1965-05-20

Mr. Speaker:: This House is honoured today by the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of His Imperial Majesty the Shahanshah of Iran and the Empress Farah Pahlavi.
Their Imperial Majesties are paying a most welcome one week visit to Canada as official guests of this country. The purpose of this royal visit is to strengthen the links between Canada, as a representative member of the western community of nations, and the State of Iran.
I am sure I speak for all hon. Members of this House in expressing to His Imperial Majesty our admiration for the courageous and unprecedented steps he has taken toward the social betterment of his own people, particularly in the highly important area of education and in the vital field of land reform.

Knowing that Their Majesties have also an admirable command of French, perhaps I might be allowed to say a few words in that language to convey our very special thanks to Her Imperial Majesty Farah Pahlavi, whose vernal charm is bringing us a living image of the Orient.

May I extend to Their Imperial Majesties the felicitations of this House and the sincere hope that they will take home with them nothing but pleasurable memories of this country and its people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, asking him whether it is a fact that he and his Department authorized
the refusal of a request for an honour guard of six sailors for the funeral of Vice Admiral H. T. W. Grant, C.B.E., D.S.O., in Ottawa on the ground that in his will he had requested that his casket be draped with the White Ensign under which he had served in two wars?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. The funeral was private, but servicemen were permitted to take time off to attend the funeral in uniform. Because it was a private funeral, active service participation by a detail was not involved.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister saying that there was no request for official participation by officers and ratings of the navy, and that such a request did not come to the attention of his Department?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would not say that, Mr. Speaker. The question was raised, but the decision was that in so far as private funerals are concerned participation would be on a voluntary basis as against the participation which would be the case if it were a military funeral.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we have made some advance in that last answer. What discussions took place? I have asked a simple question. Was there a request to have officers and ratings of the Navy present at a normal military funeral and was that considered by the Minister or the Government?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the question was raised.


John George Diefenbaker: Raised by whom?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I don't know. The question was raised, and the policy is that if it is a private funeral participation of members of the armed forces, either in civilian clothes or in uniform as they choose, is on a voluntary basis. However it was not, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested in his last question, a military funeral; consequently participation on a basis other than voluntary was not authorized.


John George Diefenbaker: The answer still seems very equivocal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

May 20, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I know it does not to the Minister of Justice, because he always evades. I would ask this question. Was the question raised as to there being an official funeral in the full military sense? Was that raised at all?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not with me, Mr. Speaker.



REPORTED INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A MOBILE COMMAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['They have been more successful on moonshine.']
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the Minister enlighten the House about the intention, if it exists, to establish a mobile command consisting of various elements of the Canadian armed forces, as reported in the press?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we can make a formal announcement in respect of the entire command structure of the armed forces some time early in June. This will be the next major step in the integration of the armed forces. It is well ahead of schedule. I would not wish to make any comment on speculative news stories in the meantime.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has anything to report on the happenings in the Dominican Republic. He said yesterday he might have such a report today. I am sure all Members have been disturbed by the report from Santo Domingo which appeared this morning by Martin Arnold, who is a reporter for the New York Times service. He says that American paratroopers are now firing on the rebels and that they are denying rebel forces the opportunity to retire through the safety corridor while at the same time allowing troops under the command of the military junta to go through the American lines. This is disturbing information. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs has any report to give to the House.


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been following the situation as closely as changing events in that besieged
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
country permit at the moment. As I intimated the other day, the Government has sent a senior officer of my Department, Mr. Gauvin, to supplement the activities of our mission which is headed by a charge d'affaires.
Mr. Gauvin has had lengthy discussions with General Imbert and with Colonel Caamano. He has also had discussions with the British mission, with the French and Israeli ambassadors, in addition to other missions. Naturally he has had talks with the American ambassador and he has seen the Papal Nuncio, the dean of the diplomatic corps, who, as the House knows, has played a very active role in developments in Santo Domingo. Mr. Gauvin has also had talks with the Chairman of the Organization of American States commission which is attempting to work toward a political solution. He has had discussions with General Rikhye who is heading the United Nations observer group until such time as the representative of the Secretary General reaches the Dominican Republic.
Today's news of the situation in that country is conflicting, and I would prefer to have today's events assessed and analysed before I make any observations in the House. But I may say that both the Caamano regime and the Imbert regime have sought recognition from other countries, including Canada. The Prime Minister stated on May 11 that he did not consider Colonel Caamano had established a claim for recognition. We have since received a request for recognition from General Imbert. We feel that the situation there is such that neither regime warrants recognition by Canada until the situation takes on a much more stabilized character than at the present time.
In his report of yesterday our special representative stressed the need for a stricter observance of the cease fire which was earlier negotiated by the Organization of American States and which has been reiterated by the Secretary General of the United Nations, and indeed by the security council. The Organization of American States has asked the security council to take no action in the matter at the present time in the hope that, being on the ground, it might be able to assist in bringing about some accommodation and perhaps a cease fire, which thus far it has not succeeded in doing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Organization of American States mission has now returned to Washington, and in view of the
May 20, 1SG5	COMMONS
fact that the personal representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations has been told by General Imbert that the latter has no intention of accepting a cease fire because he is now on the verge of victory,
I should like to ask if any representations are being made by the Canadian Government to the United States authorities asking them, first, to support an arrangement for a cease fire; and second, to desist from any military assistance or co-operation which they may be giving to the military junta.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: The Canadian Ambassador at the United Nations has seen the Secretary General and has assured him of Canada's strong support for action designed to lead to the cease fire which he has been endeavouring, through his representative, to arrange. I have had discussions here with officials from the United States Embassy, as has our embassy in Washington, and I would hope that the growing dangers of this situation can be arrested.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: May
I ask a supplementary question. Should we assume from the Minister's answer that the Government, at this time, has no criticism to offer of the invasion of the Dominican Republic by United States authorities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend would be incorrect in concluding that Canada was taking any action that would lead to the exacerbation of that situation.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: In view of the fact that on Saturday private meetings have been arranged between the Secretary General U Thant, the Prime Minister, the Minister of External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence, can the Minister of External Affairs inform us whether the Dominican Republic problem is on the agenda for discussion, and whether Canada has some positive suggestions to make at that time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Secretary General will be here on Saturday at the invitation of the Prime Minister. He and the Prime Minister will be going to Kingston that day. We will be taking advantage of the presence of U Thant to discuss current and other problems having to do with the United Nations.
DEBATES	1499
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put to the Prime Minister a question which has to do with the artificial seeding of clouds to stimulate precipitation in the Saguenay-Lake St. John and Abitibi areas.
Could the Prime Minister take in hand consideration of that problem and solve it through the Department of National Health and Welfare, since the operation of those rain-making machines is a health hazard for the people of those areas, or through the Department of Transport, since aircraft are used in that connection, or else through the Department of Justice, since the legality of those operations is questionable?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I have already discussed this problem in which my hon. friend is so interested with the Minister of Transport, who I think can say something about it.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that the day before yesterday the hon. Member for Labelle asked a question about these rain making activities, and the hon. gentleman then asked a question about the hazard to health resulting from them. While I have not yet had any formal report as a result of the conversations I had with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is unfortunately absent today, I am seeking to pursue that aspect of the subject.
I think I should clear up one point. It is true that in 1963 the Department of Transport did complete an experiment in rain making techniques by actual field operations in an area along the Ontario-Quebec border near Rouyn-Noranda. That was completed in 1963, after two or three years of experiments. The results of this scientific test have been under careful analysis since that time, and in due course they will be communicated to the scientific world through the usual channels.
That is the only respect in which the federal Government has anything to do with these activities, and it does appear that there is some question as to whether we have any jurisdiction in this matter under any law

May 20, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry that now exists. It is true that the Air Transport Board has jurisdiction generally over aviation, but whether the present jurisdiction could be stretched into this field without further amendment of the law, I would not like to hazard an opinion without consulting the law officers.
It is also true, moreover, that it does not require aircraft to carry out these rain making experiments. They can be done in other ways that I am afraid do not come under the control of Parliament, but the general conclusion that has been reached from the experiments that were concluded in 1963 is that these efforts to make rain do not really produce very much rain.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Those machines produced quite enough rain last year in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area. As a matter of fact, figures show there were 67 consecutive days of rain,
I put this question to the Minister of Justice. Did he receive a brief from the Saguenay-Lake St. John region concerning the operations of companies using rain-making machines? Furthermore, would he examine the bill of rights to determine whether such operations do not run counter to the essential rights of citizens living in that area?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question put to me by the hon. member the other day, I answered that if we were given the facts I would have them looked into by officials of my department and then I would perhaps be in a position to give an opinion.
As far as the brief referred to by the hon. member is concerned, I did not read it yet, but when I do examine it I will have of course to ascertain whether a complete picture is presented and whether the facts I have asked him to submit are given; I will be in a position to report to the house. [Text]
Hon, Paul Marlineau (Ponfiac-Temisca-mingue): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. He has just admitted that his efforts to make rain have been unsuccessful. Can he say whether the Government's efforts to make sunshine have been any more successful?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Government's efforts to make sunshine have been so successful that hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to be very anxious to challenge the Government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: They have been more successful on moonshine.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any foundation for the press suggestion that instead of requiring inspection as to the use of the uranium to be sold to the Republic of France, if the transaction goes through, a change of policy is going to be followed in regard to sales of uranium to Great Britain and the United States which will hereafter not be subject to inspection?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. This matter is under consideration, as my right hon. friend knows, and the question of safeguards is very much in our minds in that consideration, and the application of those safeguards.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say whether the stand of the Government of Canada is very definite, that there will not be sales of uranium to the Republic of France unless the fullest inspection is assured, to the end that the uranium shall be used for peaceful purposes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have made the position of the Government perfectly clear on this matter on a number of occasions; that we have certain international commitments which we have accepted, and we propose to discharge those commitments in any arrangements we make.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the right hon. Prime Minister assure the house that France will be offered the same terms as those offered to England and the United States and that, consequently, France will be considered as an allied country on the same basis as England and the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt with that question. I have nothing further to add.
May 20. 1965



AVAILABILITY OF TOURIST LITERATURE ON WEEK ENDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity of directing a question directly to you, but I know that under our procedures I cannot do so. I therefore want to ask you this question through the House Leader of the Government, the President of the Privy Council.
Will the hon. gentleman tell us why the Queen's Printer is sabotaging the depot established in the name of the Speaker with regard to the distribution of literature and photographic material in the House of Commons?
I say "sabotaging" because the Queen's Printer has instructed that this depot shall only be open Monday through Friday and shall be closed on Saturdays and Sundays. He has instructed it shall not be open this week end on Saturday, Sunday or Monday, and there will not be the availability there is now in respect of literature and photographic supplies.
I ask this question because I have just completed a study as to who come into the House of Commons. Sir, it runs into thousands every week end. The Queen's Printer has ordered that the supply of literature shall not be available and the depot shall not be open this holiday week end on Saturday, Sunday or Monday. I would like to ask whether this sabotage could be stopped immediately.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much interested in the dissertation of the hon. Member with regard to the visitors who come into this building. I know nothing whatever about the other subject matter he has mentioned. I do not accept, of course, the charge that the Queen's Printer has sabotaged anything, but I will look into the whole matter and try to find out, from reading the hon. Member's statement, what it is he is inquiring about and will give him an answer.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that it will be closed on Saturday, Sunday and Monday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the answer is really rather simple. With the full co-operation of the Queen's Printer and the consent of the Speaker of the House of Commons an experimental bureau has been opened. Due to the fine weather this year the tourist season is about a month ahead of normal. I feel quite sure that after a few 22620-971

Inquiries of the Ministry days of experimentation the Queen's Printer will come to the point where he realizes that in giving service to the public he will keep the bureau open over the week end.


Harold Edward Winch: Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the order was that it should not be open on Saturday, Sunday or Monday next?



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question
to the Secretary of State?
In view of the fact that the Ottawa Citizen in this afternoon's issue writes that the minister made or is about to make an important statement concerning the centennial commission, and in view of the fact that the centennial commissioner, Mr. Fisher, complains about a lack of liaison between himself and the minister, could the minister make his statement now and tell us particularly if this liaison has now been re-established?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to answer today the questions asked a few days ago by the hon. members for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) and Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas).
I hope that the hon. member will allow me to answer to everyone in English.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I have met Mr. Fisher-


Mr. Aiken:: Who introduced you?


Maurice Lamontagne: -and that the meetings were very cordial, frank and, I suggest, constructive. We discussed the press allegations of dissatisfaction at the Centennial Commission. Mr. Fisher informed me that he believed that any present difficulties were certainly not unsolvable. I have asked him to confer with his senior officers and to report to me at the earliest opportunity.
We also discussed certain staff problems to which reference was made in the press. I hope Members of the House will agree that the terminable nature and urgent pressures of the Commission create special problems that are not found in the more normal or permanent departments of Government. I want to assure the staff of the Commission that everything
May 20, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry will be done to ensure that they suffer no hardship or sudden break in employment when their task has been accomplished.
Despite these difficulties the Centennial Commission has a creditable record of programs. I hope hon. Members will avail themselves of my offer to have senior staff officers review the centennial program with them. In a speech to the National Conference on the Centennial in Regina on May 12, 1965, before these alleged difficulties were reported to me, I had especially singled out the Commissioner, the Associate Commissioner-and the whole staff of the Centennial Commission for the outstanding services they were performing under such pressures that human sensibilities were often disregarded. At my meeting with Mr. Fisher I was pleased to reiterate these sentiments.
The planning phase of such a major undertaking is not easy. The sorting, selection and establishing of priorities is now almost completed, and as the Commission moves into the implementation period there should be less frustration. I sometimes wonder if the people of Canada realize the staggering complexities of trying to plan, co-ordinate and implement a year-long celebration from coast to coast. Out of all this there are bound to be mistakes, misses, misunderstandings and indeed misrepresentations.
It is my wish, and Mr. Fisher confirms this hope, that we will have a stirring Centennial, and that this splendid occasion will make Canada a better and stronger country.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
In view of the rather long list of difficulties and frustrations that seem to have existed for some time within the commission, according to the statement the minister just made, could he confirm whether it is a fact that he met the commissioner only once in the last four months as reported in today's Ottawa Citizen?


Maurice Lamontagne: Following the appointment of Mr. Georges Gauthier, there was, between Mr. Fisher and Mr. Gauthier, and on their own accord, a division of responsibilities. Mr. Gauthier took mostly responsibility over internal administration of the commission while Mr. Fisher was to spend most of his time to promote across the country the participation and co-operation of citizens and organizations in our centennial celebration.
[Mr. Lamontagne.I
It was following that new division of responsibilities that I did not see Mr. Fisher at the meetings we normally held but that I met with Mr. Gauthier and the other members of the staff. As far as I am concerned, I never refused, at any time, to meet Mr. Fisher and to discuss with him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister whether the newspaper reports to the effect that the Commissioner has repeatedly tried to see the Minister since the first of the year but without any success are correct?


Maurice Lamontagne: They are completely without foundation, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement by the Minister that he was not aware of any problems existing until after he had made his remarks in Regina, do we interpret the Minister correctly that he was not really informed about the situation in the Commission until these reports were published in the newspapers and these facts of dissension were brought to light?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was in Regina for two days and was in constant touch with the Commissioner and the Associate Commissioner, and nobody reported to me any special difficulties.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question.


Mr. Hamilton:: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does seem to me that the last two questions were out of order under the terms of the rules given to me by the House, namely that Members should not inquire whether statements made in newspapers are correct. However I thought, in order to get a definite answer, that they should be allowed, but it does seems to me the Minister has now answered very definitely.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the question I ask will not be out of order. May I ask the Minister whether he knows of any pending resignations among senior officials of the Commission?


Maurice Lamontagne: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that another employee may resign to take another job.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view
May 20, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1503
of the obvious implications of the Minister's statement today and in view of the fact that these questions are developing into a debate, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could not now give us some assurance that we will have not a regular standing committee of the House look into the matter but a special committee appointed, so we could question not only the minister but the officials of the Centennial Commission to make certain that this very important Commission be put on to the straight and narrow as soon as possible.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the implications drawn by my hon. friend, which he considers obvious, are those drawn by himself and no special arrangements, I think, are required to deal with this matter.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have one supplementary question which I should like to ask the Secretary of State. I understood him to suggest last week when this question was raised that he would welcome or would go along with the idea of Members of the House who are interested in Centennial work meeting with Centennial officials. I wonder whether he would undertake to give a lead in organizing this, or setting a date, or getting the mechanics working for such a meeting.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, if the whips of the different parties would supply me with the names of their respective Members interested in hearing the staff of the Commission on the programs of the Centennial celebrations, I would be very willing to arrange a meeting.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare but in her absence I will direct it to her Parliamentary Secretary. Will Canada support the recently announced international agency for research on cancer to be set up by the World Health Organization assembly in Geneva?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this question to the attention of the Minister on her return.
Inquiries of the Ministry RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS FOLLOWING CHINESE NUCLEAR TESTS
On the orders of the day:


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in her absence perhaps the Acting Minister will take it as notice and provide an answer tomorrow. Is the Minister in a position to report now as to whether there has been any increase in airborne radioactivity over Canada as a result of the recent Chinese nuclear tests?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice and bring it to the attention of the Minister on her return.



ACTION TO MEET SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Eloise Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in her absence I think the question is of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the Prime Minister. It is not a question that has anything to do with sunshine or rain, and I think there should have been enough prayer about it, but I hope it will receive the Prime Minister's tender loving care and action. In view of the fact that in contrast to our very high standard of living in Canada we have in this country fewer medical practitioners per patients than at least 20 other countries in the world, will the Government act immediately to launch a very urgently needed new Government aid program for the expansion of medical schools in this country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be glad to give this question the care to which my hon. friend refers, and I am also glad to inform her that the whole question of Government assistance to higher education, which is under the control of the Provinces, is now receiving very active consideration. I believe that consideration will result in decisions, and I hope the right kind of decisions, as soon as we have been able to obtain the report of the Bladen Commission set up by the universities, which is dealing with this matter also.


Eloise May Jones: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he does not think some action should be taken before next fall, when the report of the Bladen Commission is to be submitted.

May 20. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know the need is very great, and I hope the report of the Commission will be received by the Government before next fall in time for consideration.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister received information yet that construction of the special research hospital at the University of British Columbia, to which this Government has contributed some $4 million, has commenced?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into that question. I appreciate my hon. friend's interest in it.



BICULTURALISM AND BILINGUALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyaclnthe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Could he tell the house whether Mr. Paul Lacoste, a lawyer, is still co-secretary of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I must point out to the hon. member that the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, like all other royal commissions, comes under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In that case I shall put my question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether Mr. Paul Lacoste, a lawyer, is still co-secretary of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission?
[T ext]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries and see whether there has been any change lately in the Commission staff.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. It is prompted by the tremendously important announcement that an automobile ferry service across the English Channel by Hovercraft at a speed of 80 miles an hour is soon to be inaugurated. Can the Minister advise whether the Government's consideration

of a similar service across the Northumberland Strait is responsible for the current delay in the filing of the second phase of the report on the Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick causeway?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the Government is giving more consideration to a passage across Northumberland Strait which will be entirely dry, but we will be glad to look into the Hovercraft suggestion as well.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, a brief supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether I should draw from his answer the conclusion that up until now his Department has not done any investigation into the possible uses of modem means of and modern developments in transportation such as Hovercraft?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Speaker. I think my answer was perhaps a little unfortunately worded, because we have been giving the closest possible attention to the development of Hovercraft not merely in relation to the Northumberland Strait but also in relation to many other Canadian waters; and I believe my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence has also been examining the problem.



WHEAT-POSSIBLE PRICE REDUCTION IN SALE TO RED CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfort-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence perhaps I can direct it to the Prime Minister. Rumours persist that the Chinese are pressing for a price reduction-
Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Rapp:: -in the negotiations presently under way in Hong Kong. Since both France and Australia are competing for this business, would the Prime Minister not look into this question and instruct the Minister, who is presently in Hong Kong, not to reduce prices on wheat?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, these negotiations are going on and I do not think it would be very helpful if I were to discuss them in the House while they are in progress. I am sure we are aware of the importance of the consideration attached to this by my hon. friend.
May 20. 1965



EXTENSION TO OTHER INDUSTRIES OF AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister said on Tuesday night when speaking in Ingersoll that the Canadian-U.S. free trade car treaty might well be extended to other industries. Would the Minister advise the House what industries he had in mind, and would the furniture industry be one of them?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is misinformed as to exactly what I said. I will be pleased to send him a copy of my speech.


Mr. Hales:: I have a supplementary question. The Minister is reported in the May 9 edition of London Free Press as having said:
Canada's automotive industry pact with the U.S. may well be extended to other Canadian industries, said National Revenue Minister E. J. Benson here last night.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I hate to use the term, but I was misquoted. I will be pleased to send my hon. friend a copy of my speech so he can see exactly what I did say.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. My question is based on a disturbing, though not surprising, report in yesterday's Halifax Chronicle-Herald, under the headline "Minister at odds with Air Chief". In view of the fact that this article says "Transport Minister Pickersgill stood at direct odds with Canada's Director of Civil Aviation"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. Member please ask his question rather than giving too many particular facts?


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I was more or less laying a foundation for the enlightenment of the Minister. This article concerns whether idle precision approach radar equipment, with which the Minister is familiar, has any effect on "safety conditions".


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: Will the Minister now agree to make a full, prepared and considered statement to the House covering all aspects of the situation at the Halifax International Airport to allay the concern and alarm of the travelling public?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think that is not a bad suggestion and I will give consideration to it. But I do want to emphasize once more that there was no controversy whatever between the Director of Civil Aviation and myself with regard to safety at the Halifax airport. I should not like anyone to think there has been, because I have given no assurance of any kind to the House which I did not receive from the Director of Civil Aviation.


Robert Muir: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, but before asking it I should like to thank the Minister for his reply. In view of the fact that Mr. Goodwin, to whom we referred, has been quoted as saying that he personally recognizes the value of a precision approach radar system and has "fought" to have it installed at various Canadian airports, will the Minister have a study made to satisfy himself and the travelling public that there is no skimping or delay in installing the best, most modern and most complete equipment available at Canadian airports?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very glad to do that, but I do not believe there are any delays.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as mother-possibly unmarried mother-of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. What steps has the electoral boundaries commission for British Columbia taken to assure that interested parties such as town councils and chambers of commerce have the right to make representations to the commission?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Will the Minister indicate in what weekly newspapers the commissioner has advertised, in view of the fact that weekly newspapers are very good sources of public information in British Columbia which should be used to the fullest-

May 20, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. Member put this important question on the order paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I should perhaps clear up one point.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear on a question of privilege that I am not an unmarried mother but a virgin in respect of this matter, and that any question of this kind should be directed to the Secretary of State.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the fact that time is running out for interested parties to submit their names, I should like to debate this at ten o'clock.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Has he received a copy of the magazine Aujourd'hui Quebec in which there is an article on the C.B.C. entitled "A crown corporation in bad condition"?
If so, does he intend to deal with the matter as a result of this report?
Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of
State): No, Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF CIGARETTE ADVERTISING FROM PROGRAMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Has the Minister yet received a reply from the C.B.C. to the question I raised a week or two ago with regard to the policy of the C.B.C. on the acceptance of cigarette advertising?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In reply to this question I have been informed that the Corporation has considered its position as to the banning of cigarette advertising on its radio and television stations. It has, for the

time being, decided that a ban on C.B.C. stations alone could well be meaningless unless cigarette advertising was similarly curtailed not only by privately owned stations and other advertising media in Canada but in the United States as well. While the issue is still in an unsettled state, the Corporation feels that it is justified in continuing to accept, after careful scrutiny, advertising that meets not only the code adopted by the Canadian tobacco manufacturers but C.B.C. advertising standards as well.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which should perhaps be directed to the Minister of Agriculture, but because of the importance of this subject I should like to direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
My question relates to a statement emanating from Washington to the effect that the United States soon may have to decide whether to close its borders to cattle from Canada because of foot-and-mouth disease. This is a direct result of the Canadian Government allowing the importation of breeding cattle from foreign countries where this disease is currently not under control.
Will the Prime Minister indicate whether the Government is taking or intends to take action to prevent the importation of these cattle, so this traditional United States market will remain open to Canadian producers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member has asked a question dealing with a very important matter and I will certainly be glad to look into it at once. This is the first I have heard about this subject.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement made recently by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources at the fourth plenary session of the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers in Victoria, B.C., concerning the enactment of a Canada Wildlife Act, can the Prime Minister say whether it is
May 20, 1965	COMMONS
the intention of the Government to introduce such legislation during this session of Parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the Government in this matter will be made known in due course, but I do not contemplate any enactment of this kind at least during the first part of this session.


Robert Simpson: I have a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister realize that the Minister of Northern Affairs established the urgency in this regard when he stated:
At the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers meeting in June 1964 it was agreed that there are urgent wildlife problems demanding immediate attention.
The first and foremost of these problems which demands immediate attention was stated by the Minister to be the enactment of a Canada Wildlife Act.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the matter is important and urgent, but there are other matters equally important and urgent, and there is a matter of priority involved.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO PRESENT POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can tell the House what is the present status of the Federal-Provincial Conference which was to be convened on May 31 of this year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. At the moment we are awaiting replies from the provinces in regard to the suggestion which was made recently in a letter I wrote, that because of the reasons I indicated in that letter they might see fit to postpone the Conference for a few weeks in order that the additional items proposed for the agenda could be considered, and so that the Premier of British Columbia, who has some important ideas about Federal-Provincial relationships, could be in Ottawa to present them to us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. If this correspondence with the provinces is going to result in a delay of any length, will the Government consider calling the Conference to deal with the questions that have been set down for
DEBATES	1507
Inquiries of the Ministry discussion such as medicare, the Canada Assistance Plan and a few others?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope in any event that if there is a delay it will be very short.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: I have a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories have been invited to participate as observers at this forthcoming Conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it has been anticipated, and it will be arranged, that they should be represented at the Conference in an observer capacity as part of the Federal delegation.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister received any objections from the Premier of the Province of British Columbia to the postponement of this Conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Only in the press, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has his Department received any complaints from trade union officers concerning false information about employment opportunities in British Columbia being given out by the officers of the United Kingdom department?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been drawn in a letter from a union official to a newspaper article, in which the matter in question was mentioned. I might say that I question the accuracy of some of the statements contained in that newspaper article, but I have asked for a more complete report as to the real facts.



INQUIRY AS TO WHITE PAPER AND AMENDMENT OF ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In

May 20, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry view of the statement made by the Minister, can he inform the House whether there will be a White Paper on the question of immigration or simply a straight bill? If it is to be a straight bill, in view of the Minister's various public statements on changes in the Immigration Act that might be beneficial to the Chinese people, may I ask him whether the bill will be delayed because of a recommendation that the Chinese in his riding be transferred to the constituency of Vancouver East?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that there will be no delay by reason of the suggestion contained in the last part of his remarks. Regarding the first part of the question, I can only repeat to the House the assurance that I gave some months ago-shortly after I took office in fact-that a White Paper will be prepared and submitted to this House pursuant to the assurance given by the Prime Minister last December. The matter is receiving the highest priority in the Department and, as I said here only last week, I am hopeful that the White Paper will be completed not later than August. It will then be referred to a parliamentary committee for study before any legislation or biR is introduced.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, on this very important matter. By the way, Sir, may I say again, as I have said before, that I honour the integrity and sincerity of the hon. Member who has taken over the immigration portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: When you find a Member, no matter who he is, doing a job I think it is only right that you should say so, and I am always prepared to do so. Do I understand from the Minister that the White Paper will not be submitted before August of this year? If that is the case it will be the end of this year or next year before any changes in the Immigration Act are recommended.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The Government's ideas and suggestions will be contained in the White Paper. I think many of the subjects relating to conditions of admission of immigrants to this country deserve very careful consideration by the Members of the House. According to my present thinking the paper will propose definite changes or suggestions of change, not all of which have been discussed as yet with my colleagues in the Government, although some have. These matters

all merit very serious consideration before the White Paper containing the Government's ideas can be placed before the House. I said as far back as two months ago that it would be about three or four months before we would complete our research and be able to put a comprehensive White Paper before the House so the matter can be dealt with intelligently.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand that the Minister does not anticipate presenting the actual amending bill this session?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when we present the actual amending bill will depend upon how long the committee takes to consider the White Paper. We want the views of Members of a committee of this House before we bring in any bill proposing legislation.



REPORTED DENIAL OF ENTRY OF FIVE U.S. CITIZENS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to cut off any hon. Member, but the question before us is how to speed up our procedural activities. I was wondering if the question of the hon. Member was so pressing it could not wait until tomorrow. He will have to decide that for himself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is a pressing question. I wanted to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if it is correct that five United States citizens who were seeking admission to Canada at Douglas, B.C., for the purpose of taking part in a peace demonstration were denied admission to this country by his Department.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am glad the hon. Member asked this question because some communications on the subject have been received and I have had occasion to look into it. My reply might be somewhat lengthy, but I think the circumstances merit it.
On Monday afternoon, May 17, five United States citizens attempted to enter Canada at the port of Douglas. The usual inquiries were conducted by an officer of my department and the applicants stated that they wished to join a peace march that was being organized to protest against certain installations at Comox, B.C. All the individuals concerned were unemployed. Some of them seemed to
May 20. 1965	COMMONS
be without much in the way of funds. They were subjected to the usual questioning prescribed by the Immigration Act and they withdrew their applications and returned to the United States.
At four o'clock on the morning of Wednesday, May 19, the same five people appeared in an automobile at another border port, a few miles away, and when they were subjected to the same type of questioning they again withdrew.
At five o'clock in the afternoon on Wednesday, May 19, this group reappeared at the Douglas immigration office. This was their second visit to Douglas. They were asked by my departmental officials to come into the immigration office for questioning because it was raining. They refused to come in but stretched out on the tarmac in front of the building. After lying in the rain for some hours the applicants did come into the building. All five were interviewed. These facts came to light as a result of the investigations.
One member of the group is a 22 year old unemployed citizen of the United States. He was refused admission and ordered deported by the officers of my department. He was refused admission and ordered deported first because in 1958 he threw a seven year old girl from a rooftop and killed her. He was certified as insane and placed in a state hospital. Later he was released and charged with murder, convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. He admitted that he was a parole violator, and naturally his admission was refused by my officers.
Another one in the same party, also 22 years old and who seemed to be the ringleader, had a police record in the United States dating back to July, 1963. He had been convicted and confined to a county jail for some time, for being a public nuisance. He had been certified as being mentally and morally unfit for military service in the United States. He gave his occupation as that of a professional marcher and stated that he had participated in marches in the United States, Russia and Mexico. He also was refused admission because of his record.
A third one had only $2 in his possession and he also admitted to a criminal record having been convicted and sentenced to from two to five years in Detroit, Michigan. He had served two years for carrying concealed weapons and he was also an admitted user of marijuana.
Some lion. Members: More, more.
DEBATES	1509
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There are two others in somewhat the same category. One of them had about $10 in his possession. He was refused admission on the ground he was likely to become a public charge and that he was not a bona fide non-immigrant. The fifth one stated that he did not actually know the purpose of his trip to Canada when he started out on it.
I think this certainly is one case, and I have come across many more, where the officers of the Department of Immigration are to be commended for their actions.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Labour. I had given notice of the question to the Minister of Industry but he has now left the House. What I should like to know is, what is the position of the strike at Canadair at the present time, and what are the possibilities for settlement? I ask this question because of the fact that layoffs are taking place at an aircraft plant in my constituency which has contracts with Canadair.


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem to me this is a detailed question requiring considerable research, and it should be put on the order paper.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Industry but perhaps it can be taken as notice by the Acting Minister. I should like the Minister to report on his meeting yesterday with the Canadian Shipbuilders Association from the point of view of new navy work and conversion work, and with particular reference to whether tenders will be called on a regional or national basis. Perhaps this question could be taken as notice and a report given tomorrow.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary

May 20, 19B5
Inquiries of the Ministry of State relating to a question I posed to him on May 6, which he took as notice. I asked him this question:
Does the Government, through the Civil Service Commission, have any policy related to parolees from penal institutions that could assist them in securing employment during their rehabilitation period /
Is the Minister in a position to answer that question today?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have not received the answer from the Civil Service Commission.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the reported statement made by his Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Coast-Capilano. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the hon. Member was speaking on behalf of the Government in announcing a new policy with respect to the construction of small boat harbours, as reported in British Columbia; and will the Prime Minister be good enough to inform the House of the highlights of this new program, with particular reference to how it may apply to the provision of facilities for pleasure craft?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have been in communication with the hon. Member concerned, my Parliamentary Secretary, who informs me he did not announce any policy on breakwaters or small boat harbours; that he was taking part in a question and answer period at a meeting of ratepayers in West Vancouver; that he discussed the importance of this matter generally and referred to the statement of the Minister of Public Works on May 1, 1964. In that statement the Minister said this matter was under consideration and it is still under consideration. A policy will be announced in due course. It was not announced at the meeting to which my hon. friend refers.
The press report of the remarks of my Parliamentary Secretary also referred to pollution. What he stated on pollution was that he was continuing to press for it and emphasized its importance-


Stanley Howard Knowles: To press for pollution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To press for action in regard to it; that it was receiving active consideration by the Government. He did not say that the Federal Government was going to give any fast tax write-offs in connection with it.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: May I ask a supplementary question. I take it that the Parliament Secretary was grossly misquoted on two important questions.



PROVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ESTIMATES AND ALLOCATION OF TIME

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That this House recognizes the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business;
That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House; and
That, in order to secure improved examination of the details of legislation and of public spending, while maintaining the full authority of the House, this House agrees upon the value of making increased use of Standing Committees;
That this House accordingly orders:
1.	That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 36 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of proceedings on motions "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; supplementary or additional estimates for the financial year; interim supply; and main estimates whether for the coming or the current financial year. That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-two members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon this order, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
2.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read as follow:
Standing Order 15-A
15-A. (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may request that the question of allocation of time for consideration of any item of business or stage thereof be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report, and upon such request being made such question shall stand referred to the committee.
May 20, 19G5	COMMONS
(3)	The Business Committee shall report back to the House on or before the third sitting day following such request.
(4)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has unanimously recommended an allocation of time for the item of business or stage thereof, a Minister of the Crown may without notice propose a motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, for concurrence in the report, and, if agreed to, the motion shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(5)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement or if the committee fails to report within the time specified by Section (3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may give notice that at the next sitting of the House he will move that an order be made allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
(6)	A motion of which a Minister has given notice under Section (5) of this Standing Order shall be made during routine proceedings. Unless the debate on the motion has been previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business in such sitting interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. A motion requesting allocation of time, if agreed to, shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.-
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be of appreciation for the attitude of the House yesterday during my absence on an appointment that was made weeks ago, and the adjournment which made it possible for me to follow the Prime Minister in this most important debate. I regret that I was absent while he made his speech yesterday, and today he did me the courtesy of informing me that he too would be absent when I replied. In his absence some references will not be made to some of the arguments that were advanced, because another opportunity to do so will occur when the debate takes place on the other portion of the proposals of the Government.
I say at once that I have read the Prime Minister's speech with great care. His summary of Parliament was succinct and complete, and in many ways I found it most interesting. However, naturally I do not agree with some of his contentions. I was greatly impressed by his reference to the rules in a hockey game as being comparable to the rules in Parliament.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, what we intend to guard against-using that analogy-is that there would not be much of a hockey game if one side were denied the carrying of hockey sticks. I am afraid that in some particulars
DEBATES	1511
House of Commons Procedures that will be the consequence of the action being taken by the Government in this connection.
I am making no formal speech today. I am going to deal in general with Parliament, with something of the meaning of this institution which so often through the ages has been criticized but still remains the embodiment of the great principles of freedom upon which it was founded.
Many outstanding contributions have been made by publicists to Parliament, but I know of no description of Parliament in more complete form than that by Right Hon. Quintin Hogg, M.P., who gave up his peerage to be in the House of Commons. In his book "The Purpose of Parliament" he said:
.. .Parliament is not like a building designed and constructed by a single architect, such as the Parthenon, St. Paul's Cathedral or the Empire State Building. Parliament resembles rather an ancient family mansion which has been lived in continuously for a period of centuries, and has served the needs of those that have dwelt therein by constantly modifying and adding to its conveniences from generation to generation.
When we speak of Parliament we think of this House as one of the major elements in Parliament. And when we think of the length of time that sessions take today, increasing each year, we begin to realize what the late Sir Winston Churchill meant when he said that if Parliament sits more than five or six months a year the life blood of Parliament is sapped away. I often hear people ask why we don't act in the Parliament of Canada the way they do in the British House of Commons. Those who say that know not the British House of Commons. Why are we so critical of one another? Why is there from time to time interruptions that sometimes deny a Member the opportunity to fully express himself?
Only a few days ago a leading university professor called on me. He advanced this argument and I said I was not particularly impressed with it. I told him I had with me yesterday's London Times and it showed that the day before-incidentally this is within the last month-the Minister of Defence in the United Kingdom had tried for 45 minutes to get the attention of the House and had not succeeded.
What would they say in the Parliament of Canada if someone were to use the expression Winston Churchill once used in his latter years, when he said, as he looked at the government-and I do not know what he would have said if he had looked at this
May 20, 1965

House of Commons Procedures Government-"Mr. Speaker, this is a lousy government," and immediately stated to the Speaker, "Now, before you call me to order, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that this description is not one of vituperative language but of anatomical exactitude."
I have seen the Parliament of Britain over and over again since 1916. Parliament lives in the crucible of strong discussion and effective argument. Parliament lives when you and I speak out for this institution rather than joining with those who, outside of Parliament, depreciate it, and have done so in every generation. One of the great authorities on parliament is Bernard Crick, and in a recent article in the London Observer, entitled "Poor Old Parliament" he wrote:
So frequently we hear it said that certain matters should be taken out of the realm of politics, national defence and social security and so on. What inspires such well meant nonsense is of course, downright distrust of Parliament, but a mistrust based on a misunderstanding.
Then he went on to say something that I think is particularly pertinent today in the light of the change in Parliament since the first world war, that the role of Parliament under modem conditions is best pictured as a permanent election campaign. This, he said, is not weakness as the prissies say, but it is real strength. It does not and could not govern but it controls governments indirectly through its effect on the electorate. Then he said that so often reforms are asked for that, if carried into effect, would place Parliament in the position of being emasculated.
Changes there must be, but the first consideration before all of us should be the preservation of the mission of Parliament. These sops in the form of periodical reforms, according to Bernard Crick, cannot but weaken the institution of Parliament.
I hear it said that Parliament has become ineffective, and people talk about the great old days. Well, I did not see Parliament before 1920 but I have seen it often since, and I heard the greatness of the parliamentarians during the Meighen regime, the latter part of the Borden regime, and so on through the years. There has been no change when you take the picture by and large.
I like to sit in this House and look at young Members coming in, and to listen to their arguments. They may not be particularly eulogistic of me, but I like to hear young men and women in the House showing that leadership and that infusion of new ability that comes from new and young Members in this Chamber.

They say Parliament is ineffective. That is not my view. Parliament is a place where ideas are tested, where in discussion the truth is found so far as humanly possible, and where the faulty is cast aside. End controversy in Parliament and you end Parliament.
Why is there this criticism? One reason is that people do not know what is going on in Parliament; but we down in this part of the Chamber, we who sit as Members, are not to blame. The responsibility is that of the agencies of public information to make available to the public reasonably full information on what is going on. It is so easy today to get wide publicity. If one were to arise in this House and cast some doubt on the paternity of an hon. Member opposite, that would be news; but so often-and I am not speaking of those who have been in Parliament a long time, I am speaking about the average private Member-so often the private Member burning the midnight oil produces a speech that is worthy of the people knowing of it, but there is not even a reference to the fact that the hon. gentleman or the hon. lady spoke.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
You cannot build Parliament that way. They say it is ineffective. I am going to mention something now that will not be as attractive to some Members as what I have just said. One of the most serious things about Parliament today is the absenteeism -and it has grown and grown with the years. You could get away, as a House, with absenteeism when we were getting $4,000, or $6,000 a year; but when we are getting $18,000, and $6,000 free of income tax, there is no justification for continued absence from this chamber.
What is going to happen unless this is remedied-by us, not by the Government? It must be remedied by each and every individual. We are going to place a Member of Parliament in the position of having what they have in the United States Congress, the roll call; and what they have in the Senate today. There will always be good reasons for absences; but Members Cannot justify not being here during the progress of votes when they should be voicing their decision. I make the appeal to reduce absenteeism, and apply it to no section of the House because it is something that applies in general. But I do point out that those who prate of Parliament and what should be done, should know that nothing-this is the way I find it; I
May 20, 1965

do not know how other hon. Members find it-is doing more harm to this institution than absenteeism.
Indeed, one of the interesting things as one reads history is to read the rules of Parliament in 1792 when Upper and Lower Canada joined together under the Constitutional Act. I had those rules, and they disappeared. Those rules of debate were much the same as the rules of debate today, with one exception. In effect the rule was that no Member should absent himself without cause, and when the Speaker noted his absence he should forthwith have him brought to the House by the sheriff.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not advocating that by any means; the sheriffs would be too busy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: But I do say this indicates that when the beginnings of our responsible institutions were being formulated, the subject of attendance was of importance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question? The right hon. gentleman said, if I heard him correctly, "in 1792 when Upper and Lower Canada were united". That was the year after they were divided. It was 1840 when they were united. I was wondering which case the right hon. gentleman was referring to, because I would like to look this up.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in 1791, under the Constitutional Act it was set up, not as a united but as a joint parliament. If the hon. gentleman will look it up and will look up the rules, he will find out that memory sometimes plays tricks, even on the hon. gentleman. I always appreciate any help in that connection.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it has played a trick on the right hon. gentleman, because in 1791 the Province of Quebec was divided into Upper and Lower Canada, and they were not reunited until 1840. That is the question I was putting.


John George Diefenbaker: That is just a play on words, Mr. Speaker, and it also gives the pedantic hon. gentleman the opportunity to reveal that this is the one thing he knows something about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
House of Commons Procedures


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just wanted to know which case the right hon. gentleman was taking.


John George Diefenbaker: This is all in the best of good spirit, Mr. Speaker, and I am very happy for the "assist" that the hon. gentleman is always prepared to give in this connection. This is essential to a successful Parliament, because even Jove-wasn't it Jove-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, did the right hon. gentleman say "Job" or "Joe"?


John George Diefenbaker: We have to watch out, too, that Parliament does not become the plaything of the bureaucrats.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a subject, too, upon which the hon. gentleman can give us first hand information when he speaks. When I look at the Government over there and see the number who were top rank bureaucrats, I immediately ask myself, are they translating that philosophy into the parliamentary rules, by some of these suggested amendments, so they can make short cuts through parliament? We have many of them. We have Mr. Tom Kent. He gets $25,000 a year now to head the war on poverty.


Eric Alfred Winkler: His war on poverty is settled.


John George Diefenbaker: He certainly won his own war on poverty. Then I think of some of these other bureaucrats. They like short cuts through parliamentary procedure. Over and over again-and all history shows this- if a bureaucrat decides he wants to bend parliament to his way of thinking, suggested amendments which would emasculate parliament are sometimes not omitted.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I believe in reform, the need of bringing about changes to meet changing conditions. We did that when I was Prime Minister in the 1960-61 committees. I am not going to read what the present Prime Minister said, but he did say those committees had done good work. I recognize the need for change, provided that we weigh the results of these changes, not after the event but before the event. Parliamentary procedure represents the wisdom of generations. It is designed to achieve the objective of a full and purposeful discussion. But don't forget this fact, that it does not take long to move from the government to the opposition; and sometimes even less to move from the opposition to the government. We must remember, also, that in
1514	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures a democracy the rights of minorities are as indispensable as the desires of an anonymous majority. I do not say our debates are always the best. I do not say that improvements are not necessary-because we led the way in that regard in the examination of expenditures. We decided that the practice of years, of having a Member of the party in power as chairman of the committee on expenditures, was not effective and we made the present Speaker chairman of that committee. We made various other changes regarding the length of time of debates. Where there are purposeful changes that can be made without enervating the House of Commons, those changes will be acceptable. What we must guard against are the dangerous short cuts.
I mention this today owing to the visit of United States Congressmen with us. In 1942 I had the honour to be the Chairman of the first conference which brought together members of the United States Congress and members of the various Parliaments of the Commonwealth. One of the matters we discussed at that time was Parliament and effective parliamentary institutions. Because of their presence today I should like to mention the very strong and effective words of a great Justice of the United States, Mr. Justice William O. Douglas, who said this:
History shows that Governments bent on a crusade, or officials filled with ambitions have usually been inclined to take short cuts. The cause being a noble one (for it always is), the people being filled with alarm (for they usually are), the Government being motivated by worthy aims (as it always professes), the demand for quick and easy justice mounts.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out what was said by the Prime Minister. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what is the reason for these changes? It is to help the private Members. This solicitude expressed by the Prime Minister is quite inconsonant with the kind of treatment hon. Members are receiving in the House when they ask questions. In this regard I do not cite the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Nicholson), who today gave an example to the House of the way in which questions should be answered. I would point out that we have a Government which says it has answered a great many questions. But I would suggest that if the Government is solicitous of the welfare of private Members it should answer the questions now on the order paper.
For example, a question was put down by the hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates)
[Mr. Diefenbaker.j
DEBATES	May 20, 1965
on April 5 which asked whether the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) or any of his officials were informed by the police authorities organizing the surprise raid on possible hideouts of one Lucien Rivard of the intention of the police authorities to have the alleged surprise raid filmed for use by the C.B.C. That question, as I say, has been on the order paper since April 5, and I would ask why. Who is hiding what, and for what reason?
There is another question put on the order paper by the same hon. Member on the same day asking how many royal commissions have been set up since April 8, 1963. Why the delay here? There is a question by the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) regarding resolutions passed by the Farmers Union of Saskatchewan; there is another one by the same hon. Member; and there is one by the hon. Member for Queens-Lunen-burg (Mr. Crouse) asking whether public tenders had been called for a radar station in Lunenburg County. Then there is a question by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) in connection with Grand Manan Island.
And so on we could go. Questions have been on the order paper since April 5, April 6 and April 7. If the Government want to help the private Member and are so solicitous to see private Members have every assistance, then why are these questions not answered? As far as starred questions are concerned, there is a philosophy developing that they too can be answered whenever the Government feels like it.
In the United Kingdom all questions are answered within three days. Let us establish this practice in order to help the private Members and we will be able to reduce very greatly the number of questions asked on the orders of the day. If the Government will answer the questions instead of concealing the replies or embalming them, hon. Members will not have to get up on the orders of the day in respect of matters which are of immediate consequence. I say to the Government: In connection with questions don't boast of the number you have answered, but answer those you have not answered, so that Members will be able to secure the information they require.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the right hon.
gentleman permit a factual question at this stage? Could he complete what he is saying by telling the House how much notice is required in the United Kingdom before a question comes up for answer?
May 20, 1965


John George Diefenbaker: That is another thing, Mr. Speaker. This is the old smokescreen. In the United Kingdom-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is where we get the smokescreen.


John George Diefenbaker: -you cannot ask questions on the orders of the day which are not on the order paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


John George Diefenbaker: You have to give two days notice. But there the supplementaries are the effective questions. When a Minister answers the written question the opportunity then comes for private Members who have been denied the information they desire to ask supplementaries. But that does not meet this problem at all. I am trying to make a suggestion to the Government which would make possible a reduction in the period taken today on questions before the orders of the day are reached. If the Government wants action in this regard let it state that from now on, at the end of three days' notice, it will answer all questions. If the Government does that the number of questions which have to be asked today will be very materially reduced. If you want information, do not ask for it in a written question if anything embarrassing is involved.


Howard Russell MacEwan: It takes too long.


John George Diefenbaker: It not only takes too long but sometimes the delay would give an indication of the meaning of eternity.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we look at these rules with a view to getting action. I was very touched with the solicitude of the Prime Minister for the private Members, and here is something with regard to which action could be taken immediately. You do not have to amputate when a little corrective surgery would be sufficient. But amputation is what the Government is doing here. I am speaking of one matter in particular, and that is the ill-disguised guillotine which is going to be imposed on this House of Commons when the silencer is applied. That threat, and threat it is, must be met by this House.
There has been quite a change, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) is usually a kindly man who conveys no impression of ruthlessness. But he has said that if we do not pass this resolution there is going to be an election.


George James McIlraith: No.
House of Commons Procedures


John George Diefenbaker: He did not say that? I have the quotation of his remarks in which he said this has got to go through. However, yesterday the Prime Minister somewhat changed this idea.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I think the right hon. gentleman has no right whatever to attribute to me remarks which I did not make.


John George Diefenbaker: Then all I have to say is that every paper in Canada which took the trouble to interpret his remarks interpreted them as I have done. But the Government has backed up.
This is an interesting Government, Mr. Speaker. As soon as pressure is brought to bear upon them the fire and brimstone is withdrawn. This Government, when you think of all the retreats made over the last two years, reminds me for all the world like a feather pillow that bears on its face the shape of the last person who sat on it. It is a Government that backs up. After the warning words of the President of the Privy Council, yesterday the Prime Minister did not indulge in similar loose talk. The Prime Minister based his case on the impropriety of a minority in parliament being allowed to frustrate the will of the majority.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
What did the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) say? He is not here today, but he is an authority on the rules and I am sure he understands parliament, or it would appear that he does from the words he used when speaking in the House on January 30, 1963. They talk about political schizophrenia; well, they have it. One Member of the Government says:	We are frustrated and
cannot get legislation through. The Prime Minister boasts about the tremendous amount of legislation that this Parliament has passed. What is to be seen apparently depends on the kind of glasses to be worn at a given moment.
On January 30, 1963 the Minister of Labour stated:
I do not believe that the work of this session has been so unimpressive that it ought to lead to an immediate drastic change in the rules.
He was speaking in reference to a private Member's motion. He also stated:
In the first 60 days of the current session we passed 17 bills; these were government bills. That is a better record than any session in the recent past. In 1958, in the first 60 days we passed nine bills. In 1959 we passed nine bills, in 1960, nine bills and in 1960-61 we passed only six. Why all this talk about obstruction?
May 20. 1965

House of Commons Procedures
Those are his words, not mine. I think he must have been under the impression that the effectiveness of parliament is to be judged by the multiplicity of legislation.
One Member speaks of obstruction and another prides himself on the degree of attainment of a legislative program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman will allow me to ask him another question. Did he give the date as January, 1963?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At that time the hon. Member for Inverness-Richmond was sitting in the Opposition.


An hon. Member:: That is the whole point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At that time we in the Opposition were being accused of obstruction by the right hon. gentleman, and I think the record should be kept straight.


John George Diefenbaker: Now we are able to see what is in the mind of the hon. gentleman. Surely that is a revelation. In the Opposition they talk nonsense; but when they get on the Government side they suddenly develop sense. That is an amazing thing, and quite a revelation. Mr. Speaker, all you have to do is allow some individuals the opportunity of interruption in order to realize the sinister way of thinking that they have developed since taking over the position of Government. I am glad that that hon. gentleman interrupted. He has given us an indication of what they have tried to sell all through the piece. We remember how they pictured us when they sat on this side. They said we damned the Canadian financial picture when we pegged the dollar. When we sold wheat to Communist China they said: What are they doing? When we stood up to the United States they said we were anti-American. What a revelation the hon. gentleman has made; what a caricature he has made of principles. What he states, in other words, is that if you sit in the Opposition you should take one stand, but when you get into Government you throw that stand overboard. That is what they have done and that is their philosophy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: What I am going to say now is in the absence of that hon. gentleman who holds the position of the Speaker of the House.
The number one responsibility now before us is the establishment of a permanent Speaker. In 1957 I tried to bring before Parliament the name of an hon. gentleman in relation to this permanent Speaker position in order to bring about a completely nonpartisan Speakership. For reasons best known to him, and I refer to the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), he said that he thought the reason I did that was because I wanted to get him out of the House in order to deprive the House of his debating capacity. I had nothing like that in mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, does the right hon. gentleman not recall that he accused me of that once before, after which I had a discussion with him in his own office and satisfied him that it was somebody else who had said it? Will the hon. gentleman not accept my word that I made no such statement at any time?


John George Diefenbaker: That is a very interesting statement, Mr. Speaker, and I immediately agree with the hon. Member that we did have such a meeting. The hon. Member's interjection brings back my memory of the circumstances. He did establish the fact that while the statement was ascribed to him, it was not made by the voice of Knowles but by the voice of another pretending to use the voice of Knowles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows of the conversation that we had. Does he think it is fair to suggest that the person who was quoted was trying to speak for me and not for himself? I think this whole reference should be withdrawn by the hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that my mind has been directed to the conversation, I agree with the hon. Member that he had a conversation with me. I must say, however, that he would not accept the recommendation that we made in order to permit us to bring about what we had in mind. I am sure that hon. gentlemen opposite would have been prepared to join with us in that recommendation.
Mr. Speaker, Parliament and its effectiveness finally rests on the Speaker's throne. No matter how excellent a Speaker may be there will always be the possibility that suggestions will be made to the effect that considerations outweigh interpretations of rules. Our basic weakness is the lack of a permanent Speaker. I am going to say something now, in his ab-

May 20, 1965

sence, about the present holder of the position. I have not always agreed with him, but I have the highest admiration for the manner in which he has attempted to do his duty, with dignity and impartiality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I mentioned a moment ago the stand I took in 1957, and I still think what I thought at that time. I believe that you can alter the procedure of Parliament ad infinitum, but this House will not function as does the House in the United Kingdom, that Mother of Parliaments, until we have a permanent Speaker.
The present Prime Minister speaking in this House on September 27, 1962 said this about me:
The Prime Minister has mentioned the desirability, in certain circumstances in the future, of arranging for permanency in the office of Speaker.
I agree that if we could make arrangements in future which would provide for continuity in the holding of this very important office, having regard to our tradition that it should be held alternately by French speaking and English speaking Canadians, it might be a desirable thing to do. [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Why do we not do this now? We now have in that office a representative from a Montreal constituency. I should like to see Parliament attain all the greatness that each of us desires it to achieve. I do not believe in the principle that a constituency should be set up for the purpose of providing a Speaker. He would then cease to be the first Commoner that he is, because he would be there by choice and not election. The next Speaker will be of the French language and origin, but I speak now for my colleagues in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition when I say that in order to make the House effective we would, within our power, not contest the constituency of the present Speaker were he to be made permanent.
I do not want to say all of the things that are in my heart regarding the Speaker, but when I mentioned him a moment ago I was very pleased at the widespread applause in all parts of the House when I spoke of the attitude of the present Speaker. We will never be able to be nearer agreement as to two of the outstanding qualities of a Speaker, first, knowledge of Parliament, which carries with it the experience that can only come after years in the House and, second, that spirit of fairness and impartiality that has characterized the present Speaker. I read what Jennings has to say regarding the office of Speaker:

House of Commons Procedures
It is unnecessary to consider here the powers that he exercises by long standing practice... British experience shows that it is by no means impossible for a fair minded man deliberately to cast away his political bias and to attain a state of mind which is almost, if not quite, impartial. He is normally chosen, in the first instance, from among the Government majority. It is desirable that he should not have taken too prominent a part in party polemics.
The present Speaker has every one of these qualifications. Only twice in 70 years has a Speaker of the British House of Commons been opposed and, as Jennings says, the reason is that once he is appointed he divests himself of his party character and has no communications of a party character.
If we had a permanent Speaker our fears regarding certain portions of this package deal would be greatly lessened. But we have had the experience of 1956 which can never be eradicated from the hearts of those who passed through it. Sitting over there are some of those who belonged to that group in 1956 that caused the Speaker, with their connivance and support, to trample on Parliament and its rights and viciously disavow principles that had been accepted for 100 years. Let us have a permanent Speaker. There is unanimity now in the reaction to the present Speaker.
So far as the subject of questions is concerned, if the Government will give its undertaking that questions will be answered as they are in the United Kingdom, within three days, many of those questions that are asked today would become unnecessary. We could reduce the question period to half an hour.
I was glad to see that the Prime Minister had accepted three of the suggestions I had made for reform. There are a few others that I wish he had accepted when he was reading from what I had said. He referred with approval to what I said regarding supply motions. On March 9, 1964, as found on page 718 of Hansard, I said:
-I think that with six supply motions available in each session, with the exception of the first, which would last two days, the others might be restricted to one day. For after all, in the course of one day on a motion to go into supply there would be available to all parts of the House the opportunity to debate the amendment.
Then I went on to the subject of questions, and there has been no reform in that connection. Ministers have flouted Parliament with their insufficient and evasive answers. In the last year Parliament has been deceived by Ministers on three occasions that I know of. The Prime Minister's selective amnesia, as it was described by the hon. Member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume), caused
1518	COMMONS DEBATES	May 20. 1965
House of Commons Procedures him to say that he did not know until November what he had been told in September regarding the Rivard case. The Prime Minister quoted me with approval but I had hoped he would have gone a little further. I also said in 1964:
Next, we come to the question of the Government's responsibility in connection with questions. Some of the answers we have been receiving lately have been anything but complete, anything but informative, and their major quality has been the concealment of any information...
We have had the same thing in the last few days from the Minister of National Defence- evasion, concealment, information denied to the House to which it is entitled... I would point out, as the United Kingdom is referred to as an example of what should be done, that unstarred questions are answered in three days in the United Kingdom House.
I asked at that time that there should be no automatic adjournment at ten o'clock but that the House should continue when any Member was dissatisfied with the answer given to a question, and that recommendation was subsequently followed. In the period I have been in the House questions on orders of the day have expanded greatly. I reiterate that one of the major reasons for the lengthy question period is that this is the only way in which we can be assured of getting some kind of information.
I come now to the next point which the Prime Minister says has come to his mind because of his desire to increase the role of private Members. It is difficult for me to understand how the private Member is going to be strengthened by limiting his time. It is hard for me to understand how the private Member is going to be strengthened by curtailing the time for the discussion of estimates. I think the sending of estimates to committees is something worthy of support, not as a permanent fixture but to ascertain how it works out.
So far as the apportionment of time is concerned, unless the Speaker is a permanent Speaker it is a dangerous interference with Parliament. What the Government is proposing is that in the first hour they can say that this is going to be it. They can say they are going to give the Opposition a day to discuss a certain matter before they even find out what the stand of the Opposition is going to be. They are going to fix the time. Is it any wonder that the Globe and Mail had a cartoon depicting a guillotine with the Prime Minister talking to the President of the Privy Council and saying, "This is a particularly good idea, this will work well"?

[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The Prime Minister says the need for action in this regard is the expansion in legislation, particularly social welfare legislation. Social welfare, Mr. Speaker, was not born when this Government took office. This has been a continuing subject of legislation throughout the years. If there had been no debate, what would have happened to the original pension plan? When the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) brought it in she gave us to understand that this was the greatest thing the mind of man, or even woman, had ever been able to devise. Then, the plan was put in drydock after criticism. What would have happened in the flag situation? They came in with the band playing and with three maple leaves on a single stem. We criticized and stood against it, so then they threw it overboard. If there had been this form of selective closure, what would have happened?
What about the $10 increase in old age pensions? What would have happened to it if they had this system whereby they can stifle criticism? The old age pensioner would never have obtained that extra $10. How is this going to work out? Across this nation today the young Liberals are talking about a republic for Canada. We stand against that, and many over on the other side stand against it as well, although there are some over there who seem to enjoy the favour of the Government, who talk about abolishing the Queen. What would happen if they were to move to abolish the Monarchy and then say, you are going to have a few hours to talk about it? The party whip works. This is a most controversial issue upon which Parliament should not be gagged. Read the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and of Borden. I am not going to put them on Hansard again. Did all the wisdom of Parliament begin when these people took office?
Well, Mr. Speaker, these are things that must be considered. Overhanging us is supposed to be the sword of Damocles, an election, unless we bend. There are enough benders sitting over there who have bent to every wind. If a permanent Speaker were appointed, there would be no question but that there should be no appeals from the rulings of the Speaker. I ask you this, put in another man as Speaker such as we had in 1956, one who was the anointed of the Liberal Party, and see what would happen. He ruled us out, and he got instructions from over there. They cannot deny it, because the night before he
May 20, 1965

made the ruling that yesterday was not yesterday, but tomorrow or the reverse, somebody was out at Kingsmere and saw the Ministers' cars there. Mind you, they were only there for a visit, Mr. Speaker. They did not allow themselves, even by osmosis, to let the Speaker know what they were thinking about, but he certainly caught the idea.
I do not like to see appeals from Speakers' rulings. However, let us get a Speaker who will be entirely removed from and above the hurly-burly of politics or any consideration. They talk about appeals. The Prime Minister put on the record the number of appeals. He said that between 1867 and 1905 there were no appeals; between 1905 and 1931 there were 17; between 1931 and 1957, there were 89; 1956 to 1962, there were 3; 1962 to 1963, there were 6; 1963, 12 and 1964, 11. I took the trouble to ask a member of my staif to look up these appeals. He found that the appeals from Speaker's rulings in the year 1963 amounted to 5 from the Creditistes, 4 from the Progressive Conservatives and 2 from the N.D.P. We solve this immediately by abolishing appeals. If we had given up the right of appeal, what would have happened to us during the days of 1956, if another person, not cast in the mould of what Speakers should be were to occupy that place and make rulings such as he made: "I cannot hear you; I cannot see you."
Now, the difficulty in this connection will be removed by the appointment of a permanent Speaker. On the question of closure, it is amazing to note the change. As my hon. friend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) said, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) was sitting over here at that time. What did the Prime Minister say about closure on March 16, 1962? Regarding the setting up of a committee in connection with it he said he believed that in the light of the experience of the past, the principle of closure need no longer be expected to need reform. That is what they said in opposition, and then they gave us a flag by closure.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: They do not want to have this type of closure because they think there is going to be trouble, so they produce a refined variety, a civilized form, which will completely carry out the desires of the Government, and the number of bureaucrats that are in the Government. Today some of the highest bureaucrats try to determine policy, and believe we should do what they have in mind because it is good for us. They
House of Commons Procedures have this new plan evolved. I ask you to look up Quintin Hogg's book in which he deals with this question. This is a refined system and he says it is a very bad system. They have it in the United Kingdom, but they have it surrounded by protection for the opposition. There is no protection here. You can just imagine-no, I cannot imagine the Minister of Transport doing it because he knows parliament and he knows history. However, I can think of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). Would he not like to rise in his place and say, I am introducing this today and we are going to close up tonight, or whenever we get a day to debate it? Then, that is the end of it. In the United Kingdom, they protect the rights of parliament through a non-political and non-partisan Speaker, and there is no connotation of the present Speaker in that statement. I want to make that clear again.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The Business Committee will meet and it must be unanimous. This has been one of the weaknesses of Parliament since this Government gave third parties an official position by paying their leaders $4,000 and placing them in a position of equality within the House. Admirable though their conduct may be, that is a denial of parliament and I said so at the time. What is the reason parliament takes so long? Well, Mr. Speaker, the Government speaks on a matter, I speak, or whoever is acting for the Leader of the Opposition, and down you go. That does not happen in the U.K. parliament. Third parties that are not the alternative to the government are not placed in a position of equality.
When there is disagreement among the Business Committee, then the Government moves for an order allocating time for the item of business, and that is to be debatable for one day. This is a particularly formidable form of selective closure. It has been described in the Globe and Mail cartoon as, "Mcllraith's Capital Closure Kit;" and that is what it is.
This is dangerous. This represents a complete victory for the Government any time they want to rise, if they have the necessary allies to stand with them. What they don't want to hear, they won't hear. In the United Kingdom the Speaker stands as the custodian of the rights of minorities in the House and he does not allow closure to be applied unless within circumscribed limits. This, carried intc effect in its present form, is a design to prevent full discussion of controversial proposals.
1520	COMMONS DEBATES	May 20, 1965
House of Commons Procedures
Who would benefit? Well, it will benefit the cabinet, and the cabinet has become all powerful since 1914. Year by year in two world wars the cabinet became very powerful, and all experience has shown that the pathways of experiment become the highways of permanence. That is what has happened.
This will make parliament a rubber stamp of the government and the bureaucrats. If we had the protection of a non-partisan Speaker I would not argue the question as I am, but today, on the face of it, in this place every one of us is in the position of not being able to speak for whatever period he wants. In the United Kingdom this form of closure is not applied until after debate gets bogged down. Here they are going to be able to apply it any time, even before debate starts.
The Prime Minister says he hopes it will not be used very often. That is the excuse that goes back through the ages, "Just give us this power so that we will have it, and we assure you there will be no tyranny in its application." Mr. Speaker, unless there are safeguards this section, giving the cabinet or any minister the right at any time to say- I do not like to use the expression-to say "Shut up," with the support of those who will stand with the government, come what may, will make a puppet of parliament, will make parliament a puppet of cabinet. I say that we should not be called upon to agree, as we are, to certain portions of the resolution that is before us, to agree to accept it in whole, not turning it down. I say that this whole question should be submitted to a committee of parliament to consider the manner in which it will be surrounded by safeguards so that parliament will not, in a moment of weakness, abdicate its right to hear and be heard.
I do not know how many of the hon. members sitting over there have the attributes of the Government of 1956. None of them has ever disavowed it. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker; they don't want to hear us. They have a highly controversial question of legislation and they say to the House of Commons, "We don't want to hear you on this." If that had been in effect, where would the pension plan have been? Where would have been all the other changes that have been effected?
I make this closing appeal to the Government, but I will have more to say when the next resolution comes up. I make this appeal. Hon. Members opposite, you love this institution as I love it. Power corrupts. It has always been so. Lord Acton said absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Give the government of the day the power asked here, and no tyrant could ask for more. Mr. Speaker, I make an appeal to the Government, and I will make it direct to the Prime Minister-don't destroy this institution and its independence by making parliament a puppet at the whim of ministers who, directed by bureaucrats who like short cuts, want to force through controversial things however dangerous they may be to the whole field of human freedom within our land. I make that appeal. I do not suppose it will do other than fall on rocky soil, but there are parliamentarians over there. There are private Members who I would like to see speak upon this.
Why not make this is a matter of a free vote? Take off the whip. All of us want to see parliament made the great instrument of freedom. All of us are proud to be Members of Parliament. When I hear Members criticized and politics disdained, I have that feeling that you and I have, that all of us have. They can pour contempt upon those of us in public life, but no teaching of the church, no finding in science, no discovery in medicine, no new foundations in economics can be translated into action for the benefit of the people except through the often criticized politician. And I make this appeal: Don't trample on parliament for the sake of so-called efficiency.
Efficiency that is bought by the denial of the rights of the minority is a principle foreign to Canadian Confederation and a denial of all those things for which Macdonald, and Cartier, and Laurier, and King, and St. Laurent, and all the other Prime Ministers stood.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: 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 notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all submissions, presentations, briefs and other documents and a copy of any speeches delivered at, or to the recent Dominion-Provincial Conference on Indian Affairs by each provincial government or any person representing a provincial government-Mr. Howard.
May 20, 1965
Mr.   Balien@Acting Speaker: Mr. Howard, seconded by-


Mr. Howard:: No, Mr. Speaker. It has been requested of me that notices of motions for papers, Nos. 5 and 6, stand because of the absence of certain Members on the Government side who are interested in these matters, and I propose to stand those two.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Shall No. 5 stand, at the request of the Government?


Mr. Walker:: Stand.


Frank Howard: No, Mr. Speaker, at my request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Stood, at the request of the Government. Shall No. 6 stand, at the request of the Government?


David James Walker: Stand.


Frank Howard: No; at my request.



CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT

Alfred Dryden Hales: ;
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all letters and other documents since the 1st day of January, 1964, exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States in connection with the Agreement providing for duty-free trade within the automobile industry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion which is now before the House I would first like to say that on the last day it came before the House, May 5, I asked for the yeas and nays of the House with regard to my request of the Government that the documents exchanged with the U.S. Government be produced. However, due to a procedural arrangement the vote that was held was on the Speaker's ruling and not on whether this information should be supplied to the House. At that time the Minister asked that this motion be transferred for debate, and so we find ourselves in this position today.
The reason I asked for this information was that I sincerely felt the people of Canada and the Members of this House should have been well informed as to the steps that had been taken with respect to the signing by Canada and the United States of this very important treaty. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that it was signed before ever being brought before this House for discussion. The Members of this House were never informed of any of
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement the particulars of this very complex subject. Parliament had been circumvented. The matter was introduced by Order in Council, and one of those abuses of power about which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) warned us in the very eloquent address just finished, was used.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, the people are entitled to know more about this treaty, and it is of serious concern to the people of Canada that we have all the information possible presented to this House. In order to develop my reasoning in this regard I would like to place my remarks before the House under three headings. First, what material and information has been made available to the Congressmen of the United States? Second, what do we, as Members of the Canadian Parliament, know, and what information were we supplied with respecting the signing of this treaty? Third, what are some of the steps that have been taken to supply information in previous treaties which have been signed between these two great countries?
Let us look for a minute at the information given to Congressmen in the United States with respect to this matter. Six days after the signing in the United States there was tabled in the Congressional Record of January 22 an item entitled "United States-Canadian trade in automotive products". Let us see what can be found in this Congressional Record, which corresponds to our Hansard in Canada. First of all it outlines the whole agreement that was signed by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson), together with a statement describing in detail the background to this agreement. Second, we find statements that were made about the agreement by the President of General Motors Corporation, Mr. Donner; Mr. Henry Ford II, Chairman of the Board of Ford Motor Company; Mr. Townsend, President of Chrysler Corporation; the President of American Motors Corporation, and Mr. Reuther, President of United Auto Workers. We also find several editorial comments. We even find the exchange which took place between President Johnson and the Prime Minister of Canada on the signing of this treaty at President Johnson's farm in Texas. I should like to read one or two of the exchanges between the two leaders. It says;
The President: Mr. Prime Minister would you like to make some observations and answer questions before you leave?
May 20, 1965

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement
Then a very interesting question was put to the Prime Minister:
Mr. Prime Minister, why could not this agreement be used as a basis for other agreements in other industries?
That is the very question I put to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) today. The Prime Minister answered:
Well as far as we are concerned we would like to explore that possibility. This agreement may be important not only in itself but it could be important from that point of view. But the automotive industry, the organization of it on this continent, lends itself to this kind of agreement more easily than other industries. But we will certainly be anxious to have a look at the other situations to see if we can apply this. Anyway, we made a start.
As we read through this report we find out all this background and what happened at the meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. This was prior to the last meeting they had at Temple University in Philadelphia, which was not quite as friendly a meeting. Then there is the report of the hearing before a United States Senate subcommittee. The proceedings are all printed for us to read; but if we want to know any of these things, as Canadian Parliamentarians, we have to write to the United States to find out what happened. This report of the subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, of February 10 last lists the officials attending the meeting. They were Hon. G. Griffith Johnson, Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, accompanied by Robert L. McNeill, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Policy, and Julius L. Katz, Deputy Director, Office of International Trade, Department of State. These men were there and discussed U.S. countervailing duties versus remission plan, the United States-Canadian employment level affected by the agreement, and so on. All these subjects were discussed by this group. There is a rather interesting section here:
Naturally, Canada wants to be sure that the Canadian automotive industry will participate in this growth. Therefore, Canada has asked each of the Canadian producers for a statement of their intentions for expansion of their production in Canada.
Senator Symington: Will their reply be a matter of public record?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Johnson:: They are not now a matter of public record. We did not participate, of course, in negotiations and we are not familiar with the contents of the arrangements between each company and the Canadian Government. So that I am not in a position to answer that question, Senator.
Senator Symington: Will they be a matter of public record?


Al Johnson: I would suppose this would be a matter for decision of the Canadian Government and the companies. It would not be something which we would have any say in.
Senator Symington: Well, then, could I ask, respectfully, why that is included in this statement?
I just mention this very hurriedly and briefly, Mr. Speaker, to bring to the attention of the House some of these matters which have been discussed by Congressmen. On the other hand, what do we in Canada know about it and what have we been told? We have been treated as a bunch of babes in the woods, as far as being told anything about this great treaty which has been signed.
A news release was issued by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) on January 15, not for release until 6.00 p.m. that day, which was the day before the treaty was signed in the United States. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the House was in recess at the time. To my knowledge-I think this is true-this press release was sent to the Ottawa addresses of hon. Members, and I do not suppose that too many of us saw it until the House reconvened. This news release and a copy of the agreement was not tabled in this House until February 24; the Minister can correct me if I am wrong about that. This treaty was signed on January 16; yet it was not until February 24 that the agreement was tabled in the House. Along with the copy of the agreement were certain exhibits, as well as the motor vehicles tariff order. This is couched in language which is most difficult for laymen to understand, and to illustrate my point I should like to read one part of it which deals with the ratio of the net sales value. It says:
(A)	the ratio of the net sales value of which to the net sales value of all vehicles of that class sold for consumption in Canada by the manufacturer in that period is equal to or higher than the ratio of the net sales value of all vehicles of that class produced in Canada by the manufacturer in the base year to the net sales value of all vehicles of that class sold for consumption in Canada by the manufacturer in the base year, and is not in any case lower than seventy-five to one hundred, and
(B)	the Canadian value added of which is equal to or greater than the Canadian value added of all vehicles of that class produced in Canada by the manufacturer in the base year;
To understand what I have just quoted one would have to be a Philadelphia lawyer, because it is just about as complicated as it could be. However, as I say, we were supplied with a copy of this agreement on February 24.
As I mentioned earlier, this treaty was approved by Order in Council instead of by
May 20, 1965	COMMONS
debate on a resolution presented to the House. We are told that we are going to have the chance to debate a resolution which will be put on the order paper, but it is not there yet. This treaty was signed on January 16 and as yet we have had no chance to debate it, and I ask why. I maintain the answer to this question is that the Government is afraid to bring the matter before the House until the treaty is approved by the Congress of the United States. I am convinced that is the reason for the delay. As far as I can see there is no mention of the manufacturers' statement of intention in this agreement.
On April 5 I asked about these letters. We had to ask because the Minister did not see fit to table the letters or statement of intention of the manufacturers, and did not do so until April 26. I appreciate this House was in recess from April 14 to 26, but these documents could have been tabled before April 14, which was nine days after they were first asked for. Why the delay in tabling them, Mr. Speaker? I do not know. This is information which we parliamentarians should have been supplied with; and I have endeavoured to show that United States Congressmen were supplied with far more material than we were supplied with.
There have been other treaties signed by Canada and the United States, and in those cases there has been tabled the exchange of notes and other information. Let me refer to the Columbia River Treaty, for example.
I see no difference between this treaty with that one. No security is involved in the automobile treaty with the United States. I have before me the exchange of notes between Canada and the United States of America dated May 25, 1964 having to do with a continental radar system. I also have the exchange of notes between Canada and the United States on boundary waters and seaway tolls dated June 30, 1964.
I have tried to give reasons, Mr. Speaker, for asking for this information, and to give the background to establish why I felt I was within my rights in so doing. On behalf of the Members of this House and the people of Canada I ask the Minister to table all the correspondence between Canada and the United States with respect to the Canada-United States automobile treaty.
It seems rather strange to me that the Minister has not seen fit to table these documents in order to give us a working knowledge of this great treaty, which in itself is very complex. This is material we 22620-98
DEBATES	1523
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement will need for the debate if and when it comes, and I am surprised we have not had the debate before now as promised. Therefore I hope the Minister will see his way clear now, even if he did not the other day, to table this correspondence for the good of the House. I am broadminded enough to know that some of the material may be of a diplomatic nature which he may not wish to table, but I think we would be right in demanding that the Members of the House be furnished with as much information as was supplied to the United States Congressmen. If the Minister will supply this information I will then be in a position to withdraw my motion. Therefore I hope the Minister will lay before the House the information requested, if not the entire information certainly as much as that given to the United States Congressmen.


Mr. Sianley Haidasz (Parliamenfary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it was with some disappointment and reluctance that I left the United States-Canada interparliamentary group meeting, which is taking place at the present time in Ottawa, in order to answer the request of the hon. Member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) for a copy of all letters and other documents since the first day of January, 1964, exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States in connection with the agreement providing for duty-free trade within the automobile industry.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I think the arguments put forward by the hon. Member rather weakened his request for these papers, because he stated that he already has a lot of information which apparently is not in the possession of other Members of the House, and I refer to that material which he had in his hand, and from which he read. It was apparently a Congressional Record. He also apparently had a record of some proceedings of the committees of the United States Congress.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will allow me to clear up that point. I read from something that is United States public information. I am not asking that it be tabled; I am asking that the correspondence between this Government and the Government of the United States regarding this subject be tabled.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, as far as that request is concerned, let me say that there is no intention at all on the part of this Govern-
1524	COMMONS
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement ment to conceal anything. In fact, on May 11 there was a debate in this House during which hon. Members received a great deal of information from the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury). If that did not satisfy the hon. Member, perhaps I should remind him of the fact that, as in the past, in view of diplomatic practice now agreed upon among various countries, such privileged documents as letters between governments during negotiations are treated as privileged material and not made available to the public.
There have been a number of exchanges of views about the agreement in this House, and hon. Members have had an opportunity to question the Minister about many details, and as far as I am concerned the fullest possible information has always been given. Moreover, the Ministers have stated that there will be an opportunity for a full debate and for this House to approve of this automotive agreement before the conclusion of the exchange of notes which is required to bring it into force.
The documents for which the hon. Member for Wellington South has asked are actually working papers relating to successive drafts of the Canada-United States automotive agreement. This Government is proud of the agreement and of the work performed during the lengthy negotiations which led up to it. Canadian economic interests were of prime consideration at all times. The hon. Member then asks: Why not table these preliminary documents? The answer to his question is simply that to do so, however politically convenient this might appear to be in the short run, it would clearly be a departure from normal diplomatic practice, would hamper negotiations in respect of other subjects and would be against Canada's long term interest.
I do not think the Canada-United States working papers would contribute very much to the information of the hon. Member in his quest for more understanding of this agreement. In fact, in some ways they would be misleading because they probably would be disjointed. Kept secret would be some of the highly privileged information resulting from conversations which is related to this whole matter.
As I am sure the hon. Member for Wellington South appreciates, these negotiations were not conducted primarily by exchanges of correspondence, or letters, as he suggests.

DEBATES	May	20 1965
They took place in a series of half a dozen or more confidential meetings between the senior officials of our Government and of the Government of the United States. Naturally drafts, partial drafts and working papers were exchanged on such occasions, but they would mean very little to the hon. Member, were they to be made public. During these meetings there was always oral give and take. This went on over the course of several months. There were not very many documents actually exchanged at these meetings, and I assure the hon. Member that they would be rather disjointed and misleading in the light of the totality of the negotiations.
I turn now to the customary practice as far as making public such privileged documents is concerned. The House has from time to time been faced with the reservation that certain papers exchanged with other governments during the course of international negotiations could not be made public on the ground that to do so would be contrary to diplomatic practice. This is a reasonable reservation which Members of this House have in the past been able to accept. It has not, in fact, been invoked often since it would appear that Members have seldom requested the disclosure of such highly confidential inter-government exchanges.
In my experience, Mr. Speaker, when it has been given as grounds for not tabling such material, the House has accepted the explanation and has not pressed the matter further. Several such instances come to mind. On May 5, for instance, the hon. Member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) was prepared to modify his motion for this reason. I also recollect other similar cases; for example, in October, 1963 when we had a motion calling for correspondence between Canada and the United States concerning wheat sales to the U.S.S.R. and other countries, and in April of last year in connection with papers relating to negotiation of the Columbia River Treaty. On rare occasions the Government may have offered to approach another country to ask for permission to publish such material, but when it has done so, permission has almost invariably been refused until many years after the event when, in the normal course, diplomatic correspondence often enters the public historical record.
Relations between Governments have to be conducted, if they are to be effective, in accordance with certain simple ground rules.
May 20, 1965

Among friendly nations a respect by each country for the other's confidences is a prime requisite in the conduct of foreign policy. All Governments treat correspondence of this kind as privileged and, in addition to the the precedents in this House which I have cited, there are numerous similar examples of legislatures in other countries accepting the position I have outlined.
Before negotiations on as complex a matter as the Canada-United States automotive agreement can begin, each Government must decide both on its objectives and on the extent to which it is prepared to adapt these in the light of negotiations which are to follow. During the course of such negotiations there must inevitably be a good deal of give and take; positions are modified; Governments have to be consulted from time to time, and certain drafts have to be exchanged. But if the representatives either of Canada or any other Government expected that such preliminary exchanges were likely to be made public in the future their entire approach would be very different. It would be more formal and, indeed, less flexible. The whole process of negotiation would therefore be more difficult and fruitful results less likely.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Thus the public interest requires that the Government of Canada, or for that matter any Government, negotiate on the basis that preliminary exchanges will not be published. Moreover, in the case of the automotive agreement it was not contemplated that the preliminary exchanges between our Government and the Government of the United States would be published. To do so at this stage would not only violate customary diplomatic usage but would create an important and, indeed, unfortunate precedent which other countries would have to bear in mind when dealing with Canada in the future. Their attitudes toward negotiations with us might well be altered to our disadvantage in the sense that our negotiating partners would be less forthcoming and less co-operative.
I think I have dealt with the hon. Member's motion as fairly as I could. I recognize his general interest in the automotive agreement. His numerous questions and his present motion are testimony to this fact. I also respect his desire to be well informed about the intricacies of the agreement. I should also like to remind him, for his information, that he has access to the Congressional Record in our Parliamentary Li-
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement brary. He can also have access to the United States House of Representatives Bill 6960, and also copies of the transcript of the proceedings of the House Ways and Means Committee, which held public hearings from April 7 to April 29 on this very problem. I hope that the hon. Member for Wellington South will reflect upon the wide implications I have outlined and that he will not press his motion further.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to congratulate the mover of the motion for having placed it on the order paper and to say that we are prepared to support his application. In so doing I want to make a plea to the Government, and in particular to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury). This agreement, of course, arises out of an original plan put forward by the Minister a year or two ago, and speaking on behalf of my party at that time I said that we welcomed the broad general objectives of the agreement. It is unfortunate that whatever took place in the United States rendered inoperative, or was going to render inoperative, his original scheme, and that therefore this is the replacement for it.
As I have indicated, the broad general objectives of the automotive trade agreement are ones that will receive very wide, general support in the House. But what is disturbing Members of the Opposition, certainly those of us who have been taking a special interest in this matter, is what appears to be a determination by the Government to erect a veil of secrecy around this whole proposal and to give us the very minimum of information that they can get away with giving us. I am not saying there is anything underhanded involved, but the very distinct impression we get is that the Government is determined to enshroud this whole agreement in as much security and secrecy as possible under the rules.
The Member who has just spoken said there had been many opportunities to question Ministers in the House about the agreement but, if I may say so, their answers have tended more to obscure the situation than to throw light upon it. I would urge the Minister of Industry in particular to take the House into his confidence and to put all his cards on the table. It is humiliating to those in the Opposition to have to write to Senator Hart in Washington to get information which we feel should be available here. The present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) made a very eloquent
1526	COMMONS
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement speech, when in the Opposition, objecting to having to go to Washington to get information about the military policy of the previous administration. We make the same objection and the same plea. We as Members of Parliament should not have to write to Washington for transcripts of evidence in order to get the evidence we want to have to deal with this agreement.


Mr. Greene:: Will the hon. Member permit a question? Has he been able to get from Washington the working papers and preliminary letters between Canadian officials and American officials, or do they not hold them in confidence in just the same manner that this Government is doing?


Reid Scott: I myself have not made application for them because I had obviously erroneously assumed that they would be willingly forthcoming from the Government, but if we are really going to be denied this material I suppose we will have to apply to the United States Government to see if they will give us this information. I am not raising this objection facetiously. We are quite serious in our attitude. We agree in general terms-


Mr. Ryan:: Will the hon. Member permit a question? Did he personally write to Senator Hart and did he get an answer?


Reid Scott: Yes.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Did the hon. Member learn anything from him about papers or letters?


Reid Scott: I learned some very significant facts about the American agreement. I learned, for example, that it contained very widespread adjustment assistance to industries and labour whereas there is no such provision in Canada.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: That was in the newspapers.


Reid Scott: Yes, I would say we learned a great deal by writing to the American authorities, but it is still unpleasant that we must do this in order to get what we consider to be adequate information.
We would like to go further. We would like to see the agreement referred to a committee of the House so that the committee could call before it some of the groups who have been interviewing the Minister, some of the trade unions that have been making very sincere objections to the lack of adjustment assistance in these proposals. We would like to hear the views of some of the economists who are raising some very legitimate points of concern about the implications of the agreement and the possibility of similar
IMr. Scott.]
DEBATES	May 20, 1965
proposals being extended into other facets of the Canadian economy.
I am prepared to support this motion. I note the objections raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I think there is a lot of merit in them. But it seems to me that an agreement of this type is so important and so basic that an application should at least be made to the American authorities for their consent to the release of this correspondence, in order that when Members of the House deal with this agreement they will have all the facts it is possible to obtain and will be in a position to make a fair and honest judgment with regard to this very important agreement. If the Government does not do this they will be launching an extremely important piece of legislation in the worst possible way, by creating in the minds of Members of the Opposition the idea that there is something to hide. Maybe there is not. If all this information were laid before us maybe there would be no problem. But as long as the Government persists in sin-rounding this agreement with a veil of secrecy Members of the Opposition will remain in this frame of mind.
I urge the Minister of Industry, who has devoted a great deal of his time and talent to the development of this proposal, to consider seriously not only providing this type of information, but allowing the agreement to go to a committee of the House where a complete examination of it can be made. If this were done I think that many of the fears or objections of Members on this side of the House could be allayed, with the result that the agreement could be launched with the greatest possible degree of unanimity.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks of the three speakers who have participated in this debate so far. I should like to make a few comments with regard to the importance of papers of this type, particularly when they involve negotiations for tariff reductions, not being produced and not becoming public as is proposed. I should like to elaborate somewhat on the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Haidasz).
Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) to a veil of secrecy. There is no veil of secrecy, and I believe this is an illusion. I think that in considering the negotiations that have gone
May 20, 1965

before the realization of this agreement, one must recognize this is a type of agreement that is quite new, quite far reaching in its value with regard to setting a precedent for further developments along this line in the future. Certainly it will be of vital importance to our nation if we are to move away from the protectionist economy that has been our mode of living in Canada for the first 97 years of our existence as a nation. A low tariff or free trade economy is unexplored territory so far as Canada is concerned.
Those of us who live in the extremities of Canada, of course, are in a position where we have suffered economically from the effects of high tariffs in Canada. As a consequence of this, too much trade has been strictly within the nation. We watch with interest and applaud any move toward freer trade, and toward a greater international exchange of goods with economies of size, and the benefit from the new trade that can be obtained therein.
Now, having said that we are in favour of a lower tariff arrangement, I think that this agreement, from what we know of it at the present time, indicates an arrangement that gives us the best of all possible worlds. We not only move toward lower tariffs or freer trade in this important field of automotive production, but at the same time we have an arrangement that protects our workers and our industries in this country. I would be the first to grant that we can never achieve any free trade or lower tariff arrangement of any consequence in Canada, any success in the Kennedy round, the GATT talks or any improvement in international trade conditions, without some dislocation. There are bound to be some people who may have to change positions, or the type of work they have been doing, or their location. This is one consideration that I think all Members of this House are prepared to face and accept as a necessity of progress. Every change in our economy that occurs over the years will result in some dislocation, some disadvantage.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may. I dislike interrupting the hon. Member, but it seems that he is straying away from the question of the production of papers, and into the substantive matter of the trade agreement.


Gerald Augustine Regan: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I may say I do not believe I have strayed. If the hon. Member feels that is the
DEBATES	1527
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement case, I will strive to stay closer to the subject. The point I have been trying to make is that freer trade arrangements are desirable, but we cannot achieve these unless we do have secrecy during negotiations, unless papers of this type are not available for production and open to the public. This is the point I make on the point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Perhaps before the hon. Member continues with the remarks he is going to make I can say to him and to the House that this particular debate is very limited in its scope. The only question before the House now is whether or not the papers in question should be tabled. I am not, at the moment, going to give any citations to support the stand which the Chair now takes. However, I might refer hon. Members to the debate in this House on February 8, 1962, and if hon. Members are interested in the ruling made by Mr. Speaker Michener at that time they will find it on page 692 of Hansard. I should like the hon. Member to confine his remarks within the narrow limits of this particular debate.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Thank you for your guidance in this matter, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to follow the directive of the Chair. In considering whether or not papers of this type should be produced, as has been moved by the hon. Member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales), one must consider the effect that would occur if these papers were produced. We do not know, because of the fact they are of a confidential nature, what is contained in the papers. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs has told us that the hon. Member for Wellington South would not be far ahead, as a consequence of the disjointed nature of the papers and the fact that most of the discussions in connection with this matter were of a preliminary nature.
The hon. Member for Wellington South and the hon. Member for Danforth occupied a sizeable portion of their time in discussing, not the question of whether these papers should be produced or the effect their production would have, but the desirability of the Government's producing other information that may or may not be contained in these papers. In this way the hon. Members would be better enlightened on the subject when this agreement comes up for debate. In answer to their representations in that regard, surely it can be said that the Government has undertaken to bring this matter forward for debate at a later date. At that
May 20, 1965

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement time no doubt they will have an opportunity to ask specific and detailed questions of the Ministers involved. They would then be in a position where they could proceed with a more comprehensive examination of the question than has been possible during the question period.
If the Government were to produce papers in connection with negotiations of this type surely, as the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested, we might reach a situation where not only the United States Government but other Governments that participate in negotiations for tariff reductions with this Government will take note of the fact these papers were produced, will be extremely cautious with regard to what they say, and will be hampered as to how far they can go in negotiating tariff reductions on any commodity in the future. Surely no treaty for the reduction of a tariff or for free trade can be achieved unless there are benefits for both parties. I cannot imagine, Mr. Speaker, a situation in which two countries would sign an agreement if there were not some benefits to each side. As I say, these papers could well disclose, or the oral negotiations could disclose, the fact that both Governments value the desirability of a larger free area, and of the economies that such could effect.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Alkenbrack:: What is good for General Motors.


Gerald Augustine Regan: My hon. friend says, what is good for General Motors. There is a lot more involved than General Motors; and without going far afield from the subject under consideration I would point out to him that Studebaker, which manufactures only in Canada today, stands to benefit from this treaty, and that Volvo, who are manufacturing in my constituency, would benefit very substantially by having the American market open to them as soon as they are able to achieve 50 per cent Canadian content in their production.
Returning to the consideration of whether the papers themselves should be produced, one must consider the disadvantages, that future negotiations would be hampered, that governments dealing with a government operating under a system whereby all confidential papers of this nature are produced would be hesitant in future. We also have the fact that when these negotiations were taking place the American officials participating in them must surely have presumed
[Mr. ReganJ
they were of a secret nature, must have presumed that the practice which existed in the past as regards papers of this type not being produced would be followed. Surely it would not be honourable for this Government to break with the precedent of the past and produce such papers, if the negotiating parties had depended upon the fact that what had always been the practice in past negotiations would occur on this occasion.
In our system of responsible government it is up to the administration of the day to carry on such negotiations and to enter into such treaties or agreements if the government considers it in the best interests of the country. Then eventually the matter comes back to Parliament, as the House has been told will be done in this case.
If these papers were made available we would have a situation wherein opposition Members in both Canada and the U.S. would peruse them carefully, to try and pinpoint any areas within the over-all agreement which were disadvantageous to their respective countries. If they did so, then of course Government Members in Canada and government supporters in the U.S. would have to deal at greater length with the respective areas of advantage, and very shortly what was being said by Government Members in dealing with the details of the negotiations in this country, from information gleaned from those papers, would be utilized in the United States by those opposed to the agreement, and vice versa. Therefore the possibility of achieving these worth-while types of reduction in tariffs in order to move toward freer trade would be greatly hindered.
That being the case I think that acceptance of the motion moved by the hon. Member for Wellington South, which I think exhibits his true and genuine concern to obtain more information on the subject, would be ill-advised. From the remarks he made one might conclude that he was concerned, not so much with what may be in these papers as in having a better understanding of the agreement, and this applies to the hon. Member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) also.
While patience is a virtue that those of us who are elected representatives of the people do not always have in large measure, surely in this instance the hon. Member, having regard to the undertakings he has heard from the treasury benches, that ample and effective measures will be taken to
May 20, 1965

offset any dislocations that occur; that the over-all agreement is beneficial to Canada; having regard to the undertakings given by the industry that an over-all increase of a very substantial nature will occur for Canada; having regard to the fact that there is to be a debate in due course on this matter, should feel it would be in the best interests of all concerned, and indeed of his country, to withdraw the motion and be happy that we have an administration which will take care of the interests of the industry and the workers.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have but little time to participate in this important debate as I have many important contributions to make; but in the first place I would like to point out to the House that the very proper stand taken by the Minister in refusing to produce these papers is in the highest traditions of this party, to the effect that we live up to our international commitments.
That cannot be said of all parties; but I would point out that in the negotiations which preceded the treaty and the agreement there was an understanding, there was confidence, between the parties that these prior negotiations, these prior exchanges of correspondence were of a confidential nature. As I said earlier, we live up to such international understandings, be they explicit or tacit, as they were in this particular case.
We are not known as a party that gets into trouble with our international friends and neighbours either by disclosing agreements which are understood to be secret, or failing to live up to commitments, or by producing documents, forged or otherwise, which might get us into international involvements with our good friends and neighbours. Therefore I suggest it is a highly proper, indeed the only course of proper procedure that the Minister has adopted in refusing to disclose international agreements and commitments which were of a private and confidential nature.
I might point out that the hon. Member who has proposed the motion is quite clear in his motivations in this regard, and I quote a prior speech of his in the House, in which he said that this agreement was a sell-out to the United States. Therefore I say his motivations are quite clear in presenting the motion, and 1 do not concur with the previous speaker who seemed to feel it was definitely information the hon. Member wanted. I say he apparently wanted to find some way in
DEBATES	1529
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion which to embarrass the U.S. and all other authorities.
I think that is in keeping with the views of the hon. Member's party in this regard, in that anything that smacks of free trade is an anathema to them. He indicates, like many of his confreres on that side of the House and in that party, that he wistfully looks back to the Victorian days, and wishes they could return to those halcyon days of protection, and an iron curtain protecting our manufacturers. But fortunately, with the enlightened Government we have on this side of the House, we go along with the general trend of nations to a freer trade, to a greater interchange of products between countries. I think that this pact which was worked out in confidence and good will is a fine indication of the progressive ways, as opposed to the reactionary ways in international trade to which my hon. friends opposite appear to be devoted.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, on a point of special privilege may I ask the hon. Member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) whether, in view of the remarks I made earlier, and the remarks of other hon. Members who have spoken previously, and in view of the fact that the documents which he is requesting are highly confidential and, according to accepted diplomatic practice we are unable to produce, would he agree to withdraw his motion?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government Members saw fit to talk this motion out, I think the matter rests with them.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order It is my duty, pursuant to provisional Standing Order 39-A, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: 1. The hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge)-highway safety-Trail, B.C.-record period free of fatal accidents; 2. The hon. Member for Vancou-ver-Burrard (Mr. Basford)-redistribution- British Columbia-opportunity for representations to commission.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
May 20. 1965

House of Commons Procedures


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
That this House recognizes the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business;
That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House; and
That, in order to secure improved examination of the details of legislation and of public spending, while maintaining the full authority of the House, this House agrees upon the value of making increased use of Standing Committees;
That this House accordingly orders:
1.	That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 36 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of proceedings on motions "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; supplementary or additional estimates for the financial year; interim supply; and main estimates whether for the coming or the current financial year. That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-two members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon this order, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
2.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read as follow;
Standing Order 15-A
15-A. (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may request that the question of allocation of time for consideration of any item of business or stage thereof be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report, and upon such request being made such question shall stand referred to the committee.
(3)	The Business Committee shall report back to the House on or before the third sitting day following such request.
(4)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has unanimously recommended an allocation of time for the item of business or stage thereof, a Minister of the Crown may without notice propose a motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, for concurrence in the report, and, if agreed to, the motion shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten).]
(5)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement or if the committee fails to report within the time specified by Section (3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may give notice that at the next sitting of the House he will move that an order be made allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
(6)	A motion of which a Minister has given notice under Section (5) of this Standing Order shall be made during routine proceedings. Unless the debate on the motion has been previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business in such sitting interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. A motion requesting allocation of time, if agreed to, shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.-
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly agree with those who say that parliament is not just a club of good fellows who should indulge in a few niceties, pass a few laws, bring the session to an end and go home. Parliament is a place of contention, of debate, of attack and counter-attack, of cut and thrust. Experience has shown that this is the best way to get a full examination of the matters that concern a democratic nation like Canada.
When we discuss parliamentary reform, whatever changes we may be proposing, none of us proposes that there be curtailment of or interference with freedom of speech and freedom of debate. There are many passages one could quote in support of this position, but I am sure that all of them are to be found on the pages of Hansard and I will not take the time of the House or my time to quote them again tonight. It is also true that the whole study of parliamentary procedure over the years, indeed over the decades, has been an endeavour to find a balance between the right to speak at as much length as seems desirable, and the right of parliament to make decisions.
It is in the attempt to find a balance between these two goals that many parliaments before this one have worked out rules and have amended them from time to time. The rule changes that have taken place since I have had the honour of being a Member of this House of Commons have been in that vein. I think particularly of the rather complete overhaul that we made in 1955, when we endeavoured to maintain the right of as much speech as seemed necessary, but also when we tried to establish certain limitations on the length of debate so that parliament might have a chance to make decisions.
May 20, 1965

We of the New Democratic Party have felt for a long time that an overhaul such as was made in 1955 needs to be made again. We are not new converts to the idea of allocating time, of planning the parliamentary year. This is something we have advocated for a considerable time. I have before me a document of which some Members will be cognizant, namely a press release that was put out by the leader of this party on September 22, 1964, in which there were set out ten proposals that we made for the reform of parliament. In the main they proposed that we try to make better use of the time that we have within a calendar year. I also have before me a number of documents that I will not even pick up; modesty prevents me from so doing. They are speeches I have made and letters and articles I have written for the press in which I have personally argued very strongly that parliament consider the advisability, the necessity of planning the best use of our time. I have pointed out on many occasions that the sheer increase in the volume of business with which we must deal since Canada came into being nearly 100 years ago makes it impossible for us to carry on with the kind of rules, so far as time is concerned, that were adequate in 1867.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we of the New Democratic Party are in support of the principle contained in the resolution we are now debating. In saying that, I refer in particular to the resolution which is known as order No. 14 on the order paper, which is what is now before us. I distinguish between order No. 14 and order No. 15, which is to come later, because order No. 15 has in it a number of details which we feel should be modified, changed or even dropped altogether. We even have some changes that we think should be made in order No. 14, the resolution that we are now discussing. But in so far as it proposes that we grapple with this question of the proper use of our parliamentary time, we are in support of the principle of this resolution.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We urge the House to take this resolution and the principle behind it very seriously. We think that one of the problems which confronts us in Parliament is to do just that. We were all impressed by the oratory of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his speech this afternoon. We were impressed with his appeal at the conclusion of his remarks when he urged that we do not 22620-99
House of Commons Procedures destroy parliament. He said that if we interfered too drastically with the freedom of speech as he defined it, we would be doing just that.
We of this party, Mr. Speaker, make the same appeal: Do not destroy parliament, but do not destroy it by failing to modernize our rules, by leaving us in the kind of situation where by endless talk on one, two or three issues, we prevent parliament from getting at a host of other issues which demand our attention. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are in support of the principle of the resolution moved in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) which is now before us.
At this point there are two things that I should like to say to the Opposition side of the House, and there are two things I should like to say following that to the Government side. When I address myself to the Opposition side of the House I have in mind all of us who sit on this side. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that there are 40 of us in this corner of the chamber. We represent more than 25 per cent of the votes of the people of Canada cast during the last two elections, and it is not likely that the people of Canada would want to see us sloughed off in the way he suggested this afternoon. However I merely say that in addressing myself to the Opposition side of the House I am addressing my remarks to all of us who sit to Mr. Speaker's left.
The first thing I want to say is, perhaps, a repetition or the placing of emphasis on what I have already said, namely this: Let us on the Opposition side of the House realize that arrangements for the limitation of debate, arrangements for the allocation of time, are not to be shouted down by calling them closure. Methods whereby debate is limited, whereby debate comes to an end at a certain time, are not nearly as serious a form of closure as is the situation we are faced with when, by endless talk on one or two subjects, the opportunity to get at other subjects is completely foreclosed. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is in the interests of those of us on the Opposition side of the House that there be planning of our time so that we can get at all of the items that are before parliament-all of the matters of business that demand our attention.


Mr. Churchill:: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.
May 20/ 1965

House of Commons Procedures


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. Member give any examples of endless talk on certain subjects?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: How many do you want?


Gordon Minto Churchill: "Endless" talk.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose "endless" is a descriptive word and that really there is nothing which is endless in this life. But there are things which seem endless, and we had such a debate in 1964. I contend that the example in 1964 to which I am referring was one that did just what I am asserting; it prevented the Parliament of Canada in 1964 from getting at other important issues with which it should have been dealing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is the only example.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. Member permit me to ask him a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, but I hope these questions are not endless because I have only 40 minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ascertain whether when the hon. gentleman used the word "endless", he was not using it in the same sense in which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) says it is something approaching eternity?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The second thing I want to say to all of us on the Opposition side of the House, Mr. Speaker, is this. By the very nature of the situation, since we do belong by definition to the Opposition, our primary job seems to be to oppose. There are plenty of excellent quotations on parliamentary procedure which support that proposition. In particular, when governments propose things which are vicious, which are inimical to the best interests of the country, which are an extravagant expenditure of the people's money, the opposition's job is to oppose, to stand with all the vigour and determination it has to try to prevent something from taking place which ought not to take place.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If time permitted, Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to quote again Sir Wilfrid Laurier and other great men of the past, the giants of our Parliament and the giants of Westminster, who have suggested that posterity blesses the pertinacity of those who stand firm to prevent something being done which ought not to be done. I could

quote other authorities but I will not have the time to do so. I could quote Sir Charles Tupper's farewell letter to the Conservative party when he was leaving its leadership in 1901.
It is also our job on the Opposition side of the House to try to get things out of the Government and to try to get Parliament to do things. I submit that when we on the Opposition side go on the hustings in an election campaign we spend some of our time, yes, telling the people what we did to try and stop the Government from doing this, that and the other thing; but I submit we spend most of the time telling the people what we got out of the Government, telling the people of the things we fought for.
I submit that that is just as important a role, so far as the Opposition is concerned, as is the role of opposing. Our job, to quote Sir Charles Tupper, is to advance those things which the administration neglects to advance. Therefore we should not ask for rules to be left in such a way that all we do is oppose and use endless time-I use that word again -to oppose things, because part of our job is to see to it that we get things done for the people of Canada whom we represent.
I said I wanted to say a couple of things to the Government as well, Mr. Speaker; and by "Government" in this instance I mean all those to Mr. Speaker's right who support the Government of the day. The first thing I want to say is this, and I say it very strongly to the Government: Do not go too far with this proposition. Do not take the principle that parliament must get things done as the only principle on which parliament must operate. We are a democracy. A democracy consists not just in universal suffrage, not just in the right of the people to vote for the government of their choice; democracy includes respect for the rights of minorities.
This is expressed in parliament by giving to the opposition a right that is almost the equal of the right of the government. In fact, the only right the government has which the opposition does not have is the right that flows from the fact that it has a majority.
I know that in this Parliament we have a Government that is technically in a minority position; but it has carried on for over two years, so in one way or another it finds itself in the kind of majority position which a government needs in order to carry on. But the minute that a government devises rules which give to it the complete, the sole and final control of the business of the House,
May 20, 1965	COMMONS
it is negating the basic principle of democracy, namely that minorities-that the opposition-has rights.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I am going to come in a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to some of the details of what is being proposed, but I do want to assert the basic principle, which has been part of our parliamentary thinking over the years, that no government must ever take unto itself the complete and final control of Parliament. Neither should the Opposition, but it is not able to do so. If the Government does that, it moves in the direction of dictatorship. I assert that it is just as much in the interest of Parliament as it is in the interests of those who happen to sit to the left of Mr. Speaker that the rights of all the Members of this House be protected. I urge that this be kept in mind when providing for new rules, and that the convenience of the Government in the obtaining of decisions be not the end all of proposals that are placed before the House.
The second thing I wish to say to the Government is this. In all probability the kind of rules now proposed will be endorsed, at least in principle, if not in detail. They will be adopted by this House, and when they are the Government is going to lose something it now has. It is going to lose the excuse that it has forever been able to fall back on, that it cannot get certain items of business through the House because of an insufficiency of time. When these new rules are passed, and the business of the House can be dealt with more expeditiously, there will be time to deal with all these social security measures the Prime Minister talked about the other day. Things like medicare will not be capable of being put off for another 40 years after these rules have been changed. The problems in respect of doing our* part in external aid, education and finance will not be capable of being put off by the Government, simply by saying that the processes of parliament take up too much time.
I asked the Prime Minister a day or two ago about the 30 or more items contained in the Speech from the Throne, and whether we were going to get to them this session.
I received the usual answer to that question, that the Government would try to bring them forward as quickly as possible. It has been traditional in this place that Speeches from the Throne contain a great many things with which we never deal. Many of these 22620-99J
DEBATES	1533
House of Commons Procedures things are nothing more than window dressings, but are never brought before the House because of a suggested lack of time.
Let me suggest to this Government that when these rules are passed the Government is going to have time to accomplish those things set out in throne speeches, and we will then have the right to insist that they be accomplished. The excuse of insufficient time will then no longer be capable of use, because these rules will in effect provide the Government with sufficient time. We can then expect the Government to proceed with those things mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. We will then expect action in the solution of these many problems which the Government itself says are demanding attention.
Having said these things of a general character, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to say something specific about the procedural resolutions now before us. The next resolution on the order paper to be considered is No. 15. Only two people have so far taken part in this debate with respect to item No. 14, but the comments of those two individuals have ranged widely over the subjects contained in items 14 and 15. I should like at this time to make a passing reference to item 15, although I might say that for the most part we intend to debate the resolution set out in order No. 15 at a later date.
May I now say a few words about some of the details contained in order No. 14. There is a proposal that the debate on supply in the House of Commons be limited to 36 days. In line with the statements I have already made, we accept the principle that there should be a time limit on the number of days to be spent on the debate in respect of supply in the House of Commons. We agree with the proposal of the Prime Minister in this resolution that the estimates should be referred to standing committees. We also agree that, having done this, certainly less time ought to be needed in the House of Commons itself in this regard. We do think, however, that the Government has gone too far in proposing that the time limit be 36 days and that there be included, for the purposes of the supply debate limited to 36 days, four categories of business, namely the motions that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair, which can take up to 12 days, supplementary estimates, interim supply and the main estimates.
In the proposals which have previously been made regarding the limitation of time with respect to estimates, for example, the
May 20. 1965

House of Commons Procedures report which the committee made last session, the limitation was suggested only with respect to the debate on the main estimates. The proposal made last year by the committee added up to a limit of 45 days with respect to the main estimates. I do not mind the Government cutting the time from 45 days down to 36 days, provided this limit refers only to the main estimates; but the resolution now before us includes also not only the 12 days of debate on the motions that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair, which involves really a number of want of confidence motions, but also interim supply and supplementary estimates.
We propose to move a compromise, as an indication of our willingness to go along with the principle of this resolution, in the form of an amendment that the 36 day limit be applicable only to two of the four categories, namely interim supply and the main estimates. We believe that it is fair to include interim supply in this limitation because, after all, that is part of what is included in the main estimates. We do not think it is fair to include the supplementary estimates, which may include things entirely foreign to that which is included in the main estimates. Nor do we think it is fair to include the 12 days of debate on the motions for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair. This is the kind of change we feel ought to be made in the proposal regarding the limitation of time on estimates.
We welcome the suggestion that this proposal be referred to a special committee of 22 which will be asked to work out the details, having in mind the rights of the Opposition and various other details. We intend to make certain proposals in that regard at the time the special committee of 22 is studying this proposal.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is not the usual time, in the middle of one's speech, but I should like to move an amendment, and I should like to do it now, since it is related to the remarks I have just made. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That the resolution be amended by deleting from paragraph 1 thereof the sentence which reads: "For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of proceedings on motions 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair'; supplementary or additional estimates for the financial year; interim supply; and main estimates whether for the coming or the current financial year"; and by substituting thereof the following sentence: "For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of interim supply and main estimates whether for the coming or the current financial year".

It is our hope that this amendment will commend itself not only to Members of the Opposition, but to Members of the Government, or that if not acceptable in this form to the Government, the Government will propose some alternative or compromise. Surely this is a detail in respect of which we can get together.
I should now like to say-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. gentleman proceeds, I should like to ask him, for the general information of the House, whether he has made a rough calculation as to the number of extra days his amendment would add to the debate. It would almost certainly add at least 12. Has he any estimate in this regard?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would add 12 days only if the entire time allowed on the supply motions was used; but during the last session, which was rather lengthy, we did not use that much time. Perhaps I should point out that we think in principle these two items should not be combined with the other two covered by this resolution. If any comparison should be made, it should be made with the number of days taken up in debate in former sessions on the main estimates and interim supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you taking into account the extra hours to be added to each sitting day?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a subject from which I intend to stay away, because I am limited as to time, and because it is really connected with the next resolution. All I will say at this point is that we are not impressed by the argument that by lengthening the sitting days we will save time. We are very much afraid that the lengthened sitting, between six and eight o'clock, will be mainly taken up by a few Members keeping this place going while others have gone to supper. We do not think this additional time will save time in the long run, as expected by the Government. We intend to deal with that subject however when we reach our consideration of the other resolution.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
At this time I wish to make one or two comments about the proposal with respect to Standing Order 15A, regarding the establishment of a Business Committee. Obviously in principle we will support this suggestion. As a party we have been arguing for this for some time. During the last session I had
May 20. 1965

the privilege of being the Chairman of a subcommittee of the Committee on Procedure and Organization. That committee was unanimous in its support of a proposal for a time allocation rule which was not quite as severe or strict as the one now before us. I suggest that it might have been advantageous to accept that proposal last session. But at any rate we favour this idea in principle. However, we think there are some aspects of the proposed standing order 15A that have to be clarified, and we think there are one or two places where changes ought to be made. I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) a question yesterday at the end of his speech about the meaning of subparagraph 2 with particular regard to whether or not the reference to the Business Committee of an item or stage meant the whole gamut of a piece of legislation or just one stage. To my surprise his answer was that it meant either. In other words, it could be one stage such as second reading, or it could be the whole gamut. I think that is a mistake.
I should like to see this Business Committee work. I come at it critically but I come at it sympathetically. I think this is a good idea but I think that the chances of this proposition working are diminished if when the Business Committee meets it is faced, not with just how long we will spend on second reading but how long we will spend on second reading, Committee of the Whole and third reading, even when that far in advance we do not know what may be involved. I think that this good idea-of course it is a good idea; some of us have advocated it-would work better if one stage at a time were referred to the Business Committee.
Another point I want to comment on has to do with subparagraph 5 of the proposed standing order 15A.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I love questions but my eye is on the clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure we are not
going to be too restrictive with the hon. gentleman.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, we will give him endless time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) says, we will give him endless time, but I think we would like to understand what he is saying. I ask him this question. Has he appre-
House of Commons Procedures ciated that if every stage of a money bill had to go to the Business Committee and the Business Committee was not unanimous, and therefore the second procedure had to be followed, this would entail at least four and maybe five full day debates on how much time we would take at each stage, and in the end there might be no time saved whatever?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if the concept the Minister has of this order is that it is going to work that way and that we are going to have to bring it into play on every piece of legislation and have all these debates, the order is not going to work. We have got along in some respects on the basis of agreement among the House Leaders, and I see this Business Committee as one that will meet fairly often. It will frequently reach agreement without having to report to the House and it is only in cases where there is difficulty, in cases where endless debate is looming or where there is undue contention, that this method will be brought into play.
I think that the value of this kind of order is diminished if the Government drafts it in such a way that it puts into its own hands what amounts to almost complete and ultimate control. I think it should be drafted with a view to its being the kind of order that will induce co-operation among the various parties in the House in trying to plan the business of the House and to plan the parliamentary year.
It is in that vein, Mr. Speaker, that we are particularly concerned about subparagraph 5 which provides what is to happen when there is not unanimous agreement on the part of those who make up the Business Committee. I take it from this paragraph that even if the Government were beaten 4 to 1 in the Business Committee, a Minister could still operate under subclause 5 of 15A. I recognize that there has to be provision for these things to be dealt with when there is not unanimity, and in the rule that my subcommittee drafted at the last session we tried to make provision as to what would happen if there was unanimity and what would happen if there was a majority decision but not unanimity. I think we were perhaps wise in going only that far. The rule of unanimity is perhaps too restrictive, but surely a rule that goes to the other extreme and allows a representative from the Business Committee who has been beaten 4 to 1 to come back to the House and still get his will is going a little bit too far.
May 20, 1965

House of Commons Procedures
The Prime Minister made a bit of a slip at one point yesterday when he told me that he thought this matter could be discussed by the special committee of 22 referred to in paragraph 1 of the resolution. I recognize that the Prime Minister made a mistake and that it does not read that way, but I should like to suggest that the Government reconsider this point and that it allow the special committee of 22 to take a look at the proposed standing order 15A, and in particular paragraph 5 of that order. I am not worried very much about the rest of it. I think the rest of it is pretty good. Any details on which we differ are minor, but certainly the position that the Government would take in circumstances where it has been beaten 4 to 1 in the Business Committee is one which I think ought to be reviewed.
One suggestion that our subcommittee made last year in one draft was that if there was not unanimity in the Business Committee the number of days that might be proposed in the House for limitation of a debate should be subject to the provision that on the last of those days the ten o'clock adjournment be lifted and the House be allowed to continue as long as necessary that night so that those who had speeches to make could make them. I might say, by the way, that this is the practice at Westminster which is so often held up to us as a model that we should follow.
There are other ways to deal with this problem. There could be a limitation on the number of days into which the Government could compress a debate. There are various other forms of protection that could be put into subparagraph 5 which, as I say, presents a serious difficulty because here is a case where the Government, having been beaten in the Business Committee 4 to 1, is still reserving the right to tell the House what it shall do. I recognize the precautions that are there. I recognize, for example, that a Minister, having been beaten in the Business Committee, cannot move a motion until the fourth day. The matter has to be referred to the Business Committee itself for three days and there has to be a report back, and even then the Minister has to give notice of a debate to take place at a later date. I realize, therefore, that what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) said this afternoon, that a motion could be made and the matter could be all over in one day, just will not happen. The Minister tries to get something done on a Monday and it could

be the next Monday or Tuesday before subparagraph 5 is brought into full operation. I realize that this is a pretty serious step for a Government to take and that it may not be taken very often-I hope not. But the very fact that this provision is there is a threat which I suggest detracts from the attractiveness-I use that word advisedly-of a Business Committee, the studied effort of which should be to plan decently and effectively the business of the House.
So, Mr. Speaker, I make this plea, and in this respect I am not moving an amendment. I cannot because I have already moved one. As a supporter of the principle of time allocation I make the plea that a new look be taken at that aspect of the proposed standing order 15A.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) interrupted to ask me what I thought about one or two other things that bear on the other resolution that the Prime Minister will be moving. Obviously we should not be discussing it under this resolution, but both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have done so, so perhaps I might say a word or two-although I make it clear that the Members of this group will have more to say on that resolution when we get into Committee of the Whole on it, as we will.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
First may I say that both with respect to the resolution we are now discussing and with respect to the other one I think there was merit in the implication of the question asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) with regard to whether these changes were to be made absolutely permanent or subject to review. I think the Prime Minister was quite justified in saying that he did not want to make them temporary because he did not want the House to convey to the country that we do not know what we are doing. But I think the idea that came out of the Prime Minister's mouth, namely that provision might now be made for a review of these changes at the end of one or two sessions, is a good one. Mind you, if this Government stays in power all we need is a Government commitment that this will be done, but I think it might be better to have written into the resolution somewhere a provision that at the end of a certain period of time these new rules will be reviewed. I think I can say for Members generally that we are prepared to try more drastic rule changes than we would otherwise accept if there were the knowledge that we would
May 20, 1965

have a chance to review them later. These rules, while to me they are attractive because they are based on the general principle of planning our parliamentary year, nevertheless are sufficiently far reaching that there should be a provision for their review at a later time.
Now I should like to say a word or two about one or two items in the other resolution. We question the desirability or advisability of the lengthened hours. We do not think it is a case of simple mathematics, that is of adding up the number of hours you get in the longer week and dividing that by a number of days and saying you will save time. You will not save time that way. We believe that the period between six and eight in particular will be wasted. We feel also that the proposal to sit after ten o'clock at night, while acceptable in principle, needs to be altered. We quite agree that there have been many situations that were not desirable, where the whole House seemed to want to go on and finish something in 15 or 20 minutes, maybe even an hour some night and one Member could say, no, and that was it. However, we do not believe we should go to the other extreme and bring in a rule under which night after night at ten o'clock and Wednesday and Friday at six o'clock, it would be possible, provided there were not ten objectors, to bring in this kind of motion that would keep things going endlessly, as the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) would say. I think the rule should have in it certain restrictions to make it possible to go for no more than an hour unless unanimous consent were given, or that it should not be used more than once or twice a week. In other words, do not deal with the situation you are trying to solve by bringing in a rule of such sweeping application as this one.
Neither in order paper item No. 14 nor in order paper item No. 15 are there to be found two or three things that last session's committee recommended, which we think ought to be included. One of these was the proposal for some kind of break in the sittings of the House so that the committees, which are going to be upgraded and given more work, could meet while the House was not in session. I agree fully with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said about the importance of giving more work to the committees. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) agreed with that proposition this afternoon. I think that the whole question
House of Commons Procedures of the proper allocation of our time includes the concept of making greater use of our committees. But we think, Mr. Speaker, that you will not get the best work done in committees if two, three, four or ten of them have to sit while the House is sitting. I submit, from my experience, that the committees that do the very best work are committees that do not have the distraction of having Members run from the committee room to the House of Commons. I think the proposal of last session's committee that there be a certain break was a good one. We were not wedded, and I am not wedded, to the particular timetable that was proposed. But we do believe that there should be periods when the House recesses so that the committees can meet and do their work.
In the same vein we urge that the Government give more consideration to the whole question of research facilities and assistance for Members of the House of Commons. I bring this in at this time because we are talking about improving the job that Members do, and giving more work to the committees is one way of doing it. It employs more Members in our work and it requires more Members to become familiar with the tasks that are around here. I think if Members are going to do this that there has to be faced this problem of there being some kind of opposition civil service, if you want to call it that. There has to be research assistance available so that Members can do a better job both in the House and in committees. I am extremely sorry that neither of these important subjects was mentioned in either of the resolutions brought forward by the Government, though they were subjects about which the special committee had something to say in a number of its reports.
When we get into Committee of the Whole on the other resolution, we will be talking about the need for staff in another context. As I say, we do not believe it is going to save any time to sit through between six and eight, or sit after ten o'clock at night, whether for an hour or endlessly. At any rate, if we do extend the hours of sitting, certainly we are going to have to increase the staff so far as Hansard reporters, interpreters and others who help us in our work here in the House are concerned. I am sorry to see no reference to this problem in either of the resolutions that have been placed before us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have already given you the amendment we propose at this time.
May 20, 1965

House of Commons Procedures It is, as the House will recognize, an amendment that deals with just one point. We could have provided an amendment that would have covered three or four points which we believe need to be corrected. However, whenever one does that Members of the House say, well, we like this but not that. We have therefore made our amendment to cover one point only and we hope the Government will either accept it or meet it half way. We think that we could make the order regarding the limitation on the use of our time in considering estimates much better if that were done. Then, when that is out of the way, Mr. Speaker, we may have other amendments to try to improve Standing Order 15-A, unless in the meantime the Government itself decides that there is merit in some of our suggestions, or even goes so far as to suggest that the special committee of 22 referred to in paragraph (1) of resolution No. 14 might have the right to deal with the whole question of Standing Order 15-A as well as the limitation of time on estimates.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, our stance is one of support of the principle that is set before us in this resolution. I use the word "principle" in the singular because I think there is just one principle in the resolution that is before us and that is that we make better use of our time. We have got to do it. If we do not, if we go on wasting time and not getting at the scores of problems that must come before us, we will, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, I think be destroying parliament, and destroying it far more dangerously than we would by accepting time limits on some of our debates. We have already accepted time limits on the Address and on the Budget Debate and even on other items.
I wonder if I might just have a few more minutes, Mr. Speaker? I see you are properly on the edge of your chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is the
House agreed that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Ten minutes more, under the allocation of time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. Member would permit me to ask him one question before he goes on to another point? He said that he did not believe that sitting through the dinner hour would save time.

Does he not think the real purpose is not to save time at all, but to allow a much wider expression of view in the same number of days on a question that might be before the House? It seems to me that was what was in the minds of most hon. Members, and it was what was in the mind of the Government in making this suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is an interpretation that the Minister is entitled to place upon it. We just do not feel in our Canadian experience that it will work that way. We believe that the tendency during the six to eight period will be for Members to keep things going while others go out and have a meal. If there is a feeling that we have to lengthen the day, it might be better to start at two o'clock or go until ten-thirty. We just do not believe you can transplant the United Kingdom hours to our House. There, it is tea at four and dinner at eight or nine. We are a supper crowd in Canada and we are used to the six to eight break for supper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are afraid there will be no one in the Press Gallery?
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, at least the Minister caught the ear of quite a few members in the Press Gallery when he made that remark; but it is a point. I think sitting straight through is unfair to the Members. I think it is unfair to the staff. I think it is unfair to the press who, after all, are a pretty important part of our parliamentary operation.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the hon. Member permit another question before going on?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Member for Winnipeg South Centre tell me how much time have I left?


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have got until nine o'clock.


Eric Alfred Winkler: This is going back to 15A in regard to the Business Committee and the allocation of time on questions. I wonder if the hon. Member, in consideration of the democratic method which we believe we use in the function of the business of the House, and in particular in which he himself believes, would not agree that where such a committee could not make a determination in regard to the allocation, it might be a wise course for the particular subject matter involved to be left open and not made subject to allocation of time?
May 20, 1965	COMMONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think that we have got to get somewhere in between the position taken by the hon. Member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) that there be no allocation of time on such subjects, and the Government's position which gives into the hands of one person, who is beaten by four others, the right to impose his will on the House. It is a subject we have to go into in detail, and is the kind of thing we ought to consider in the committee of 20.
There is another subject on which I would like to say a word or two, but if my hon. friend and neighbour from Winnipeg South Centre feels it is unfair for me to do this on borrowed time, he is my timekeeper and he can stop me.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No; I am in favour of freedom of speech. You go ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other point I want to make is related to something said by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) this afternoon, and it is a matter upon which I feel the record should be put straight. The Leader of the Opposition had quite a bit to say about the importance of establishing the Speakership on a permanent basis. We listened with interest to his remarks and we think there is a great deal of merit in what he said.
There are problems in connection with the establishment of a permanent Speakership, but I am not going into them. However, in the course of his remarks the Leader of the Opposition said that he tried to establish a permanent Speakership by offering it to me in 1957. I have since read the remarks he made as recorded in Hansard, and the impression certainly was given to the House and the press that what I turned down in 1957 was his offer of the permanent Speakership.
Now, I give the Leader of the Opposition full marks for having offered the Speakership to a person outside his own party, just as I hope others will give me full marks after they read my letter in reply, which is a sessional paper anyone can consult, for having turned it down for the reasons I gave. But the Leader of the Opposition must not now try to claim that he offered me in 1957 what he now calls the permanent Speakership.
He offered by letter, and also in a personal conversation, to nominate me for that high post for the twenty third Parliament. I have the letter. It is a public document; so is my reply. That is not the issue. But on October 16, 1957, the then hon. Member for Swift
DEBATES	1533
House of Commons Procedures Current-Maple Creek, Mr. Irvin Studer had seen some references to this in the press, and he asked this question, as recorded at page 31 of Hansard for that date:
Is it true that the Prime Minister-
The reference being to the present Leader of the Opposition.
-has requested the socialist member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to be permanent Speaker of this House of Commons?
The reply was as follows:


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I answer that first categorically. No; there was no offer to the hon. gentleman to be permanent Speaker.
Then there is an answer that is practically a full column, in which he recited his views about the Speakership, and in which he admitted that he had made an offer of the Speakership for that Parliament to me; but he underlined his point by putting it this way:
The hon. gentleman-
Meaning the then hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.
-mentioned the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. There was no offer of a permanent Speakership in any way inherent in the offer.
Those are the words of the present Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister. As I say, I do not detract by one iota from the marks due to him for having offered the Speakership to a person outside his party, but he can hardly claim, on the basis of what transpired in the summer of 1957, that that was an effort to establish a permanent Speakership.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. Member permit a question? I was in on some of that conversation. May I ask him this: It was just impossible, wasn't it, for the Prime Minister of the day to suggest a permanent Speakership because that depends on the House of Commons? But offering the Speakership to a man outside his own party was obviously a step toward the institution of permanency? Perhaps we made a mistake in making the offer; I don't know.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One of many mistakes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At least I know I did not make a mistake in turning it down. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is perfectly correct. The Leader of the Opposition, when Prime Minister, did not have it in his power to offer a permanent Speakership to anyone.
1540	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures There was no constitutional right to do so, and there is still no constitutional right to do it. All I am saying is that he should not now claim that in 1957 he tried to do what the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre says he had no constitutional right to do.
This is a point that deserves further interesting study by all of us. I regret that the present Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister and found such a good Speaker in Mr. Michener, did not find some way to keep him on a permanent basis. I think this is how we will get a permanent Speaker some day, not by picking out someone and saying "We think you would do the job well." We will get a permanent Speakership by having an occupant of the Chair who is doing a good job, so that on all sides of the House we can decide that that man should be permanent Speaker. That is how it came about in Britain.
I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre and all other hon. Members for giving me this extra time. I hope Parliament will take seriously the job before us as outlined in the resolution, namely, the proper use of our parliamentary time. This is what the people of Canada expect. Do this we must, and we must do it now.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate to improve some of the procedure in this House. At the outset, and to continue along the same vein on which the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concluded, I want to say that we in this party have long supported the idea of making those changes that are necessary to provide for a permanent Speakership.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I am not going to go into a lot of detail about the reasons for this, which I think have already been well stated. We think that this should be done, as the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, by giving consideration to the matter when we have a Speaker who has had some experience and who has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the House that he can discharge the Speaker's duties in accordance with the wishes of all sides of the House. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Roland Michener did in fact both possess and display those qualities. Therefore if the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was really serious in his contention that this was a desirable thing to do, he not only had an opportunity when

DEBATES	May 20. 1965
he had the largest majority in the history of Canada but he also had a man to fill that position whose experience and qualifications were obvious. I am not criticizing the Leader of the Opposition for changing his opinion now-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Vincent:: Not you.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -because it is always good to see someone who has been enlightened. But the fact is that he had the very best opportunity of providing this permanent office, and it is not good enough for him to say that he was frustrated and prevented from doing so because the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would not accept the position. This is tantamount to saying that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre was the only man in Canada who could handle the job, and if he turned it down, then the Leader of the Opposition could not do this. I agree that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre could probably do the job very well. He has not had the opportunity to occupy that position, to display his qualifications, and so on; but I have no doubt that he would do this job well. However, Mr. Speaker, there was a man in the Chair at that time who was acceptable for this kind of position, and this was agreed in all corners of the House.


Clément Vincent: What about the present
Speaker?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I suggest that now is a good time to deal with this subject as well, because I have no hesitation or reservation in suggesting that the present Speaker, the present occupant of the Chair of this House, also has the qualifications and has abundantly displayed those qualifications, together with his judgment, to do an excellent job in that position.
I want to turn now to another subject. In this regard I am going to disagree just slightly with the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. At the outset of his speech the hon. Member suggested that there were ten proposals made by the leader of his party on September 22, 1964, for the reform of parliament. I think he also wanted to leave the inference at least that these were original suggestions for parliamentary reform. Well, Mr. Speaker, by September 22, 1964, almost every one of the ten proposals for reform had been considered by the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, and it would have been possible for any one
May 20, 1965

of the 15 Members of that committee, or 14 apart from the Chairman, to come forward with those proposals. However, the rest of us felt this was still a matter for consideration, discussion and negotiation and that it should come to the view of the public and Parliament as a unanimous, or at least a considered report of that committee.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested that one of the things that was wrong with parliament was the absenteeism, that has been far too high during these past few days and weeks. I agree that the absenteeism within this House during the debates, and particularly when votes are taken, is a matter for concern. But I also think there are good and sufficient reasons for this high level of absenteeism during the past few months. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, we have been sitting almost continuously since February 18, 1964. The sessions have been far too long, without the breaks, without the recesses that are necessary. I suggest that these recesses and breaks in our sittings are important. I also suggest that there are far more important reasons for having these breaks and recesses than simply allowing Members to take a holiday. Mr. Speaker, if you do not see, if you do not talk to and do not once in a while visit with the people you represent, how can you, in the name of common sense, reflect their thinking in the proceedings in this House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not complaining particularly for myself, because it applies to so many other Members; but I have been away so much of the time from the Medicine Hat constituency during the last 15 months that I almost feel a stranger walking in amongst the people that I am supposed to represent here. This is because of the very long sessions. So while it may be well to complain about absenteeism and say that absenteeism is the major problem at this time, I suggest that there are some good reasons for it and that it strengthens the argument for our having a predictable program for carrying out the business of parliament.
There is one reason, and one reason only, why each Member of this House of Commons is elected from a different part of Canada, and that is so he will bring into this House the thinking, opinions, and so on, from the people of the area where he was elected. If you are going to be continually exposed only to other Members of Parliament or only to the people in Ottawa, you do not reflect the

House of Commons Procedures thinking of the people in the area where you were elected. There is no questton that your thinking, opinions, and so on, are influenced by the people with whom you associate. Being away for almost 15 months makes you lose contact with the people in your area. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this, I suggest, is an additional argument to strengthen the case for our having a predictable programming of the business of this House.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) spoke yesterday, he paid tribute to the Members of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, as well as to the Members of the subcommittees. I want to say to the Prime Minister that we appreciate the tributes he paid to the work that was done, and I, too, want to remind the House that there were many, many hours, weeks, and even months of work-when I talk about months, I am talking about several meetings a week for months-that went into the preparation of the reports that came to this House. I believe there were 21 reports in all. Certainly much of what is contained in the two resolutions that are before us now came out of those reports. The Prime Minister acknowledged this, and I am grateful for that. In so far as concerns the subcommittee that it was my honour to chair, I would pay special tribute to the Members of that committee and to the staff who helped us with the research that went into its findings and recommendations. Without taking anything away from any of the other subcommittees, I think it is fair to say that there were several times as many meeings by this particular subcommittee which dealt with the committee structure of this House; and I think the recommendations made in the eleventh, the fifteenth, I believe it was, the eighteenth and nineteenth reports of the whole committee probably took more time than all the other work that was done.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was speaking-this is also true of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-reference was made to the second resolution which is before us on the order paper, namely Government Order No. 15, along with remarks which dealt with Government Order No. 14. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I will be permitted to do this as well, because certainly the two are very closely related. In fact, it seems to me they both have to be considered almost at the same time.
1542	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures
The Prime Minister said in his opening remarks that he agreed with the principle of sending the estimates to committees so that the detailed examination of the items can be done in standing committees, saving of course the right of the Committee of Supply to give final approval. We agree with that. We are happy that the Leader of the Opposition agrees that estimates ought to go to standing committees. I should like to remind the House that when the Prime Minister was being interviewed on the Pierre Berton show on November 22, 1964 he had this to say-and I am reading from the actual text of the interview:
There is something else. A subcommittee has already produced-it hasn't got through the House of Commons yet-a report on the operation of committees of the House. The scrutiny of expenditures of the House of Commons should go to committees. They do now on occasion but when they come back to the House people talk about them all over again. If we could work out a proposal- and we're going to do this, although it may take a little time-by which these things that are done in committee would not be debated all over again in the House of Commons, we would save a lot of time and make the House more efficient.
So the Prime Minister has agreed with this, Mr. Speaker; the Leader of the Opposition has agreed; the spokesman for the New Democratic Party has agreed; and certainly we agree that the detailed examination of the estimates should be done in standing committees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the hon. Member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) agrees.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And I think the hon. Member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) agrees. That makes it unanimous, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No; there are 260 other members in this House.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, at least, it makes it unanimous that there is some support for this idea in all parties.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is different.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest there is no useful purpose to be served now by further debating the merits of the idea of sending estimates to committees, because all parties agree in this. But, Mr. Speaker, I do think that we have to address ourselves to how we can set up the mechanics, the machinery and the procedure for doing this effectively.
In the second resolution, under the provision to realign the standing committees, there are 17 committees that could receive and deal

DEBATES	May 20. 1965
with estimates. I believe that number almost guarantees failure of this proposal that standing committees can deal efficiently and effectively with all of the main estimates of this House. I say that because at the present time there are a number of problems which standing committees have. First of all, they have problems in getting quorums at times. They have problems in getting reporters for each language. They have problems in getting simultaneous interpreters at times. They also have problems in finding enough accommodation-rooms-at times. If we are going to have this multiplicity of committees which can receive and deal with estimates, I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that this is a built-in provision which is going to cause the failure of effectively dealing with estimates in standing committees.
I appeal to the Government and to the Official Opposition: Try this if you like, but do not discard the idea if the proposal for 17 committees does not work. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because if it is going to work these committees which will be called upon to carry out detailed examination of estimates must be working committees.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, six would be about the ideal number; certainly not more than ten. If we could work out some arrangement so that all the departments could be sent to this smaller number of committees, then I think the plan would succeed. I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that along with setting up a smaller number of committees which could accept all of the estimates there should be periods when the House itself stands adjourned so those committees can attract the full attention of Members.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Procedure and Organization recommended, and in fact attempted to provide for stated periods when the House would sit and when it would adjourn to give the committees the opportunity to sit. This proposal was on the basis that the House would sit for three weeks and then adjourn for two weeks so that the estimates committees could meet. Perhaps Mr. Speaker, that was too rigid. I do not deny it was probably a little too stiff and rigid, putting the Government in the position of having to adjourn the House. But, of course, we did provide that "unless otherwise ordered" the House could sit for three weeks and then the committees sit for two weeks, and it would be a very simple matter for the House to pass a motion that it would not adjourn at a certain time for that two-week period if there was some very important and urgent
May 20, 1965	COMMONS
legislation before the House which was not completed at the end of the three week period.
The other alternative, Mr. Speaker, if the House and the Government will not accept that plan is that the Government could volunteer at times to move a motion to adjourn the House for a reasonable length of time, for at least one week, perhaps two, so that Members could give their exclusive attention to committee work. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this idea of sending all the estimates to committees would eventually culminate in a year's programming of the business of this House. I would hope that all of the estimates would be almost automatically referred to standing committees when they were introduced. This could be done very early in the session. Perhaps it would be even before the Speech from the Throne debate concluded. Then at the beginning of the session we could proceed with the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, followed by the budget debate, and perhaps following that we could proceed with the detailed examination of estimates in standing committees. These committee reports could be brought back to the House; we could use up as much of the 36 days provided as is necessary, and then have all this administrative chore, if you want to call it that, dealt with during the early part of the session. Perhaps this would be completed by June and then, Mr. Speaker, for the balance of the year the House could devote its attention exclusively to new legislation or amendments to existing legislation. I certainly think this would improve the procedure. We would then get away from interim supply motions and a lot of other things that must be brought in because the estimates have not been passed.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
In dealing specifically with the motion and the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I should like to state that I have prepared an amendment, that the following be added after the words "current financial year" in line 22: "Excepting supplementary or additional estimates introduced after the main estimates have been approved, and excepting always the final supplementary or additional estimates." I will now have to make that a subamendment. I want to move this for two reasons. First of all, if we are going to provide for 36 days-and I think that is a reasonable time limitation to consider the main estimates and interim supply-it could
DEBATES	1543
House of Commons Procedures have been 30 or 45-and we include supplementary or additional estimates, we are left with two alternatives in the event that supplementary estimates are brought in after the 36 days have been used. Either the Government would be prevented from bringing in additional or supplementary estimates, or they would be deemed to have been passed automatically because of the 36 day limit. Neither of those alternatives is acceptable because it is necessary for the House of Commons to be able to deal with all expenditures. It is not possible for the Government to anticipate every single expenditure for the entire year, particularly in respect of supplementary estimates in relation to external aid expenditures which cannot be anticipated when the main estimates are prepared. Supplementary estimates for that kind of need can often amount to $50 million or $100 million, particularly in relation to external aid, as I have suggested, or emergencies in respect of agriculture or defence, or many other things.
I do not think it would be desirable for the Government, after the 36 days have expired, to be able to spend these additional amounts of money on the basis that they have automatically been passed without the consent of parliament. On the other hand, I do not believe that the Government should be prevented from presenting these additional estimates because the 36 day period has been used.
The proposal made by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, that we take out the supplementary estimates completely, is not entirely unacceptable. I do not disagree or argue with his contention that the motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair be exempted from this resolution, because I think one could argue successfully that it is not the Committee of Supply which deals with that motion, because the Speaker is in the Chair and the House is in session. I do not believe that we should do away with the opportunity provided on supply motions for the Opposition to select the subject matter for those debates. Perhaps there are too many occasions allowing for non-confidence motions, for example on the budget motion and the Speech from the Throne; but I believe it desirable to retain that provision in our standing orders. I do not disagree with the suggestion that the Opposition should be entitled to pick the subject matter of a debate, but I do disagree with the hon. Member's suggestion that supplementary or
1544	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures additional estimates should be removed from this time limit.
I should like to point out to the hon. Member that often during the course of our consideration of the main estimates we also consider supplementary estimates, and on many occasions it is difficult to separate the main estimates from the supplementary estimates. If we were to leave out the additional or supplementary estimates from the 36 day time limit, I suggest there would be a great deal of confusion in considering the various different departments, since the main estimates of the departments are considered when the department is before the committee of supply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Often without debate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, often without debate; but it could be argued satisfactorily that these should not be included within the 36 day limit. As a matter of fact, during the last session both the supplementary and main estimates were considered in 30 days.
I would suggest that the amendment I intend to move will be more acceptable to the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre than perhaps even his own amendment.
I therefore move the following as a subamendment:
That the following be added after the words "current financial year" at the end of the proposed amendment;
"supplementary or additional estimates, excepting supplementary or additional estimates introduced after the main estimates have been approved, and excepting always the final supplementary or additional estimates".
I think this is more acceptable because of those one dollar items which usually appear in the final supplementary estimates. For example this year we had six one dollar items which represented, in fact, major amendments to the legislation. The Government withdrew at least two of them, and at least four of them in my opinion and in the opinion of many Members of the House ought to have been introduced by way of bills amending statutes, rather than in the way they were introduced.
The provision which I have suggested in my subamendment is that the final supplementary or additional estimates should always be excepted from this limitation, and this would take care of the possibility of major amendments being made by way of supplementary estimates.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Dief-enbaker) spoke this afternoon about the

DEBATES	May 20, 1965
need to guard against the bureaucracy accomplishing things in this way without reference to the House of Commons. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if it were possible for the Government to bring in supplementary estimates that would automatically be deemed to have been passed because the 36 days had expired, they could in fact bring in major or important amendments to legislation and have them passed with no consideration by the House at all. So we would hope that the subamendment would commend itself to Members of the House.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If 15A becomes part of our standing orders, could the Government not still force through additional final supple-mentaries no matter what the Opposition wished to do otherwise?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree there is a possibility that this could happen, but I would also point out to the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre that the Government can now do this under the provision for closure if they want to do so. The proposed standing order 15A is really another type of guillotine, a more refined type of guillotine. They do not seem to want to use closure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Given a cloak of respectability by the Business Committee.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do suggest that if all supplementary or additional estimates in any fiscal year were confined within the 36 days, it would be automatic that those supplemen-taries would be passed and that would be substantially worse than having a situation in which you would at least refer them to a Business Committee.
I want to refer to the Business Committee for a moment. Paragraph 1 of the proposed standing order 15A provides as follows:
There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
I suggest that we need to have a new and considerably more detailed definition of what a party is for purposes of this particular proposal. I am also greatly disturbed by paragraph 5 of the proposed standing order 15A which provides as follows:
If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the Committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement or if the Committee fails to report within the time specified by Section
May 20, 1965

(3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may give notice that at the next sitting of the House he will move that an order he made allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
What does the Government mean, Mr. Speaker? What does the Prime Minister mean by "item of business or stage thereof"? It is very easy to argue that the only item of business that is before the House is what is on the order paper and that, Sir, is only one stage at a time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Second reading.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: For example, if a resolution is on the order paper preceding a bill, then that resolution is the only item of business before the House. If it is second reading, as the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre says, then that is the only item of business before the House. At that point the bill has not moved to the committee stage nor has it moved to the third reading stage. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we have got to be fairly clear on what we mean by "item of business". Is "item of business" for purposes of this section meant to include all stages of a measure from its introduction to the final action usually required for approval by the House, from the resolution stage through first reading, second reading, Committee of the Whole and third reading? We need some clarification of this point. If this does mean all stages of a measure going through the House, then I suggest we need to have this defined clearly in the proposed standing order 15A.
There is another point that disturbs me about this part of the proposition, Mr. Speaker. Some provision needs to be made for the distribution of time after the allocation of time has been determined. The Prime Minister and several other Members have referred to the practice of the British Business Committee, but I understand that the Business Committee in the British House only considers the allocation of time after an item has more or less become stalled in the House. It is only then that a motion is moved in the British Parliament to refer an item to the Business Committee for the purpose of allocating time. I understand this is rarely done, but when it is done the British Business Committee not only allocates the amount of time for the particular business or item but they also divided that allocation of time into compartments for each one of the stages.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the hon. Member would permit a question at that point. Has he read the British rules carefully and
House of Commons Procedures is he not aware of the fact that the total amount of time to be allocated to a matter is actually decided by the Government, and that what the Business Committee does is exclusively what the hon. Member is now proposing, namely that it apportions the time amongst the various clauses and so on? My interjection is intended to be helpful.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I thank the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am not as familiar with the British practice as he obviously is, but the point I am trying to make is that if the Business Committee is to follow the British practice it will have to come back with recommendations compartmentalizing, if one wants to call it that, the total time allocated among the various stages. I was under the impression that there was some determination by the British Business Committee of the total time as well, and I was also under the impression that if their Business Committee could not agree on the allocation of time for a measure the whole matter was dropped, and the measure was not subject to allocation of time at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is only referred to the Business Committee after the total time has been decided.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In any event, I think this is something that must be considered because it is not provided for. If a minister can give notice that he will move an order allocating the time for all stages of an item of business, the result is that when a bill is being dealt with in committee several clauses of the bill could go through with no consideration having been given to them at all. For example, we could very well discuss and debate very vigorously the first, second or third clauses of a bill until all of the time had expired and several other following clauses would receive no consideration whatever. Therefore I think this is something that has to be spelled out in detail.
There is another thing that disturbs me about the distribution of time once it has been allocated and that is: Who is going to get the time? We know that there is no time limit on the opening speeches of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition when a measure is being introduced. Let us take the extreme case of a Wednesday-although I do not think the Government would use a Wednesday for the purpose of restricting the allocation of time to one day. But let us suppose they did. Let us suppose that the Minister of Transport was not quite as con-
1546	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures siderate of Parliament as he usually is and wanted to bring in the guillotine and get something through at once. He could in fact move the day before that one day be allocated to this measure and then the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition could take up all of the two and a half to three hours that are available on a Wednesday for Government business. The other parties in the House would have no opportunity at all to state their policy with respect to the matter.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that every time there is a limitation of time put on a measure, along with that there should be a limitation on the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and, on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), and furthermore that the 40-minute and 30-minute limit on other Members' speeches should be cut down by at least 50 per cent, so that there will be an opportunity for more Members to express their view. There is, therefore, a great deal of refinement that is necessary in connection with proposal 15-A.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I want to refer briefly to some of the other matters that have been mentioned. For example, the second proposal provides that there shall be no appeal from the decision of the Speaker. In my view, this is a good proposal. I want to point out that there are plenty of opportunities that can be taken for moving a motion of censure against the Speaker if we are not happy with the way in which he is adjudicating the proceedings in this House. This practice of appealing the Speaker's ruling ought to stop, because the impression that is being left in the country is that if you do not vote against the Speaker's ruling in certain situations you may be against increasing old age pensions or increasing family allowance, etc. I believe, therefore, that this is a good provision.
I should like to remind hon. Members of the Government that the first time of which I am aware that this happened was when the hon. Member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) appealed against the ruling that there was no appeal from the Speaker's ruling. It was from that time on that we have had this repetitious practice of appealing Speakers' rulings, even though the Speaker may be right in his interpretation of the rules that have been given to him. For example, only a few days ago the Speaker made a ruling under Standing Orders 47 and 48 with respect to this business of transferring motions for the production of papers

DEBATES	May 20, 1965
to debatable motions. Any fair-minded man who wanted to look at those two Standing Orders could realize that the decision the Speaker made was the only one he could have made, and yet there were many Members in the House who voted against his ruling.
I see that my time has expired. I wonder if I could have just a few more minutes?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, go on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the House agree that the hon. Member for Medicine Hat continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He should be given another ten minutes in view of the amount of time he put on a study of the rules of this House, and when the hon. Member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) comes to speak I would be inclined to give him a few minutes, provided he reaches the same standard of debate.


Mr. Patterson:: I think there is one other reason that can be advanced for allowing the hon. Member to continue and that is that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was granted extra time as well.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He was in favour of freedom of speech in 1956, that is why.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to refer to the provision relating to the question period preceding Orders of the Day. It is proposed it shall not exceed 30 minutes every day. We have had a trial run on this provision on Wednesdays. I think we can support the proposal, provided the Government and its backbenchers do not abuse it. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the oral question period in this House is for the Opposition.


Gerald Augustine Regan: No, no.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If it is going to be abused by backbenchers such as the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan), who asks about some wheat deals in Hong Kong-


John James Greene: Closure.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -then, I think it is going to fail.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Will the hon. Member permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If it is very brief.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Will the hon. Member recognize the fact that the Members on the back benches on this side of the House are also
May 20, 1965	COMMONS
here to represent the interests of their areas and carry out the legislative work for the people of Canada? Would he not agree that from these back benches have come questions which, had they not been asked, the subjects would not have been covered in the House by other Members?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I presumed, perhaps erroneously, that there was some liaison between the backbenchers on that side of the House and the front benches.


John James Greene: That is just your twisted thinking.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sorry indeed if that kind of communication, that kind of fellowship and co-operation that we expected and that we thought existed between the Members of the Liberal Party, does not exist.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question? Does the hon. gentleman not think that this spirit of fellowship sometimes extends across the House?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to suggest that it does, perhaps not to the same degree that it does between the backbenchers over there and the front benches, but it does exist. I want to acknowledge at once that I have had excellent cooperation from the Minister in dealing with problems respecting my constituents. In fact, I would trust that it has been equal to the consideration shown most of the Liberal backbenchers. The point I am trying to make is that if the question period is limited to 30 minutes, this is going to fail if the backbenchers on the Government side try to abuse it, because I believe that essentially this period for interrogating Ministers of the Crown belongs to the Opposition.


John James Greene: Closure.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: With respect to Standing Order 41, that there be at least one hour's notice given to Mr. Speaker before a question of privilege can be raised, that is unless it arises out of the debate, I believe that is a very good rule. As a matter of fact, I think that more than an hour should be given, and what is more I think Mr. Speaker should be convinced that there is at least a prima facie case of privilege before he allows any Member to get up and make a long speech on an alleged question of privilege.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I see the heavy hand of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. DEBATES	1547
House of Commons Procedures Mcllraith) in the provision to transfer motions made by the Chairmen of Committees under Standing Order 15(e) to Government business. This is taking away something from the standing committees and from the Members of this House that has never been abused. I know that the Committee on Procedure and Organization adjourned motions for consideration day after day, and perhaps that irritated the President of the Privy Council or some other Members on the front benches. I suggest again that the Committee did not abuse this privilege. In fact, the opposite was true. We allowed the motion to stand day after day until we got into an indefensible position.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to say a word in clarification, since the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) is unavoidably absent this evening. I think all the Government really desired by this suggestion, that it might be effective in a slightly different way, is to make sure that when one of these motions is called it would not proceed immediately and blot out the question period for a long period of time. If some other device could be found whereby, if a debate was going to ensue on one of these motions, it would be adjourned until after all the other routine proceedings, that might meet the problem, because I think all of us know the problem we had over this in the last session of parliament, which was very frustrating to hon. gentlemen opposite and also, I might add, exceedingly embarrassing to the Government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) brought up that suggestion because I was just getting to the point where I was going to suggest almost precisely the same thing. But that is not what it says at the moment. It says they shall be moved to and considered under Government orders. Now, if they retain their position of precedence ahead of all other Government orders for that day, that is satisfactory, and some arrangement could be made so that the oral question period could precede these motions. But if they are going to be buried in the Government orders, so that it is at the discretion of the Government to call them the next day, next month or never, then I think it is taking away something the House should leave. It is taking away something that has not been abused.
There are many other details which we will speak about when the other resolution
1548	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures is before us. I want to close by thanking the House for granting me these extra ten minutes. I want to say that essentially we support what is involved in these two resolutions. We support the principle of them, but we do believe there are some refinements that are necessary, particularly with respect to the first paragraph of the first resolution. We want it to succeed, but when you apply the provisions in both resolutions, such as having 17 committees to take estimates, it looks like it is going to fail.
I think it is time we did something about changing the rules of the House because, as has been pointed out by the Prime Minister and other Members, both in this debate and previously, the rights of minorities, the rights of individual Members to be heard must be respected and protected. But we must also have the right to decide to make decisions. The majority in this House also has some rights, and I suggest that our rules at the present time leave too many loopholes, too many opportunities for the majority to be frustrated over long periods of time; and that needs to be corrected.
I suggest the Government should reconsider some of these proposals so that they may be made clear. It should make some of the refinements that are necessary so that a ruthless government could not run roughshod over parliament, and generally make sure that all these changes are subject to review in the light of the experience that we gain after having made use of them for a few months. Again I want to thank the House for allowing me extra time. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the subamendment that I moved is acceptable to Your Honour, and I mention this because it was rather hurriedly altered.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I was asking myself if it would not be better to call it ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, since there is a great spirit of fellowship in the House I think there would be general agreement that the hon. gentleman should not get launched on his speech and then have to stop just as he was going-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Into orbit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. Does the House agree to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. Olson.)
DEBATES	May 20. 1965



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. Member for Kootenay West begins, perhaps I might indicate that we intend to go on with this debate tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under provisional Standing Order No. 39-A deemed to have been moved.

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the following question of the Minister of Public Works:
Mr. Speaker, knowing of the interest of the Minister of Public Works in safe driving on all our highways, I wish to address a question to him which is of national concern and does engender a certain amount of parochial pride in the Member for Kootenay West. Does the Minister know that the city of Trail has just completed 3,807 days of fatality-free driving owing to the excellence of the city's administration and the self-discipline of the population? Has the Minister any comment to make on this Canadian record?
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I think through some misunderstanding, this did not come within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works, and Mr. Speaker said:
Order. I am sure it would take considerable time to think up the proper words to apply to this significant question and occasion.
It is on that account I ask permission to raise the question this evening. I think there was some misunderstanding as to the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works and his interest in this subject, and I am sure when I asked the question the majority of the Members of the House thought I was dealing with a subject that was entirely within the responsibility and jurisdiction of provincial governments. However, that is not so. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I rarely ask a question that is not in order in accordance with the rules of the House.
I asked this question because I know of the interest of the Minister and his officials in promoting safe highway driving in Canada. I know of the work being done by the Minister's department to co-ordinate the ideas and proposals advanced by provincial highway safety councils and other groups. I know of the concern of the Canadian people, the R.C.M.P., provincial and municipal police forces with the rapidly increasing number of fatalities caused by highway accidents, and
May 20, 1965	COMMONS
I am very pleased to note that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works is listening very closely to what I have to say, and I am looking forward to his reply.
But before asking my final question I wish to bring to the attention of the House an editorial published in the Nelson Daily News of Thursday, May 6, 1965, which is a reprint of one published in the Vancouver Province, and I do so because I think it deals with very poor advice from persons who should know better, from their experience with respect to administration of highways and the administration of the law. The editorial is entitled "Invitation to Recklessness," and states:
Alberta Highways Minister Gordon Taylor has joined his B.C. counterpart, P. A. Gaglardi, in defending high speeds on highways; in fact he favours removing speed limits altogether.
Mr. Taylor and Mr. Gaglardi also agree that speed alone is not the worst danger on the road, but that "when liquor is added to speed it is a deadly killer."
At this point both gentlemen seem to abandon both common sense and the evidence of traffic control systems in many parts of North America.
For example, the New Jersey Turnpike, a freeway superior in engineering to most B.C. and Alberta highways, strictly enforces a speed limit of 60 miles per hour and boasts an accident record far below the national average.
Extensive traffic safety surveys have shown that highway deaths and injuries are uniformly less in areas where there are reasonable speed limits and intensive police patrolling.
And what is the point, after admitting that the combination of liquor and speed is the worst traffic killer, in advocating removal of speed limits?
[DOT] (10:00 pun.)
With weapons ranging from Carrie Nation's hatchet to national prohibition, people have tried -and failed-to stamp out excessive drinking.
Yet while it is impossible to legislate moderate drinking habits, the feasibility of lowering traffic accidents through enforcement of speed laws has been proven many times.
We need no further invitations to highway recklessness. We need more traffic policemen so that speed limits can be enforced and lives saved.
I might say in this respect, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Highways for the Province of British Columbia has had several convictions for violations of the highway traffic laws. I asked my question to bring to the attention of the House the excellent record established by the City of Trail, in the hope that other cities and communities would be prompted to follow this splendid example, and knowing of the interest of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) in this very important question. I trust that as the result of this record on the part of the City of Trail, other cities and communities will wish to copy their efficient city admin-
DEBATES	1549
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion istration, will wish to emulate the co-operation that exists between the administration and the public, and their populations will exercise the same form of self-discipline in this problem, which is a growing one at the present time in Canada.


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), and I judge that the reason the question was directed to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) was because of the fact that his department of the Federal Government is probably more interested in highway safety than the other departments of Government.
May I at this stage express on behalf of the Minister of Public Works and his officials congratulations to the public safety officials of Trail, British Columbia, and to the vehicle travelling public and pedestrians of that city on the splendid record which they have achieved of 3,807 days without a traffic fatality. All departments of the Federal Government co-operate with the Canadian Highway Safety Council, which sponsors an annual Safe Driving Week, and all Federal departments instruct their employees as to the aims and objects of the Safe Driving Week campaign. Their co-operation is solicited for the observance of safe driving habits, not only during the Safe Driving Week but every day throughout the year, toward the reduction in deaths, injuries and loss of property due to highway accidents.
The record of the City of Trail is a tangible example of what can be accomplished in reducing highway traffic accidents by the promotion and observance of safe driving habits. It is hoped that all communities in Canada will in 1965 and in the years to come surpass the splendid record of lOJ years without a traffic fatality, which is enjoyed by the City of Trail, British Columbia.
May I add, Mr. Speaker, one or two other statistics of the Trail record which have not been mentioned. The hon. Member has quoted the number of fatality free days that was established over the last 10J years. I think the record shows that the last fatality occurred on December 5, 1954. That is, as I said, 10J years ago. In 1964 there were only nine injuries, which was the lowest injury rate in Canada for cities between 10,000 and 20,000 population. The City of Trail has qualified for and received a Citation Award every year since the Safety Campaign Awards were first
1550	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion made in 1957. The hon. Member is to be commended on bringing this subject matter to the attention of the House and the public; and I think all hon. Members would join with me in commending the people and officials of Trail, B.C., on the splendid record they have established in this field.



REDISTRIBUTION-BRITISH COLUMBIA-OPPORTUNITY FOR REPRESENTATIONS TO COMMISSION

Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, this morning I asked the Minister of Transport what steps the Electoral Boundaries Commissioners for British Columbia had taken to assure that interested persons, such as members of town councils and chambers of commerce, had been made adequately aware of their right to make representations regarding proposed riding changes.
I asked the question, which was directed to be put on the order paper, in no critical sense of the Redistribution Commissioners but really because of a statement made by the Chairman of that Commission-a proper statement to be made by him-in which he is reported to have said that he did not want to make it appear that they had now closed their minds on the subject, because they had not; that the commission would welcome public briefs, and that if the public briefs presented a good case they would make changes.
I asked the question because, in view of the nature of British Columbia, it being far flung and very widespread, I think it is essential, if people are going to be made aware of their rights under the Act to make representations, that the Commission use every possible means to bring these rights of the citizens to their attention.
I hope that the Commission will not use only this means outlined in the Act of publishing its advertisements in the Canada Gazette and one other newspaper. I have seen the advertisements in the Vancouver daily press, very handsome and informative advertisements; but I hope that the Commission will use other means of advertising, for example in the weekly press, possibly direct mailing to mayors, reeves and village chairmen, informing them of their right to be heard by the Redistribution Commissioners at the public hearings to be held.
If this operation of redistribution is to be successful, Mr. Speaker, people must be able to bring before the Commission particular interests in their area. I think it would be
[Mr. McWilliam.J
DEBATES	May 20, 1965
valuable to put on the record the exact wording of the notice setting out the rights the public has in this matter:
Parliament has provided by virtue of subsection. 4 of section 17 of the said Act, that no representation shall be heard by the Commission at its sitting unless notice in writing has been given, stating the name and address of the person by whom the representation is sought to be made and indicating concisely the nature of the representation and of the interest of such person. Such notice in writing must be given within twenty-three (23) days from the date of publication of this notice, to the Secretary to the Commission, at 615 Ritz Hotel, 1040 West Georgia Street, Vancouver 5, British Columbia.
I think that clearly sets out the rights involved. I hope that the Commission will take every means of advertising this section of the Act so that people in the province of British Columbia who feel they have representations to make to the Commission realize they must submit their names within 23 days from yesterday.
I also asked this question, Mr. Speaker, because of another comment by Mr. Justice Mclnnes, the Chairman of the British Columbia Boundaries Commission, in which he is reported to have said that he hopes it is a good plan and that they spent a lot of time trying to equalize the ridings. I hope that that statement by the learned Judge does not carry the implication it seems to carry-that the Commission simply used a process of mathematics to arrive at the proposed ridings which they have recommended. It seems to me that democracy is far more than a question simply of bloodless mathematics; if the people are to be properly represented as well as communities and their interests, ridings must be workable ridings, must be viable ridings, which Members of Parliament can properly represent in this House. We in this House who passed this legislation recognized this very fact and provided a provincial average or quotient, in the case of British Columbia, of 70,800 per riding which could be varied by the Commissioner by 25 per cent upwards or downwards.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
We also provided by section 13(c) two methods by which the Commissioners could vary the average or quotients. I think I should place that provision on the record, Mr. Speaker. It reads as follows:
(c) the commission may depart from the strict application of rules (a) and (b) in any case where
(i) special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparcity, density or relative rate of growth of population of various regions of the province, the accessibility of such regions or the
May 20, 1365

size or shape thereof, appear to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable, or
(ii) any special community or diversity of interest of the inhabitants of various regions of the province appears to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable,-
I have put that on the record because I think some individuals in British Columbia will desire to place representations before the Commission as a result of those two provisos. I am sure many people in the City of Vancouver resident in the riding I represent will wonder about the situation when Vancouver loses one riding, as has been proposed, with the result that the people who live in the riding of Vancouver-Bur-rard will find themselves in the general riding of Vancouver Centre, which will then be the largest riding in British Columbia. They will wonder whether the Commission has taken these provisos into account, particularly in respect of the relative rate of growth of that area of Vancouver in the west end and in Kitsilano. That is the fastest growing area of Vancouver, and every time I go home I see a new high rise apartment breaking the horizon.
I am sure that the people who will be resident in the new Coast-Chilcotin riding
DEBATES	1551
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion will want to remind the Commission that it is entitled to take into account special geographical considerations.
I could go further and refer to a number of other ridings to which the provisions of clause 13 could apply, and be varied more as a result of this average or quotient. I am sure that many people will feel that the special provisos have not been used as they might have been by the Commissioner, and for that reason I have asked this question. I hope that every effort will be made to publicize the fact that individuals can bring their special circumstances to the attention of the Commission.
Mi. PIckersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe I will not be risking my virginity in this respect if I say on behalf of the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne), who is not able to be here, and for whom I am acting in the circumstances, that he asked that the hon. Member be assured that a copy of today's Hansard with his observations be drawn to the attention of the representation Commission.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Friday, May 21, 1965