governing the taxation of profit sharing plans the employer may deduct the amounts he contributes into the plan without any limit. Here I am coming to the tax position of the employer. Since the present rules require the amount the employer contributes to be allocated among the employees and taxed each year, whether or not actually paid out, it is the same for tax purposes as any other remuneration. Accordingly there is at present no need to place any limit on the amount the employer contributes just as there is generally no limit on the amount the employer may deduct on account of salary or wages paid to employees.
On the other hand, under the new proposal the employee is to be permitted to defer tax
Income Tax Act
on the amounts allocated to him under the plan and accordingly there must be some limit on the amounts involved if revenue is to be protected and equality maintained with the other provisions in the act for tax deferment. For this reason the resolution proposes that the amount an employer may deduct for contribution into this new class of profit sharing plan plus his contribution, if any, under a registered pension plan shall not exceed $1,500 per employee. The legislation proposed by this resolution will set out the conditions which have to be met in order that plans may become registered deferred profit sharing plans.
The main difference between the proposed registered deferred profit sharing plans and existing registered pension plans will be that there will be no employee contributions into the deferred profit sharing plans. It will be possible, of course, for employee savings plans to be operated in conjunction with deferred profit sharing plans but the employee will not be allowed to deduct amounts paid into such savings plans. In view of this important difference from employee pension plans, the rules governing the investment of the funds of deferred profit sharing plans and the rules concerning payment of the proceeds in a form other than as retirement income will not have to be as restrictive as for employees pension plans.


William Moore Benidickson: I am grateful for that explanation of the minister's plan as he conceives it at the moment. I think it is desirable that this procedure be encouraged. The last estimate I had as to progress along that line in Canada suggested to me that we do not seem to be moving along by any means as rapidly in this field of employer-employee co-operation and planning, particularly for retirement, as is the United States. A couple of years ago at least I think there were some 250,000 different businesses in the United States that had profit sharing plans and at the same time about two years ago there were in Canada known to us only about 250. Hence in proportion to population and so on we are falling somewhat behind.
I think the relative figures with respect to participation by employees about two years ago were two million employees covered in the United States and only about 100,000 employees in Canada. The minister may have more up to date figures. However, this is not as new a policy as some of us might have imagined. I myself was rather surprised to find that in the late 1880's-as long ago as that-there had been held in Paris an international conference of those who were interested and who were participating in profit sharing plans. Even in this country

Income Tax Act
we have had an excellent example of a company which has had this plan in operation for almost 50 years-I refer to the Canadian Kodak Company. I think it was in 1957 a distribution they made at that time was the equivalent of $545 for each employee. When something of this kind gets established and operated by a well established company such as the Canadian Kodak Company one can see that it is very much worth while indeed.
I quite realize that organized labour has looked a bit askance at profit sharing. They felt that perhaps it was something that would reduce their effectiveness in collective bargaining and so on. But I think those who are interested in this thing have been rather pleased to see that such a leader of organized labour as Walter Reuther, head of the united automobile workers, when he was I think last negotiating in the United States for the united automobile workers in 1958, indicated that this was one of the objectives, that in addition to some other hopes for the achievement of better working conditions he hoped the members of his organization would participate in profit sharing in the automobile industry as well as having a steady advance in wages.
I wonder whether the minister would indicate what he has in mind. If there is now to be a tax deferment-something which there has not been up till now-with respect to the allocation of the shared profits, a tax deferment similar to that which is provided for employees' retirement annuities or for pensions, does he have a concept of something being necessary similar to the blue book of rules for pension funds which I think insists that for the employer and for the employee to get a tax concession of any kind the scheme must be offered without discrimination to any person in the organization or in the company who desires to participate? I think it is true of a pension plan that you cannot set up a scheme under which certain privileged executives get the benefit of a pension and it is not offered to other employees of that corporation. Inasmuch as there will be a tax deferment and the tax is not paid by the individual immediately after the allocation does the minister think that similarly it would be necessary to insist that the privilege be offered to all members of the employer's organization?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think the matter is quite as complicated as that. What will probably follow here after 1961 will be simply a course of practice. The department may choose to issue explanations of this practice to assist those who will be dealing with such plans. But in connection with

registered retirement savings plans no manual is issued to inform them and I doubt very much whether any such manual would be necessary with respect to the type of profit sharing plans that are contemplated by the proposed amendment.


William Moore Benidickson: What is the present practice in the United States? Have there been two types of taxation such as I think the minister has in mind? In other words, if it is a cash profit sharing proposition down there do they pay a tax immediately; and if it is a deferred profit sharing scheme do they have tax deferment?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am told that the United States has two schemes and provisions of the law corresponding to the cash scheme and the deferred scheme in the way I have indicated. However, I would not wish to be too precise in likening the provisions of the United States law to what is contemplated here.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask the minister a question. No doubt he knows that certain unions, particularly the international mine, mill and smelter workers, have made representations to the government urging that vesting rights be established in pension schemes undertaken by companies or companies and employees when exemption from taxation is permitted. I know that when I asked the Prime Minister a question he said the government was considering the matter and that an announcement would be made at a later date as to the government's decision. Can the minister tell the committee anything about this matter or how it rests?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That has nothing whatever to do with this resolution under discussion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is a separate thing?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has no bearing whatever on this present resolution. This contemplates an entirely new type of provision in relation to profit sharing plans. It has nothing whatever to do with the kind of scheme to which the hon. gentleman refers. The matter of creating vested rights is something which fails under provincial jurisdiction. All that the federal government can do is to relate certain tax incidence to the question of vesting or not vesting, but that has nothing to do with this subject whatever.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister says it falls under provincial rights. But why would the Prime Minister inform the house that the cabinet was considering these representations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The question as to federal jurisdiction can only arise in connection with tax treatment. The federal authority might provide a tax reduction dependent *on whether there are vested rights or rights that are not vested. But that does not create a right to vesting. It only relates certain tax incidence to either vesting or failure to vest. But the right to vest as such is a matter relating to property and civil rights. That is the distinction. It is quite a clear distinction. All that the Prime Minister could refer to, of course, was the tax incidence that would follow. I think that was the way in which he understood the hon. member's question.


William Moore Benidickson: I will just be a minute, Mr. Chairman, if the committee will tolerate it. I share the curiosity and interest of the hon. member for Kootenay West. As I understand the matter with respect to the vesting of the company funds, the point made is that inasmuch as a tax deduction is possible on the part of the employer for his contribution to the pension fund, the government should encourage a vesting by making tax exemptions inoperable if the company does not vest after a certain period of time. It seems to me that if some kind of tax reduction is available to the employer by profit sharing, the government could in these regulations insist that there be a vesting at a certain point; otherwise the employer would not get the benefit of the tax deduction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As you know, that arises under an entirely different section of the act and does not relate to this at all. I think this could best be discussed on another occasion.


Jacques Flynn: Order. It being ten o'clock shall I rise and report a certain resolution?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, if the committee were agreeable I think there is only one more question and we could dispose of this resolution.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leon David Crestohl: Can the minister tell the house if there has been an estimate made or a calculation of some kind made to declare to the house what advantages there will be to
Business of the House
the department in having this passed? Will there be additional income by way of taxes? Will it be administratively easier? We do not know, as it is somewhat complicated, precisely what the advantages would be in enacting this legislation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This provision is not introduced for the advantage of the government or a department. It is a provision which will relieve taxpayers from taxes which are applicable at the present time. It is virtually impossible to make an estimate of what this may mean because so much will depend on how many of the profit sharing schemes are made to conform to the provisions of the legislation. Therefore one really cannot offer any estimate which will have any value whatever, but I think on consideration the hon. member will see that this is something which is intended to be for the benefit of the taxpayer, not for the advantage of the government.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the resolution carry?
Resolution reported.
Resolutions adopted this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will start with the second reading of Bill No. C-56, which is No. 8 on today's order paper, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act. If that is completed we will carry on with the three remaining budget resolutions. If we do not complete that business tomorrow, Wednesday will be a continuation of the discussion of the budget resolutions.
For Thursday the proposal is to finish the discussion of Bill No. C-56; if not on Tuesday then on Wednesday, if not on Wednesday then on Thursday; and in any case budget resolutions would follow that bill.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Was a broadcast entitled "What are the national issues in the west coast union fight" broadcast by station CJOR, Vancouver, on February 20, 1960?
2.	It so, was station CJOR forbidden by the board of broadcast governors to permit the rebroadcast of this program on other stations and, if so, for what reason?
Answer by:	Hon. George C. Nowlan
(Minister of National Revenue):
1.	Yes.
2.	Station CJOR, Vancouver, was advised that the program could not be rebroadcast
until the board received assurances from the station that those holding views opposed to those expressed on the program of February 20, 1960 would be given an equal opportunity to express these views on the first possible program following.
The step taken by the board in this instance was consistent with the provisions of the board's directive to all radio stations entitled "Political and Controversial Broadcasting Policies." This directive requires that, if a station broadcasts a program on a controversial subject, equal opportunity must be given to all parties to the controversy to express their views. After listening to the taped recording of the program broadcast by station CJOR on February 20, entitled "What Are the National Issues in the West Coast Union Fight", the board was satisfied that this requirement had not been met.

Tuesday, May 10, 1360

(Translation):