1965-06-03

NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give a brief report of the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers held in Paris on Monday and Tuesday. You may recall that a decision was taken at the Council of Ministers held in Ottawa in May, 1963 to commence a study of strategy, force goals and the use of economic resources. A study has been undertaken by the Council in permanent session, constituted as a military committee and working in cooperation with the major NATO military commanders.
In considering the question of strategy a theoretical discussion arose which indicated a rather sharp divergence of views. A preliminary report was presented to the Council of Ministers in December last, for their consideration.
In the December discussion it seemed apparent to me that the divergence of opinion related more to the theoretical discussion than to the real contingencies with which the Alliance might be faced. With this thought in mind, I suggested holding a Defence Ministers Meeting with the object of examining the real situation in the hope that the wide areas of agreement would come into focus and the differences, if they exist, would prove to be largely irrelevant. The suggestion, which was supported by one or two other Ministers, included the recommendation that the meeting be as informal as possible to permit a full, frank exchange of views on vital issues.
The conference which concluded Tuesday afternoon was even more productive than I had hoped for. A consensus did emerge to the effect that the differences were largely theoretical and that the areas of agreement are in fact very great. Agreement was reached and decisions taken which provide the political direction for the Military Committee in the continuation of its studies in the months ahead. I think it is fair to say that the informality of the restricted session assisted
Ministers in reaching a consensus and taking the necessary action.
One of the most important decisions was in respect of force goals for the next planning period. It was the opinion of Ministers that force goals should not be unrealistic in calling for increases in manpower and expenditure obviously and demonstrably well beyond any possibility of implementation. The Ministers, therefore, directed the Military Committee to continue the study of realistic force goals, in co-operation with the military commanders, to the end that they be ready for consideration by the Council of Ministers in December.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The Military Committee was instructed to undertake studies on a number of other subjects, including certain specific contingencies. One area of particular interest to Canada is consideration of NATO's capability to respond to aggression on the northern or southeastern flanks. Last year Canada committed a battalion group to the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force for possible employment with the balance of the force on the flanks. As Canada has adopted a policy of developing a mobile force with a global capability, I indicated our willingness to consider to what extent our forces might co-operate with similar forces from other members of the alliance.
As has been reported in the press, the United States has proposed a committee of four or five Ministers of Defence to consider possible ways of improving and extending allied participation in nuclear planning, including improved communications. This is a very interesting suggestion and it was welcomed as deserving further consideration.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I think the conference was very fruitful. It was in the nature of an experiment, and produced a most worthwhile discussion together with positive results. I would not wish to give the impression that there are no remaining problems, but I do want to emphasize the spirit of co-operation and good will which characterized the meeting. The decisions taken underline the broad areas of agreement in principle and will permit the alliance to continue its important work dedicated to the deterrence of aggres-
1922	COMMONS
NATO Defence Ministers' Meeting sion and the maintenance of stability in the European theatre.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: 
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Minister is somewhat barren of information. As a matter of fact one could learn a good deal more about what happened at the NATO meeting in Paris by reading the newspapers than by perusing the statement just made by the Minister.
The Minister has told us that there was a divergence of opinion on the matter of strategy. He has not told us what the divergence of opinion was about, or how it was resolved.
He tells the House that a consensus of agreement was reached. I would like to know what that consensus is. It was generally understood that the main divergence of opinion on strategy had to do with whether or not any attack against NATO forces in Europe should be met with either a flexible response or a nuclear response. It has been known for some time that General de Gaulle has been pressing for a nuclear response, whereas a great many of the NATO members -and I certainly share their views-have felt there ought to be a response only in terms of the kind of weapons required to meet the specific situation, that nuclear weapons be held in reserve and conventional weapons used unless it was found absolutely necessary to use nuclear weapons.
This divergence of opinion on strategy between the representatives of the French Republic and other members of NATO is a very clear and important one. How was it resolved? The Minister has not told us. I think the House ought to know. It is certainly important for the people of Canada, and for all members of NATO, to know what the thinking is of the ministers of defence who gathered at that conference.
The other matter which the Minister mentioned briefly, without giving us any information about it, has to do with the diffusion of power with respect to control of nuclear weapons. The Minister tells us that Secretary of Defence McNamara of the United States has suggested that there should be a committee of four or five to study this matter. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that this suggestion from the U.S. Secretary of Defence is
June 3, 1965	COMMONS
too little and too late. I doubt that this will satisfy France, which has been asking for a long time for a wider framework of consultation, between the members of NATO, with respect to the use of nuclear power.
What are to be the terms of reference of this committee? What nations are going to be represented on this committee? Is its membership to be four or five? What are the Minister's views in respect of this matter? What position did the Canadian Government take when this question was being discussed?
Up to the present time the sole decision on the use of nuclear weapons has lain with the United States as the major nuclear power. Are other nations now to be in a consultative capacity, will they have a veto power, or is the final decision still to remain with the United States? What is the Canadian Government's position on this matter? The Minister does not tell us.
We appreciate the fact that the Minister has made a report to the House, which is an appropriate gesture but, Mr. Speaker, it gives us no information and I hope he will be prepared to give some information to the House at a later stage, either today or on another occasion.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, when replying to several questions,
I believe yesterday, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) indicated that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) would be returning to the House today and would be making a statement. We have listened to his statement and, like others who have spoken, we are disappointed in the content, or lack of content, in the report that has been given. It seems to me the Minister's statement today raised more questions than it answered. We hope that in the very near future a fuller explanation of Canada's position will be given, together with more details regarding the discussions which took place at this meeting.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The hon. gentleman referred to a divergence of views. Something has been said on this subject in the papers. But recent reports have indicated there was a closer meeting of minds at Paris on this occasion than there has been in the past-that General de Gaulle has been taking a new look at things, and that compromise was reached on various matters of importance. However, the Minister did not tell us clearly just what did take place in this regard; he indicated only that there was general agreement, more or less. He told the House that this was a very fruit-
DEBATES	1923
NATO Defence Ministers' Meeting ful exchange. As has been pointed out, it does not seem there is very much to substantiate that claim in the report which has just been made to us.
Reference was made to the establishment of force goals. These, it was said, must be more realistic than has been the case in the past. The hon. gentleman went on to tell us that discussion took place regarding a mobile force and that Canada intended to give consideration to this important aspect of defence strategy. I wish the Minister had gone into more detail and told the House how many more men might be involved and what the cost to the Canadian people might be of increasing our contribution to this type of operation. We are all in favour of participating in a mobile force of the kind suggested, but we would certainly appreciate more information in this connection.
The reference to the setting up of a committee to consider certain aspects of nuclear planning is also extremely interesting. This has been a thorny problem. It has caused a great deal of discussion among the nations of the world and we look forward to hearing some revelations of what takes place when that committee holds its meetings.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, we too, in this comer of the house, expected a more detailed statement from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), following this conference on the goals of military strategy held in Paris. We find once again that we shall learn a great deal more from the press than we did from the minister.
The minister referred to a difference of opinion as far as France is concerned, but he did not elaborate. He did not tell us whether that problem was discussed in the course of this study.
As for the mobile force supposedly contemplated, generally speaking, we are also for some kind of protection, but we want our contribution to be commensurate with our means. As a matter of fact, I find it rather strange that we are always siding with the United States, as if we were trying to vie with that gigantic military power. I feel the minister would be much better to direct our military policy to economic problems rather than toward armament, because today all small countries located near large countries turn to economic matters first to feed the hungry before thrusting a bayonet into their face.

June 3, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry
Like the minister, we hope his trip will be successful and that he will obtain concrete results for the benefit of the Canadian people. As always, we shall look forward to read fuller details in the papers.



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-113, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act (instalment purchases).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to protect the consumer. It would attach the guarantees and warranties of the original contract to the promissory notes used in these transactions. It is my hope that this will protect the consumer against the dishonest type of company that goes out of business or fails to live up to its contract after selling the promissory note or the negotiable document to another company without there being any of the original protection for that sales contract.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to advise if there is foundation for the view expressed by some who accompanied the Minister of National Defence to Paris, that General de Gaulle is to visit Quebec shortly but will not be visiting other parts of the country.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have no information whatever which would substantiate that rumour.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Canada has recognized Outer Mongolia, does the Ambassador for Canada in Moscow intend to visit this newly recognized state?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the admission of Outer Mongolia to the United Nations took place some ten years ago and Canada recognized the regime about a year ago. The Ambassador has no immediate intention in this regard, but I am sure that whoever might be accredited to Mongolia would make a visit in due course.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the reported murder of more missionaries in the Congo. Would the Minister advise whether any Canadian citizens are reported to be among those who have been murdered, or whether any Canadian citizens are among those reported to be held as hostages?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, among those Canadian citizens registered with the Canadian Embassy at Leopoldville there are none who give their present location as being in that part of the Congo north of Stanleyville where rebels are still active, nor are there any Canadian citizens reported to be amongst the group of 100 European hostages referred to in press reports.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, on May 4 I asked the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the absence of the Minister whether Mrs. Lucien Rivard had been granted her passport. On May 5 the Minister informed me that she had applied for a passport on April 6 and the matter was under consideration. It is now June 3. Would the Minister bring the House up to date on this very interesting matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The matter is still under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

June 3. 1965

Minister of National Defence and ask whether the report is correct that the CF-101 Voodoo jet interceptors have now been equipped with nuclear arms; and whether Canada has applied for the American Genie nuclear rocket for the 48 operational Voodoos which are based at Chatham, New Brunswick, Bagot-ville, Quebec, Val d'Or, Quebec, and Comox, British Columbia?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it was announced in the House of Commons days ago that most of the squadrons were operational, and I understand the Associate Minister announced yesterday that they were all operational.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What does that mean?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that all four systems have now been supplied with nuclear equipment, I ask the Minister what steps the Government is now taking to comply with the pledge of the Prime Minister that it was the Government's intention to begin to negotiate Canada out of these nuclear commitments?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer my hon. friend to the statements made two or three years ago in which the Prime Minister indicated that Canada would negotiate those roles which would permit us to make the best contribution to the deterrence of war and the maintenance of peace. That is what we have been doing. I have been spending the last two days on it. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I welcome the conversion of my hon. friend to the support of NATO.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister like to tell the House when I ever opposed NATO?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: At the same time as appeared the statement to which my hon. friend referred just a moment ago.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister include me in the names of those who support NATO?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, I would not presume to do that, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. When the Minister states that the Voodoo squadrons in Canada are now operational, does he mean by that term that they are now equipped with nuclear missiles?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, that is a fair interpretation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, whether or not it is a fair interpretation, will the Minister answer directly the direct question I asked? I repeat my question; does that mean that our squadrons are now equipped with nuclear missiles, and are nuclear missiles stored in Canada for that purpose?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the meaning of my reply was quite clear to most hon. gentlemen.


An hon. Member:: Yes or no.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They are operational in the way they were planned by my hon. friend when he was the Minister of National Defence, and I am very pleased that we have now managed to bring them to their full capability.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects every Member of the House who asks a question of the ministry. Unless the ministry stops giving smart-alec answers to serious questions, we are not going to get along in an orderly way with the business of this House.


Mr. Byrne:: Do not be so touchy, Mike.


Michael Starr: If this situation continues, and I am not being touchy in this respect, we will not be able to bring about the orderly procedure of the House business. I suggest that the entire ministry stop giving answers of the kind we have just received.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, June 1, the hon. Member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Marcoux) asked me if it was true that the storage of nuclear warheads for the CF-101 aircraft would cost approximately $8 million per year? At that time I took the question as notice.
The answer is no. It is estimated that this storage will cost approximately $1.3 million per year.

June 3, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry



PARIS-RECEPTION OF CANADIAN MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. When the Minister landed in Paris to attend the NATO Defence Ministers meeting, did he receive the same treatment as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) received a few weeks ago when he landed there or, on the contrary, was the Minister's aircraft allowed into the V.I.P. unloading area at the building which is located there for that purpose?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, having had some experience in travelling to Orly airport, we fixed our time of arrival there to coincide with an hour of the day when traffic is reduced to the point that it is physically possible for aircraft to approach in the normal manner and taxi right up to the terminal. Consequently we were accorded very fine and cordial treatment by our French colleagues. I am sure that the next time there is a ministerial meeting, any such flight which is scheduled for arrival at the same time of day will be treated equally as royally as we were.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question. Does the Minister attribute this much better treatment he received to the fact that our relations with France have greatly improved, or rather to the fact that the French authorities were much more willing to see him than they were to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the House should be informed that the Minister took his own red carpet with him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all further questions relating to this subject should be put on the order paper.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, having in mind that labour problems are the direct responsibility of the Provincial Government, but in view of the fact that

the present strike of builders in Ottawa involves the capital city and a number of capital projects, could the Minister give us any information as to whether there is any effective action or whether anything is being done to settle this very critical problem on the labour front?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisler of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker. I am fully occupied with labour problems within Federal jurisdiction at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



MONTREAL-STRIKE AT CANADAIR PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Labour inform the House whether he is taking an active part in an attempt to settle the strike at Canadair, which is having such a bad effect not only on the economy of the city of Montreal, but also on other areas which have aircraft plants working on subcontracts for Canadair?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the economic effects of this work stoppage, the same answer I gave to the question asked by the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) would apply, because this is a matter in so far as labour relations are concerned which falls within the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec.



HAL BANKS-RETENTION OF OFFICE IN SEAFARERS CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. My question arises out of a question put by the hon. Member for Kootenay West and the answer given by the Minister of Labour. The hon. Member asked whether Harold Chamberlain Banks was still President of the Canadian Seafarers Building Corporation Limited, to which the Minister replied that he did not believe that information to be correct. I wonder whether he has had any reflection or done some investigation since and found that that information is correct as far as the records of the company are concerned.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have reflected and investigated and I intend to clarify the situation later when I reply to my hon. friend's question.
June 3, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1927


Mr. Graffley:: Was it good for the soul?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a supplementary question? Has the Minister now information to show that the facts set out by the hon. Member for Kootenay West in his question are correct?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me that is debating the question and not asking for information.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The reply is very evasive.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If he wants to give evasive answers-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. Member could put a question on the order paper and get the details.



MARITIME UNION TRUSTEES-REAPPEARANCE BEFORE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary question? When is the Minister prepared to bring back the trustees before the Industrial Relations Committee so that we can examine those trustees properly and find out the facts?


William Heward Grafftey: Under the carpet.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. gentleman had an opportunity to examine the trustees properly on one occasion. I hope that if they do come back the examination will be conducted properly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise, then, on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. My question of privilege is briefly this: We were denied information in that committee when Mr. Justice Dryer refused to answer questions and returned to British Columbia. He said that before he would come back before that committee he would have to be subpoenaed. We have been denied this information because the Liberals are afraid to admit the facts so far as Banks is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member knows very well it is improper and contrary to the rules of the House to discuss the proceedings in a committee in this House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My answer to him is that he is just the junior counsel to the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. Member got up on a question of privilege which rapidly
Inquiries of the Ministry deteriorated into a complaint. I hope we can get on with the business before the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to give notice to debate this at ten o'clock.



VANCOUVER-STRIKE OF GRAIN HANDLERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning a matter that does come within his jurisdiction, namely the strike which started yesterday at the wheat pool elevator in Vancouver. Has he been asked to mediate or has he appointed a mediator, and are there negotiations under way between the union and the company?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The most recent report indicates that the chief officer on the West Coast was attempting to set up a further meeting today. The strike situation is still confined to the one elevator. We have under consideration what further steps might be taken in order to settle this dispute.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if the Canadian Wheat Board are taking any steps to ship what would amount to something like five million bushels a month from other terminals or other ports while this strike is on?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I can assure the hon. gentleman that the Wheat Board will do everything possible to minimize the effect of the strike, which I hope will be of very short duration indeed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question? In view of the seriousness of the situation with regard to the shipment of grain, particularly if it extends to other grain handling companies, has the Minister given any thought to intervening personally and approaching both the grain handlers unions and the elevator companies to see if they would consent to call off the strike and continue work, pending an arbitration to which both parties would agree and whose decision they would be prepared to accept?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not given any consideration to asking the parties at this stage to accept voluntary arbitration. We are considering every possible step that might be taken to help the situation. As the hon. Member knows, in a situa-

June 3. 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion of this kind and especially at this stage the facts contained in the hon. gentleman s the timing of intervention is very important, statement, let me say that I shall be pleased
to take this question as notice and give the
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE matter consideration.



QUEBEC CITY-SECURITY REPORTS IN ENGLISH ONLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Is he in a position to answer today the question which I asked him on May 12 last concerning the reports of the R.C.M.P. officers which are drawn up in English in Quebec harbour where the employees are all French speaking?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received this information. I will try to get a report as soon as possible.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and I regret not having had an opportunity to give him notice.
My question relates to one John Darrell Peters who is presently in a British Columbia-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: I refer to one John Darrell Peters who is presently in a British Columbia penitentiary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Knowles:: The other one escaped.


Frank Howard: Mr. Peters-that is, the one in British Columbia-was in my estimation unfairly sentenced by one Magistrate Thoburn of Ontario, and has recently exhausted every avenue of appeal to the courts in respect of this case. Now that that end has been reached in so far as litigation is concerned, will the Minister review this case and reopen it by ordering a new trial, or exercise in some way the royal prerogative of mercy so that Mr. Peters can receive the measure of justice which apparently he has not received at the hands of the Magistrate?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, without confirming or denying
[Mr. MacEachen.)



DORION COMMISSION-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman advise the House whether he has had any communication with Chief Justice Dorion recently and when we might expect the Dorion Report?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I have had no communication from the Chief Justice and I have no idea when the report will be received. I hope it will be before long.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the exploratory work which is to be carried out in certain parts of the Hudson Bay area during the next three summers, and in view of the pattern of blasting which will be followed, does the Federal Department of Fisheries have any plans to observe this exploratory work in the interests of protecting game, food fish and the enormous population of white whales in that area?


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously this is a very important and interesting question, but it does not have that sense of urgency which would require an immediate answer. I suggest the hon. Member put his question on the order paper.



GEORGE'S BANK-POSSIBILITY OF CLOSED SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. At the Halifax meetings of the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries scheduled to begin on June 7, it is reported that members of the Commission will propose that the lucrative fishing grounds on George's bank off Massachusetts be closed for long periods of the year in an effort to conserve fish stocks. Will
June 3, 1965

the Minister indicate whether Canada will support this type of proposal for a closed fishing season, and will he also state whether efforts to enforce the size of the international fish net mesh regulations are meeting with international co-operation?


Mr. Speaker:: It does seem to me this is a very important question, so important that it should be on the order paper.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, with all deference to your ruling I would point out that for many years Canadians were prohibited from fishing up to 12 miles from the coasts of Canada, while fishermen from every other nation in the world could come right in to our shores; and since this matter is coming up for discussion the Canadian fishermen and the fishing industry should know what position the Government intends to take.


Mr. Speaker:: That is precisely why I suggested to the hon. Member that the question be put on the order paper, so that a very detailed and considered reply could be given.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: With further deference to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, this commission meets on June 7, and when we review the time that is required for the Government to answer questions on the order paper-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I would suggest the hon. gentleman give notice for ten o'clock, if he wishes.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Immigration, asking him whether, in view of a deportation order to take effect this afternoon regarding one Nick Sourvanos, a 28 year old Greek who has resided in Canada for four years, who is steadily employed and has been married as of February last, he is contemplating intervening in this case so that this individual may remain in Canada and receive the status of a landed immigrant?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not contemplate intervening in this case. I have reviewed this case very carefully. This is one of the cases which was referred to Mr. Sedgwick for investigation and report. That complete report was filed in this House. As a result of that investigation it was dis-
Inquiries of the Ministry covered that this young Greek deserted a ship some three or four years ago and was apprehended last year. He was convicted of an infraction of the Immigration Act, and later, after his deportation had been ordered, it was discovered that he went out deliberately to get a wife so he could stay in this country.


An hon. Member:: What a penalty.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I might say that this is the season of the year when we are faced with literally hundreds of desertions from ships, and if all these people could go out and announce their intention in the words of Mr. Sourvanos, to find wives, we would be disregarding our Immigration Act and regulations. This is a case in respect of which I feel fully justified in not intervening, and the deportation order will be put into effect this afternoon.


William Arnold Peters: As a supplementary to the question asked by the hon. Member for Ontario of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in view of the statement made by the Minister that this deportation will take place today, I wish to ask if any consideration is being given by the Government to giving relief, by Order in Council, through annulment to the Canadian citizen involved?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It has not been requested, Mr. Speaker; but certainly great consideration has been given to the one case about which I was questioned. I will take the hon. Member's question as notice.



BICULTURALISM AND BILINGUALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. Can he say whether the B and B Commission has dispatched a research team to South Africa to study the origins and applications of the policy of apartheid, and the successful supplanting there of the English by the Afrikaans language?


Mr. Speaker:: This is also an extremely interesting question but it seems to me it should be put on the order paper.

June 3, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL PARKS



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-APPROVAL OF SITE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and ask him whether a site has been selected and approved by the Department for a second national park in Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this question as notice and make inquiries.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, while the Minister is taking note of that would he also note the statement of the Assistant Deputy today, that a site had already been recommended?



EXPO '67 MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF U.S. AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Trade and Commerce in a position to report on the degree of success that he attained last evening at the dinner given in the city of Detroit to the automobile manufacturers, which the Globe and Mail described in these words, that it was "a meeting of soft voice, smooth liquor and sirloin steaks"? At this meeting, described in those very effective words, did the Minister succeed with soft voice to alter the hard decision of the automobile manufacturers not to exhibit at Expo '67?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to assure my right hon. friend that we had a sober, hard working dinner last evening which lasted until eleven o'clock at night. We had a very thorough discussion of Expo '67, as a result of which I am quite confident that the automobile industry will be exhibiting at Expo in a manner appropriate to their position in the community.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister and I certainly hope that that was the result, but what was the reason for the additional tail to his answer-"in a manner appropriate to" the automobile companies? Does that mean a reduction of the originally anticipated expenditure by them?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think my words are really quite clear. At Expo '67 there will be a very great opportunity for commercial and industrial organizations to play a part in Canada's centennial celebration, and I know the right hon. gentleman, like all hon. Members in this House, hopes that at Expo '67 all of these companies will be well represented and that I will have the support of every one of them in encouraging these companies to exhibit.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise to say I hope that is so, because it was the Government of which I had the honour to be the head that brought Expo '67 to Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the right hon. gentleman for reminding us of this, and I know I can count upon his full support in the future activities of this great enterprise.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago I put a question to the Prime Minister and received an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture in connection with requests by the United States to ban shipments to that country of Canadian cattle. I do not want the question to get out of hand regarding words quoted, but I do have the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary on that question before me. He said there was no objection on the part of United States officials and that they were completely familiar with the program.
I have received today a further statement emanating from the United States, reprted in the Canadian publication the Western Producer, which stated that Senators of the western states, and other highly placed Washington officials, have been urged to press the U.S. Department of Agriculture to close the border to Canadian cattle imports.
I would ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that this question has been cleared with the officials of the Department of Agriculture in the United States.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Completely satisfied, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: A supplementary question. Would the Minister of Agriculture inform the House whether or not this trouble between the U.S. and Canada
June 3, 1965

was brought about by the importation of French cattle to Canada?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, we are not anticipating any trouble in so far as these importations are concerned. I was scolded yesterday for making detailed answers, so if the hon. Member would put this question on the order paper I will be pleased to give all the details as to how this was worked out.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. I wish to ask him whether the Government has any plans to put the brakes on the falling prices of cattle to the producer, which has been the case since this Government took office and which is endangering all the more-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This raises a question far too large to expect an answer at this time, it seems to me. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it on the order paper.



NOVA SCOTIA -REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY

[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 Trade and Commerce which I pose to him because I understand from newspaper reports that he is handling this problem. In view of the fact that Lord Robens, Chairman of the British Coal Board, who last year made a study of coal mining problems in Nova Scotia, is returning to this country next week, and in view of the fact that his report is in the hands of the Government, can the Minister advise whether the interdepartmental committee on coal and energy is yet in a position to report their findings, and if such findings would indicate that assistance is going to be provided to the coal industry, which as the Minister knows, I am sure, is in rather serious straits? I did not send notice of this question, Mr. Speaker, but because of its importance I assume that the Minister will be familiar with it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the problem but I would prefer to take this question as notice, to be able to give an adequate reply.



GATT-EFFECT OF NEGOTIATIONS ON PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a
Inquiries of the Ministry question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce with reference to the GATT talks in Europe. What will be the effect on Canadian grain prices if secret negotiations in GATT, scheduled to begin on June 10 in Geneva, result in a world wide agreement to regulate grain prices? What effect will that have on our Canadian prices?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Once more this is the type of question which it seems to me should be placed on the order paper.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It arises out of an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail pertaining to the shortage of box cars. The article suggests that Canadian National Railways are facing a shortage of freight cars, according to a spokesman in Montreal, but he refused to elaborate. The article goes on to say that shippers fear the shortage will become more critical as the year goes along, particularly when the harvest is in full swing. I wonder if the Minister will look into this immediately to ascertain if arrangements can be made to move grain off farms as soon as possible to make room for the new crop, and not leave it until mid July which is the end of the crop year?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have been in almost daily communication with the Wheat Board with regard to the box car situation in Western Canada. My only comment on that report is that the problem is rather more with the C.P.R. than the C.N.R.



MULGRAVE, N.S.-REQUEST FOR RETENTION OF PORT FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have not given him notice and which he may want to take as notice. Has he received any communications from Lodge No. 500 of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Stellarton, Nova Scotia, and locals 8672 and 4481, of the United Mine Workers of America, requesting that present port facilities be retained, and any improvements be made at Mulgrave rather than at

June 3, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry Port Hastings and, if so, will the Minister give these requests full consideration before any decision is made in this regard?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a fair number of communications on this general subject, and they are being given full consideration.



REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATIVES TO APPEAR BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the increasing interest in Canada in competition and participation in the Olympic Games and international sports of various types, and of the growing interest in the physical fitness program, will the Minister give consideration to inviting representatives of sports and other organizations interested in sports and physical fitness to attend before the Committee of Health and Welfare to present their views with respect to any problems they have?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I will be glad to consider the matter, Mr. Speaker.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY RESPECTING PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: With reference to the previous questions to the Prime Minister in connection with an Address from the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Quebec relative to constitutional affairs and the Legislative Council, has the Government made any decision as yet regarding the Address in question? Has it received a counter-notice or objection from the Legislative Council? Will the Prime Minister say if the Law Officers of the Crown have given an opinion that the constitutional amendment passed in a province which has two Houses does not require the consent and approval of both Houses, as was the case when the Legislative Council of Nova Scotia was obliterated and removed in 1928?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have received a communication from the Government of Quebec on this

matter through the Lieutenant Governor for transmission to the Governor General. The Address is in the hands of the Governor General now, and no doubt the Governor General will be asking the Federal Government for advice. When that request is made, I will be glad to make a statement to the House on what advice we should give him.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the Prime Minister inadvertently failed to answer my question? Has a contrary opinion been received by the Government from the Legislative Council of the Province of Quebec? Have the Law Officers of the Crown been asked to give their opinion on this constitutional question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have received no communication from the Government of Quebec transmitting an Address from the Legislative Council, or any communication from the Legislative Council. As to the second part of the question, when the Government decides what advice should be given to the Governor General, I will try to deal with that in the statement I make.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? In view of the Minister's assurance on several occasions that the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act would be amended so that employees who come under it would, by July 1, have the same conditions as will be in effect under the Canada Labour Code, can he say whether his commitment to do this by July 1 will be implemented?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. Member's word, although I should like to verify it, that such a commitment was made, that the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act would be amended by July 1. I would say, in view of the parliamentary timetable, it is unlikely it would be possible to complete these amendments by that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-but first may I ask the Minister to look at Hansard of February 26 and also of May 11 this year where he will see that the commitment was made-may I ask whether it is the parliamentary timetable that stands in the way, or whether the
June 3, 1965

Government is delaying this matter because of any representations against what is proposed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no consideration involved except the parliamentary timetable. We are ready to proceed with these amendments as quickly as time is available.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a further supplementary question, what will be the position by July 1 when some workers under federal jurisdiction will work under one set of conditions and other workers under federal jurisdiction will not have the same set of conditions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the workers involved under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act are not in the same position as workers covered by the Canada Labour Code. These workers, for example, in the construction industry, are normally under provincial jurisdiction, but through the mechanism of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act we are able to impose conditions when these workers are engaged on federal contracts.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Can he tell us whether, in his opinion, the Fulton-Favreau formula which was put forward more than four years ago should be amended, as was stated yesterday by the former Justice Minister, Mr. Davie Fulton?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me this is a hypothetical question which is not in order.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in regard to a statement he made at Kirkland Lake about the Government's intentions on medicare, whether his
Inquiries of the Ministry statement was prepared in consultation with the Minister of his department, before he gave this indication that the Government was going ahead with medicare?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No it wasn't, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or, in her absence, to her Parliamentary Secretary. On March 31 I asked a question of the Minister, which read:
In her endeavours to cut down cigarette smoking and to prevent teenagers acquiring the habit, is the hon. lady giving any consideration to asking the Canadian Broadcasting Company, a public agency, to set a national example by removing all cigarette advertising from its programs.
This question has become urgent because on July 1 the United States will be declaring it to be unfair, or deceptive, to fail to disclose clearly and prominently in cigarette advertising and labelling that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health and may cause cancer and other diseases. I am wondering what progress has been made on this?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that question be put on the order paper.



REQUEST FOR BETTER FACILITIES IN VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priltie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the majority of the Vancouver City Council has voted against allowing the C.B.C. to occupy part of the former Department of Defence site at Kitsilano, what is being done to get the C.B.C. television services out of the premises they now occupy in Vancouver and into a better building?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely there is not that tremendous urgency that requires an answer to this question at the moment. I suggest that the hon. Member put it on the order paper.


Robert William Prittie: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

June 3, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC WORKS



CONSTRUCTION OF SMALL BOAT WHARVES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works which is of some urgency, in view of the season. Has the Government made any policy decision concerning small boat wharf construction, which is being delayed pending some direction?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the small boat wharf or tourist wharf construction is part of the over-all small boat facilities proposal which is being studied by the Government. However, since tourist wharf construction has been in effect for some years it is our intention to go ahead with the construction of the more urgently needed of the tourist wharves.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the hon. Member for Athabasca asked me a question which read:
Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs inform the House whether or not the Auditor General is still in occupation of the office of...the Secretary of the Army Benevolent Fund?
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the officer in question is on loan from the Department of the Auditor General as acting manager in that office, and is not there representing the Auditor General.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question for the Prime Minister relating to the debate which is before the House on rules and procedure. Would the Prime Minister assist the House in reaching a conclusion to the exchange of views which is taking place across the floor of the House- an exchange which amounts to negotiation in public? Would he agree to the suggestion I put forward last night, supported by the hon. Member for Edmonton West, that the resolution presently in front of us be split into two parts so that we could deal with the non-controversial matter in that resolution and, similarly, with the non-controversial part of the next resolution in order that the business of the House might proceed more rapidly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was considered by the Government this morning and a statement will be made during the discussion which will follow the orders of the day.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the Minister explain to the House why the Canadian National Railways is placing advertisements in a Canadian newspaper suggesting certain excursions at fares based on United States funds, bearing in mind that the Company and the newspaper in question are both Canadian?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could not provide an explanation without notice.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is one for the order paper.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister, by letter, sent greetings and good wishes for success to the Office Employees International Union on the occasion of its convention which is to open in a day or so, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour did the same by telegram, can the right hon. gentleman bring us up to date as to where we stand in the matter of collective bargaining in the Civil Service, in view of the fact that it includes a great many white collar workers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have some difficulty relating the two things, but we hope to have a report from the Chairman of the committee, Mr. Heeney, on this matter very shortly. We had a meeting with him last week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I help the Prime Minister out of his difficulty?

June 3, 1965


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will white collar workers, for instance stenographers, of whom there are many in the Government service, be allowed to join the union of their choice as a part of the process of collective bargaining?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely this is a matter for the order paper?



PROVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ESTIMATES AND ALLOCATION OF TIME

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 2, consideration of the motion (as amended on May 27) of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Brewin, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Aiken:
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.	(a) That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 30 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 main estimates; interim supply; and 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;
(b)	That the number of supply motions be reduced from six to four; and
(c)	That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-four 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 these orders, 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 follows:
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 Corn-
House of Commons Procedures mittee 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.
(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.
(7)	No motion made by a Minister under Sections (5) and (6) of this Standing Order shall provide for the allocation of a period of time shorter than two days for the second reading, two days for the committee stage, and one day for the third reading of any bill. For the purposes of this section, third reading shall be deemed to have been considered for one day provided the order for third reading is called as the first item under Government Orders on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, and provided it is continued, if necessary, until the normal time of adjournment on any such day; provided that if a representative of each party has not spoken, the hour for the adjournment of the sitting shall be extended until a representative of each party has had an opportunity to speak. Such an order having been called on any Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, it shall have precedence over all other business until the time of adjournment on that day, unless it is disposed of earlier. Under any other circumstances, a total of five hours shall be deemed to be the equivalent of one sitting day.
(8)	During debate on any item of business or stage thereof for which an allocation of time has been made under this Standing Order, if an amendment is proposed which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker materially changes the item of business or stage thereof and which raises any issue for which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker there has not been or otherwise will not be an adequate opportunity for discussion, Mr. Speaker may announce an extension of not more than two days to the allocated period of time.
3.	That the orders of this House trader numbered paragraph 1, the changes in Standing Orders conse-
June 3, 1965
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Procedures quential upon these Orders, and the new Standing Order 15A be continued in effect until the end of the next ensuing session, unless this House otherwise orders.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Just a minute and a half ago I asked the Prime Minister whether it was possible to resolve the difficulty confronting the House in connection with the resolution now before us, and he said a statement was to be made during the course of the debate. Is that statement to be made by a member of the Ministry or would the Government prefer to have it made after I complete my criticism of the ineffectiveness of the present Ministry? I pause for a comment.
There is no response from the Ministry, so I will continue.


Mr. MacNaught:: I think it would be desirable for the hon. gentleman to conclude his remarks.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. gentleman may not be satisfied with them, but I am happy to continue. I would have thought that in view of the serious attempt which has been made on this side of the House to meet the Government in its serious attempt to make alterations in the rules there should be some action on the part of the Prime Minister at this point. The right hon. gentleman introduced this resolution and spoke at length on it. He has manifold duties and apparently he has not delegated authority to his colleagues to respond to suggestions which are made on the floor of the House. We do not particularly wish that this debate should become acrimonious and up to the present time it has been conducted, I think, on a very high level. We responded to the words of the Prime Minister who spoke as follows on May 19:
We think the proposals in the two resolutions are good. They may be better after we have considered the second resolution. There may be amendments made which will improve them.
I pause there for a moment. These amendments, I took it, could be suggested either by the Government side or by the Opposition side. The Prime Minister went on:
But we think they are good. We think they will improve the procedures of the House of Commons and we put them forward for that purpose and for that purpose only and in no partisan spirit.
That was a good level on which to commence this debate. We have responded. We understood that the Prime Minister was speaking to us in good faith. Then on May 27 the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) said this as reported on page 1727 of Hansard:
The Prime Minister stated yesterday that there was no "take it or leave it" attitude: that the

Government was ready to consider various views which had been put forward by members of the Opposition, views which would have the effect of improving and making more acceptable the resolution which is now before the House.
Again this maintains the standard of debate. This is supposed not to be a partisan issue, a conflict of parties. Members of the House are, together, attempting to make improvements which are desired in the procedures of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, quoted by the Minister of Labour, said the attitude of the Government was not one of "take it or leave it." We accept those words at their face value and we have made suggestions from this side of the House. Some of those suggestions have been adopted. But it became apparent yesterday that we were becoming deadlocked on the second part of the resolution now before us. This part of the resolution deals with the difficult question of closure.
The suggestion made by my hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and which I myself made last night was that we should separate the controversial part of this resolution, hold it in abeyance for a while, and deal immediately with that part of the resolution on which there has been substantial agreement-virtually unanimous agreement, I believe. I refer to the part which sets an over-all limitation on the time allotted for a study of the estimates. This was one of the objectives the Government had in mind and it was one of the objectives I put forward in one of the speeches I made on this subject.
The next thing we suggest is connected with the second resolution, which will come before the Committee of the Whole House. We are prepared to pass immediately that portion of it which deals with the renaming of the committees and the allotment of Members to the committees. If these two things were done the House could set up these committees; the estimates which are now before us could be referred to them and the business of the House could be carried on. But if we are going to be confronted with a package deal from the Government side which says, "You must take the whole thing, and take it now, or nothing further will be done", we meet the situation that I mentioned last night where we become deadlocked.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I thought we were putting forward a very reasonable proposition. It is open to considerable debate whether another form of closure shall be incorporated in our rules, but we are not disposed to continue the
June 3, 1985	COMMONS
debate with regard to the over-all limitation of time on the estimates or for the reorganization of the committees of the House. The major portion of the changes in the rules proposed by the Government side will prove to be reasonably acceptable to the House. Why should not that major part of the rule changes be immediately put into operation? Why the delay? It is not unusual in this House to have lengthy controversy over certain portions of bills or resolutions. We have valid objections to having another closure rule written into the rule book.
I come back to this, Mr. Speaker. What did the Prime Minister mean by his statement, which was quoted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), "This is not a 'take it or leave it' proposition"? As it stands at the moment, the Government is making it that; it is saying, "Take it, with no substantial changes in this portion of our resolution".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, if it is sensible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman think that is a very reasonable allegation he has just made, in view of the fact that the Government has accepted almost-though not always in precisely the same form-every suggestion that has been put forward from any quarter of the Opposition on which all groups in the Opposition were agreed, and when already a number of amendments have been made and accepted by the House? Does the hon. gentleman not think there has to be compromise on both sides of the House?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is what has been going on; there has been compromise on both sides of the House. The Government put forward certain propositions, and I give full credit to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) in this respect. I have had conversations with him; I understand his interest in this institution and his desire to make certain changes in the rules. I have stated that I go along with most of those changes. But when the material was put in front of us and everybody had a chance to examine it, various people came up with suggested amendments. It has been a joint operation. Why should that joint operation cease at this point? Just because the Government has accepted suggestions from this side of the chamber with regard to one part of the resolution, why must we now be asked to accept their stand
DEBATES	1937
House of Commons Procedures with regard to the second part of the resolution? This is what I do not understand. Why can we not work out a joint agreement with regard to both sections of this resolution. I am pointing out that the second part of the resolution is the difficult part.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the hon. gentleman would permit a question. When he says the Government has accepted suggestions with regard to one part of the resolution, does he really think that is accurate, in view of the Government's acceptance of the proposals that the resolution would be effective only for a term of two sessions, that the second part of the resolution would have minimum periods in it and that would provide for certain other amendments? I think three major amendments have already been made to the second part of the resolution, and three to the first part.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That may be so, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying there have not been changes in the second part of the resolution; I grant that there have. The whole resolution, the whole change in the rules, is to be on a temporary basis. But this resolution and the one to follow affect the whole works. There has been a modification of the wording with regard to the closure rule, whereby there will be a limit of two days on second reading, two days in Committee of the Whole House and one day on third reading.


George James McIlraith: And another two days for the amendments.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And the other suggestions made may be approved by the House. What I am arguing is that it has become obvious in this type of discussion across the floor that we have not reached a consensus with regard to the second part of the resolution. Stronger views are held with regard to this part. In fact, I said right at the beginning of the debate-I said it out in the corridors-that I intended to oppose the closure rule, was prepared to discuss the over-all allocation of time on estimates and proposed to go along with the suggestions in the second resolution, some of which I think are very good. But on this closure rule I have not hesitated to say inside and outside this House that I am opposed to it.
That being the case, and knowing that there are other people who are opposed to it, I say that we have here in the second part of this first resolution a controversial area;
1938	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures and when we get into a controversy, obviously time is taken up dealing with it. That is why I have suggested, and I repeat it, that we should remove the noncontroversial parts of this resolution, get the committees set up, get the estimates referred to them and let us get on, as everybody talks about, with the business of the House. This is June 3 and it is the 35th day of this session. Not a single committee has been set up. Not an estimate has been referred to an existing committee. We had an abortive motion the other day referring estimates to a committee that is not in existence. I do not think this is good enough under conditions where so much discussion has centred around the necessity for moving ahead rapidly.
I think the President of the Privy Council is being hampered in his activities in negotiating privately and publicly with the Opposition. That is why I asked the Prime Minister if he would co-operate with us. But the Prime Minister has done exactly what he did last year. He introduced the resolution; he made a well prepared speech on it, set the thing before us and then paid no further attention to the debate. This is my criticism of the Prime Minister. He did the same thing last year in the flag debate; he made a speech introducing the resolution and then said nothing until November-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. Member would permit me to ask him another question. I know he would not want to make a statement that was not correct. The Prime Minister came into the chamber during the course of the debate and replied to some observations by the hon. gentleman's Leader, and the Prime Minister has been here on several occasions.


John George Diefenbaker: What is this, a speech?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House virtually all the time, and I suggest that the Prime Minister has not been here. This is of the greatest importance to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Government in this country, the man who has, together with the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), great responsibility for the operation of this institution. He introduced this resolution. He suggested these changes. Why is he not participating in the debate or intervening at this stage when we are exchanging opinions openly? When these opinions are being exchanged across the floor of the House you need an immediate reply. It is different when

DEBATES	June 3, 1965
you are operating in a committee which is meeting elsewhere; but we are continuing these negotiations in the open.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Unless the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who has authority on that side of the House, will say whether he accepts or rejects suggestions made, we cannot appreciate the situation. For example, when the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) proposed his amendment last Thursday a spokesman on the Government side should have said whether that amendment would be considered or immediately rejected. Surely we should have some indication from the Government as to what it intends to do with these suggestions. Not being sure whether or not the amendment had been arranged between the Government and the N.D.P. in a way similar to what took place last year, we decided that we should submit a subamendment with at least some common sense contained in it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was that arranged?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, it was not arranged.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Neither was the other.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not suggest it was arranged. I said we wondered whether it has been arranged.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Innuendo.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Someone says "innuendo". Let me say to the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that when he spoke the other day he accused me of advocating unlimited debate in this House. That was not innuendo; that was a falsehood because I did not say that at all. Let me say in reference to his suggestion regarding arrangements, that during the time the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) was leader on the Government side there were many occasions when it appeared to us that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Minister of Transport had made arrangements for the operation of the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have made arrangements with the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre and, of course, I have made arrangements with the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre. I am sure if I had kept track of the number of times arrangements were made I could say with certainty that as many arrangements were made with the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre as were made with the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. I found them both most
June 3, 1965

co-operative when I was House Leader, and I am glad to acknowledge that at any time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thank the Minister of Transport for his complimentary attitude.


John George Diefenbaker: You had better beware.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, let us examine the situation as it now is. During the course of the last ten years we have adopted a program for the allocation of time in respect of certain debates. I had some part in this as a Member of the Committee which studied this matter in 1954-55. We have allocated time in respect of the Speech from the Throne and the budget debate and have substantially reduced the time to be spent in the Committee of the Whole House.
We have now gone even further and will go further yet if we accept the resolution for the allocation of time for the study of the estimates, interim supply and supplementary estimates that come forward during the course of a year. I believe we would be going too far in this regard. All of these allocations of time restrict the activities of Members of the House and reduce their opportunities to speak. Perhaps we should pause at this time in our efforts to allocate the time to be allowed for certain debates rather than adopt this additional restriction which is really another method of closure in respect of legislation.
Assuming that an allocation of time will be adopted in respect of the main estimates, we will then have a limitation on the debate on the Throne Speech of eight days, a limitation on the debate on the budget of six days, a limitation on the debate on supply motions of eight days and a limitation in respect of estimates of 30 days, or a total of 52 sitting days as a maximum for the consideration of that major part of the work of the House. This amounts to about two and a half months, so the Government will have the rest of the year during which to deal with legislation. If we are able to pass the sections which require the extension of hours, and I presume the proposal in that regard will be passed at a later stage, the business of Parliament could be conducted within a five or six month period.
One of the objectives that we have all been thinking about over the years is that Parliament should complete its business in a five or six month period instead of carrying on month after month. Under these arrangements it is within the power of the Government to bring the work of Parliament to a conclusion within six months, making allowances for the odd

House of Commons Procedures day which might be taken up by a special debate or something of that nature. I do not know how much legislation the Government intends to bring in but under these arrangements there would be almost 100 days left for legislative purposes, which is an unusually large amount of time for legislation during the course of a session of Parliament.
As I suggested in a speech I made earlier, within the framework of 150 days we should be able to accomplish the work of Parliament, leaving adequate time for hon. Members to visit their constituencies. My point is that this Government, because of the co-operation of the House generally, has the power to control the length of time that we spend here on the Throne Speech debate, the budget debate, supply motions and estimates. It did not have that power in respect of estimates in the past. Surely that is a sufficient amount of control for the time being. Let us wait for a year or two to see whether under these arrangements the business of the country can be conducted in a satisfactory manner.
I am sure these arrangements will meet the criticism of some Members of the House and uninformed criticism by individuals outside the House. Parliament will not be sitting the year round, but we will be able to get on with the business of the country. I feel that we should now refrain from adopting further limitations or restrictions and avoid the adoption of another closure rule. The part of the resolution we are now considering that is unacceptable is that part which in effect is another closure rule in respect of legislation. Within the other allocations of time there is room for the Opposition to manoeuvre.
On several occasions I have asked that someone tally the number of pieces of legislation passed during the last ten years and the number in respect of which a time limit had to be imposed. No one has taken up that request. Let me point out some statistics in this regard. In 1956 it was considered essential to impose the closure rule in respect of the pipe line debate. Last year it was considered essential to impose this rule in respect of the flag resolution. Those are the two important examples of the last ten years. As I pointed out in an earlier speech, 650 pieces of legislation have been passed by Parliament during the last ten years, most of them without prolonged debate. The kind of legislative items which cause the House to engage in long debates are those which are controversial and also badly drafted bills that have to be revised, of which the pension plan is a good example. The redistribution bill re-
1940	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures quired considerable time for debate, probably because it will remain in force for a ten year period.


Miss Jeweti:: May I ask the hon. Member a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


Pauline Jewett: How does the hon. Member explain the fact that the British House of Commons, in respect of very controversial legislation during the post-war period such as the nationalization bills and various financial bills, has been able to pass them in three days or less on second reading?


Gordon Minto Churchill: When the hon. lady is examining the record of that House I hope she bears in mind those instances since the war when they imposed a closure method of allocating the time and those instances when they passed certain bills in the Committee of the Whole House without considering at h ast two thirds of the sections of the bills. I am pointing out that is the weakness of the rule we are now attempting to incorporate here in the House of Commons.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We should study the good points and the bad points of British practice. As I read the British Hansard, they consider their allocation of time practice with regard to bills is a bad one. As I mentioned before, they apologize when they introduce it. The apology of a Government Member introducing a bill is different from the apology of anyone else, of course, but they do apologize for introducing it. There is a lengthy debate for a whole day with everyone talking about how bad it is to do it this way, and only a Government intent upon forcing its will upon the people goes through with it. I doubt very much whether that practice in England, which has been decreasing over the last 10 years, will continue without considerable modification.
I say, let us not introduce here a second closure method on legislation, the necessity for which has not been proven because legislation has gone through this House very rapidly. If controversial legislation is brought in, the Government should accept a lengthy debate so that the people of this country will know what is going on. Despite the rapidity of our communications and the effectiveness of our mass media, it does take several days before controversial items discussed in this House of Commons reach the people. We have discovered that from our experience on both sides of the House. But after the lapse of a few days of spirited debate in the House

DEBATES	June 3, 1965
and attention by the Press Gallery and comments by editors of newspapers the public then becomes informed about what is going on. The danger is that if there is another closure imposed on legislation that type of information to the public will be denied and things might be forced through this House which should not be forced through. There is always a value in sober second thought in this chamber as well as in the other.


Pauline Jewett: What about the British tradition?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not know whether my hon. friend is a Republican or not.


Michael Starr: She comes from Northumberland.


Pauline Jewett: You are always talking about the British tradition.


Michael Starr: Do you want to abolish it?


Pauline Jewett: I am all for it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I hope in spite of all the interruptions I still have about five minutes left. Is that accurate or not?


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. Member but he is one minute over.


George James McIlraith: Let him go ahead.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, I-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree to extend the time of the hon. Member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thank Your Honour and the House very much but I favour limitation of time, Mr. Speaker.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to make a few remarks in this important debate and to reply in brief to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).
We are now entering upon the ninth full day of this debate on the resolutions introduced by the Government in order to improve the procedures of the House. During this time many Members from all parties have been heard and some Members have been heard twice. I believe that thorough and detailed examination has been given to the first resolution.
Some changes or modifications in the Government's proposals have been suggested during this debate. The Government has acknowledged the value of these suggestions
June 3, 1965

and has acceded to every reasonable amendment which has been suggested both as to the procedure tor supply debates and as to the procedure for programming the business of the House.


John George Diefenbaker: That is too general a statement.


John Watson MacNaught: At the suggestion of
several Members we have modified the proposals concerning supply debates. We have changed the number of supply motions from six to four; we have separated the period for debate on the supply motions from the period to be fixed for debate on supply generally; we have removed from the period fixed for supply debates the supplementary estimates introduced after the main estimates have been considered; and we have removed the final supplementary estimates.
The effect of these changes, Mr. Speaker, has been to extend the period which was originally proposed for supply debates from 36 to 40 days and in some circumstances to an even longer period. We have even acceded to a request to change the size of the proposed Special Committee which is to draft the resulting Standing Orders.
We have also provided the safeguard that Members have sought concerning the proposed Standing Order 15A, which provides a method for programming the business of the House. It was suggested that a Government might be able to introduce a major amendment at the end of the period of time fixed for debate on a particular measure. To prevent this possibility we provided an amendment allowing the Speaker to extend the allotted period of time to enable Members to examine any last minute amendment so made. It was suggested further that an allotted time period might be so short as to curb debate unduly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question at this point? Is it not a fact that that amendment provides for such extra time no matter from which side the amendment comes, whether it be from the Government side or the Opposition side of the House?


John Watson MacNaught: The hon. gentleman is correct. We responded with an amendment fixing minimum periods of time for each stage of a bill.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Minister allow a question?


John Watson MacNaught: Certainly.
House of Commons Procedures


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure he wants to be fair. Does what he says not indicate the benefit of debate and discussion and the exchange of opinion? Has this not come about with the result that the original plans of the Government have been made more effective through the suggestions of the Opposition?


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I think it also indicates the desire of the Government to accept any reasonable suggestion that has been made, and I think we have.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the essence of debate.


John Watson MacNaught: That is the essence of debate, of course, and that is the purpose of these resolutions, to permit the House to have reasonable debate but not of such length as to curtail the necessary passing of legislation and thus bring to a standstill the important measures which must inevitably come before this House.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the Minister permit a question? Who determines what is reasonable time?


John Watson MacNaught: The House.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought it was the Government who determined that.


John Watson MacNaught: The representatives of all parties determine that.


Michael Starr: That has not been decided yet.


John Watson MacNaught: No, but that is what the amended resolution is all about.


Michael Starr: But it has not been decided whether we have had a reasonable period of time.


John Watson MacNaught: Nine days. It was suggested that the fixing of any limit on debate might prevent speeches from every party in the House. We amended our proposal to provide for extension of any allotted time until representatives from all parties had been heard.
Recently a suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) that limits should be placed on the length of Members' speeches during any debate for which a fixed period had been set. I believe that that amendment was made late one evening just before the ten o'clock adjournment. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) rose at that time and asked a few questions for clarification, and when the debate was resumed on the next occasion he indicated that it was not possible for the Government side to accede to that request.
1942	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I want to stress at this time that this suggestion concerning the length of Members' speeches was not made by the Government. The Government's proposals were not intended in any way to restrict full and free debate by Members. What they were intended to do was to ensure that representatives of all parties should meet to plan and program a reasonable length of time for the major measures that come before the House. We believe that the worst restriction on the freedom of speech is the use of debating techniques which oblige the House to continue debating a measure long after every possible opinion or shade of opinion has been expressed-


Gordon Minto Churchill: And who decides that, you?


John Watson MacNaught: -and which thus prevent Members from expressing opinions on other proposals for Government action. This restriction on the length of speeches formed no part of the Government's proposals. This was a new matter raised by the New Democratic Party amendment which was opposed vigorously by the Official Opposition. Notwithstanding the indication by the New Democratic Party that it was willing to withdraw this amendment, the House is still debating this suggestion because of the unwillingness on the part of the hon. Member of Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) to withdraw his subamendment.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have never indicated my view on the withdrawal of the subamendment at all. I have risen on two or three occasions on a point of order but other persons have preceded me. I was not prepared to withdraw my subamendment on the condition that the proposal made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) would be accepted because the alternative proposal he has made is not acceptable. I could not withdraw on that condition at all.


John Watson MacNaught: I understood the President of the Privy Council merely indicated he would put forward his proposal when he had the opportunity. To overcome the impasse produced by the subamendment of the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, the Government indicated that if the amendment and subamendment could be withdrawn the Government would be willing to meet the point raised by leaving the question of the proper length of Members' speeches during any debate to the Committee of representative. MacNaught.]
DEBATES	June 3, 1965
tives from all parties. May I emphasize that we expect decisions on the programming of the business of the House to be made by a committee on which the Government has only one representative and the Opposition parties have four representatives?


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the committee does not agree, the Government takes over.


John Watson MacNaught: Perhaps most important of all, the Government has been prepared to modify its proposal that the changes be made permanent and has offered an amendment to provide for the changes to be on a trial basis until the end of the next session. This will ensure that after a fair trial the proposed changes can be re-examined by the House.
A recent proposal-I refer to the proposal made by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill)-was that the Government should split the resolution now before us, carve out part of another resolution which is to come before us and submit this to the House. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this suggestion that supply procedure and the committee structure should be divorced from other governmental procedural proposals is quite unrealistic. I believe the fixing of a stated length of time for debating supply motions and for debating supply is a most important aspect of programming House business and should not be divorced from other Government proposals for a system of programming House business.
Now that we have given full and complete consideration to the first resolution, may I appeal to all hon. Members to allow the proposals as modified to come before us for a vote? If accepted by the House they could be instituted on a trial basis. Unduly delaying reform of our procedures cannot help but destroy the esteem and value of our Parliamentary institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. Member for Tim-iskaming.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to some of the discussions that have taken place. I want to say that what I am about to say is my own opinion and not necessarily the opinion of anyone else. I have been interested in the remarks made by the previous speaker concerning how much the Government has been willing to amend its proposals. Hon. Members will recall a committee was set up
June 3, 1965

to discuss these proposals and the Government rejected its report. The Government brought before Parliament its own proposals which were very far reaching and in my opinion not too clearly thought out.


Mr. Moreau:: Not as far reaching as the committee's.


William Arnold Peters: No, of course not, but the committee proposals were rounded out to take into consideration a number of things. This is my point. I think hon. Members should be interested in taking a look at themselves during the last few days. We are stalling for some reason or other, and I wonder-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


William Arnold Peters: -what the stalling is for.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Who is doing the stalling? Who is preventing us from voting?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, they can holler all they like.


Pauline Jewett: Then do not talk about stalling.


William Arnold Peters: We have no proper agenda before us. The Government's agenda appeared in the Throne Speech but that was a political document for an election which was expected early in the spring. The election has not occurred and is not going to occur in June so that Throne Speech is no longer of any value. There is no agenda before Parliament. We do not know really what faces us in the form of legislation and yet we are being asked to take care of some eventuality the Government thinks might develop when they would want to use the guillotine. Since I have been a Member, and it is not very long-


Pauline Jewett: Look at the order paper.


William Arnold Peters: It may be too long for some people but they will learn after they have been here for a period of time-one of the things I have been able to learn is that it is increasingly difficult for the individual Member to represent his riding. There is a great tendency in this House to establish political parties and give these parties complete control over most operations that are of interest to the private Member. Since 1957 we have made a number of attempts to correct some of these problems. We have agreed that in those formal debates in which the backbencher has an opportunity to represent his riding there shall be a limitation of debate. We reduced the debate on the Throne Speech, a formal debate in which the backbencher can participate,
House of Commons Procedures from ten days to eight days. Prior to that the debate on the Throne Speech was unlimited and could continue as long as any backbencher wanted to speak. The next formal debates we have are the supply debates. Since I became a Member of the House these have been reduced from eight to six days and there has been a technical agreement that they will be further reduced to four.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I have no argument with the fact that in the formal debates which we have, arrangements have been arrived at in most cases. I have gone into the history of the External Affairs debates, which are normally asked for by the Opposition and are granted on the basis of a two day debate. When this occurs the first round of formal debate is occupied by the leader or official spokesman for each political party in the House.
The second round of debate is usually occupied by three Government supporters, three members of the Official Opposition, and one Member of each of the other parties in the House. I have known of no more than five hon. Members taking part in the first day of debate, which on occasion has been abused by one or two speakers occupying most of the time, but on no occasion is there time for more than two speakers from any of the other parties in the House.
This is what we are doing now with the guillotine motion and the reference to the Business Committee. We are allowing the political parties to become the functioning part of Parliament and are taking away from each individual Member his fundamental right to represent his riding because we are allowing the parties to decide how long a debate should take and who should speak in it.
Maybe one cannot fight change or tradition but I think change should come about by agreement. In my view the one time the guillotine motion could have been introduced with complete justification was during the flag debate. There are some who will disagree with this. I violently oppose closure in the context in which we have had it but I see the guillotine motion in a different light. The closure motion has a bad connotation throughout the country and very few people agree to the use of it. But if we had a guillotine motion that operated in a milder way no responsible Member of the House would be prepared to oppose it. Only two or three debates have taken place since 1957 which would have warranted the use of the guillotine.
1944	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures
It could have been used because of repetition in the Throne Speech debate or because of filibuster but now the backbenchers are being asked to allow the Business Committee exactly the same power as the Government has under the existing closure provision. We are being asked to allow the political parties to decide who shall speak, how long a debate shall continue and, by agreement, what Members may rise in their places and speak on behalf of their constituents on a matter on which they have completely contrary views to the positions taken by their respective parties.
Maybe people do not care about this but I do. In many respects I have been a fairly free thinker for a long time. I came to Parliament to represent the people of Timiskaming. This has nothing to do with my political philosophy and I want the opportunity to represent my constituents. If we pass this resolution without any justification for it, then we are really saying to the backbencher, "You have no role; the only role in this House is that occupied by political parties".
Some hon. Members who support the Government have objected to the resolution. I have always said that Government backbenchers in Parliament are not treated fairly. They are only rubber stamps. If they dare to oppose then they receive no party contributions at election time and their only alternative is to run as independents. This is a political fact of life in Canada. I have been interested to see some of them exert themselves, and I think they should not be stupid enough to eliminate the right they now have by giving it to a Business Committee which will allocate the time they can have.
Some hon. Members may want to take this right away. There are some who do not care to make speeches on behalf of their constituents. They find they can represent them in other ways. That is all well and good. That is the choice they make, but if the new backbencher does not stand up and make his contribution, if he does not decide what niche he should occupy in order to give his constituency the best representation possible, then he will not be returned at the next election. I do not believe we should take away this right from the backbencher.
I am in complete agreement that we have to make some changes. I believe that with co-operation the length of time spent on estimates will not exceed the limit proposed. I believe the House committees can serve a useful function but if they are to do so this

DEBATES	June 3, 1965
year they should be set up as soon as possible.
There is some legitimate argument in favour of asking for the provision of a guillotine motion but not before the crime is committed. I remember one time during a strike there was some difficulty on the picket line and a certain amount of violence. I had to raise a large amount of bail money. I had to have houses pledged and go through quite a process in order to raise bail and I asked myself why not raise bail money before other offences take place inasmuch as I anticipated that other such occasions might arise. But when I told our union lawyer I had already pledged about $1J million worth of property for offences that might happen in the future he pretty nearly went through the roof because one is not supposed to do this sort of thing.
Likewise I say the Government should not ask Parliament to give away fundamental rights and make such decisions before it is necessary to do so. If changes are necessary we should make them, but there is no one in the country who will not agree that the first thing that must be done is that the Government has to be fair to Parliament, tell us what the timetable is going to be, what legislation we are going to have, and set it forth in an order of priority. However, this is not being done.
We are being asked to allot time. We are being asked to restrict the length of speeches. We are being asked to eliminate the backbencher in a political party. Probably there is a better way to put that. We are being asked to prevent a nonconformist Member of a political party from having his say if his party does not wish him to speak.
The last speaker got up and said, "We made concessions". I am damned if they made concessions. They made proposals and only agreed to concessions sought by others. It is not my job to make such proposals. They say they need these changes in order to conduct the business of the House better, and there are too many people in the House willing to co-operate with them.
I do not really believe these changes can be stopped. There are many Members who are as convinced as I am that the rules have to be used to solve our problem, a problem that is faced in pretty nearly every democratic country in the world. We are trying to use the rules to make Parliament mere effective. Almost every country in the world has the same problem and has examined every possible means in order to find a solution for it. However, I think that before
June 3, 1965

a backbencher, on the Government side or elsewhere, says "me too" in agreement with the proposed changes, he should think seriously about them.
I have heard some hon. Members say, "I am not going to run again; I am going to go back home and run my farm or business". The only reason they do not intend to run for Parliament is that they do not participate in its functioning and cannot find a way to participate. If they give away the little rights that remain to them they will find themselves more and more unable to participate.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Since I have been here sessions have become longer and longer despite the fact that we have curtailed the formal debates. In the past ten years, for instance, the right of unlimited debate on the Address has been abolished. I do not think this has led to any real reduction in the length of our sessions. It must be remembered that both the gross national product and tax revenues have been increasing rapidly. We say we are increasing our ability to examine estimates inasmuch as we are reducing debates on supply motions by allowing four days instead of eight. I predict that before a year or two has passed we shall get rid of supply motions altogether with the exception of the introductory motion.
It seems to me Parliament should consider what it really wishes to do. If it really wishes to make changes in the rules it will have to prepare a parliamentary timetable. No one in his senses would object to this. There is no organization similar in size to this one which operates without a formal agenda. There is no municipal council which starts out without an agenda. We have abused the Speech from the Throne until it has become little more than a political document. Half the items which appear in it appeared in it 15 years ago. It is kept shiny for election purposes. There is an obligation upon the Government to prepare an agenda. There is an obligation to face the question of the private Members' hour. There may be reason to consider the question of the Speaker's office. The Internal Economy Commission-once I referred to it as the Eternal Economy Commission and that might have been a better description-has miserably failed to do the job allotted to it. Nowhere else, so far as I have been able to discover, is the Government charged with authority in this field. In other places this task is given to Members of the Commons with representation from the Treasury Benches.
House of Commons Procedures
If this motion passes as amended we shall in effect have applied a closure motion to the second part besides imposing certain conditions with which no one but a barbarian would agree. The Federal Parliament devotes attention to ensuring certain standards of employment in areas not directly related to the work of Parliament. Yet if these proposals go through it will mean treating in barbarous fashion the people who work directly for us, the people over whom we have direct control.
I say that if we pass this resolution we shall have eliminated for all time the right to engage in protracted debate when serious questions arise. Consider the problem which is developing with regard to our constitution. Is the Official Opposition prepared to say now that they are ready to accept limitation of debate on that subject, knowing that such a discussion can be concluded whenever a Minister of the Crown feels it should be concluded? If they are saying that, then let us have the election now. I think the Official Opposition will really not be the same after the election.
The question of changes is a most important one, though the majority of Members opposite with whom I discuss it appear not to understand what is involved in the proposals for rule changes. These resolutions would give the Government authority to make decisions affecting the operation of Parliament itself and before they are adopted the whole question should be considered seriously in a committee of the House where all aspects could be discussed and where counter-proposals could be made in a more effective manner than by proposing amendments.
The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) is not an unreasonable one. He offered to accept certain proposals of the Government as amended, together with the recommendation for the establishment of committees so that these committees could begin their work. Then the other questions left over from item 14 and those contained in item 15 on the order paper could be studied in toto. No one would disagree that these resolutions are directly related; if one is passed, the other might be hard to change. I hope all Members, particularly those backbenchers who have spoken so eloquently in favour of reform, will look forward to the day when we have a proper agenda in this House so that each of us may know what the Government proposes to do from day to day, to the end that preparations can be made before measures are brought forward on the floor of the House.
June 3, 1965

House of Commons Procedures
I would add a postscript which has just occurred to me. It has to do with the resolution stage. It is often forgotten how much co-operation has been extended to this Government in carrying out desired changes. For instance, we did reach agreement that the resolution stage preceding a bill should be limited on a trial basis to one day. What we were saying in effect was this: That the resolution stage was of no value, that the bill should be drafted and prepared for introduction, that only pious speeches would be made on the resolution stage and that the main discussion should take place on the bill itself.
I would point out, however, that when resolutions involving the expenditure of money were first introduced in the parliamentary system the resolution stage was the stage at which every Member gave his views on the subject. The Government then decided to develop its legislation on the basis of the views expressed so that the bill when produced represented the majority opinion of those interested. In agreeing to give up the resolution stage we were, in effect, giving up the right to have any say in what the legislation should be except for the doubtful expedient of moving amendments later to something which had already been set out in a definite form. This right to move amendments to something which has already been put forward is a far cry from being able to contribute to the original presentation. These proposals now before us were not arrived at by agreement. The amendments made to them represent concessions on the part of the Government, and I think this is putting things "ass backwards", to use my vernacular. We should have started in committee and held these discussions beforehand.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I know that the House Leader is sincerely interested in making rule changes that will work. I am aware that this is his motive and it is a very sincere one. I also think he will not disagree with me when I say that overriding this is the Government's desire to get business done the way it wants it done.
In a democracy and in a House that in my opinion is going to be composed of minorities for some years to come, consideration really will have to be given to our changing complex and we will have to arrive at rule changes that can be agreed upon, supported and sincerely put into practice by every Member in this House. If anything less is accomplished, Mr. Speaker, I predict that

there will be a very much lesser saving of time than is forecast.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) rose to speak he said he did not necessarily expect any other Member to agree entirely with what he was going to say. This does not mean that so far as I am concerned there is not a good deal of food for thought in regard to a number of things said by the hon. Member for Timiskaming. I have considered rather carefully the proposal put forward by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) in respect of a motion he was prepared to move if the amendment and subamendment before us were withdrawn. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to support that particular proposal if it becomes a motion before the House. But I do think recognition should be given to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Timiskaming.
I think one is that while the proposed time allocation committee or Business Committee representing the parties in the House may very well be a proper step leading to the organization of the business of the House, nevertheless it is still as it stands only a part of the required steps that are needed. I agree with the Member for Timiskaming that if this proposal is to mean what some of us hope it will mean, there has to be coupled with it what the Member for Timiskaming described as an agenda for each session of any particular Parliament. The proposal the Government has put forward in the second part of Order No. 14, which we are now debating, is confined to a particular item of business. I am referring to the proposed Standing Order 15A. Unless that is put in the context of considering the business of a session as a whole I am inclined to agree that the Member for Timiskaming has a good point when he suggests there is going to be a breakdown in the effectiveness of this proposal.
The second point made by the hon. Member for Timiskaming to which I think more attention should be given and upon which there should be some further clarification is with regard to the proposal for time allocation as it affects the basic right of an individual, private Member of this House to have an opportunity to speak before debate is con-
June 3, 1965

eluded if he so desires. This point has been referred to not only by the Member for Timiskaming but by a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House and it is one we should not lose sight of. The following appears in paragraph (7) of proposed Standing Order 15A with regard to the adjournment hour being extended:
-provided that if a representative of each party has not spoken, the hour for the adjournment of the sitting shall be extended until a representative of each party has had an opportunity to speak.
That arrangement was perhaps agreed to rather hastily and without giving due consideration to the point made by the Member for Timiskaming and a number of other Members, namely, that before debate is concluded a Member should have an opportunity, if he feels impelled to do so, to express his views in the House on behalf of his constituents. With regard to this point I have reason to agree with the Member for Timiskaming and the ideas expressed by quite a number of other Members. If at any stage of the proceedings with regard to a particular bill or piece of business in a debate under a time allocation order Members desiring to speak have not spoken by the normal adjournment hour of the House, the normal hour of adjournment should be suspended, as I believe one Member put it, to a time not later than the time set for the next sitting of the House.
All hon. Members will realize that this might involve the House sitting all through the night or on into the wee, small, hours of the morning, but I would suggest that in its practical application it is a rule that is not very likely to be abused too often by Members of the House if it is put into eifect. I should like to say that in addition to accepting the proposal put forward by the President of the Privy Council, which it has been indicated the Members of this party by and large are prepared to accept and so will agree to withdraw the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), we should have an indication from the President of the Privy Council that there would be this kind of extension of the normal sitting hours with respect to a debate in progress under a time allocation order. We should also have a firmer indication from the President of the Privy Council- than we have so far had from him or the Prime Minister in respect of laying out a normal "timetable for the sittings of Parliament. When I say "normal timetable", I recognize that if any such proposal were to be translated into the Standing Orders of the House
Division
provision would have to be made whereby if the Government deemed it necessary to deal with an emergency or some very urgent public business this rule could from time to time be altered. Unless those two points are covered, Mr. Speaker, I for one believe that some of the dangers mentioned by the hon. Member for Timiskaming will in fact occur, and they are dangers that should not be disregarded by the general membership of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen: Mr. Deputy Speaker: Call in the Members:
The House divided on the amendment to
the amendment (Mr. Aiken) which was negatived on the following division:
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
++YEAS
Messrs:
Aiken
Alkenbrack
Balcer
Baldwin
Bell
Bigg
Cadieu (Meadow Lake)
Cardiff
Chatterton
Churchill
Clancy
Coates
Crouse
Danforth
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Doucett
Fairweather
Fane
Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Forbes
Girouard
Grafftey
Gundlock
Hales
Hamilton
Howe (Wellington-Huron)
Irvine Jones, Mrs,
Jorgenson
Kennedy
Korchinski
MacEwan
MacLean (Queens)
Macquarrie
McBain
McCutcheon
McIntosh
Madill
Mandziuk
Millar
Monteith
Moore
More
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Muir (Lisgar' Nasserden NesbitI Nobin


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Mr. Mitchell:: I did not vote as I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the amendment?


Frank Howard: At the risk of being unpopular, I think we should call it five o'clock.
[DOT]	(5:30 p.m.)



URANIUM


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House, and I do this following consultations which have taken place, to revert to motions in order to make a statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware the Government has been reviewing its policy with respect to the export of uranium.
World requirements for uranium for peaceful purposes will increase very greatly in the years to come. Canada holds a substantial portion of the known uranium reserves of the world and in the future may well be the largest single supplier for the rest of the world. It is vital that the Canadian industry be in the best possible position to take advantage of expanding markets for the peaceful uses of this commodity.
As one part of its policy to promote the use of Canadian uranium for peaceful purposes the Government has decided that export permits will be granted, or commitments to issue export permits will be given, with respect to sales of uranium covered by contracts entered into from now on, only if the uranium is to be used for peaceful purposes. Before such sales to any destination are authorized, the Government will require an agreement with the government of the importing country to ensure with appropriate verification and control, that the uranium is to be used for peaceful purposes only.
Canada has been a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency since its inception and successive governments have vigorously supported the principle of safeguards
June 3, 1965

on uranium sales. This policy is a fudamental part of Canada's general policy to work internationally to avoid the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
As to the commercial aspects of the policy, two general principles will apply, designed to facilitate exports and to ensure that the requirements of both export and domestic consumers are met in an orderly way.
First, the Government recognizes that countries constructing or planning to construct nuclear reactors will wish to make long term arrangements for fuel supply. Accordingly, the Government will be prepared to authorize forward commitments by Canadian producers to supply reactors which are already in operation, under construction, or committed for construction in other countries for the average anticipated life of each reactor, generally calculated for amortization purposes to be 30 years.
Second, and in addition, the Government will be prepared to authorize the export for periods of up to five years of reasonable quantities of uranium for the accumulation of stocks in the importing country.
Within the terms of the policy I have outlined, the Canadian Government will actively encourage and assist the Canadian uranium industry in seeking export markets. The commercial aspects of the policy will, of course, be reviewed from time to time in the light of changing conditions.
Finally, in order to avoid any reduction in the current level of employment and production in the industry in Canada, the Government will purchase uranium for stockpiling to the extent that current sales prove insufficient to achieve this objective during the next five years. These purchases will be made at a price of $4.90 per pound of uranium oxide. Purchases will be made only from companies which have previously produced uranium and will be limited, in the case of each company willing to sell at $4.90, to the amount necessary to maintain an appropriate minimum level of employment and production for that company.
As soon as the details of the stockpiling program, including arrangements for eventual disposal, have been discussed with the uranium industry and decided upon they will be announced to the House and Parliament will be asked to approve the necessary expenditure for the current fiscal year.
Right Hon, J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the statement
22620-125}
Policy on Uranium Exports made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is in rather general terms in that it fails to outline, even in a general way, the degree to which inspection will be required and be mandatory to assure the uses of uranium being confined to peaceful purposes.
As this is a change in the procedure that has been followed over the years with the United States and Great Britain, I hope there was full consultation on it with those two countries. Otherwise it will have the appearance of simply being a means to get around the difficulties now being experienced in assuring uranium sales to the Republic of France. We should know what are the bases upon which inspection will be assured and maintained so that the pledged word will indeed be carried out.
As to the problem with regard to particular communities, I would hope that Faraday Mines would receive consideration now and that that area would not be among those areas that no longer are regarded as productive of uranium.
I am glad to hear that in the years ahead it will be ultimately assured that Canada will continue to be one of the major producers. I am not so sure that that hope is justified on the basis of the limited knowledge I have of the subject, because certainly uranium is found in various parts of the world.
Indeed, as I listened to the Prime Minister making his statement I was reminded of the changes that can take place over the years. As I recall it, the 1920 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica said in effect that uranium was a yellow mineral without value. The technological changes and scientific developments of the intervening years have greatly altered the opinions of 45 years ago.
I hope, whatever the monetary advantages this change of policy may have and whatever contracts may be entered into hereafter with countries purchasing uranium, that Canada's position will not be uncertain and that we will insist on the right of inspection within the countries making the purchases.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think we would want time to study the full implications of the Prime Minister's statement. I gather from the remarks he has made that from now on export permits will be granted only with respect to uranium which is to be used for peaceful purposes.
My understanding is that up until now the United States and Great Britain have been free from this restriction. I hope that tomor-
June 3. 1965

Policy on Uranium Exports row during question period or at another early date the Prime Minister will clarify whether his announcement of today means that from henceforth Great Britain and the United States will also be required to certify that any uranium which is purchased from Canada will be used solely for peaceful purposes.
The other question on which I should like clarification at an early date concerns the statement that the Government will require an agreement with the Government of the importing country to ensure that the uranium is to be used for peaceful purposes only. Provision is to be made for verification and control. Does "verification" include inspection or is it merely to consist of a document of certification from the Government of the importing country? I think those points should be clarified. I certainly wish to commend the Government for its announcement, meaning as I hope it does that Canada intends to be very strict about ensuring that from now on any uranium exported from this country will be subject to inspection and control to make absolutely sure it will be used only for peaceful purposes.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The second point in the Prime Minister's statement has to do with stockpiling of uranium pending the time there will be a greater demand for this important commodity. I believe the Government is making a wise move in this regard. All the indications are that the demand for uranium will increase tremendously in the next few years. A great many nuclear reactor plants are being built in various parts of the world and it is estimated that by 1973 there will be a very large demand for uranium, one which Canada will be called upon to fill to a large extent because other sources of uranium are not as extensive as ours with the exception of those in the former Belgian Congo. I think we are wise to keep the industry viable by accepting uranium, paying a guaranteed price and stockpiling it against the demand which is almost certain to come.
However, there are one or two points on which we would like clarification. Is the price of $4.90 to be a flexible price? If the world price rises or falls from time to time will the price paid for stockpiling vary correspondingly?


An hon. Member:: It is the stockpiling price.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Someone says it is the stockpiling price. It is, I assume, the price which

will be paid by the Government for uranium for stockpiling. Does this mean that if there is an increase in the price, for example, the increase would go to those who produce the uranium? If it is based on arrangements similar to those by which we purchase wheat through the Wheat Board which involve a guaranteed price, then any subsequent increase would be passed on to the producer.
I think that is sensible.
There is a further point I wish to raise. Has the Government discussed this arrangement with other uranium producing countries to ascertain whether there might be some agreement between importing and exporting countries with regard to the price range in very much the same way as has been done under the international wheat agreement? It appears to me that negotiations of this kind would be exceedingly useful since they might lead to avoidance of the wide fluctuations in price which would otherwise take place. When the new reactors are in operation there is likely to be a sudden demand for uranium which could result in a great deal of speculation on the market. If some agreement could be reached between exporting and importing countries on a price range it seems to me this would bring stability to the uranium market and help to do what the Government has in mind, namely, to maintain employment and production in the uranium industry.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, this announcement is certainly one of great interest not only to Members of this House but to the entire uranium industry in Canada. In the last few weeks Canadian policy with regard to uranium has evidently appeared hypocritical. The Government has been negotiating the sale of uranium in Paris, such sale to be dependent on a guarantee that the uranium would be used only for peaceful purposes, while being committed at the same time to selling uranium to Great Britain and the United States on a basis which provides no restriction whatsoever. I think the Government should be commended on applying a consistent policy so far as the markets for our uranium are concerned.
I question the value of investigation and control apart from the guarantees given by the countries which purchase the uranium. After all, Canada is not the only source of uranium and until every exporting country agrees that the uranium it sells must not be used except for peaceful purposes the reservations which the Prime Minister has men-
June 3. 1965

tioned will only mean that that part of the uranium supply that comes from Canada will be used for peaceful purposes while the other part, which does not carry such a restriction, will be used for different purposes. Since Canada has taken the lead in this direction it is only logical to pursue vigorously the establishment of an agreement of some kind between ourselves and the other suppliers of uranium so that effective control may be imposed on the use of uranium.
The policy of stockpiling which the Government has announced is, I believe, a sound one. As has been mentioned, there is a tremendous potential market for uranium in the years ahead, ot only for the generation of electricity but for all other peaceful purposes. We expect to hear more with regard to price. While it is essential to establish a fixed price for stockpiling, market conditions can change and I trust the policy which has been announced will be flexible enough to meet such changes. I believe the Government was right in formulating its present policy, particularly while it is negotiating with France for the sale of a large quantity of uranium. I believe this policy will be accepted favourably in other parts of the world. It is certainly aimed at some degree of international control so that nuclear power may be used for the purposes for which we all believe it should be used, that is, for peaceful purposes only.


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to join with previous speakers to commend the government for having sought and apparently found a formula which will permit Canada to become one of the leading exporting countries for such an important product as uranium. I understand that the strict agreements concluded, especially during the negotiations with France, may have represented for Canada an obstacle for the export of this raw material which is in great demand, as far as the sale of part of the Canadian production of uranium is concerned.
The policy just announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) will surely please all hon. members. However, that policy should not be fully accepted before certain questions are answered regarding, for instance, the inspection and control to be exercised by the Canadian government on the use of uranium because France will surely not be the only eventual outlet, for I am under the impression that we will also be getting orders from countries such as Communist China and

House of Commons Procedures Russia who may become customers of Canada in that field.
Mr. Speaker, it is to be hoped that the inspection and control formula for the use of uranium exported from Canada will also prompt other countries to agree to and accept that formula which would provide for adequate inspection and efficient control and ensure the peaceful use of uranium.
Like all hon. members, we are happy to see that a way has been found to give new life to the uranium industry by making easier the sale of as much of that raw material as possible for peaceful purposes.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. By consent is it the desire of the House to suspend private Members' business for today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if we could call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to calling it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Provisional Standing Order 39A, to announce the questions to be discussed this evening at ten o'clock: The hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)-labour conditions- Saint John, New Brunswick-reported deposit requirement to obtain employment; the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge)-administration of justice-Vancouver -disposition of assault charges against S.I.U. members; the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher)-R.C.M.P.-alleged infiltration of sinister forces.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (as amended on May 27) of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Brewin: That this House recognizes the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for
1952	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures
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.	(a) That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 30 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 main estimates; interim supply; and 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;
(b)	That the number of supply motions be reduced from six to four; and
(c)	That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-four 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 these orders, 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 follows:
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.
(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

DEBATES	June 3, 1965
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.
(7)	No motion made by a Minister under Sections (5) and (6) of this Standing Order shall provide for the allocation of a period of time shorter than two days for the second reading, two days for the committee stage, and one day for the third reading of any bill. For the purposes of this section, third reading shall be deemed to have been considered for one day provided the order for third reading is called as the first item under Government Orders on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, and provided it is continued, if necessary, until the normal time of adjournment on any such day; provided that if a representative of each party has not spoken, the hour for the adjournment of the sitting shall be extended until a representative of each party has had an opportunity to speak. Such an order having been called on any Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, it shall have precedence over all other business until the time of adjournment on that day, unless it is disposed of earlier. Under any other circumstances, a total of five hours shall be deemed to be the equivalent of one sitting day.
(8)	During debate on any item of business or stage thereof for which an allocation of time has been made under this Standing Order, if an amendment is proposed which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker materially changes the item of business or stage thereof and which raises any issut for which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker there has not been or otherwise will not be an adequate opportunity for discussion, Mr. Speaker may announce an extension of not more than two days to Y a allocated period of time.
3.	That the orders of this House under numbered paragraph 1, the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon these Orders, and the new Standing Order 15A be continued in effect until the end of the next ensuing session, unless this House otherwise orders.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe we are now back on the amendment that was moved last Thursday by the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). I indicated when I spoke on the subamendment which has now been disposed of, and I refer to what I said on Tuesday, June 1, that the hon. Member for Greenwood had given me his power of attorney to withdraw his amendment if an acceptable alternative was proposed by the Government.
During the course of his remarks on Tuesday, June 1, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) indicated that if the amend-
June 3, 1965

ment proposed by the hon. Member for Greenwood was withdrawn the Government would be prepared to move as another amendment a new paragraph 9 to the proposed Standing Order 15A. The words of the proposed new paragraph 9 are to be found, as given to us by the President of the Privy Council, at page 1855 of Hansard and are as follows:
The term "allocation of time", wherever used in this Standing Order may include the allotment of time to any item of business, to any stage thereof or any part thereof and may include the fixing of limits for the length of speeches.
If it is clearly understood that following the withdrawal of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Greenwood that amendment will be moved by someone on behalf of the Government, I will ask for the consent of the House, in the name of the hon. Member for Greenwood, to withdraw his amendment.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move such a motion as soon as the House gives consent to the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on behalf of the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) to withdraw that hon. Member's amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give consent to the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre who has made a suggestion on behalf of the hon. Member for Greenwood in respect of the withdrawal of that hon. Member's amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, as undertaken I now move, seconded by the Postmaster General (Mr. Tremblay):
That the resolution as amended be further amended by inserting in Paragraph 2 thereof, immediately after Section (8) of the proposed Standing Order 15-A, the following section:
(9)	The term "allocation of time", wherever used in this Standing Order, may include the allotting of time to any item of business, to any stage thereof, or to any part thereof, and may include the fixing of limits for the length of speeches.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am not moved by groans on the part of hon. Members over there.
I do not know how many meetings of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization of this House I attended, but I am not moved to worry about the fact that this is the ninth day of debate on rule changes because this could and might be a crucial time in respect of the procedural affairs of this Parliament.
House of Commons Procedures I should like to commence my remarks by quoting from, of all people, a group of Conservatives. I want to remind the Government of what the authors of "Change or Decay: Parliament and Government in our Industrial Society" say about Bagehot as being a legend. The authors were a group of Conservative Members of Parliament in Britain and they wrote this pamphlet in 1963. They quote Bagehot as saying, and I think we should all consider this sentence: "The very means which best helped you yesterday may very likely be those which most impede you tomorrow." I think that we sitting to your left, Sir, should also take this advice because, after all, that is what Parliament is all about. We should not be ashamed of this because it is the basis of Parliament.
Professor Denis Smith, in his paper prepared for the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, wrote:
The argument from tradition has strength: it suggests caution in the application of parliamentary reform, to ensure that valuable features of the parliamentary system will not be lost unwittingly in the pursuit of change. But Parliament is not an institution based upon an unchangeable or logical pattern. It is full of incongruities that exist because they work. The test for parliamentary devices should be whether they actually achieve what they are meant to achieve: if they do not, then other devices may legitimately be adopted. [DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It is in this context that I want to say a word or two to the House.
Parliament is 760 years old this year, and in this country and in the United Kingdom thoughtful people seek methods for improving its work habits. I am not one of those who are too troubled about the amount of talk concerning Parliament or its Members. I think this is a healthy sign because these are days when techniques and systems and beliefs are undergoing searching examination to see if they meet the standards that this age requires of them.
I have in my hand a pamphlet issued by the Royal Bank of Canada, the Monthly Letter for December, 1964, from which I should like to quote a paragraph or two. The pamphlet is entitled "Parliament Is 700 Years Old". The following appears in the pamphlet:
Recalling how ancient empires lost their hard won freedom by listlessness, George Hambleton wrote in 1951: "To stand still is to retreat. And, if we retreat, weak and irresolute Parliaments will again give rise to oligarchic forms of government, little removed from the tyrannies of medieval kings."
Today's outburst of public demonstrations in many countries is an evidence of anti-parliamentarianism. Here are people who care passionately about affairs ranging from the nuclear bomb through racial

June 3, 1965
House of Commons Procedures equality to parish problems who have no confidence in the efficacy of political action. By their parades and displays they are really expressing a profound subconscious defeatism about their own ability to influence events.
The task of Parliament is to identify the problems of society, to evolve policies from ideas, and to carry through the necessary action programs.
Having said that mouthful we must remember-I think many speakers have said this but in different words from mine-that we are not running a business enterprise here. We are not managers or executives or directors. We are, if nothing else, and I say this with all diffidence, specialists in the art of conciliation of differing ideals and interests. It seems to me that if we seek to conciliate different ideals and interests we must employ if we can the qualities of openmindedness and reasonableness. I am one of those who believe that these qualities are sharpened by active use.
Bernard Crick, in an article in the Observer of May 2 this year, wrote:
Few doubt that by and large Parliament raises the right issues, but does anyone believe that its facilities and procedures throw much light on them? Parliament fails in its task of scrutinizing the administration because both M.P.'s and public still believe the myth that Parliament's main function is to turn out Governments, and are still hypnotized by legislation.
Mr. Crick says that M.P.'s need to emancipate themselves from the bygone days when the division lobby was held to be the true instrument of parliamentary control. He says that just about half of Parliament's time-he is referring, of course, to the United Kingdom -is consumed by the great god legislation, who gets his way anyway. And legislation is drafted in ridiculous detail by Parliament. He ends his exhortation by saying:
But far too little time is spent in scrutiny and investigation.
I do not want to step over into the next resolution too much, Mr. Speaker, although I note from reading the debate that even the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) saw fit to encompass in his address both items. But I am one who believes that the parliamentary system should do much more scrutinizing than the present system envisages or even the system proposed by the Government. I think it is a pity that the suggestions made by the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization were not adopted because they were more far reaching in this regard than are the somewhat timid suggestions of the Government.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) rightly deplored absenteeism in the

House. I know a good many of my fellow Members are taking part tonight in a public panel on the abolition of the death penalty, which is a responsibility of theirs, and of course cannot be here. But I am going to have the temerity as a comparatively new backbencher to suggest that there are one or two reasons for absenteeism. One of them is boredom. Second-this was also mentioned by my hon. friend from Queens-there is the lack of a definite term for Parliament with fixed periods of adjournment.
When we speak of absenteeism we must not fall into the habit of some of our newspaper editorials lately in making what I think is a fetish out of attendance in Parliament. They look through long lists and ask where certain Members were, why they did not vote and so on. I think a Member is more than one who can bend his back behind a seat in this Parliament. If a Member is to fulfil his proper functions in this country he must be part of the very life of the country, taking part in all sorts of activities whether they are in his constituency or taking place in any other part of the country.
In another section of the Royal Bank Monthly Letter the author reminds us that one of the great functions of a Member of Parliament is that of being an instrument of education. How many people in this Parliament can be an instrument of education if they are tied to a set routine in a Parliament which sits far too long?
I suppose any of us could catalogue a list of reasons for boredom. If I were asked for mine, one of them would be long and repetitious speeches, another, too lengthy periods of time on relatively unimportant bits of legislation, and yet a third, too much detailed consideration of spending estimates by the Committee of Supply. Some of these abuses of privilege will be curtailed by the rule changes we are now considering.
I believe with all respect that the Speaker should enforce the rule against repetition of a point which has already been made. Merely repeating a point of view does not serve to reinforce an argument; it merely serves, in my humble opinion, to stupefy those who have to listen. I believe too that Members of Parliament should be asked to serve on Government inquiries and commissions. I do not mean automatic membership for Members according to any party ratio, but when we subtract the obviously ineligible Cabinet Ministers and their Parliamentary Secretaries from our number, surely among the rest of us one or two could be found who could give
June 3, 1985

useful service. I think, for example, of the new Special Committee on Correction under the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). I mention that not through any wish to single out the Minister of Justice but merely as an example which comes to mind as a result of the announcement made yesterday. Too little use is made in Parliament of committees of inquiry and of outside advisory committees to the Government.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
In Bernard Crick's book on the reform of Parliament he gives a list of the various commissions and other forms of inquiry in Britain for a period of some 50 years. The sad thing is that it is a rare occasion upon which a Member of Parliament is asked to be part of any such inquiry. I think this action serves to isolate a Member from some of the thoughtful activities going on in the country. I do not believe there is any partisan aspect, for instance, to a committee on corrections. I do not think there is a Conservative, Socialist or Social Credit attitude toward the reform of prisoners. I think somewhere in this place there are people who could give useful service.
Edmund Burke once said that one must reform in order to preserve. Well, it is a good thing for a Tory like me to quote one of the great Tories. But then I have to balance this with the question that Hazlitt asked when he wrote an essay on Edmund Burke and said, "Preserve what?". I suppose that is what we are about in this nine or ten day debate. Bernard Crick, who by the way was at Couchiching last year during the seminar that was held by the Canadian Institute of Public Affairs and the C.B.C. on Parliament and some of the problems faced by Parliament, reminds us he is very serious in thinking there had better be some real effort at reform, for there is ample evidence from the history of our times and general grounds in political and social theory for believing that the strongest-seeming free systems of Government can crumble from within if the masses cease to understand or care how they are governed and begin to think that attempts to control or influence Government are all a farce and a racket anyway.
I do not believe, in the last few short years of my experience here, that anything has troubled me more than the question of the general public. I agree with the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) when he says that in many instances public opinion is ill informed. However, I
House of Commons Procedures suggest it is ill informed because we have not done our job. We Members of Parliament have not informed the public. This is one of our major responsibilities.
Some of the points that Mr. Crick makes are worth considering and I am going to list just two of them. The first is that Parliament serves to inform the electorate and not to overthrow Governments. This is heresy, I suppose, for a backbench Member of the Opposition, but I am just quoting an author. He believes too much time is spent on ritualistic forms of debates and divisions on legislation which is going to be passed anyway. Here I am going to cite as an example the farm syndicate legislation which occupied us for so many days last year. The trouble is that this legislation really did not do anything. We Members should have been in the country telling the people it was not going to do anything. We have had an answer given to a written question indicating that out of the gigantic sum of $25 million the Government has allotted about a quarter of a million to this purpose. 1 know the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) can look at me, and I am one of the parties who took up some of the eight days on this debate. I believe we all share some of the blame.
Governments, says Mr. Crick in his second proposition, must govern. Strong Governments need strong Oppositions. Therefore the procedure of Parliament needs rethinking to fit the concept of equal access to the electorate by the parties. I do not know whether my colleagues in the other parties spend as much time as I do dropping Government news releases into that round-end filing cabinet. Some people call it "file 17", but I do not have time to call it by name. I just drop. All the engines of Government go into production to tell you the wonderful story of the record. The Opposition has rights, duties and responsibilities in the channelling of information. I believe one of the great achievements of the former Government, for example, was the establishment of the office of the Leader of the Opposition on a formal basis.
I should like to think that the Civil Service is here to serve all of us, Government or Opposition. I think they do this in most cases. However, I should like access sometimes to all the wonderful techniques of getting information to the public. Backbench Members in general should have many more facilities available to them. These facilities should include, for example, as they do in the Library of Congress at Washington, research facilities.
June 3, 1965

House of Commons Procedures Everybody gets excited when these dangerous terms are used. We have seen fit to raise our salaries to a level that I leel is proper, yet we begrudge ourselves the modest sum which would be required for decent research facilities in the Library of Parliament.
At this juncture I should like to pay tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, for the leadership you gave to the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization. I know that the last subject I mentioned is very close to your heart. I know that Committee made recommendations which have been adopted by the House and which I hope are now in the process of being developed. I do believe there are many other useful recommendations of this committee, and I hope they will not be buried without so much as a farewell cheer as was done with the Committee itself.
At this point I should like to mention also a fundamental problem-I know this is a delicate subject but it is now part of the public domain-namely, that of continuing tenure of the Speaker. I think the paper prepared by Professor Denis Smith for the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization deserves most careful attention from all of us. I am grateful it has been made available to us. Obviously we will not agree with each detail, but I am satisfied there is a consensus that something should be done to improve the status and the authority of the Speaker. Most of what is needed can be done without legislation or any real change at all. In fact, I think it would be better to do that. I agree with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) that the objectives could best be arrived at by convention. We would be derelict in our duty if we let yet another opportunity go by to achieve this reform.
Professor Smith lists the righteous statements about this subject all the way from 1873 to date. I am going to suggest that perhaps even Parliament would consider 92 years of mellowing is enough time to make any product palatable. Professor Smith makes several recommendations and I am going to list one or two of them because I think they should be part of the record. His report also contains an excellent bibliography on the subject of the Speakership. He says:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
1.	That the formal nomination to the Chair should be proposed by a Government backbencher and seconded by an Opposition backbencher after consultation and agreement on a candidate among all
parties in the House;
2.	That the Speaker, once elected to the Chair, should normally be re-elected to the Chair without opposition at the commencement of each Parliament, for as long as he possesses the confidence

of the House and is willing to serve; and that the party leaders should commit themselves in advance to this custom;
3.	That the parties should make a co-operative and determined attempt to arrange for the acclamation of the incumbent Speaker in his constituency at the next and each subsequent general election;-
My leader has already done this on behalf of this party.
-and failing this,
4.	That a special constituency of Parliament Hill should be created, for which the electors would be the Members of the House of Commons and the member would be the Speaker of the House of Commons;
5.	That appeals against the Speaker's rulings, as presently allowed, should be abolished; and that a new rule should provide for appeals only on substantive motion accompanied by the citation of authorities and precedents, to be submitted automatically for study to a special committee of the house;
I think most of us who are lawyers would not mind this reform at all and I think, as a matter of fact, a good many Members of Parliament would hope that this area of our changes could go through with little opposition. There are further details about salary, moving expenses and other things which can await another time for consideration.
At this point I want to go on record as agreeing with the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) who recommended a lapse of a week between second reading and committee stage on contentious legislation. His proposal was endorsed by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) among others.
In spite of responsible news reporting, the implications of legislation take time to filter from Parliament to the people. Here I am subject to the wrath of some people, but I suggest that because of the geography of this country there is not really such a thing as a national newspaper in Canada. There are some which are making wonderful attempts to be national newspapers, but I mean a national newspaper such as arrives on the doorsteps of the nation each morning in France or Britain. Obviously neither radio, television, nor the wire services like Canadian Press or United Press International, can effectively close the gap between announcement in Ottawa and the subsequent feedback of regional reactions to this announcement to the seats of the mighty.
Earlier I suggested that we were conciliators of differing ideals. To conciliate we must have educated advice from those we attempt to serve and I suggest the gap of a week could be a useful instrument for getting
June 3, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1957
this flow of advice. Some people may think they get too much advice; I do not know. Many times I feel very much cut off from that type of communication.
I should now like to say a word or two about allocation of time. I know I am a new Member and I know I do not share the views of my own party on this matter but I do not think these proposals are party matters anyway. I am not frightened by the prospect of a reasonable timetable. I would prefer that it be done by convention, as it usually is in Britain, but I recognize that merely because one is elected it does not mean that one has the right to speak on each and every issue.
I am an admirer and friend of the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) but I do not really think he believes what he says when he suggests, if I remember right, that he objects to party Whips organizing the business of the House and that because he is the representative of Timiskaming the only way he can fulfil his obligations to that great riding is to have a point of view on every issue. I think it takes quite a person to think that.


Mr. Stewart:: Don't insult him.


Mr. Fairweather:: No, I will not insult him because I do not really think that is what he meant.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I would be delighted.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Does the hon. Member really think that is what the hon. Member for Timiskaming said? I listened to him very carefully and I did not hear him say that. I assume the hon. Member is referring to the remarks he made earlier this afternoon.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: This is a pretty good example of the reason why we should not indulge in these little byplays. I would have been far better off and my argument would have been more acceptable if I had not allowed myself the luxury of a diversion. But I was here when the hon. Member for Timiskaming spoke. As a matter of fact, I wanted to speak but deferred. I let him speak before I did and therefore I heard what he said. Anyway, there was an implication that the Whips should not do so much organizing of the speakers. Surely those who heard him would not say I am going too far in saying that. I say that if the Whips did not do any organizing this place would be a shambles or a Tower of Babel.
House of Commons Procedures
As a matter of fact it is the socialists, the Labour Governments in Britain, if I read my volumes on parliamentary reform aright, which always want more exercise of party control, and it is these terribly individualistic Tories that are the ones who sometimes object to Whips. However, Mr. Speaker, my time is drawing to an end.
Sometimes I regret the form and the substance taken by many of our so-called debates. I shall give an example, and I suppose if I do I should never show my face again. It must be understood as no disapproval of the remarks made last Friday by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Eight Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), but you know, Mr. Speaker, that the newspapers dubbed last Friday's debate a debate on external affairs. In effect, though the contributions were excellent they constituted position papers by three of the parties. I think a debate should include some of the dangerous opinions from backbench Members. We should not fall into using terminology that is not right. If we are to have a series of position papers delivered, let us say that is what it is, for it is not a debate on foreign affairs.
In general I think that 40 minutes is not a bad time in which to get across a party position and 20 minutes would pretty well exhaust the store of any Member's fresh and previously unsaid things about a good many topics. For example, I recall being at Westminster in 1964 when the previous government introduced a bill on regional development. The Minister responsible, Right Hon. Edward Heath, spoke for 25 minutes. I timed this very carefully. Mr. Callaghan for the opposition spoke for 30 minutes and Mr. Grimond for 16 minutes. Then about seven other members spoke for a variety of times between 15 and 20 minutes. By six o'clock that afternoon they had had a debate, and I for one was interested from the introduction to the completion.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I have kept my notes on the times taken because I was astounded by them. Is it not time that we did this for ourselves and allowed ourselves the luxury of being interested from the start of a debate to its end? I think it is. This, then, is a good time to end. As a conclusion I will adopt the closing words of Bernard Crick's book. He writes:
Parliament is the forum of politics and any neglect of it means danger for freedom and for all those qualities of spontaneity, adaptability and invention
1958	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures upon which depend both the very survival of states and their worthiness to survive at all.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), to whom I have listened attentively, said he did not wish to be drawn into the luxury of making comments on the speech which was made by my hon. friend from Timiskam-ing. I, too, hope not to be drawn into the luxury of commenting on the things which the hon. Member for Royal and others had to say. Rather, I wish to express some thoughts, some reservations, about the ideas now being proposed which have been debated for several days in this House.
In looking at the item before us I am reminded of the years I spent in the trade union movement. At the various conferences and meetings I used to attend we were invariably faced from time to time, depending on circumstances, with what we called double-barreled resolutions, that is, resolutions or motions which contained an unacceptable idea as well as an acceptable one. Without drawing an analogy here, I might add that most resolutions of this double-barreled type were introduced and fostered by adherents to the Communist party who happened to be in the trade union movement at that time. I am not implying by any means that the motion now before us had its origin in that quarter. None the less it is a double-barreled proposition containing some good points and some points which are not so good.
I am a supporter of the idea that committees should be given a larger role to play in the affairs of Parliament, that they should not become just repositories designed to alleviate some of the frustrations which backbenchers develop from time to time but rather should be an integral part of the work of our parliamentary system. This has been my contention since I came to Parliament. It has, I think, been a waste of manpower or womanpower to have established certain committees in the past. They served a relatively useless function and while they were recognized as committees in name they were for practical purposes non-existent. Therefore one of the parts of the motion before us that I appreciate and endorse is the provision that committees should play a more important role in parliamentary affairs. I do not think, though, that they will be as efficacious as some would like to believe.
I say this because there are certain built-in disadvantages which will be carried over from

DEBATES	June 3, 1965
the committee system as it now exists. One of these disadvantages is simply that the entire structure of the Civil Service in any department exists for the purpose of serving the Minister. It exists for the purpose of carrying out Government policy and for the purpose of buttressing the Minister's policy position whatever it may be. The Civil Service is not there to assist Parliament. It is not there to provide any information in real depth about a particular subject matter.
I have got to know a number of people in the public service of Canada, as have many other hon. Members. I have spoken with some of them many times on the telephone and on a number of occasions I have received comments from top ranking officials in the various Departments to the effect that they would like to give me certain information about a particular question but they were not there, as they said, to embarrass the Minister. This leaves me, as I am sure it leaves other Members who get this kind of response, in an odd position. One is left with the impression that the individual to whom one has spoken is in disagreement, probably for a technical reason, with the policy attitude taken by the Government but he is unable to express that disagreement or substantiate it with facts or statistics. Individual Members, particularly Members of the Opposition, are placed at a distinct disadvantage in their relationship to Members of the Government.
I foresee that even though a different committee structure is adopted this disadvantage which is built into the committee system at the moment will be carried over and the individual backbencher serving on any of these committees will find himself as one lone individual trying to pit his knowledge, however complete or scant it may be, against the full, massive weight and technical ability of the Civil Service of Canada which exists to serve the policy interests of the Government or of the Cabinet Minister concerned. Unless we are able and willing to provide these committees with research facilities which would place the individual Members serving on those committees on a par with the Cabinet Minister in charge of the particular Department under review, the committee system, even in its new and extended form, will over a period of time again become relatively useless so far as examination of Government policy is concerned. It will become nothing more than an educational process. Officials in the Public Service of Canada, whose purpose
June 3, 1965	COMMONS
it is to serve the policy position of Government, will be educating Members of Parliament from the point of view of the Minister on whose behalf they are speaking. The opportunity for Members serving on committees to work up detailed or substantial arguments against the policy position taken by any Government will be the same as it is now.
I see here, too, another unfortunate addition to our rules, namely, that which sets out to give greater recognition to political parties and enhance their position within Parliament. For a long time I have held the view that there has been too much political party control over parliamentary activities and not enough opportunity for the full force of the individual consciences of hon. Members to come into play. For far too long decisions have been made in the back room, as it were. Decisions have been made in caucus behind closed doors with guards outside. Even if you wanted to put an ear to the keyhole you could not get close enough to do so. For too long this has been the situation in Canada and I for one have not been in agreement with it. I have never been backward about expressing my disapproval of the degree of party control over our affairs that exists. There has not been enough freedom of expression permitted.
I submit that some of the proposed changes now before us will tend further to suppress and limit the opportunity for expression on the part of the individual Member.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I think that along with this increased authority of political parties the proposed rule unfortunately places Your Honour in a most invidious position because it gives to you the decision whether a group in this House is or is not a political party. I submit, Mr. Speaker, with all deference and without meaning this in any personal way at all, that this is none of your business. I submit it is not the business of the Speaker to determine what is a political party; I submit it is not the business of Parliament to decide what is or is not a political party. It is a decision for individuals and groups of people to make whether or not they are in or outside a party.
I submit that the proposal in suggested Standing Order 15A with respect to the Business Committee which states that "there shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time.. . may appoint one member" leaves open to Mr. Speaker the question of determining what is or is not a party. Assume for sake of argument that the hon. Member
DEBATES	1959
House of Commons Procedures for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and his seat-mate decided that one of them was the leader of the party and the other made the group or that the two together were a party. Assume they made that determination and the person chosen as leader of that party under paragraph (1) of proposed Standing Order 15A writes to Mr. Speaker and says that he is appointing a certain member to the Business Committee. What is the position of Mr. Speaker then? He is in the position of determining whether or not those two hon. gentlemen are a party. I submit it is not the Speaker's business to determine that question. That is the business of the two hon. gentlemen, if they so desire.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit a question?


Frank Howard: Certainly.


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. Member agree that in regard to a statement on motions the Speaker has to make that determination at the present time under our present rule in recognizing leaders of the other parties? Would he then propose that we abandon this practice of hearing one round of remarks by the leaders of the parties when a statement of policy is made on motions?


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly
obvious that the Member for York-Scarbor-ough (Mr. Moreau) is campaigning heavily for a position in the Cabinet. What exists now when the Speaker gives recognition to spokesmen in the House is that the Speaker is not bound by rule to operate in that way but by custom. The other day when we met just briefly to pay our respects to the departed hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) the Speaker, following the custom and tradition, recognized those spokesmen who wanted to express their feelings. It is true that he followed a certain tradition and custom in that recognition, but he made no determination under that system as to what is or is not a party. This is done by custom and tradition, as I say, so when we are spelling it out-


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member suggest that any hon. Member should be able to rise and make a statement after an announcement of policy on motions?


Frank Howard: In answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, I just say that in my opinion any hon. Member in this House should have the right to rise to make comments about any
June 3. 1965

House of Commons Procedures subject he may wish to comment on and if he is recognized by Mr. Speaker that opportunity should be afforded him. But we are here being asked to spell out in our rules and give to Mr. Speaker the determination of what is or is not a political party. As I have said, I submit that is not the business of Mr. Speaker nor the business of this Parliament; rather it is the business of people. If in this House two hon. Members decide that they want to be a party, that should be the situation. That is their choice and decision. If a number of people who are not in this House want to form a political party as individual citizens, it is their right to go ahead and make that decision. It should not be up to other politicians to decide what is or is not a political party, for the minute we do that we politicians tend to preserve our own position.
I am sure, with all respect to the generosity of the hon. Member for York-Scarborough, that if he were given the sole determination as to what was a political party and had to enumerate two political parties, one of them would be his party. I am quite sure that any other hon. Member or politician in the same position would pick as one of the two choices the party to which he belonged. I submit this is something with which politicians should not deal and that in this sense we are making a bad move in this particular proposal.
We are also, by establishing a Business Committee and coupling with that limitations on time of debate and the like, tending to enhance and increase the authority, the position and the stature of Government, the frontbenchers, as it were, to the detriment of those who sit on the back benches. I am sure that every hon. Member when first elected to Parliament came here with a proverbial fire in his bowels and a desire to turn the world upside down if necessary in order properly to represent his constituents back home. I am also sure that many hon. Members have arrived in Parliament and have become extremely disappointed and frustrated because the opportunity to stand up and speak on behalf of their constituents was not afforded them.
During the time the Right Hon. Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was Prime Minister of this country and had the largest group of members of one party in our history, some 208 of them, I know that many of those members were extremely frustrated to find after coming here that they were nothing more than ciphers to vote yes or no as the Government might demand. They became fed

up and disillusioned with the whole parliamentary process because those individuals were conscientious and sincere in their desire to participate in Parliament on behalf of their constituents, but once they got here they found they were not given that recognition because of the controlling influences in Parliament resting in the hands of the frontbenchers. To this extent I think the proposed rule changes are in error.
One of the other factors which I think will work to the detriment of the private Member is the manner in which the Business Committee is likely to come to conclusions. I know the way our party operates in caucus. We have certain rules of procedure under which we meet, and I would assume that other political parties have similar rules of procedure, namely, the very normal ones that in order to come to a conclusion you must have a motion, a discussion and a vote. If on any particular issue the Conservatives meeting in caucus decided by say a 51 per cent majority, which seems to be unique for that party, that they were agreeable to a time limitation being placed on a certain item before the House and the other 49 per cent were in disagreement, I assume that majority rule would be the case and that based upon the 51 per cent decision in the Conservative caucus the Conservative Member on the Business Committee would meet with that Committee and say, "We are in favour of a time limitation". This would effectively destroy or virtually destroy the opportunity for any of the 49 per cent to express their point of view in the House about a particular item before the House for the simple reason that the decision in their caucus might result in unanimity in the Business Committee.
I would assume that the bonds are a little more rigid in the Government party, and I gather from talking to Members of that party that there is less opportunity for freedom of expression in their caucus than in the caucuses of the parties on this side. Apparently they have a stronger dictatorship in their caucus than they would like us to believe.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Any opportunity for backbenchers to participate in debate, if the situation develops as I suggest it might, will not be increased and there will not be that freedom of debate necessary to the proper functioning of the House. The one saving feature of the resolution before us is that these rules are proposed on a temporary basis, namely for the remainder of this session and the next ensuing session unless the House decides otherwise. The latter part of that suggestion I think is superfluous
June 3, 1965

because this House is the master of its own rules and it can decide otherwise at any time it so desires.
In any event, it is suggested the proposed rule changes should be adopted for a trial period so that we may see whether they work satisfactorily, at which time steps can be taken to enshrine them in our book of rules. I would venture to bet that during this and the next session the right to use the guillotine as proposed by these rule changes will not be used. I presume that the Members who negotiated these changes or designed them felt that the two sessions would take place in the same Parliament and that there might not be an intervening election. I would venture to wager also that so long as the present balance of party membership in this House is maintained the Government will not use this right of closure. The Government will want the rule changes, in effect on a temporary basis, to work smoothly with no upset so that at the end of the next ensuing session it can then suggest that they have worked well and should be made permanent.
I am not one who thinks that we should make rules which last forever. The rules of Parliament remain unchanged for too long and as a consequence the Government tends to restrict itself to a rigid application of the rules. The Government tends to become more dictatorial and take unto itself greater powers and authority. I am reminded in this regard of the powers the Government assumed during the days of the pipe line debate. That was a course which led to the downfall of the Government of that day.
I am one of those who believe that the Committee on Rules and Procedure should be a permanent standing committee and that we should regularly examine our rules and amend them. The book of rules of this House should be a living document in order that it may be used in the most effective way by Parliament itself in the interests of the Canadian people. That is what we are here to do. We are not here to enshrine our rules and we are not here to adopt changes because people say the changes are suggested by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) or the Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), those two great parliamentarians.
Our work here is to make rules which will assist us to serve the best interests of this country. I doubt very much whether the rule changes we are now considering will serve that end effectively.


Mr. Marvin Gelber (York South):: Mr. Speaker, when I hear appeals for precise
House of Commons Procedures speeches in the House I am reminded of what a man with religious fervour once said: "Use me, O Lord; use me-only in an advisory capacity". I think the appeals which have been made are sincere but they are indeed quite lengthy.
There is much we can do about organizing the business of this House in order to bring about a more effective result. As a junior Member I appreciate the privilege of speaking in this High Court of Parliament. I agree with the remark made last week by the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), that this is a supreme forum and that all Members should be heard. I know that his deputy leader in this House is of the view that Members on this side of the House should be seen, should vote but should not be heard. I am very pleased to observe support from other Members in his and other parties for the suggestion that private Members should represent their constituents, should have a voice in all issues and should be allowed to put forward ideas to the Government.
There are two issues with which I want to deal in short measure, Mr. Speaker. One relates to organizing the business of the House and the other relates to the role of the private Member.
I was very much interested in a remark made by Professor MacGregor Dawson in his book "The Government of Canada". He said:
A House of two or three hundred members which wanders where it pleases will undoubtedly be able to do a lot of wandering, but it will not accomplish much more: and if it is to perform its functions as a useful part of the government, it must be willing to place some limits on its freedom and submit to direction. It does not thereby become of necessity subservient to the Cabinet nor is the Cabinet on that account unable to derive from the House much counsel and guidance.
We have a proposal before this House to accept changes to rules and procedures on an experimental basis. I cannot see how these suggestions will abridge the rights of the Members in dealing with the business before the House.
Certainly we might look to the Mother of Parliaments, from which we have borrowed in great measure, to see how they solve this problem. The authority of Mr. Speaker is a matter of which all their Members are jealous, as we are jealous of the authority of our Speaker. It seems to me that the Speaker could well use greater authority in order to guide the deliberations of this House. In Britain the Cabinet Ministers may at the
June 3, 1965

House of Commons Procedures end of the day call for the termination of a debate, and the Speaker within his own right can accept or reject that motion and his decision cannot be appealed. If the vote is put and the business is terminated, that vote is accepted. The Members not only have the right to speak, they have the right to vote, while interminable debate denies the Members of our own House the right to come to a decision. In Britain the Government may move termination of a debate but the Speaker, in his own judgment, can accept or reject that motion. It seems to me that if we could vest that confidence in the Speaker of this House much of the discussion here could be guided in a more efficient manner.
I should like to refer to the right of a backbencher to speak. I sympathize very much with the view put forward by the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn). That view was supported by the hon. Members for Broadview (Mr. Hahn), Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and Royal (Mr. Fairweather), as well as other hon. Members of this House. Every backbencher should have the right to free expression of opinion. Of course in this House there is no list, but happy is the Member whose name appears on it. This situation reminds me of the Alice in Wonderland story about the Cheshire cat. The cat was not there, the grin certainly was. It was left behind. The historic grin of the cat is an important illustration of what goes on in many a house, possibly not this one.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It seems to me that the Whips have an important role to play. As the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) said, they have an important role in organizing the debate in this House. But the idea of a list submitted to the Speaker could certainly exclude Members from the debate. We should have that confidence in the Speaker to recognize those Members who rise, and let that be the determinant of whether a Member should speak. I do not think every Member should have a right to speak on every subject. If that were so, as the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) said last night, we would have interminable debate all the time. It is not a question whether he can speak on each subject or on each bill or on each resolution, but every hon. Member has the right to speak and to be recognized on the basis of fair selection on the part of the Speaker. If every Member's right to speak is protected even though he cannot speak every time he wishes, there is equality among the Members of the House. And the essential

issue is that the equality of Members be protected.
This is the High Court of Parliament, the supreme forum, as the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said. Members coming to this House come to it with a sense of responsibility not only to their constituents but to the country, conscious of the great issues confronting the world. It seems to me that the informalities, the unwritten informalities, which guide the mother of Parliaments certainly have had a great influence on this Parliament and could do much to guide us in making our deliberations orderly, informed and effective.
I should like to read a few lines from A. V. Dicey, the great British scholar, in his book "The Law of the Constitution". At page 469 he says this:
The constitution when thus looked at ceases to appear a "sort of maze": it is seen to consist of two different parts; the one part is made up of understandings, customs, or conventions which, not being enforced by the courts, are in no true sense of the word laws; the other part is made up of rules which are enforced by the courts, and which, whether embodied in statutes or not, are laws in the strictest sense of the term, and make up the true law of the constitution.
It has been the glory of the British constitution and the workings of parliamentary democracy in Britain that that unwritten law underlying our great tradition of parliamentary democracy has ensured the growth and the strength of parliamentary institutions. It seems to me that in this House we can gain strength from ensuring that the parliamentary tradition which we have built up and which we are reinforcing with these measures through written as well as unwritten constitutions can strengthen Parliament. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the role of the Speaker is something which can be much more effective and important if we, the Members of this House, have that sense of confidence in the judgment of a Speaker whom we choose. I believe the unwritten constitution of which Dicey spoke is a sure guardian of our rights in this House.


Maurice John Moreau: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate but the spokesmen from the New Democratic Party whom we have heard today have prompted me to rise this evening. In my opinion once again they have reflected the hypocrisy which is so often evidenced by that group. We have once more this so-called reform group, which is the impression they would like to leave with the country, reversing their position or presenting a contradic-
June 3, 1965

tory view before the public and before this House.
The hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) made a very eloquent appeal this afternoon for the rights of the private Member and stated unequivocally his position, which was that he was against a time limit on a debate because this would put too much power in the hands of the party Whips, would limit the role of the private Member, and therefore in some way we would lose a great deal of our rights. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this is the party which sort of jumped the gun on the Committee on Procedure and Organization which we set up last session. It is the party which, with great fanfare, produced a press release to the nation calling for allocation of time for debate.
I should like to quote one paragraph from this press release or communique which I have in my hand, issued under the name of the leader of that parliamentary group, just to indicate what was proposed at that time. The date of the communique is September 22, 1964, and I quote from paragraph 4 on page 2:
That an allocation of time order be adopted, under which, by all-party agreement before any stage of debate commences, the length of time for any such stage of debate could be determined by the house, just as certain debates already have a time limit fixed in advance by a rule of the house.
To me, after listening to the hon. Member for Timiskaming, the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) this evening, their remarks indicate once more the hypocrisy of the situation. Reform appeared to be a popular measure last fall and certainly was something which could be used by that group to attract some attention. They were for reform. They were going to reform this institution. But when they are called upon to put up we find them singing a different tune.
This evening the hon. Member for Skeena argued that we should not have any identification of a party system, that we should not have a party control in the House, and that these new rules were in some way going to give parties in this House some special status. Yet this is the group, Mr. Speaker, which a couple of weeks ago in the budget debate were insisting on their rights and were attempting to deny the opportunity to a backbench Member on this side of the House to speak in this debate. I happened to be at that time the victim of these tactics so therefore I feel somewhat strongly about this.
House of Commons Procedures
According to the members of that group, opportunities for backbenchers to speak should be afforded to the members of that group. Then they are perfectly willing to bring forward, propaganda, election material, as did the hon. Member for Hamilton, which indicates who are the Members working for the people. Having demanded and weasled various opportunities for debate in this House, they use those opportunities for propaganda purposes in their ridings. They are the Members who do more talking in this chamber than Members on this side of the House.
We have been criticized, Mr. Speaker, for being a House of too much discussion. This group is supposed to be the party of reform. Yet I would wager on any analysis of the speaking time taken up in this House by Members that a disproportionate time has been allocated to Members of that group. To me, Mr. Speaker, this is absolute hypocrisy in view of the position demonstrated by the New Democratic Party.
The hon. Member for Skeena indicated this evening that it was only by custom that on motions the Speaker recognized the representatives of the various groups. He was not, of course, accurate in that statement.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I wish to quote very briefly from Provisional and Permanent Amendments to Standing Orders, Section 15 (2) (a), which in part says:
A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the Government may comment briefly, subject to the same limitation.
If we are not going to have parties recognized in this House and if we are going to have statements of policy made on motions, one of the first things we should do is to disallow the practice of inane repetitious comments being made by two, three or four opposition groups. An example of this was the statement on the stockpiling of uranium this afternoon. We had uninformed and completely irrelevant comments made. Certainly there cannot be statements in that kind of a situation without the recognition of a party system.
If we were to adopt the type of opposition referred to by the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), the hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. Member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), it would mean that every Member in this House would be afforded an opportunity to speak on every issue that came before this House including, according to the hon. Member for Skeena, statements on motions. We only have to be here a very short time, and I am a new Member, Mr. Speaker, to realize it would be
June 3, 1965

House of Commons Procedures completely impossible for this institution to function if that were the case. We obviously cannot have unlimited opportunity for debate if this institution is going to function as it should be functioning. We are going to have to accept some allocation of time.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, this House generally is composed of a group of amateurs and I am one of them. I have heard a great deal during this debate about the right to speak. I want to say at the start that the gist of my speech tonight will be on the subject of the right to speak. Apparently we must go back to our A, B, C's to ascertain why we are here. We are here now to speak and I for one think we are here under false pretences if we do not speak when we are here. It is not necessary to be an expert in every field in order to speak. I for one represent what we used to call the little people of Canada, the people who pay the bills. When the Government makes its proposals it is my job as a representative of the little people, the taxpayers, to be convinced that the spending of this money or the implementation of these policies is something which is not going to harm unduly either the pocketbooks of those taxpayers or their liberties.
We live in a democracy, at least we still call it one, although from time to time I see that the walls of closure and the walls of silence are creeping upon us. We are not even allowed to speak, in the opinion of some people. We are to take the opinions of the establishment, that silent group that sits behind the press, behind Parliament, behind the campaign funds and behind certain lobbies outside. They will make the decisions and we are to sit here in silence and suffer them. Then we have the Civil Service, an ever increasing body of important, well-informed people and specialists. They sit in their own little ivory towers making policies which are presented through certain assorted Cabinet Ministers. We are supposed to swallow them hook, line and sinker. In the view of the people of my constituency I am not paid to come here and quietly accept these iced cakes which, in my opinion, are often full of sawdust.
We choose certain assorted Cabinet Ministers, usually with regard to the territory from which they come and not their ability. They sit in conclaves and make official decisions as to what they shall present to us in the House. Once again, we are expected to sit here and clap like trained seals as a well organized political party might do. This party for one is not that type of organized political party. We have retained our amateur stand-

ing. We are going to sit here, whether or not we are uninformed, and ride herd on those groups to whom I have just referred. All the dangerous groups are not in Parliament. They do not all sit on my left. I have just enumerated some of them. Sometimes the establishment can be a dangerous group; sometimes the Civil Service can be a dangerous group; sometimes the Government and Cabinet can be a very dangerous group. It is our job to sit here, with our meagre amateur ability and our amateur opinions, in the only free forum in Canada which is paid for by the people we represent and say what we want. In some cases it is the only method by which the little people have a chance to be heard. I am against any rules which unnecessarily curb our right to speak.
The parliamentary system is not perfect but it is the best system we have yet achieved to protect the rights of the little people against those groups, in or out of Parliament, who sometimes do not know how to give these people the rights, liberties and freedom which they so greatly need and deserve today. I do not believe we have been doing as good as job as we should have been doing in this regard. This is why I do not walk out behind the curtain and say it is a hopeless mess. I do not believe it is a hopeless mess but it will be if we have rules which tie our freedom so tightly we are not allowed to stand up here and say what we think.
In my opinion one of the weaknesses of the parliamentary system is that we run it like a lawsuit. It is necessary to have a prosecution and a defence. We have, therefore, evolved the party system under which you can be for or against something. I do not believe we can complain that there is not enough party discipline when 127 out of a party of 128 can vote for something like the flag without a murmur. Trained seals they might be, when only one dissents, but I think you have plenty of party discipline. It is because the Government of the day can line these people up and make them vote the same way that the Opposition should be strong. We will not be able to stand up against these dangerous groups in this Parliament if we do not have some way of standing as a group and saying yes or no. I do not know how you can perform in a court of law if you have four or five different lawyers prosecuting a case from four or five different points of view or, in other words, trying to prove whether or not this Government is fit to run this country for five years.
June 3, 1965	COMMONS
I do not want to digress and say when I think we lost one of the most important rules which decides whether or not a Government can be disciplined by an Opposition. However,
I want to touch on it very briefly. Back in 1925, when Mr. Meighen and the then Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. King, were fighting their lawsuit and prosecuting one another, the people of Canada were bamboozled into a position where they thought the issue was one as to whether or not they were going to be governed from Westminster or in Canada. The election was won on that basis and the Liberals were swept back into power. Mr. Meighen suffered a defeat and the liberties of the people of Canada suffered a defeat from which we have not yet recovered. The reason I say so is that from that day forward the Prime Minister of Canada has had the right to dissolve Parliament and there is no higher authority in existence to prevent him from forcing an election upon the electorate of Canada ten days after they have expressed their will in a previous election.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
This gives him a power over the people of Canada which he was never intended to have under our parliamentary system and this is probably at the root of many of the difficulties we have today. A minority Government can be in a position to run this country with about 27 per cent or 28 per cent of the electorate behind it merely because the Prime Minister can say at any time, "You face an election." When that happens Parliament is dissolved and the people of Canada are subjected to extreme expense.
We should go back to the position in 1925 with the Governor General having the power to summon an alternative to the Government any time the Government does not have majority support in the House of Commons.
I venture to say that if the present Members of the House were to stand and vote according to their conscience this Government would not have 51 per cent of the vote in the House.
I am tired of hearing from the so-called groups, smaller political parties, or whatever you want to call them, continual criticism of the Government because when it comes to making a decision on whether the Government is fit to be in office they always support it, even though they say they are fed up and disgusted with it. We are also fed up and disgusted with many of the things the Government has done, and I may say that any time I have stood up and voted I have voted to get it out of office as soon as possible.
DEBATES	1965
House of Commons Procedures If we want to get away from hypocrisy and make Parliament run smoothly, we need to do nothing more than stand up and be counted. I say to those people in the smaller groups, if you have confidence in the Government then join it lock, stock and barrel. Make your deals with the Government. Get into the Cabinet. Let the people of Canada know you have confidence in the Government.
We are not going to get better Government by restricting the voting or talking power of anybody in the House. I am against putting rules into the book which will restrict us, but this does not mean to say I think every Member should get up and talk about every subject. Indeed, quite the contrary. I am as tired as you are, Mr. Speaker, of hearing people talk on subjects about which they know nothing. You may have been bored many times when I have done so. Nevertheless, when it comes to the price of pigs, selling wheat to China or doing something about the unemployment situation, every man who has earned his living by the sweat of his brow knows about these subjects, although these very subjects are seldom discussed in the House.
We talked about the flag for four or five months and this party was criticized for doing so. One of the reasons we did so was that there was nothing else solid to talk about. The Government in office can decide those subjects on which we are going to talk.
Each session we start with the Speech from the Throne which should and sometimes does give us the agenda which we will discuss for the ensuing year. But the last Speech from the Throne was so general that we could get up and talk about anything. The rule book cannot restrict us if we want to talk about everything in the Speech from the Throne because it covered the waterfront without saying anything.
If the Speech from the Throne is not an agenda for us, then one of the rules we might adopt in written form or by practice is one by which we will know what we are going to talk about while we are here. I do not think we should be here 12 months a year but if we are we should at least know what we are going to talk about.
The press always criticizes us for not being here. I am quite sure the attendance would be much better if we knew what we were going to talk about when we are here. I do not know why we should be here 12 months a year unless we are representing the people of the country, but how can we do that unless
June 3, 1965

House of Commons Procedures we get back to the country and talk to the people there who are paying the bills?
On occasion we are also criticized for talking too much. One of these days I want an opportunity to talk about agriculture in the House. We have talked very little about it and it is one of the questions bothering the country. The people of my district are not the slightest bit interested in rules of procedure. I do not expect they will read this debate and I will not even bother to send them copies of it.
I am talking to the Members here. Perhaps it is like the parson talking to the empty pews in church. Both front benches are comparatively empty, numerically empty, and it is they who set the policy or are supposed to do to. They are the ones who want reform but apparently they do not want to hear backbenchers speaking about reforms. We would be delighted to sit here and listen to their solid suggestions to make this Parliament better, but if such suggestions do not come from the front benches then the front benches should be changed.
I for one came down here expecting to listen for ten years. I have only been here seven.


Mr. Francis:: Your original idea was right.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I did not come down here to be a school teacher or a trainer of Cabinet Ministers. I came here to learn and I have kept my ears open. Somebody might say they are big enough. They are big enough to hear and I am quite willing to learn. But I want a little more leadership and I want to know what is going wrong because I, like the rest of the people of Canada, am seriously worried about the things which are left undone.
Sometimes I am worried about those things which are done and if some of them continue to be done the Government will hear a great deal more criticism. If it does not show a little more leadership it will get more criticism. The people of Canada are waking up and they will not be put oil by arguments about procedure. They want solid suggestions for improvement. They do not want pious talk about a war on poverty. They want to see poverty disappear.
We are tired of hearing about equal rights in Alabama. I want to know when the Indians in my district are going to have their commission set up so they can get equal rights in Canada. I have no time to go marching in Alabama. But apparently I am not allowed to march back to Athabasca once in a

while to get in touch with people there who are suffering badly. There are still people in this country who are sleeping on piles of rags on wooden floors, sometimes not even wooden floors but snowbanks and mud. Some of them are sleeping on the front benches.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
In case somebody thinks I may be wandering a little I want to say I do not see any reason why our rules should be drastically changed. It is the general principles on which we are falling down. It is not a question of failing to recognize the rights of the smaller parties in this House. I think it is a matter of record that when we had 208 Members we refused to use our preponderance of numbers to bully the smaller parties; we leaned over backwards to give them the chance to speak. We gave them more opportunity to speak than they perhaps should have had. They spoke at great length. I remember one filibuster during which they withheld consent to legislation dissolving marriage for a period up to two years. In the end they made their point and I do not see how they can argue now that unlimited debate is always wrong.
I do not see how debate can be limited except by decency and common sense. We choose a Speaker from our midst. We have had good Speakers during all of the time I have been in this House. They have exercised great restraint, great common sense, great patience and, by and large, tremendous fairness. If there has been any fault it has been expressed by leaning over backward in favour of the smaller groups. Even those who may be taking far too long are given full right to speak. I go further. I think we should waste a thousand hours in this House rather than deny any well-intentioned Member his right to speak, amateur though he may be, long-winded though he may be. He may have to speak for two years before gaining his point. I have not yet passed judgment on what happened with regard to those divorce cases. If the action taken at that time was well-intentioned and if the result was a proper one, I think it was not only a privilege but a right and a duty for Members to speak until their consciences were clear and they had done what they had undertaken to do for those people who put them here, the only forum in which their will could be expressed.
I believe common sense is not entirely dead in Canada and while we have Speakers of the quality we have had during the last seven years I believe our rights and privileges are in good hands. Do the people of Canada really believe we are wasting all our time and not
June 3, 1965	COMMONS
earning our keep? If they do, they can replace this House from top to bottom, all 265 members. They still have that privilege. I do not think juggling the rules can make any difference. If we take a good look at ourselves and the job we came here to do and act according to our consciences we can still discipline any Government which takes over. We still have the right to act according to our consciences. If we choose not to do so, we have no one to blame but ourselves; we cannot point to a little green book and say: "Rule 29 or rule 36 prevents me from being a Canadian. We are speaking our minds in the most powerful court in the land. We can do anything legally in this court. We can change our constitution-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We can change our form of Government. We can make and break Cabinet Ministers. We can throw Governments out of office. It is not good enough to sit back and say: I do not like the way the Prime Minister does this or that. Some hon. Members are always talking about the way they do things in England. Well, Pym and Hampden, Pitt and Fox and Burke would not have sat around blaming the rule book. They would not have blamed the Queen or her ancestors. When one of Britain's Kings did not do what he should have done-they only did this to one of them -they took him out on the front porch and gave him a very close haircut. We could do it yet. We do not need to do it. But the example is in history. Prime Ministers and Governments have been defeated before now. I am not talking particularly about this administration. I am talking about the opposition as a whole. If the united opposition in Canada wants to give Canada good, clean government then the first thing to do is to get rid of those fellows over there, then stop whining and get down to business and do our job in this House. And our job in this House is to stop bickering.
I do not know how long it takes to make a point. A man should be able to make his point in two minutes. I am allowed 40 minutes. It is not the length of one's speech that counts. It is not even what is said. It is a combination of what you say and who is listening, and, having listened, what they are going to do about it.


An hon. Member:: They look blank.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Somebody said tonight that Parliament is the art of compromise. I will tell the House what I think about that. I think
DEBATES	1967
House of Commons Procedures the art of compromise should only be brought into play after you have fought for what you believe in with every ounce of energy and every grain of intelligence you possess. Let us not compromise to the point at which we become so openminded that our brains fall out. If there is something you believe in, do not only stand up and say so but stick to your guns while you are sitting in your seat as well as when you are standing on your feet. Politics is war. It is a war without guns, I suppose, but it requires as much guts, integrity and patriotism as any war you will ever get into. I ought to know because I have been in the shooting line and this is tougher.
We are mixed up in a war where I cannot wait for the corporal to come and tell me what to do. I happen to be on the spot. You can say we are all privates or perhaps that we are all generals. But I am responsible for what I do. I am getting tired of blaming the little green book or of blaming the Prime Minister for not doing his job. I am not sure whether he is doing it. He may be doing it to the best of his ability. We talk about cooperation and togetherness. We hear it said: Let all the parties get together and agree on the things which have to be done. As I read my history book, and I have read it, the greatest improvements in democratic affairs have always been brought about when there has been a clearcut division along party lines, when Conservatives knew what Conservatives were and when Liberals knew what real Liberalism meant. Real Liberalism in Gladstone's day worked against vested interests and tried to get a better deal for the little man. Where has that kind of Liberalism gone?


An hon. Member:: Down the drain.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I am not altogether satisfied with Conservatism either. Sometimes I think we get on the socialist bandwagon and try to outdo the socialists. It cannot be done. The confusion which pervades the socialist ranks is something we can never match. So let us get on with private enterprise, give those who want to fight for it leadership in the private enterprise field and ensure that they have a strong and vigorous party behind which to rally every day. It is not that I do not believe in looking after the old people. After all, the old people are looked after whether they live in a Communist country or whether they live among the Incas of Peru. Surely we in Canada will always be able to do at least as well.
June 3, 1965

House of Commons Procedures [DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
There should be two well defined parties in the House, those who think the Government is doing well and those who think it is not. I should like to see anybody who thinks it is not doing well come over to the side of the House where they can vote "nay". I assure you, gentlemen, that if you gave me the kind of leadership that you think you are giving I would not hesitate to cross the floor of the House. But you are so wrong. I would be willing to support the Prime Minister in any policies up until the statutory time of calling another election as long as he gave me the kind of world leadership that he had by reputation before he took the reins of Government. He has ability and I would like to see some of that ability channelled into forthright leadership, honest government and clearcut policies. I say: "Don't try to ride the Socialist wagon. If you are Liberals, go the Liberal way". Is is clear enough; read the history books and see what Gladstone, Laurier and other famous Liberals did. Follow that policy and victory will be in your hands but if you follow the pink policy I think the Canadian people will reject you.
The reforms we need are reforms of character and leadership in government, not reforms in the rules. I do not think we have to recognize more than two parties in this House, and I believe that any contrary rule put into the rule book would weaken the two party system and would be a retrograde step. I think the two party system is always good, not for reds and blues, not necessarily for ins and outs, but for those who support the avowed policies outlined in the Speech from the Throne, if you can find clearcut policies in the Speech from the Throne. If you cannot, we should meet immediately after the Speech from the Throne has been read and vote that government out so we can get a group together which can lay down a policy which we can understand and on which we can vote yea or nay upon the first day this House sits.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: That cannot be done.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The hon. Member says that cannot be done. We have the power to change our Constitution. We have the power to change our system of Government. We could become a republic if we wanted to do so.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Oh, no.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We have power in this House to do anything we like, or else we might as well

close the place down. If we are only going through a sham, why not go home? The policy I support in this House is not one of looking to the front bench or any man on the front bench and saying, "There is Canada". I want to look to the front bench and say, "There is the most able, dedicated Canadian that we can get to come into the political field". He should be the first amongst equals. This is the reform we need. At one time the Prime Minister of this country was the first amongst equals. What is he now? He has the power to name his Cabinet. This is a great power. He could make me a Senator tomorrow, could he not?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: This is great power, Mr. Speaker, astounding power.


An hon. Member:: We would not like to be astounded.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You would not like to be astounded. We have to return to making the Prime Minister first amongst equals and the way to do that is to restore the prerogative of the Crown to call an alternative government at any time the House of Commons does not give 51 per cent of its backing to the man whom we elevate to the Prime Ministership. We should not have anything less than that. We have laboured under this inadequate system, Mr. Speaker, for 40 years. We have been 40 years in the wilderness. It took Moses 40 years to smarten up and we have had the same length of time. Let us not stay in the wilderness another 40 years. We can amend the Constitution, which after all is just our big rule book. Let us put into the Constitution the power of an independent arbitrator or a referee of some sort, whether it be the Queen, the Governor General or whether he is called something else. Give him a different kind of hat if necessary, but let us have an independent arbitrator. Sooner or later Parliament must restore the right to some independent person to say it is not necessary to have an unnecessary election before allowing the will of the people to be expressed.
The people have a perfect right, of course, to elect any political party they wish, be it a party of one, a party of four or a party of nine. But I wish to go on record as saying that I cannot conceive of even any small advantage in having four or five leaders of the opposition. We must have one Leader of the Opposition only.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
June 3, 1965
COMMONS DEBATES	1969


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: That leader must be the only alternative voice which comes anywhere near speaking for the consensus in the Opposition; otherwise there is no effective criticism of the Government. A 28 per cent government could presumably go on forever as long as they pulled the political strings strongly enough. You will never, by any stretch of the imagination, have the will of the Canadian people expressed as long as we have a method which perpetuates the rule of 28 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hounds are baying; they are baying for time. Gentlemen, after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness I do not think two minutes more is going to make any difference. Unless Mr. Speaker is going to call me for time, I cannot see that it is ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Webb:: Keep going. Keep bringing them out of the wilderness.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I heard criticism tonight about double-barreled resolutions. This is a good one. It is a final shot which should be made from a double-barreled shotgun. Double-barreled resolutions are of course brought in to confuse the issue and make it almost impossible to vote one way or another or come to a clearcut decision. As long as you have an amendment moved to a government motion and this amendment is amended by a subamendment, and amended and amended and amended, it is never possible to get a clearcut decision, a proper, honest political decision on the subject. Again I say that if amendments were only permitted on the basis of a consensus of the Opposition, you would get clear-cut decisions in every case and I think this would cut down our sessions of Parliament to six months instead of 12 months as is the case at present.
The mistake we made was allowing the camel to put his head in the tent. Now there is no room for the poor old Arab. We who control 95 seats in this House are continually badgered out of our position, jockeyed out of the way through the express collaboration of the Liberal Government with some people in this House, because only by this method can 28 per cent of the electorate control 100 per cent of the House of Commons. You people who do the criticizing from the left-I lay this at their door, Mr. Speaker-should make up your minds whether you want to be a real opposition and get rid of these people. For
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion goodness sake don't bicker about this and say, "It is hardly fair to say that, because we do not get a chance to the put the Liberals out", when on every chance we give you to vote against them you invariably vote with them.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, the Government will submit for the consideration of the House Government Order No. 14 and then Government Order No. 15. May I express the hope that we try to relate the debate to the subject matter before the House?


Howard Russell MacEwan: Cut down a few of the bulrushes.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Provisional Standing Order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the other day, as shown at page 1767 of Hansard, I posed a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) regarding employment practices for the M/V Boylen. The Minister's response was that there was some difficulty in determining just which company did the hiring and, second:
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Apparently the payment of $400 by members of the crew Is limited to German personnel who have been flown over to Canada. These crew members were, I understand, required to sign a service contract designed to guarantee a refund of air transportation costs.
I consider this to be a requirement that individual crew members purchase their jobs, a practice which disappeared in Canada many years ago.
In respect of this situation, I should like to refer to a copy of one of the service contracts and read extracts from it. I will make this copy, as well as my entire file, available to the Minister in the event he does not already have this information. This service contract is in respect of one Johann Wenke and states that Kent Line Ltd., as agents for Engineering Consultants Ltd., Saint John, N.B., and the Irving Oil Company, Saint John, N.B., is the employer. That statement will perhaps eliminate any difficulty in deciding who employs these people.
June 3, 1965

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The Minister stated that he understood the $400 was a guarantee that the air transportation costs would not be lost if an employee left the ship before completing the contract, in the event that employee had been flown to Canada. Let me read part of this contract which was signed, incidentally, in Hamburg on March 25, 1965. It states:
The employee deposits with the company the amount of Can-$400-as security for completion of this contract. The company binds itself by obligation to return this sum to the employee on the date of expiration of this contract.
There is no reference there to air transportation costs and no reference to the fact that these individuals have been flown over to Canada. I repeat that this contract was signed in Hamburg on March 25 of this year. Incidentally, almost the entire crew of the M/V Boylen are German, so that when the Minister suggests that this applies only to German personnel this means in effect that it applies to the entire crew. This contract sets out the wage scale as being $150 per month, minimum, to $210, maximum, Canadian funds. Surely in view of those salaries a deposit of $400 on the part of an employee is a bit of an imposition and an exploitation of the individual.
There is another interesting feature of this service contract which I submit interferes with the basic rights of an individual to proceed through the courts of this land. Clause 13 of the contract states:
The rights and obligations of the parties are to be governed by the Laws of the Province of New Brunswick, Canada. All disputes arising between the Master or Company and the Employee regarding this agreement shall be heard only in the courts of the Province of New Brunswick, Canada.
I am sure if the Minister looks into that situation he will find that that is an infringement upon the rights of individuals to proceed through the courts, even to the Supreme Court of Canada in the event the individual considers he has received improper or unfair treatment from a lower court.
Returning to the contract itself and the requirement that $400 be deposited, I suggest that this is in effect job buying. The Irving Oil Company, a virtual dictator in the province of New Brunswick, acting as the employer, is interfering with the rights and freedoms of the individuals involved in this situation. I submit it is the Government's responsibility, particularly inasmuch as this is a matter concerning shipping and comes under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, to act to protect the rights of these individuals.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make available to the Minister all the documents I have here, some of which refer to the safety measures aboard ship and other such subjects, but I have confined my remarks tonight purely to the employee-employer relationship that exists and I ask the Minister seriously to look into this matter and take the necessary corrective measures.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have, following the question raised originally by the hon. Member for Timiskaming, asked the chief officer of the Canada Labour Relations Board in Fredericton, New Brunswick, to check into this matter, and as a result he directed an inquiry to the firm of McKelvey, Macaulay, Machum and Fairweather, who replied in connection with the M/V Boylen. The information contained in this letter is as follows:
In reply to your enquiry I am enclosing a copy of an addendum to the service contract signed by Germans hired for the crew of the above vessel setting out the details of the advance of $400 made to such crew members and the security deposit of $400 to guarantee performance of their service contracts. The advance is repaid by monthly holdbacks of $40 and the $400 is paid over to the man on due fulfilment of his service contract.
The service contract requires crew members to serve for at least 12 months. The present system became necessary when many German crew members deserted without completing their service contracts and without repaying the monies advanced for travel and hiring costs; they were thus using employment on this vessel as a means of immigrating to Canada at someone else's expense. The advance-deposit-holdback system was inaugurated to counteract this practice and has proven to be satisfactory.
These crew members do not in any way "buy their jobs" as suggested by the question raised in the House of Commons.
That is the explanation we have received. In the light of the comments made by the hon. Member I will be glad to examine the situation, consider his comments and, if necessary, request further information.


Frank Howard: Who is the employer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is a rather interesting point in the case. I have not been able yet to establish to my satisfaction who is the employer and the letter from the firm of solicitors is silent on this point.


Frank Howard: It shows there is something underhanded.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-VANCOUVER- DISPOSITION OF ASSAULT CHARGES AGAINST S.I.U. MEMBERS

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on May 28 during the question

June 3, 1965
period I addressed the following question to the Minister of Labour, as reported at page 1769 of Hansard:
I am informed that some time ago one Harold Chamberlain Banks, one Leonard McLaughlin and one Norman Cunningham were charged with conspiring to commit an assault against one Richard Greaves in Vancouver. I am also informed that the charge against Mr. Banks has been dropped because he is on vacation in the United States...
I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any knowledge as to why the charges against Leonard McLaughlin and Norman Cunningham have not been proceeded with.
I addressed the question to the Minister of Labour because I thought it was a labour matter and he would be directly concerned with it. Possibly I should have directed it to the Minister of Justice and I must apologize for disturbing his program for this evening.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I was asked to ask this question by a number of persons who are very interested in preserving the good name of the labour movement in Canada, including some people who are quite important in C.L.C. unions in this country. I was informed that the Crown in the name of Canada did intend to lay charges but Mr. Harold Chamberlain Banks had left the country and they were dropped. I understand consideration is being given to laying charges against Harold Chamberlain Banks, Leonard McLaughlin and Norman Cunningham for conspiracy to commit an assault against Richard Greaves in Vancouver on June 30, 1960.
I was informed also that Richard Greaves was visited by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and told to be prepared to appear as a witness in a court case in this connection in Montreal in August, 1964. He was informed also that prosecuting attorney for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would be one J. Martineau. I was later informed, Mr. Speaker, that a man named Clayton Statton did beat one Richard Greaves at the time I mentioned. This man Statton was imported from the United States by one Rod Heinekey, a gentleman who was recently elected as executive vice-president of the Seafarers' International Union of Canada. I understand that Mr. Heinekey had to put up a $500 bond because this man Statton had committed a previous assault in Canada. Mr. Heinekey at the time claimed that he was a personal friend of his. I am informed also that later this Clayton Statton attacked a recluse in Vancouver who thought he was going to be robbed. During the struggle Clayton Statton was killed by the accidental dis-22620-126
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion charge of his own gun which he apparently carried with him.
I raise this question, Mr. Speaker, at the request of those persons I mentioned who are interested in preserving the good name of the labour movement in Canada. X think that in fairness both to the person who was attacked and the accused these cases should be prosecuted and should not be dropped. It is my opinion such action should be taken to clear up the situation. I should like very much to have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) inform the House why these cases were not proceeded with.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it seems rather unfair for the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) to speak about holidays and make us all resentful about the fact that we are forcibly detained in this chamber for some time to come.


William Arnold Peters: I hope you are not giving away my summer holiday.


Guy Favreau: No, because I do not want to give mine away either.
For the information of the hon. Member I must say that the charge against Banks has not been dropped. Banks has been charged with conspiracy to assault one Greaves, and in the charge one Cunningham and one McLaughlin have been named, on the advice of counsel, as co-conspirators. They have not been charged. I am advised that this is a practice in many cases where counsel is of the opinion there is not sufficient evidence to prove completely a charge of conspiracy, to name one or more persons as co-conspirators, thus allowing the complete charge to be proven more fully against one such as Banks against whom it is felt there is sufficient evidence.
However, Banks went through his preliminary inquiry and was committed for trial. In circumstances of which we are all aware he failed to present himself for his trial. This is what my hon. friend refers to as the holiday which Banks is presently taking. Therefore proceedings are still pending against him. I am quite sure that the bail was forfeited although for purposes of this discussion I did not bring my attention to bear specifically on that matter.
I hope these intimations are sufficient for the moment, and I should be pleased to discuss the matter further and pertinently with the hon. Member should he feel he needs additional information.

June 3, 1965
1372	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-ALLEGED INFILTRATION OF SINISTER FORCES


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I raise a question regarding a series of articles appearing in the Toronto Telegram, the fourth of which appears in today's issue, concerning the R.C.M.P. and written by Robert Macdonald.
The first article started off this way:
R.C.M.P. Commissioner George W. McClellan, harassed from all sides in recent months, has spoken out against detractors of the force.
"There are certain elements in this country who would destroy this force," the Commissioner said.
Speaking with a forthrightness never before displayed by an R.C.M.P. Commissioner, he told this writer-
Then the article goes on to deal with an R.C.M.P. overhaul. Later the writer says:
He-
Commissioner McClellan.
-appears tired of the public criticism heaped on his 7,000-man police force, and weary of waiting for a government champion to defend the force in the House of Commons.
The Commissioner sees sinister agencies at work undermining the efficiency of the force.
"This is part of their over-all plan to destroy, subvert and create mistrust in the free world," he said.
Parliamentary criticism has certainly had an effect on morale-it has a disturbing effect on the man whose heart is in this force, he said.
What caused the Commissioner to open up so forcefully?
The frustrations stemming from the four-month Dorion inquiry during which the R.C.M.P. was attacked day after day was one reason. But it was also due to the recurrent attacks on the force that have been launched in recent years by politicians.
In the first article which appeared on May 29 the writer said:
The real breakdown in government liaison with the R.C.M.P. came during the period Lionel Chevrier was Justice Minister, according to one top officer.
"The man didn't even know where our office was," he said.
So it goes, with a larding of quotations from Commissioner McClellan. Not too long ago Commissioner McClellan wrote a letter to the C.B.C. regarding a "Viewpoint" program in which Anthony Wright, a Canadian who comes from Britain, who served in the British armed forces and happens to be the representative in the Press Gallery for the West German Press Service, made a critique of the R.C.M.P.
When you get a Commissioner who writes a letter and then reveals it in public and names four times this representative of the West German Press Service, then you have a man who has a bit of bigotry and bias in his
[Mr. Favreau.l

soul. He is trying to appeal from the basis of anti-German sentiment. Beyond that, what he has done in his letter to the C.B.C. is to miss the whole point about free comment in this country on a program like "Viewpoint". Even the fact that he sent it to the news department of the C.B.C. instead of recognizing the public affairs role of the C.B.C. is an indication that he is the kind of man I for one should begin to have some doubts about.
When he talks about sinister forces at work trying to destroy the R.C.M.P., and the inference is directed at Parliament, then we have a pretty serious situation on hand if this is the true picture and if Commissioner McClellan is properly quoted in his remarks about the West German Press Representative and his comment about sinister forces. If we have reached the stage where we cannot be critical of the R.C.M.P., its education and its training, if we have reached the stage where we cannot make suggestions in regard to isolating the security and intelligence directorate from the rest of the R.C.M.P. without incurring these suggestions that such criticisms are part of a sinister force, then I do not know where parliamentarians are going to be. I should like to point out to the Minister that the only occasion, apart from the Doukhobor disturbances, when this country has faced violence has been in connection with the separatist movement in Quebec. Where was the R.C.M.P.? We had a story here the other day, "Tailed into Toilet by The R.C.M.P.". But when we did have the one recent threat to our security, where was the R.C.M.P.?
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I should like to make one final point in bringing this allegation about "sinister forces" to the attention of the Minister. The Canadian Association of University Teachers in 1963, 1964 was and, to my knowledge, in 1965 is still critical of R.C.M.P. tactics on the campus. I am critical of R.C.M.P. tactics in the whole field of investigating citizenship and security risks among ordinary citizens. If by being critical we represent sinister forces, then I think the R.C.M.P. or its commissioner should be the subject of attention by some kind of commission or inquiry. That is why I raised this question with the Minister in the House, a question to which I think we deserve an answer. I know he cannot give a proper answer in three minutes but I take a serious view of the picture which is beginning to form in my mind and in the minds of other people about this gentleman who is the head of the R.C.M.P. and the views he has on democracy under our parliamentary system.
June 3, 1965	COMMONS


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I thought the question was to be limited to the article as such and whatever comments 1 had to make on it. For this reason, as the hon. Member himself noted, I am unable in the time at my disposal to answer all the points he has raised.
I discussed with Commissioner McClellan of the R.C.M.P. the article appearing in the Toronto Telegram of May 29. I am satisfied that the information which he gave to the reporter was given in the best interest of the R.C.M.P. and of the Canadian public and was appropriate and accurate. Without taking personal issue with any of the critics referred to by the reporter and who included the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), he showed how and why their criticism was ill-founded and unfair.
Concerning the elements in this country who would destroy the forces as part of their over-all plan to destroy, subvert, and create mistrust in the free world, Commissioner McClellan advised me that he had made reference to those criminal and subversive elements which are constantly at work in our country, as well as others, to impede and render ineffective the efforts not only of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police but all police forces in Canada to protect the security and peace of the nation. He has assured me, though I might say I needed no such assurance from him in this respect, that he said nothing intended to reflect in the slightest degree any criticism of the Government or its Ministers. He did not make any personal reference to my predecessor, Mr. Chevrier.
DEBATES	1973
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I fully share Commissioner McClellan's great pride in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its achievements, a Force which he has served for 33 years. I might remind those who criticize the training and education of members of the Force that senior police officers from all over the world seek an opportunity for specialized and advanced training in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police schools and laboratories. Furthermore, requests are being received from countries throughout the world for the assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in organizing or modernizing police forces. It is perhaps significant in view of what I have just said that the first successful use of mass communication by satellite for the apprehension of a wanted man was made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I share with the Commissioner his concern, in the face of frequent unfounded criticism, for the morale of his men who have no voice of their own and who have as the Toronto Telegram put it, a stupendous task in a huge country. I also understand his problem in recruiting suitable candidates for a police career in the face of such criticism.
As Minister of Justice I fully comprehend the need for public vigilance in matters of law enforcement, but it adds nothing to constructive criticism when public servants who have devoted their lives to the protection of the public are referred to even by certain Members of this House in the contemptuous manner quoted in the Toronto Telegram.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
1975

Friday, June 4, 1965