1963-10-17

Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which concerns all hon. members of this house and, of course, the whole country. Yesterday a motion for the production of papers was on the order paper, motion No. 99, and there was an extended discussion with regard to the existence of a certain document. In the course of that discussion it was stated by the Postmaster General that this document did not exist. These words are to be found in Hansard at page 3626. A little earlier the Secretary of State also stated that the document did not exist. This was in accord with discussions which took place during consultation between the Secretary of State and the Post Office Department.
For the benefit of the house and the country, I have such a document before me now. As a matter of fact it is a copy of the document in question the production of which was requested under the terms of motion No. 99. If the house so desires I am prepared to table it, and that would end the discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised that this is not a public document. It belongs to a private member; and if a private member is to produce a document of this nature-I have not seen the document but I assume it is of the nature indicated-the consent of the private member concerned would be required.


Eric Alfred Winkler: If may say a further word, the main point at this juncture is not whether the list which I have is authentic, though I believe it to be so. It is that the Secretary of State misled the house yesterday when he said this particular document did not exist. Also, if the words of the Secretary of State were clear, and I believe they were, then of course the Postmaster General had misled the Secretary of State as he misled the entire house.
As I have already indicated, I believe this document to be authentic. It is as set out in the notice of motion for the production of papers, and I would therefore ask leave of the house, by unanimous consent, since that
has been requested of me, to table this document.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secreiary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. gentleman has raised a question of privilege, and if he wishes to depart from the rules of the house in this matter he ought to make a motion founded upon the question of privilege which Your Honour could then take into consideration. Perhaps the hon. member for Laurier can speak on this with more authority than I can, but I have no recollection of any private member on either side of the house ever being permitted or even being given leave to lay a document on the table of the house.
While I must say that I personally would not have the slightest objection to this particular document being laid on the table, it seems to me there is a very important principle involved-


An hon. Member:: There certainly is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -because otherwise we might spend a great deal of the time of the house in having members lay all sorts of papers on the table. Therefore it seems to me that if the hon. gentleman feels he has a question of privilege, he should found a motion upon it which could be considered in the proper way by the house.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me there are two points here. I should like to suggest to the hon. member who raised the question of privilege that this matter was transferred for debate, and it might be raised at that time.


An hon. Member:: It was not.


Mr. Speaker:: On the other hand, the basic point is that if a member rises on a question of privilege and wishes action taken, his question of privilege should be followed through with a motion on which the house may reach a conclusion.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, accordingly I move by unanimous consent, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), that this document be now tabled.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion to Your Honour in this matter. If the record of yesterday's proceedings is referred to it will be seen that the motion for papers was accepted. I suggest to Your Honour with all due deference that the question of privilege which

Extension of Hours of Sitting has been raised be taken under advisement by you and that Your Honour reserve your decision as to the admissibility of the question of privilege and also the matter of the tabling of the document so that an unfortunate precedent may not be set with regard to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank the hon. member for Edmonton West for his sage counsel and advice, and if I may take that advice I should like to take the matter under consideration.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, before the matter is dropped I suggest the hon. member might identify the document by reading the frontispiece or identifying it in some other manner. May I also point out that according to the rules of the house, if a member refers to a document in his possession he is required to table it. If the hon. member tabled it I think that would automatically end the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, if I may have your consent I would identify the document by reading as follows: "List of members of the House of Commons and consultants; letters for Postmaster General's signature; names on the attached list are underlined where person concerned is to be addressed by his first or last name; if not underlined, salutation is to be 'Dear Mr.' ".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have advised the house that I will take the matter under consideration, and I think that we should leave it there.



STATEMENT OF RETURNS TABLED AND OUTSTANDING

John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to table a list of the returns to orders of the House of Commons which have been made up to yesterday. Perhaps I might be permitted to say that the list was not prepared exactly as I had thought it was going to be. It contains the whole of the 131 orders of the house that had been made up to and including yesterday, and shows that there are 37 of them still outstanding.
Perhaps I might be permitted to add also that the order requested by the hon. member for Edmonton West was tabled today.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


John Whitney Pickersgill: That commencing on Thursday, October 17, 1963, and on every Thursday and Friday thereafter until

the end of the current session, the hours of sitting on these days shall be:
Thursdays:
2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m., and from 7 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. Fridays:
11 a.m. to 1 p.m., 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m., and from 7 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. and, in relation thereto, the provisions of standing order 6 shall be suspended; and
That on Wednesday, October 23, 1963, and on every Wednesday thereafter until the end of the current session, the hours from 5 to 6 p.m. in such sittings shall be used for government business and, in relation thereto, the provisions of standing order 15(3) concerning private members' business shall be suspended.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that either yesterday or today it might have been possible, by agreement, to have the suggestions made in the motion now before the house accepted. I have been advised that, although the suggestions put forward in this motion are based upon the usual consultations that are held in these matters, and although I was advised that these suggestions would be acceptable to all parts of the house except the official opposition, they are not acceptable to the official opposition.
The advice I received was that the official opposition-I would be glad to be corrected at once if I am misrepresenting the situation in any way, because I have no desire to do that-would prefer a different arrangement which would involve the house meeting at 2 p.m. instead of 2.30 p.m. every sitting day and reassembling at 7 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, and there would be no sitting on Friday evening.
I am very hopeful that this matter can be settled in as non-controversial a way as possible. Since there has been no reference to Wednesday, and since the suggestion with regard to Wednesday, if I remember correctly, came originally from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I assume the suggestions with regard to Wednesday are agreeable to all parts of the house.
I feel I owe the house and the opposition an explanation of the reason the government does not feel this alternative proposal would be acceptable. It is the feeling of the government that any attempt to meet at 2 instead of 2.30 would occasion delays in getting on with the business of the house which some of us feel, sir, are too great even when we meet at 2.30. It would mean that these hours of additional time would be given to something other than the purpose of the government in making these suggestions at all, that is in gaining additional time for dealing with government business.
Of course to meet at seven o'clock on Mondays and Tuesdays for the next four weeks would be totally useless for that purpose. The only result would be that an extra hour on

each of those days, that is to say eight extra hours, would be taken up with these supply motions. While the government has no desire in any way to abbreviate the time now provided for them, it would not at all serve the only purpose the government had in mind in making any suggestion of extending the hours, which was primarily to give additional time for the consideration of the estimates. Under the rules these hours for that purpose would be totally useless.
Therefore the effect of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would be to gain a few minutes in the early part of each day-how many it is hard to say-and one other hour, whereas our suggestion as put forward in the motion would provide six additional hours of useful time for the consideration of the public business.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about Tuesdays, is not that public business?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. As the hon. member, who at one time was presiding officer of this house and for whose opinions we have the greatest respect, must realize, it is the right of the representatives of the people to expose their grievances before they agree to do the public business. The government has no desire to abbreviate that time for the exposure of grievances, but that time is not devoted to the public business. Certainly it is devoted to public affairs, but not to the public business in the sense of the business a government has to put before the house.
Last Friday the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre indicated, when I made the suggestion and which I am grateful to the house for accepting, that he was acutely conscious of the problem that is faced by the government and the house in dealing with the estimates. As a matter of fact I thought he expressed the problem very much better than I did in his exposure of it, and I have no quarrel with anything he said at that time.
I think I also ought to point out to hon. members and to you, sir, that if the house is disposed to accept the motion that I am now proposing it would be the intention of the government, unless some unforeseen or exceptional circumstances should arise, to take the time on Thursday and Friday evenings from now until the end of the session for estimates; and it would be the intention, until we had dealt with the principal departments of government, to take a new department on each day so there would be an opportunity to have every department exposed to hon. members, in order that they could express their views about the policies of the government and bring up any points with respect to it.
Extension of Hours of Sitting
It would also be the intention of the government to fix the days on which departments would be take nsufficiently far in advance so that hon. members would know what was coming and would therefore be in a position to deal in an orderly way, without surprise, with these various departments.
Until November 12 what I have suggested would mean, if it is accepted by the house, that on Mondays and Tuesdays we would spend our time on supply motions, and up until that time we would take every Thursday and Friday evening for the consideration of estimates. All that would leave to the government for the consideration of its legislative program-which hon. members who look at the order paper can see is quite extensive- would be the brief time on Wednesdays and a somewhat longer time than usual on Thursdays, although there would not be much difference because of the extra hour on Wednesdays, and of course a little longer time on Fridays, because on Friday we sit in the morning. Hon. members would know those three days would be devoted normally to legislation, and the two evenings would be devoted to the estimates.
The only alternative that the government thinks is feasible, if the house is to do the business we were elected to do and sent here to do, is to have Saturday sittings. The government would rather not have them- much rather-and I think the house would rather not have them. It did seem to us- and I think this was the view of all those who discussed this matter through the usual channels-that if we could have available these extra five hours of sitting, which is after all not a great deal of additional time- and I have several interesting observations by the Leader of the Opposition when he was on this side of the house, on that particular point-and they were made available in the way I suggest, it would not put any undue burden on any hon. member. It would, moreover, have this great advantage; that we would not have to resort to morning sittings, which are very difficult for hon. members who are trying conscientiously to serve on committees, and are very difficult also for the government because, as hon. gentlemen on the front benches opposite will know the government does require some time to give consideration to the matters it is going to bring before the house if the business of the house is to be carried on in an orderly way.
It is because we do not believe we could conscientiously go on and hope to dispatch the business required to be dispatched before the end of this session, and end it in this calendar
3858	HOUSE OF
Extension of Hours of Sitting year, that I am reluctantly putting this motion forward without the unanimous consent which I had hoped, and indeed rather expected, would be forthcoming when the discussions took place among the representatives of the other groups. I think it will be no secret in any part of the house that in fact I did make some modification in the proposal I was then making, in order to meet the suggestions put forward and in an attempt to accommodate the opposition. I simply state that as a fact.
I had hoped that by proceeding in the most conciliatory manner possible we could have a real understanding about this question and not take up a lot of the time of the house in discussing how and when we would do the business that it is our duty to do.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it would be rather unfortunate if the time of the house were taken up in a lengthy debate on a problem such as this, but this is the type of thing that perhaps happens when pressure is put on a house unnecessarily. Despite the problems that face this parliament, we nevertheless must recognize the fact that on both sides of this house we now have more people who have had experience of government than was the case for 22 years. This parliament, in so far as the Liberal party and the Conservative party are concerned, is in a better position to settle problems such as the sitting hours of the house because on both sides we know the responsibilities of an opposition and the responsibilities that weigh upon a government. So there is no better time than this year, by consultation and agreement, to settle the method of conducting the affairs of this parliament.
I think it is rather unfortunate that the house leader has presented us with the motion for debate today without further consultation, and without amendment to that motion. In discharging our responsibilities as an opposition we recognize the fact, and have often stated, that we think the hours of sitting of the House of Commons should be extended. I have been of that opinion for many years. There we have agreement; we are in favour of extending the hours.
Then we come down to deciding how the hours should be extended. In this particular instance we have an alternative suggestion to make which I relayed to the house leader's office yesterday noon. I understand the objections to morning sittings. We found out from our experience on the government side that morning sittings are not the best by any means. Every hon. member realizes that with House of Commons committee work going on, morning sittings are awkward, so we agree


with the house leader that morning sittings might be ruled out at the present time.
The house leader suggested that our proposal for meeting at two o'clock in the afternoon rather than 2.30 would not materially add to the conduct of the business of this house. With that I disagree. Meeting at two o'clock rather than 2.30 would add half an hour per day to our sittings, and that half hour would be used just as effectively as the half hour from 2.30 to 3, or, as it used to be in days gone by, from 3 to 3.30. So I do not see the value of his argument with regard to ruling out two o'clock as the time for assembly of this house.
The house leader bases a great deal of his argument on the fact that we still have before us four supply motions. He says that it is the government's intention to take these four supply motions during the next four weeks. This strikes me as quite unnecessary. There are nine weeks still available between now and the last week before Christmas, and supply motions are normally spread out and not crowded together one after the other. May I point out to the house leader that on some occasions in this house not all of the supply motions have been used. It has occurred on more than one occasion as the session has drawn to its close that the opposition has not made use of a supply motion That is a consideration which might be before us in this particular parliament. I think it would be very unwise indeed to crowd in four supply motions in the next four weeks, rather than to get on with government legislation and spread out the supply motions over the next nine weeks. Four in a row would be, in my opinion, extremely bad.
The house leader is concerned at the passing of the estimates for this year. I pointed out the other day that in an election year, the calendar year in which an election occurs, the house should very properly telescope the time for consideration of estimates. That was done in the election year of 1953 and also in the election year of 1949. It was not done in the election year of 1957 or the election year of 1962. But that is where the opposition plays its part, and I was making the very co-operative suggestion that this year, an election year, the time spent on estimates might very well be shortened; and it lies within the hands of the opposition to do that very thing.
I had hoped that the house leader would have come half way with me on that. An opposition realizes its position when it makes an offer of that sort, and in the interests of the proper conduct of business I think this should be considered by oppositions which

have a responsibility to this parliament just the same as the people on the government side. Then again the official opposition party, in its turn, should be considering that it will form the government of the future, and parliament then continues by a proper method. So there is a responsibility on an official opposition which is not enjoyed perhaps by other groups on the opposition side of the house.
I am not entering into the controversy with regard to how estimates were dealt with in the calendar year 1957 and the calendar year 1962, which makes a full story in itself. But I am suggesting that for this year, an election year, as responsible people we might make some arrangement which will fit into the problem facing the house leader, and at the same time discharge our duty to the country. I think estimates should not be brushed to one side, as some people infer from the suggestion put before us, because there are people here who will argue that the primary duty of parliament when it assembles is to deal with supply, to conduct the business of the country; that the secondary duty-or if you do not want to put it as secondary it is certainly on the same level-is to concern itself with legislative matters. But there are many legislative items on the order paper which are simply amendments to acts now on the statute books, and it would be difficult to argue that some of those items are of the same pressing urgency as the passing of supply for the conduct of the business of this country. So estimates should not be just brushed to one side; they should be brought forward and dealt with, and dealt with quickly. There are people here who will argue effectively that the estimates for each year should be brought forward much more rapidly than they have been during the last ten years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, unless the house leader is prepared to let his motion stand and continue further consultations among the parties of this house, I will be obliged to move an amendment to this motion. I wait for a response from the house leader. If he is willing to let this stand and consult again with the various parties I will not move an amendment, and this debate might be terminated within 30 seconds.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would not mind indicating the kind of amendment he has in mind. I could not be expected to reach a conclusion without knowing what I was talking about.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am prepared to indicate that our suggestion will add not just five hours to the sitting hours, but five and a half. It will increase the weekly sittings from 25 J hours to 31, and it means adding
Extension of Hours of Sitting half an hour each day at the opening of the house-that is to say, coming in here at two o'clock instead of 2.30 Monday through Friday -and shortening the dinner hour and coming back into the house at seven o'clock on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. There are three hours there, so you have an addition of five and a half hours to the time that we engage in this house.
Then may I also point out that those of us who have been here a number of years know perfectly well that when we approach the end of a session the house generally agrees without formal motion to sit the extra hours which are required in the last two weeks, whether it is Wednesday night or Friday night or a Saturday. I am opposed to Saturday sittings as early as this in a session. We tried that out one year and it was a failure. But I am not opposed, and I do not think the members of the Conservative party are opposed, to sitting say on two Saturdays some time in December if that is necessary to pass some of the unfinished business. But all this can be arranged as the business of the house progresses. If it is not agreeable to the house leader to consult on this matter, I would therefore move that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman should have an answer to his question before he puts the motion, and I am afraid the answer must be the answer I have already given; namely, that the government does not regard the half hour each day as being effectively half an hour, particularly as on Mondays and Tuesdays we would not be dealing with government business. The hour on Mondays and Tuesdays for the next four weeks, so long as we have supply motions, will not facilitate what we have in mind. Therefore I think the hon. gentleman should put his amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Under the amendment which has been suggested a total of three and a half hours would be available to the government and a total of three hours would be of benefit to the opposition. In the light of the way this house is divided, surely the Secretary of State would agree that all the matters discussed in this house constitute public business. I would point out too that the opposition is, in a sense, under the gun, because there are to be four supply motions in a row, a situation which is altogether unprecedented. The hon. gentleman may shake his head, but I repeat that it is unprecedented to arrange our business in this way. I would hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State would see fit to accept the suggestion made by my hon. friend.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman might as well put his motion.

Extension of Hours of Sitting


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then, to place the question formally before the house, I move, seconded by my hon. friend from Ontario:
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after ''that" and by substituting therefor the following:
The hours of sitting shall be as follows:
Monday, 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Tuesday, 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Wednesday, 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Thursday, 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Friday, 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.
And that in relation thereto the provision of standing order No. 6 shall be suspended.
Then I include the balance of the motion pertaining to the private members' hour on Wednesday.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group have already intimated our intention to co-operate in the adoption of hours of sitting outlined in the motion.


An hon. Member:: Naturally.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Yes, naturally, because we have learned a few things even though members of the official opposition have not. We have indicated our readiness to co-operate because we are convinced that if this house is to discharge its responsibilities to the people of Canada there has to be some way of expediting the progress of business. We felt the suggestions which were made were such as to help us in the discharge of those responsibilities. We are prepared to carry through the commitment we made when the representatives of the parties met together.
A number of suggestions have since been made as to how the motion might be modified so as to make it more acceptable to everyone. Reference has been made to the four supply motions which it is proposed shall be discussed week by week. Opposition has been expressed to this arrangement because, it is stated, the motions are being crowded together when they ought to be spread out. However, I am sure every member who was here at the time realizes that last year they were spread out so far that we never did get to them. I am sure we do not want a repetition of what took place on the last occasion as far as the estimates are concerned.
The house leader of the official opposition party intimated that he and his colleagues had learned something while they were in office, that they did not believe morning sessions were beneficial. There are other things which perhaps they should have learned in that connection. But we are convinced that one of the important tasks before us is to get the business of the nation taken care of and the estimates passed, after due consideration, in order that we shall not find ourselves being asked to vote interim supply month by month

until practically the whole year's estimates have been dealt with in this way.
Therefore we are prepared to support any action which would help us to accomplish the business before us.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: think we as members of the House of Commons ought to be concerned about the public image which we are projecting on the Canadian scene. I believe that in the eyes of the Canadian public we are making a ludicrous spectacle of parliament. Everyone knows the heavy agenda which still faces the House of Commons. Most of the departmental estimates have still to be dealt with and, in addition, there are vital pieces of legislation on the order paper. There are debates which ought to take place on public policies and public programs. In spite of all this we have spent at least half of the time since we reassembled on September 30 in carrying on a partisan wrangle as to whether it is the Liberals or Conservatives who are most responsible for the mess we are in. I submit that the people of Canada do not care how we got into the mess. They want to know how we are going to get out of it.
We in this party conceive it to be the duty of the opposition to scrutinize spending, to deal with the estimates, to examine legislation critically, and to offer alternative policies, and to do all this as expeditiously as possible. We do not deem it to be the function of the opposition to carry ori a program of obstruction which would grind parliament to a halt so that the government is reduced to a state of impotence; for if the government is reduced to a state of impotence it reflects not only upon the government but upon parliament itself.


An hon. Member:: A good speech to have made last year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Members of the Conservative party refer to last year, and I am prepared to agree that there was a program of obstruction carried on last year. I submit that this is precisely what is bedeviling the present session of parliament; the official opposition has spent most of its time fighting last year's battles instead of dealing with the problems which confront us today.
We in the New Democratic party are suggesting three things which we think might be done to expedite the business of this house. The first is that we pass the motion which has been presented by the Secretary of State.
The amendment which has been offered by the member for Winnipeg South Centre suggests an increase of five and a half hours a week in our sittings, three hours of which

will be used up in debating supply motions. This will do nothing to provide additional time for the transaction of government business. All it will do will be to enable a longer period of debate on motions of no confidence. We do not think the amendment will meet the siutation which confronts the house. It might be that modifications could be arrived at by agreement. However, I understand the house leaders have met and have done their very best to resolve the matter, without success; and as in my view the government's proposal is not unreasonable I think the house should accept it.
The second proposal this party wishes to place before the house is that we should give some consideration, for this session only, to dispensing with two of the supply motions. There are four remaining, and if the Leader of the Opposition is correctly reported in the press he has said he intends to move no confidence amendments to all four of these supply motions. This means that two days out of every week for the next four weeks will be spent debating these no confidence motions. Forty per cent of the time will go in debating no confidence motions.
In a normal session of parliament I certainly would fight very hard for the retention of the maximum amount of time the opposition is allowed to move motions of no confidence and to censure the government where they think that is necessary, but with the tremendous program before the house now and all the things we have to do in the very limited period of time remaining we would be prepared to forgo two of these supply motion debates. If there is not general agreement on that, could we agree to limiting the debate on each supply motion to one day, having one or two speakers from each of the major parties and one from each of the smaller parties and confining the debate on these supply motions to one day each? This would give us another four days which could be devoted to public business.
I noticed that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre objected to the idea of calling four supply motions one right after the other, yet at the same time he is crying for the estimates to be discussed. He cannot have it both ways, and I think the sooner the departments are opened up, the sooner we get a chance to express our opinions on these various departmental estimates and to ask the government questions, the better it will be.
The third suggestion I wish to make is one I indicated yesterday. I should like to see us agree to proceed with the motion now on the order paper to set up the parliamentary committee to review the procedures of the house,
Extension of Hours of Sitting and do so either without debate or with agreement among the parties to restrict the debate to one or two speakers from each party. I think it is imperative that this committee be set up with the least possible delay.
One reason we are in difficulty in this parliament, as we were in the last one, is the fact that we are operating under procedures which were established to meet the pace of the Victorian era and not to cope with the tremendous volume of business confronting us in this modern age. When I first entered the House of Commons government expenditures were a little over $500 million. Today they are twelve times that amount. There are a great many more departments and a great many more programs than there were then, and we are going to have to revise the procedures of the house if we are going to carry on public business with efficiency and dispatch.
Therefore we suggest these three things; that we accept the motion, pass it and get down to business; that the house leaders or, if necessary, the party leaders consider cutting down the remaining supply motions to two for this session only, or restricting the debate to one day if that can be arranged; and that we set up the parliamentary committee to review the procedures of the house, either without debate or with a very limited period of debate.
I am convinced that if we do these three things we can carry on the public business of Canada with efficiency and dispatch. What is equally important, we can convey to the people of Canada the impression, which they do not now have, that we are serious about making parliamentary government effective and efficient.


Mr. Speaker:: With the usual reservations, I recognize the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire).


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to accept the suggestions made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickers-gill) to extend the hours of sitting so that we can at least accomplish something in the house.
I shall not labour the point because I think that just about everything has been said on the matter. But I would have another suggestion to make to the Secretary of State.
I note that we are asked to give up the Wednesday hour which is usually reserved for notices of motions and public bills, that is bills brought before the house by hon. members. We see no objection to giving up another hour each week to expedite the business of the house, but we should like that hour to be taken on another day than

Extension of Hours of Sitting Wednesday because that is the day for consideration of private bills. For instance, there is the bill concerning the Allstate which was first discussed on a Thursday, then brought back on a Wednesday and taken up once again on another Wednesday, to be finally postponed until the end of the session. And when, at the end of the session, we come back to that Allstate bill and the one concerning the Pharmacy Board of Canada, there will be another hour completely lost.
I would therefore ask the Secretary of State to consider the possibility of cutting out the hour for private bills rather than the one for public bills.
If the Secretary of State is prepared to accept that suggestion, we would be ready to co-operate and to accept the extension of the hours of sitting so that we can pass the legislation now before the house. It is not that we care to pass that income tax legislation, for we would rather not have it on the order paper and we would prefer another legislation. But so that we can go on with the ordinary business, we are prepared to accept the motion to extend the hours of sitting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can make a snap judgment on this request, but I would be glad to discuss it in the usual way; and if there was general agreement that some other day than Wednesday would be preferable to the house, it would not matter very much to the government. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre did make the suggestion because Wednesday is a very short day, and it really means that by the time we have dealt with questions and motions for papers there is very little time for anything else. From the government's point of view it really is the most convenient day, but I do not rule out the possibility of its being exchanged for some other day if all hon. members would prefer it.


Mr. Knowles:: Is not that point a very simple one to take care of? The order of priority as between Tuesday and Wednesday could be switched by agreement, and the point could be readily met.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the point could be met in one way or another.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonion-Sirafhcona):: Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestion made by the house leader of the official opposition that this debate be adjourned showed considerable merit as I listened to subsequent speakers. It is obvious that everyone in the house is ready


to co-operate by accepting longer hours, but the question of what those hours should be has not been settled. From what has been said it would seem that the problem is one that can be worked out through consultation.
I should like to point out to the house something no one else has commented on, the fact that the longest hours are at the tail end of the week. It seems to me that if we expect to get a lot of work done, the best time to do that work is when we are fresh after a rest on the week end. Logically Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday would be the best time. No other day has as many working hours as are now proposed for Friday. If I have a chance to go home on a week end, which I have not as yet, I should like to be able to leave at noon on Friday so I can get home by Friday night. If these hours are adopted I must miss a full day's sitting to do so.
I suggest that the house seriously consider adjourning this debate and try once more to work out hours that are agreeable to all parties. There is nothing so sacred about the rules that we cannot change the days for government business. The situation in respect of the supply motions could be discussed. I should like to see these suggestions discussed, bearing in mind the fact that the most important point is already agreed upon, namely that we would all like to sit longer hours. Why can we not work out a sensible agreement? I do not think this one is sensible.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Churchill) negatived, on division.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on the main motion. Shall the motion carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull) moved:: That the second report of the standing committee on privileges and elections, presented to this house on Wednesday, October 9, 1963, be now concurred in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic party to register our opposition to the motion for concurrence in the second report of the standing committee on privileges and elections.
There are three things which I wish to make very clear at the outset of my remarks. First, I wish to make it clear that at the conclusion of my remarks I shall move an amendment. My amendment will be in the form that is provided in connection with committee reports. The gist of it will be that the house should instruct the committee to reconsider the matter and make another recommendation proposing that the members of groups on this side of the house, other than those in the official opposition, be seated in the house according to the numerical strength of the groups to which they belong. I shall develop that proposal later, but I just wish to make it clear that that is the position we in this party take.
The second point I wish to make clear, although I am sure it must already be very obvious, is that we in the New Democratic party have nothing whatever to gain by our opposition to the motion for concurrence. We have nothing whatever to gain by the terms of the amendment I shall move. The committee's report recommends that our party be moved up in this house to a position alongside the official opposition. I say, therefore, we have nothing to gain. As a matter of fact, if as a result of our debating this motion it were, in the end, to be defeated, we would have something to lose. It must be clear, therefore, that we are taking the stand we do on the basis of principle.
The third thing I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, is that our stand has nothing to do with whether we like or dislike any member or any group of members in this house. This does not matter one iota. I confess that having sat alongside the members of the Social Credit group, speaking of them in their totality, I have come to feel, if I may be so presumptuous as to say so, that a member like the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard) is the type of member we like to have in this house. He is making a good contribution. I do not stop there. I like the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard). I like the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Ouellet).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I must say at the same time, Mr. Speaker, that I do not like the tactics of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). I do not like the threats he has made to the House of Commons and to parliament. There are times when I do not
Privileges and Elections like the tactics of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). I do enjoy the way he moves out in front when he speaks, and sometimes I think that with a little push he would be over on the other side of the house. I do not need to go over the whole list of these members to indicate those I like or dislike. The point I am making is that our decision has nothing to do with whether we like or dislike individual members, whether we like or dislike a particular group. There are members in this house who do not like me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They think I am a nuisance in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I gather that there is fairly general support for that proposition. However, the fact is that I was elected. I am here, and I have my rights. The 13 members who now say that they are supporters of the hon. member for Villeneuve were elected as members of the House of Commons. They were elected just as clearly as was the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) or the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) or any of the other hon. members who are here. They have their rights. We must consider a matter such as that which is now before us, not on the basis of what we think about members or what we think about parties, but on the basis of what is the correct thing for us to do.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the question which has arisen results from the fact that a group of members who, when the house met in May, were united, has fallen into two sections or two units. As a result, before we came back on September 30, a request was made to Your Honour by each of these groups to be recognized and seated as a group. This matter, at Your Honour's suggestion, was referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.
In my submission the only issue that faced us, the only issue that was really before the standing committee on privileges and elections, was the question of the seating arrangements in this House of Commons. I think the standing committee has gone completely off base by going into the area of making a decision as to what parties are to be recognized in this house, and what party or parties are not to be recognized. In totalitarian states the governments, the majorities, decide what parties are official and what parties are not official, but in no free democracy has any parliamentary majority or government the say as to what party is official and what party is to be recognized.

Privileges and Elections
The aspect which strikes me as offensive about the report, concurrence in which has been moved, is that it seems to imply that the New Democratic party is to be recognized as such, and that the Social Credit party is to be recognized as such. In the case of these two groups we wish that recognition; but then the report says that the other 13 hon. members, who say they wish to be known by a certain name and to be recognized as such, are not to be given the same treatment and consideration as is given to other groups in the house. They are referred to in the report not by any name they themselves have chosen but as a group of members under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve, and although they are referred to as a collection in that way. they are treated as second class in that the report says that the question of their privileges should be studied by an officer of the House of Commons, who in turn should report to Your Honour.
I think there is a lot that is wrong with that fourth part of the report, and even if the house does not accept the amendment I propose I hope it will delete that fourth part. The two main things wrong with it are that it refers to an officer of the house a matter that, if it is to be decided at all, should be decided by Your Honour, and second that it makes a distinction between groups in the House of Commons. It says two of the smaller parties in the house have a right to certain recognition and a right to the names they chose, but the third smaller party in the house is in a second class position.
I stress the point that we do not like it when we hear of countries in other parts of the world where a government declares a certain party is not to be allowed or is not official. We have not liked it in the history of the past when in some countries certain parties have been eliminated from the state altogether. We are not doing that. No one is denying the right of these 13 members to be in the house. They cannot be denied that right under our free democratic system; but to take a step in that direction, when a majority of the committee or a majority of the house makes a decision, when it puts it on the record of the house that first one party is official and has its place, that another party is official and has its place in the house, but that a third group does not have the same rights and that its privileges must be referred to someone for study, I submit that in principle this is dangerous, and that it establishes a precedent that could come back to haunt us in the days that lie ahead.
In our Hansard every Wednesday we have a list appended thereto of the members of the House of Commons, and at the end of each

line is the party designation that a member chooses. The names are there, and it has never been submitted to a vote of the house as to whether members have the right to have their party designation as they wish it. Why, we even have one member of the cabinet, and we understand it is a Liberal government that is in power, whose party designation in every Wednesday's Hansard differs from that of all others on that side of the house. He is the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Has it ever been submitted to a decision of the house whether he can call himself Liberal-Labour rather than Liberal?
The fact is that across the years each party in the house has changed its name at one time or another. That goes for all of us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; read the Parliamentary Guide. You will find there was a day when the Liberal party was known as the Laurier Liberals and at times they were the Liberal Progressives. The Conservatives were Liberal Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives and National Conservatives. We all have had our different names but, Mr. Speaker, no party has ever had to get approval by parliament of its name or its status.
We come here as individual members elected to represent our constituencies. I recall the debate which we had on a bill introduced by the former member for Wetaskiwin, Mr. Thomas, calling for the party names to be put on the ballots at election time, and the suggestion was that it be done merely for identification purposes. Some of us supported that bill but the overwhelming majority, the Liberals and the Conservatives, opposed it, using mainly the argument that men and women get elected not as candidates of a party but as members who on being elected represent the whole of a constituency, and that when they came to parliament they should be free to exercise their judgment as to where they sit and what they support. The question of what hon. members do is left to the individual hon. member.
I assert that it will be a sorry day if, by a majority vote of this house, we say certain parties are official and that one party is not official and is not to be recognized. The Liberal party has never been voted on by the House of Commons, either as to its name or as to its status as a party. This has never been done for the Conservative party either. The Conservative party never had to submit its constitution to parliament and never had to prove that its leader was properly elected. We never had to do that in the days of the C.C.F., nor have we had to do so as New Democrats.

We do not want a motion passed that parliament recognizes us. We do not need the recognition of a majority of the house. That could be given one day and taken away the next. We are a free party in a free country, in a country that emphasizes the principles of political democracy, and we will take a wrong step if we approve what is in the motion before the house at this time.
I stress the point that this has nothing to do with what advantage we gain from it. We have nothing to gain by opposing this motion. It has nothing to do with which members of which group in the Social Credit aggregation that we favour. We think the basic principle, of whether or not a majority decides that a party is official or not official, is a very serious matter.
I know that some will say there are various precedents from the past to look at it in this respect. I myself pointed out on September 30, when I first raised the point of privilege, that in 1935 and 1940 the C.C.F. groups in those parliaments were seated ahead of the Social Credit groups of those days, despite the fact that Social Credit had more members in each of those parliaments. I indicated on the basis of that precedent that I had contended in 1962 that it should be followed in our case at that time. That was refused. The house accepted the decision of Mr. Speaker Michener, confirmed by Mr. Speaker Lambert, that the numerical strength was the point that counted.
If I may review the previous instances, it is true that there are at least three instances when parties smaller in size sat higher than larger parties. There were the two cases I have just now referred to, when the C.C.F. party sat ahead of the Social Crediters. The other interesting case in history was in the 1921-25 parliament, when the Conservatives had fewer members than the Progressives and yet were the official opposition.
In all three of these cases, where smaller groups sat ahead of the larger groups, there was no contesting of the matter. In no case did the larger group contest the right of the smaller group. In the 1921 case the larger group did not want the position of official opposition, but in all cases where a larger group has asserted its right to be seated ahead of the smaller group it has been accepted, as happened in 1962 and 1963 when the Social Crediters were seated ahead of us. However, I repeat that in 1962 we established the principle that numerical strength is what counts.
I would say we were making a mistake if we were to change that principle and go back to the other one, back to the principle of history or what have you; but what this
Privileges and Elections report does is even worse. This report is based on both principles. It seats the New Democratic party first among three smaller parties because it has the larger number, because we have 17 members and the other groups have 13 and 11 respectively; but having started with that principle it changes in midstream and seats 11 members ahead of 13 members, on the argument that the 11 members presented themselves to the electorate as a party in the election of 1963, and on the contention that the others did not do so.
I ask hon. members, where in the elections act is there anything that says parties present themselves to the people as such? I ask hon. members, where in the Senate and House of Commons Act, or the British North America Act, or in Beauchesne or standing orders is there anything to support the contention that there is some point on the basis upon which people are presented to the electorate at election times? We come here as individuals. We come here free to move about. In most parliaments an individual here or there changes from one party to another. There have been changes of government. For example, in the 1926 parliament a government was defeated and another party moved over and formed the government. There were changes during the first world war. Parliament is not confined to the situation that obtains on any day; it consists of individual members of parliament who have the right to use their best judgment as to whom they should support and whom they should oppose.
It seems to me, therefore, that on principle there is no question about what we should do; that is, stick with the question of numerical strength which was accepted in the last parliament and in this one, and which has always been accepted whenever a larger group contended that it should be seated above a smaller group. Mr. Speaker, there are some-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt for just a moment. I have the greatest difficulty in hearing the hon. member up here, and I wonder whether hon. members could carry on their conversations outside rather than inside the chamber.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members and some people have asked questions about this in the newspapers. They are wondering about the $4,000 that was provided for in the bill of last July for leaders of parties, other than the official opposition, having 12 or more recognized members in the house. This section of that act has been quoted by some people as defining a party. I do not think it does anything of the kind. It merely gives a definition with respect to
3666	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Privileges and Elections the person who shall receive this extra $4,000.
I think it is rather unfortunate that this should confuse the issue. But I would like to point out that any suggestion now being made that a person cannot receive that extra allowance unless he presented himself to the electorate at election time as the leader of a group going to come into the house raises the question of what happened in the parliament of 1940 to 1945. Dr. Manion was the leader of the Conservative party in that election. He lost his seat. When the party came into the house it chose Hon. R. B. Hanson to be its house leader. He was not chosen at a party convention; he had not presented himself to the electorate as the leader of the official opposition. He was chosen by his group in the house as their leader, and he drew the salary of the leader of the official opposition. In 1942 he resigned from that position and the Conservative group in the house-and some of them are still here- chose the late Gordon Graydon to be their house leader. Having been elected by the majority of his group in the house, the largest group on the opposition side, he drew his salary as leader of the official opposition.
I suggest that to argue now that because the hon. member for Villeneuve was not the leader of the party at election time he therefore cannot be so considered is really trying to twist the statute to make it read the way one wants it to read. Maybe there are legal arguments as to why he is not entitled to the $4,000, but surely that is a matter for the courts to decide. We have passed a statute. We do not interpret our own statutes; I do not think that is up to us at all. I think, if I may say so, that is one point I was able to make before the committee on privileges and elections. It was agreed there that we had nothing to decide about that matter. I only mention it because it has come into the argument. But I suggest the point that should be considered is the position that obtained in the 1940 to 1945 parliament.
As I have already said, although some may wonder why I am stressing the point, we have nothing to gain by pressing this amendment, because the report if adopted moves us up next to the official opposition and if my amendment carries, so far as we are concerned there will be the same result. Therefore we are not grinding our own axe; we have nothing to gain. Neither are we defending the principles of those who follow the hon. member for Villeneuve because of any sympathy for their policies. We do not believe in them; everybody knows that. I have already indicated any likes or dislikes I might personally have, but I think it is that sort of thing we have to put aside.

I address my appeal particularly to the members on the Liberal side of the house and I ask them to face up to the position they find themselves in because of this motion. Here is a division of opinion between the 11 members of the Social Credit party, whose recognized leader is the hon. member for Red Deer, and the 13 members of the Rallie-ment des Creditistes, whose leader is the hon. member for Villeneuve. Here is a division between them as to which group should be seated closer to the Speaker, the 11 or the 13. One group will vote for itself, the other group will vote for itself. It is how the Liberals vote that will determine the issue. It does not matter how the Conservatives and New Democratic party vote; we cannot affect the issue; we will be outnumbered by the Liberals and either Social Credit group. Whether we vote one way or the other, it is the Liberal vote that will determine the outcome of this issue.
This means that in this House of Commons -as was the case in the committee on privileges and elections-the Liberal party will be making the decision as to which of these two parties comes ahead of the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If a decision is made that 11 take priority over 13, it will be the Liberals who make the decision; it will be the Liberals who will have to defend it; it will be the Liberals who will have to give the country the rationalization for that decision. It will take on the appearance of the Liberals having wanted it a certain way and therefore just finding the arguments or reasons to do it. So I urge very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that the house consider the seriousness of this question. It is not just this group of members, because they may all be out after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of us might even hope they are defeated at the next election, but this kind of treatment will not defeat them. This kind of treatment, if given to their representatives in this house, will make them heroes, will make them martyrs back where they come from and might cause them to come back here in larger numbers after the next election than they have now.
Apart from that, I contend that the crucial thing we are dealing with today is whether in our kind of parliamentary democracy, in our kind of free society, it lies with any government or any majority of the House of Commons to make a decision which says that certain parties are official and a certain group which wishes to be known as a party is not official.

We went into all the history and the story of the Granby convention in the committee on privileges and elections. We went back into the origins of the Ralliement des credi-tistes and the origins of the Social Credit party, but I think this is irrelevant. Here we have a simple situation. We have three smaller parties, 17, 13 and 11 in numbers, each of which is claiming a position according to its numerical strength; and any attempt to alter that numerical strength is, I suggest, pushing things around the way one wants them for some unexplained, undeclared reason.
As the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam said a short time ago on another matter, this would not be good for parliament as a whole. We need to be concerned about the image parliament is projecting to the country at this time. I do not think it would improve the image we are projecting if parliament by its majority decided that 11 was more than 13, and that the 13 are not to have the privileges accorded to the others. This would not be good for the reputation of parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That the second report of the committee on privileges and elections be not now concurred in but that it be referred back to the said committee with instruction to amend it so as to recommend that members of the opposition who belong to groups other than the official opposition be seated in the House of Commons according to the numerical strength of their respective groups.
Mr. Speaker, you will notice that that amendment says nothing at all about recognition of groups. We do not need to be recognized by a vote of the House of Commons, any more than do the Liberals or Conservatives. Neither does the Social Credit party nor the Ralliement des creditistes. The amendment deals with the only thing which, in my view, we have the right to deal with, which is a procedural arrangement-the arrangement of the seating of members of this House of Commons. I think this amendment avoids the pitfall which is in the main motion, and I earnestly hope the house will give serious consideration to it.
I know that in the standing committee on privileges and elections when I moved a similar amendment it was defeated overwhelmingly. The only people voting for it were the members of the New Democratic party and the representative of the Ralliement des creditistes; the others voted the other way. But in the meantime this matter has been discussed in the public press. There have been editorials on it, and I think even some members of the committee have had second thoughts. I hope we will avoid taking a step which just seems to be doing what
Privileges and Elections certain people want to be done, and that we will accept the principle we accepted in 1962 and again this year, which is that members are seated as far as their parties are concerned according to their party's numerical strength. Let us stay with this principle that we are here as members of parliament representing our constituencies. Nobody has the right to say whether or not our parties are official. Party affiliation is the right of each individual member. If the Liberals wish to be Liberals, let them be Liberals. If the Conservatives wish to be Conservatives, let them have that status. We are the New Democratic party, and there are 11 members who wish to be known as the Social Credit party, and that is their right. There are 13 members who wish to be known as the Ralliement des creditistes, and I suggest that all we have to do, all we have the right to do, is to decide the seating order. That is the purpose of the amendment I have moved, and which I ask the house to support.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have to represent the views of the official Social Credit party before the house in these few remarks. Even if I tried to make believe that I have nothing to gain by supporting the second report of the committee on privileges and elections people would not believe me as easily as they would the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). But I believe that in concluding his remarks, he said that his action was not motivated by thoughts as noble as those which could motivate the stand I took or will take, for he simply told us that he does want the group led by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) to be recognized, because he is afraid that they may be re-elected at the next election, should they not be recognized now.
This is not our attitude. Our attitude is based on facts and legality.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre talks for instance of the status of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Benidickson), I believe that he forgets to replace the facts within the time context.
The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys was elected under a Liberal-Labour ticket, not under a Ralliement des creditistes ticket, and that is why he has a right to use the epithet "Liberal-Labour". But such is not the case of the supporters of the hon. member for Villeneuve, for they have not been elected under Ralliement des creditistes ticket.
In this whole situation, we must replace the facts within their time context. We

Privileges and Elections believe that the followers of the hon. member for Villeneuve cannot be recognized as a party because they were not elected as such; they were elected under a National Social Credit ticket. Now, after the election, they decided to withdraw from the Social Credit party, and in my opinion, they must be recognized as independents.
But I believe we could show our good will by accepting the report from the committee on privileges and elections, and particularly clause 4 of that report which states that the question of the privileges to be enjoyed by the group under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve be referred to the parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons for study and report to the Speaker.
I think that is being remarkably generous toward the 12 hon. members who are following the hon. member for Villeneuve, because never was so much importance given to independents who, at a certain moment, cease to be so independent by grouping themselves under a leader.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the house can take a decision on the amendment proposed by the member for Winnipeg North Centre who, as a matter of fact, said he was not satisfied with the representations his party made before the committee on privileges and elections. Indeed, he felt so unsatisfied that now he would like to have his own point of view recognized by the house.
I feel that is not a normal procedure because, when the committee met, he had a chance to express his opinion, which was rejected through a vote, and now he would like to refer the decision back to the committee. But the committee's meetings are over and the matter has been held up long enough already.
In order to be able in the light of past events to appreciate on its true merit the action taken by the 13 members by leaving the national Social Credit party, it is imperative to recall the facts which resulted in this split.
Last June, at the meeting of the national executive of the Social Credit party, the executive had tried to abolish the position of Social Credit co-leader without referring the matter to the national convention of the Social Credit party.
At that time, I objected in all sincerity to such an action being taken, even by the national executive of the party, because it had no right to amend the constitution without consulting the national convention. I decided then to support the Social Credit co-leader who is now the leader of the Ralliement des creditistes.
However, Mr. Speaker, the step taken by the national council filled the deputy leader


with a spirit of revenge which was obvious at the Granby convention when he decided to do himself justice and even to abolish the position-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) is no different from any of us. In my opinion, he is out of order when he casts suspicion on the intentions of the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Gérard Chapdelaine: I do not doubt the intentions; I am merely stating facts.
What occurred was bound to happen. The leader of the Ralliement des creditistes-


Mr. Belanger:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Gérard Chapdelaine: -who then obtained a-


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: In my opinion, the hon. member for Sherbrooke should restrict his remarks to the matter now under discussion. The reason why we separated and chose a new leader is no business of the house at all and has nothing to do with the decision to be made.
The matter to be settled is whether we are entitled to be recognized as third or fourth party and not why we chose a new leader. Since this matter is one of internal administration within a political party, I suggest that you ask the hon. member to confine himself to the question under discussion.


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I stated at the outset that I wanted to throw as much light as possible on the matter in order to dispel any doubts this house might still entertain. That is precisely what I am doing at the moment, and it leads me to examine the rights of this group. The status of the 13 members who abandoned the national Social Credit party is exactly along the line I have taken to enlighten the house.
Mr. Speaker, during the Granby convention, when the decision to separate was taken, it seems to me that the intentions of the national party were stated clearly and unequivocally in a press release which reads as follows:

Released by Martin Kelin, national president of the Social Credit Association of Canada.
It is apparent from the speeches and resolutions at the Granby convention of Le Ralliement des Creditistes as led by Mr. Real Caouette that Le Ralliement no longer desires affiliation with the Social Credit Association of Canada. This is underlined by the fact that they have rejected the duly elected leader, Mr. Robert Thompson, who was confirmed in his capacity as leader by the national executive less than two months ago. In addition to this Le Ralliement has never seen fit to pay their affiliation fee as demanded by the constitution of

the Social Credit Association, as other provinces have done.
The association, recognizing their desire not to be affiliated with the Social Credit movement in Canada, accepts the wish to resign of Mr. Caouette and his followers.
The Social Credit Association of Canada believes that there are farsighted, sound thinking people in the province of Quebec who would like to be linked with the association across Canada. We invite these people to seek affiliation with us, along with the Quebec M.P.'s who have indicated their support of Mr. Thompson as leader, and the principles for which he stands.

Mr. Speaker, thus we see quite clearly that the decision taken by the 13 members, along with the member for Villeneuve, was at that time accepted by the national party as a decision not affecting in any way the status of the Social Credit party. That is precisely the understanding given by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) who, during the sittings of the committee on privileges and elections, stated at first that a new party had been formed, while, a few moments later, he said that it was still the same party which remained within the framework of the greater Social Credit party, the Ralliement des creditistes.
And to corroborate these assertions, let me quote a number of statements made by the hon. member for Lapointe during the sittings of the committee on privileges and elections. They show up to what point, when the decision was taken, it was the intention of the Ralliement des creditistes to leave the national party, and how that idea was without foundation and rather vague as to their right to come to such a decision.
Let us take note of the statements made by Mr. Caouette, especially the letter which Mr. Gregoire sent you on September 9, and which reads as follows:
I hereby wish to inform you that the Social Credit party has chosen a new leader. Mr. Real Caouette, member for the riding of Villeneuve.
While in the letter sent to you on September 30 it is written that the annual convention held at Granby had reached that decision with 1,500 delegates taking part in the proceedings, here it is said that it is not the convention of the Social Credit party but the creation of a new party.
Now, Mr. Speaker, how shall we see through all that confusion, when the leader of the Ralliement des creditistes himself admits, in his letter, that he wants to set up a future party and that, in the next election, he will have candidates in all the provinces of this country, in order that his party may be recognized as a national party. He admits it himself since he now has members only in the province of Quebec. Moreover, he claims
Privileges and Elections just the same that his party is a national party.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to refer to page 56 of the report of the committee on privileges and elections, to Mr. Gregoire's statements-


Gilles Grégoire: You could at least say: the member for Lapointe.


Gérard Chapdelaine: -to the effect that they had not dropped out of the national Social Credit party, but that we, the members of the national Social Credit, had withdrawn from their party. I quote:
If they have decided to withdraw, this indicates a second distinct group. I have also mentioned this in the following paragraph: "We wish to point out also that, as Mr. Real Caouette is the leader of the larger group..." This implies two distinct groups
As for knowing whether this is a new party or an old party, I can tell you that the Ralliement des creditistes was registered in superior court at Montreal early in June 1958 and that it is only at a later date that it became a member of the Canadian national association.
Let us look now, Mr. Speaker, at this precious document, which bears number HOPS. It reads:
I, the undersigned, Gilbert Rondeau, accountant, domiciled and residing at St. Cesaire, Rouville county, province of Quebec, declare the following:
(1)	I have my home and residence in St. Cesaire, Rouville county, St. Hyacinthe District, province of Quebec;
(2)	I am an accountant;
(3)	I am of age and married to Monique Viens, my first wife, who is also of age and is still living;
(4)	I am married under the separate maintenance system by virtue of a marriage contract passed before Mr. Maurice Cloutier, notary public, practising in St. Ours, county of Richelieu, and now practising in Sorel, district of Richelieu, the said marriage contract having been passed some two days prior to the day of my wedding, which took place on August 16, 1952;
(5)	I intend to do business alone in Montreal, said district, as well as in the province of Quebec, under the name and style of "Ralliement des creditistes":
Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the house to the words "in the province of Quebec".
I continue:
(6)	The business operations will consist in buying and selling Social Credit leaflets, booklets and newspapers as well as all other means or media of publicity;
(7)	My main place of business or headquarters will be in Pont-Viau, county of Laval, Montreal district, at 482 Cousineau St.
(8)	I do business alone under that name.
This, Mr. Speaker, is what we learn from the hon. member for Lapointe's evidence to the effect that the Ralliement des creditistes is a party founded since 1958, with exactly the same legal standing in Canada as the national Social Credit party.
Before going any further in this, I wish-


Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: May I ask the hon. member a question?

Privileges and Elections


Gérard Chapdelaine: When I have completed my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, before pursuing this line, I should like to call the attention of the house to the official constitution of the national Social Credit party. And I was saying a minute ago, this constitution can be changed only when a national convention is held. Now, as the hon. member for Lapointe alleged in his testimony that the Granby convention was a national convention, I wish to quote some articles from our constitution concerning notification of a national convention.
A national convention shall be held every four years or more often, as may be decided by the national council.
The convention shall meet at a time and a place determined by the national council, but a three months' notice, announcing the date and place, shall be given to affiliated organizations and to members in general where there is no provincial organization.
Mr. Speaker, this procedure was not followed, since nobody from the other provinces was invited to the said Granby convention, in order that the said convention might become a national convention, and even Social Credit members living in provinces other than Quebec were not invited.
Consequently, the national convention in Granby had no authority whatever to change the status of the national leader of the Social Credit party, which leader, as is so well prescribed in our regulations and constitution, must be chosen only at a national convention.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote other excerpts from the testimony of the member for Lapointe, and this to prove how much he could contradict himself in such a short time. At a certain moment, the hon. member for Lapointe said:
The group, Ealliement des creditistes, having chosen a new leader, it is a fraction of Social Credit which withdrew from the main group.
And this, after having said in his testimony that we had withdrawn and not they.
Whom should we believe, in the circumstance? How is it possible to believe the statements of the hon. member for Lapointe, who never stops contradicting himself each time he is confronted with the facts.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Lapointe duly recognizes Mr. Thompson as the leader of the Social Credit party. In order to justify his stand he stated:
Mr. Thompson came only once to the province of Quebec to speak about the deepening of the Matapedia river.
And as I said earlier, he did not come to my riding during the last election campaign, nor did he go to any other riding of the province of Quebec, except to start off the campaign, and all along our campaign we referred to Real Caouette as leader of the Ralliement des creditistes and deputy leader of the national party.

A little further on, the hon. member for Lapointe admits that the Social Credit campaign during the last election was on a national basis and that candidates campaigned under the heading of the Social Credit national party and not under that of the Ralliement des creditistes, in order to get elected.
Most important, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that if the members belonging to the group of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) think that they can, after an election where they were elected under one name, change that name, I think that would be misrepresentation before the electorate.
In fact, if we reduce the argument ad absurdum, we could say that, in 1958, if the party in power, the Conservative party, had decided to divide into two groups after the election, that is 140 members in power and 68 in the official opposition, we would have had an intolerable situation where the Conservative party would have acted at the same time as the party in power and as the official opposition.
Moreover, if the communists, against all probability, infiltrated into various political parties and succeeded in having a sufficient number of members elected under the name of various parties, and then, immediately after the election, declared themselves as communists and decided to set up a party with enough membership to make up the party in power, we would have a ridiculous situation where we would find ourselves, the day after a general election, living in a communist country without having voted for the communist party.
Mr. Speaker, I admit that this argument is made ad absurdum but I must say that those absurd things could happen if, today, we recognize the group under the hon. member for Villeneuve as a party officially recognized in the house and enjoying the same privileges as any recognized party in the house.
Mr. Speaker, to illustrate the feelings of the members belonging to the group of the hon. member for Villeneuve, and more particularly the feelings of the hon. member for Lapointe concerning that question, and to show how lightly the hon. member for Lapointe dealt with that matter in the evidence he gave before the committee of privileges and elections, I should like to quote a question put to him by the hon. member for Montreal-St. Lawrence-St. George. Here it is:


Mr. Turner:: When the delegates were selected tor that convention, they had not been selected to elect a new leader or to form a new party?


Gilles Grégoire: Not necessarily, no-


John Napier Turner: At that convention were there any delegates from outside the limits of the province of Quebec?


Gilles Grégoire: There were some delegates from Ontario and New Brunswick but they had no right to vote.
And a little further the hon. member for Lapointe stated:
In all sincerity and in all honesty, I could not say whether they were invited or not, I think so, but I cannot give any assurance. Mr. Leboe who is here could say whether they had been invited. In any case, we had a quorum.
And the evidence given by the hon. member for Lapointe follows along the same line, while he was trying to justify the stand taken by the members of the group led by the hon. member for Villeneuve. After talking about the number of members elected in Alberta under the national Social Credit ticket the same as in British Columbia and Quebec, and in view of the fact that the number of federal members elected in the western provinces was much too small from a national standpoint, the hon. member for Lapointe concludes:
Therefore, Real Caouette is a leader and Robert Thompson is not, and that is why we are taking the necessary decisions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is how parties are created after a general election, and they want recognition as a party elected by the people on a different ticket.
Mr. Speaker, during the proceedings of the committee on privileges and elections, some members from the Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic parties raised objections to the effect that the Social Credit party should not be recognized as having priority over the group of the hon. member for Villeneuve.
At this stage, I would like to comment on some of those objections.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) stated the following:
It is up to the Speaker and the officers of the house to settle them as they usually do. In view of the Speaker's clear statement to the committee, I cannot agree with that. Consequently, I move that we adopt the first proposal amended as suggested.
In my opinion, sir, if their position had been clearly set out, we would not be faced with this problem today. However, our main concern now is to clear up that matter and, later on, we-or rather the officers of the house-will be able to determine the privileges to which they are entitled. If we have this debate today, it is because their status is not clear.
Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the core of that problem lies in the fact that those members have not been elected under the label they would like to have recognized today and that they must simply wait until the next general election to be elected under the Ralliement des creditistes ticket. Once
Privileges and Elections they have gone to the people squarely, I think there will not be any problem as to the recognition of the privileges to which they are entitled, the same as any hon. member of this house.
They are not being denied privileges as individuals, but as a group that has not beer elected under the ticket it now claims.
We submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is false representation to the electors. If the people had known before the election that those members were to follow such a course of action, they would probably not have been elected.
Mr. Speaker, nothing in the Social Credit program would have led one to expect a split in our ranks at a given moment, and that, following that split, we would have to recognize a group under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and another under the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). If the electors had known that, I am sure the vote would have been different.
If we recognize now the stand taken by the hon. member for Villeneuve and his followers, we will not be doing justice to the electors who voted for the principles we advocated. Had they known that there was a rift in our party, they probably would not have voted for Social Credit members in the province of Quebec.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I do not intend to follow the hon. gentleman in the arguments he has presented to the house concerning the internecine strife between a group of members who have divided themselves into two groups. This is a matter for them, and not for the House of Commons. I agree that the stand taken by the house on this matter should have been submitted to a committee for the fullest consideration. This committee met under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron). I have read the evidence taken and the discussions that took place in the committee. I feel that further evidence should have been taken, for when one reads the two volumes he can only conclude that the subject was dealt with more by failure to face the issues than by actually facing them.
I point out that, in so far as the recommendations that are made are concerned, there are several that I do not believe parliament can accept if it has any regard for the heritage of parliament and its traditions, as well as the respect which parliament must have if it is to function properly. In so far as recommendation No. 1 is concerned, that the New Democratic party occupy seats next to the official opposition on the left side of the

Privileges and Elections Speaker, I think there will be general agreement in that regard.
The next recommendation is that the members of the Social Credit party occupy the seats next to the New Democratic party on the left side of the Speaker. I find it difficult to understand how, in the face of the evidence, the committee could have arrived at that conclusion, for it denies every principle that we have accepted in parliament. In so far as the party led by the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette) is concerned, I strongly disagree with many of the views expressed by that leader. Frankness demands that I say that I disagree with them. However, this is a democracy and the words of Voltaire were never more applicable than they are here. He said, "I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." I apply those words of Voltaire to the situation today, and say to the hon. member for Villeneuve that I accept the principle inherent in that declaration, provided that what is spoken is not treasonable, treacherous or in any way inimical to the state. In other words, I accept that principle so long as what is said is within the law.
No parliament can exist unless each member has the freedom, under the law, to say what he believes. We go farther than that. There is no one in the galleries of this House of Commons, either the public galleries or the press gallery; that is the tradition of parliament. It goes back to the days of Charles I when the battle was being fought for the freedom of parliament and of parliamentarians to say what they wished. Neither the Governor General nor his representatives can sit in the gallery. The reason is a simple one. If they were there, there may be exercised by them some control over the freedom of the members to speak as they wish.
I say again that I dislike some of the declarations that have been made by those in this house led by the hon. member for Villeneuve. However, we do not choose members of parliament on the basis of a common agreement to say the same thing in parliament. If we all speak alike, then democracy dies. On the other hand, when I think of some of the attacks made on the hon. member for Villeneuve, I feel that the house should be reminded there was a time when he enjoyed political respectability. He was a Liberal candidate in the general election of 1956, and made a very good run at that time. This, however, is background material.
Why has this controversy arisen? Well, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) was chosen as the leader. As one follows him through the peregrinations of debate in this


house, one might almost conclude he was sitting on the other side of the house. Indeed, I was in his constituency the other day and there were widespread rumours of the possibility of a change in that regard not being too far distant. However, that is beside the point. These are things we have to consider.
What is a political party? In summarizing the situation when you brought this matter before parliament, Mr. Speaker, you referred to the definition made by that tribune of democracy, Edmund Burke. None of us can understand parliament unless we know history. There is no more interesting reading, interesting to Canada because of its significance to this nation, than the debate in the British parliament beginning on February 25, 1791 on the Quebec amendment bill. Some of those who took part were Burke, Charles James Fox and Sheridan. It was in that debate, when Canadian constitutional development was discussed for the first time, that the great schism took place between Burke and Fox. Friends they had been; enemies they became that day, and they never spoke again.
It was in that debate that Burke gave his definition of a party. I am not quoting him at the moment, but in essence a party is constituted when members decide for reasons that seem good to them to band together in support of or in opposition to certain principles.
Someone has said that names mean little, and reference was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to 1940. If you look at the red book of that year you will find the Conservative party was elected under the name of the national party, the national government party. The hon. member has told the house something of the changes that took place. Changes also took place within his own party. In 1940, when I came in here as a member, that party's leader was Mr. Woodsworth. Then he ceased to be the leader and another leader took his place in the person of Mr. Coldwell. It is not a question of who is leader.
The determination as to whether there is a party is one that is dependant on a number of members uniting in support of a group of principles. That being so, then the method by which the party is formed is of no consequence to parliament. If they want to fight among themselves as to whether the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) or the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette)-sitting together there in amity- should be leader, then that is a matter for themselves.
Parliament simply determines one question as to how these parties shall be seated, and this house is confronted with a situation where one group is a self-declared party

supporting certain principles and opposing certain others. The other group is smaller now, but still contends it represents the party that embraced all of them a few short months ago.
It is very interesting to think of the ecclesiastical divisions that have taken place throughout the ages. Hon. members may recall the famous case in Scotland, the Wee Free's, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, where a small group broke away from the greater church and contended that they themselves represented the tenets, traditions and abiding principles of their church. I think the courts held that a group can break away and themselves be actual, true exponents of the true religion. Which of these two groups has the true political religion I do not know. It is not for parliament to determine what is orthodoxy and what is heresy in Social Credit.
The assertion that a party cannot be formed unless it has gone through the firing line of an election campaign is certainly not borne out by the experience of history. Members have been elected in one party and have gone over to another, and it would be none of our concern in parliament if the hon. member for Red Deer and those associated with him crossed the floor. Those changes are not the questions to be determined by parliament.
The assertion that a party cannot be recognized unless it has fought an election and fielded a certain number of candidates would create a condition of affairs wherein members would be bound into forced allegiance until such time as they were able to go before the electorate, and to accept the recommendations of the committee in this regard would be a travesty on parliament.
How can this house say to the fewer, "Your position shall be a senior one in the house"? That is what they are asking, and it would make a mockery of parliament. We would be placing parliament in the position of saying to any group, however small, "If you can command the support of the majority of the House of Commons your position shall be senior to any other party." If we accept this principle then the official opposition, with 96 members, might very well be removed from its present position. In actuality it would not be, but if this theory were accepted, and if the government had a large majority, it could determine that the opposition should sit in the far end of the chamber, whatever its numbers.
To accept the report in its present form would be, as I said a moment ago, a travesty on parliament. A political party is self-created, self-constituted, until such time as its members are removed by the electorate from the political scene.
Privileges and Elections
I do not think we would have had this difficulty if it had not been for the amendment to the House of Commons act that was passed a few months ago. Section 42 of that act now says:
There shall be paid to each member of the House of Commons, other than the Prime Minister or the member occupying the recognized position of Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, who is the leader of a party that has a recognized membership of twelve or more persons in the House of Commons, an allowance at the rate of $4,000 per annum in addition to the sessional allowance payable to such member.
It must be disheartening to some to lose the position that qualified them for this, not by the effluxion of time or action of the electorate but rather by action of the members themselves.
Therefore in so far as the fourth part of the recommendation is concerned, that the question of the privileges to be enjoyed by a group be referred to the parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons for study and report to the Speaker, it flies in the face of our jurisprudence. Is parliament to say what the law is? Is a parliamentary counsel to say? This is a matter for interpretation.
It can be submitted simply to the courts, and it should be submitted to the courts. On the one hand you have the hon. member for Red Deer, now with 11 members, and the hon. member for Villeneuve with more than 12 members. This question should not be submitted to parliamentary counsel to interpret the law. To me it is very clear. I am not giving any interpretation of the law, but I say that if the $4,000 was not dangling before their eyes-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: -or its disappearance-if that were not a matter of consideration we would not have had this dispute. Of that I feel certain; of that I am convinced. Therefore I say that in so far as paragraph 4 is concerned, it should have no place whatever in the recommendations of the committee. Before I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I thought we should just send this matter back to the committee for reconsideration. However, to do that would be regarded as simply failing to discharge our responsibility because, responsibility in this matter must finally rest here. All the committee can do is listen to the evidence and recommend. Without going into further detail, I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should be further amended.
Much has been said today about maintaining the dignity and tradition of parliament. All of us have a responsibility in that

Privileges and Elections connection. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader ol the Opposition have particular responsibilities in that connection. I read in the newspapers that long debates are taking place, that the discussions are becoming more and more bitter. My reply is that parliament is a place where strong men and women have strong ideas and express themselves. When I read in the press of the wastefulness of parliamentary time, I suggest that those who write that way go back to the days of Borden and Laurier: Laurier, that leader whose name conjures up the respect and regard that in the retrospect of history places him above party; and Sir Robert Borden, a man who loved parliament. I would ask those who write that way to read the debates of 1910 and 1911: parliament sitting night and day for weeks on end; Sir Wilfrid Laurier, annoyed, angered and aroused as a result of what he thought was unfair; Sir Robert Borden followed a different course. When he got annoyed, he went to bed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I have sometimes found that worth while too. But read those debates. They also tell you about the great old days. I ask those who write these things about parliament to read those debates. I have read them in the last few days because I was beginning to wonder whether parliament was sinking to a level that had never been seen before. They spoke about the good old days too. In 1911 Sir Wilfrid spoke about the grand old days of 1896 to 1900; Sir Robert Borden spoke of the days of 1904 and 1908. They spoke about those parliaments just as we speak about previous parliaments. I have been here long enough to look back to 1940. Quite a few hon. members of that parliament are still here. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and others were here at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Postmaster General (Mr. Denis).


John George Diefenbaker: You know, Mr. Speaker, the best debates we ever had were on Friday nights. I think the motion made today may lead to very good debates. It was on Friday nights, when we were unencumbered by some members who found it necessary to be elsewhere, that parliament was really at its best. We used to have some great debates. I look back to those days and in a reminiscent mood, with nostalgic memories of the past, I say that those were great days in the House of Commons. They are no different today. The level of debate is just as high, or higher, today as it was then, although each generation looks back at the previous one and says 
how much better it used to be. Parliament spent, not hours but days and days, night and day, debating amendment after amendment. In those days, too, the press reported to a degree that does not exist today. About a week ago I was sent a number of newspapers of 1911 and 1912. They contain pages of reports on parliament. What everybody said was mentioned in some particular. Things have changed. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said today, "Well, have they changed for the better?"
I want to say this to those who criticize parliament, that the members today discharge their responsibilities as effectively and as efficiently as they ever did. This does not mean that changes in the rules must not be made. We have tried over and over again to bring about changes. When you are sitting over there in the government benches you say, "I wonder what those chaps in the opposition are up to" when they ask for these things; and when they endeavour to bring something forward, we know with certainty there must be some reason. All of us want to make parliament more effective; but we will not make parliament more effective by going about this country and speaking in disparaging tones about it. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, when the indemnity was raised to $18,000 it was said this would bring better members into parliament. I wonder which hon. member is prepared to admit that anybody could take his place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We would have to leave that to the voters.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just said that we would have to leave that to the voters.


John George Diefenbaker: The statement made at that time was, "All you have to do is raise the indemnity and you will have better members of parliament". I do not see anyone on either side of the house standing up and saying he could be supplanted by somebody better. We do not raise the standard of parliament by disparaging members or the actions of parliament. Each one of us has a responsibility. The Prime Minister and I have higher responsibilities than anyone else. That is why, when I look at these recommendations I say that to accept them would be to emasculate parliament. I do not believe in three, four or five opposition parties. I think the $4,000 a year has provided an invitation to a proliferation of parties.
Therefore, desiring to do what I can to bring about a better parliament, I move,

seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the word "groups", the following:
"and that clause 4 of the report of the committee to the House of Commons be deleted".


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock p.m. the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers), and public bills. As there is no business listed on today's order paper for private bills, the house will proceed to the consideration of notices of motions (papers) and public bills.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the matter now before the house has been the subject of discussion for nearly three weeks and it seems to me fairly important that it ought to be cleaned up as quickly as possible. I suggest that if there is unanimous consent we dispense with private members' hour and proceed with the debate, and get it to a conclusion as quickly as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) have both agreed to forgo their rights for today. I should like to say on behalf of the government that their position will be assured, and that the government is asking to have these motions stood so that the hon. members will not suffer any disability.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being the unanimous wish of the house, it is agreed that we proceed with the motion before the house.


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Brani-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I was indeed pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), in speaking to this motion, refer to the great customs and traditions of the mother of parliaments at Westminster. At the same time I was somewhat surprised when he then said that it was a heresy to propose a seating arrangement such as that set out in the committee's report. I would, with all respect, invite the right hon. gentleman's attention to the seating arrangements in the British house of commons in November of 1922. After the election on that occasion the labour party was returned with 138 members and the liberal party, under the Right Hon. Herbert Henry Asquith, could only show up with 60 members. That parliament, the great mother of parliaments with all its customs and traditions, accepted a seating arrangement whereby the liberal party under Mr. Asquith with only 60 seats was given the front bench of the 28902-5-234
Privileges and Elections official opposition and Ramsay Macdonald's 138 members accepted a secondary position.
Therefore, with great respect, sir, I say that the seating arrangement proposed in this report can be justified and sanctioned not only by practice in the halls of Westminster but also in this house. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) alluded to the Liberal party, and may I say to him that hon. members on this side of the house will vote on this matter as freely, as fairly and as dispassionately as any group in this house.
I would invite the attention of this house to the fact that Mr. Speaker posed the question to this house, which is to be found at page 3007 of Hansard:
Have we a new party according to this new definition...? To my mind this is a question for the house to decide.
A reading of the report makes it abundantly clear that the committee felt there was not a new party, but that there was a new group in the house; and that can be justified on the evidence. This difficult problem was made somewhat less difficult because the Speaker, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, had provided us with a definition of the word "party" as follows:
"Party"... is a body of men united for promoting the national interest on some particular principle in which they are all agreed.
It is my humble opinion that it was not the duty of the committee to disentangle and to isolate all the internal differences between the two factions warring within the bosom of the Social Credit party. We have to determine on broad general principles the differences in the political complexions of these two groups.
May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, first of all to a letter sent by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), which is as follows:
Following the annual convention of the Rallie-ment des creditistes in Granby, Quebec, on August 31 and September 1, 1963, it is my duty to inform you that our political group will hereafter sit as a separate group in the House of Commons.
And that is precisely the finding of the committee, that it was a separate group and not a new political party.
But may I say that there is more cogent and compelling evidence than even that. May I again draw the attention of the house to the evidence given by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). This is what he said in reply to a question by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, as set out in the committee report of the evidence:


Gilles Grégoire: The national Social Credit party
is our party, so the answer is yes.
We are therefore confronted with this dilemma. We have one group claiming that they

Privileges and Elections are the Social Credit party, and we have another group claiming that they are the Social Credit party. It is not a matter of difference in political conviction, because the group under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve still say that they are pledged to the same political conviction as when they were elected. It is really a matter of difference in leadership. So the situation arises that there are two groups both pledging themselves to the same political conviction, the one under the leadership of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), and the "Johnnie-come-latelies", if I may use that expression, under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve. I submit that on the strength of this evidence the committee was left with no alternative but to say that there was another group in this house.
May I again go back to the mother of parliaments of November, 1922. In the election held at that time there were two groups of the liberal party, that under the Right Hon. H. H. Asquith and that under the leadership of Mr. David Lloyd George. That parliament held that there was a national liberal party and a liberal group under the leadership of David Lloyd George, and so I would reaffirm and reiterate that the findings of this committee have been sanctioned and justified by tradition and custom both here and elsewhere.
Having answered that question, Mr. Speaker, the committee next turned its attention to the question of the seating arrangements. Let me say to this house, Mr. Speaker, that no one in that committee closed his mind to the question of numerical strength. I would point out that in 1935 there were 17 members in this house representing the Social Credit party, and 14 sitting as C.C.F. members, the predecessors of the New Democratic party. It is my understanding, although I am subject to correction on this, that the house then accepted a seating arrangement whereby the 14 C.C.F. members were given priority over the 17 Social Credit members, and that arrangement was acquiesced in by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the official opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt-I have been following the hon. gentleman very carefully and with interest-but I was not in the house at that time.


Lawrence T. Pennell: As one who has great respect for the Leader of Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), I apologize.
The seating arrangements at that time were justified on the broad, general ground of seniority: First, that the C.C.F. party had come into this house earlier than the Social Credit party; next, that its membership was drawn from a larger number of provinces

and, finally, that the services of the individual members had extended over a great number of years. It is my humble contention that those same arguments can be applied with equal force to the seating arrangements in this chamber today. To assume for one moment that the majority in the committee recommended moving the New Democratic party next to the official opposition solely on the grounds of the numerical strength of that party would not be accurate. We justified this recommendation on other grounds. I ask hon. members to note that the disparity in numbers is extremely small-17 as against 13, and 11. It may be that had the difference in numbers been greater we would not have given weight to other considerations, but on this occasion we justified placing the New Democratic party next to the official opposition because they were senior to the other minority groups, because its representatives here were drawn from three provinces and because the services of its individual members have extended over many years.
Let me point out that of the members led by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), apart from the hon. member himself, none can claim to have served in more than two parliaments. At least three or four can claim that distinction in the party led by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). In addition, the hon. member for Red Deer can claim members from the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec. On the other hand, the members united under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve-and I do not say this in a disparaging manner-are limited to representing the province of Quebec. Let me further point out that the group united under the leadership of the hon. member for Red Deer came into this house under his leadership. They accepted it and the situation was acquiesced in by all members.
I repeat, the difference in the number of members is small, only 13 as against 11. Moreover, we have no assurance that this disparity will remain the same. Thus I say that although this report may not be without its imperfections, and few reports are, whatever those imperfections may be this recommendation can be justified on grounds of logic, common sense, tradition and custom.
Finally, may I turn to the question of the privileges enjoyed by the group under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). If any hon. member thinks that this report, or its acceptance, constitutes an attempt to prejudice the rights of any minority group in this house, let him disabuse himself of that idea at once. It is my understanding, as a new and humble

member, that the rights and privileges enjoyed here, whether by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), by the Leader of the Opposition or by an ordinary backbencher all flow from the Speaker's chair following the course of custom and tradition. It is my respectful submission that the same rights and privileges should flow to all minority groups in this house and that they should not be catalogued or made the subject of an inventory by any of the groups represented here. After all, why should their rights and privileges be different from those extended to any members of the house down through the years?
Before concluding what I have to say I should like to deal with the other point which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition when he referred to the indemnity of $4,000 payable under the House of Commons Act and Senate Act. In my respectful opinion this does not raise a question as to the privileges enjoyed by members of this house. This is why the committee was prompted in its decision to refer this particular matter to parliamentary counsel, in order that advice might be given to the Speaker; we considered this was not a matter to be dealt with by the committee.
I had, personally, hoped that this question might be dealt with without regard to party distinction, but despite the fact that I am a new member I have already learned that to expect such a thing to happen would be a triumph of hope over experience.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the question we are discussing this afternoon would have really required only a few minutes of attention and thinking, perhaps, to arrive at a decision.
I submit that if the members of the house, on the government side as well as on the opposition side, know their arithmetic well enough to tell whether 12 or 13 is more than 11, none could say really that we have to ask any political party permission to be recognized as members of parliament elected by our constituents.
I highly appreciate the remarks that were made a little while ago, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as well as the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
As for the hon. member for Brant-Haldi-mand (Mr. Pennell), who tried to make us understand there had been recognized seniority in the house around 1945, I know that among the group of 23 Social Credit members who sit presently in the house, I was the only member sitting from 1946 to 1949. If there is seniority somewhere, I am of the opinion 28902-5-234J
Privileges and Elections that we have it in our movement. But that is not the point.
The committee on privileges and elections mentions a special question to be considered, and it is this: Are we going to recognize a new party which developed during this parliament, since the election?
That is the only point on which we have to make a decision and report to the Speaker in order that the dispute be settled. There is the point, the whole question referred to the committee on privileges and elections.
As for the committee, its report is completely off the beam. It says that members of the New Democratic party should come after those of the Conservative party, that members of the Thompson group should come after members of the New Democratic party, and lastly the Ralliement des creditistes group.
It makes no mention of the question: "Are we going to recognize a new party which developed during this parliament and since the election?"
The members of this house are aware that the Ralliement des creditistes was born in 1958, on June 4, and that, ever since, I have taken the responsibility of leader of the movement in the province of Quebec.
A while ago we heard the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) say that the movement was elected under false pretences. I say to him, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, and to all those who think the same way today, that if it were not for the Ralliement des creditistes, none of them would sit in this house now.
As the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard)-whose absence I regret-mentioned, and the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) would agree, they were chosen as candidates of the Ralliement des creditistes. Here is his letter dated September 12, 1963, when he wrote:
"I accepted to be candidate for the Ralliement des creditistes in Lake St. John-*"
He did write: "Ralliement des creditistes", and not the Social Credit association.
The movement affiliated to the Social Credit Association of Canada, that is the Social Credit, never existed, no more than there is a Social Credit party in Canada. What existed in Quebec before the reorganization of the association was not the Social Credit party, keep that in mind, but the Ralliement des creditistes of the province of Quebec. The Ralliement existed before. It all started with the Ralliement des creditistes in the province of Quebec; and without the contribution of the Ralliement des creditistes my hon. English speaking friends from Alberta would probably not be here today.
Mr. Speaker, why not ask those people from Alberta or Quebec who are followers of

Privileges and Elections the hon. member for Red Deer whether they hold membership cards issued by the national association? Such a thing does not even exist. Why not ask them? They say that we have been elected under false pretences. Ask them what kind of membership card they have in their pocket. Those cards identify them as active members of the Ralliement des credi-tistes du Quebec. They don't have any card from the national association.
Mr. Speaker, on page 21 of the report of the committee on privileges and elections I see that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) introduced a suggestion or a motion. Here is what he said:
And at this time I wish to point out that I am only acting on the invitation of the Speaker. My motion is as follows:
That a group of members which did not form a party at the time of the last general election cannot be recognized as a party before facing the electorate as such.
The member for Labelle should tell us, whether when he became a candidate in the riding of Labelle, he asked permission from the hon. member for Red Deer or from the hon. member for Villeneuve. Further, what organization in his riding had him elected? Was it the Ralliement des creditistes of Labelle county or the national organization of the Canadian Social Credit party?
If you want other evidence, Mr. Speaker, I can supply you with loads of it to establish the existence of the true Social Credit in this Parliament in Ottawa. It is due to the effort of the Ralliement du credit social and the Social Crediters in the province of Quebec that this party is represented in this house. I have the evidence right here.
Let us see what the popular vote was at the last election-


An hon. Member:: It has gone down.


David Réal Caouette: Gone down? Open your ears and your eyes and listen to this: The popular vote increased by 56,000 in the province of Quebec, on April 8, 1963, compared with June 18, 1962. I do not want to rub it in, but I only want to set the record straight.
In Quebec, le Ralliement des creditistes obtained a total of 571,333 votes. I challenge the member for Red Deer to come and tell us the percentage of votes he obtained for Quebec.
Let us look at the province of Nova Scotia where the national organization was operating. Three hundred and sixty seven votes were given to the Social Credit party in the whole province of Nova Scotia.
In New Brunswick, out of a total of 232,000 votes, 20,194 were for the Social Credit candidates.
In Quebec out of a total of 2,096,000 votes, over 29 per cent or 571,000 were cast in favour of the Social Credit party.

In the province of Ontario, where the national organization worked their hands raw and spent their funds to convince the Ontario voters of the value of the Social Credit doctrine, out of 2,721,984 votes, the Social Credit got only 55,758 votes.
In Manitoba, 27,796 votes out of 386,000.
In Saskatchewan, out of 405,720 electors, the total of Social Credit votes for the national association-and mind you the president of the national association lives in Saskatchewan -a vice president or a treasurer, a Mr. Daryl Rumble, took exactly the startling total of 566 votes in the riding of Assiniboia, in the southern part of Saskatchewan. Total for Saskatchewan: 14,819 votes.
In Alberta, a province where there has been a provincial Social Credit administration in power for 30 years, out of a total of 468,000 votes, the Social Crediters won 125,642 votes. The percentage is less than what we took in Quebec.
In British Columbia, out of a total of 578,000 electors, the Social Crediters took 82,000 votes, and that, with a Social Credit provincial administration in power for the last 13 years. The Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals and even the N.D.P. were ahead of the Social Credit national association.
To sum up, out of a total of seven million electors in Canada, we took 571,000 votes in Quebec against 327,000 votes for the national organization in the other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, those are facts and statistics quoted here to show to what degree they are trying today to minimize those who gave a new lease on life to a political movement.
It is not the concern of the House of Commons to decide whether such a movement should exist or not.
I know very well that if I asked the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) what he thinks of our movement, he would wish for its disappearance tomorrow morning, but I would say the same thing about the Liberals. If I had the power to make them disappear, let me tell you that they would vanish real fast.


Mr. Pigeon:: Leave that to us.


David Réal Caouette: Now, Mr. Speaker, in the editorials published since that situation came about, emphasis is put on two letters, one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), and my own personal letter to the Speaker of the house. There is no contradiction between those two letters. The Ralliement des creditistes is not a new invention; it was and still is in existence.
As the Leader of the Opposition so aptly said a while ago, it is not for the house to decide whether 12 hon. members will stick together or not. That is for the hon. members

concerned to decide. If you polled the 23 Social Crediters elected as Social Crediters at the last election, there would be 13 in favour of the Ralliement des creditistes and 11 in favour of the national organization. We have a majority. All we are asking for is that you recognize this situation.
We took a vote at Granby. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) was not even there. If he had been there, it would have meant one more vote, that is five or six votes, I think, for his group, but nevertheless there were 13 in our group. Then, that is a majority in favour of the Ralliement des creditistes.
The other day, the hon. member for Red Deer, because we were trying to win recognition-that was our right-accused us of blackmailing the Queen. That was not our intention. Our intention was to get recognized. That was our intention. It was not to delay the business of the house.
I heard the member for Red Deer state that it was terrorism or tyranny by the minority, that we were imposing tyranny on parliament. Isn't it what his group has been trying to do for three weeks here, in the House of Commons? You see people going behind the drapes and in low voices trying to conspire with the Liberals so that the Ralliement des creditistes will not be recognized in the house. You are aware that this is going on. Those are facts.


Mr. Dupuis:: This is not true.


David Réal Caouette: We are informed by telephone that the decision has already been made, but that it has to be submitted to parliament before it is made public, a decision to the effect that we will be put in fifth place in the House of Commons. What do you say about that? We have been informed accordingly, and my word-


Mr. Choquetfe:: That is better than nothing; at the next parliament you will not even exist.


David Réal Caouette: This is my friend, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) speaking; he will learn that after next parliament, because he is sure not to come back here and he knows that very well.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is seldom here.


David Réal Caouette: Besides, he is never here. It is by accident that he happens to be here today.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for
Privileges and Elections Villeneuve has just made an essentially false assertion, which is very typical of him.
I was present in this house more often than the member for Villeneuve and, for his guidance, may I be permitted to say that I have no lesson to take from him concerning my attendance or my absence here, and I ask him to withdraw his remarks for they are inaccurate. Moreover, should you refuse to agree to my request that he withdraw I invite him to come any time to my Lotbiniere constituency to take part in a public debate on the hustings, an invitation which he has refused in the past.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I accept the invitation of my good friend from Lotbiniere.
Besides, I shall be in his constituency next Saturday and he may then come to meet me, if he wishes, at a supper organized at St. Croix de Lotbiniere. He will be welcome.
As regards the lessons I do not have to give him, I would not wish to give him lessons, since, in any school, there are students who understand nothing, and the hon. member for Lotbiniere could be one of those.
Mr. Speaker, since the debate started on the recognition or non-recognition of our group as a separate group or as a distinct party in the house, we read the editorials in several Canadian newspapers.
These are not editorials written by Social Crediters, for these people are even proud to say they are not Social Crediters, but they recognize to the elected members of the Ralliement, advocating the Social Credit policy in this house, the right to express themselves and to enjoy the privileges enjoyed by any political party.
Mr. Speaker, some members who rose before me declared a while ago, that we dissociated ourselves from Social Credit. There now. Let us be sensible. We did not dissociate ourselves from Social Credit, since the real representatives of the Social Credit philosophy in this house are the members of the Ralliement des creditistes, who are from the province of Quebec at this time.
Do you want an example? I have before me a report that was prepared by the hon. member for Red Deer, and distributed to the national executive of the Social Credit Association of Canada, in which he declares, among other things;
If we could develop such a policy of vision and action, we would open the door to a throng of members who are at present shying away because of our name "Social Credit".
Once more he is suggesting that we should change the name of Social Credit.
We should exert pressure on the Ralliement des creditistes du Quebec so that they seriously consider campaigning in the provincial election.

Privileges and Elections
We never had any such intention.
Without trying to show the advantage or disadvantage of the critical political situation in Quebec, this decision would allow for a development of the political philosophy in that province-
As if we had no political doctrine, as if Quebec had no political philosophy.
This would limit the scope of Quebec nationalism to the provincial organization.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking the hon. members to try to understand the meaning of those words, and I hope the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) will also understand that meaning.
And I continue:
The provincial organization would be represented within the national Social Credit party. At present, the whole load of the problems in Quebec-
Please take note of this, Mr. Speaker:
The whole load of the problems in Quebec is directly related to the national party which gives the public both in Quebec and outside the impression that the Social Credit is only a Quebec party in the federal parliament. Which is certainly of a nature to weaken and unbalance the true national image of the party.
What national picture? In 1958, we did not have a single candidate in Quebec. Furthermore, all Social Credit members of the House of Commons were soundly beaten and sent back to their respective counties.
As a matter of fact, it was not until 1962 following an expensive television campaign started in 1958, that the movement began to make itself felt in the province of Quebec, and the hon. member for Red Deer knows how we worked in Quebec. The French Canadians in our province know it too, even those who have now left the ranks of the Ralliement des creditistes.
Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 1963, the newspaper Le Devoir said:
One may or may not like Mr. Caouette. But there is a brutal fact which cannot be dismissed. That man, duly elected by the people, is now leading a distinct group of members of the house. Will it be for long? Nobody knows. But that is the situation at present.
Mr. Speaker, as for the length of time, we will look after that ourselves. And the article goes on:
In the name of fairness and common sense-
Mr. Speaker, Le Devoir is not a Social Credit newspaper, it seems to me.
Also, I hope that the hon. member for Mercier will understand what I am about to read, for there must be some common sense and a bit of fairness in him.
And I continue reading:
In the name of fairness and common sense, Mr. Caouette's group must be recognized and its leader must enjoy the privileges to which party leaders are entitled in parliament. If, as a result. Mr. Thompson has to be deprived of the additional $4,000 allowance voted last year-
[Mr. Caouette.1


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member for Villeneuve has asked me to listen to him but he reads so fast that we cannot understand a word. I shall ask him to start over again and to read a little slower.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I shall meet the hon. member at the Club Maisonneuve in Montreal at a future meeting.
I proceed:
If, therefore, Mr. Thompson has to be deprived of the additional $4,000 allowance voted last year-
About this, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said a moment ago: If you were to put the $4,000 in front of both, they would probably unite and get along together.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it is mean to connect this matter with that of the $4,000. In fact, I did not wait for my parliamentary allowance to do the job that I have done in Quebec, and even if we do not share the same political views, I think that the members on both sides of the house will admit that, without any parliamentary allowance, I have still discussed political questions in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada. Everybody must admit it and I did this without consideration for the $4,000 or $18,000 a year.
I proceed with the report:
The split decided by Mr. Caouette, establishes clearly in the minds of the people the actual position of the party called Social Credit. Parliament does not have to pass judgment but to accept the fact.	.
The demands of the Caouette group are justified and legitimate. But that in itself would not be reason enough to impose upon the whole country consequences more far reaching than the temporary and partial discrimination suffered by the members concerned.
The Ottawa Journal, which is certainly not a Social Credit paper-it may be Liberal or Conservative, I do not know-had this to say:

The Fewer the Higher?
The Commons shouldn't get too legal or too fancy in deciding when or what is a party. The circumstances of a party's birth are not, in our view, as important as its voting strength in the Commons. If the Commons is to determine the importance and therefore position of a group or party by other than its voting strength the door is left wide open to all manner of weird decisions in the future. A good Commons should be sensitive and susceptible to trends and changes, to floor crossings and tides. If the Commons somehow finds reasons to assert that the large piece of the old Social Credit party is in fact the smallest then not just the people of Quebec with separatist leanings but folk all over Canada with no leaning whatever are going to come to the conclusion the Commons is silly.

And still about the matter now before us, the newspaper Toronto daily Star of October 8 said:

Recognize the creditistes.
Now that the Ralliement des creditistes has withdrawn its attempt to blockade public business at Ottawa, and the parliamentary crisis is over for the moment, the people of Canada are bound to wonder what the fight was all about.
The Ralliement is composed of those members of parliament who followed Real Caouette in the recent split in the Social Credit party. It resorted to its filibuster when its demand for recognition as a separate party-which among other things would entitle Mr. Caouette to an extra $4,000 indemnity as a party leader-was not immediately granted but was referred to the committee on privileges and elections.
Without attempting to excuse this high handed action by the creditistes, we find it hard to understand why the government delayed giving them the recognition they sought-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing to do with the government.


David Réal Caouette: If the government had given orders to its supporters sitting on that committee the result would have been different. The Secretary of State knows better than that.
-and made such a song-and-dance about the whole affair.
The law defining political parties in the House of Commons was clarified by an amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act which was passed last summer. This amendment provides as follows:
There shall be paid to each member of the House of Commons... who is the leader of a party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons an allowance at the rate of $4,000 per annum each, in addition to the sessional allowances payable to such members-
The committee on privileges and elections has illogically decided to recognize the Caouette group as a party while putting it behind Mr. Thompson's 11-member remnant in order of precedence. This invites another filibuster. The Commons as a whole should give the creditistes what they are numerically entitled to-recognition as the third-ranking opposition party.

And this, Mr. Speaker, from the Montreal Star of October 10:

On the other hand though not recognizing the split for one purpose, it accepts it for another; the committee elevates the new Democratic party to No. 3 place-above the split Social Crediters... In any event, it was Mr. Caouette in Quebec who delivered the goods at the polls, not once but twice. Without the Creditistes, the parliamentary Social Credit party would have amounted to nothing but a tiny handful. When the split came, the Creditistes themselves split, but Mr. Caouette still has a larger parliamentary following than Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson may still be the "national" leader but he doesn't lead much.
More will be heard of this dispute, for the unruly temper of the House of Commons is likely to become worse before it gets better.
Privileges and Elections [Translation]
I only wish to point out that it is neither our intention to cause trouble in the house nor to play politics. All we are asking is this: since we are 13, recognize us as such and let us be seated as a group of 13 in parliament.
Call us the Ralliement des creditistes party, or the Social Credit party, this makes no difference to us. We are members of parliament and surely out-and-out Social Crediters.
As far as the Social Credit is concerned, it has never existed legally or otherwise. It is the Social Credit Association of Canada which exists and is headed by the hon. member for Red Deer, it is true, and there is the Ralliement des creditistes.
When we met together in Ottawa, the Ralliement des creditistes did not join the national association. We offered to co-operate; we held out our hand, nothing else.
I think it is a matter of association, that is all. When someone is unhappy about something, the answer is simply to separate. That is what the Ralliement des creditistes did and we are not sorry. We had the right to do so.
When one joins a movement and has definite opinions and when another group takes another view of things, regarding, for instance, our formal statement against nuclear weapons, while the leader of the Social Credit Association of Canada stated that we should accept defensive nuclear weapons, then, we do not go any further.
There was also the matter of the labour code. The Social Credit program was in favour of removing the obligation for a union to require the signature of every member. Besides, this suggestion was not well received even in the west. At all events, their program on matters of labour legislation came into conflict with the interest of the province of Quebec. This created difficulties in Quebec.
You will tell me that I was troublesome in western Canada. Not much. Each time I was invited, in Alberta and in Saskatchewan, in Morinville, Alberta, for example, I spoke before seven persons. And it was not better in Estevan. I was not invited to attend large meetings, I was not very popular with certain western Crediters.
On the other hand, in the province of Quebec, it was the opposite, and the hon. member for Lotbiniere knows it. There we have people who know how to organize things. And it was not the Social Credit Association of Canada which did the work but the Ralliement des creditistes. This is our organization. I am asking that justice be done, I am not asking for preferential treatment,

Privileges and Elections but justice. We do not wish to block passage of legislation by filibustering but to co-operate in the best interests of the nation.
In this connection, we support the legislation no matter whether it is proposed by the Liberals, the Conservatives or the N.D.P.; if the legislation is profitable to Canada, we are in favour of it.
We are accused of resorting to filibustering tactics. Who is using such tactics? We have been sitting since September 30 and today is October 17. And we are still discussing after 17 days whether the member for Villeneuve and the member for Red Deer are going to continue sitting together. And some find it funny. They are sitting together. Whose fault is it? Is it mine? Is it his? No, the people who refuse to take their responsibilities are to blame.
Therefore, take your responsibilities, reach a decision, so the matter will be settled. We only hear about amendments or the referral of the matter to the committee for further study. Are we still going to meddle with this and vie with one another for two or three weeks? And to what avail? Someone should assume the responsibility.
It is said that the government is not responsible. The committee says it is not responsible and it refers the question to the house.
Do you want a majority? There are five groups in the house: three favour the recognition and two groups, the Liberal party and the Social Credit association group, are against it. Why? Because the hon. member for Red Deer has promised to support unconditionally the Liberals until the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Listen-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Red Deer is rising on a question of privilege, and I would ask the hon. member to address the Chair from his seat.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being in my proper seat but I have not wanted to be deafened by the shouting next to me. I suggest that the least any hon. member of the house could do is speak the truth, and not make statements which he knows are not right, and with which he is merely trying to distort the record.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the statement made by the hon. member for Red Deer. However, as you know, that state-

ment which was reported as having been made in Red Deer, Alberta, was circulated in Vancouver and elsewhere, indeed from coast to coast. All of us have read it in the newspapers. At any rate, I accept his assurance that he will not support the Liberal party in the future.


An hon. Member:: There will be an election.


David Réal Caouette: Someone says that there will be an election. I know that that prospect fills some members with fear, not in our group but in others. Set your minds at rest, I am not afraid of an election. I never am. Not only have I been beaten seven times but I was elected three times without the help of the Liberals. The only time I ran as a Liberal I was miserably beaten.
Mr. Speaker, this is what Mr. Clement Brown who is not a Liberal but a Conservative-in fact a former Conservative candidate-had to say in another newspaper, Montreal Matin, on October 10:
Personally I have not the least bit of sympathy for Mr. Caouette or the Ralliement des creditistes.
Quite nice, is it not.
-or for the Ralliement des creditistes. Their demagogy fouls up the air.
Listen to this. I wonder whether he is in the press gallery at the moment. Yes, he is.
Their demagogy fouls up the air in parliament.
That is why I say that instead of sending nuclear weapons to Val d'Or we should provide members of the press gallery with gas masks so that the parliamentary correspondents may breathe more easily.
-but it is up to the people to judge them on their merits rather than their colleagues who are, in fact, their opponents.
Everybody would find it strange if I had to decide upon your political status in this house. But that is precisely what you are about to do concerning 12 of my colleagues and myself. Is that democracy? If so, I wonder what is the meaning of democracy.
The Leader of the Opposition is as clear on that point as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In the Montreal Matin of October 10, one could read:
Bill C-91 recognizes only one criterion, that is the number of members. It is the Liberal party which thought that one up concerning third parties in spite of a long tradition that, in parliament, opposition is indivisible.
The presence or otherwise of a member in the house depends on his constituents, not on his party nor on his leader. If, at the next election, my services are no longer required, you know what the electors will do, and the same thing goes for every riding.

If we are 12 or 13, or two more than the other group and besides that we have the majority as far as years are concerned and also the majority by popular vote, why wait to come to a decision?
Now, because Bill C-91 favours their "bosom enemy", why do the Liberals discriminate against Mr. Caouette and the Ralliement?
Why? In the final analysis, it is the responsibility of the Liberals to settle the matter, and I directly appeal to the Prime Minister himself when, in a few moments there will be a vote and when he will be the first to vote, and I appeal to all hon. members-I shall not kneel to ask forgiveness because there is no forgiveness to ask for-I ask all hon. members of the house to be logical- not conciliating, for this is not a matter of conciliation but a matter of logic, democracy and fair play.
There are 13 of us and 11 of them; besides, our group has existed since 1958 and we have run under the label of the Ralliement des Creditistes.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


David Réal Caouette: The candidates' party does not appear on the ballot-paper; but the candidates have all been chosen, without exception, at a convention of the Quebec Ralliement des Creditistes, and for the guidance of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux), I shall say that the same can be said about him. Moreover, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency did not even know the hon. member for Red Deer when he ran as a member of the Ralliement des Creditistes.


Mr. Marcoux:: The hon. member for Red Deer was not even the leader.


David Réal Caouette: He was not even the leader.
He followed the hon. member for Ville-neuve and ran under the Ralliement des Creditistes ticket. It is the Ralliement des Creditistes which made possible the election of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard), of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) and of all the Quebec Social Crediters.


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Would the hon. member allow me a question? It will not be a long one.


David Réal Caouette: Yes. You can make it as long as you wish.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Is it not a fact that the hon. member for Villeneuve recognized the hon. member for Red Deer as his leader at a Social Credit convention?
28902-5-235
Privileges and Elections


David Réal Caouette: Well, Mr. Speaker, the convention that was held in Ottawa was not held for the purpose of the assimilation of one group but for the purpose of an understanding between both elements, and that is the reason why the title of assistant to the national leader was chosen.
All that was made abundantly clear to the public, and I stated at the convention that it was a matter of having the French speaking group represented in the national Social Credit movement.
Those are the facts. When we left Ottawa we said: two leaders representing both elements in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, among other papers, I could quote Le Devoir:
As we are speaking of Mr. Stanley Knowles, we might as well exhaust the subject. It is common knowledge that the member for Winnipeg North Centre is one of our leading experts on parliamentary procedure.
I take my hat off to him on that point.
Mr. Knowles also has the well-earned reputation of being a straightforward man, and one of the most responsible members of the parliament of Canada.


An hon. Member:: A real flirtation.


David Réal Caouette: No flirtation at all; just cold facts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.


An hon. Member:: Go on.
Another hon. Member: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may continue with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. friends for their courtesy.
These qualities give a special value to the attitude of Mr. Knowles in the Caouettistes case in the House of Commons. Mr. Knowles voted against the majority which, in the committee on privileges, denied to Mr. Caouette's group the position to which it is entitled by right.
Mr. Knowles had no trouble refuting the specious arguments brought up by the Liberal majority, supported by Mr. Thompson, to justify the unfair treatment inflicted on Mr. Caouette and his group. The well-known fact that the member for Winnipeg North Centre has absolutely no sympathy for the ideas of Mr. Caouette and his friends only serves to add weight to Mr. Knowles' opinion.
I might add that I recognize the frankness of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I can assure him of the same courtesy on my part as regards his doctrine which I do not share.
Mr. Speaker, I shall close my remarks by asking everybody, all the members of this house and especially the Liberals-for the

Privileges and Elections matter is in their hands, that, we are finding out; the matter is in your hands-I ask you, as an elected representative-we do not want a precedent to be created-in the name of the people, I ask you, as an elected representative, to consider seriously what you are about to do, because the step about to be taken today concerns one of the most fundamental matters of pi'inciple of democracy, one which might rise again in a few years.
We are asking that justice be done, we are asking to be recognized for what we are and not otherwise. We are 13. Grant us the same privileges as to any other group in the house.
In the name of democracy, I hope that you will recognize this matter of principle which is so highly considered in Canada.


Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, may I remind you that it is six o'clock?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if every hon. member of the house recalls that we meet again at seven o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 7 p.m.
Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not in the house at the present time, because, I would have liked to thank him for his kindness as he seems to hold me in high esteem.
Besides, I would have liked to convey to him the expression of my feelings and tell him that I consider him as a great parliamentarian and a man of outstanding merit.
I would have asked him also where the amendment he has moved will lead us, and how this amendment can improve the situation.
I would also have taken the opportunity to tell him how I admire a man like him who, in the name of high principles, traditions and established precedents, maintained in 1962 that the New Democratic party should have precedence over the Social Credit party, while this year, in the name of the same high principles, the same traditions, he claims that it is the number of members which should be taken into consideration in this house. I would have liked to commend him for his logic.
I would have also congratulated him for having told us he had acted without any per-
[Mr. Caouette.l
sonal interest at the sittings of the committee on privileges and elections.
Personally, if I had been a member of the New Democratic party, I admit that with my human weakness I might have said: let both parties be recognized, so that a reconciliation will become impossible and that I shall be always assured to keep the third place in the house.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment introduced by the hon. member would be to defer to the committee on privileges and elections the consideration of the matter now before us, that is to determine whether the group under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve should be recognized as a party in this house.
Mr. Speaker, in the face of this amendment, we have to ask ourselves why should we refer this report to the committee on privileges and elections. And if we did so, what would happen?
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has admitted himself that such was the motion he had introduced in the committee on privileges and elections. In addition, he admitted that he was putting forward the same arguments which he had put forth before the committee on privileges and elections and that his amendment had been defeated.
Consequently, I would have liked to ask him what results does he expect if we returned to the committee on privileges and elections with the same problem and the same amendment. I would also ask him what they would have done faced with such a situation.
Mr. Speaker, in order to imagine what would happen should the report be referred back to the committee on privileges and elections, let us think about the position of our various parties during the committee's sittings, while the report was being discussed. Once again, I congratulate the members of the New Democratic party, who without any personal interest at stake and I believe on that point the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked us to accept their suggestion, and to admit that, within these precincts, numerical preference should be granted.
On the other hand, what was the Conservative stand in the committee on privileges and elections? Once more, with strength and courage, with foresight and quite unanimously, the members of the Conservative party rose and exclaimed: Let us dump all this into the Speaker's lap.
We might also ask ourselves whether those Conservatives would be just as brave and proud if we were now in the privileges and elections committee. Would they still say:

"Let us dump all this in the Speaker's lap; the government will be held responsible and we will be able to play politics."
Mr. Speaker, what would be the attitude of government members if the report were to be referred to the privileges and elections committee for consideration? They are the only ones I cannot congratulate because if they had wanted to follow suit, they could easily have said: "Let us recognize all groups and we will be acclaimed as the saviours of the people. Let us consider only the political aspect of the question."
Mr. Speaker, I must criticize government members because, as you can see, instead of doing that they stupidly decided to act fairly and equitably, to follow the voice of their conscience and to settle the problem as fairly as possible.
And what would their position be if the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was accepted?
Of course the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke to us about the press. He stated that the press seemed to exert some pressure to the effect that the group of the hon. member for Villeneuve should be recognized.
We have even heard a great friend of newspapermen, and of the Canadian Press, that is the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). He told us: but listen, the press wants us to be recognized.
However, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Villeneuve would have felt able, this afternoon, to repeat to newspapermen what he said during the whole election campaign: tell me who pays you; I shall tell you whom you serve, and nothing else.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. When the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) credits me with the words: "Tell me who pays you, I shall tell you whom you serve", he has no right at all to imply anything about me, and if he will ask himself this question, he will probably find the answer.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I will not put the question of privilege, because the one who inflicted the slight is not worth the trouble.


David Réal Caouette: It was much better than that before the election.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, let us go on
with the matter that concerns us.
I think that the columnists of certain papers, and the commentators of certain political parties in the house just forgot one thing. The motion submitted to the committee on privileges and elections did not want to deprive anybody, no member of this house, 28902-5-235|
Privileges and Elections of the rights and privileges they had before. The group which have now decided to follow the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) always had their seats in the house, and always had the opportunity of sitting here and enjoying the privilege of free speech.
The other day, I heard the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), tell us: "The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), has been pulling my coat long enough to make me sit down"; I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Red Deer, with all his diplomacy and parliamentary poise, has endured the politicking of the hon. member for Lapointe long enough. I shall say in a few moments what I mean by that. I shall state later on what I wanted to say when I was speaking of poor Quebec and of the poor French Canadians.
What the newspapermen also forgot, when they spoke about those privileges, was to mention that hon. members who followed the representative of Villeneuve always had the right to speak in parliamentary committees. They also forgot something else: that those gentlemen, when they followed the hon. member for Red Deer, also had the right to go and represent Canada abroad, which the hon. member for Lapointe has been doing for the party two or three weeks in New York without being authorized by his party.
Now what does the hon. member for Lapointe want? The hon. member for Lapointe and his group are not clamouring for the privilege of free speech, because they always had it. They are not demanding the privilege of sitting in the house, because they always had it too. So what do they want?
The hon. member for Lapointe wants more than that. He and his group want all the privileges of a national party, organized on a national scale, which nominated candidates in the election under a national party label, and was elected.
When I hear the hon. member for Villeneuve state that the Ralliement des credi-tistes has been in existence since 1959, and that the national Social Credit association is not a party, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for Villeneuve the following question: If, since 1959, the hon. member for Villeneuve was leader of a party, the Ralliement des creditistes, what was he doing at the 1961 convention? Did he go there as the would-be leader of another party or of the Social Credit party?
As to the suave and admirable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), we shall have to say something about him. The admirable and suave Leader of the Opposition has had great fun watching what is happening in the house. He enjoyed seeing the hon. member for Villeneuve and the hon. member

Privileges and Elections for Red Deer sitting next to each other although they no longer belong to the same party.
I also would like to point out to the suave and admirable Leader of the Opposition that, when the hon. members for Red Deer and Villeneuve are sitting beside each other, they know who is their friend and who is their enemy.
I do not envy the position of the official Leader of the Opposition who, in his case, is sitting among 94 members who might want to chop him any minute.
The Leader of the Opposition is amused to see that there is some distress within our ranks and that a small party is torn by internal dissension. The Leader of the Opposition is making fun of the difficulties in our party and that helps him to hide is own troubles. Before a point of privilege is raised, I would like to explain what I mean. I simply want to say that when one's party is having trouble, it is much preferable to clean one's own house before butting one's nose into the neighbour's house.
The member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) moved an important amendment, and the Leader of the Opposition said: "Beware, hon. members on the treasury benches, because you hold the balance of power, and if you vote on the motion, you will be the ones to take the responsibility."
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition should be frightened, that its leader should tell the government to take its responsibilities when his own party, for the six years they were in office, refused to take any.
If, today, the government is told: "Beware, do not take your responsibilities", one is simply asking the party in office to do exactly like the people rejected not so long ago on April 8 last.


Mr. Ricard:: Give us another turn at bat and you will see.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I was just coming to the most important point. It will serve as a reply to that: "Give us another turn at bat and you will see."
We heard, this afternoon, the member for Villeneuve talking of a bargain with the Liberals. It is funny, Mr. Speaker, to hear the words bargain, compromise, sell-out, in the mouth of the member for Villeneuve, while the members for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) and for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), were calling me a "traitor". This word, in their mouths, had a familiar sound.
I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether the death of a man well known among us, Senator Drouin, gives the member for Villeneuve leave to talk of compromise, of bargains with the Liberals, of agreement-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Scratch and it will hurt.


David Réal Caouette: No, it does not hurt. I believe that Senator Drouin who died recently deserves our praise.
This is my point of privilege: When the hon. member for Labelle starts making innuendoes-I believe that the remarks he has just made are ill-advised-and, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Labelle should be asked to withdraw his remarks immediately, because I have not had anything to do with things like that and I never said that he had sold out to the Liberals. I never said that this afternoon.
Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Labelle to be at least honest and if he really feels he is intelligent, he should withdraw.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member for Villeneuve will tell me the words I should withdraw, it will be a pleasure for me to comply.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Labelle talked about a compromise with Senator Drouin and he also claimed that I had said the hon. member, or some hon. members or the others like him had sold out to the Liberal party. I never said that.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, if those are the two terms the hon. member for Villeneuve would like me to withdraw, I will do it gracefully.
Now, we are getting to the crux of the matter. For the last week, or 15 days or maybe the last three weeks, if you read all the papers or listen to the radio or watch television, you have heard the hon. members for Lapointe and Villeneuve talking about the poor French Canadians who have not been recognized in the house. I even heard the hon. member for Lapointe state: "If there had been only one English speaking member in our group, we would have been recognized."
Mr. Speaker, when I see the Caouettists play on nationalism or even racism on a mere question of privileges in this house-privileges they already enjoy, by the way-I must say: "Poor French Canadians".
When it was profitable to talk in Quebec about the union of electors, about the white berets, there was talk about the union of electors and about white berets. When it was profitable, in the province of Quebec, to talk about Social Credit, there was talk about Social Credit. When it was profitable, in the province of Quebec, to talk about the Rallie-ment des creditistes, there was talk about the Ralliement des creditistes. When it was profitable to talk about nationalism, there was talk

about nationalism. And today, it seems more profitable to talk about separatism and there is talk about separatism. I will even go further, Mr. Speaker. If it seems profitable to go along with socialism, then they join with the "Ban the bombs" group and they organize a big demonstration. If, some day, it becomes more profitable to talk about communism, then I say:	"Poor Quebec, poor
French Canada."
Today, Mr. Speaker, the government certainly has to take some responsibilities, and so has the House of Commons. But I wish to say this: Decisions are always hard to take, and if the German democracy had taken its responsibilities in time, we would have avoided two world wars.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe jumps on his horse and starts talking about bilingualism and about the poor French Canadians. I should like to remind the house that no longer than a week ago, in the committee of privileges and elections, we witnessed a comedy. Here it is:


Mr.   Chairman@: Will you excuse me, Mr. Gregoire? Is there a translator here?
Mr. Robichaud (translator and interpreter) [DOT] I am here.


Gilles Grégoire: I will translate.
After that, you will see the hon. member for Lapointe come into this house and say: Give us interpreters, the two nations must be put on the same footing.
I know that the two nations must be put on the same footing, and I myself want it, but I forbid any French Canadian to use undeserved titles to satisfy his political ambitions.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote from page 69 of the report of the committee on privileges and elections:
Notwithstanding the resolution passed on October 3 to the effect that English- and French-speaking reporters attend all regular meetings of the committee, it is now moved that we proceed for the time being without a French-speaking reporter.


Mr. Leboe:: I so move, Mr. Chairman.
At that time, I asked the hon. member for Lapointe, in order to avoid any point of order, if he had any objection, so that the matter would not be raised later through the newspapers and the radio. Here is the answer of the hon. member for Lapointe:
The member for Labelle knows full well that if I have any objections to make I will make them, and if I do not make them, then...
Then, it is pressing, Mr. Speaker, to be recognized as a party. They do not care about bilingualism. What is urgent is not bilingualism, but to be recognized as a party. Then, they return in the province of Quebec and in my constituency, and they say: The poor French Canadians are ill-treated in Ottawa.
Privileges and Elections
Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come to put an end to the situation. Moreover, I wish to state that the people who were present in the committee had convictions, and the proof is that several came and told me-and I pass on these remarks to the hon. member for Villeneuve, for whom I have nevertheless a certain admiration-that, had it not been for the cowardliness of the member for Lapointe -and I am in a position to prove it-the Caouette group would have had more chance to be considered.
I can assure you that had Voltaire been present, he would have come out of his grave upon hearing the statements of the hon. member for Lapointe.


An hon. Member:: Henri Bourassa would not have done that.


Gérard Girouard: Someone mentioned Henri Bourassa. Well, I am going to speak about him. At the time when he was the Liberal member for Labelle, seeing that the Liberal party did not meet his own aspirations, he simply withdrew. He withdrew without claiming anything, without any privilege. And he fought till the end of his days for the French Canadian fact. That was Henri Bourassa.
When the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency decided there were certain things he could not accept in the Social Credit party, he withdrew as an Independent and asked no other privilege than to sit as a member in the house; and he obtained it.
Before concluding my remarks, may I be permitted to come back to the argument I put forward in the committee. Today I put the same question to the house. If a member of the Social Credit had withdrawn and claimed the privileges of a national party, it would have been a mockery. If only two members had withdrawn asking the house for privileges, once again, they would have been the laughing-stock of the house. If only three or four had withdrawn, then again, they would have been open to ridicule. Tell me, then, what is the difference if there are 13 members involved today in this matter? Does the number alter the situation?
May I recall a remark of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Ouellet): "Mr. Girouard, I am glad that we are only 11 in the party because there is no room then for a betrayer."
Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a matter for the party in power to decide. Well, here is what I say to the party in power: assume the responsibility. Time has come for Canada to have a government which accepts its responsibilities. Of course, the legislation may not be the best but, at least, we shall have a government which knows how to accept its responsibilities. Some people in the

Privileges and Elections house will be dissatisfied with the decision taken whatever it may be. Whatever the solution is arrived at by the party in power, some will still be unhappy, since you cannot please everyone.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude on this note in saying that, nowadays, if some members go around the province of Quebec trying to lead the Quebec French Canadians to believe that they have nobody in the house to support them I contend, as a Quebec French Canadian, that there are still some French Canadians in the house and that it is not with contention that someday we shall achieve unity between our two great nations but rather with kindness and charity.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, as an independent member, I would like to express some independent ideas on the problem now before us, but I want, more particularly, to rise above every personal consideration and every political advantage from which a group in this house might benefit.
We are told that this is an important question, but I am not ready to admit that statement, only that it is a matter of consequence, which means that the decision taken today, or tomorrow, or in six months from now, will have repercussions in any future debate which might take place in the house if it had to face an identical issue.
We know that British procedure is based on a great number of precedents. This precedent, which might or might not be created here, will have extraordinary consequences in the future.
But I would like, here, to tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I have as much admiration for him as all the others, and in this all hon. members in this house will support me, even if he said that some considered him a nuisance. As far as I am concerned, I do not think so. For, even if it might sometimes be said that our business has been to a certain extent delayed by his remarks, we recognize his integrity and ability.
Yet, I think that today-and, after all, he might make a mistake even after several years of parliamentary experience-he voiced somewhat dangerous implications in the house, when he suggested that the fact of not recognizing that new group would jeopardize democratic rights, and that it was an impingement on free speech.
Such a thing has never been considered.
The matter which the committee and the house have to decide, is not so much to know whether or not there should be deprivation of the right of speech, but to see whether the new party which has, as we

know now, been formed following the last election is to be recognized or not.
As you realize, my argument is entirely above the parties or the persons concerned. This is a question of principle. And I would even say that if the division had decided that the group we still recognized as the Social Credit would include 15 members and the other group, nine members, there would be no more reason to recognize the new group than there is today. It is merely a question of parliamentary procedure, which is not written in the laws, which is written nowhere, but which has built up gradually through precedents over the years.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) stressed out the admiration he had for Sir Wilfrid Laurier and I suppose he has the same consideration for the right hon. Mr. King. And Mr. King himself said -I shall not quote his remarks word for word not to take too much of the time of the house-that he would not contribute in the house to the establishment of new parties because this would lead to anarchy.
As for democracy, it is something that is built up at the constituency level by the voters. We are elected by democratic procedure. And in the House of Commons, we must follow the regulations even if they are coercive.
I remember last year, when I was whip of the party, and I would meet with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; in order to decide about the number of speakers that would take part in a debate, after consultation, we would agree on three Conservatives, two Liberals, one member of the New Democratic party and one Crediter. But, afterwards, if there was a change, nobody clamoured that his rights were flouted or that he had been deprived of his democratic rights. All followed or stuck to what had been agreed upon or set up in advance.
I should like to draw to the hon. members' attention the fact that the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is very clever, most misleading- I do not mean like the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), especially, but most misleading.
The point is not to determine the privileges of the present members, but the privileges of a recognized group. It is known that there are privileges and concessions which are granted out of courtesy and not out of respect for democracy. The legislation which set them up is nothing other than precedents.
It is said that the government must take its responsibilities. That is another way of changing the subject. Those who have to take responsibilities are the members of parliament. Legislation is passed by parliament and not

by the government. When the Conservatives had 208 members in the house, it was not the Conservative party or the government which passed the legislation, but parliament.
The hon. member tor Winnipeg North Centre suggested that parties are not mentioned anywhere in the election procedure. I imagine that this did not happen only in my own riding. But the hon. member is so well informed.
However, when I reported to the returning officer in my constituency, I had to state the name of the group for which I was running. I could have written Conservative, Liberal, N.D.P. or Social Credit. I would have to go and see the returning officer to see the form I filled out to indicate under what label I was running. I was running for the Social Credit party.
I must also say that the posters we affixed as long as we were allowed to do so, also had the name of the Social Credit party printed on them.
It does not follow that because a group with a provincial name joined a national group for the purpose of an election, should not be recognized as a national party. Nobody ever challenged this. It is for us to decide whether it is in the public interest and in the interest of the country's future to recognize any new party which has never been through a general election, not even a byelection.
In this connection, I shall recall the words of Mackenzie King who said following a by-election where one more member had been elected to parliament: "It is not because a candidate won a by-election that he should be recognized as a group." There is no reason for that. Precedents can be set and can become law as far as our procedure is concerned. If we make a decision that alters the meaning and the spirit of the previously established procedure, we shall create a precedent that others will put forward.
The Leader of the Opposition referred earlier to Mr. Manion who was elected to parliament, became party leader and was replaced by Mr. Hanson while still sitting in the house. This simply proves that the party had chosen a new leader, it does not prove that the new party leader was recognized or that this new member of parliament or this new leader had formed a new party.
Now, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre proceeded with his logical demonstration and he finally put the blame on the Liberals, whether the Liberals were to accept the committee's recommendations or not, while in the remainder of his speech he tried to prove that we were not members of a party, but rather individuals elected as such.
Privileges and Elections I do not see why the responsibility should be taken from a party to be shifted upon a member, and then taken from a member to be thrown again upon a party.
I think the hon. member forgot what he had said previously in his speech when he came to that pathetic appeal, when he pleaded the cause of the Ralliement des creditistes.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak at too great length on the subject. As a French Canadian from the province of Quebec, I merely wanted to prove that regardless of parties, regardless of the motion, it is possible to calmly debate a subject of such importance which will be of such consequence.
I wish to associate myself with the words of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) and say that I believe that I am a first class Canadian, a first class French Canadian. I also believe that I am a first class representative of the province of Quebec and I intend to work for the province of Quebec as much as for the remainder of the country, because I consider that I am part of a whole and that I am also part of another whole as far as the province of Quebec is concerned.
I wish everyone to know and especially that it appear in Hansard that it is not because we are logical with ourselves that we should be considered as traitors, or as abdicators or as renegades or as those who give up their own nationality to gather around racists. No.
The arguments which I put forth, because I am alone, and I think it is the first time that I have the honour of speaking on behalf of my party, are merely intended to bring back the debate on a logical basis.
And what will happen in the province of Quebec where newspapermen still wish to grant recognition to the Ralliement des creditistes not in a spirit of justice, but to be in a better position to demolish them? Even if these people try to put forward some arguments in favour of the recognition of a fourth party, in my opinion, we should not care, because there will certainly be some consequences, in one way or another, in all constituencies and even outside Quebec.
Consequently, let us assume our responsibilities and let us limit ourselves to the consideration of the present problem and not of another completely different one. We should not be afraid. The members of the government side and those of the official opposition should make their own decisions and vote freely. In my opinion, nothing can stand in the way of such a position, if we really want to settle this problem in a democratic way.
Mr. Speaker, before closing, I wish to deal with another matter.
This afternoon, reference was made to the years 1891, 1910 and 1911. May I recall to the house that at that time there were no
36S0

Privileges and Elections microphones or loud-speakers and I wonder if the members would readily give up the microphones and the loud-speakers, simply because at the time of Laurier, Manion and others, they were in existence. Certainly, this does not allow us to say that, inasmuch as in the past certain parliamentary procedures were accepted, it follows that they must be accepted today.
Now, I will point out that those remarks were completely out of order, because it was a discussion on parliamentary procedure of that time instead of a debate on the matter now before us.
Mr. Speaker, I ask every member to take his responsibilities, to analyse the problem in its proper perspective and to answer the question asked by Mr. Speaker, that is, to submit that problem to the committee on privileges and elections.


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker,
I would not want the house to get the impression that, if I make a speech now, it is apparently to protect the hon. member who, a while ago, refused to accept the challenge contained in the question of privilege raised by our leader, the hon. member for Ville-neuve (Mr. Caouette). However, before going into the heart of the matter, I have a few comments to make, following which I hope we shall be able to resume the discussion while putting aside all political partisanship.
Some of our friends opposite seemed to attach a lot of importance to tradition and brought out the historical argument that we should not forget that the step the house was about to take was of the utmost importance for the future.
Mr. Speaker, in the early part of the present session, time and time again, we offered suggestions for the revision of our parliamentary procedure, and I think we all agree that such a revision is necessary.
I also believe that perhaps we should stop considering only tradition when the time has come to defend a cause. It seems to me we should turn our eyes toward the future. And I say to my hon. friends opposite as well as to those on this side of the house that the political future of our country should be regarded not as something to be taken for granted but as something to be looked after now.
The fact is that, in accord with democratic procedure, the Canadian people send representatives to this house at the national election. At that time, only the names of the candidates appear on the ballots; no mention is made of party allegiance.
And if we cast a glance at the future of our country, I feel we must cease giving so much importance to this tradition or to this

two-party system. The existence of a political group such as the New Democratic party or the Creditistes should be recognized as an actual fact.
After all, whether we be Liberal, Conservative, Social Crediters or members of the New Democratic party, are we not the elected representatives of the Canadian people in this house?
By the way, it is probably with such a vision of the future that on the 28th of June last, Bill No. C-91 was introduced, tending to the recognition as a group in this house of a party of 12 members in the House of Commons under the direction of a leader recognized as such by them.
Mr. Speaker, one seems to be bound by tradition when one finds it suitable, otherwise one does not think of it any more.
The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) said earlier in his remarks that we should uphold tradition. But, at the end of his speech, he is not interested in it any longer.
He gave as an example simultaneous interpretation and asked hon. members whether they would prefer to go back to the old days and have the interpretation system abolished. Yet, he himself had suggested a little earlier that we go back. I wonder, then, whether he was not contradicting himself.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should just like to point out to the hon. member for Beauce that I was not referring to the system of simultaneous interpretation but to loud-speakers and microphones.


Gérard Perron: As for the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard) he did nothing but whine. I could not quite make out what he wanted to say.
Since he has good friends on this side of the house, I was wondering whether he was not turning his back on those who were his friends until lately.
The hon. member for Labelle should remember that he represents the riding that sent Henri Bourassa to the House of Commons.
Moreover, not so long ago, that constituency was represented by an independent who was a member of a fairly nationalist group.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members should not imagine that nationalism is the only thing we think about. On the contrary, we think as Canadians. And to refute an argument that was raised this afternoon to the effect that our group consists only of members from the province of Quebec, I would ask: Is the province of Quebec not part of confederation? Is the province of Quebec not part of the Canadian nation?

As members of the federal parliament, we have a right to speak for the people, to be respected and to account for our mandate to our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, by means of arguments which I would call absurd, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine) has tried to illustrate the nonsense of the situation with which we are faced today. But I wonder what would be the issue if he and all the supporters of the hon. member for Red Deer who were elected with the help of the Rallie-ment des creditistes went before the electorate.
Mr. Speaker, anyone wishing to know anything about the Ralliement des creditistes only has to refer to the records of the returning officer for each riding or those of the chief electoral officer and he will see all the receipts for expenses made during the general election of June 18, 1962, and that of April 8, 1963. Official receipts, signed by an officer of the Ralliement des creditistes will be also found, accounting for all election expenses incurred in any county in the province of Quebec.
Besides, a simple check with television stations will show what programs were reserved and paid for by the Ralliement des creditistes.
Therefore, we are compelled to admit that we have been elected in our respective counties, under the name of candidates or members of the Ralliement des creditistes, even if the name of a party did not appear on each ballot.
To say that we act in bad faith and under false pretences is wrong. In fact, in my county I am known as the member of the Ralliement des creditistes, during election time as well as afterwards.
I feel it is my duty-as it is the duty of any member in this house-to be a true representative of the people, and to make their wishes heard from one end of the country to the other.
Mr. Speaker, it has even been said that we are separatists. We are simply striving to defend the rights of Canadians, of all Canadians,. and we are known as Canadians throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed very strange that after some speeches we have heard here, the press has followed suit, and spoken of a split in our party. A year ago everybody seemed to be waiting just for that. People were wondering who would come first, the member for Villeneuve, with his 26 followers from the province of Quebec, or the member for Red Deer and his three members from the west?
Everybody was hoping for a split. When it became obvious that we were taking a firm stand, because we could see eye to eye on certain points of organization, or on a few
Privileges and Elections basic tenets, people started to lament and seem to listen more willingly to the whining we heard a moment ago, to the effect that we are divided.
If we are divided, I feel that in view of the principles of democracy, it does not belong to political opponents or to those who are sitting on the house committee and who act as witnesses and judges to make decision.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are answerable to our constituents. Thus, I believe that we should forget all partisan politics and consider the political action taken as far as legality is concerned. Then, let us restrict our discussion to legality under Bill C-91 which was passed on July 26 last and which, for the first time in Canada, defines what a parliamentary group is entitled to in the House of Commons, that is a group comprising 12 persons is entitled to have a leader recognized by parliament.
If we want to base our judgment on that, I believe that we will very soon find a solution, while it will be the opposite if we start entertaining all sorts of considerations and if we consider traditions.
In addition to legality, let us also examine the issue in terms of the future. It is good to examine the past, but we must also face the future.
As I said at the beginning, if the two-party system is a thing of the past, I still believe that we should look to the future so as to find ways to establish a political continuity in this house. If the continuity in the house is to be ensured according to standards of democracy, I believe that it is time for us to recognize the rights and privileges of other parties in the house, as defined by Bill C-91.
The two-party system has prevailed here since 1867, this I will grant. Through the operation of that system, the ball was tossed back and forth and the parties were charging each other with all sorts of things, and the same charges were picked up by the official opposition when it was its turn to act in that capacity, and when it had a chance to get back into office, it was the target for the charges levelled at them by the party which had moved across the floor to make up the official opposition.
Six months ago, charges were simply displaced by a change in the seating arrangement in the house.
The two-party policy has come to an end in Canada. Let us now look at the political future of this country from another angle. The parliamentary policy of the house is not unknown to the community.
Last autumn, when the session started on September 27,	1962, all political groups
advocated a revision of the rules dealing with

Privileges and Elections parliamentary procedure. Let us therefore recognize the groups representing the voice of the people in this house: those groups are certainly entitled to a better future, that of a party or group which can vote, or if it wants to do so, impede the progress of public business in the house.
Parliamentary procedure to be approved today should be considered in this light. We are living in the twentieth century. Different ideologies are abroad in the world.
Let us admit in this house the voice of the people who have the right to be heard through their representatives, in order to attain a continuity of economic and parliamentary thinking in Canada. We should try to reach this aim and proceed with a full revision of our standing orders.
I therefore ask for a recognition based on justice and legal order, as defined in Bill C-91, which was approved by hon. members.
On that basis let us give relief to those who ask for justice, and let us stop talking about a thousand and one things except the problem which is now pointing towards the future and has to be considered carefully tonight, before taking the step which will definitely ratify the recognition of a group in this house, even if at this time that group is only represented by 13 members from the province of Quebec.
If we wish to keep the province of Quebec within the frame of confederation, Mr. Speaker, I think we should all unite more than ever and look towards the future in the hope of securing a revision of the rules and regulations of the house which would recognize the wishes of the people through the instrumentation of the various groups in the House of Commons. Whatever their position, these groups deserve and demand recognition. They base their claims upon Bill No. C-91, under the terms of which they demand justice based upon logic.

Mr. John N. Turner (St. Lawrence-St.
George): Mr. Speaker, we address ourselves on this side of the house to the motion before the house arising out of the report of the committee, not in the emotional terms in which, quite understandably, those who are parties to the dispute have spoken, but as members of a jury that was constituted by the Speaker of this house to decide a question which was perhaps without precedent in the modern annals of parliament, either here or at Westminster.


Gilles Grégoire: Come to the point.


John Napier Turner: I will get down to that, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member for Lapointe will contain himself for a moment, I will


analyse just what the question was. Since he has been holding himself in reverse-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: -in reserve, and perhaps in reverse. Perhaps we will have an opportunity of hearing from him at a later date.


An hon. Member:: A later date?


John Napier Turner: Perhaps even this evening. In any event, the committee decided in the terms referred to it by the Speaker. Perhaps I might just for a moment refer to those terms. Referring to Hansard for September 30, the Speaker in posing the questions which the committee had to consider said this, as reported at page 3007:
Have we a new party according to this new definition and, if so, has this party been recognized by the house? To my mind this is a question for the house to decide.
Then at page 3008 he says this:
It is my duty, I believe, to bring to the attention of the house the novel character of the situation now before it, and more particularly the payment of allowances and the effect on the organization of parliament and parties and of the work of this house that naturally must be reflected by the emergence from time to time of new groups that invite the house to accord them the status of parties.
He goes on to say this:
Profound constitutional questions arise; for example, can a group of members which did not exist as a party at the time of the election of a parliament be recognized as a party before it has submitted itself to the electorate?
That was the question referred by the Chair to the committee and to this house to decide. It is not merely a question of seating, if I might say so with the greatest respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); it is not merely a question of the physical arrangements of this house. If I might eliminate two issues at the outset from the crucial question before the house, I would say this. First of all the question of who gets the $4,000 payable to a leader of a party having at least 12 members, under the recent amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act, is not a question that could properly be decided by either the committee or this house, and I think on that point all members of the committee were in agreement. In other words, this is a public statute; this is a statute that has to be followed by the comptroller of the treasury, and the comptroller of the treasury may of course refer the matter to the Deputy Minister of Justice. In any event, the matter of the $4,000 additional allowance is not a question before the committee or the house at this time.
As for the seating, the physical arrangements in the house, this goes merely to the

physical arrangements and it is not and should not be interrelated with the question of status or privileges to be conceded, or allowed, or granted to a new group in this house. The committee's report as submitted to the house does not decide whether the privileges of the house-that is to say, the privileges with regard to debate, orders of the day, or motions-are to be given to a new group. It merely recognizes that as a physical fact there is an independent group, independent of the existing Social Credit party, and for that reason it would be better for the good order of the house to seat them separately. It does not prejudge the case of whether the 13 members who left the Social Credit party proper are independents, or are necessarily a new group for the purpose of recognition by the house.
The main issue still before the committee and this house is, shall this new group of 13 independents, or 13 followers of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) be recognized as eligible for the privileges of the house? Within that context let us examine just what the committee did. First of all, it decided the seating arrangement as between the three smaller groups-the New Democratic party, the Social Credit party and the Ralliement des creditistes, or followers of the hon. member for Villeneuve. The committee had a straight choice. It could have chosen to seat those three groups either in order of numerical preference, or in order of seniority or historical precedence. The committee chose to report to this house that they be seated in order of historical precedence.


Mr. Nielsen:: "Hysterical precedence".


John Napier Turner: Well, there is something to be said for what the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) says; but after all we are acting as a jury and not necessarily as parties to the dispute.
On the question whether the committee should have chosen numerical preference or historical precedence, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre recognized before the committee itself that, whichever way the committee decided, this would be an arbitrary decision and equally supported by precedent. As reported on page 28 of the transcript of the committee's evidence he said:
As X say, this committee, and in turn the House of Commons when it receives our report, have these two types of precedents, one, that history and seniority of groups, which was followed in 1935 and in 1940, is the proper precedent, and two, numerical strength of the groups, as was followed in 1962 and 1963, is the precedent to be followed. The committee can decide either way.
Privileges and Elections In other words, there is nothing sacrosanct about either the way the committee reported to the house or, with the greatest respect, about the way the amendment is phrased.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The committee decided both ways.


John Napier Turner: If I may address myself to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the committee did not, with respect, decide both ways. It gave historical precedence, first of all, to the oldest of the three groups recognized in the house. Again, if I may use the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as he is reported on page 27 of the evidence:
Our party was the oldest party and the members were the oldest members-
So therefore, even in the situation which arose in 1940 the C.C.F. party was the older party.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member permit a question? How does he judge which has seniority?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Lapointe asks me how we judge seniority, or historical precedence. I think that history speaks for itself. The N.D.P. party, or the C.C.F. party as it once was, is the oldest party of the group, in terms of recognition in this house; the Social Credit party is the second oldest and the Ralliement des creditistes is a new phenomenon. I think it is quite consistent with the facts that this report was based on historical precedence. In this regard I refer to no better authority than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as reported at page 27 of the committee's evidence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he mean by what he is saying that the New Democratic party should have been seated above the Social Credit party at the beginning of this parliament?


John Napier Turner: I might say in answer to that question that the hon. member himself said in the committee that it is an arbitrary decision, but either is a defensible one. Each is as justifiable as the other. If my hon. friend for Winnipeg North Centre is introducing an amendment based on numerical preference, I say that the committee in its majority judgment decided that the fairer way to do this, in the circumstances of the situation, a situation where we have a recent breakaway group, was to choose historical precedence or seniority before this house as a legitimate, fair and reasonable way of seating the three groups in question.
It is quite understandable, Mr. Speaker, why the hon. member for Winnipeg North

Privileges and Elections Centre takes such a flexible position, because for him and his party it is "Heads I win, tails you lose", either on historical precedence or numerical preference, in the light of this situation. With the whole range of facts before this house neither he nor his party could lose.
In other words, there has been no breach of principle as alleged by the parties opposite. The committee was entitled in its good judgment, after reviewing all the facts, to choose either of two sets of precedents before the house, and as a matter of fact it chose the precedent having the longest validity in this House of Commons and indeed in the house at Westminster.
There is some danger in following the amendment suggested and moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If we were to rely on numerical strength only, with the present strength of adhesion of the two groups to the dispute, namely Social Credit and Ralliement des creditistes, we do not know whether we would be playing a game of musical chairs, because we do not know how long the adhesive tape would hold.


David Réal Caouette: Why don't you do some counting?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Ville-neuve says "do some counting". They are 13, which reminds me of a pack of cards- four suits, 52 cards in all. Perhaps the present alignment is just as solid as a pack of cards.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member saying that we are not 13, or that he is going to decide how many we are in our group?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the house has not decided whether this 13 is a group of 13 independents, or whether it is a new group, and the only reason I mentioned the number 13 was that it reminded me of a suit in a deck of cards, with the same type of solidarity.


Mr. Plourde:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, rather than answer any more questions I would rather go on and develop my argument; if there is time left I will answer any questions at the end.
Let us now leave the question of seating as decided by the committee. I submit that the decision was made within the principle of historical precedence in this house, and is fully justifiable and defensible on that ground. On the question of the privileges and status which should or should not be accorded to the 13 members following the hon. member for


Villeneuve, this depends on whether this house is going to recognize this new group for the purpose of according it the privileges of this house. It is not merely a question of fact. It is not a question of whether there are 13 members or whether they profess loyalty to the hon. member for Villeneuve. Neither is it a question whether it is a new group. The question is: Is this group such that this house should at this moment give recognition to it for the purposes of the procedure of this House of Commons? It is not, as I say, just a question of fact; it is a question of recognition by this house.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer-


Gilles Grégoire: It is just a simple question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness I think I have been generous already in diluting my time for the benefit of questioners. If there is any time left later on I will be glad to submit to the interrogation of the hon. member for Lapointe.
Now, Mr. Speaker, looking at this question of recognition for the purposes of the procedure of this house, this has serious implications. This is why the question was worthy of being submitted to parliamentary counsel for the advice and guidance of Your Honour. Why do I say it has serious implications? First of all, there is the danger that recognition of these 13 members as a new group would contribute to the eventual fragmentation of this house. Many commentators in newspapers have said: Give them their way; recognize them, and get on with the business of the house. But the committee feared that to do so would be to open the door to the kind of splintering of parliament which destroyed the parliament of France under the third and fourth republics.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Napier Turner: I hear groans from the smaller parties. But that is a type of special pleading. We are thinking, now, in terms of upholding the traditions which make for the responsible working of parliament. If the committee and the house were to give recognition to a group which has not received recognition by the electorate as being a group we would, I believe, be creating a precedent which would have dire results. There is nothing in the traditions, precedents or conventions of this house which demands that you, Mr. Speaker, should recognize the formation of new political parties or groups, or that you should accept breakaways from political parties already in existence during the life of a

current parliament. Only the people can create a party; and until the people have recognized, in an election, the existence of this new grouping I think it is within the rights of the committee and of the house to refuse to grant recognition.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the hon. member permit a brief question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has been generous in replying to questions but he is entitled to make his argument in silence, I think.


John Napier Turner: I am flattered that I have provoked a question from the chief whip of the official opposition, but perhaps it can be allowed to wait until later.
The second reason which was certainly in the minds of the committee, or of those on this side who voted in favour of the committee's report, was that the nature of the new group was not sufficiently clear. It was not certain, on the basis of the evidence given by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gre-goire) whether we were dealing with a new party or an old party under new leadership, or-


Gilles Grégoire: On a question of privilege; everything which was said in front of the committee on privileges and elections is written here. If the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George wishes to quote what was said, well and good. I wish to draw attention, in front of the hon. member, to what appears on page-


Mr. Speaker:: An opportunity will be given to the hon. member for Lapointe to speak later on. There is no question of privilege. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has the floor.


John Napier Turner: I have the actual words here and the hon. member will have a chance to make his own case in due course. However, I think that after a fair reading of the replies the hon. member gave to questions which I and others put to him in the committee it will be apparent that it is not clear what position the new grouping was taking, nor was it clear from the documentation we had whether we were dealing with a national party or a provincial party. In these circumstances the committee did not feel a case had been properly made out by the new grouping under the leadership of the hon. member for Ville-neuve.
The third question the committee considered, when it made the recommendation it did, was whether a group of members splitting off from an old party could receive recognition before the people themselves, from whom all power flows, had recognized the new grouping. This was of such importance that
Privileges and Elections the committee decided to defer the question to parliamentary counsel. The evidence in this respect was clear. The group under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve had not fought an election as a separate group. The election was fought under the leadership of the hon. member for Red Deer. There was no national convention launching a new party. These were the facts which were presented to the committee. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said in the committee that the people should decide and, within those limits, I agree. Before the committee or before this house can decide whether there is a new party, the people must decide.


David Réal Caouette: On a question of privilege. When the hon. member says we were not elected under the label "Ralliement des creditistes", he is wrong. We had conventions which were absolutely legal, and we were elected following those conventions.


John Napier Turner: Obviously, I have not the time in which to reply to all the interventions which, somehow, I am provoking from the other side. I ask all hon. members to read the evidence which was presented in the committee and to draw their own conclusions.
The Leader of the Opposition had something to say about this question this afternoon. He said, first of all, that the committee refused to face the issue. Let me say, in answer to that, that the committee did reach a decision, despite the fact that the party which the right hon. gentleman leads wanted to avoid the issue. I could quote from page 82 of the transcript of evidence before the committee. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had this to say:
All I can see is internal strife within a political party and as such it is something which this committee should not meddle with and indeed, I doubt whether it has the power to do so.
In other words, the position taken by the Conservative party was that the matter should be sent back to the Speaker, with no action being taken whatsoever. The Leader of the Opposition quoted the famous maxim of Voltaire when he said: I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. The answer to this, with the greatest respect, is that there is here no infringement of the right to speak of any member of parliament. The right of individual members to speak is untrammelled and unfettered. It is as great as it has always been. In any case it would take more than the rules of the House of Commons to silence either the hon. member for Villeneuve or the hon. member for Lapointe. The only restriction which is involved in the committee's decision is that the right to recognize certain hon. members as a group is, for the moment,

Privileges and Elections limited. The learned Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to the precedent of a member of a major party crossing the floor to another major party as a precedent for recognition of this kind. With the greatest respect, that has no validity whatsoever in regard to the present argument, because one party is already recognized, as is the other. The question here is: Is a party to have recognition; not whether we are to recognize a switch from one recognized party to another recognized party.
The question before the house is, should we give in to a new grouping just because we are threatened with filibusters, just because the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) threatens that he may pull his party out of confederation. I do not think so. If they are responsible members of the house I believe they will accept with good grace the decision of the majority of the house, within the traditions and privileges of the house.


David Réal Caouette: Which majority?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, members of the Ralliement des creditistes claimed to be the voice of French Canada. With all due respect, I must tell them that they do not have a monopoly in that respect, because seven of their colleagues have chosen to follow the member for Red Deer.
Besides, our group has about 40 French speaking members who represent the basic common sense of the province of Quebec. Even the Conservatives have good members from Quebec, even though I must say they do not deserve them.
Consequently, I feel the Ralliement des creditistes has no monopoly in this respect.

May I just say this in conclusion. As put so ably by the hon. member for Brant-Haldiman (Mr. Pennell), the committee's decision is open to these questions in the House of Commons this evening. Is it against the traditions of the house in Ottawa or Westminster? I think the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand proved conclusively that it is not. We have reached a decision with regard to seniority as to seating that is well within the precedents of the House of Commons. Is it discrimination against the province of Quebec? There is no discrimination whatsoever. Surely any decision made within the traditions of the House of Commons cannot be labelled discrimination against a recently constituted group.
In summary may I say that, within the realm of common sense and based on the evidence and facts presented to the committee, the committee in its best judgment

tried to evaluate the matter within the limits of the traditions and the conventions of the House of Commons, and therefore I would urge members of the house to accept the report of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is obvious that the member who has just spoken made a very stimulating speech because there are at least five members who want to question him.
I will not take them in order of precedence but rather I will take the member closest to the Chair first, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering whether the house is in committee or whether we are carrying on an orderly debate here.


Mr. Martineau:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, you have allowed the question and it is up to the hon. member if he wants to answer it. Would the hon. member accept a question?


John Napier Turner: Surely.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I just want to know whether the hon. member was speaking on behalf of the government and on behalf of his party when he stated his position?


John Napier Turner: In answer to that, may I say the hon. member knows full well that I was a member of the committee. He also knows full well that I voted in favour of the majority report of that committee. I have spoken justifying the reasonableness and good sense of that report.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to ask the hon. member a question arising out of his remarks this evening. Does he really believe that his party has any regard for members of the House of Commons other than those of his own party? As he developed his remarks I must admit I became confused. I did not know whether he wanted to become a Thompsonite or a Caouetteist.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked whether as a member of the Liberal party I have respect for other members of the House of Commons. In answer may I say I have so much respect for the members of the House of Commons that I want the traditions of the house preserved.


Eric Alfred Winkler: You did not show it tonight. [Translation]


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) a question, because I cannot follow his argument.

We, of the official Social Credit party, claim to have kept the Social Credit label.
There are 13 of us. I do not see how they can claim seniority since the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) was elected in 1946 and did sit in the house from 1946 to 1949. They base their claim to seniority on the fact that the Thompson group had only three members elected in 1957.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when I made that reference to the matter of group seniority, I expressed the opinion that in that sense, the new group under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve was a holiday product.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George? Does he know of any previous occasion in the history of the Canadian parliament when the status of a political party in the House of Commons was determined by a vote of the majority of the members? If not, does he not think it would be wise to stick with the tradition of parties speaking for themselves, and the house confining itself to seating arrangements?


John Napier Turner: I would say in answer to that question that the house was charged by the Speaker with arriving at a decision. The type of decision may have been without precedent in the house, but we had to rely on what precedents there were in arriving at a decision for the benefit of the Speaker, and to the best of our judgment we came within the precedents that were available to us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question. I think the hon. member still has time and would not mind another question. Does this not put the majority of the members of the house in the position of deciding, for the first time in our history, that certain parties are recognized as official and another one is not? Does that not put the majority in the position of deciding between first class and second class parties?


John Napier Turner: Surely the house is master of its own rules and if from time to time, short of unanimity, matters have to be decided by a majority decision under those rules, then I feel that is the way it has to be. Surely many precedents have been set by majority decision when a matter has been decided by way of an appeal from a ruling of the Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Lloyd:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do think the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has submitted to quite a series of questions. After
Privileges and Elections all this is a debate on a motion, not a debate in committee. If he wishes to answer questions, that is up to him, but I do think we are pressing the issue rather far.


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to ask the hon. member-


John Edward Lloyd: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I may have your attention. There has been a great deal said about privilege from a relatively narrow part of Canada. I should like the questions to end, so some thoughts might perhaps be expressed from the maritime provinces, if you so permit.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any hon. member in the house who wishes to speak now?


Mr. Richard Cashin (SI. John's West):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in the day it was my intention to enter this debate and say a few words. However, after listening to the fine speeches delivered by my two colleagues, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) and the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Pennell), I decided there was nothing left for me to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hurrah.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, such is not the case. This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre proceeded to give his hit parade list of certain members he liked. He also seemed to question whether or not he was liked by the other members. I should like to assure him that I think he is not really a bad guy. This seemed to bother him, and he seemed to feel he no longer belonged or was wanted. I would not want him to have this feeling because, after all, it is a dangerous thing when people begin to wonder whether they are really wanted. None of us would want anything to happen to our good friend from Winnipeg North Centre.
The hon. member said he was making his stand on principle. I do not know that he had to say this. However, when he did say it, two questions crossed my mind. First, was this something new and, second, did he imply that those who did not agree with him were not motivated by principle? Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the doing of things on the basis of principle or in the right way is not the sole prerogative of any one group or any one individual. I feel strongly, on the basis of principle, that the decision taken by this committee was the right one. As I tried to understand the feeling of the people on this subject, judging from the mail I received it seemed to me that there was a body of opinion that seemed to say: Recognize this group; give them what they want for the sake of peace. This seems to me to be a very

Privileges and Elections poor reason for doing something in a particular fashion.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in his questioning of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, was begging the question. Had the decision been to seat the group under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) ahead of the group under the leadership of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), then the argument could have been made just as easily from the same quarter of this house that that was the wrong decision. As was pointed out, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre himself said in the committee that there were two courses of action. As I was looking for some leadership on this problem, I was listening to him closely. He seemed to indicate that we could decide either way. If there was a good basis for making the decision either way, what then is an individual member of the committee or of parliament to do? How are you going to vote if there are two courses of action, both of which are based on precedents? How do you arrive at the right decision? We have to decide which is the better precedent. Perhaps other hon. members in the house will disagree with my view, but surely the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will not deny me the right to express it, and I say that I fear what has happened in this regrettable situation may have some disastrous effect on future parliaments. It seems to me that the decision made now should be made with some thought as to its effect on subsequent parliaments.
Accordingly, there seems to me to be a difference. I can see a genuine distinction which perhaps others cannot see. I see a distinction in respect of a group that has candidates in every part of this country who are elected to the house under a common banner, under a common leadership, who come into this house and sit as a group elected by voters who knew they would sit as a group, and who knew they would have this man as leader. I think there is a difference between this situation and this new phenomena in which parties or groups within the House of Commons break into small groups. I think there is a distinction here. I think the precedent of recognizing the senior parties was a wise one. Accordingly, I should like to see the house adopt this report.
Before I conclude, I should like to say this. I suppose there will continue to be those who rise and say: We do this on principle. This practice seems to have been going on for the 90-odd years of confederation, and if confederation lasts another 90 years it will continue. However, let us not forget that two
[Mr. Cashind
men can do directly opposing things and actually believe that they are motivated by principle. Let us not get to the stage where members of parliament seem to be insinuating that they alone act on the basis of principle.
I think this is a dangerous state of mind and a dangerous thing for the country.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, in all objectivity and serenity, I should like to explain the reasons why, in my view, the "Caouetteist" group should not be recognized as an official party in the house.


Gilles Grégoire: Have you decided that all by yourself?


Auguste Choquette: Yes, I can understand very well why the hon. members for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) and Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) are desperate at this point-they feel that the Socred circus is coming to an end.


Gilles Grégoire: You should know all about the circus. You had one going in Lotbiniere.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, the main reasons why I think that group should not be recognized are the following: our ears are still buzzing with the voluble speeches by the hon. member for Villeneuve when he spoke on television to the auditors in the province of Quebec and it should be noted that I do not want to launch an abusive and violent speech against the hon. member for Villeneuve. I see in him a French speaking Quebec member of everlasting courage and dauntless energy. He often impresses us but, in my opinion, not enough to be entitled to bear the title of leader of a party in the house. When he campaigned in 1962 and 1963, he never stopped saying that Social Credit would come to power in Canada. Consequently, he wanted to give to his group, to his party, not a provincial dimension but really a national dimension.


An hon. Member:: He was mistaken.


Auguste Choquette: And the member for Villeneuve, as well as his followers, have always asserted, it was thanks to a Social Credit administration if the province of Alberta had no debt whatsoever. He proclaimed that British Columbia had a marvellous administration. He said that the Canadian population was impressed by those Social Credit administrations. He advocated a Social Credit government to direct Canada's fortunes. Consequently, he intended to sit here in the house as a member of a national party. There was never any mention of the provincial Ralliement des creditistes.
This is an important point which must be pointed out. I claim that the 571,333 electors, to repeat the figure quoted by the member

for Villeneuve, who placed their trust in Social Credit in the province of Quebec, did so in the hope that this party could form a national government. But today, the population of Quebec knows that Social Credit could never form a national government, for Social Crediters are no longer trusted by the population and another election would prove it. In fact they will all be defeated in the next election.


David Réal Caouette: Are the Liberals so much stronger in Quebec now?


Gilles Grégoire: Call an election.


Auguste Choquette: We are ready any time.


David Réal Caouette: Enough of this idle talk. Call an election.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, to give you a small sample of what would happen if an election were held, the standard bearer of the hon. members for Villeneuve and Lapointe, in Lotbiniere, lost his deposit in the last election and the Social Credit candidates will do the same in the next one.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Speaker, I would beg you to please ask the hon. member to stick to the question now before us because, at the present time, he is just playing petty politics. It is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of justice.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is accusing me of playing petty politics. Looking at him makes me want to try and play big politics.
I had sincerely decided to remain as calm and serene as necessary during my speech, but I see that my opponents are so hot-tempered, because they can anticipate that their end is close at hand, and they lead us against our will into a violent debate.
Another reason I should like to bring up to explain why I am against the party led by the member for Villeneuve being recognized officially in this house is that, in the province of Quebec, there exists a particular psychological context. The hon. member for Villeneuve is attempting now-and in this I shall agree with part of the argument raised by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Gi-rouard) and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner)-to be recognized as the sole defender of Quebec interests in this house.
The hon. member for Villeneuve cannot succeed in doing it, because during a meeting in Quebec East constituency he stated before 500 people-


Gilles Grégoire: 1,500 people.


Auguste Choquette: This exaggeration is so typical of the member for Lapointe-he
Privileges and Elections cried out with all his might that, if the problem of his group is not solved, he will withdraw from confederation. Now, I maintain that a member saying such things is a bad Canadian.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. I never said in Quebec or elsewhere what the hon. member for Lotbiniere just mentioned. I never said in Quebec or elsewhere that we would secede from confederation. I never made any statement to the effect that I was a separatist.
On the contrary, I have always expressed the opinion that confederation could survive providing that the two major groups in the country show understanding and mutual agreement. Nothing else.


Auguste Choquette: There again, this statement from the member for Villeneuve is a clear indication of his character. He never admits what he said and, when he does, it is because he does not realize it.
Mr. Speaker, I will never forget that during the last electoral campaign, while the hon. member for Villeneuve claimed that he had never promised a national dividend, we just had to refer to Hansard-I could not tell the page number from memory-to notice that he had, in fact, promised it.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. What the hon. member for Lotbiniere just suggested is wrong again. He is going far afield and I would suggest to him to revert to the matter under consideration.


Gilles Grégoire: And to be just a little more serious, Mr. Speaker, nothing else.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for having departed from the matter under discussion. But allow me to point out that the hon. member for Villeneuve is to blame because he can never stick to a point himself.


Yvon Dupuis: Nor to a party.


Auguste Choquette: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the problem to be solved is simply one of internal strife within a political party.
In his speech, this afternoon, the hon. member for Villeneuve stated: "Do us justice, it is your responsibility to settle our case, it is not our fault if we have to assume the responsibilities of the house".
We are not responsible for the split in his party or his difference with his leader the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). I ask the hon. member for Villeneuve to be fair and recognize that his ill will is to blame here.

Privileges and Elections
You have noted that he will never admit that someone else may be right. I have mentioned two points that everyone has been hearing across Canada.


David Réal Caouette: That is not true.


Auguste Choquette: Then, the second reason for not granting official recognition to that group is that it is a matter of internal strife and it lies with them and not with the house to settle it.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a very simple question?


Auguste Choquette: I shall finish my remarks, Mr. Speaker, because if the hon. member for Lapointe gets permission to put a question, he will follow with a supplementary question and there will be no end to that.


Gilles Grégoire: Only one.


Auguste Choquette: Then it is all right.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, here is my question. Since I admit that the suggestion of the hon. member for Lotbiniere is reasonable, when he says that we should settle this matter ourselves, would he agree that only Social Credit members should vote on the motion respecting the adoption of the committee's report? Would he agree to that?


Auguste Choquette: The house, to whom a problem has been submitted, is asked to authorize a political party to settle the problem. This is undemocratic and there is danger, as was pointed out by our good friends, that the Caouetteist movement being recognized, we will have within one or two months, a Gregorian group. And we should not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the dies irae is a Gregorian hymn.
And for the guidance of our friends who do not understand the argumentation that I submitted to the house, I will explain it to them.
To begin with, as it is an internal division, I am of the opinion that the Crediters of Canada have only one alternative. All they have to do is to convene a national convention and choose, for one year or six months, a leader who will be replaced six months later. But let them not annoy the House of Commons with that. We have been discussing this question for a whole day and it will probably be on the order of the day tomorrow.
I-fr. Fisher: Go on.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, what can we make of his new connivance between the members of the New Democratic party and the Caouetteists? I cannot understand this new "flirt" between two new political
[Mr. Choquette.)

parties who have always held opposite theories in politics.


Mr. Fisher:: You have had but four national conventions since confederation.


Auguste Choquette: I would recall to the hon. member for Port Arthur certain statements he has made which were not too favourable to Quebec. I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, the great friendship that exists today between him and the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I will allow the question.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to hon. members that it is very difficult for the Chair and for other hon. members to follow the speech now being made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) because there has been a cross-fire and a crossexchange of conversation between hon. members who do not have the floor. Perhaps it would be conducive to good order in the house if we allowed the hon. member who has the floor to complete his remarks.


Louis-Philippe-Antoine Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member whether I could direct a question to him and he has granted his permission.
I want to ask him why the Liberal federation of Quebec decided to separate from the national federation of the Liberal party.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, how do you
want to proceed if there is no decorum? The Caouettist obstructionists always make a noise and it is impossible to talk.
I shall answer the question of my hon. friend from Charlevoix very simply.
The Liberal federation of Quebec never separated, and in my opinion, the point raised by the hon. member enables us to make a very precise analogy.
Within the Liberal party, there is the national federation and the Quebec Liberal federation. As a Liberal, I belong to the Quebec Liberal federation and, as a member of parliament, to the national organization.
Consequently, the Ralliement des credi-tistes may well be a provincial group, but all Social Credit members of parliament must accept the leadership of the hon. member for Red Deer. If there are any nationalist feelings within your party, it is up to you to settle the problem.

Mr. Speaker, there is one last point I should like to make. Since the hon. member for Villeneuve and his friends claim to be the mouthpiece of the province of Quebec and the champions of French Canada, I consider it a point of honour for government members from Quebec to speak as strongly as possible against giving official recognition to that group. Indeed, I feel that the prestige of our province and of French Canadians would be badly impaired if the province of Quebec were identified with the hon. member for Villeneuve and his followers.
One just has to remember the wild statements made by the hon. member. I have nothing personal against him. As I said a while ago, I have great admiration for his courage and fearlessness. However, since he makes statements like "In Ottawa, you have to fight against Indians," we would not want him acknowledged as the voice of the province of Quebec and have him say things which will have repercussions throughout Canada.
The member for Villeneuve once confessed his admiration for the nazi and fascist leaders, and he sorely regrets it today. Here again, if the rest of Canada believes that the hon. member is defending the interests of the province of Quebec, his unfortunate statements which are heard from coast to coast are harmful to us.
And that is yet another reason why the government should not recognize his group.
Before resuming my seat, I wish to point out to the house that there is no party which might better protect the interests of Quebec and of the French fact in Canada than the party in power. There could not be any prime minister who would, better than the present Prime Minister, and in a more understanding spirit, create that harmony that we need so badly at the moment. We are undergoing an ideological revolution of sorts, and we must get the better of it, if we want to see the 1967 celebrations take place in an atmosphere of harmony and mutual good will.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I find that since this debate started, some members have been dealing with all kinds of questions that are irrelevant to the matter under discussion.
In my opinion, it would be essential that the Prime Minister himself make a statement on the subject.
We have heard members from both sides of the house, but I feel that for the guidance of all members-*


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member-
Privileges and Elections


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the question of privilege.
Some time ago, the whip of the Liberal party asked me-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ask the hon. member to state his question of privilege as soon as possible. I must tell him that up to now, there does not seem to be any question of privilege, and I ask him to come to the point.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Speaker.
The whip of the Liberal party asked us to keep on talking until the Prime Minister got here. Therefore, we would like the Prime Minister to make a statement, and I feel that it is imperative in the circumstances.


Mr. Dapuiy Speaker:: Order. Obviously,
there was no question of privilege.

The hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, none of the members of this party who took part in the deliberations of the standing committee on privileges and elections has yet spoken, and since the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) has complimented me, in a way, by bringing my remarks into this debate I think perhaps I should say a word or two on this question. I believe I should express the opinion first- and it is my own opinion-that I think this whole reference to the standing committee on privileges and elections was engineered by the government. They abdicated their responsibility when they should have made a decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: It was their responsibility to make the decision to square away the seating arrangements in the house. Had it not been on such short notice I have grave doubts-


Mr. Macaluso:: On a point of order. Would the hon. gentleman allow a question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Then on a point of order, the hon. member for Yukon was in the house when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition voted to refer this matter to the committee.


Erik Nielsen: I realize that we voted that way in the house and I was one of those who voted for the reference; but as the motion was put on at short notice, as all hon. members know, I think we would be a silly parliament indeed if we did not look back once in a while and realize that we had done something wrong. But I know that people on that side of the house very seldom get that kind of feeling. None the less, I feel that the whole

Privileges and Elections reference was engineered by the government in an effort to abdicate the responsibility which they clearly had, just as this recommendation by the standing committee on privileges and elections was engineered by the Liberal members who sat on that committee, and the official Social Credit party members who follow the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). Anyone who sat on that committee could not have failed to see the close collaboration between the hon. member who proposed that motion and the Liberal engineers, if I may call them that, on the committee.
Perhaps I have a happy compromise to suggest to the house here, with my tongue in my cheek. There seem to be 11 hon. members following the hon. member for Red Deer and 12 following the hon. member for Ville-neuve. I believe one of them is away somewhere; but perhaps the hon. member for Red Deer could borrow for a moment one of the supporters of the hon. member for Ville-neuve and then each could draw the $4,000 as provided by the act. Or, in view of the close collaboration which exists between the Liberal members of the house in return for some of the favours that the hon. member for Red Deer has been offering them, they might offer the hon. member for Red Deer one of their Liberal supporters so that he can qualify.
But, Mr. Speaker, in considering the recommendations of the committee in a serious manner it seems to me that all these arguments about fragmentation are irrelevant. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) really surprised me, because it seemed to me that what he was advocating was that we should set a precedent in this house by completely eliminating any possibility of the growth of new political parties in this country by excluding them from the house. It seems to me that this is a very undemocratic position to take.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order; I realize that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is very sensitive about that subject.


Erik Nielsen: I did not hear that point of order.


Mr. Monieiih:: There was no point of order.


Erik Nielsen: He referred to a national party or a provincial party, but it seems to me to make no difference. It does not make any difference at all whether the members of a political party come from one province or two provinces, or even the ten provinces and two territories that now exist in this country. It seems to me that a party is a party for all that, and it is surely not the responsibility of this house or of the standing committee on privileges and elections-and this is the stand


I took in the committee-to decide when a party is a party. I go along wholeheartedly with the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he says that these matters must be decided on the basis of sheer numbers, and it does not make any difference whether you have a majority of one or a majority of 100. I understood the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to say that it was a question of precedence. If the principle is one of majority, it does not matter whether the majority is one, 50 or 150.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George made reference to the remarks I made in committee, as reported at page 82 of the proceedings of the committee. He quoted me where I am reported as saying:
All I can see is internal strife within a political party and as such it is something which this committee should not meddle with, and indeed I doubt whether it has the power to do so.
I still have those convictions. It seems to me that the mess has been created within the Social Credit party itself, and the more we talk about it the more it is pointed up that we in this house should not be concerned with the internal strife of that party. For us to say that the faction which has broken off from the national Social Credit party is or is not a party goes beyond the bounds of our responsibilities.
It seems to me that that is what the committee has recommended, that on the one hand there is a political party and on the other hand that there is not. The wording has been carefully worked out and the recommendation is as follows: First, that the New Democratic party be seated next to the official opposition, and so on, second, that the Social Credit party be seated next to the New Democratic party and, third, that the group under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve be seated to the left of the Social Credit party. Surely this Liberal engineered recommendation made with the assistance of the hon. member for Red Deer, presupposes the decision which they themselves have said they could not make, namely that there is a political party existent in what is left of the Social Credit party. Yet they do not put that same status on the group that follows the hon. member for Villeneuve.


Bert Raymond Leboe: That statement is not true.


Erik Nielsen: What statement is not true?


Bert Raymond Leboe: That it was engineered by the Social Credit party.


Erik Nielsen: Well, it seemed to me there were some furtive whispers going on between the members of the committee, and at one stage I noticed one hon. member was very

carefully counting the vote to see whether or not there were sufficient members there to carry the vote on this particular motion.
The reference as I understood it from Your Honour, as reported on page 3007 of Hansard, was:
Have we a new party according to this new definition and, if so, has this party been recognized by the house? To my mind this is a question for the house to decide.
If I had had time to reflect on Your Honour's remarks at that time I would have said, with great respect, that that is not a question for this house to decide at all but a question for the government to decide; and if they had not abdicated their responsibility in this regard they would have made that decision.
We have just listened to three successive Liberal members speaking on this measure. So far only the Leader of the Opposition and myself have spoken on behalf of this party, and I felt obliged to because I was a member of the standing committee and also because of the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. It seems a little strange-perhaps the shoe is a little tight over there-that so many loud protests are coming from that side of the house. As one of my colleagues behind the curtain said a moment ago, it seems they are riding rather a fast horse over there.


An hon. Member:: Who is the jockey?


Erik Nielsen: I do not know who is the jockey; perhaps it is the hon. member for Red Deer. I agree 100 per cent with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he said that the responsibility in the end will rest with the government benches, with the Liberal members of the House of Commons, because they were the majority of the committee. They are the majority of this house. We all know that they will vote in support of this recommendation; but I would be very happy to see some exercise of free opinion on that side of the house and a free vote had on the matter. Then I dare say that the recommendation would not be adopted and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would be accepted. But I, like another hon. member who spoke previously, have very little hope of seeing that happen, particularly on that side of the house.


Mr. Francis:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Did I understand him to suggest that there would be a free vote on this side of the house?


Erik Nielsen: It would, indeed, be refreshing to see a free vote on that side of the house, and I would suggest it.
Privileges and Elections
In a final reply to the reference which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, for whom I have a high regard, made to me tonight, I should like to refer him to the same page, that is, page 82 of the minutes of proceedings of the committee. Here I am reported as answering a question put to me by one of his Liberal colleagues. The minutes read:


Mr. Brewin:: Does Mr. Nielsen intend to put this motion on his own behalf or on behalf of his group?
"group" meaning the Conservative party.


Erik Nielsen: I might take refuge in the point of order raised by Mr. Moreau, who objected to members of this committee standing as witnesses. The motion is mine.
Just as the remarks I was making at that time were mine and just as the remarks I am making tonight are mine, I should like to put on record the motion which I did suggest to the committee. I was only able to give notice of the motion because the committee recommended otherwise, and it would have been useless to carry it further. This was the recommendation as is to be found on page 82 of the minutes:
It being apparent that the reference of the house to this committee is one concerning the internal differences between at least two factions within the Social Credit party these differences should be resolved by the Social Credit party, and when resolved the Speaker informed since he has the responsibility of seating arrangements in the house, and that the matter of the $4,000 leader's indemnity be determined by the proper authority.
It seems to me that this is the recommendation which the committee should have brought down.
This brings me to the question of the $4,000 which is to be paid, as Bill C-91 put it, to each member of the House of Commons who is a leader of a party which has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons. When this part of the motion was put in the committee, I said, as is reported at page 84 of the minutes:
I would like to speak on a point of order. I am in doubt as to whether or not we can make proposals to the house on the matter of the $4,000, this being one of the privileges.
I know that the final recommendation made to the house by the committee contains nothing which refers specifically to the $4,000; but a number of articles in the press have indicated that one of the privileges to which the fourth part of the recommendation referred was this self same $4,000 and I believe a good many members of the house share this view. I know I do. This is the whole point of the amendment which the Leader of the Opposition has made to the amendment made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We feel this clause

Privileges and Elections should be deleted because we do not think the committee had the right to refer this question to parliamentary counsel. It is not his responsibility. It is only fair to say, I think, that the first mention I heard of this matter in committee came from the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, not from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He said this was a question to be determined by the treasury on the advice of the Department of Justice. I believe we will experience some difficulty in interpreting this particular section of Bill C-91 in which the words appear "which has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons". What does "recognized" mean? Does it mean recognition by this house? Does it mean recognition by the electorate? Does it mean recognition by those who support the group leader? Does it mean recognition individually or does it mean recognition collectively? It seems to me these words are fraught with difficulty, and this constitutes another example of the inept drafting which seems to characterize the legislation which this government is producing. I feel the amendment proposed by my right hon. friend would deal with that situation, because if the question of privileges, including the $4,000, were left to interpretation by the proper authorities, then undoubtedly those who were charged with these matters would recognize their responsibilities and discharge them. I do not think that as a committee or as the House of Commons we should be interpreting the legislation we pass.
Having made these observations, I feel the debate should now be brought to a close as quickly as possible in order that we might get on with the business we were sent here to do, as the leader of the New Democratic party has so often, in his holier-than-thou attitude, advised us to do. It seems to me the members of that particular group took a great deal of the time of the house in speaking on this subject, and without intending any offence to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), may I say it occurs to me that his vision is often obscured by his halo slipping over his eyes.


Mr, Pigeon:: On a point of order; I think members on this side, as well as the house generally, would appreciate very much hearing the point of view of the Prime Minister on this important question.


Mr. Pearson:: Hardly a point of order.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: The question before the house at this moment is an amendment to an amendment which calls for the complete deletion of clause 4 of the report from the standing committee on privileges and elections. Clause 4 recommends

that the question of the privileges to be enjoyed by the group under the leadership of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) be referred to parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons for study and report to the Speaker. If I understand the terms of reference correctly, when this house referred the whole matter to the committee it was precisely because Your Honour needed some guidance in dealing with the demand for privileges which was made by the hon. member for Villeneuve following a convention in Granby. Therefore, if this section is deleted from the recommendations which have been submitted by the committee, the terms of reference will not have been complied with. In other words, the question of privileges is not answered at all in any of the other three recommendations which are made. They deal with some physical changes in the house, it is true-the seating of the various parties-but they say nothing about the privileges which have been demanded.
This debate has ranged fairly wide so far. Attempts have been made to bring up precedents for the guidance, first of the committee, and now of the house. I believe that if we have listened carefully to all the precedents which have been cited we can only reach one conclusion, namely that there is no precedent for the situation we are now facing. It is therefore up to the house to create a precedent and reach a decision to deal with a wholly novel situation. There have been attempts to draw parallels between the present situation and something else which happened, but I do not think there is any direct relationship between the problem we are now facing and anything which has happened in the past.
Some of the arrangements that have been made in the house with respect to seating and also recognition have been referred to by hon. members, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), and in every case the arrangements both for seating and for recognition have been based first of all on policies, patterns and labels that were presented to the electorate in the immediately preceding election. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we as members of the House of Commons have a responsibility to organize ourselves and conduct the business of the house in line with something that has been presented to the electors, whether it has been put down in writing or not. As far as I am concerned that is paramount in the situation. Several members have mentioned that even in the committee situations were referred to and the same persons who recited them said it was possible to draw more than one conclusion from them.

I do not intend to go over a lot of the ground that other hon. members have covered. I do think, though, that if members of the house are going to be faced with a vote to decide whether or not there is another party in the house and whether all the privileges and rights which are extended to a party are to be granted, we should be cognizant of some of the facts. The hon. member for Villeneuve delved rather deeply into this matter. He is welcome to his opinion, but I should like to place on the record another opinion with regard to some of the things that took place even before the last two elections, so that members will be completely familiar with the organization of the national Social Credit party. The constitution of the Social Credit party provides as follows with regard to membership:
Every provincial Social Credit organization or league that applies for affiliation and is accepted by the association shall, upon payment of the prescribed fees, be granted membership in the association, providing there will be only one recognized in any province.
It is quite true that the Ralliement des creditistes was a provincial organization and was accepted into the national organization, and it was the only one from the province of Quebec. In article 3 the constitution provides:
A national convention shall be held every four years, or more often as the national council shall decide.
I should like to draw to the attention of the house that the national council of the Social Credit party of Canada had a meeting in Ottawa in July of this year. I should also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that all of the members of the Ralliement des creditistes who were present at the 1961 convention subscribed to these articles of the constitution.
The national council held a meeting in July, and I happen to know that representations were made to the national council by certain members of the Ralliement des creditistes demanding a national convention immediately. The national council in their wisdom decided for many reasons that they would not call a national convention at once. The fact is, of course, that the council is made up of all the Social Credit organizations across Canada and like all democratic institutions a majority vote rules the decisions made by that council.
I should also like to refer to various clauses in the constitution dealing with how a national convention shall be set up. The first provision is that there shall be five representatives from each affiliated Social Credit organization or league. This would give each province having a Social Credit organization
Privileges and Elections five voting delegates at a convention, and this is what the Ralliement des creditistes would have if they attended. Second, there shall be five representatives in good standing from each federal constituency in Canada. I should like to point out that there was an opportunity for each one of the 75 constituencies in Quebec to have five delegates from the Ralliement des creditistes at the convention. They had the opportunity to be there in 1961.


An hon. Member:: Not in 1961.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not know what the make-up of the delegates to that convention was or whether there was a full slate from Quebec or Ontario. I know there was not from Alberta, simply because of the high cost of travel in order for them to come to Ottawa. But there might have been a full slate from Quebec. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) tells me there was a full slate of delegates from all of the constituencies in Quebec. The convention proceeded with its business and made these provisions with respect to officers, as found in the constitution.
The officers of the association shall be: (a) A national leader who shall be responsible for the formation and interpretation of policy-
And so on.
(b) A deputy leader-
This is pretty good.
-who shall assist the national leader.
The point I want to make is that all of these provisions in the constitution were accepted by a national Social Credit party convention, and there was full opportunity for the Ralliement des creditistes to have full representation there. As the hon. member for Lapointe has said, they were there.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It is none of our business.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It may not be any of our business, but I think it is the business of parliament to understand what the interpretation of a party shall be. This is the question before us.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Let us interpret the Liberal party.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All of this was done in accordance with democratic procedures, and I believe that a similar though not identical arrangement is used by all of the national political parties. I do not know whether there is a national Liberal party or whether it is a federation of provincial parties, although I have been told it is a federation of 10 provincial Liberal parties. Maybe that is not true; but that is the way the Social Credit organization is set up.

Privileges and Elections
Members of the New Democratic party are making noises on my left but I believe they are also organized on the same basis. 1 know, for example, that the party that is supposed to belong to them in Saskatchewan does not even have the same name. They call themselves C.C.F.-N.D.P. I was out there over the week end and I heard that for purposes of the next provincial election they are going to drop the N.D.P. part of their name. So, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the name of the Social Credit organization in Quebec was the Social Credit league of Quebec, like the Social Credit league of Ontario or Manitoba or New Brunswick, this practice is not confined to the Social Credit party. Other parties have different names.
Another point was mentioned during the debate. In Hansard on Wednesdays the names of the members are given, and their party affiliation. Somebody has mentioned that there is a member in the cabinet who I believe calls himself Liberal-Labour. So they too have different names. But the point is that if he is Liberal-Labour I think he presented himself to the electorate as such. There is no argument about the fact that the Ralliement des creditistes had full opportunity to participate in the national convention. They subscribed to the constitution. They took part in the balloting for the leader.
It is rather interesting to note that the hon. member for Villeneuve, who now claims to be leader of the Social Credit party, also ran for the national leadership of the Social Credit party. This balloting was conducted after the constitution had been accepted. It is rather interesting to note also that there were three candidates for the position of national leader of the Social Credit party. The constitution requires that before any one candidate can be named leader, he must receive 50 per cent plus 1 of the ballots. When the ballots were counted, there was sufficient support for the hon. member for Red Deer to elect him on the first ballot.


An hon. Member:: Did they see the ballots?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: An hon. member has said they never saw the ballots. I want him to know that the hon. member for Villeneuve appointed scrutineers who watched the counting of the ballots and who concurred in the returns.
We come to the point of discussing what is a national party, who should be recognized, who should be granted privileges, and so on. I should like the members of this house to know that there was absolutely no situation here that was not subscribed to by the Ralliement. Since then they have had a convention. They have decided to dissociate themselves from the national party. Now that
[Mr. Olson.J
they have dissociated themselves from the national party, when they subscribed to its rules, policy and so on, the question is raised now, do they become a national party? It might be of interest also to members when they come to vote on this matter to know that there are seven members of the Ralliement des Creditistes who do not subscribe to this separation. The hon. member for Villeneuve referred to some statistics in connection with the last election. I am not sure what his purpose was. Perhaps it has something to do with the total popular vote.
I should like to say, in connection with these statistics, that he was apparently trying to take unto himself all of the popular vote that was accorded to all of the men who ran as Social Credit candidates in Quebec.
I should like to say that he will have to separate the votes for at least seven of those constituencies from his calculation. There have been points raised from time to time during the debate that the adoption of the committee's report will be a violation of the freedom of the members of this house. I completely disagree with that. The question before us, and what is being demanded now by the hon. member for Villeneuve, is not that the rights and privileges of members be maintained, but that he be given some rights and privileges in addition to those normally accorded to members of this house. Certainly, no one is trying to take away any of the rights or privileges of an ordinary member of this house.
In so far as clause 4 of the report is concerned, it does not completely satisfy the terms of reference handed to the committee. It seems to me that we should very soon in this parliament attempt to define a party or define a group that will be recognized in the house. The late prime minister Mackenzie King back in 1944 said that there was only the government and the opposition, and that any further recognition by the government and the Speaker is a matter of courtesy. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this courtesy should be granted on the basis of what was presented to the electors, and there should be nothing beyond that.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the question raised by some members as to whether or not the Ralliement des creditistes is a national party or a provincial party. I did not hear the hon. members say whether or not this federal house should recognize a provincial party or whether recognition should be confined to national parties. Certainly, up to the time of the convention in Granby in August all the evidence points conclusively to the fact that the Ralliement des creditistes was definitely a provincial party. They were affiliated with the

national Social Credit party as the Quebec wing of the national Social Credit party.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, there is one question I should like to ask the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question has been asked once or twice before and I think it is out of order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is the privilege of any hon. member to ask the Prime Minister a question if he consents.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Yap, yap. We have no orders to take from you.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I ask the Prime Minister if he will consent to a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think it is proper to do something indirectly which is not allowed directly. The hon. member for Lapointe.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: We have no orders to take from you.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: May I ask this question of the Prime Minister, and if he consents, I think it is my right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may speak to the point of order, I may say the hon. gentleman has spoken several times in this debate already and I do not think he should be recognized again.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Closure. I rise on a point of order. I never said a word in this debate and the house leader is absolutely wrong. This is not the first time he has been wrong.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: What a weight that will carry.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I return to a problem that has faced us previously. I do not know of anything in the rules which gives any one member of this house privileges that are not accorded to other members. I call Your Honour's attention to the fact that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) rose in his place and addressed the Chair in a way to indicate the manner in which the Chair should conduct the affairs of this house. It was nothing more or less than a direction from the Secretary of State as to the conduct of this house.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, several things have been said in this discussion. I shall not delay things by answer-
28902-5-236
Privileges and Elections ing the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard), who incidentally mentioned the hon. member for Lapointe. As a matter of fact, I think it would be hardly worth the trouble because he will be judged by his own words.
In fact, when he tried to avail himself of this discussion to attack the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), I saw that the latter had adopted the best possible attitude, that is, an attitude of scorn for words without any significance. I think I shall follow in his footsteps, because I am used to hearing the hon. member for Labelle who, as everyone knows, has tried to behave like the frog which wanted to become as big as an ox.
Mr. Speaker, whatever is said and done, we have, today, seen political parties setting themselves up as the judges of another party. This had never happened before in the Canadian House of Commons. The Liberals have taken advantage of existing circumstances to have a picnic at the expense of one political party, and even of two.
Today, we witnessed quite an extraordinary show, given by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner) and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Girouard), who acted as witnesses, inquirers and judges with regard to the problems of another political party, which was none of their business. I would have liked, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on the subject.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), made some speeches which, I think were objective, and they analysed the situation.
On the other hand, we had some replies by backbenchers on the government side, but no member of the cabinet dared do so- and that is the right term for it, I think- not even the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill), who usually is quick to rise when problems like these are discussed, nor the Prime Minister, nor any other minister. That is the more significant as they realize that they are today acting as they have no right to act when they allow some parties to be the judges of the members of another party.
I therefore would like to pursue the argument of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, who dared to tell us that it was his business to judge our own business. He might introduce a motion to outlaw the Conservative party in this house, and then, having a majority with the benevolent support of some hon. members on this side of the house, the Liberal party might control this country's destiny, without the fear of an election for the next four years.

Privileges and Elections
In my opinion, this constitutes word for word the argument of the member for St. Lawrence-St. George.
I heard him making speeches, but I never heard him express such fallacies as he did tonight. The member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) also spoke tonight, even if he had absolutely nothing to say, and in fact he said nothing. The best way to answer him would be to do as did a speaker, who, after hearing a speech, was satisfied to open his mouth, make gestures for two minutes without uttering a single sentence, after which he said he had answered the speech point by point. I would be tempted to do the same thing to answer the member for Lotbiniere.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Villeneuve quoted this afternoon a letter from the member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard), who is a member of the Thompson group, in which the member for Lake St. John was saying on September 12, 1963: "I am a candidate belonging to the Ralliement des cre-ditistes." I have here another letter from the same member, dated September 12, 1963, admitting he had been chosen as candidate for the Ralliement des creditistes. I have also another letter from the member, dated September 12, 1963, and I apologize to the leader of the official opposition, but this illustrates very well the situation at the present time. The member for Lake St. John then declared: Unless the Conservatives change their leader and unless they activate their political credit and add a greater dynamism, the Canadian electors will have no other alternative than to elect the Liberal party. Let us assume that it would be about the same thing that we, ourselves, could have felt within our movement.
How can you be a judge in such cases? And, Mr. Speaker, they invoke an argument which will not hold water. They say that to be recognized, you should go through an election. Let us suppose that the leader of the Liberal party turns insane tomorrow morning, does that mean that the Liberal party, deprived of its leader, would not have been recognized before passing the test of a general election? This argument is as stupid as yours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Gilles Grégoire: The argument is the same-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Gilles Grégoire: -a fallacy. It is not necessary to have submitted to a general election. Look at your own case, each and everyone of you, when you go through an election,

when an elector goes to a poll and takes a ballot, what appears on it? The name, and that is all. There is no indication of the political party. So, the situation here in this house is that members are elected for themselves, not for a political party. And all parties realize that.
When Mr. Hazen Argue decided to cross over to the other side, did you tell him: No, sir, we cannot accept you?
And then the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Marcoux) decided to go over to the other side. Why did he have the right to do that? Because it was Mr. Guy Marcoux who had been elected member for Quebec-Montmorency. And it was not because he belonged to any party, since no party was even mentioned on the ballots.
And there is something else to be considered. Since when have we seen the larger group of a political party split away from the smaller group? Usually, it is the larger group that represents the party and the one numerically smaller is the one that separates.
Here is what I said in the committee on privileges and elections:
During a caucus, the members of the Social Credit party have decided, due to the critical situation, that the election of a new leader was imperative.
We have decided, by a majority vote, to choose a new leader. We have a new leader, a new whip. We wish to make changes in the house, to replace Mr. Thompson by Mr. Caouette and have our whip occupy the regular seat of the whip.
We shall also submit to the Speaker of the house a redistribution of the offices and desks in the house including the new arrangement.
Thirteen voted for the motion; the majority made its choice.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Lapointe is reading the minutes of the committee which said:
During a caucus-
But the text actually said:
During a regular meeting of the caucus-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, all the problems have now been settled thanks to that most intelligent interruption by the hon. member for Labelle.
Here is a party where 13 members decide to change their leader, that is a majority of the 23 members. And since 10 of them were not satisfied with the decision of the majority, they withdrew. And now the Liberal party would come here and say that we do not have the right to act that way.
According to what right could the Liberal party tell us that the majority in our party cannot decide for itself? Under what rule? I say this and I repeat it.

I note that the Prime Minister is much more serious than these young backbenchers. In fact, he would never have stated what the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said tonight. He would never dare make such statements. In fact, he quickly left the house, which means that he does not approve of such statements.
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget one thing. We live in a democracy. And to try to tell us what should happen within our own party would amount to dictatorship.
I see that the Secretary of State is nodding in disagreement. But if the Secretary of State, during a caucus, decided on a certain thing, with the support of certain Liberal members, could the members of the opposition, since we are more numerous, tell him: "We do not want you to act that way." Then, the Secretary of State could answer: "That happened during a caucus, mind your own business."
Well, we tell you: "What we want to do within our party does not concern you."


An hon. Member:: Settle that at a national convention.


Gilles Grégoire: And even if it does not concern the Liberal party, one thing remains-


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to call your attention to section 28 which reads as follows:
Every member desiring to speak is to rise in his place-
Well, I wish to point out that the hon. member for Lapointe is now standing at the Sergeant-at-Arms' desk or close to it and he is not in his place. Furthermore, he is not addressing himself to you, but to everyone.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as far as the point of order is concerned, it is true that section 28 reads:
Every member desiring to speak is to rise in his place-
That is exactly what the hon. member for Lapointe has done. But the rule does not stipulate that the member must remain glued in his place as the hon. member for Mercier usually is.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I believe that at this time, it is obvious that I have risen from my seat. Everybody must recognize that as was pointed out by the member for Villeneuve, the member for Mercier also has his place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not
want to unduly interrupt the hon. member but in connection with the point of order which was raised by the hon. member for Mercier, it is true that standing order 28 28902-5-236J
Privileges and Elections states that an hon. member should rise in his place but it does not stipulate that he must remain in his place.
On the other hand, standing order No. 12 stipulates that the Speaker shall maintain order and decorum and in his estimation, it is contrary to decorum in this house that a member should stand too far from his seat.


Gilles Grégoire: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Text]


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the hon. member for Lapointe a question, for information. Would he give the house the date and the hour of the caucus to which he referred when he said that by a majority vote they decided to change the leader, and who was invited to this caucus? [Translation1


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the caucus was held in Granby, and everyone was invited. Nothing can be done for those who could not come.
Mr. Speaker, what amazes me most is to find that in the end there is only one group of dissidents. The Conservatives and the members of the New Democratic party are not opposed to our forming a recognized group, a recognized political party in this house but coming after another group known as the Thompsonists. Why? I do not know. And I am wondering why 11 members would object when we say that the motion in the committee on privileges and elections was introduced by the hon. member for Labelle and seconded by the member for Cariboo? Why do 11 members object to the fact that others be recognized in the house?
And I will go one step further. Why, in spite of the logic and common sense of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), are pretexts heard from the other side of the house?
We are wondering whether there is not an agreement or collusion. And what does that mean? I will tell you. This means that two political parties in this house have agreed to try to deprive another party of its rights and then this is simply co-operation between them. One will do the favour of refusing to recognize a political party and what will the other give in return? I am therefore asking which group is representing its constituents, the one who has sacrificed certain principles to strike a bargain or those-


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This afternoon, I was asked to comply with the standing orders when I was making unconfirmed but sensible remarks. Now I would like the member for Lapointe to abide

Privileges and Elections by the rules because he is imagining things and letting his emotional imagination get the best of him.
Therefore, I suggest that he be called to order and that he talk about things which he knows. If he can only talk about things which he does not know, then he should keep quiet.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, very little
imagination is required to understand the situation, and I am sure that there are quite a few on all sides of the house who understand it.
I only made an assumption about what could happen. So much the better if that does not exist, but we can ask ourselves why the Liberal party acts as it does at present.
In the case of one political party, we are going to decide by the number and in the case of the others, by seniority. Then, the Liberal party is going to decide which is the older, the group led by the member for Red Deer or that of the member for Villeneuve.
Which is the older? From 1958 to 1962, there was not one Social Credit member in the house. We were all elected in 1962. Therefore, seniority goes back to 1962 and the number should decide, if not the member for Villeneuve is the oldest of the 23 Social Crediters, since he was elected in 1946; therefore, he has seniority.
Mr. Speaker, on top of all that, they are trying to make us believe that we would not have been elected under the ticket of the Ralliement des creditistes. Indeed, we have been elected as members of that group. I gave evidence to that effect before the privileges and elections committee. The point is that the old political parties have always been elected because of their campaign funds. Who contributed? Mr. So-and-so, in trust. That is how they got elected.
As for us, how did our bills get paid, Mr. Speaker? Since the treasurer of our riding is in the gallery at present, I have no hesitation to say that they were paid by treasurer so-and-so or chairman so-and-so on behalf of the Ralliement des creditistes. That fact can be checked out. The national party organization never paid a single penny in our ridings or in our province. Never. We are the ones who paid for our election.
When I hear Social Crediters who were elected with the assistance of the Ralliement des creditistes claim that they are the ones who helped us, it is my duty to deny it. Mr. Speaker, I am sure they will think otherwise at the next election when it will no longer be possible for them to vote along the lines indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Leader of the Opposition.
[Mr. Chapdelaine.l


Gérard Chapdelaine: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Lapointe allow me a question?


Gilles Grégoire: Certainly.


Gérard Chapdelaine: When he says that Social Crediters were elected because they were helped by the Ralliement des creditistes, is he inferring that if they were elected it is because they were members of the Ralliement des creditistes?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would at least say that that was often the case. I would not say in all cases, because some of them owe their defeat to the fact that they think along the same lines as the hon. member for Sherbrooke. Some were defeated, because they could be defeated although they were chosen at a convention of the Ralliement des creditistes. The T.V. shows he was on, at Sherbrooke and elsewhere, including the last one, were paid by the Ralliement des creditistes.


An hon. Member:: The Ralliement des
creditistes du Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Yes, indeed, the Ralliement
des creditistes du Quebec.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order with regard to standing order 12. The hon. member for Lapointe is still going around the house, with a prompter practically at his side-his leader, the hon. member for Villeneuve-and answering questions right and left without addressing himself to the Speaker. I would ask that he observe the proprieties a little more.


An hon. Member:: He is addressing himself to the Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I-


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, is my point of order well taken?


David Réal Caouette: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think that there is any point of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, after all that has happened today, after seeing democracy flouted so many times, we must now submit to this. Democracy has its price and we have to put up with the sounding-boxes that we hear sometimes in the house. I think that the hon. member for Mercier is a typical example of a loud drum but that he does not have a sound judgment.


An hon. Member:: He gives a hollow sound.


Prosper Boulanger: You could have found something better than that.


Auguste Choquette: I raise a point of order. There is a limit. We should

observe some proprieties in the house. The words used by the hon. member for Ville-neuve, I mean the hon. member for Lapointe -anyway, it is the same thing-


An hon. Member:: Of anyone.


Auguste Choquette: -are absolutely unparliamentary. A few minutes ago, the hon. member for Lapointe said: "If the leader of the Liberal party becomes insane-" and now he calls "This is a stupid argument" and now he calls my colleague a drum. Let us have some decorum.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that this series of coarse terms is unworthy and completely against the standing orders of the house in addition to being inconsistent with the atmosphere which should prevail here.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member for Lotbiniere takes his own words into consideration, when he speaks of the decorum which should prevail here.
I think that if there were not so many interruptions from the members opposite, there would be more decorum in the house.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I will only add one thing. We are a group of 13 members from the province of Quebec. We are not imploring without cause. We believe that we are entitled to recognition.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that in the past-the Minister of Finance who is here knows it-1 have shown fair play when necessary. I played above-board with the Liberal party as well as the other parties. I always tried to be frank with all the other members of this house and played fair when necessary.
On a particular occasion, the Minister of Finance remembers, I rose on a question of privilege. At least, at that time, I deemed advisable to use fair play with him, which I did.
I think that the Liberal members have now to decide on something more serious and important than what the committee has presented. They have to decide on a problem much more serious than that. They must decide on a principle, that is whether it is true that other members can decide for another party. I submit that point to the conscience of all hon. members of the house.
And the responsibility will fall on the shoulders of the one who will rise first on the side of the Liberal party to vote-the Prime Minister of Canada who holds a rather high position. It is he who will vote first. With him rests the responsibility to support what is being done today, namely deny its rights and privileges to a group. The responsibility will be theirs. The way they all vote will be recorded in
Privileges and Elections Hansard. The people will be able to judge them. Let them think carefully, in order to realize whether what they are plotting today is really honest. Let them wonder whether what they are plotting today is just.
Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested a while ago that we are trying to monopolize the defence of the rights of French Canadians. No, such is not the case. If the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) were here tonight, and the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) knows it, he could say that we do not endeavour to monopolize that right. We even had a meeting last year with them-and they know how it had been prepared-a meeting which was attended by all hon. members from the province of Quebec, to try and claim some rights of the French Canadians.
We did not try to monopolize this right at that time. No, we wanted to share with all our colleagues of the House of Commons the right to uphold the rights of French Canadians in the house and, in Ottawa, when the opportunity presented itself. The member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville knows that very well.
We are not trying to make it a fight for nationalism or for separatism. We do not want to transform this problem into a fight to separate French Canadians from English Canadians. I myself did not want that.
When the time came for the reappointment of Mr. Gordon as president of the Canadian National Railways, I never tried to make political capital by stirring up one race against the other, I never tried to do that.
Only when questions are asked as to why 13 French Canadian members cannot be recognized in the house when, on the other hand, seven members of the New Democratic party were recognized here in 1958, we say to ourselves: why not us?
Ask yourselves those questions. I would not want to stir up a conflict, but better be careful. This time, we shall not be the ones to start the ball rolling, it will probably be the party which will decide not to recognize 13 French Canadian members in the House of Commons. We shall not be the ones to stir up that conflict, no, but it may be those who will vote to deny us our rights and privileges in this house.
Mr. Speaker, a striking example occurred the other day when an attempt was made to deny the hon. member for Villeneuve the right to speak as leader of a group of 13 on the nuclear arms question. This will happen again. Then, there are serious problems to face in all that.

Privileges and Elections
I ask the ministers here to think it over carefully before coming to a decision which could have rather serious consequences for democracy and for the rights of parliament. I know that the French Canadians are touchy where the rights of parliament are concerned and they cannot accept that the rights and privileges of a whole group should go unrecognized in the House of Commons.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to waste the time of the house on a discussion of the problem, as I feel that we have deviated rather drastically from the amendment and amendment to the amendment to the motion moved by the chairman of the committee on privileges and elections.
I must state, however, that I was under the impression we were attending a Social Credit convention or a public debate between Liberals and Social Crediters.
I am still thinking about the suggestion the leader of the house (Mr. Pickersgill) made this afternoon, in order to stretch the hours of sitting of this house. It seems to me that we should have acted more consistently, and spontaneously curtailed our verbosity, our partisanship. We should have restricted ourselves to a discussion on the merits of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment submitted to the house.
I heard the remarks of the member for Lapointe and I regret that he did not use the word divorce once. He spoke of the separation of the Caouette group from the Thompson group. I should have liked him to use the word divorce because then the Ralliement would have relinquished all ties and responsibility with the Thompson group.
Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer, you know that even after a separation, there are still ties and responsibilities. Such is not the case after a divorce.
Mr. Speaker, I just wished to say a few words to express my regret, as a French Canadian representative of the province of Quebec, for having attended a discussion that did not deal at all with the value, the logic or the merit of the resolution or of the amendment to it, but that has particularly succeeded in discrediting the representatives of the province of Quebec with our approach of the matter in a spirit of partisanship which is far from being academic.
The decision which the house must make will decide whether the Caouette group has precedence or not over the Thompson group.
I am sorry to have to remind the house, as a representative of the province of Quebec, of the irresponsibility with which the Liberal members and certain representatives of the Social Credit party have joined in the dis-

cussion, thereby belittling in the eyes of the citizens of other provinces the sense of responsibility of the Quebec electorate.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the speeches will be over soon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Georges-J. Valade: I hear the Liberals applauding and that after having said a lot of nonsense and stupidities. The remarks of certain members of the Social Credit were surely not better than those of some Liberal members.
Since the beginning, the discussions seemed to hinge on two decisions. First of all, we have to decide whether there is really division between the two groups. Then, it must be established whether parliament has the power to decide in favour of a group instead of another, I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) whether he could not take a few minutes to state his opinion and settle the question.
I particularly ask the house to limit interruptions and to put the question before the house; it is the most democratic way to solve the problem.
Therefore, I ask the house to vote and I hope that the group, which perhaps may not be satisfied with the decision, will consider that parliament represents democratic authority in this country, and I hope that this minority will abide by the parliament's decision, this democratic institution that we wish to preserve for a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Paul:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East. Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the subamendment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I call it
half past ten? In fact, it is 10.45.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. Is the house ready for the question?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, several members of our group would like to speak on the amendment. May I remind you that it is past the hour of ten?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Why?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I could not hear the hon. member.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, several members of our party would like to speak on the amendment. I should like to point out that it is 10.45.


Mr. Speaker:: It takes unanimous consent to continue this vote. Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the house leader, will the business for tomorrow be the same as today?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tomorrow, sir, I assume that we will proceed with the business that is uncompleted now, on motions, although of course that is not the government's business but rather the business of the house. Once that is completed and we have reached the orders of the day it is my intention to propose the motion to set up the committee on procedure, on which the Prime Minister intends to speak briefly.



Business of the House


Jay Waldo Monteith: Are you going to have today's orders of the day tomorrow?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that would be a very wise thing to attempt.
Then as soon as that debate is concluded, if there is any additional time during the day we will go on with the income tax measure, and in conformity with the announcement I made earlier today, tomorrow evening we will take the estimates of the Department of Public Works, commencing at seven o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after 10.30 p.m. this house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes before eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 18, 1963