1964-10-09

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
Mr. Knowles (acting for the special committee on procedure and organization):: That the thirteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization, presented to the house on October 7, 1964, be now concurred in.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if the house does not agree with this suggestion I have no objection, but I wonder whether we could go ahead with the orders of the day and return to this motion immediately thereafter. There may be some discussion on this matter, and I would think it would be more in order if we finished the orders of the day and then returned to this motion. I am not trying to hold it up in any way; the questions would be concluded and then we could return to this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I can speak only for myself, but I would say that as far as I am concerned I have no objection, provided it is understood now, without unanimous consent being required later, that we would revert to motions after orders of the day had been concluded. Of course, it is up to the house.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we might accommodate the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: I may say to the Prime Minister that there is no motion or anything of that kind to intervene. This is simply in order to expedite discussion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no objection to proceeding with orders of the day first.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that I should call motions and then go immediately to orders of the day, and revert to motions later?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the understanding that when we revert to motions
we will deal with both the thirteenth and fourteenth reports.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   STUDY OF PROVINCIAL ALLOCATIONS OF FEDERAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with an article appearing in today's issue of Le Devoir. I would ask him whether the government has in its possession a study of the distribution of federal administration expenditures in the ten provinces and whether this document is, according to the report by Jean-Pierre Fournier, one of major importance in connection with Canada's economy and also the position of the province of Quebec.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Acting Minister of Finance to answer this question.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance has been conducting a study of the allocation of federal revenues and expenditures among the ten provinces. This study is intended to provide material for answering questions on the subject asked by hon. members some months ago and referred to in the house the other day. Work has been going on in the department for months in anticipation of questions of this nature.
This subject was discussed at some length in the house on August 7 during the debate on the fiscal revision bill when the Minister of Finance indicated the nature of the work in progress and some of the difficulties being encountered. This study is only now being completed in the Department of Finance. The results are to be incorporated in replies to the questions asked hon. members; it has not yet been transmitted to the minister.
It will be evident that the assertions in the story in Le Devoir are untrue. The Minister of Finance was not given these completed figures three months ago, they have not been referred to the cabinet, and they have not been concealed.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ville-neuve.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question was already asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition.
My question was about the famous report which the government supposedly received more than three months ago.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Acting Minister of Finance to clarify the answer he gave the house a moment ago in connection with the study of the distribution of federal revenues.
Can he tell us whether or not the Minister of Finance has received a preliminary outline of the report to be submitted by his officials? If yes, can he say whether the minister has ordered a revision?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question is extremely complicated, and perhaps it would assist the house if I mentioned, for example, that one has to distribute sales tax collected at factories throughout all parts of the country. It would not be fair to say that all the sales tax collected at the factory in province A was paid by the consumers in province A; nor, for the same reason, would customs duties collected, for example, in the port of Montreal be properly attributed as revenues attributable to the province of Quebec, because those customs duties of course are paid by all Canadian consumers of those goods which pass through the port of Montreal. This is the nature of the problem; it is extremely complicated. The Minister of Finance has not seen any figures that have taken into account this redistribution of revenues collected at particular points.


Paul Raymond Martineau: My question was directed to learning whether a preliminary report had been submitted to the minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: No preliminary report has been submitted which takes into account the factors that I have mentioned.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Was any preliminary report whatsoever submitted?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not understand the nature of the question, Mr. Speaker. Of course, you can look at public records and find out how much customs duty is collected at various ports. That information is available to the Minister of Finance. He has never seen any


distribution of revenues amongst the ten provinces, as requested in the question asked in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lot-biniere.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, it is the second time that you have called my name. The question I wanted to put is the same as that put by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether the government will have enough courage to publish those studies made on the distribution of the federal government's expenditures in the ten provinces, even if those figures were to show that the province of Quebec was the least favoured of all the provinces?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. member had listened and understood the answers given to this question he would have realized that this work is being done to secure information in reply to questions asked in the house and will automatically, of course, be made public. [Translation]


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would agree to including two finance officials of the Quebec government among the officials of the federal government who are conducting this study, so as to eliminate the suspicions on the part of Quebeckers as to the objectiveness of certain federal officials?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Questions of this kind are answered on the responsibility of the government and with the advice and expert assistance of federal, not provincial, officials.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders-of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime

Minister, in view of the submissions which have been made to the respective provinces by the various colleges of physicians and surgeons, particularly the more recent submission to the government of Quebec, suggesting a health insurance plan which would have the effect of dividing Canada into haves and have nots, whether he will give the house the assurance that when the federal government meets with the provinces it intends to place before them a proposal which would adhere to the basic recommendations of the Hall commission, particularly the recommendation that health services under such a plan should be available to all Canadians irrespective of financial ability to pay and without any means test.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows the recommendations of the Hall commission are being examined at the present time. The examination is concerned with a very important as well as a very complicated matter, and the Hall commission have made a very important series of recommendations. The examination will also be associated with consultation with the provinces in this matter. There is certainly no intention on the part of the government, in any action which I hope will be taken and put before the house, of making the kind of discrimination to which my hon. friend refers.



ONTARIO-INCREASE IN RATES UNDER PRIVATE HEALTH PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of a motion passed unanimously by the Niagara Falls city council, protesting the increase in the P.S.I. insurance rates and urging the federal government to establish a national medical care plan, and, if so, what has been her reply to them?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry
During a televised interview the high commissioner for Canada in London, Hon. Mr. Chevrier, stated yesterday in London that it was difficult for his daughter to be admitted to a British university because the teaching standards in Canada are much lower than those in Great Britain.
Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether he approves that a Canadian diplomat abroad should thus belittle his country, and could he find out if it might not be the daughter of Hon. Mr. Chevrier who is not qualified to meet university requirements in Great Britain?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have a great many things to occupy my attention these days, but I will make inquiries as to whether in fact the high commissioner ever made such a statement.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to a fellow conservationist, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. My question is based on an article which appeared in Maclean's magazine on October 17, which was called to my attention by people who are interested in this subject. This article tells how wealthy United States sportsmen, ranging from generals to politicians, are plundering our last frontier. Would the minister inform the house what action he has taken to deal with this latest and graphic example of the plundering of Canadian natural resources by our United States neighbours?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give notice of my intention to deal with this question at the appropriate ten o'clock adjournment hour.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it the intention of the minister to make it

Inquiries of the Ministry compulsory for employers to remit weekly income taxes collected at the source on a weekly basis rather than on the present monthly basis, due and payable on the 15th of the following month?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question arises out of remarks I made recently in Montreal. At the present time the taxation division is studying the possibility of allowing employers to deposit the monthly remittances of taxes collected from employees in their local chartered banks to the credit of the federal government. At the time when employers in Canada make up their payrolls and deduct taxes from their employees, that money at that point is the property of the government of Canada. It is hoped that within a period of time after the practice to which I have referred has been put into operation, ultimately employers will enjoy the convenience of being able to deposit these collected taxes in their local chartered banks the same day they make up their payrolls. These taxes will be deposited to the credit of the government of Canada. It will be some time before this can be accomplished.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister saying in his present statement that the taxes must be remitted weekly rather than monthly? Does he realize the great inconvenience which will be caused to small businessmen if this practice is instituted?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. What I did say was that we are presently moving away from the practice of having monthly remittances made directly to the taxation division and toward a method of allowing the employers to deposit these taxes in their local chartered banks. I stated in my speech at Montreal that the ultimate step would be that the employers would deposit these taxes in their local banks at the same time as they write out their payroll cheques. The taxes collected belong to the government of Canada at the time they are collected. Under the present system there is some $100 million which remains in the hands of employers for a period of a month, and that money really belongs to the federal government.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure from the minister's remarks that they will be made weekly. Am I correct in that assumption?


Edgar John Benson: No. It will depend on the payroll period, which may not be weekly. I should also like to point out to the hon. member that such a step is quite some disr tance away, because it will take us a good deal of time to get a system working whereby they can deposit monthly.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry?
Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether there is any truth in the report from Paris to the effect that an agreement between the Canadian government and the Peugeot and Renault companies is nearly concluded and that a press release will be issued next week?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question was asked yesterday and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) answered that a statement would be made in the near future.



TRADE AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is based on a news item appearing in this morning's Montreal Gazette regarding an increase in soap prices that is now being passed on to the retail trade. I notice in this report that the reason given for this increase by the companies concerned is an increase in the price of raw materials. As a very large proportion of these raw materials are derived from the developing countries of Africa and we have continuing reports of a decline in such prices, and complaints in this regard were again voiced by African delegates at the interparliamentary union conference in Copenhagen, is the minister prepared to investigate the situation and also investigate what appears to be considered evidence of a combination for price fixing among these large corporations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that relates to many departments. I can assure the hon. member that I shall make inquiries and I will have suitable inquiries made elsewhere in the government as well.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Transport but, in his absence, I shall put it to the acting minister.
Could the minister ask the board of transport commissioners to intervene without delay with the C.P.R. and have the company reconsider its decision to cut to three trains per week its service between Montreal and Mont Laurier and to operate fewer trains between Ottawa and Montreal, on the north shore of the Ottawa river, that is on the Quebec side? Such a change will be highly prejudicial to workers, students and business people in general.
Second, could the minister not convince the government that it would be better to give a grant to the C.P.R., if necessary, so as not to imperil any further the economy of my riding which is already considered as a designated area?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that I intend to discuss this matter at ten o'clock, at the next opportunity.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Norihwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he is in a position to answer the question I put to him on October 1, which was whether he would allow the governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories to participate as observers in the forthcoming federal-provincial conference on Indian affairs.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to answer the question asked by the hon. member and to inform the house that my colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) and myself have decided to invite both commissioners of the Yukon and of the Northwest Territories, to attend that conference on Indians as observers. Also, some high officials of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources who have responsibility over education in both those territories will be invited to attend that conference.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister not agree that it would be equally appropriate to invite as observers some of the native Indian people themselves who have a vital interest in this question?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated, that federal-provincial conference is at the level of ministers and officials of both governments. Its object is to discuss a program which will then be systematically submitted to all the Indians in the country.
I think this procedure is the best way to bring a solution to the problem, which is to co-ordinate policy. There should be an initial conference at government level and, then, discussions of various formulas with different Indian groups in order to have their suggestions concerning those programs.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister taking any steps to solicit the views and ideas of the Indian people on a national scale, inasmuch as their views should be placed before the participants in the conference at the time of their discussions?


René Tremblay: We thought it better first to hold a conference at the government level before inviting the comments of the Indians on those policies, because we want to be able to submit to the Indians a co-ordinated program implying participation, for various reasons, of the various administrative levels of the country.
We feel that the Indians will be more satisfied with a program which will have been
8922	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry discussed first from the administrative and financial viewpoints at the level of the various governments.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has consulted with his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare to ascertain whether she has changed her mind about the fact that the Indians should be consulted prior to any of these discussions and prior to any decisions being made.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister answers that, may I ask a supplementary question. At the same time would he consider also the fact that while it is hoped the ministerial meeting to discuss Indian affairs will arrive at some conclusions, rather than presenting these conclusions to the Indians would it not be advisable to have Indian representatives present in order that they may be consulted at the time the decisions are being made?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, decisions will not be arrived at by that conference. At that meeting the federal and provincial governments will discuss the problems which might be raised by the extension of provincial services in the various provinces.
It is thought that a more systematic and efficient discussion might take place after the conference, if discussions were held during that conference they would involve both the relations of the governments with the Indians and those of the federal government with the provincial governments. It is felt that the interests of the Indians will be better served in this way.
This program in regard to the Indians includes no decisions whatsoever, but merely suggestions, and we shall be happy to make all the necessary changes in the program after we receive the recommendations and suggestions from the Indians.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister whether there has been any request from any Indian organization or band anywhere in this country to have the jurisdiction of the federal government over Indians sublet, transferred or assigned to the provinces. This is a very serious step and one that places the Indians in a position of subservience before the In-


dians have ever made any request for this. It looks like a very high handed practice.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this. A distinction must necessarily be made between the provincial services which were extended in the field of education under the administration of the Leader of the Opposition as well as by other governments.
A distinction must be made between the availability of certain provincial services to the Indians and the transfer of jurisdiction.
As I said, it is not a matter of transferring federal jurisdiction to the provinces, and I know that all or most Indians in this country are opposed to the federal government's powers being transferred to any provincial government whatsoever. On the other hand, I am well aware that all our Indians are only too glad when they are given the same advantages as other provincial citizens where social security and education are concerned.
As for the way in which provincial services can be made available to Indians, we shall be glad to discuss the matter with the Indians so as to hear their opinions and their suggestions regarding these programs.


John George Diefenbaker: Then the minister has said that the Indians would be very satisfied to have certain jurisdiction-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Not jurisdiction but the administration-


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to get the
distinction, because if I cannot get it I feel sure the Indians are not likely to get it.


Mr. Mcllraifh:: I am not too sure.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what the interruption was from the President of the Privy Council.


George James McIlraith: I said I am not too sure of that.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says the Indians as a whole are desirous of having the advantage of the social services in the provinces. When did consultation with the Indians take place which leads him to make such a statement, which in my opinion has no justification?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, all the officials of the Indian affairs branch are constantly in

touch with the Indian chiefs and the chairmen of the Indian councils, and the department has been aware for years of those needs, so much so that in the case of the province of Ontario, certain agreements have been reached with the provincial authorities in order to allow Indian children to attend Ontario schools. In fact, this trend has prevailed in Canada for many years.
But instead of reaching special agreements, what the government wants to do now is to establish an over-all program for the country, precisely so that what has been done for years in some provinces may be achieved within over-all programs, which will be to the greatest advantage of the Indians themselves.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this general plan designed to provide an opportunity whereby the Eskimo problem in Labrador will be easily solved? Is this what is behind this plan?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the suggestion just made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, this conference will deal exclusively with Indian affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: The Eskimo is an Indian today.


Frank Howard: I wonder if I might direct a question to the acting house leader, further to the questions which have just been asked. I should like to ask whether in view of what, to me, appear to be contradictory or vague statements made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on this subject he does not think it would be advisable to recall the estimates of the Indian affairs branch either immediately or at an early date, so we might have an opportunity to ascertain exactly what is in the mind of the government with regard to this matter.


George James McIlraith: I will be glad to take the suggestion made by the hon. member under consideration, but I would point out to him that his remarks or comments are undoubtedly due to the fact that questions on the orders of the day are going beyond what the rules provide.


An hon. Member:: Judge Mcllraith.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: In his
replies to certain of the questions which have been asked the minister said decisions are made without consultation with the chiefs of
Inquiries of the Ministry the Indian councils. Is he prepared to tell us that the chief of the Blackfoot reserve, the chief of the Sarcees and the chief of the Gleichen reserve are satisfied with the consultation they are getting?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me we have had an extended discussion on this matter. Surely that is a question for the order paper.


Erik Nielsen: One brief supplementary. Is the minister telling the house that the final solution to the Eskimo problem in Quebec will not be discussed at this conference?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I said the Department of Citizenship and Immigration had only jurisdiction over the Indians, according to the definition of the Indian Act, and that the conference would deal only with the problems of the Indians.
If, at that conference, any province, Newfoundland for instance, is interested in certain questions relating to Eskimos, arrangements could be made with the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. But the conference will only deal with problems concerning Indians who come under the Indian affairs division of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Erik Nielsen: May I direct a question to the minister of northern affairs, and ask him whether he will be attending that conference.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: If the question of Eskimos in Ungava is being discussed I certainly anticipate I will be there. I do not think it has been pointed out that while the determination of the Supreme Court of Canada was that Eskimos are a tribe of Indians, Eskimos and their administration are expressly excluded from the powers of the Indian Act. The discussions which are to take place are in relation to the Indian Act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether a copy of the agenda for the projected conference will be made public prior to the conference so that members of the house may have an opportunity to see it? Second, are we to take it from his remarks that the minister's concept of the Indian consensus on this whole question of federal-provincial services has been obtained from the reports he gets from

Inquiries of the Ministry the Indian agents rather than as a result of direct consultation with the Indians themselves?


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker, what I said is that the Indians' needs regarding provincial services are referred to us by the various agents who are in contact with those who wish to obtain increases in allowances, unemployment benefits, welfare benefits, etc., or who wish to attend such or such provincial school.
Still, in so far as the over-all program is concerned, as I have mentioned the matter will be submitted to the Indians for their suggestions. No decision will be taken by the government before those consultations have been held and the Indians themselves have made their suggestions, for as I have already said they are the ones who are most interested in any program concerning them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about the agenda for the conference?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to send to the hon. members a copy of the agenda which lists the problems to be discussed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the serious constitutional problems involved with respect to the obvious intention of the government regarding the transfer of responsibility for and jurisdiction over the Indian people of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member state his question quickly and not make extraneous remarks.


Erik Nielsen: In view of this obvious intention of the government, will the Prime Minister consider, under enabling legislation to that effect, referring the whole question of the right of the executive to transfer jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Canada, as the government is entitled to do under enabling legislation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; I think we should proceed with the conference as planned.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a protest that employees of small post offices are not included under the terms of Bill C-126 relating to minimum wages and hours in federal undertakings?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is consideration being given to rectifying this glaring error in the bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It will be possible on second reading of the bill to clarify the relationship of the provisions of that bill to the class of employee mentioned by the hon. member.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Do I understand, then, that some consideration is being given to the inclusion of these employees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is extending the debate beyond all limits.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Justice, but in his absence perhaps I may direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the strong views of the Minister of Justice concerning the treatment of offenders in Canada, as indicated in a speech made last night, is the government now going to take a strong hand in the prevention of the phasing out of certain minimum security institutions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss this matter with the minister and perhaps he will reply next week.



NEWSPAPER REPORT CONCERNING MEETINGS OF HOUSE LEADERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting house leader. I would ask the acting

house leader whether he has seen the article in this morning's Globe and Mail by Mr. George Bain, giving an inaccurate report of a confidential meeting of the house leaders held in the minister's office. I know how fair minded the minister is and I would ask him, if he has seen the article, if he will state to the house that it is inaccurate, and in particular the sentence which says that at that meeting "there was no objection".
Is the minister prepared to state that when he suggested a change for the estimates of the Department of Justice from Thursday to Wednesday, I said that I had no authority to speak for my party without consultation, and that if a change was to be made it must be made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself, who had earlier suggested that Thursday would be the day rather than Wednesday?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to advise the house that due to other heavy demands on my time this morning I have not seen the Globe and Mail today. I have not talked to Mr. George Bain for some considerable time; I do not know how many days ago, but many days ago, and certainly not this week.
I know nothing about the story. I regarded the meetings that took place as confidential. I regret very much that the house leader for the official opposition has seen fit to disclose what he regards as part of the discussion that took place in a confidential meeting. For my part, if he is going to attempt to disclose parts of those meetings I am going to have something to say, too, and disclose them all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: I regret very much the house leader for the official opposition attempting to disclose-


Arthur Laing: Nibble.


George James McIlraith: Yes, or nibble away at what I regard as a confidential meeting. I propose for my part to retain that confidentiality, and I am not going to say more on the subject at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise, then, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -and I withdraw my remark about the minister being fair minded.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: My question of privilege is this; that a confidential meeting held in his office has been disclosed to the press, and the report is inaccurate. I think this is a matter that should be taken up by the house. I regret that I did not see the article until I entered the chamber this morning; otherwise I would have prepared a suitable motion.


George James McIlraith: I have not seen it yet.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I reserve the right to raise this matter again, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Byrne:: Don't be so thin skinned.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not thin skinned at all. I do not object to these reports, but I would prefer that they be accurate rather than inaccurate. This is casting a slur on the Progressive Conservative party and is a deliberate slur on me by the author of this article, without any consultation with me whatsoever. I would like to know who disclosed the confidential character of the meetings in the minister's office. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to raise this matter again.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that I disclosed this information. I know nothing about the article. I am in that position; and if the hon. member has his problems, that is up to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I made no suggestion that the minister had made this disclosure, but I draw his attention to the fact that a confidential meeting in his office has been disclosed to the press and that it is an inaccurate disclosure. I thought the minister would at least state the facts as they are, so the record would be clear; but he has neglected to do so. I think it is a disgrace on the part of the minister not to straighten the matter out.


Mr. Speaker:: With the unanimous consent of the house, I suggest that we now revert to motions.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the proceedings and I would be very glad to have the house revert to motions, but I am waiting for an answer to a question I

Inquiries of the Ministry asked on October 7 with regard to the broadcast of Her Majesty's arrival in Ottawa on Sunday. The Secretary of State was to give a reply, and I see he is here now. I would ask him what the C.B.C. said with reference to the article to the effect that the C.B.C. was downgrading the Queen's activities, in one particular by not broadcasting her arrival in Ottawa on Sunday next.


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken I said to the right hon. gentleman that I would convey his views to the C.B.C. I am now informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that in planning coverage of the events in connection with Her Majesty's visit to Ottawa it was decided to give live television coverage to the war memorial ceremony on Monday morning and the departure from Uplands on Tuesday morning. The C.B.C. has already covered fully the two arrivals in Prince Edward Island with all their colour and ceremony, and will also cover the arrival and other events in Quebec city.
As to the arrival of the royal party in Ottawa on Sunday evening, this will take place after dark with minimum ceremonial display. Consequently this event will be covered for the national audience by the C.B.C. news service for French and English networks that evening.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
The C.B.C. covered the arrival of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; could the minister tell the house whether any favourable comments have been received in regard to that coverage?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker, I, personally have received neither favourable nor unfavourable reports.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I wish to inform the house that the governments of Canada and the United States of America have agreed to place jointly before the international joint

commission a reference on pollution in waters
crossing the international boundary in the Red river.
In view of the interest which the house has taken in this matter it may be the wish of the house that this reference, which is in the form of a letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the secretary of the international joint commission, should be printed as an annex to Hansard. This reference and the two references which I brought before the house yesterday I will now table.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of letter referred to above see appendix.]



PROCEDURE


Stanley Howard Knowles: that the thirteenth report of the special committee on procedure, presented to the house on Wednesday, October 7, be now concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to move concurrence in the thirteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization, and to do so on behalf of the committee. I trust hon. members have read this report, which was made part of Votes and Proceedings for Wednesday, October 7, but I think it would be desirable that a brief summary of what we are now proposing be given to the house and thus placed on Hansard at this time.
May I say at the outset that as with previous proposals which this committee has recommended to the house, we are suggesting that the ones we are now proposing be adopted for the remainder of the present session, unless otherwise ordered by the house.
We are making at this point, Mr. Speaker, proposals with respect to three phases of our procedure, and I shall now deal with them one at a time. In the first place we are proposing changes in standing order 26 (3). Standing order 26, as all hon. members know, is the one under which it is possible from time to time to seek to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. So far as this standing order is concerned we are not proposing anything new, if one has in mind our present practices. However, there are two aspects of our present practice with

respect to standing order 26 which it might be said are not completely clear. What we are trying to do in this proposal is to tidy up standing order 26; we are trying to make these two points crystal clear.
The first point has to do with the right of members from the floor to speak to the question of debate before Your Honour rules whether there is such urgency. We propose that the right, which has now been accepted more or less in practice, be written into the rule itself. The sentence we propose to accomplish this is:
If Mr. Speaker questions the urgency of debate with respect to the proposed matter, he may invite members to speak on the question of such urgency.
The other point about standing order 26 concerning which there might be said to be some ambiguity is whether there is the right of appeal against Mr. Speaker's ruling in those cases where he rules that a motion is not of sufficient urgency to be allowed debate under the standing order. This matter has been debated a number of times and votes of the house have been taken. Those votes, as Your Honour and the previous Speaker know, have gone both ways. The majority of the votes and the more recent ones have been to the effect that there should not be an appeal. So we would write into the standing order words to the effect that, provided Mr. Speaker has listened to argument from the floor, any ruling that he then makes is not subject to appeal, and the sentence we propose to put into standing order 26, section (3) reads as follows:
Any ruling made by Mr. Speaker after listening to argument on the question of urgency shall not be subject to appeal, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 12 (1).
Those then, Mr. Speaker, are the two matters concerned with standing order 26. As I say, we are tidying it up. We are writing into the rule what we have accepted in practice; and it is the general view of the committee, and I think the general view of members, that it would be a good idea to have this matter made definite. That is what we propose in the first of these three suggestions we now make.
I come now to the second of the proposals that Your Honour's committee presents to the house at this time, and it has to do with the resolution preceding what is called a money bill. As hon. members know, there has been discussion for a long time about the debate on a resolution preceding a money bill. Before 1955 there were two stages of debate prior to a money bill itself being presented;
Procedure Committee
there was debate on the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair to go into committee of the whole on the resolution; then there was debate in committee of the whole on the resolution itself. In 1955 we amended the rule to eliminate the debate with Mr. Speaker in the chair, but we continued the debate in committee of the whole.
There has been an expression of opinion, which has been widely supported, that we might consider doing away with that stage of debate altogether. As a matter of fact there has been wide support for that abolition on the floor of this House of Commons. However, Mr. Speaker, there are procedural arguments for retaining at least a limited debate on a resolution preceding a money bill, and there is at least an element of doubt as to whether, under the constitution, we have the right to abolish the reference of such a resolution to a committee. I might say that very learned experts on parliamentary and constitutional procedures have said that doubt could be set aside, but if the doubt is there at all it seems to us that we should not fly in the face of it.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are not recommending the abolition of the debate on a resolution preceding a money bill. We are in fact recommending that it be retained, but that the debate on such a resolution in the committee of the whole be limited to not more than one sitting day. We define a sitting day in our proposed standing order in what I think are explicit terms. We make it clear that if such a resolution preceding a money bill is the first item called under government orders on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, and if it continues to the end of any one of those days, that is a full sitting day, and at that point that debate is terminated. However, in order to make it possible for such an order to be called at some other time-as the second or third item on one of those days, or on a Wednesday-we provide that under any other circumstances than the first one I indicated, five hours of debate in committee of the whole on a resolution preceding a money bill shall be considered to be the equivalent of one sitting day.
Once we provide for a limit of that kind on a debate, obviously the question arises as to what happens if one, two or more people, who have unlimited time, take up a good portion of the day, and is that fair? We recommend that when we are in committee of the whole on a resolution preceding a money bill, notwithstanding the provisions of

Procedure Committee
other orders, all speakers shall be limited to 20 minutes. We make no change in the right to speak more than once, in other words no change in the right to ask questions and give answers, but we do limit each speaker to 20 minutes at any one time.
It will be seen that we are trying to get this debate back to its original character, namely an occasion when there can be inquiries and short statements about the financial provisions of the measure itself. Your committee, sir, is strongly in support of this proposition and believes it is a good one for the house to try out. Therefore we present it to the house in the name of Your Honour's committee at this time, and we hope it will commend itself to the house generally.
Sir, I come now to the third and last of the proposals contained in this thirteenth report, and this has to do with the consideration of clause 1 of bills when we are in the committee of the whole. There is a general feeling, certainly shared by the members of Your Honour's committee, that our opportunities for general debate are more numerous than they need be. We have the opportunity of a general debate on a resolution preceding a money bill. We have the opportunity of a general debate on second reading. Then immediately we get into committee of the whole it is possible to have another general debate on clause 1. Every bill also has somewhere- in clause 3 or 4, or perhaps in more than one- what might be called its main operative clause, and under that main operative clause it is possible to have wide general debate. We think that some of the length of time we spend, and some of the repetition in which we indulge, may be due to this arrangement. In most cases clause 1 of a bill provides only a short title. I might say that it is the practice in the parliament of the United Kingdom to have that short title at the end of the bill rather than as its first clause. We think, therefore, without changing the structure of bills at all, that there is a very simple answer to this situation.
We now have standing order No. 78 (1), which states that the title and the preamble are not considered until the rest of the clauses of the bill have been considered. We suggest that the same thing should apply to clause 1 of a bill, and that when we get into committee of the whole to consider a bill, clause 1 should not at that point be called if it contains only a short title. Of course if it is clause 1 of an amending bill and contains substance, or something other than the short

title, then this standing order will not apply. However, if clause 1 contains only a short title we suggest the committee move immediately to clause 2 and on through the clauses of the bill, and when all the other clauses have been dealt with, that clause 1 then be called.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are not eliminating the possibility of general debate in the committee of the whole, because there is in every bill a main operative clause. As I say, it is usually clause 3 or clause 4, in respect of which general discussion is possible. We are not even eliminating the possibility of general discussion on clause 1, because we are providing that it be called after the other clauses have been disposed of. But we believe that if at that point the bill has been thoroughly discussed, and possible amendments have been dealt with, the chances that members will want to discuss clause 1 at length are a bit on the slim side. We think, therefore, that technical though this change may seem-switching the discussion on clause 1 from the beginning to the end-it would have a time saving and useful effect.
Mr. Speaker, if the house will consider these last two proposals together-the second and third proposals of this report, limiting the debate on resolutions preceding money bills to one day, and transferring the consideration of clause 1 of bills to the end of the consideration by the committee of the whole-I think it will realize that we are making suggestions that do not in any way curtail or limit freedom of speech, and do not in any way interfere with the right of the fullest possible examination of measures that are brought before it, but that on the other hand they provide for sharper and crisper debate. We believe these proposals, which are being made in this house in the name of the special committee on procedure and organization, are good and worth-while proposals. We dare to believe that having tried them out the house will want to continue them in future sessions. At this moment we recommend that they be tried out from the time this report is adopted, as I trust it will be, until the end of the present session.
Therefore, on behalf of Your Honour's committee on procedure and organization, I commend this thirteenth report to the House of Commons for its endorsation.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr
Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has outlined, in more detail

than I shall attempt, the reasons behind the presentation of this report of Your Honour's committee to the house for its approval.
I should like to make one or two brief observations and a general comment. In respect of the question of appeal, it has been my view for some time, I think shared by other hon. members, that the whole question of appeals from Your Honour's rulings must receive consideration. There are many anomalies, not the least of which is the fact that basically the chairman of a standing committee has considerably more authority that Your Honour in that, as precedent now stands, there is no appeal from his ruling, nor can an appeal from his ruling be brought into the house for further consideration. This is one aspect which I think in due course will lead to a full report on this whole question.
However, in taking this step I assume we are conducting what might be termed a form of clinical research, because in presenting these amendments to the house for the duration of this session, the extent of which is now unknown, we will have an opportunity to see how they develop and work out in practice.
On the question of the discussion on the first clause in committee, there is no doubt in my mind that here there has been unnecessary and repetitious debate. I think this is a situation which might well be cured by the proposed amendment, and that even the most hardened offender in respect of the rule against repetition will be inclined to let the opportunity pass when he is confronted with the chance to repeat what he has already said after going through the clause by clause discussion in committee. If, on the other hand, something develops during the course of the clause by clause discussion which justifies him in making a further contribution, he has that opportunity.
The third item which did give us some concern was the question of the resolution stage on matters involving the expenditure of money, where a recommendation is made by the government to the house. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, there is a constitutional aspect which is of interest. There is, of course, another aspect which caused a great deal of concern and on which there was a considerable amount of discussion. In limiting the debate to one day we felt compelled, in spite of other standing orders of the house, to limit each member to 20 minutes. This trespasses, of course, on the traditional rights of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. As I say, this
Procedure Committee
matter did give us concern and evoked discussion and argument. I think I can safely say it was as a result of compromise that our recommendation was brought forward in this way. My view, Mr. Speaker, is that in due course I should like to see the complete abolition of the resolution stage, but there is grave doubt in that regard because of the possible constitutional cloud entailed in section 54 of the British North America Act.
There is also another aspect which hon. members will have in mind, namely that it is at the resolution stage that members have the opportunity to put forward alternatives to legislation which has not yet been presented. Once legislation has been introduced and comes up for second reading there are strong limitations on the opportunity of a member to make his views known as to possible alternatives. It would be my hope that at such time as we are able to agree to abolish the resolution stage we might also consider widening the powers of individual members to bring forward amendments, so they will not be bound and trammelled as they are today by the existing rules. It is quite notorious that the opportunity of a member in committee or elsewhere to bring forward substantive amendments is definitely limited, and the resolution stage on financial measures has provided some extension of that opportunity.
Finally, by way of general comment let me say that I am one of those who believe that the standing orders as they now are, with the addition of the precedents and decisions laid down over the years by Your Honour and your distinguished predecessors, are in sum total adequate to cover almost any contingency which may arise in the house. But that does not mean that from time to time members who feel they have a just cause to put forward do not override the rules. I am not inciting members to do this, but this is a situation which does develop because of the nature of the house, because of the type of men and women who are members of the house, and because of the issues which come before the house from time to time.
It has happened in the past that the rules have not always been adhered to, and it will happen again. I think it would be a sorry day for the house and the country if that did not happen, if we had a situation where a session would start and finish without someone, in pursuance of what he felt was a worthy and most desirable objective, going to lengths which the Chair might feel were in excess of the standing orders.

Procedure Committee
Having said that, it does not mean that we should not, in an effort to ensure that our procedures will be regular and that traffic will flow smoothly and adequately, make provision in minor ways for bridges, overpasses and stop lights so the traffic can be regulated and made to flow smoothly. In that sense, subject to what I have said, these are the types of amendments that the committee has offered to the house today.


Miss Pauline Jewett (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee on procedure I take pleasure in joining with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Peace River in asking for concurrence of the house in these reports. I endorse the remarks that have already been made about them, and I hope and expect that all members of the house will do likewise.
Indeed, since one of the reasons for the recommendations is to remove some of the extraordinary repetition in debate that goes on in this chamber, I shall not violate the spirit of these recommendations by engaging now in any repetition of the excellent remarks that have already been made by the two hon. members 1 have just mentioned.
I would simply say that in my opinion these steps are very modest ones. Perhaps as a newcomer to the house one is more impatient to make somewhat sharper and more drastic reforms in the procedures of the house. These are modest steps but they are extremely important ones and will, I hope, lead to further reports in other areas in which there is an equal need for reform.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to deal briefly with one of the concepts in the report, namely that there should not be an appeal from Your Honour's decision. May I say first that in essence I agree with this contention. However, without any disrespect to yourself and knowing that you will not take offence at what I am about to say, I would point out that the degree to which members accept the idea that there should not be appeals from your rulings will be influenced by the person who holds the office Your Honour now holds, and the circumstances under which he holds it.
For argument's sake, as long as we have a Speaker who at least at some time during his term of office engages in partisan activities-I refer now to elections-we are likely to have less than the desirable degree of respect for what is supposed to be the nonpartisan approach of the person who holds that office.
tMr. Baldwin.]
I think there would be greater acceptance of the principle of no appeals from Your Honour's rulings if Your Honour held the position permanently. If we had a situation in Canada, and I hope we will reach this stage, where the position of Speaker was a permanent one and the Speaker was not forced to engage in partisan activities at election time in order at least to be returned as a member of parliament, if not to hold the office of Speaker again, it would be much easier for us to accept the idea of no appeals from Your Honour's rulings.
We have advocated the concept that every constituency should be represented by a member who is able to speak on behalf of his constituents in the House of Commons and engage in the debates that take place. This is a privilege Your Honour does not now have. To this end we have suggested that members of parliament should elect the person to fill the position of Speaker and for that purpose we should declare the House of Commons to be a constituency so that Your Honour would in effect be our member of parliament. No constituency of Canada would thereby be deprived of a vocal member representing it by virtue of his attaining the office of Speaker. If we could get to this stage I think there would be a great desire on the part of members to accept the idea that Mr. Speaker's rulings should not be subject to appeal, regardless of the circumstances under which those rulings were issued.
It is fortunate, I think, that the proposed changes are to apply for a temporary period of time; that this is really to be a sort of testing period to see how the rules work in practice and whether the practice meets the theoretical concept the proposers had in the first instance. It has long been our contention that the debate at the resolution stage preceding money bills is rather superfluous. In effect we have had two second reading debates, one of them occurring at a time when we do not know the contents of the bill itself, except as they may be referred to in the resolution under consideration. In essence I endorse this idea that the debate at the resolution stage preceding money bills really creates a situation where superfluous debate can take place.
I would rather have seen the committee tackle this with a bit more firmness and attempt to eliminate debate at the resolution stage, rather than just confine it to one day and also restrict each speaker to 20 minutes. What I think is likely to occur is that we will

push the backbencher farther into the background during this debate at the resolution stage. It will, in effect, become a sort of leaders' day, even though there is a 20 minute time limit on speeches. Those who are leaders or who are in the forefront of their parties will have a greater opportunity to engage in this debate, and the backbencher will have a lesser opportunity than exists now to engage in the debate at that stage. As I have said, I would rather have seen the elimination of debate at this stage than to approach the matter in this way. The confinement of the debate will have a tendency to give less and less respect to the ideas and desires of the backbencher.
I have some reservations, too, about the effectiveness of the third proposal, that is consideration of clause 1 at the end of the bill. Even though this may not have been in accordance with the rules, even though the hope might not have been realized because of the exigencies of political activity in the house, we had looked upon the consideration of clause 1 of the bill as a time when, because we were in committee and it was possible to ask specific questions of the minister and get replies from him without closing the debate, we would have the opportunity to get some indication in a detailed way about the effect of the provisions of the bill which it is not possible to do during second reading. As you know, the second reading debate is more formalized, and when the minister speaks the second time he closes the debate and that is the end of consideration of the bill at that stage. Clause 1 did appear to provide an opportunity, especially for members of the opposition, to get more detailed information about the effect of the bill than was possible at second reading. This enables the opposition to make up their minds about the principle of the bill and its subsequent clauses, even though it might not be possible to refer in detail to any of the subsequent clauses.
I have some reservations, therefore, about the effect of the third proposal. However, my attitude about it is not put forward in a way that would lead to opposition to the proposal before us.
As I have said, these proposals are to be applied on an interim basis. There will be a testing period for these rules in the days ahead, just as there has been in the past in respect of changes in the rules. If these proposals, or some of them, become permanent we may be able to develop a set of rules that will permit the orderly dispatch of pub-20220-565
Procedure Committee
lie business and allow parliament to proceed in a more efficient way than has been the case in the past.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: I only want to say a few words about this and to give general support to the recommendations of the committee. I urge concurrence in the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
So far as the first proposal is concerned, that of tightening up the provisions of standing order No. 26, I think the present provisions make it almost a violation of the rules for Your Honour to ask for advice from members as to whether there is urgency of debate. I think it would be helpful to the Speaker at any time to invite some comments from various corners of the house before a decision is reached as to whether there is urgency of debate at the time. I believe, without being disrespectful at all, sir, it is quite impossible for Your Honour to be fully aware of current events in the country to the extent that you can independently, without some consideration, be called upon to make what may be called a snap judgment as to whether there is urgency of debate with regard to the matter raised. I believe it is a good thing to write into the standing order a formal provision enabling you to invite comment on the urgency of debate.
Then, of course, I agree that once you have made a decision there should not be any appeal from that decision. After all, after you had invited members to advise you on the urgency of debate in connection with the matter there certainly would have been some expression of opinion from members, and I feel we should have sufficient confidence in the Speaker to accept his decision after he has heard the advice of the members of the house.
The second proposal, namely restricting to some extent the debate that takes place on the resolution preceding a money bill, has been the subject of consideration for some time. I do not have the quotations in front of me, and even if I did I would not like to read all of them, but I think it is fair to say there have been expressions from spokesmen for all parties in this house that something should be done to restrict this particular debate. I go back to those opinions that were expressed when the committee on procedure and organization was set up. In the first place, I believe you will find the opinion expressed by all parties that something should

Procedure Committee
be done to either eliminate the debate on the resolution preceding a bill, or at least to tighten it up. I think the step taken here is probably the wisest one in the circumstances, because to do away entirely with the resolution stage proceedings in relation to money bills would raise constitutional problems involving the royal prerogative.
As far as proposal No. 3 is concerned, may I point out that we have witnessed in this house, during the last few months particularly, the development of what amounts to a further full scale debate on the first clause of a bill after it has been introduced in committee. This proposal would simply transfer discussion on the first clause to the end of the debate in committee, and then only if it contained the short title and nothing else. I therefore think there will probably be a disposition on the part of the house to pass this clause more quickly than in the past, since there would have been full discussion on all the other clauses of the bill before the discussion on the short title was reached.
In closing I should like to say that we in this party feel we should support these proposals on a trial basis. It is clearly stated in the recommendations that they be adopted on a trial basis for the remainder of this session, and that other arrangements can be made if they prove too restrictive or if further amendments can be brought in to enable the business of this house to be conducted more efficiently. We in this party are ready to support the suggestions for the balance of this session.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the purpose or the necessity of extending the debate on the thirteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization, presented today.
We, in this corner of the house, believe that any step to improve the Canadian parliamentary system, while respecting the rights and prerogatives of each member of parliament, should meet with the approval of the whole house.
Those are the few comments I wished to make. We are prepared to support any measure to improve parliamentary procedure.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to say at once, as I have said on a number of occasions, that anything which can be done to improve the procedure of parliament without restricting the
[Mr. Olson.)
essential freedom and the traditional rights of parliament deserves support.
If you will allow me, sir-and I say this with diffidence with yourself in the chair- what has been done under your leadership has been the most unusual and effective action which has taken place during the quarter of a century, almost, that I have been a member of this house. You have convened a committee which has worked effectively, dispassionately and objectively. Too often he who occupies your ancient and honourable chair does not, in the nature of things, receive from members as a whole that expression of commendation which you have so richly earned. I want to say that I believe the committee has worked together in a way which does honour to its membership.
Parliament is subject to a great deal of criticism; it has been in recent years and months. But parliament, if its full function is understood, is carrying out the great responsibility which rests upon it. Indeed, it is the only institution which preserves and maintains freedom and which above everything else, assures that the humblest person in our land shall not be denied justice. We have had examples in the last few days of matters brought before the house concerning humble individuals. This is one of the major functions of parliament.
The hon. member for Skeena suggested that he would like to see established, or so I gathered from his remarks, a practice whereby a Speaker would become the member for a constituency to be designated for that purpose, and would not be subject to election as are other members of the house. That suggestion has been made in the past. It fails to give due emphasis to the fact that if such an arrangement were made the occupant of the Speaker's chair would not be the first commoner. The essence of being the first commoner is that among members who have been elected on a similar basis, whoever is chosen to be Speaker is, by tradition, the first commoner.
I have listened to the various arguments which have been advanced today respecting the recommendations, and I intend to refer briefly to three of these recommendations. First there is the proposal that Your Honour's ruling should not be subject to appeal on the question of whether the house should be adjourned to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. I think all of us are agreed that such a rule would simply implement the general practice, and that it is deserving of complete support.

As to the second proposal, I speak now not as one who occupies the position of Leader of the Opposition but as one who has been prime minister when I say I feel the house should give further consideration to the limitation of all members to 20 minutes under standing order 61A. The two officers of the house, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, by reason of ancient right and modern application have certain duties and responsibilities. It is not that it will affect me; I am not speaking personally now, for I seldom speak at the resolution stage. But I think consideration might well be given to assuring the continuation of that principle, recognizing that the holders of those two positions have certain special responsibilities, and that the section in question might be amended, if the house is agreeable, so as not to apply to those for whom the rules have made provision for unlimited discussion.
With regard to the third recommendation, may I say I think it will be somewhat difficult to operate. I want to see this in operation. There will be no general discussion on clause 1. Hon. members would deal with the bill clause by clause yet, at the end, they would engage in a general discussion. However, it is something that is experimental and as such I give it my support, particularly in order to ascertain how it will work out. I have heard it argued in the past that this is a course that should be taken, and I welcome any changes that can be brought about without in any way undermining the traditional position of parliament. It is of that position that I am going to speak for a few minutes.
Everywhere there is criticism of parliament; it is becoming the general thing to do. The institution is subject to examination; our constitution is being carefully submitted to the searchlight of public discussion. The criticisms, as I summarize them, are these. Why does not parliament do more? Why does parliament only talk? Well, Mr. Speaker, parliament is a place where talk is necessary, and where talk preserved our freedom in two world wars. It is a place where talk brought about many of the changes that have been implemented following the general acceptance in the nation of views originally expressed in parliament, heterodox views which ultimately became the accepted.
The other day I looked back over the years and read how parliament was viewed in other generations. Some people feel they have really found out something, that parliament should be complained about and criticized. Certainly parliament's activities should be 20220-565J
Procedure Committee
examined carefully, but it is well to remember that there is really nothing new in the criticism. Someone has said that parliament pours out in characteristic words the characteristic heart of the nation. That is my concept of parliament. To carry it out, fair opportunities for discussion and decision must be provided. Criticism, however, which has no regard to the purpose, the history and the rights of parliament can be ill timed, if not dangerous.
I said a moment ago that I had read something of the criticisms of parliament in the past, and with the leave of the house I might place one or two quotations on the record. Samuel Pepys, on August 4, 1661 recorded that one of his acquaintances had told him:
How basely things have been carried on in parliament by the young men that did labour to-oppose all things that were moved by serious men. That they are the most profane swearing fellows that ever he heard in his life, which makes him think they will spoil all-
Charles Dickens, who sat in the press gallery in his day and generation for, I think,, several years summed up his views of parliament in these words:
The great dust heap of Westminster . . . laughing, coughing, oh'ing, groaning, a conglomeration of noise and confusion to be met within no other place in existence, not excepting Smithfield on a market day or a cockpit in all its glory.
I could quote Hazlitt and various political pundits. Robert Louis Stevenson summed it up in these words:
We all know what parliament is, and we are ashamed of it.
Another said:
Talk of mobs! See how few who have distinguished themselves in the House of Commons have ever done anything else.
Well, that is history; but it is living history today. What are the functions of the House of Commons? In order to criticize one must know what the functions are. The most important function is to control the finance of a country; to assure that money shall not be expended that has not been voted; that a full examination be made of all expenditures. The second is the expressive function; the expression of the minds of the people on all matters that come before parliament. The third is the informing function; and the fourth is to legislate.
In that order all political observers have placed the functions of parliament. You often hear parliament criticized for not governing. That is not the function or the duty or the responsibility of parliament. The responsibility is to deal with those matters that the

Procedure Committee
crown's executive brings before parliament, over and above, of course, the right of private members to introduce any measure that they deem fit. I mention this because it is so often said, "Why does not parliament get down to governing the nation?" That is not part of our duty. Ivor Jennings, the great authority, has said:
The function of parliament is not to govern but to criticize. Its criticism, too, is directed not so much toward the fundamental modification of government policy as to the education of public opinion.
Sir, you will never have an effective parliament by having a type of slot machine to turn out legislation. The quantity of legislation passed is not a measure of the effectiveness of parliament. Indeed, it was Gladstone himself who used these words in this regard, speaking to the House of Commons:
Your business is not to govern the country, but it is, if you see fit, to call to account those who govern it.
As I said a moment ago, there is widespread criticism largely based on the misconception that parliament does the nation's business and therefore anything that appears to take up time delays the business of parliament. As those of us who practice the art know, the business of the country is carried on not by parliament but by the administrative machinery of the government whether parliament is sitting or not. But parliament's responsibility and job is to give careful consideration to policy and the measures proposed to implement such policy. This it does by time-consuming efforts and processes. It scrutinizes; it questions; it explains; it criticizes. In other words, it talks.
Some say that parliament is not businesslike, that it should be run on the lines of a business. Again such a concept assigns to parliament a role it does not have, the administration of the country's business. What parliament must do, however, is to oversee and compel by criticism effective and efficient practices in the departments. If it were not for the fact that parliament talks, many of the legislative enactments brought before the House of Commons would lead to endless amendments as weaknesses were discovered. We must always, in the limitation of debate in parliament, recognize this fact; that any new policy or legislation should not receive a less gruelling testing than any piece of machinery or manufactured material receives before it is prepared and readied for sale. If it were not for parliament making a long and complete examination, disastrous measures, the weaknesses of which would not otherwise

be exposed, would be passed if there was too great a limitation on discussion.
Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, in speaking of parliament, that I often see parliament criticized because its debates are too prolix; there is bitterness, and strong arguments are advanced along this line of thought. Those who make that criticism do not know parliament. They should read the debates in the British House of Commons. Let me recall one example, where Aneurin Bevan followed upon Winston Churchill, as he then was, and said "I wish, Mr. Speaker, immediately to puncture this bladder of falsehood by the poniard of truth". They are words almost Churchillian in their import and power. Immediately someone wanted to have Mr. Bevan called to order, but he said "I was quoting". As Your Honour knows, if an hon. member makes a quotation and applies it to anyone, no withdrawal can be demanded. For the next week or so there was a great deal of discussion in the letter press of the United Kingdom as to who was the author of these powerful words. Some said it was Shakespeare; although they could not find the exact quotation they knew it was there. Others said it was Beaumont and Fletcher. Others claimed it was some other Elizabethan dramatist. Finally, two weeks later, when no withdrawal could be asked on a question of privilege, when he was making a further speech Bevan was asked whom he was quoting and he replied "I was quoting myself." That is the parliament of the United Kingdom. As you said the other day, Mr. Speaker, let us not be thin-skinned, and that is so. Maintaining decorum does not mean the restriction of strong and definite language. Yet one of the criticisms of parliament has been that arguments have been too strong, too direct. I would ask those who hold that view to read the debates of 1920 and 1921, 1925 and 1926 and 1932 and 1933. By comparison this parliament is represented by featherdusting members. I am not asking hon. members to go back to the days of Macdonald and Laurier and Borden, but I do say that much of the criticism of parliament, to the effect that when arguments are advanced members are wrangling, does not pay tribute to the critic for his knowledge of parliament, its antecedents or indeed its recent past.
I am glad to see that this committee brought forth these recommendations unanimously. I believe that recommendations can only be effective if they are made unanimously; indeed, they ought not be brought in by your committee, sir, without unanimity.

To do otherwise would be to defeat the very object we have in mind, which is by agreement to bring about those changes which are necessary to meet changing conditions without in any way diminishing the mandate of parliament and its traditional power. The setting up of a Speaker's permanent committee on procedure with the continuation of its deliberations from year to year would, I am sure, receive general support from all members.
There is one other matter in connection with parliament. No matter what we do on the floor of parliament here the press of our country has a tremendous responsibility to make available to the people the fullest and most unbiased of information. We have been blessed throughout the years with a very good press gallery. However, what I say is this, that we will never have strong, free institutions without the presentation by the fourth estate of the fullest information on parliament. I know, as do all of us, that what is unusual, spectacular, weird or unorthodox is always newsworthy. Although I have said this before, I should like to see other newspapers across the country following the example of one or two which are already providing each day a summary of what has taken place. I am not speaking for myself now, sir, but for the backbench member who works hard, prepares a speech, gives a great deal of study to what he has presented, and finds that he is not even mentioned as having been an also ran.
I do not suggest that full summaries should be given, but the kind of reference that the London Times makes from day to day has a tremendous influence upon the quality of debate and also provides incentives to members in the preparation of their speeches.


Gilles Grégoire: It is one o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Indeed, the media of public information, press, radio and television, whatever the rules may be, have a most important part to play in making parliament more effective. Free institutions cannot survive without a full presentation of factual information regarding the activities of parliament.
We are all working together to make parliament strong and effective. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have a particular responsibility, as do members.


Gilles Grégoire: It is one o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, as well as all hon. members, have particular
Procedure Committee
responsibilities. In addition, the press has an almost equal responsibility to assure that parliament, that instrument of freedom, shall be stronger and more effective.
The changes that are recommended today represent steps forward. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, much has been done by committees under your leadership, Mr. Speaker. I know it is a difficult and unrewarding position, being a member of a committee that operates behind closed doors, and for that reason all of us owe a debt of gratitude to the members of this committee who have worked so well to bring about the recommendations now before the house.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the report of the committee, which I am happy to support, and to make a comment along the lines of the very interesting observations made this morning by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in discussing this report. He pointed out, and I think we are all very conscious of this, that the recommendations of this report deal with the procedures of parliament at a time when our parliamentary institutions are under a great deal of examination and much criticism. As the right hon. gentleman reminded us, it is, however, useful to keep contemporary criticism in perspective. Parliamentary institutions from the very beginning of parliament have always been subjected to the criticism of those who are impatient, quite often understandably impatient, to get things done even at times at the expense of careful consideration and discussion.
We often read, Mr. Speaker, about the apparent indifference of members of the House of Commons to the proceedings of the house as evidenced by their lack of attendance, and on that point I realize that at the moment I am not speaking to what might be called a large and enthusiastic audience.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those who are interested are here.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But those who make this criticism do not always make allowances for the other things that members of parliament have to do, and do not always realize that

Procedure Committee there has always been this kind of criticism of parliament and parliamentarians. The classic story in this regard, of course, is the passing by the British parliament almost 100 years ago of the British North America Act, the act that founded our confederation, which was passed in a practically empty House of Commons at Westminster after a short and perfunctory debate, we are told that once the British' North America Act was disposed of the county members especially trooped in and filled the house because the next item of business was a dog tax bill.
It is not very long ago that I read in the newspaper a very important speech indeed on foreign affairs by the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee in Washington. It was one of the most significant speeches in recent times but it was delivered to a senate consisting of three senators. So the audience perhaps does not always determine the importance of the observations that are made. I hope not.
We were also reminded by the Leader of the Opposition this morning that our manners in the House of Commons are criticized whereas in reality we are models of decorum compared with what used to go on in the house 50, 75 and 100 years ago. Indeed the right hon. gentleman this morning referred to us, including himself, as featherdusters in debate. Perhaps I am, but he is not.


An hon. Member:: You are not either.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is true, of course, that we are under examination and criticism. All institutions, especially all popular institutions based on discussion, are under criticism today. That criticism and examination are the more significant and the more noticeable because of the development of media of communication that did not exist 50 years ago and which can bring our defects, even more than our virtues, to the attention of a very large audience within a few minutes of the delivery of our speeches. Indeed, sometimes they can do it before we have even made the speeches. This has had some bearing on the position of parliament and parliamentary institutions.
I should like to echo what the right hon. gentleman said this morning about the importance not only of responsible speech and action in the house but the importance of responsible reporting of what is said and done here. I say that, not in criticism at all but in recognition of the importance of those who serve the public so well by reporting what goes on in parliament. It must be very

tempting indeed to report our deliberations in terms of the more exciting phases of those deliberations, and excitement can always be created by conflict.
Conflict is, of course, its own publicity agent. Sometimes the careful, thoughtful, quiet speech with constructive proposals does not get the same amount of attention. However, while it is useful and I think well to keep things in perspective, I do not myself get as much comfort perhaps as I should out of comparisons. In the old days, and the old days do not mean more than 25 or 50 years ago, it did not matter as much as it does now whether or not we were inefficient in our procedures. The day when we could secure immunity from the consequences of our own inefficiency, in the light of the importance of what we are doing, has gone.
It was not very long ago when the government of the day was perplexed, not with the problem of getting things done but with the problem of finding enough things to do tc keep parliament going for three months. In that kind of situation it did not matter very much if debate on a bill went on from Monday until Friday or the next Friday because the government was often hunting for something to take its place. Those days have gone by and whatever may have been the case in the past we cannot any longer afford the luxury of inefficiency of any kind in the conduct of our proceedings. Nor can we any longer assume that in the case of parliamentarians repetition means reputation. I hope whatever we do, and this hope was expressed in eloquent terms this morning by the righl hon. gentleman, to change our rules and oui proceedings-and I am glad we are making progress in that regard-there will always be preserved as the very foundation of our parliamentary institutions the right of full anc free discussion. I think it goes without saying that that principle would be subscribed tc by every member of the house. Perhaps we would not have the same unanimity witl regard to the application of the principle tc a particular case as to what constitutes ful! discussion.
The right of discussion is of importance but of equal importance is the right o: decision after a full and free discussion. The abuse of the right of decision can be equally damaging to parliamentary institutions as the abuse of the right of discussion. We have tc reconcile these two things. This is a problen which is much more complicated and difficul now than it has been in the past.

The setting up of this committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, to look into our procedure was I think one of the most constructive things that has been done by parliament for many years. I have been very proud, as the leader of the government, to be associated with the initiation of this work. I should like to pay my tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the committee and echo the other tributes that have been paid to you by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition; also to the members who have worked so well and so effectively on the committee and its subcommittees. The appointment of the committee and the work that has been done by the committee and its subcommittees -and perhaps I could make a special reference to the hon. member who is chairman of a subcommittee whose report we are considering-is a reflection of the desire of members to speed up and make more effective our parliamentary deliberations.
I agree, Mr. Speaker, that this is the right way to proceed in reforming, reinvigorating and strengthening our parliamentary procedures, that is, by a decision of an all party committee and by a decision which, whenever possible, is unanimous. This is the right way to proceed. However, although it is the right way to proceed, I hope we will not lose sight of the fact it is important that progress be made and that the committees be not unduly handicapped or delayed by the necessity, on every single occasion, of reaching a unanimous decision. It may well be that when the committee and subcommittee-this could have been their experience already-approach some vitally important aspect of this question there may be difficulty in getting unanimity. I hope that the desire for unanimity will not prevent progress.
I support and approve of the recommendations in this report. I could have wished, and I suppose members of the committee could have wished, that some of the recommendations could have gone farther. The fact that they did not go farther is not, I believe, an indication that the committee will not continue its work and bring in even more important recommendations in the future. I believe myself, and I have been saying this in the house when in opposition and in government, that the most important change we could make now, and I hope it will be made before long by a unanimous report of the committee, is the introduction of a procedure by which time could be allocated on all the proposals that are introduced in this house for discussion and decision. The beginning
Procedure Committee
of this process of time allocation is to be found I believe in the recommendations before us today. I hope this will be only the beginning. So far as we are concerned on the government side, we support the allocation of time by agreement on legislative proposals so that we will know, in the government and in the opposition, in an approximate way at least when parliament is beginning how much time will be required for the legislation which is on the order paper. The committee report does not go so far as that, Mr. Speaker, but it does make some very useful proposals.
In dealing with the resolution stage, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, while not doing away with that stage, the proceedings are limited in time. I am one of those who thought perhaps we could do away completely with the resolution stage of money bills. It is a hangover, if I may use that expression, from the long distant past, going back to Stuart times when the resolution stage of money bills was the protection of the commons against the crown. We do not have to worry about that now. While the resolution stage is retained, it is certainly limited and it is vastly improved by the recommendations made. It is suggested that the time allowed for consideration of the resolution stage be now reduced to one sitting day, deemed to be a total of five hours. I think, Mr. Speaker, this is all to the good. It does represent an agreement on time allocation in certain circumstances.
The second portion of this recommendation restricts all speakers at the resolution stage to 20 minutes or less. The Leader of the Opposition made some observations on this recommendation this morning which I confess I found rather impressive. He pointed out that this would put the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition in exactly the same position as any other member of the house with regard to time limitation. There are, I believe, four or five standing orders which do except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition from the time limitation applied to other members of the house. It is not easy to talk about this when one is personally affected by them, but these exceptions are based, I think, on a sound principle, namely that the leader of a government in introducing legislation is in a special position of responsibility and may require, and usually does require, more time than a private member for the purpose of explaining the bill to the House of Commons on behalf of the government. And I think the Leader of the Opposition, occupying another position recog-

Procedure Committee
nized by the house itself, should be given the same privilege when replying to the Prime Minister. I think a case could be made for maintaining this extension even in respect of a debate on the resolution stage which is limited to one day.
There has been no motion made on this matter and it would not, I believe, be in order to move an amendment even if that were desirable, and I do not intend to do so any more than did the Leader of the Opposition. I certainly would not wish to take any step which would result in the reference back to the committee of this report -a report with which I am in agreement. I should like, however, to make the point that these recommendations apply for the present session of parliament only, and I suggest that when the committee meets after they have been in effect, should the house adopt them, its members should look again at this particular subclause of the recommendations to see whether the considerations advanced by the Leader of the Opposition and myself do not warrant further consideration of this matter.
I think it is a very useful change indeed to put to the end the debate on the first clause of a bill in the committee stage, rather than have it at the beginning of the proceedings. I hope this will work out satisfactorily and I believe it will, for reasons which were mentioned in the discussion this morning.
I am in hearty agreement with the proposal that your decision, Mr. Speaker, with regard to motions to adjourn the house should be final and not debatable. The proposal in this respect reads:
Any ruling made by Mr. Speaker after listening to arguments on the question of urgency shall not be subject to appeal.
I am not a legal expert, or indeed a lawyer of any kind, but I assume, Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that any ruling made by you in the absence of argument would be appealable. As the recommendation stands it says that any ruling made by Your Honour after listening to argument would not be appealable. I presume the same recommendation would apply, namely that there should be no appeal, whether there was argument advanced or not. It would not be very sensible if it were otherwise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Prime Minister permit a question so as to make clear what was in the minds of those of us who drafted these recommendations? Would the Prime Minister read the previous sentence? If he will put the two together I think he will see

what we have in mind is this-as long as a Speaker consents to hear any arguments which members may wish to raise, then any ruling he makes shall not be subject to appeal. I think it was probably felt that if a Speaker-not the one we have now, but some other one-were to refuse to listen to argument, then perhaps his decision should be appealable.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I welcome the hon. gentleman's explanation. The second sentence now reads:
If Mr. Speaker questions the urgency of debate with respect to the proposed matter he may invite members to speak on the question of such urgency.
Any ruling made by the Speaker after listening to argument on the question of urgency shall not be subject to appeal.
All I wish to establish-if it needs to be established-is that if Mr. Speaker does invite argument and no argument is forthcoming, there should similarly be no right of appeal against his ruling.
That is all I have to say with regard to the report. I congratulate those responsible for it and I pay tribute to the work which has led to it. I wish the committee well in its further consideration of these matters. I wish to repeat that this is undoubtedly the best way in which to change our procedures in the interests of the efficient dispatch of business. If it can be done by agreement in an all party committee, that is the way it should be done, and I hope the committee will be so successful in its progress in the future that no other action will be required in bringing our parliament and parliamentary procedures into line with the realities of our problems and of our times.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It
is not my intention to detain the house at any length but I hope hon. members will permit me to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of your committee on this report and on the other reports which are now before us.
I think these reports fully vindicate the action which was taken by the house in setting up this committee. I agree with the statement which has just been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that this is the most desirable procedure to adopt in changing our parliamentary procedure when it needs to be changed. I do not mean by this that all changes must wait on complete unanimity. There may be occasions when changes will have to be made in the procedures of the house without waiting for every last party

and every last member in the house to be in complete agreement. But if it is possible to get unanimity in making changes, then that is the most desirable course to follow. I imagine all members of the house feel pleased, as I do, that the reports now before us have the concurrence of all the members of these respective committees.
It is the essence of a parliamentary system that we never get changes exactly as we want them if we wish to get a consensus from all parts of the house. But I would imagine that these changes which are proposed in this thirteenth report-and I speak for the party with which I am associated-constitute a very substantial improvement. The first proposal with reference to the change in standing order 26 is identical with the eighth proposal which I made a short time ago when putting forward ten proposals for a parliamentary reform program. I think it has two great advantages; it will set out clearly the right of a member to outline the urgency of debate, as well as clearly establishing the practice we have been following in saying there is no right of appeal against a Speaker's ruling on this question.
With reference to the resolution stage of so-called money bills, we in this party would prefer to eliminate it altogether. I know that in most of the provincial legislatures this stage has in fact been eliminated. They have met the problem of reference to the crown by having a provision attached to the first reading of money bills; before first reading is called the minister concerned simply reads a statement signed by the representative of the crown to the effect that the bill has been submitted to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor who recommends it for the consideration of the legislature. In this way the reference to the crown is continued. This practice also prevents a private member introducing a money bill because, of course, he cannot obtain the necessary written statement. It seems to me there should be no constitutional difficulty about eliminating the resolution stage as a prelude to money bills. But the proposal which is made here goes a very long way. At least it is a substantial improvement and I think ought to be given a fair trial.
Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) have made reference to the 20 minute limitation. Normally I would agree that both these officers of the house ought to have extra time.
I think, however, there are some arguments for not doing so in this case. The first is that if the debate is going to be limited to the reduced sitting hours on a Wednesday or 20220-566
Procedure Committee
Friday, or limited to a day on Monday, Tuesday or Thursday, if the two leaders of the house have unlimited time, between them they could take up three fifths of the time. This has been known to happen-not in the case of the present incumbents necessarily, but it has been known to happen in days gone by when we had three hour and four hour speeches. Therefore I think there has to be some limitation.
But I think the second reason is more important. The primary function of the resolution stage, if we are to have one, is for short statements on the principle and particularly to ask questions; because that is why the resolution is in committee stage, rather than going through second reading, which was eliminated by the house in 1955. It seems to me that for short statements and questions and answers the 20 minute rule is sufficient. The committee will of course watch the effect this has as we proceed with it, but I would hope they will recommend maintaining it unless some very good reasons come to the fore as to why it should not be continued.
The third recommendation with reference to the debate on the first clause of a bill in committee of the whole is I think an eminently sensible proposal. I sat for some years in a provincial legislature where for many, many years-in fact, for several decades-the short title of the bill was always the last clause called. It was found that by the time members had gone through all the clauses in the bill many of the questions which they might have asked on clause 1 had already been answered, and this procedure reduced the debate very considerably. I think this is a wise proposal which has been made by the committee and is certainly worthy of a trial run by the house.
I want to say just a word or two about the general idea of parliamentary reform. Both the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) have said quite properly that parliament is under some criticism. I think we will deceive ourselves if we keep saying that this criticism is because the public is ill informed or because people today live in a complex age and are in too much of a hurry. If parliament is under criticism we ought to ask ourselves whether a good deal of this criticism is not fully justified. The Leader of the Opposition said that one criticism is that parliament only talks. I think, more realistically, the criticism is that members of parliament too often talk

Procedure Committee
just for the sake of talking. I think people expect us to talk, but I believe they feel there is little value in constant repetition day after day when members are repeating what was said the day before and are repeating it again at subsequent stages of the passage of the legislation.
The objection is not to the fact that parliament is a place for debate so much as the feeling on the part of the general public that tedious repetition is out of place in a parliament where the business of the country is of paramount importance. The task which faces Your Honour's committee, and ultimately the house, is to try to find that fine balance between complete freedom of expression for all the elected representatives and at the same time have due regard for the efficient dispatch of business so as to provide adequate time for the examination of estimates and expenditures, which is one of the functions of parliament.
It was said this morning that the amount of legislation passed is not the criterion of parliament. That may be true; but what is the criterion of parliament? It is a reflection on the efficiency of parliament if some legislation takes a long time to pass through the house because of unnecessary and tedious repetition and at the same time other legislation of equal or greater importance is left to the dying days of the session and is either not passed at all or is rushed through with little consideration. We have all had the experience in days gone by of hundreds of millions of dollars of estimates being rushed through the house in the dying days of the session. This has never been an example of good business procedure to give to the people of Canada. That is why we in this party have long felt-and we hope the committee will consider this- that we should follow the example of the parliament at Westminster of establishing an annual timetable and plan the work of parliament, so that we do not dawdle for weeks or even months on some matters which may be of importance, and neglect other matters which are of equal importance.
We hope the committee will look into the role of committees of the house. We hope they will study the question of private members' bills. It is a frustrating experience for private members to prepare bills and find it is impossible to obtain a decision of the house and they are simply talked out. We hope Your Honour's committee will look at the question of the allocation of time for debate. We think this would do a great deal to speed up the business and to distribute

time as between different pieces of legislation and different functions of the house.
I must say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that in the final analysis I am sure we all recognize that no matter what the rules and the procedures of the house may be, the efficient conduct of business in parliament depends upon self-discipline on the part of members, co-operation among all the parties in the house, and mutual confidence and trust as between the leaders and the members of the different parties. This is something of course that cannot be written into the rules; it can only be generated by the good will of the members themselves. Mr. Speaker, I want to give my support and the support of this party to the work of the committee and offer them our congratulations. We trust that the support and the favourable comments they have received today will encourage them to carry on their work with continued success.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Procedure Committee
sure that we approve the expenditures of the government in perhaps a little more effective and efficient way than hitherto. We are now approaching the end of the tenth month of the year and we still have not approved the estimates. It seems to me it is not good enough just to be approving estimates after the money has been spent. If we are to do our work as we should, approval should be given long before all of the money has been spent.
These are just a few of the matters yet to be attended to, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime we in this party are happy to give our support to this report and to assure the committee that we are grateful for what has been done. We look forward to its final report which will complete the responsibilities which have been assigned to its members. I would also just say that for full effectiveness it would be well for us all to accept the recommendation made by the leader of the official opposition concerning this one minor detail, which is important to the responsibilities that both he and the Prime Minister carry in a very special way.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this thirteenth report of the special committee on procedure and organization I might say at the outset that in my remarks this afternoon I am not speaking just for myself but expressing the view of my party in respect of a particular matter contained in the report.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others in congratulating you and the members of your committee for the very excellent job that has been done. You have been much like an engineer guiding and giving wisdom to the members of that committee, enabling them to select the proper tools with which this parliament may do a thorough and efficient job.
It is always amazing to me to hear some hon. members criticize others for the quantity and quality of discussion that takes place during our consideration of various items placed before us. I suggest if one looks at the index of Hansard he will find that those members who criticize have spoken as often as any other member and perhaps have made less contribution. Perhaps members such as myself, and others, are the last to criticize hon. members for taking part in debates. Sometimes I think we should take the two-by-fours out of our own eyes before we take the splinters out of the eyes of other hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by my party to speak in regard to a specific problem which I think is obvious, as the present proposals stand. Before doing so I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister, (Mr. Pearson) who unfortunately is not present at this time because of pressing business, for his concurrence in the suggestion made by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) to limit the time allowed a prime minister, a member of the government, or the leader of the opposition in debating a resolution. In this regard I have been asked to move an amendment, and intend to do so before I resume my seat. It is an amendment which I believe will receive unanimous consent of this house, and will be passed quickly.


Gilles Grégoire: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to become involved in any contentious discussion, but when we hear the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) agreeing so quickly, we know there is some comfort in the House of Commons, and that the hon. member has seen the light for the first time since his election.
The amendment I eventually intend to propose is related to part 2 of the committee's report dealing with debates in the committee of the whole house on resolutions preceding bills involving the expenditure of public money. Paragraph 2 of the proposed new standing order 61A reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other standing order, no member shall speak for more than 20 minutes during the time when a resolution preceding a bill involving the expenditure of public money is under consideration in the committee of the whole house.
It has always been accepted that, by our rules, extra time will be given to the prime minister, a minister of the government, or a government member to explain a measure carefully to the House of Commons. Extra time has always been given to the leader of the official opposition and the leaders of other parties during the debate on resolutions. I feel the proposed new paragraph of this standing order will curtail the prime minister, ministers of the government, the leader of the opposition, leaders of other parties, or government members explaining resolutions.
As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, it is not the function of the House of Commons to govern, but rather it is the function of the executive or administration to govern. In other words, the government governs, whereas the House of Commons ap-

proves or disapproves of policy or legislation, and scrutinizes very carefully the proposed expenditures which are made from time to time.
As has been suggested by the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Thompson) and the Prime Minister, I think extra time should be granted to the prime minister, ministers of the government or government members to explain resolutions presented to the house, particularly when they relate to the expenditure of public money. I always think the leader of the official opposition and the leaders of other opposition parties should be given extra time to reply in respect of those resolutions. To do otherwise I think would unnecessarily curtail the debate.
Mr. Speaker, standing order No. 31 reads:
When Mr. Speaker is in the chair, no member, except the prime minister and the leader of the opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than 40 minutes at a time in any debate.
You will note there that an exception is made in respect of the prime minister, the leader of the opposition and ministers moving motions. I suggest that exception should be extended and applied in reference to paragraph 2 of the new proposed standing order 61A.
There have been times when the business of this parliament has been delayed, and perhaps on occasion these delays have been caused by the official opposition, whether it be Liberal or Conservative. I am sure the members of the splinter parties will not mind my stating that I was in this house when there was only one splinter party consisting of eight members. It is hardly necessary for me to point out that we now have five parties in this House of Commons. In spite of the fact that the leader of the New Democratic party states that his party represents two million voters, the more parties we have in the House of Commons the more delays we experience. It might well be that the New Democratic party would not represent even one million voters if the public was made aware of that fact.
Unless we are willing to get into the position in which France found itself, I think some improvements have to be made in the rules. Some consideration must be given to a reform of our debates in parliament. When
Procedure Committee
the parliamentary system was first devised we only had a two party system.


Mr. Fisher:: That is nonsense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) suggests that my statement is nonsense. I do not wish to become involved in an argument with that hon. member, who so quickly agrees with everything said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but I should like to refer to certain statements made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in an address he delivered to the Empire club of Canada, at the Royal York hotel, Toronto, Ontario, on March 21, 1957. That hon. member was referring to the role of the opposition in parliament, and he did not refer to that role as nonsense. He was speaking very seriously to one of the more important clubs in Canada, and said:
It might interest you to know that the term "His (or Her) Majesty's Opposition" has been in use longer than the title "Prime Minister". If you go through the Hansard records of the first years of Canada's parliament you won't find Sir John A. Macdonald referred to as Prime Minister, but rather as First Minister. Indeed at the beginning you will find him referred to as Minister of Justice, since he held that portfolio as well as being the Queen's First Minister. On the other hand, right from the start you will find reference to "the honourable gentleman who leads the opposition".
I believe that hon. member has some experience in this regard, and I suggest without reservation that he spoke on that occasion in respect of the function in parliament of the official opposition with some authority and weight. He said that the leader of the official opposition is a part of government and was recognized even before we recognized the high and exalted position of prime minister of Canada. If that is what the member said on that occasion, I can hardly believe that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) would say what he has said now. I have always respected him. I read his articles and I listen to his speeches and I would say that when he makes a speech he is well prepared, but surely he spoke hastily when he said "nonsense" because I am quite confident-


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder whether the hon. member would let me help him out?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not have much time and I should like to finish.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would not care to interrupt, but I apologize for saying "nonsense".

Procedure Committee


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will finish my remarks and then answer any questions. My time is somewhat limited and I do not want to delay proceedings at this stage. I want to refer to another portion of the address by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
The title "prime minister" has found its way into some of our federal legislation, but it is interesting to note that even today those rather important statutes, important to the individuals concerned at any rate, which provide for the salaries paid to the leaders of the government and the opposition designate the one as the Queen's first minister but the other as leader of the opposition.
First of all, the point I am making is that the leader of the official opposition is a part of the government, and I repeat that as the parliamentary system got under way and matured through crystallizing traditions and customs, it really matured around a two party system. I am not saying that we should have only a two party system because I believe in democracy and at the present time the Canadian people are prepared to elect five parties. We do not know what they will do in the future. I know that these remarks will receive a sensitive reaction. We are just as sensitive when we are criticized and the government is just as sensitive when it is criticized. However, I would think it is only fair to parliament and the Canadian people to point out that if there were eight parties in the house instead of five as we have now there would be more delay. Therefore I am happy to see that the rules have been streamlined in that regard.
Let us see what the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has had to say about the role of the opposition. On January 27, 1959, he spoke at a luncheon meeting of the Canadian club of Ottawa and in his speech he quoted from very good authorities. At that time he was leader of the opposition and he quoted with approval a statement made by the then prime minister, now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). I said that the leader of the : official opposition speaks for the official opposition. He or someone designated by him or his party speaks for the official opposition and they have a very important function in the government of Canada. The present Prime Minister quoted with approval what the then prime minister had said on one occasion, and I would point out that similar words were . used by another leader of our party, Arthur Meighen, to whom the present Prime Minister has referred with complete approval. This is - the quotation the present Prime Minister used in his speech:

"If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, His Majesty's loyal opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the cabinet of the rights of the people. It should supervise all expenditures and prevent over expenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse. It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks questions and elicits information; it arouses, educates and molds public opinion by voice and vote. It must scrutinize every action by the government."
In doing so it prevents the short cuts through democratic procedures that governments like to take. The present Prime Minister pointed out in a real punch line the all important function of the official opposition when he said that the absence of a strong opposition means a one party state, and a one party state means an all powerful cabinet. I would point out that there are 96 members of the official opposition and I think anyone will agree that at times it is a pretty strong opposition. Let us see who else the Prime Minister quoted with approval in his address to the Canadian club. He referred to what the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett had said when speaking in the house on March 23, 1932:
"Oppositions are essential and necessary in the development of a democratic state. They serve a great and useful purpose. To the extent that criticism is frank and thorough, to that extent they do a great service to the country."
Then the Prime Minister referred to Benjamin Disraeli and with some sense of humour apologized to his audience for quoting from Conservative sources but said he had done so because he had found that on this matter these sources were good. He quoted these words of Disraeli:
No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition.
Then the Prime Minister went on to say:
I must confess, however, that it is not my conception of the role of the opposition to be formidable so that the government can be secure.
Then he quoted these words of Edmund Burke:
He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
The point I want to make is that the official opposition has a very important role wher it comes to government. Let us see what tha' role really is. Let us summarize it. First o: all, it has been said earlier today by the Leader of the Opposition and others tha

its role is to scrutinize expenditures, to approve or disapprove government policy, to approve or disapprove legislation and to do so with care because if it is not scrutinized carefully it will be subject to many amendments. Because of the training of the people in the official opposition they should always be in a position at any time to be able to take over the government. I think anyone will agree with that. That would seem to be a function of the official opposition.
I want to go further. I want to say that I was impressed with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had to say in his speech. I do not want to delay the house but I would ask every member to read what that hon. member said on March 21, 1957. His address can be found in the library, bound in a red book. I have a photostatic copy of it. Hon. members should read it, and it is not nonsense as the hon. member for Port Arthur has said.
The official opposition has an important function because they must be more responsible that any other opposition party. The statements made by the official opposition must be made with a greater sense of responsibility because tomorrow they may move over to the other side of the house. They are in the position to do so.
You will recall the first parliament of 1962, Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were even stronger in numbers in opposition than we are now. It was only a short time until they took office as the government. This is what has happened throughout the course of history since confederation.
The function of the official opposition has been made clear by distinguished writers and parliamentarians, but members of the official opposition must always remember their responsibility in any statements they make. If they offer criticisms or make suggestions they must be in a position to implement their suggestions and to change the things they have criticized when they take over the government. If they fail to do that then they are not equipped with the responsibility to govern.
I want to repeat that I had hoped to hear the leaders say they would approve an amendment or suggestion that the time allotted to a prime minister or other government member presenting a resolution of this kind should be unlimited, just as in other cases, and the same courtesy should be extended to a leader of the official opposition. If the New Democratic party approves that,
Procedure Committee
if the leader of the Social Credit party approves that and if through the Prime Minister the government and the Liberal members approve it, it seems to me we could simplify the procedure today. If we are all unanimous in that regard this slight change can be made and then the report can be approved expeditiously. But one can never be sure and, as I said at the beginning, I have taken the responsibility for my party of making this suggestion because it was approved by the party.
I should like therefore to present this amendment. If in the course of presenting the amendment everybody approves of it, then it can be incorporated in the report and it would not be necessary to send the report back to the committee. I believe the suggestions that have been made for the changes in the rules, other than this slight amendment I have, are good and will expedite the business of this house and will add dignity to it.
I too congratulate the members of the committee. I was a member of the committee for a short time and I congratulate the members of the committee on the job they have done. I know how much work must have gone into this report. I want to congratulate you, too, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to move now, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler):
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after "be'' and substituting therefor:
"not now concurred in, but be referred back to the special committee on procedure and organization with instructions to amend subsection (2) of the proposed standing order 61A as referred to in paragraph 5 of the said report by striking out all the words following the word "member" in line 2 of the said subsection (2) and substituting the following:
"except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition or a minister moving a resolution preceding a bill involving the expenditure of public money and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister shall speak for more than 20 minutes during the time when such a resolution is under consideration in the committee of the whole house."
Briefly, it extends a privilege to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, or someone speaking on behalf of a party. I now have copies of my amendment in both French and English.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may be permitted to point out to the mover of this proposed amendment, does he realize that the second paragraph contains the words "except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition or a minister moving a resolution"? If a minister were to move a resolution, then

Procedure Committee
the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would be limited to 20 minutes. Is that his real intent?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say this to the Chair: this was drafted by several other members as well-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is nothing to laugh about. I said I was speaking for the Conservative party. This is a representation on behalf of the party. Our position on the amendment is that it gives the Prime Minister more than that time and gives the Leader of the Opposition more than that time, or a minister speaking on behalf of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, if I could politely suggest to the hon. member, I would say he should add, "except the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition and/or a minister-" This might cover the situation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I bow to your correction? Perhaps we need you on our drafting committee.


George James McIlraith: I want to address myself very briefly to the amendment and particularly to the procedural difficulty, as I see it, that flows from the moving of this amendment. I share the views about the work of the committee expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) as well as others who have preceded me today. I do not intend to repeat those remarks. I must say that I am delighted with what I regard as a break-through on the part of the committee in getting worthwhile amendments to the rules before the house for consideration and temporary trial. In that connection I point out that we are now in the 166th day of the sittings of this session and the committee report in which concurrence has now been moved recommends that we try these changes until the end of this session.
The difficulty with the amendment, as I see it, is this: It undoubtedly deals with something that was omitted from the committee's report, a point on which the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister both expressed reservations. I was interested to note that their remarks, if I heard them correctly, concerned the right of extra time for the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister because of the special obligations or duties they have to this house.
[Mr. Speaker.)
The motion as moved is in somewhat wider language in that it gives that same extended period for speaking to any minister moving a resolution. In any event, I do not wish to argue the merits of the point in detail now. The point obviously has some substance in it. We are in this situation; the committee has done some rather excellent work. I think all the speakers who have preceded me have spoken well of the work done by the committee. The committee has brought in a report and these amended rules would be in effect to the end of this session. The amendment would send this report back to the committee with an instruction of this house when the house has not, as is obvious from the discussion, given the amount of detailed study that should be given the proposed amendment. I suggest a better course-because there is no way of amending a proposed amendment to a standing order being enacted by way of moving concurrence in a committee report even with unanimous consent, as was suggested by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). The house can only give unanimous consent for itself and cannot give unanimous consent on behalf of the committee. It is just not possible for the course suggested by the hon. member for Bow River to be followed. I ask the hon. member to consider withdrawing his amendment and adopting the motion for concurrence in this report which all speakers so far have favoured rather clearly. Then, we could leave it to the members of the committee, who are here in the house, to consider right away the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the mover of the motion, and they can bring forth whatever further reports they think appropriate.
In this way, when that new motion for concurrence comes up for decision in this house we will not be in a position where this whole day's debate will have been wasted and the whole subject can be debated again. We will have concurred in the report today as recommended by the committee and I think it will be reasonable to expect that the committee-though, of course, I cannot speak for the committee and I do not presume to do so-would consider the matter and in due course bring us something further on this point. I expect too, that its considerations would be limited to this point only, so the debate which would later take place would be restricted in its scope.
In the light of these remarks I wonder whether the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) would consider taking an-

other course. Feeling as I do about the work of the committee I am unwilling to repudiate its work, in effect, by sending the whole report back. At the same time I fully appreciate the remarks which were made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on this particular point and I am in accord with them. This is a dilemma in which, I suspect, many members of the house find themselves. I hope the hon. member will consider what I have said and see fit to withdraw his amendment and permit concurrence in the report of the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak very briefly on this and in doing so I shall make an appeal to the hon. member for Bow River which I dare to believe he may heed.
I think all of us share the view which has just been expressed; none of us would like to see this day's debate on the committee's report fail to produce an immediate result.
I think we all know that if the report is referred back it would cost a great deal of time, and so on. Without saying whether or not I agree with what has been requested, namely lifting the time limit on speeches by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, may I indicate that the committee did consider this matter and that the recommendation which has been brought in was reached after full consideration.
Nevertheless, in view of the discussion which has taken place so far, I am prepared to give the hon. member for Bow River and the entire house my undertaking as chairman of the subcommittee that if the proposed amendment is withdrawn and if this report is adopted as it now stands I will place on the agenda for our next meeting this whole question and I will ask the members of the subcommittee to study it again. If the members of our subcommittee feel, after listening to today's debate and after considering the matter further, that a recommendation should be made to the house for an adjustment in this order we would, of course, bring forward such a recommendation. On this basis, and in order that we may make some progress by accepting this report-a report which seems to have met with approval from all parts of the house, with this exception- I hope the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) may be willing to withdraw their amendment.


Erik Nielsen: I think some unwarranted fears have been expressed both
Procedure Committee
by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
In addition to what the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition had to say about the need for removing the 20 minute limitation contained in the report of the committee on speeches by these two officers of the house, a further suggestion has been made for broadening this provision to include other ministers who may be submitting legislation. Surely it will be essential for a minister introducing such complex legislation as, for instance, the insurance legislation, to be given more than 20 minutes in which to explain such measures to the house so that all hon. members might have a sound appreciation of what the executive is attempting to do. The trouble about the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, despite the latter's assurance that as subcommittee chairman he will place this question on the agenda of the committee, is that, as he himself said, he cannot tell us what action the members of the committee will take. However, if the house were to adopt the amendment and send it back to the committee in the precise terms of the instructions it contains, it is my understanding of the procedure that the committee would then have no other course but to conform to those instructions and alter its report accordingly. If this is a correct appreciation of the situation, then a decision by this house of the amendment would preclude any discussion-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? I wonder whether he does not agree that in view of all the fine tributes which have been paid to the committee it would not be a good idea to let the committee consider this matter without being bound, as it would be, by the passing of this amendment? It seems to me that this would be the better way of proceeding. As I said, I do not know what the committee will decide or recommend, but I am at least in a position to give the assurance that the subcommittee will consider the matter.


Erik Nielsen: That is the difficulty about the whole proposal. There is no doubt that the committee has done some wonderful and worth-while work. But the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre cannot give us an assurance as chairman of the subcommittee that the other two parties, or, indeed, his own party-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or perhaps your party.

Procedure Committee


Erik Nielsen: Or my party, although there has been a clear indication from the Leader of the Opposition today that there is agreement with the first part of the amendment before the house in any event.
That is the difficulty I see attached to the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. That kind of assurance cannot be given. I know the committee would act in the best of good faith but we might be presented with the same report again, whereas were we to vote on the amendment now the committee would have precise instructions and there would be no delay whatsoever.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a further question? Is he aware of the fact that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bow River provides for even more unlimited speeches in committee of the whole on the resolution than is now the case under standing order 59 (3)? Is he not aware that this is one of the reasons why I feel that the committee should have freedom to look into this matter in the light of all the circumstances? It is for this reason that I think it would be the part of better sense if the committee could examine this matter freely, rather than that the house should pass an instruction of this kind. I hope that rather than have a vote on this instruction the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Grey Bruce would be willing to act in the way I have suggested.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would, gladly, but it is the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: I did not mind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre interjecting a little speech into my remarks. I realize the distinction he has pointed out. However, there has been a practice which I have discerned even during the short time I have been a member. Notwithstanding the absence of any permissive rule to that effect in the standing orders, the practice has grown up by common consent in the house of allowing ministers in committee and in other situations to go beyond the time to which they are limited by the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not leave it that way for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition?


Erik Nielsen: In answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, I ask why bring in the second recom-

mendation of the committee at all? Here is the whole point. This practice grew up, I believe in Mr. Mackenzie King's time, of allowing the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition more than the time permitted b>
the rules. This practice has now grown tc a point where we all agree, and obviously the committee agrees, that it has become a serious problem and does eat up the time of the house.
It seems to me that if the house sent a definite instruction back to the committee this particular problem would be resolved. It alsc seems to me that members opposite speaking through the Prime Minister, and members oi the official opposition speaking through the Leader of the Opposition, are in agreement on this score.


Gilles Grégoire: Question.


Erik Nielsen: I realize the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) wants to catch the five o'clock train, but he should sit here and listen to matters that are important.


Gilles Grégoire: No; the six o'clock plane.


An hon. Member:: He is a plutocrat.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has suggested that perhaps some alteration should be made to the rules with respect to this practice that has grown up. I say to the hon. member that since the whole report is being referred back to the committee there is nothing to prevent the committee considering the very matter he raised and adding a fourth proposal to bring back to the house. It is entirely open to the committee if they want to consider further amendments along the line the hon. member suggested, and instead of limiting it to three recommendations they could bring in a fourth.
Judging, too, from the near unanimity expressed in the house with respect to the adoption by the house of the first and third paragraphs of the report, it seems that the fears of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) and any other fears that have been expressed or may be expressed on the subject, are unfounded since we all appear to be in agreement on the first and third paragraphs. I think it would be anticipating difficulties which will not arise if we anticipate that the first and third paragraphs of the report will be reconsidered when the house receives a report back from the committee after this amendment is passed.
For these reasons, sir, I do not think any time is lost and I believe the feeling of the

house as a whole will be expressed more adequately if the specific instruction is sent back to the committee with regard to the specific amendment to the second paragraph of the report. Should the committee desire to make further amendments along the lines suggested by the chairman of the subcommittee, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, they can always add a fourth or even a fifth or more recommendations to the report when it comes back.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If there is no possibility of agreement, I respectfully suggest that we could ask whether the house is ready for the question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Before that is done, Mr. Speaker, as one who seconded the original motion may I make the observation that one could not listen to what was said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the other party leaders without emphasizing the point which I first raised as to whether or not we were infringing upon certain traditional rights.
I have this reservation about the amendment. I believe there should be adequate protection for the members of this house to present, at the time resolutions of this kind are passed, alternatives to the suggestions contained in the phrasing of the resolution. This is the only opportunity, as I pointed out before, for hon. members to do this. By the time we get into second reading it is usually a little too late, in many respects. Consequently, if we are bound and limited by the amendment as it now stands we would be prevented from doing what I think we should do. I believe we should give consideration, on the occasions when extended time is allowed, as has been the practice in the past, to extending the period that we are now limiting to one day by sufficient additional hours to provide for members of the house who are not in the category of those who are included in the motion of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) to make their representations, and thus not have a situation where we might have two hour or three hour speeches, which would leave 1-J hours for members of the house, who would then not have what I consider they should have, namely an adequate opportunity on these resolutions, so long as we are going to
Procedure Committee
have the resolutions, to make their representations.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the amendment that is before the house at the moment I would like to make a few brief observations before any action is taken in this regard. It seems to me that in the course of discussion today-because one could hardly say it was hard and fast debate; it was one of the better types of discussion we have in this house- there was general acceptance in regard to the entire report, with the exception of the point outlined in the amendment.


Gilles Grégoire: Question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I think the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) will have an opportunity to make a speech if he desires, and not these periodic interruptions that sound like a beep.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He wants to catch the Friday train; that is his trouble.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It seems to me that has been made quite apparent this afternoon. As was pointed out in possibly a different way, one of the reasons we have this difficulty is the proliferation of parties in the house. It seems to me that the recommendations before the house are valid and I believe everyone has agreed that they will assist in expediting any measure that is before the house. There is also another point that has been overlooked in the general terms of the debate. It is simply this. Although we are trying to overcome this one particular hurdle there are other matters which also need consideration, such as the allocation of speakers on any particular measure that is before the house. I find it very peculiar that the official opposition, here recognized as such, with 96 or 97 members, is treated on a one speaker per party basis, as was the case earlier in this very debate. I believe this particular aspect of debate in the house is also unfair.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, before I resume my seat let me say that I believe the house is ready to accept the terms of the amendment, and I hope this will be the case; because if the house now determines that this amendment is acceptable, and this particular matter is sent back to the committee with distinct and definite instructions, this is the only change that need be made by the committee. Subsequently, when it is reintroduced in the house, this report will then be accepted, without the possibility of having any

Procedure Committee
one member cause the disruption that can exist if it is accepted as it is.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say. It seems to me that although we have had an assurance from the chairman of the subcommittee that this problem will be reopened when that committee meets, there can be no assurance that it will be dealt with; there can be no assurance that it will be brought back to the house. I do not question the integrity of the hon. member, but a subcommittee cannot give an assurance to the house that the matter will be dealt with as the house desires or that the matter will ever come back to the house.
It now appears that the house has expressed an opinion with regard to the report of the committee, and with deference to the committee I suggest the house is a superior body. There are quite a number of members in the house who are just as much interested in alterations to the rules as the members of the committee. The committee has been praised all day for the work it has been doing and is doing, and I add my praise to the work of the committee. However, I do suggest in this instance there would be more praise for the committee if it would accept immediately the suggestion now being made by the house as a whole. As the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) has pointed out, there need be no great delay. If this matter goes back to the committee and the committee meets next Tuesday or Wednesday and immediately reports back to the house, I see no reason for further debate on the matter if the instructions of the house have been incorporated in its report. So that this day's debate will not be lost at all and there will be no cause for worry in that respect.
I had hoped the committee would have found it possible to abolish on a trial basis the resolution preceding money bills, but various reasons which may be raised in objection to that have been pointed out. That being the case the committee has suggested a one day debate. I think they went a little too far in doing that by restricting the long acknowledged rights of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, the minister who introduces the money resolution and the first person to reply to it. That is the reason 
why our amendment has been brought forward. Other than that we are approving of the work of the committee.
I would make this plea to the committee. A plea has been made to the mover and seconder of the motion, but I would make the plea to the committee that it accept the proposed instructions from the House of Commons, reassembles, gets on with the job -it could meeet this afternoon if it wishes- and bring the report back at our first meeting next week, when I am sure the house would approve it without further debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question. How can the committee accept a direction from the House of Commons which the House of Commons has not yet given to it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are in the process of giving that instruction now.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a few words only to underline the inconsistency of those who clamour for the improvement of the Canadian parliamentary procedure and the elimination, when possible, of useless debates.
The committee, which is representative of all the parties in this house, suggests that the debate on the resolution preceding a money bill be limited to five hours. Everybody admits that one day's debate, at the resolution stage, is sufficient, for since we do not have the bill then, we do not know how it will be drafted.
Besides, when the bill is introduced, we still have an opportunity, at the second reading stage, to discuss the principle of the bill; moreover, when section 1 of the bill is called we are allowed by the rules and procedures to debate the purpose of the bill. At that time the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) may both speak for as many minutes or as many hours as they see fit.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the committee were congratulated for having submitted to the house a report so well documented, so well prepared and so consistent. But an amendment is being moved to the effect that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition might speak as long as they wish, which means that if the Leader of the Opposition speaks for two hours and a half and the head of the government does the same, this totals five hours and there is no time left for the other members who wish to

participate in the debate. Hon. members would no longer be able to discuss the object of the resolution, since the debate would be limited to five hours.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely feel the amendment should be re-examined by the committee either next week or the week after. In my opinion, the proposal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is reasonable and acceptable.
If we did not take part in the discussion before this, it is because we wanted to allow passage of the motion to shorten useless debate in the house. That is the attitude of our party and I will not delay the house any further now.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I may have been mistaken about the manner in which the committee was going to operate and consider the rules of the house, but it was my understanding that the committee would have as its objective unanimity before presenting any proposed rule changes to the house. Again I may be mistaken in this, but I understood that following upon that unanimity these matters would be discussed at meetings of the various parties, the thought being that there would be unanimous acceptance of the matters proposd by the committee in order that we would not get into arguments which had a partisan base concerning proposed rule changes, which should be developed free from partisan differences. I may have been naive and mistaken about that course of action. Obviously I was, because I understood the member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) to say that he was speaking today for his party in proposing this alteration or amendment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is correct.


Frank Howard: He now substantiates that. If such is the case, then the previous conception of attempting to find unanimity within the rules committee before any decisions are made is worthless and has just been scuttled by the announcement of the Conservative party. Not that I myself object to that course of action, but I think it is most deceitful to have people under the impression that they are working toward unanimity only to find they are stabbed in the back after they come into the house to present a particular proposal.


An hon. Member:: What have you been smoking?
Procedure Committee


Frank Howard: My hon. friend asks me what I have been smoking. I am a friend of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) and do not smoke. I am laying a few facts on the table.
Now, if that is the case it means that we have to look with suspicion in the future at all proposals which emanate from the rules committee, and its value has virtually been destroyed. I am referring to its value in attempting to find in a non-partisan manner rules designed to speed the business of parliament, if that is our goal and objective.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Howard: No, I would not at the moment. If my hon. friend from Bow River will wait until the conclusion of my remarks I will then be happy to accept one. As I said, I do not particularly object to the course of action being followed, as long as we understand what is being done and so that we will not be led down the garden path.
I spoke on the motion for the adoption of the report and indicated that I wished that the committee had come forward with a proposal eliminating debate at the resolution stage, because of the redundancy and duplication which occurs on second reading. The committee felt that the course they presented today was the better one to follow. I indicated at that time that the effect of the committee's proposal to have one day's debate with a 20 minute time limit per speaker would be to push the backbenchers even further back, depriving them of the right to take part in the debate at the resolution stage. I suggested that the proposal we now had before us would guarantee that result.
We all know from past experience that there is a tendency on the part of ministers, and those who reply immediately following ministers, to consume a great amount of time in explanation. If the amendment now before us passes, the predictable result will be an increased consumption of time by ministers introducing resolutions and members replying thereto. I think those members will then take up the great bulk of time available and thereby drive the backbenchers even further into the background. For that reason I am opposed to this amendment. I am opposed to the idea of consolidating even more authority, time and control, and placing it into the hands of a few members in this house. Over the years we have developed parliament to the point where the cabinet

Procedure Committee
or government, for a variety of reasons, virtually controls the operations of the House of Commons, and I think we would be merely adding to that authority and control by agreeing to this amendment.
Members of the Conservative party, in order to substantiate their view, have suggested that the greater the number of parties in the House of Commons the longer will be the debates, and that the greater the number of parties there are the more time will be consumed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is correct.


Frank Howard: The hon. member suggests that principle is correct. If one followed that argument to its logical conclusion we would have to assume that the fewer the number of parties in the House of Commons, the less time would be consumed in debate. Perhaps to have the most efficient parliament possible we should have only one party and operate along the lines of a dictatorship.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Obviously that is not what I said.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bow River had an opportunity to speak, and I would ask that he allow me that same opportunity, without interruption.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Please quote me accurately.


Frank Howard: I was not quoting you at all, my friend. I would not dare quote you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You could not.


Frank Howard: In fact, I am very happy to remain aloof, and refrain from quoting the hon. member for Bow River.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You must, because you cannot quote me.


Frank Howard: It is bad enough that we have to listen to the hon. member for Bow River without having to quote him as well.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Please try to get along, fellows.


Frank Howard: The hon. member suggested that the more parties there are in the House of Commons, the more debate there will be. On the other hand, I presume the fewer parties there are the less debate we will have. Perhaps we should have a one-party system concentrating all the authority in the leader of that party.
Certainly it is true that the more parties there are in the House of Commons the greater is the desire for members to express their points of view, but I suggest that in itself is the essence of democracy.
[Mr. Howard.!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why amend the rules at all, then?


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Bow River should not have been so enamoured with the gas debate we had yesterday. Perhaps if he had not been he would now allow me to complete my remarks without interruption.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the expression of diverse points of view is the best method of reaching agreement, and surely represents the essence of democratic parliament. The beauty of the type of parliament we have today is to be found in the diverse opinions expressed by the various members.
We do have rules which we must follow, but we must try to amend those rules in such a way as to make sure that we carry on the business of parliament in the most efficient and expeditious way possible, without altering the rights of individual members to express their ideas and arguments in respect of proposals advanced by government or others. If we accept the amendment now before us we will be running counter to that principle and curtailing the right of hon. members to take part in debates. The Tories obviously want to curtail the time available for debate and then monopolize that time.
My original position was, and still is, that we should seek to eliminate the discussion or debate at the resolution stage because it is superfluous. The committee did not think that to be desirable and proposed this alternate plan which would give an opportunity to the members in the house, who wanted to do so, to express their opinions at the resolution stage, but to a limited degree. The amendment now before us would in fact curtail freedom of expression and go against the concept of democracy which envisages the expression of opinions and debate, foUowed by agreement and the passing of laws.
I think when we vote on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bow River we should consider its effect and completely turn it down. We should remember that the result of his amendment will be a curtailment of the freedom of speech and an abandonment of the principles of democracy.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr
Speaker, there is general agreement that the entire report of the committee should be adopted, with the exception of that part referring to paragraph 2 of the proposed standing order 61-A. It would be wrong for us to refer the whole report back to the committee for reconsideration. There seems

o be general agreement that a leader of the pposition and a prime minister should be llowed more than the suggested 20 minutes t the resolution stage. I should like to point ut that whenever a complex piece of legis-ation is introduced in this house the time imit is never imposed on the person intro-ucing it, or anyone immediately replying, o long as their remarks are pertinent to the ubject matter of the resolution.
So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly Ailing to rely upon the house to give unani-ious consent on every occasion when it is lecessary for the prime minister, the leader f the opposition, or any member in reply, o speak longer than the 20 minutes. There-ore, I think we should not accept this amend-nent, but rather adopt or concur in the eport as it has been presented. We already ave an undertaking from the subcommittee hairman that he will give this matter further onsideration, and by defeating the amend-aent we could at least make some progress oday.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: /Ir. Speaker, I want to take only a moment o comment on a couple of things I have ibserved during the course of this debate.
have listened very attentively to what has leen going on this afternoon. I was cheered nitially at least by the spirit of congeniality hat seemed to exist earlier in the day. I see io reason for the house to get into a bad emper, and in the process of turning on iach other destroy a report which with minor imendments we would all like to see ac-epted.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated the position this morning, subsequently the Prime Minister (Mr. 'earson) spoke and I understood him to say hat he agreed that the exception with regard o the Prime Minister, other ministers and he Leader of the Opposition would receive upport not only from him as an individual nember of the house, but would be sup-sorted because it was a change that he as 'rime Minister and leader of the Liberal sarty in the house would like to see made, subsequently the Prime Minister left the hamber.
When the amendment was put before the souse by the hon. member for Bow River Mr. Woolliams) the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) at that point rose n his place and stated, according to my mderstanding, that it was not acceptable to
Procedure Committee
the government. So this leaves a person like myself who had no intention of participating in the debate and who understood that we had a sort of general agreement-


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit a question? I am sure he would not wish to misrepresent me. Would he agree with me that the amendment goes much farther than the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, and raises other problems?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I agree that is true. I also agree that if the report in its present form is adopted it will fall far short of what the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition agreed would be acceptable to them. In any event, I have no intention other than to comment briefly in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I would say to him that if the report is adopted as presented it will be a much more difficult task to amend it subsequently. This is the history of all measures that are adopted. It is harder to change them, once they have been accepted than it is to make revisions in them at the time they are before the house.
Before the question is put I should like someone from the government side and speaking for the government to explain to me how they can square the statement of the Prime Minister that he felt this change for himself and the Leader of the Opposition at any rate was necessary and desirable with the position as expressed by the President of the Privy Council. I would make a passing reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who said it is obvious that the Conservatives are trying to squelch the minor parties in this house. As a backbencher spokesman for the Conservative party I would say to him that surely no one in his right mind would pursue the logic he expects us to follow to the point of absurdity, and say that there should only be one party. I hope he is not trying to make the argument that proliferation of parties in the house is not causing delay and has not in fact caused most of the delay. I can think of the obvious example-


An hon. Member:: That is a problem for the electors.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: -which is on motions-


An hon. Member:: Who caused the delay on the flag?

Procedure Committee


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you will recognize anyone who wishes to speak if he will stand up on his feet so he can be identified. I was prepared to do that and I hope other hon. members will. No one in his right mind is advocating a dictatorship, albeit at times when pressed beyond the limit by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) some of us wish that a dictatorship could be implemented. The fact is that we as a party are not trying to stamp out splinter groups. I agree with my hon. friends that this is something for the electorate to decide, and I intend to bend considerable of my energies to trying to convince the electorate that stamping out splinter parties would be a desirable and acceptable thing.


An hon. Member:: We did it in British Columbia.


Gilles Grégoire: We will get rid of you next time.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Hon. members to my extreme left are most anxious to have this report accepted now so that we can go on with the next one which will recognize St. John the Baptist day as a holiday.


An hon. Member:: Cheap stuff.


Gilles Grégoire: Now we know.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether you would call for order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps we can proceed with the discussion on the amendment as quickly as possible.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that before the question is put I should like someone on the government side to explain, if he can, how they can square the position taken by the Prime Minister this afternoon with the subsequent statement by the President of the Privy Council that the amendment would not be acceptable.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit a question. Is he not intelligent enough to understand that the positions taken were identical?


Mr. Lambert:: No, they were not.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: In answer to the question Mr. Speaker, I think I am intelligent enough to do this, but since I appear to the minister to be obtuse I invite him to explain to me, if he can, why he finds the amendment proposed unacceptable when the Prime Minister himself, presumably still the leader of that
[Mr. Rheaume.1
party, said it would be acceptable to the government to have the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition given extra time.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If I have the permission of the house I will make that explanation right now because apparently the hon. member did not understand my remarks or the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister was very clear in putting it on record that he trusted the committee, that he had confidence in the committee and that he was appreciative of the good work it had done and the break-through it had made. He also stated there was something in the point that the Leader of the Opposition had raised. He indicated that he expected the house would pass the motion for concurrence and try out the proposed amendments to the rules from now, the 166th day of this session, until the end of the session. He went on to say that if the committee in the meantime had not brought in some form of amendment along the lines of the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister the house would be perfectly free to make a specific amendment when the motion for adopting this rule on a permanent basis came before it. That is precisely the position I took, after having added what I thought was an explanation of the procedural difficulty and the objections to the form in which the hon. member for Bow River had presented his amendment to the house. Indeed I invite any hon. member who will, to read the amendment and note the objections to its form, even if he is completely in accord with every detail of what the hon. member for Bow River suggests.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, time is running out and it is not my purpose to delay the vote on this report. I do not intend to enter into any extraneous arguments. I just want to say in passing that the argument of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) seemed rather strange to me because I do not know whether he was proposing that reports of committees be adopted without debate, which seemed to be the intent of the remarks he made. Certainly I do not think anybody expected that, although the committee might agree unanimously on its report to the house, the house should not have the opportunity to make observations on it and return it if they saw fit.

Procedure Committee
The amendment, as I understand it, restricts the action the committee can take to the point that the committee would not be permitted, at the same time, to alter the report in other respects. My understanding of the situation is that the backbenchers particularly are concerned that if the amendment carries, and the report were returned with this instruction to the committee, it could mean that three or four hours of the time allotted for the debate would be taken by the leaders, or someone replying. It seems to me, therefore, that if this is the real concern and the instructions are too rigid, I should like to propose a subamendment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I am proposing this subamendment, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) -


An hon. Member:: A referendum.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Do you want delay of this type, or do you want to use your head a little bit? I am serious in the proposals I make. I am not entering into extraneous matters because I want to complete this debate.
I move that the following paragraph be added:
Notwithstanding anything contained in standing order 61A	(1) should the Prime Minister and
Leader of the Opposition or a minister moving a resolution preceding a bill involving the expenditure of public money and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, shall speak for more than 20 minutes, during the time when such resolution is under consideration in the committee of the whole house, then the time allowed for debate shall be extended by the additional time over 20 minutes that they shall speak.
In other words, if they spoke for 60 minutes or so there would be an hour and 20 minutes additional time permitted for the debate.


Gilles Grégoire: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: In the short time at my disposal, I have considered the subamendment and I must say that it does not seem to conform to the amendment. I really have difficulty in reading the two together so, in my opinion, the subamendment is not in order.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


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.
I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I regret, Mr. Speaker, but I have something to say on the main motion before it is put.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to let this go by without making a few remarks because everything which was said simply proves that I was right in believing that the committee lacked courage and will power when this was set up. In fact, paragraph 4 says:
There is, however, some doubt whether the abolition of the reference of such resolutions thereto would be valid.
Therefore, there is a doubt in this matter. There is no certainty. It is doubtful whether the Queen may reply in the affirmative or in the negative in the case of a money bill.
We all know that the Queen, in a constitutional kingdom like Canada, reigns but does not govern, and I believe that the committee could have decided by itself to remove such a resolution altogether.
Those who object to it can always go to court and attempt to prove that we have no right to act in this manner. But no, doubts persist, there is constant fear about what might happen. This, precisely, proves that I am right. This resolution, and consequently the amendment which has just been defeated, would not have been justified had the motion disappeared, for neither the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), nor the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked to speak longer than the other members.
Consequently, let the committee decide once and for all to eradicate completely the resolution stage which is an obsolete English custom which has no place in Canada. I should like to see it disappear entirely from our statutes, and those who object to this can always institute proceedings.
I think the committee could go even further and do away with the vote of nonconfidence here just as they have done in the United States. The committee could also see to it that general elections are held on a set date, as we might again have a minority government.
These changes could improve our procedure, for it would be a good thing if the government could govern the country.
I am suggesting these changes to the committee in order to improve the situation. The committee was set up to help us and not to

Procedure Committee
hinder us, as in the past, for instance, a change was made which allowed us half an hour on Wednesdays but in exchange we had to give up half an hour on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. In other words we had to give up an hour and a half in exchange for half an hour.
These are some suggestions I would ask the committee to reconsider so that a decision may be made as soon as possible.


Erik Nielsen: Since there appeared to be unanimity on the first portion of the amendment that has been defeated, and since it seemed to be the desire of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), that the time be at least extended in so far as those two gentlemen were concerned, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill):
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after "be" and substituting therefor.
"not now concurred in, but be referred back to the special committee on procedure and organization with instruction to amend subsection (2) of the proposed standing order 61A as referred to in paragraph 5 of the said report by striking out all the words following the word "member" in line two of the said subsection 2 and substituting the following:
"except the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition moving a resolution preceding a bill involving expenditure of public money shall speak for more than 20 minutes."
The rest of the wording is exactly the same, except the reference to the minister and the member replying has been deleted.


Mr. Speaker:: In the very short period of time I have had to look at this amendment and take some advice, in my opinion the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Yukon is repetitious and out of order.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: cannot support any one of these recommendations in the resolution before the house. I should like to commend the committee for the work it has done, but there are principles involved here which I think this house should not lightly overlook. The first section recommends that the Speaker be given authority to rule on motions under rule 26 without the right of appeal. I feel that in this case members of the house are giving up control of the house and I believe members of the house should at all times retain control in parliament.
Section two deals with time limits on debate. It is true it refers only to the resolu-

tion stage in the case of money bills, but there is a principle involved here, too, and if we adopt this proposal we are limiting ourselves to five hours of debate, 20 minutes for each speaker. This means that only 15 speakers can take part, three from each party in the house. How would those speakers be chosen? I suggest that if the supporters of this amendment had to take their turn with all 265 members of the house they would not be in such a hurry to bring in this amendment. It is an amendment which would restrict the so-called backbenchers from taking part in debates and I am one who believes that we should not depart from the principle that every member of this house is equal in authority with every other member, and entitled to all the rights and privileges to which any other member is entitled. Therefore I think the provisions of section two of these recommendations are contrary to the principles which should be maintained in this house.
Under section three it is suggested that the title and preamble of any money bill, any resolution or bill, be deferred to the end of the discussion. How can the details of a bill be intelligently discussed if no discussion is permitted on the principle of the bill? I say that the principle of the bill which is called with the title or preamble should be discussed first.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not realize that it is only proper to discuss the principle of a bill on second reading, and not on clause 1 in the committee stage?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I am still of the same opinion but I do not wish to hold up the house unduly, since time is passing. I just wished to explain why I am opposed to all three sections of these recommendations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


An hon. Member:: It is almost five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, let it go.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Knowles) agreed to.



CONCURRENCE IN FOURTEENTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Stanley Howard Knowles: that the fourteenth report of the special committee on procedure and

Criminal Code
organization, presented to the house on October 7, 1964, be now concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members know what is in this fourteenth report. It proposes that from now on, instead of its being difficult for the house not to sit on holidays, it would become automatic that on the nine holidays listed in this report the house would not sit. Those holidays are-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -New Year's day, Good Friday, the day fixed for the celebration of the birthday of the sovereign, St. John the Baptist day, Dominion day, Labour day, Thanksgiving day, Remembrance day and Christmas day.
Motion (Mr. Knowles) agreed to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.


Frank Howard: I should like to rise on a point of order before you proceed any further, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether during all the noise which went on while the motion we have just dealt with was being passed, Your Honour heard me say "on division"?


Mr. Speaker:: We shall have to correct the records, then, and say it was passed on division.



CRIMINAL CODE


Douglas Mason Fisher: the second reading of Bill No. C-56 to amend the Criminal Code (the Judas-Tree amendment).
He said: This is a minor bill which I introduced on an earlier occasion. There has been a debate in the house on it. I do not consider it as being of extreme importance and I do not intend to bring it up again at any future parliamentary session. It is obvious that it has not struck sparks among the Liberals and the Conservatives to whom I thought it might appeal. Basically it is a bill designed to appeal to people in the major parties who have been among the "ins" and the "outs" and to give them an opportunity to protect their appointees to various government boards and agencies
against dismissal without some kind of notice being given so as to enable those appointees to seek other employment.
I am very pleased to see in the house people like the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) who lately was working in a campaign within another framework, because I know he will be able to bring to the house in this debate the opinions of someone who in framing up the whole party program in a campaign realizes how important it is that one not only knows people but also gets help from people who may expect to receive some kind of position or some kind of reward after a party has achieved power.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Only the C.C.F. would do that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I know that the hon. gentleman and some of his friends realize this is a practical or pragmatic kind of politics. I was trying to recognize that it exists in introducing this bill. As I said on a previous occasion, I have introduced it for this reason. What triggered my introducing the bill was the summary refusal to reappoint a man who had been a Conservative appointment to the Canadian pension board. I believe very strongly that a minister and an executive should have the right to make these appointments. I know that just the other day the question was raised of the appointments to the board of directors of the C.N.R. A great many of these appointments were made by the previous Conservative government. Some of these appointments were terminated, and I have heard that some of the directors were rather hurt that their service had come to an end. This happens to be a part time kind of chore. I do not know what the basis of judgment should be with regard to whether they have done a good or a poor job. I do know there are some perquisites in connection with being a director of the C.N.R. which probably make the job attractive to people. I also imagine there are members of the Liberal government who would like to get their friends appointed to such a prestigious position.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not deal with that matter; it is not any complaint about that. It tries to give the opportunity of a fair warning when a government changes so that a person who has an appointment or a tenure for a definite period of years will know before the end of his tenure whether the government intends to reappoint him or not, so he can go about making arrangements for other work.

Criminal Code
I think we were all intrigued a tew weeks ago at the news that the head of the board of broadcast governors, Dr. Stewart, had written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) a personal letter indicating that he would not be willing to consider reappointment next year when his term of office came to an end. I do not know the reasons for Dr. Stewart feeling this way; I am sure he expressed them to the Prime Minister. But obviously here is someone who has the kind of appointment I am talking about and who is moving well ahead of time to anticipate any dropping. I am sure his colleague who is a permanent member of the board, Mr. Carlyle Allison, must have grave doubts as to whether a Liberal administration would wish to appoint him when his tenure of office ends, as it is due to end. I quite agree that the Dr. Stewart case indicates that, given time, knowing that he now faces a Liberal administration and is likely to face a Liberal administration unless we get an election much sooner than I expect, one can take a step in anticipation-


Mr. Greene:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am always glad to have a point of order raised.


John James Greene: I wonder whether the hon. member is in any way speaking with any relevancy in respect of Bill No. C-56. Is he on the wrong page, on the wrong chapter, and playing a record that he meant to play last year? This bill is concerned with conflict of interest. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is on the wrong wavelength. I suggest that he is on the wavelength of the King's evil, rather than the Judas tree. That is the problem with having such a literary mind; one can never be sure exactly which wavelength one is on.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I never appreciated a point of order more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I only regret that it had to be the hon. member for Renfrew South, who is back after all his labours, who raised the point of order; who was bright enough and quick enough to seize this point before you did, Mr. Speaker, or before I did. Of course, the primary responsibility should be mine. The hon. member is quite correct, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether I could get agreement to move on to the other bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is a shame to waste a speech.


Mr. Robichaud:: Headlines in the Telegram tomorrow.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not know whether I should ask the permission of the house to move on to the other bill; I do not suppose I could get it-but, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move on to the bill concerned with the King's evil.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You are in the right church,, but the wrong pew.


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


Douglas Mason Fisher: My colleague says I am in the right church, but the wrong pew.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) is rising on a point of order.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, I think we can help the hon. member out of his dilemma. I distinctly heard Bill No. C-56 called and I had opened Bill No. C-56 and had it before me. I think that if the house unanimously recognized that all those words which the hon. member has already said in some way have some relevancy to Bill No. C-56, the hon. member could then continue.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not think that is a great deal of assistance, Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate the try. Bill No. C-56 has not been presented to the house before. The reason for bringing it in really relates to representations I have received from certain people who are interested in the mutual fund and the investment fund business. These people made the point to me that there is a practice that is more than a tendency for mutual funds to take advice from firms that in a sense are captive to their own, and to take this advice, instead of at a negotiated fee, at a percentage of the volume of business handled. As a consequence, if it is a quarter of 1 per cent, it sometimes has gone as high as 1J per cent, and then the amount of money that is made by the investment firm is extremely high.
Given a well managed fund and a good return, I do not suppose any investor is going to complain about this. But the representations brought to my attention were by people who pointed out the identity, if you want, between the senior officers of the investment firms and the senior officers of the investment analysis and advisory people. It is rather

obvious, particularly if you have read the book "The Grim Truth About Mutual Funds" by Ralph Lee Smith, that this practice has caused serious concern in the securities and exchange commission of the United States. This identity of interest is a means of giving an extra reward and profit in the operations to officers of mutual funds organizations. The effect of this amendment to the Criminal Code is contained in the bill as follows:
-when his undertaking so entered into or continued may or does conflict in interest with an obligation of whatever nature by him owed in whatever capacity to any other person-
And so on. That means that if you have an investment analysis organization which is a subsidiary or, in effect, a captive in control of a fund or trust company, the compensation or benefits entered into by the people who are advising the organization are under a very definite control by the Criminal Code. The explanatory notes state:
The principle of this bill has been applied to, and presently binds, members of this house and the Senate-by each house in its orders and rules and by parliament as a law of Canada.
That is inserted to emphasize the fact this principle does apply.
On this particular question of advice which brings financial gain, I realize how difficult and complex a problem one gets into when you look at all the various kinds of organizations which in a sense are advisory and at the same time may be considered captive. One of the reasons I felt an amendment to the Criminal Code would be worth while-and obviously it is not possible to come at this through any securities and exchange regulation-is that it would be there as something which could be invoked and brought up when something of this kind became a very evident scandal, rather than something which would be in application all the time where there are these kind of financial relationships.
I know it would be difficult in the case of certain lawyers and legal firms. For example, I can think of several in my own area to which this would apply. There is nothing wrong in what they are doing, but in effect several lawyers are partners in construction firms which do a fair amount of building and construction work. This is a sideline for them in a separate company. At the same time they are the legal advisers to the firm. I had not any intention in introducing this particular amendment to create any difficulties in an organization of that kind; I was thinking more specifically of the kind of public company operating in the trust and investment field
Criminal Code
whereby, as a means of providing an extra profit or some extra kudos to some of the senior executives, this advisory agency is set up and is given a percentage of all that which is invested by the major company, which would ensure a very tidy income which, in terms of the amount of time and skill put into it, just does not really seem justified. In essence it is a fictitious value which is created by this type of advice. I do not know how widespread is this practice in Canada but I do know from two different mutual organizations to whose representatives I have talked that the situation does exist in Canada.
There is very little more I want to say about this bill other than that I should like to see some interest in this question of mutual funds and investment funds, the way they receive advice and that advice is paid for. I happen to have some kind of certificate-I do not know that it actually represents shares-which I got a few years ago from a mutual fund in connection with a plan which sends your children to university. I have no complaint of the purchase which I made or the whole framework of the operation, but I do feel that if a particular company has an expanding order of business, as this one has, and if their investment advisers are dealing essentially with the same market, no matter how much money the firm has to invest it does not seem to me that a straight percentage of income from that amount of investment and investment growth is really fair. It seems to me that this is sloughing off some of the profits which should go to the actual investors in the fund.
Despite the humour and embarrassment of the situation, Mr. Speaker, I regret that in a sense I have belittled my own bill as a result of the rather over-glamorous or overgimmicky name attached to the title of "the King's evil". This shows how much confusion at least one member of parliament can get into and I apologize to the house and to my colleagues for the mistake I made. I also express my appreciation to the "boy from the valley", if I may put it that way, for drawing this mistake to the attention of myself and the house.


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I felt sorry for the embarrassment caused the hon. member who, in his confusion at the beginning of the hour, started speaking on another bill. I think the speech he started on would have been better than the one we heard, and having heard bits of both I am not sure which would have been more relevant to the bill under discussion. I am afraid that the

Criminal Code
hon. member's sense of confusion relates not only to today, when he is discussing the bill, but also possibly went right back to the very day he introduced the bill. I have read this bill, and although I do not know what a "Judas-tree" amendment is, I think I do know what a conflict of interest is. I am afraid the provisions of the bill, if the bill were enacted, might in fact trap and ensnare the hon. member himself. Therefore I suggest to the hon. member that he give serious thought to looking at the bill under the cold, clear light of logic and possibly withdrawing it, because I think all of us would be very sorry indeed if he were to be enmeshed and entrapped in his own legislation.
This bill states that everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years-which is a long time- who enters into a contract, agreement or relationship whereby he undertakes to sell or to furnish advertising, publicity or other service, information or data when his undertaking so entered into or continued may or does conflict in interest with an obligation of whatever nature by him owed in whatever capacity to any other person.
I suggest that the hon. member be very careful that this does not apply to himself. He, like the rest of us here, is a member of parliament. He is remunerated and is obliged to serve his constituents and his country by his presence in the House of Commons, on committees and in his constituency. He is also obliged to use his time, and whatever talents he may possess, in order to study and cogitate in respect of legislation and other matters which would further the ends of this country and his constituency.
In addition to those obligations the hon. member has undertaken a few others. He writes a newspaper column. He is our poor man's Dorothy Kilgallen. I am informed he also has a television program, but fortunately so far I have not seen it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How do you know you are fortunate if you have not seen it?


David George Hahn: I am very fortunate in not having seen it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How do you know, if you have not seen it? Perhaps you have missed something.


David George Hahn: I have conversed with others who have seen it and who have appeared on it. These activities take up the member's time- time, as I understand it, that he and the rest of us are obliged to spend on parliamentary duties. This raises certain questions

which I think the hon. member should consider.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


David George Hahn: I do not think I should-


Douglas Mason Fisher: All right, that is fine. I just wanted to ask one question. The hon. member must realize that the line he is taking I do not find unwelcome, but I should like to point out to him that he is giving me an opportunity to open up a real Pandora's box in connection with a great many of his own colleagues.


David George Hahn: I think the line I am taking is one I deduced from the bill.


Douglas Mason Fisher: If you deduced that from this bill, that's fine.


David George Hahn: We all must speak about those things which are apparent to us when we study specific legislation.
I was suggesting that there are some questions which perhaps the hon. member should consider before insisting that this bill be passed. In addition to the hon. member's other activities, how much time does he spend collecting and writing this gossip, innuendo and behind the curtains tittle-tattle which is printed in the newspaper? Does this activity of collecting, assembling and writing this material really serve the country and his constituents? Is he acting in the best interests of his constituents and his party when he has to cross a picket line in order to publish his column?


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is not true.


David George Hahn: Is it possible that even in this house, sitting behind his desk, he is thinking about writing this column when he should be doing what the rest of us do under similar circumstances-that is, read the daily newspapers? Does he stay in parliament to hold his job as a columnist, or does he hold the job as columnist to maintain his seat in parliament?
Mr. Speaker, I think those are interesting questions that should be considered, and there are several others which come to mind. How often is he able to visit his constituents, and do these other activities hinder him in that regard? Those are questions that should be considered, because these activities do conflict with his interest as a member of the House of Commons. I think the hon. member must search out carefully the answers to those questions before asking that this bill be proceeded with, and I think that he must satisfy himself

hat if the bill does pass he will not be trapped n his own net. I am afraid if it were to pass, he provisions of the bill would remove the ion. member from our presence for a period, s outlined in the bill, of as long as ten 'ears. I am sure that if that were to happen ome of us may or may not miss his column, ome of us may or may not miss the television how, but most of us would miss his presence n this chamber and the warmth that some-imes rises on a cold winter's day from his vords.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of he hon. member and in the interests of the est of us, I hope that he will reconsider and withdraw the bill.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker,
have listened with a great deal of interest o the explanation of the hon. member n introducing his bill. I know on many oc-asions he has made presentations to this louse which have been very convincing and lave carried a great deal of logic. It is un-ortunate today that the bill now under con-ideration is not one of his better efforts. I lave a great deal of difficulty understanding he bill, although I can understand the con-lict of interest.
The drafting of this particular bill has aised questions in my mind. If I may, at this ime, I should like to divide my comments nto two sections. First, I should like to dis-uss in general the principles of private mem->ers' bills, using this one as an illustration if what a member hopes to achieve by intro-lucing such a bill. Second, I should like to omment on some of the broader implica-ions of what I consider to be the imperfect [rafting of this bill, and the reasons I per-onally do not think it should be enacted in ts present form, or sent to a committee in ts present form.
Earlier this day we received a presenta-ion from the leader of the hon. member's >arty, reiterating the point he had previously nade in another place, to the effect that as >art of a reform of this institution we should lermit every private members' bill to come o a vote. That was one of the principles put orward in a general statement some two veeks ago, and which was distributed out-ide this chamber. I was fortunate enough to eceive a copy of it, and I must say it con-ained a great deal of material which was irovocative, interesting and constructive.
I should like to discuss this principle, that very private members' bill come to a vote, n relation to the draft now before us, and n relation particularly to the explanatory
Criminal Code
notes which are presented to this house. People say this House of Commons can be a very dull place, but I cannot help but remember the debate that took place in this chamber yesterday. The House of Commons has devised its own form of amusement in the Bell Telephone hour, in which it has indulged for something like five months. It is in the form of a private members' bill, in this case sponsored by a member on this side of the house. There has been no indication that this private members' bill will ever be permitted to come to a vote. Hon. members of the party to which the sponsor of this bill belongs, and I want to make it clear that I am not referring to him in this regard, have moved amendments to that bill and have generally prolonged the debate. On one occasion I referred to that bill being talked out by spokesmen of that party and I was met with the ingenious explanation of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) that somehow, when members of that party are talking at six o'clock, they are not really talking out the bill.
The truth is that observations in regard to a bill are right and proper in this chamber, and should it happen that the time allotted for the consideration of a bill expires, there is no reason why the bill, just because it is a private members' bill should be voted on or disposed of. That is not a necessary reform of this institution, and there is certainly some hypocrisy on the part of the members of that hon. member's party in this respect.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would acknowledge that the Bell Telephone bill, or pipe lines bills that have been talked out during the private members' hour, are not public bills? I think that is a distinction he should keep in mind. According to the rules of this house, it is not possible repeatedly to talk out a private member's public bill, because such a bill comes up once and then drops to the bottom of the order paper.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, if the suggested amendment to the procedures of this house is that certain types of private members' bills should be voted on while other types should be talked out, I suggest that the explanation which has been placed before this house has not made that kind of distinction. I was most interested to learn the principle by which we can distinguish those bills which it would be right and proper to talk out or to be making observations on at the end of

Criminal Code
the hour and those in regard to which it would not be considered proper.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could ask the hon. member a question. Is there not a distinction between a private corporation such as the Bell Telephone Company or West Coast Transmission having a bill put through the house by a private member because of certain requirements they wish, and the ideas of members of parliament relating to public matters and represented by the long list of public bills found on the order paper?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I find this question very interesting. I thought I was being attentive to the debate but I did not hear that distinction being made. But if this is the principle by which the hon. member feels a distinction should be made, then perhaps certain classes of private members' bills relating to the incorporation of companies or membership on boards of directors should be considered at greater length in committee prior to being brought into the house. I do not know, but at least this has not been spelled out before. As I understood the presentation placed before us today I thought there was a blanket suggestion that somehow we could improve the operation of the house by voting on all of these bills. I had not heard the distinction which the hon. member has now endeavoured to make being offered by spokesmen for his party.
I said also in beginning my remarks that I did not find the nature of the bill such as one would normally expect in legislation which is offered for the serious purpose of enactment. May I refer to the explanatory notes where I find the following:
For the Janusary of Mammon who has everything-*
This is interesting language although I admit it is not the usual legal style. I must confess I have a great deal of difficulty understanding what a "Janusary" is. It is not a janizary, the former mercenary soldiers of the Ottoman empire, with whom I first confused it. Apparently it is a literary allusion of a rather profound and obscure nature. The explanatory note continues:
-for the con-man confiscador of the Bay street boardroom-
The alliteration is interesting, but again I do not feel that alliteration should be the prime consideration of legal draftsmanship. I find that the whole tone and temper of the explanation given to us is pretentious and I wonder whether a person who has drafted an explanation in these terms really expects

this kind of private members' bill to be enacted with this type of explanatory note. I know it is good journalism to, shall we say, be a little more provocative in style, but I do not think it is good legislative practice even in drafting explanatory notes.
I want to speak on the nature of the bill itself. Again, I am not trained in the law; I am simply a person who tries to read and understand the English language, and I have difficulty understanding this bill. Clause 1 reads in part as follows:
Every one who, for compensation or benefit of any kind whatsoever, enters into or continues a party to any contract, agreement, or relationship, whereby he undertakes, in whatever capacity, to sell or furnish to any person any investment, managerial, financial, legal, engineering, purchasing, marketing, auditing, statistical, advertising, publicity, tax, research, or other service, information, or data, when his undertaking so entered into or continued may or does conflict in interest with an obligation of whatever nature-
This is a very sweeping indictment. Conflict is of the nature of things in our society. This is certainly so in our political life. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is not the existence of conflict. I think that the problem with which the hon. member is attempting to cope is the situation in which there is a lack of full and complete knowledge on the part of everyone concerned of the nature of the conflict, where there is inadequate disclosure of the situation in which a person may put himself, having more than one obligation which is not apparent to the parties with whom that particular person is dealing, where there is a situation in which ties that may exist are not public knowledge or not knowledge or information within the possession of the affected parties. I think that is the kind of situation where the injury lies.
In my own life, for example, I have engaged a solicitor to act for me in the purchase of a house. I knew at the time that this same solicitor had also searched the title for the vendor, had done the initial' work on the property and was familiar with the title. The individual was well known to me. He is a man in whose competence I have to this day absolutely unquestioning faith and to whom I would trust my own personal possessions and reputation without any question whatsoever. That man was in a position of conflict as I understand the drafting of this clause, and he would be subject to a criminal penalty. If I have improperly understood the clause I should like some hon. member to tell me in what respect I have misunderstood it.
It seems to me that the hon. member has cast much too broad a net for the purpose

he has in mind. Legislation should be specific. Legislation should deal with specific evils in a very specific way. An attempt to do too much, to use language that is too inclusive, to prescribe penalties in situations where they would not be enforced, does not result in the kind of legislation that according to my understanding of the law should be enacted in this house.
I come back to my initial point. What is the purpose of a private members' bill? I think the hon. member has a most laudable purpose. He wants to call attention to certain situations where conflict exists, where there is harm done, and I think the best way in which the house can deal with this problem is to debate it at some considerable length. I would be very much surprised if the time of one hour would be sufficient to permit a subject as broad and as important as this to be disposed of by the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion we have seldom seen in this house a bill such as Bill No. C-56, and I am convinced that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) does not talk the same way to his electors in order to be elected, because he would confuse them more than he would enlighten them under such circumstances. In fact, we do not know exactly where he is heading for.
I listened carefully to the remarks made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) on this bill, and I believe he inferred that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) did not serve the best interests of his electors because he was writing a column in a newspaper or appeared on a local television program in Ottawa, on station CJOH-TV, which perhaps covers all of Canada.
In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if several Liberal members should not be blamed for maintaining a law office, a business or practicing another profession, apart from being members of parliament.
The hon. member for Port Arthur is certainly entitled to write in the newspapers and to emcee a television program. He even invited me to appear on his program once, and although we may not share the same political views I must admit my fellow member's television program is objective. He endeavours to inform the public by making use of every political faction in the country and allowing them to express their opinions very freely.
In my opinion the hon. member for Broadview was getting onto very slippery ground
Criminal Code
for his party and for the entire body of representatives because every single one of us can engage in business activities even though we are members of this house. In fact I myself am a merchant in addition to being the member for my constituency. I am not ashamed to admit it loud and clearly. I do not think it is quite fair that a stone should be cast at the hon. member for Port Arthur in this connection.
In his bill the hon. member for Port Arthur tells us about Mammon, Bay street, Janus, of people who try to suggest economic panaceas, universal remedies.
I wonder if the hon. member did not really intend to remind us of what he has read in the Bible by attempting to compare it with what goes on in the financial world.
It is a fact that there are parasites in the world of finance, people who extort money from the public through all sorts of fraudulent ways and means.
For instance, not too long ago there were mine promoters in northern Ontario; indeed, we had some too in northwestern Quebec. Those people, who were not truly mine promoters, stole large amounts of money from average citizens and workers who had some savings.
When fantastic ore deposits were discovered in the Timmins area recently, swindlers rushed to areas located 40 and 50 miles away from Timmins, and formed mining companies with respect to properties which had absolutely nothing in common with the site on which the ore was found. Federal charters as well as provincial charters were the object of speculation. In any case, people were swindled out of their funds. This is plain robbery, no less, of the small investor.
Such practices have taken place and still take place in our country in many fields, not only in the sale of mining stock. I have just referred to a recent instance, but thousands upon thousands of small investors are losing their savings in this way. Among them are workers, miners, labourers, or farmers who sold their cattle and their property in order to buy stock in such mining companies on the strength of some tip they claim to have got about this or that mining stock. They had been told that in a matter of months, they would get three or five times the money they had put in.
Today these people are grievously concerned; they are in a sad predicament. Why? Precisely on account of those sharpers paid by stock market operators to extort the workers' money.

Criminal Code
In this respect, the bill introduced by the hon. member is justifiable. His explanations of it are not quite clear and my constituents will understand nothing about it, neither will 80 per cent of the hon. members for that matter.
I quote from his bill:
The Criminal Code is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 325 thereof, the following section:
325A. Every one who, for compensation or benefit of any kind whatsoever, enters into or continues a party to any contract, agreement, or relationship, whereby he undertakes, in whatever capacity, to sell or furnish to any person any investment, managerial, financial, legal, engineering, purchasing, marketing, auditing, statistical, advertising, publicity, tax, research, or other service, information, or data, when his undertaking so entered into or continued may or does conflict in interest with an obligation of whatever nature by him owed in whatever capacity to any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years.
Can anyone imagine that this will be readily understandable to the man in the street?
It seems to me that the earnest hon. member for Port Arthur-whom I know to be a responsible man-could have introduced a bill couched in clearer language which would have included all those financial sharpers operating all over the country, the con men and tipsters of "good things" in the way of securities or mining stock, and the rest of it.


Mr. Gauihier:: Yes, and real estate too.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, real estate too, as pointed out by the hon. member for Koberval.
In any case all those professional swindlers-and there are countless numbers of them in Canada-who try their luck and who, so we are told, are none the less, as I stated in my opening remarks, parasites, leeches, living on the blood and sweat of small investors. They lead a life of idleness, with only one purpose in mind, hornswog-gling the public.
As I said earlier we have seen instances of them in the field of finance. In my own riding we have had the case of an non-existent mine, and yet hordes of salesmen covered the province of Quebec selling stock in that fictitious bonanza. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, that stock which originally was selling at 10 cents a share later went up to 77 cents without any development work being done for the simple reason that there was no such mine. And yet shares were being marketed; there was stock-jobbing going on in those mining stocks and on the stock exchange.

Now, who had a say in the value of those shares? A handful of men at the head of that mining company. So it was that close to a million and a half dollars were extorted from farmers, settlers, miners, small wage earners, and nobody was punished under either provincial or federal legislation.
The same thing happened in the Timmins area. It is still being done. No provincial or federal government ever steps in to put a stop to those financial intrigues designed to take unfair advantage of plain folk.
Now a bill designed to bring to light the defrauders or ferret out swindlers and cheats should be adopted by this house so as to put an end to this shameful exploitation of the small wage earners in this country.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, I have read the explanatory notes of this little bill with a great deal of interest, as has my colleague who spoke just a few minutes ago. It is a little classic of allusion and alliteration with such phrases as "Janusary of Mammon" and "pink pep pills". There is nothing really wrong with this little composition that a sharp editorial pencil could not cure. I am sure any member of the press gallery would help any hon. member of this house who showed such a pathetic eagerness to achieve a literate style. In fact, if I know my hon. friend's stuff at all, I doubt very much that he wrote this because this is not the kind of thing which appears regularly in the press under his byline. I think it is part of the flourishing nineteenth century style of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). I doubt very much indeed that my hon. friend had ever seen this bill before he came into the house. Surely he would not put into the record stuff like "Janusary of Mammon", "Bay street boardroom", and so on. He would be wiped from the editorial pages across the continent if he produced stuff like this. It just is not part of modem day journalism.
I think what probably has happened here is that the shemozzle we witnessed earlier this afternoon goes back even further and that the little bill we have before us is not the one which the hon. member intended to present at all, but that somehow or other the name of Mr. Cameron had been exchanged on the bill for the name of Mr. Fisher and he was reluctantly dragged into the chamber from some other place where he was writing his column, picked up a book,

read from any old page, got oft to a poor start, was corrected by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) and then proceeded to deal with a bill he had never seen before. I must say, though, that in the face of all these troubles the hon. gentleman certainly put up a brilliant performance and I know we would wish to commend him for it.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wish to direct the attention of the house to one or two aspects of this bill and I think I can do so in less than two or three minutes.
If it is the intention of the hon. member by this proposal to amend the Criminal Code to strike against certain specific ills, then to that extent, to the extent of his explanation, I have sympathy with his motives though not necessarily with the methods he is attempting to use. An examination of the wording used in this bill indicates, as one hon. member has already said, that far too wide a loop is being cast compared with the result which it is intended to achieve.
I think we must understand the distinction between the civil and the criminal law. Most actions which are the subject of prohibition by the Criminal Code can be the subject of civil proceedings. From time to time under common law where there has been a conflict of interest reflected in a breach of trust by one acting in a fiduciary capacity there has been, and is, a right of action in civil law. But when we come to take from the civil law certain acts and brand them as being so evil in their nature that they should be characterized as criminal offences liable to the penalties of criminal as well as of civil law, I think we must be precise and accurate in our definitions. We must recall that a crown prosecutor called upon to seek a conviction under a section of the Crimial Code has the onus of proving his case beyond any reasonable doubt, and I think it would be most difficult for a crown prosecutor faced with the necessity of asking a jury to return a verdict of guilty to succeed, having regard to the wording which is now used in this measure.
The complexity of the world today makes for so many forms of inter-relationship between people, social, moral and legal that the wording used by the hon. member would, I fear, place a great burden upon the law officers of the crown if it were allowed to become part of the criminal law.


John James Greene: First I should like to say that the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) certainly does have one distinction. I think he has established 20220-5674
Criminal Code
it for himself by this bill. He is undoubtedly the only member of parliament-his claim to fame may be slight-who may be recorded in the annals of parliament for one thing, namely as being the only man ever to introduce two bills in the same private members' hour. It may be a small claim to fame-


Douglas Mason Fisher: It would have been only one, but for you. ,


John James Greene: It matters little to us on this side of the house whether the hon. member hangs himself on the Judas tree or whether he does away with himself by an overdose of the King's evil. Whichever it is, we would be quite satisfied. I was disturbed by the admonitions of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn), that if this bill were passed the hon. member for Port Arthur would have to give up one or other of his vocations. I, personally, enjoy reading his column. There have been some very prominent people mentioned in that column. I had the unfortunate experience of using his column as part of my election literature in a recent ill-fated campaign in which I participated, and I was assured by my supporters that the use of the hon. member's column was the very thing which finished once and for all my chances of success in that campaign, and I never read it thereafter. Nevertheless, I personally miss his column. The unfortunate thing would be that if the hon. member were to lose his seat I know he would never gain a place in the press gallery, from his standing with that honourable body of gentlemen, and we would therefore be obliged to do without his column. So I sincerely hope this bill will not pass and that the hon. member will be able to continue bringing a little ray of sunshine into many lives in many places.
I would add one or two words with regard to the general tenor of the bill. I agree with the hon. member for Carleton, that its provisions are too sweeping having regard to the ends which are sought. To this extent it is typical of socialist solutions. With one fell swoop they would cure all the ills of the world. Here they are trying to cure a broad area of ills by one paragraph in one bill. I do agree that in this day and time there is a great need for the protection of the individual citizen in many areas against those in corporate positions of power whether in government or in business. There is talk of legislation to protect consumers. If members wish to talk about an individual citizen in this area as a consumer, it might be good terminology. I think we have done a very
8966	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
bad job of protecting the individual against big corporations, be they business or government. I think the securities legislation which was referred to by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) is a good example of our failure to protect the individual against the organized corporate entities which are to be found in our society. I think that in the United States of America, since the antitrust laws of Teddy Roosevelt they have done a much better job in this area than we have. Even though we have fallen foul of unhappy constitutional interpretations which make action difficult at the federal level, it is my hope that the general thought behind the hon. member's bill, namely that the public generally should be protected from abuse by corporate bodies so that the private enterprise system may operate fairly, is a commendable one and that what the hon. member is trying to achieve, though in a most ineffective way, if I may say so-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The private members' hour has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the acting leader of the house tell us the business for next week?


George James McIlraith: I can give the business for Tuesday. I am sorry I cannot go beyond that at the moment. Before doing so I should like

to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the motion standing on the order paper providing for an adjournment on Monday now becomes redundant and will not appear on the order paper next week. I do not believe I need consent to withdraw it; I can do so by giving notice to the clerk. In any event, I give the house such notice.
On Tuesday the first item of business will be item 49 on today's order paper, second reading of an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act. The next will be item 7, the resolution on the measure to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. The third item of business will be item 39 seeking approval of convention No. Ill concerning discrimination in respect of employment and occupation which was adopted by the international labour conference on June 25, 1958. The fourth item of business will be item 77 on today's order paper, which is second reading of Bill No. C-126, an act respecting hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings and businesses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being after six o'clock, and pursuant to standing order 2, section 4 adopted this day, this house stands adjourned until 2.30 o'clock on the afternoon of Tuesday next.


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


[Stage Direction]
October 1, 1964.
Dear Mr. Chance,
I have the honour to advise you that the governments of the United States and Canada have been informed that the waters crossing the international boundary in the Red river are polluted by sewage and industrial wastes. Having in mind the provisions of article IV of the boundary waters treaty signed January 11, 1909, that boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other side, the two governments have agreed upon a joint reference of the matter to the international joint commission, pursuant to the provisions of article IX of said treaty. The commission requested to inquire into and report to the two governments upon the following questions:
(1)	Are the waters referred to in the preceding paragraph being polluted on either side of the international boundary to an extent which is causing, or likely to cause, injury to health or property on the other side of the boundary?
(2)	If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, to what extent, by what causes, and in what localities is such pollution taking place?
(3)	If the commission should find that pollution of the character just referred to is taking place, what remedial measures would, in its judgment, be most practicable from the economic, sanitary and other points of view and what would be the probable cost thereof?
For the purpose of assisting the commission in making the investigation and recommendations provided for in this reference, the two governments will, upon request, make available to the commission the services of engineers and other specially qualified personnel of their governmental agencies, and such information and technical data as may have been acquired by such agencies or as may be acquired by them during the course of the investigation.
It would be appreciated if the commission would submit its report and recommendations to the two governments as soon as practicable.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Martin
Mr. D. G. Chance, Secretary,
Canadian Section,
International Joint Commission,
303 Fuller Building,
75 Albert Street,
Ottawa.
[Stage Direction]


Tuesday, October 13, 1984