1965-06-07

INTERNATIONAL PARLIAMENTARY UNION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As hon. Members may be aware, the 54th annual meeting of the International Parliamentary Union will take place here in September of this year. The actual dates are September 6 to 17, inclusive.
The conference will bring to Canada some 800 to 1,000 delegates from 75 countries and the conference proceedings will be conducted in five languages. During the past week end, in preparation for this conference, a start was made on the remodification of the sound amplification and interpretation apparatus of this Chamber, as authorized by the House on April 2. The work will involve the removal of every second sound amplifying speaker on Members' desks, and also the removal and replacement of a certain number of Members' desks at night and during week ends. The cooperation and indulgence of hon. Members is sought while this important work is in progress.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: On Friday last, I spoke on a point of order raised by the Government House Leader on a motion made by the hon. Member for Saskatoon (Mrs. Jones).
On reading the report of that debate in Hansard this morning, I found I had made a statement which I deeply regret. It occurs on page 1979 at about mid-way in the right column and was a reference to the thalidomide tragedy. I would like all hon. Members to know that I do not subscribe, and have never subscribed, to a view that anyone, person or Government, should be charged with that responsibility. I would that I could recall these words; they must have deeply offended others as they did me, myself, when I read them today. Since I cannot expunge the
record, I would ask that hon. Members accept my freely tendered and unconditional withdrawal.



MR. BENSON-EXPLANATION BY MINISTER CONCERNING PAYMENT OF CUSTOMS DUTIES

Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: I rise on a question of personal privilege. On today's order paper there appears a notice of motion for production of papers No. 43 in which my name is mentioned, not as Minister of National Revenue but as Mr. E. J. Benson, 119 McMichael Street, Kingston, Ontario. The Department of National Revenue wrote to me in error on April 22, 1965, requesting payment of $8.60 in customs duties, which I had paid on April 4, 1964.
When this Notice of Motion came to my attention, I discussed it with the hon. Member in whose name it appears and showed him both the letter from my Department and a subsequent letter apologizing for the error. I am, Mr. Speaker, happy that if my Department has to make a small error in dealing with millions of taxpayers, the error should be in respect of myself.
As an individual, I consider the matter of little importance, and an error of a type that anyone could make. However, I do consider this motion to be of much greater importance in that information concerning taxpayers has, by custom, been treated as privileged, and this would prevent me, as Minister of National Revenue, from providing information concerning myself. Thus, my refusal to accept the motion might, in itself, in the public eye, among people not familiar with the law and custom, cast doubt upon my integrity. Indeed, I believe that the motion appearing on the order paper can do just that.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament and an individual, I am quite prepared to make these letters public and, indeed, as I mentioned, I showed them to the hon. Member before this notice appeared on the order paper. I further state, on my honour as a Member, that this is the only such correspondence between myself and the Department.

June 7, 1965
Labour Conditions



ME. EMARD-DENIAL OF STATEMENT IN MACLEAN'S MAGAZINE

Mr. Rene Emard (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: wish to rise on a question of personal privilege of grave concern to me personally and to my reputation as a Member of Parliament.
In its issue of June 19 Maclean's magazine published the following statement in Blair Fraser's column "Backstage in Ottawa".
Bryce Mackasey, Chairman of the Liberal caucus, raised this question at a social gathering of Quebec Liberal MPs. Exactly what position, he asked, did this man Rousseau still hold? Why hadn't the Prime Minister's orders been carried out? There was a brief flurry of embarrassment, but then a counterattack came from Rene ibmard, MP for a West of Montreal riding. "R6al Rousseau is my organizer," he said in effect, "and I don't want to hear any more slurs on him from you damned English".
I categorically deny ever having made any statement of this kind either on the occasion quoted by Blair Fraser or at any other time. I have great pride in my associations and friendships with my English speaking colleagues in this House and among my constituents. Before my election to Parliament I was elected for 10 consecutive years as President of the Northern Electric Employees Association, an organization of 10,000 people of whom 60 per cent were English speaking. As their President I represented wholly English speaking locals in London, Belleville and Brampton, Ontario. Surely this record speaks for itself.
What I said was this: "Real Rousseau was my organizer and I don't want to hear any more slurs on him or anyone else. I believe in British fair play where anybody is considered innocent until proven guilty."
Knowing this, Mr. Speaker, I feel certain that Mr. Blair Fraser, whose reputation as an accurate and fair-minded journalist is known everywhere-


Some hon. Members:: 

LABOUR CONDITIONS


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on May 19 I made a statement about one of the measures relating to the government's campaign against poverty and inadequate opportunities. I would now like to announce a further measure in this campaign.

This program is designed to encourage the establishment of industry in areas of Canada where there is a special need to raise employment and income and broaden economic opportunity for people. To that end, we are now proposing three major changes in the program that has been in operation under the Department of Industry Act. The present program assists industry in designated areas by certain tax measures; these are of great benefit to companies in a profit position, but are less helpful to new and smaller firms. The Government now proposes to introduce legislation to provide for outright grants to manufacturing and processing enterprises establishing or expanding in designated areas. The grant will be based on the size of the capital investment. It will be 33J per cent on the first $250,000 of investment, 25 per cent on the next $750,000, and 20 per cent on investment above $1 million. The grants will be subject to a maximum of $5 million for any one project, that amount being payable when the investment is $24.6 million or more.
The investment costs to which the grants will be applied are buildings, equipment and machinery, and company expenditures for facilities such as water supplies, where these are company-owned. In addition, if a company has to contribute to the cost of publicly-owned facilities, such expenditures may qualify for the grant. The grants will be available for new projects. They will also be available for the expansion of existing plants, provided the expansion contributes appreciably to improving income and employment opportunities in the area.
The legislation we intend to put before you, to be administered by the Department of Industry, will propose to make the program effective from July 1, and will set a termination date of March 31, 1971. Companies that prefer to take advantage of the existing tax incentives may do so until those incentives expire on March 31, 1967.
The second change that I have to announce in the existing program concerns the inclusion of certain manpower measures. We hope to achieve close co-operation among the firms receiving financial incentives, provincial authorities and the National Employment Service, so that there may be effective planning to meet the long-term manpower needs of the new industries as well as their immediate requirements. The Department of Labour will be ready to assist the provinces in developing new training methods and in other extensions of training programs.
June 7, 1965

The third major change we propose in the policy is an extensive revision and broadening of the areas to which it applies. With this objective we propose to establish new guide lines for the designation of areas where, under the terms of the Department of Industry Act, the industrial incentives will be made available. These guide lines will be the basis for objective standards which will be put in statistical terms by the Governor General in Council.
The purpose of this program is to provide a broad improvement in the incentives to industrial development in those parts of the country were underemployment is most serious. There are many more specific measures that can assist industrial development, and provincial governments are developing such measures in regional development plans within their provinces. As those plans are elaborated it will be this Government's policy to seek the fullest harmonization between its action and provincial programs.
The preparation of this program has already benefited from consultation with provincial governments, who have been made aware of the criteria that we are considering applying to the designation of areas. The application of these criteria would mean that the new program of industrial assistance would be available in almost all of the Atlantic provinces, in substantial areas of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and in considerable areas of Quebec. In the three richest provinces-Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta -some smaller areas would qualify. I cannot go into more detail now because we will not take a final decision about criteria until provincial views have been fully expressed.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, this is one of a series of measures which will be placed before you to combat poverty in Canada. The importance of the present proposals is that Canadians living in areas where jobs are most needed will have a better chance to improve their lives, because of the scope that this program provides for constructive industrial development and improved skills.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard another announcement by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) similar to the one we heard on Friday last from the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury). In fairness to us on this side who have to respond to these announcements, I think we should at least be furnished with a copy, so that we might read it and study
Labour Conditions
it in order to be able to comment intelligently.
However, I am glad to see that this Government have learned their lesson with regard to designated areas. The last time they came out with an idea in this regard its terms and references were completely confusing and areas were designated that had no business whatever to be designated. I am happy to see this Government learning the error of their ways and making it possible for smaller areas, and other areas which need to be designated, to be so. But as I said, the announcement will take considerable rereading and study to learn what exactly is involved.
Another point is this. I am glad to learn that the Government have finally agreed that the provincial governments should be consulted on these matters. This is something the Government forgot to do on the last occasion. As I say, as they go along they are learning, and we are glad to know they are doing something now which should have been done before.


Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforfh):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party we greet the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) with interest. It is, of course, impossible to comment upon it in any detail, since we have learned from experience that many announcements, on careful analysis, sometimes bear a different interpretation. However, we agree with the general objective here, which is the attainment of full employment; but we are still not convinced that the Government has developed any over-all co-ordinated plan for the achievement of full employment. Nevertheless, we will study the announcement and comment on it later.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monfmorency):: Mr. Speaker, one would need more than a few seconds to comment on a measure designed to eliminate poverty in Canada.
However, following the announcement just made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), I should like to make a few remarks.
Canadian industries would certainly be well-advised to take advantage of all measures advocated by both the federal government and the provincial governments. It is to be hoped that they will be interested in the one the Prime Minister announced this afternoon.
The fact that measures are put in the statute books is not enough to help people overcome poverty. Industry must be determined

June 7, 1965
Labour Conditions
to benefit from whatever advantages there are. Often manufacturers are not willing to take advantage thereof because those benefits are only nominal and after you have resorted to some prerogatives of the act, you often find yourself once again in the same alarming position as before, when it is intended, for instance, to reduce unemployment or increase workers' income.
The government must also be commended for having increased the number of designated areas. But this increase should not induce some manufacturers to settle in certain areas of the country for a very limited time and then leave those areas, once they have realized industry is not profitable there. In my opinion it is better in such cases not to take advantage of the benefits of the act if you must let the industry die after a few years, even though a few more people than usual have been employed there.
We must also be glad that the government has decided not to apply this legislation without prior consultation with provinces. The fact that most provinces are interested in this matter indicates that this measure is really very important.
It must be noted, however, that among the wealthiest provinces, that is provinces which have less need for this legislation, are two provinces which adopted Social Credit. One may wonder if it is not really the means to fight poverty without the assistance of the federal government.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, following the representations made by the Conservative party and the New Democratic party, I find it strange that when making a statement of such significance, the Prime Minister did not deem advisable to distribute copies of it to members of the opposition parties. It is not the first time that this has been mentioned in this house but nothing has been done about it. The parliamentary correspondents have been handed copies of the statement while the Prime Minister was making his statement. How is it that copies are distributed in the galleries and not to members of the house? Is the statement intended solely for the press gallery?
I feel this is an anomaly, because representatives of the various parties in the house should also obtain a copy of such a statement.
Mr. Speaker, efforts are made regularly to improve the designated areas program. But until now things have not worked out according to the government's expectations.
[Mr. Marcoux.l
My riding is a designated area. I can say that nothing sensational has been accomplished there yet. Why? Because the people living in designated areas are not even aware of all the advantages they could derive from that program and cannot even get the information they need.
In my riding the local Chamber of Commerce in Jonquiere tried through me to meet a representative of the Department of Industry to get him to explain all the benefits offered to designated areas. The minister was very kind, he sent me to the deputy-minister and so on, right down to the bottom of the ladder. This was three months ago and so far no representative from the Industry Department has yet come to explain what designated areas are to the members of an association such as the Jonquiere Chamber of Commerce, which would have been interested in that information in order to benefit from the said advantages.
To pass legislation is one thing, but the public should be informed about it better than it is at the present time, and we must try and co-operate with the designated areas so that they may take advantage of that legislation.



TRIFLUOPERAZINE-POSITION RESPECTING MANUFACTURE, AND GRANTING OF PATENT

Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. Member for Saskatoon (Mrs. Jones) raised a question as to the adequacy of protection to the public in the distribution of the drug trifluoperazine. I have had an opportunity since then to discuss the matter raised with the Director of Food and Drugs and with the Commissioner of Patents.
The drug trifluoperazine is in the nature of a tranquilizer. After the appropriate clinical and other testing, a notice of compliance was granted by the Food and Drug Directorate to the manufacturer in 1958. That manufacturer obtained a patent on the drug in 1961. I am informed that this drug is used by the medical profession not only for hospitalized mental patients, but also as a sedative and tranquilizer. It may only be issued in Canada by prescription. It has been so widely accepted that it now appears as a monograph in the British Pharmacopoeia, which means that it has gained recognition as a standard drug. It should be noted that the hon. Lady has not
June 7, 1965

requested that we limit its distribution or use in Canada.
In March of this year another company applied to the Patent Office for the issue of a licence to manufacture trifluoperazine. On April 23 the applicant company was ordered by the Commissioner of Patents to advertise the application and serve it on the Canadian manufacturer of the drug, the patentee, which was done on the 7th of May.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I am informed that according to the practice of the office of the Commissioner of Patents, a period of 60 days from that date is given to the patentee to oppose the application. This is followed by another 60 days during which the applicant may reply. Therefore, at least until the 7 th of July next the patentee may oppose the application for the licence. Moreover, I am informed that third parties have 30 days from the 15th of June next, that is until the 15th of July, to intervene should they so desire. Therefore, until the 15th of July next, as the earliest possible date, no determination could be made of the licence application and no special order need be given to delay the issue of the licence, as requested by the hon. Lady.
However, the Member for Saskatoon raised a number of points as to procedures which should be followed by the Food and Drug Directorate in dealing with such applications.
Before a new drug may be manufactured and distributed to Canadians, an exhaustive series of clinical and other tests must be completed and the Food and Drug Director's Notice of Compliance issued. This procedure, however, is not required each time a new manufacturer is given the right to produce the same drug. Also, of course, the Food and Drug Directorate ensures that the new manufacturer must comply with our regulations respecting drug manufacture. The hon. Lady has suggested that before such a new manufacturer be allowed to distribute a proven drug, the law should require the whole new drug procedure be reundertaken. My officials can foresee certain difficulties here. Nevertheless, since we all hold foremost the safety of the public, and so as to be as sure as we can that our procedures will result in the highest protection to the Canadian public, I am referring this suggestion to a committee of experts to advise me whether such a procedure is warranted. I would hope that such a report might be in my hands and communicated to the House prior to the 15th of July, the expiry for the intervention of third parties in this licence application.
The hon. Lady raised one other point regarding consultation between the Commis-
Proposed Legislation
sioner of Patents and our Food and Drug Directorate, upon the application for compulsory licence. We agree that this would be useful and have been discussing it over some period of time. I am sure that the hon. Lady's intervention will hasten the favourable conclusion of these discussions.


Mrs. Eloise Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Lady who is Minister of National Health and Welfare for her statement which, in part, clarifies this matter and indicates action on the part of the Government. I appreciate this very much. I have been interested in this question for some time, as I know the hon. Lady has also. Last summer the then Director of the Food and Drug Directorate stated that there were great problems in connection with the preparation of drugs in Canada, in so far as safety was concerned, and he enumerated a number of the problems within the industry in this connection. My whole point in raising the question on Friday was to accentuate the potential danger that exists at the present time. I shall be glad to see what further action the hon. Lady's department takes on this matter.



FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (for the Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the House go into Committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act to increase the maximum loan amount to a fisherman from four thousand dollars to ten thousand dollars and to increase the maximum repayment period from eight years to ten years and also to extend the period during which guaranteed loans may be made for a period of five years from June 30, 1965, to June 30, 1970.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport) moved: that the House go into Committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the House by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize and to provide for the construction of a line of railway in the Province of Ontario by Canadian National Railway Company from a point of the Froomfield Spur near Sarnia in a

June 7, 1965
Questions
southerly direction for a distance of approximately twelve miles to the property of Canadian Industries Limited in Sombra Township in the County of Lambton at a total estimated expenditure of $850,000, not to be exceeded by more than fifteen per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order:	Government Notices of
Motion:
That a Special Committee be appointed to continue the inquiry into and to report upon costs of drugs, begun by a Special Committee at the past
Session;
That the Committee consist of 24 Members to be designated later by the House: and be empowered to sit while the House; and be empowered to sit while the House is sitting:
That the Committee be empowered to consider and recommend, as it may deem expedient respecting a comprehensive and effective program to reduce the price of drugs;
That the Committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records, and to report from time to time, to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable, and to engage the services of counsel, accountants, and such other technical and clerical personnel as may be deemed necessary;
That the Minutes of Proceedings of and evidence given before the Special Committee at the past Session be referred to the said Committee and be made part of the records thereof;
That the provisions of Standing Orders 66 and 67(1) be suspended in relation to such Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 21 this motion stands transferred to Government Orders for consideration thereunder later this day or at the next sitting of the House as the case may be.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. Coates: 1.	Was the Minister of Justice or any of his officials informed by the police authorities organizing the surprise raid on possible hideouts of one, Lucien Rivard, of the intention of the police authorities to have the alleged surprise raid filmed for use by C.B.C.?
2.	Does the R.C.M. Police when carrying out surprise raids to apprehend criminals make any
arrangement with news media to publicize their efforts regarding such operations?
3.	Has the Minister of Justice or any of his officials lodged any complaint with the police authorities regarding the use of freelance camera men in filming such raids in view of the complications that could well result with the setting up of the filming equipment that would have to precede such a surprise raid?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. Neither the Minister of Justice nor any of his officials was informed of any intention on the part of police authorities to have a raid on possible hideouts of Lucien Rivard filmed for use by the C.B.C. and the R.C.M. Police is unaware of any such intention.
2.	No.
3.	No.


JAPANESE INVESTMENT IN CANADIAN INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard: For each fiscal year since, and Including 1960, what was the total dollar value of (a) investment in Canadian industry, and (b) loans to Canadian industry from any group or person in Japan?


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: (a) New investment by Canadian industry in construction, and machinery and equipment:
Year	Millions of
1960	4,874
1961	4,767
1962	4,972
1963	5,463
1964	6,4951
i preliminary estimate.
Source: "Private and Public Investment in Canada, Outlook 1965".
(b) The information requested cannot be disclosed according to the secrecy clause of the Statistics Act.


VALUE OF TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Mather: What was the amount, in dollars, of Department of Transport contracts let, by provinces, in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1964?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: June 7, 1965

Questions
Department of Transport Annual Expenditures by Provinces
1959-60	1960-61	1961-62	1962-63	1963-64*Ottawa Headquarters	
110,228,066	128,939,973	129,968,994	124,234,028	114,768,381Newfoundland	
13,114,916	14,659,989	21,246,319	19,999,865	10,001,738Prince Edward Island	
4,705,696	5,627,953	6,174,702	6,045,928	5,966,100Nova Scotia	
14,060,919	11,637,963	10,798,421	10,029,899	11,629,793New Brunswick	
5,075,254	5,530,494	6,600,738	5,163,711	6,598,848Quebec	
38,391,576	41,294,901	37,093,021	31,080,662	31,496,107Ontario	
20,805,389	27,205,878	34,330,120	35,613,645	30,682,310Manitoba	
4,888,056	6,161,432	13,292,647	12,655,401	9,837,823Saskatchewan	
2,213,236	2,381,100	2,412,763	3,422,070	1,379,929Alberta	
8,525,694	11,982,310	10,780,777	13,643,991	10,385,465British Columbia	
18,897,127	15,632,730	19,684,751	20,741,111	16,678,507Yukon	
1,678,430	1,730,040	1,785,622	1,431,789	1,837,288Northwest Territories	
11,591,371	9,717,265	10,585,073	7,555,804	6,766,815Total	
254,175,730	282,502,028	304,753,948	291,617,904	288,029,104
*Headquarters figures include large amounts for items such as C.N.R. deficit, ferry vessel deficits, vessel construction, payments under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, etc., which cannot be allocated on a provincial basis.


COURT ACTION FOR INJURY TO FORMER M.P.
Mr. Boutin: 1. Was the Department of Justice notified in 1962 of an action at law on behalf of the former member for Dorchester, Mr. Noel Drouin of Saint-Maxime-de-Scott, in connection with an injury allegedly suffered in the House of Commons tailor shop while he was a federal Member of Parliament?
2.	If so (a) what amount was involved in the action (b) is the case presently before the courts (c) at what stage are the proceedings in this case?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Yes, in 1963.
2.	(a) $200,000; (b) Yes; (c) Oral examinations for discovery have been held.


BRIEF OF CANADIAN TEACHERS' FEDERATION
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government giving consideration to the requests of the Canadian Teachers' Federation made in their brief to the Prime Minister in November, 1963 "that the federal government take the initiative in calling a widely-representative meeting of provincial ministers of education, their advisors, and those national bodies most vitally concerned, to consider the feasibility of co-operation in searching for a means of alleviating the inequalities" (in education) "which now exist"?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: As was indicated last year in reply to this same question, the representations made by the Canadian Teachers' Federation to the federal government in November 1963 were referred to at the Federal-Provincial Conference held in Ottawa some two weeks later, but without
any provincial response to this federal initiative.
There have been no developments since which would suggest that the provinces now consider this subject as one which would lend itself to profitable federal-provincial consultation. Since education is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, the government believes that it would be a breach of constitutional propriety for it to intrude into this area.


RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING SECURITY AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government giving consideration to the implementation of the following recommendations made by the Canadian Association of University Teachers in respect to security and academic freedom contained in a memorandum to the Minister of Justice on July 31, 1963 (a) the government should launch as soon as possible an investigation by an independent and qualified commission into the present jurisdiction, procedures, records, qualifications, and training, of the S & I Section of the R.C.M.P. (b) steps should be taken immediately to guarantee that a person denied security clearance shall be advised promptly of his disqualification (c) the government should establish a tribunal -perhaps like that in Great Britain-to which appeals may be taken by persons who feel that they have been wrongfully accused, where they may confront their accusers or the material on which an accusation has been based, and before which they may be heard in their own defence?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The views of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, as reflected in the memorandum referred to as well as in discussions with representatives

June 7, 1965
Questions
of the Association, were taken carefully into account in formulating the policies and procedures concerning security which were announced in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister and the then Minister of Justice on October 25, 1963.


TELEVISION SERVICE FOR NORTHERN MANITOBA
Mr. Slefanson: What plans has the C.B.C. for providing television service for the residents of Grand Rapids, Manitoba and Norway House, Manitoba and adjacent areas?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that while it hopes eventually to provide television service to the people of Grand Rapids and Norway House, they are not included in the current development program because of the high per capita cost to bring the service to them. However, they are included in a plan to provide C.B.C. radio service for Northern Manitoba which the Corporation has under active consideration at the present time.


IMPROVEMENT IN TELEVISION SERVICE, INTERLAKE AREA, MAN.
Mr. Stefanson: What plans has the C.B.C. for improving television service for the residents of the Interlake area of Manitoba?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation that an application for authority to establish a television rebroadcasting station at Fisher Branch, Manitoba was submitted to the Department of Transport in April. The Board of Broadcast Governors have now announced that this application will be considered at the public hearing in Ottawa commencing on June 15th, 1965. The proposed station if approved will broadcast on Channel 10 with an effective radiated power of 27,400 watts (video), 13,700 watts (audio) and will rebroadcast the program service of the C.B.C. Winnipeg station CBWT.


LOANS UNDER SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Mr. Slefanson: 1.	How many loans have been made under the Small Businesses Loans Act assented to December 20, 1960, to date, giving total amount of loans?
2.	How many loans and what is the total amount of loans made in each of the following fiscal years, given by provinces 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65Y
3.	What is the average size of loan for Canada, and what is the average size of loan for each province?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. From inception to February 28, 1965 there were 11,611 loans made under the Small Businesses Loans Act for a total amount of $104,580,860. Information subsequent to February 28, 1965 is not yet available.
2.
Loans Made Under Small Businesses Loans Act
Fiscal	Year	Fiscal Year	1961-	-62	1962-	[DOT]63Provinces	No. of Loans	Amount $	No. of Loans	Amount $British Columbia	418	3,498,101	322	2,936,749Alberta	293	2,333,405	266	1,867,983Saskatchewan	216	1,679,268	228	1,794,158Manitoba	182	1,364,440	144	1,313,799Ontario	1,056	8,716,187	845	7,243,095Quebec	803	8,606,936	778	8,481,963New Brunswick	80	728,472	63	522,704Nova Scotia	115	1,037,465	109	1,028,002Prince Edward Island	30	215,593	16	163,500N ewf oundland	28	238,221	15	104,767All Canada	3,221	28,418,088	2,786	25,456,720
[Mr. Macdonald.)
June 7, 1965

Questions
Fiscal Year
April 1/64-Feb. 28/65
Provinces
No. of Loans
British Columbia	331
Alberta	281
Saskatchewan	170
Manitoba	123
Ontario	913
Quebec	741
New Brunswick	40
Nova Scotia	77
Prince Edward Island	22
Newfoundland	19
All Canada	2,717
3. Average size of loan for	Canada made
during the period from inception to February 28, 1965 was $9,007. Average size of loan for	
each province during this same follows:	period was as
British Columbia	$8,891
Alberta	7,847
Saskatchewan	7,884
Manitoba	7,946
Ontario	8,594
Quebec	10,569
New Brunswick	8,734
Nova Scotia	9,255
Prince Edward Island	8,233
Newfoundland	8,652
Amount	No. of Loans	Amount
$		$
2,978,921	377	3,564,3822,197,150	264	2,307,8841,219,024	236	2,120,730873,320	134	1,080,5048,130,511	783	7,025,4297,804,415	652	6,739,834326,126	59	598,681711,537	52	510,138138,908	18	198,764192,995	12	110,45324,572,907	2,587	24,256,7993.	The Civil Service Commission is required to determine, in the case of a closed competition, the division or branch of the public service, and the class or grade of position, if any, in which prospective candidates must be employed in order to be eligible for appointment. Under normal circumstances the area of a closed competition is considered in the following order: (a) Civil Servants in the branch, division, or administrative locality of the department or in the department as a whole; (b) all civil servants in the same area of competition, except in recognized cases of specialization; (c) public servants including members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Forces, employed


RESTRICTIONS ON CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 65-P-AIR-5SD-1
[Stage Direction]
in the same area. 4. No.
Mr. Francis: 1.	In regard to competition 65-P-AIR-5SD-1, closing date May 11, 1965, did the original submission extend eligibility to employees of the Department of National Defence at No. 5 Supply Depot, R.C.A.F., Moncton, New Brunswick, as well as retiring members of the R.C.A.F., Navy, Army and the R.C.M.P.?
2.	Did the Civil Service Commission restrict the eligibility in this competition to employees of the Department of National Defence, No. 5 Supply Depot, Moncton, New Brunswick?
3.	For what reasons were retiring members of the Armed Forces denied the opportunity to enter this competition?
4.	Is it standard policy to deny eligibility in certain classes of Civil Service competitions to retiring members of the Armed Forces and, if so, what classes of competition are affected?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have been given the following answer by the Civil Service Commission:
1.	No.
2.	Yes, through delegated authority to the Department of National Defence.


SALE OF ISLAND IN WELLER'S BAY, ONT.
Mr. Starr: 1.	Has the island lying in Weller's Bay, fronting Concession "C", Lot 11, Murray Township, Northumberland County, in the Province of Ontario, been sold?
2.	To whom was it sold?
3.	Did the government call for tenders?
4.	What was the selling price?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The Department has no record of any transaction involving an island lying in Weller's Bay, fronting Concession "C", Lot 11, Murray Township, Northumberland County, in the Province of Ontario.


CLAIMANTS FOR LUCIEN RIVARD REWARD
Mr. Coates: How many individuals have contacted the federal government with regard to the $15,000 reward offered for the apprehension of Lucien Rivard?

June 7, 1965
Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: So far as the
Department of Justice and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are concerned the answer is: none.


ABSENCES OF EXPO '67 COMMISSIONER
Mr. Fisher: Has the government received any complaints about any long or repeated absences of Commissioned Pierre Dupuy of Expo '67 from his duties and if so, from whom were the complaints received and what response was given to them?


Maurice Lamontagne: No.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION COMPETITION 64-708
Mr. Prittie: 1.	Regarding the Civil Service Commission Competition No. 64-708 how many applications were received for the various categories of language instructors and language officers?
2.	How many appointments have been made as a result of this competition?
Hen. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State): I have been given the following information by the Civil Service Commission:
1.	Competition 64-708 attracted 835 applicants.
It is not possible to indicate the number in each of the categories, Language Instructors and Language Officers 1 to 5, as the candidates were not required to state their choice on their application forms.
2.	Appointments, and accepted offers of employment for August 1965, total 46 from this competition.
INVESTIGATION INTO ORGANIZED CRIME Question No. 471


Mr. Coates:: Has the Minister of Justice initiated any investigation that will enable his officials to make a proper assessment of the extent of the operations of organized crime in Canada and whether there has been any infiltration into the federal government by organized crime and, if so, when was such action taken and what is the extent of the investigations in question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is not known just what the hon. Member means by the term, "organized crime"; but if he means the operation of criminals in groups or syndicates, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in co-operation with other major police forces are constantly examining the extent of such activities in whatever areas they occur. It is pointed out that the primary responsibility for the enforcement of the Criminal Code rests

with the Attorney General of each of the provinces.


COMPETITION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard: 1.	How many applicants were there for the position of community development officer in the social programs division of the Indian Affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (as referred to in the answer to Question No. 343 of the present session of Parliament) and of these, how many were granted a personal interview?
2.	Upon what dates was the competition for the above position (a) opened (b) advertised and in what ways (c) published and in what form (d) closed?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have been given the following information by the Civil Service Commission:
1.	There were 186 applications. Of the 180 thus far considered, 99 were called to interview and 77 reported.
2.	(a) The competition was opened July 31,
1964. (b) & (c) The competition was advertised in July, and published by Information Circular with distribution to:	University
Placement Offices; University Papers; Executive and Professional Offices, Unemployment Insurance Commission; Provincial Secretaries, Royal Canadian Legion; Government Departments and Miscellaneous Associations; Members of Parliament; District Offices of the Civil Service Commission.
Advertised across Canada in daily papers with circulation over 10,000.
In October, individual circularization of membership of Canadian Association of Social Workers.
In November, second advertisement in daily papers; advertisement in issue of Canadian Welfare.
(d) May 31, 1965.


WORKING CONDITIONS, MOTOR TRANSPORT BRANCH, SHEARWATER NAVAL BASE
Mr. Douglas: 1.	What are the hours of work for members of the motor transport section at the Shearwater Naval Air Base at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia?
2.	When did the present regulations governing hours of work go into effect?
3.	If a change was made since January 1, 1964, what were the reasons for this change in hours of work?
4.	How much time is allowed members of the motor transport branch for their lunch?
5.	When did the present regulations governing the lunch period go into effect?
6.	If a change was made since January 1, 1964, what were the reasons for the change In the length of the lunch period?
June 7, 1965

7.	Has the two minutes grace allowed members of the motor transport branch when starting work been eliminated?
8.	If so, what were the reasons for this change?
9.	How many members of the motor transport branch are World War H veterans?
10.	What are the rates of pay for members of the motor transport branch?
11.	What wage increases have been granted to members of the motor transport branch in the last three years?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 
EMPLOYMENT OF GERALD WARING BY R.C.MJ.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the R.C.M.P. used the services of Gerald Waring of the Parliamentary Press Gallery for

June 7, 1965
Questions
any public relations work in the past two years and, if so, what is the nature of the arrangements with Mr. Waring?
2.	Did the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. provide Mr. Waring with the text of the Commissioner's letter of May 14, 1965, to the C.B.C.?
3.	If so, did the Commissioner ask Mr. Waring to distribute it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. No.
2.	Yes, and to other members of the Press as well.
3.	No.


VICE ADMIRAL H. T. W. GRANT
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	How long did Vice Admiral H. T. W. Grant serve in the Royal Canadian Navy and what were some of the more important of his commands and appointments?
2.	What decorations, awards and other distinctions were given Admiral Grant during his long career in the service of Canada?
3.	Did the family of the late Vice Admiral Grant ask for an honour guard of six sailors to act as pall-bearers at his funeral?
4.	Was the request granted?
5.	If not, for what reason?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. The late Vice Admiral Grant served 35 years, 170 days in the Royal Canadian Navy. Among the more important of his commands and appointments were:
1940: Promoted rank of Captain-appointed Director Naval Personnel. March 1943: Commanding Officer H.M.S. Diomede and later H.M.S. Enterprise. 1945: Commanding Officer
H.M.C.S. Ontario. Feb. 1946: Appointed Chief of Naval Administration and Supply and promoted to the rank of Rear-Admiral. Sept. 1947: Appointed Chief of the Naval Staff and promoted to the rank of Vice-Admiral. Dec. 1951: Retired from the Royal Canadian Navy.
2.	CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire); DSO (Companion of the Distinguished Service Order); CD (Canadian Forces Decoration).
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	As it was not an official military funeral, participation on a basis other than voluntary was not authorized.


HOUSING LOANS AND BONUSES, OTTAWA-HULL
Mr. Francis: 1.	For the calendar years 1963, 1964 and 1965, how many loans were approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in metro Ottawa for single family homes, semi-detached and multiple dwellings?
2.	During the same years how many housing units qualified for the $500 winter bonus?
3.	For the calendar years 1963, 1964 and 1965, how many loans were approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in metro Hull for single family houses, semi-detached and multiple dwellings?
4.	During the same years, how many housing units qualified for the $500 winter bonus?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1.
Period	Approved Lenders' Loans	C.M.H.C. Loans	All N.H.A. Loans	Loans	Dwelling Units	Loans	Dwelling Units	Loans	Dwelling UnitsHome-Ownership Loans	1963	
1,107	1,112	278	293	1,385	1,4051964	
804	809	146	289	950	1,0981965 Jan-March	
102	100	1	1	103	107Rental Loans	1963	
7	299	i	1	8	3001964	
8	492	i	70	9	5621965 Jan-March	
1	35	1	35
2.
1964	847 dwelling units.
1965	522 dwelling units.
The first winter house-building incentive program was for the 1963/1964 season, so that no housing units qualified under the program in the calendar year 1963.

June 7, 1965

Questions
Period
1963		
1964		
1965	Jan-March
1963		
1964		
1965	Jan-March
Approved Lenders'	C.M.H.C.	All N.H.A.Loans	Loans	LoansDwelling	Dwelling	DwellingLoans	Units	Loans Units	Loans	UnitsHome-Ownership Loans	. 97	100	271 278	368	378. 62	63	445 451	507	514. 8	8	41 41	49	49Rental Loans	. i	1	1 4	2	6[DOT] -	-	l i 1	-	-
4.
1963		See answer to 2. above.
1964		316 dwelling units.
1965		346 dwelling units.
Note: For parts 1. and 3. above, data on loans approved for single-family homes, semi-detached and multiple dwellings are not available for the areas specified.


KENT STREET ARMOURIES, CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.
Mr. Mullally: 1.	Is the Kent Street Armouries building in Charlottetown vacant at the present time?
2.	If not, for that purpose is this building presently being used?
3.	Has the government decided what disposition will be made of the building?
4.	Have any requests been received for the use of the building or have any representations been made suggesting possible future use?
5.	Will the government consider making the building available for the establishment of a military-museum?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned, the answer is as follows:
1. and 2. Militia units presently occupying the building are scheduled to vacate it on May 28, 1965.
3.	The property has been reported surplus and is available for sale by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
4.	The report of surplus indicates that the Government of the Province of Prince Edward Island or the City of Charlottetown may be interested in purchasing the property. It has been offered to the Province.
5.	The government has not received any representations suggesting the establishment of a military museum.


LUCIEN RIVARD-REPORT ON ATTEMPTED ESCAPE
Mr. Coates: 1.	Did the Minister of Justice receive a report from the R.C.M.P., dated August 11, 1964, to the effect that an attempted escape by Rivard might be expected to be made?
2.	What specific action was thereupon taken to prevent the Rivard escape, if any?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. No.
2. Answered by No. 1.


GEORGES LEMAY-PRESENCE IN MONTREAL AND VANCOUVER
Mr. Coates: 1.	Was Georges Lemay, Canada's number one criminal, in Montreal on April 23, 1965?
2.	If so, when did the Department of Justice first become aware that he had been there?
3.	Was the said Georges Lemay in Vancouver in 1963 and was he known while there as Joseph Rene Roy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1, 2, and 3. Neither the Montreal city police nor the Vancouver city police have any information that Georges Lemay was in Montreal or Vancouver at the time suggested in these questions.

June 7, 1965
Questions


IMPORTATIONS OF LIQUID CHEMICALS
Mr. Irvine: 1.	What liquid chemicals are imported into Canada, from what countries, in what volumes and at what cost per ounce in Canadian dollars (excluding Canadian Excise Tax) ?
2.	Of such liquid chemicals (a) which are produced in Canada (b) in what volumes (c) at what cost per ounce in each case?
3.	Of such liquid chemicals which are used in agriculture (a) for fertilizers (b) for insecticides (c) any other use?
4.	In each of the groups (a) (b) (c) of (3) above, what volumes are consumed in each class according to country of manufacture?
5.	Of the following liquid chemicals, namely, potassium hydroxide, phosphoric acid, aquamonia (ammonia liquor) urea, borax, copper sulphate, zinc sulphate, cobalt nitrate, manganese sulphate, sodium molybdenate, nitrogen solutions, anhydrous ammonia, what volumes are manufactured in Canada, and what volumes (by country) are imported from each of the following countries: United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Japan and other countries?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): 1. Canadian import statistics do not distinguish between chemicals imported as liquids and those imported in other forms. A complete list of all chemicals separately recorded in Canadian import statistics is published in the monthly report Imports by Commodities (Catalogue No. 65-007), which is available in the parliamentary library and in all public reference libraries.
2. Canadian production statistics do not distinguish between chemicals made as liquids and those in other forms, that is, solid and gaseous. Production and cost statistics of all chemicals made in Canada cannot be developed because in many cases the item or items are produced by only one or two firms. The Statistics Act prohibits publication or release
under these circumstances. Available data on some of the major chemicals which are publishable under the Act and which are produced in Canada are carried in the monthly report Specified Chemicals (Catalogue No. 46-002) which is available in the parliamentary library. A special compilation which gives a summary of the total shipments of chemicals is carried in the annual report, Manufacturers of Industrial Chemicals (Catalogue No. 46-219).
3.	Statistics collected on usage of chemicals are not selective in respect to agricultural applications; however, sales of fertilizers and insecticides for domestic use (in general, this would approximate usage) are carried in annual reports, Fertilizer Trade (Catalogue No. 46-207) and Sales of Pest Control Products by Canadian Registrants (Catalogue No. 46212) which are available in the parliamentary library.
4.	Information on chemicals used related to country of manufacture is not available.
5.	(a) Production data on most of the chemicals listed are not available because: (i) Only one or two firms reporting which would include:-potassium hydroxide, aqua ammonia, copper sulphate, nitrogen solutions, (ii) Not made in Canada which would include:- borax, zinc sulphate, cobalt nitrate, manganese sulphate, sodium molybdenate. Details on the remainder follow:-(no distinction as between liquid and other forms): Phosphoric acid, 168,000 tons (1964); Urea, 179,000 tons (1964); Anhydrous ammonia, 669,000 tons (1964).
(b) Available statistics on imports by countries in 1964 of the specified chemicals (in liquid or other forms) are shown in the attached table.

June 7, 1965

Questions
Available statistics oil imports by countries in 1964 of specified chemicals (in liquid or other forms)
Import Class Number	Description	Country	Quantity	Value
			Cwt.	$
402-02	Ammonia	
(anhydrous and aqua)	. United States	... 608,070	2,143,400402-09	Potassium Hydroxide (caustic potash).	. Germany West	
Sweden	
Poland	
United States	... 2,592 ... 324 ... 340 ... 33,238	22,965 6,931 4,420 302,989Totals	... 36,494	337,305403-71	Zinc sulphate	.United Kingdom	
Belgium & Luxembourg	
Germany West	
United States	... 22,313 ... 2,091 ... 1,330 ... 4,564	115,393 13,588 8,901 40,378Totals	... 30,298	178,260403-79	Copper sulphate	.United Kingdom	
United States	... 71 ... 4,277	1,177 67,837Totals	... 4,348	69,014404-58	Sodium borate (borax)	.United Kingdom	
United States	... 1,011 ... 209,328	6,652 732,909Totals	... 210,339	739,561416-31	Urea	. Germany West	
United States	... 220 ... 96,427	908 562,185Totals	... 96,647	563,093416-39	Nitrogen solutions	. United States	... 357,999	1,058,091


INCREASE IN MOTOR VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Mr. Sienson: What has been the average Increase in motor car and truck output in Canada in the years 1959-1960, 1960-1961, 1961-1962, 1962-1963, and 1963-1964?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Output of Motor Vehicles, 1959-1964
Motor Cars	Trucks	Total Motor VehiclesYear	Increase in period	% Increase in period	Increase in period	% Increase in period	Increase in period	% Increase in periodNo.	%	No.	%	No.	%1959-	1960	
1960-	1961	
1961-	1962	
1962-	1963	
1963-	1964	
+24,350 	
2,147 	
+100,943 	
+109,522 	
+26,575	+ 8.1 - 0.7 +31.2 +25.8 + 5.0	+ 5,450 - 8,669 + 17,321 + 18,642 + 11,092	+ 8.2 -12.0 +27.4 +23.1 + 11.2	+ 29,800 - 10,816 +118,264 + 128,164 +37,667	+ 8.1 - 2.7 +30.6 +25.4 + 5.9In Period Total increase 1959-1964	
+263,305	88.5	+51,295	86.9	+314,600	88.3
2036

June 7, 1965
Questions


EGGS-VALUE OF IMPORTATIONS
Mr. Nesbill: 1.	When will statistics be available showing the import of eggs into Canada for the months of January, February, March, April and May, 1965?
2.	Will these statistics indicate the number of dozen eggs imported and their total value?
3.	Will the abovementioned statistics indicate the value per dozen on an average monthly basis?
4.	Are statistics available indicating the names of the firms importing such eggs into Canada?
5.	Is Export Packers Limited, a company situated in the City of Toronto, one of the companies that imports such eggs?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. It is expected that detailed import statistics for the months of January and February, 1965, will become available in June. Those for March are expected to be available in July, and statistics for subsequent months should become available at intervals of approximately one month.
2.	Yes.
3.	No, but average unit values can be calculated from the published detail.
4.	No.
5.	It is considered that the release of the names of individual importers of particular commodities would violate the secrecy clauses of the Statistics Act.


MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES BY DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. MacLean (Queens): From March 1, 1964 to May 1, 1965, how many passenger motor vehicles have been purchased by the Department of National Defence (a) manufactured or assembled in Nova Scotia (b) manufactured or assembled in Ontario (c) imported from the United States (d) imported from other countries?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: (a) None; (b) 184; (c) 3; (d) None.


LAW OF THE SEA-RATIFICATION OF CONVENTIONS
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	What countries have ratified each of the four conventions agreed to at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea held in Geneva
in 1958?
2.	How many countries are required to ratify each of these four conventions before they come into force?
3.	Is it the intention of the Canadian Government to ask Parliament to ratify any of these four conventions during this session of Parliament?
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I firstly answer the second part of the question asked by the hon.

Member for Queens, which is as follows: The four Law of the Sea Conventions adopted at Geneva in 1958 share the common feature that they come into force following ratification by 22 countries but only, of course, for the countries ratifying them.
The Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone has been in force since August 12, 1964, having been ratified by 25 countries, namely: Australia, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Cambodia, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican Republic, Finland, Haiti, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nigeria, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda, the Ukraine, the U.S.-S.R., the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Venezuela.
The Convention on the High Seas has been in force since September 30, 1962. The 32 parties to the Convention are: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Cambodia, the Central African Republic, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican Republic, Finland, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda, the Ukraine, the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Venezuela.
The Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas is not yet in force. Eighteen countries have ratified or acceded, namely, Australia, Cambodia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Finland, Haiti-


Mr. Starr:: Dispense.


Mr. Haidasz:: -Jamaica, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nigeria, Portugal, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Venezuela.
Finally, the Convention on the Continental Shelf, which has been in force since June 10, 1964, has been ratified or acceded to by the following 27 countries: Albania, Australia, Bulgaria-


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, could this list not be included in Hansard without being read?


Mr. McWilliam:: The question should never have been starred.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But this is on oral questions.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I just heard some one say the question should never have been asked. I think that in giving answers, those who are responsible for giving them should
June 7, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	2037
use some common sense or judgment in this type of answer.


Stanley Haidasz: -Byelorussia, Cambodia, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, Guatemala, Haiti, Israel, Madagascar, Malaysia, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, the Ukraine, the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Venezuela.
The question of ratification of any or all of these conventions by Canada continues to receive careful study by the interested departments of the Government. This matter is related to the status of our negotiations with various countries concerning the establishment of straight base lines off our coasts, and this is one of the factors which have a bearing on the question of Canadian ratification. I do not expect that Parliament will be asked to approve ratification of these conventions during the current session.


AVERAGE CANADIAN FAMILY INCOME
Mr. Mather: What in dollars was the average Canadian family income in 1954 and 1964?


Mitchell William Sharp: The latest year for which average family income data are available at present is 1961. The 1961 Census shows that average income for families (two or more related persons sharing a common dwelling unit) was $5,704.
Information from a sample survey indicates that average family income in 1954 was $4,143.
The figures above are quoted in current dollars and no adjustment for changes in prices has been made.


NOVA SCOTIA-TENDERS FOR LANDSCAPING
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What were the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the tenders for landscaping C.M.H.C. houses, as per the tender call: "Landscaping 77 units at New Glasgow. N.S. 2/48; Stellarton, N.S., 1 & 2/48; and Trenton, N.S., 1/48"?
2.	To whom has the contract been awarded?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: 1 and 2. The date of tender closing has been extended from June 1st to June 15th, 1965. The information requested is therefore not available.
Inquiries of the Ministry


MONUMENT COMMEMORATING GENERAL JAMES WOLFE
Mr. Simpson: 1.	Has the damage done by vandals to the monument of General James Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham been repaired and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What action has been taken to track down the wrongdoers who, on Victoria Day, daubed with paint the Stump which still remains following the vandalism of the Wolfe Monument?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The National Battlefields Commission, which is the agency responsible for the monument of General James Wolfe situated on the Plains of Abraham, advises as follows: 1. Reerection of the renovated monument of General James Wolfe is planned during the month of June, 1965.
2. The investigation of this incident and the search for the individual or individuals responsible for the vandalism are being conducted by the combined forces of the Quebec City Municipal Police, the Quebec Provincial Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before directing a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, concerning the United States, I hope the House would not mind if I were to say, as I am sure the Prime Minister has already said, how very happy we in Canada are at the monumental triumph of the American astronauts and the benefits that will result to all mankind through this epochal achievement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the right hon. gentleman's intervention, may I first say that the Prime Minister sent a message to the President of the United States expressing the congratulations of the Canadian people on the achievement of the two astronauts. The remarks of the right hon. gentleman today will serve as a deserving and appropriate supplement to the message of congratulations sent to the President of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
2038	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Complement would be a
better word.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope my right hon. friend would not think I was saying anything in any way deprecatingly. I was simply saying that the country would expect the Prime Minister to send a message, and the country will applaud the supporting statement made by the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the debates that are taking place at the present time in the United States regarding the ever more serious situation in South Viet Nam, I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Government has felt impelled to communicate with the United States, and the other nations comprising membership in the Geneva Conference, with a view to reconvening that conference, or urging that some action be taken in this regard to calm the fears that are widely expressed respecting the situation in Southeast Asia, which holds perils for all mankind?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think my right hon. friend's question has been stimulated by the statements made over the week end, with regard to the situation in Viet Nam, by a number of prominent political personalities in the United States.
The Government shares the concern which all responsible bodies feel about the situation in Viet Nam. The Government has lost, and continues to lose, no opportunity of exercising whatever influence it possibly can in trying to bring about a ceasefire.
I may say that on May 31 the representative of Canada on the International Supervisory Commission was authorized to proceed to Hanoi and made a contact there with the foreign minister of the government of North Viet Nam in order to indicate the concern which the people of Canada feel with regard to developments in Indochina.
He wanted to ascertain as well, as a spokesman for the Canadian Government, the reaction of the North Vietnamese Government to the interruption that occurred a few days ago in the bombing by the forces under the command of the United States. The Foreign
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
DEBATES	June 7, 1965
Minister of North Viet Nam indicated that there were four conditions which stood in the way of the negotiations which had been urged on the North by the President of the United States, and which had previously been given support by other countries, including Canada.
I regret to say that the reaction of the North, of Communist China and of other interested countries is such at the moment that these overtures for peace discussions have not won their support. We shall continue to resort to every method known to us to try and gather support for our objectives.
The Government of the United States has said it is prepared to attend a conference on Cambodia without relating that conference to any other question but the dispute on borders between Viet Nam and Cambodia. I would hope that this position may yet encourage all concerned to have a conference on Cambodia with, I would think, quite possibly useful results.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister say what are the four elements on which Hanoi seems to be insisting? Does he not agree that the reported statements made by Mao in Tanzania yesterday were of such an inflammatory nature as to indicate that so far as Communist China is concerned, and under it Hanoi, at the moment there is not much hope of the achievement of the objective that all of us have in mind, and which has been accepted in such generous measure by the President of the United States?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer to that is, yes. There is no indication, certainly from what Premier Chou En Lai said yesterday in Tanzania, which would warrant a belief that China is disposed not to support the position taken by North Viet Nam.
I regret I do not recall the exact terms of the four conditions, but two of them were that the Government of South Viet Nam and the Government of the United States must deal with the Viet Cong, and that the Government of the United States should withdraw its forces before the talks began.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: In
view of what the Minister had said today, and has said for a number of weeks does he not think the time has come for a decision to be made regarding the withdrawal of the Canadian delegation on the commission in Southeast Asia, bearing in mind the manner in which that delegation has been frustrated and stymied?
June 7, 1965


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I am sure I am representing the considered view of most people when I say that having regard to the services rendered to the commission for eleven years, now, and to the contribution made by Canada, this would be a most unfortunate time to withdraw the commission.


Harold Edward Winch: Could the Minister tell us what contribution Canada has been able to make, bearing in mind the recent report that our delegation has been completely stymied in its efforts because of the power held by Poland on that commission? What is the advantage of continuing our work on that commission?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It is true there have been differences between Members of the Commission, but I still believe my former reply must stand. I would simply point out that had we not been represented on that commission it would not have been possible for Canada to have made the effort which was made by our representative in Hanoi on May 31.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether it is the view of the Canadian Government that the United States proposals for peace negotiations are likely to be accepted, in conjunction with continued bombing of North Viet Nam?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: I think it is a well known rule of the House that, important as the argument may be, a question of that kind is nevertheless no more than an argument. Consequently it does not have a proper place on the orders of the day.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As Premier Bennett of British Columbia stated yesterday that the provinces have the exclusive right to deal with foreign countries on matters concerning natural resources, and also as the Canadian government recently signed a general agreement with France prior to the signature with the province of Quebec of an agreement coming under provincial jurisdiction, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the house whether the government of British Columbia has requested the Canadian government to sign a general
Inquiries of the Ministry agreement with Japan concerning subsequent negotiations with that country?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. But I may add that I have not heard the statement made by the Premier of British Columbia. However, I shall consider it carefully and I might have an opportunity to comment later on.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no other way of raising this matter in view of the shortness of the time and time being of the essence. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs why a man as experienced as Jack Stepler, a press officer in the High Commissioner's office in London, a man with a distinguished record in the press field and also in the armed forces, has been summarily removed, which removal is to take effect in a few days. Will the Minister say whether the High Commissioner recommended this step or whether there is any basis for the fact that this exercise savours of political partisanship?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, I assure my right hon. friend that the suggestion implied in the last part of the question is not warranted by the circumstances. The High Commissioner had nothing to do with the decision or the replacement. Mr. Stepler rendered valuable services to Canada House, but in the administrative responsibilities which I as Secretary of State for External Affairs have to assume, and on the advice given me it was thought desirable to make a replacement. This was done on that basis alone and for no other consideration than that which I have outlined.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this statement adds still a lot of cloud to the position. Why should a man of 51 years be removed from a position in which he discharged his responsibilities, as the Minister said, with propriety and ability? What were the circumstances that caused the Minister to remove this man and appoint someone else in his place?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: 
John George Diefenbaker: Who is the successor?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Duffy, formerly of the Globe and Mail. I may say that I spoke with Mr. Stepler when I was in London the other day and I thanked him for his services. I assured him that they were greatly appreciated. I think that Mr. Stepler would be the first to say that, whatever the decision made, nothing influenced the decision other than considerations respecting a particular assignment which, at that particular moment, required certain capabilities. There was nothing else involved.
I am sure that with this response my right hon. friend will be fully satisfied.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, removing the word "particular" from the answer, what were the particular circumstances that caused the particular action to be taken by the particular Minister at this time?


Mr. Martin (Essex Easi):: I do not think one should discuss in public the limitations of a servant who has rendered good and valuable service, as did Mr. Stepler. I told him that if there was anything further which could be done for him it would be done; but I am certainly not going to indulge in the practice of publicly exposing what I, as the responsible departmental head, feel are the particular limitations as far as Mr. Stepler was concerned for that particular job at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Particularly if it is political.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I assure my right hon. friend there was nothing political whatever in this.


Michael Starr: You have not given us the reason.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1
DEBATES	June 7, 1965
As the summer months attract an increasing number of tourists to Parliament Hill wanting to visit the House of Commons, could the Minister of Justice tell the house whether it is the intention of the government to see to it that the members of the R.C.M.P. on duty on Parliament Hill are bilingual and can converse readily in either language with the visitors?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minisier of Juslice):: Mr. Speaker, I hope steps will be taken along these lines to the satisfaction of everyone.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Can he see to it that, in future, this will be the case not only during the summer months but the year round?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the matter will be taken into consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the Government to provide one type of uniform for the personnel of the three fighting services as reported in today's press?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This has not yet been determined. As I indicated earlier, there are a number of higher priority matters which are occupying our attention. This is something we shall be studying in the months ahead, but up to now the matter has been given no study.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CHANGES IN COMMAND STRUCTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the Minister tell us why he did not make a statement in the House in connection with the changes in the command structure similar to that which he issued to the press, thus providing an opportunity for comment on those changes?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a highly technical matter, Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: And we wouldn't understand it?
June 7, 1965


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I arranged to have copies distributed to all hon. Members this morning at the time the release was made, and I think it might be agreeable if, as soon as the Committee on Defence is constituted, the defence staff provide a formal briefing to the committee and answer any questions on the command structure which hon. Members may wish to ask.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ARGUS &quot;SPRINGBOARD&quot; EXERCISE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, asking him whether it is not possible, in order to bring to a stop recent rumour and speculation, to announce the result of the investigation into the collapse of the Argus "Springboard", Bermuda, exercise which resulted in 16 deaths? Can he now give us the result of the military investigation in order to kill some of the speculation and rumours, which are not good?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well Mr. Speaker, I do not have the report before me and I am not sure I can recall all of the information contained in it. However, I believe the substance of the report is that the accident took place at a time and in an area where the water is so deep we will never know, in fact, what the cause of the accident was. I regret to have to inform hon. Members of that; but if I recall the conclusions correctly they were that under the circumstances, in view of the complete impossibility of recovering sufficient of the aircraft to examine it thoroughly and to do the kind of investigation we would do if the wreckage were available for examination, it is impossible to determine the cause of the crash.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question? It is now obvious the Minister has had a report which we have not been given. May I ask, is it correct that the report contains the assertion that Mae Wests were found inflated but no bodies were found?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think that would be incorrect, but I will take that part of the question as notice and inform my hon. friend.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING POSSIBLE GENERAL WORK STOPPAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the dispute which exists between employees and management of the Canadian National Railways and in view of the danger of this dispute escalating into a general work stoppage, is the Minister in a position to make any report to the House on the discussions which have taken place so far in connection with this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Sir, I am not. I do not know whether my colleague the Minister of Labour is in a position to say anything about this matter.



DEMERIT SYSTEM-TALKS BETWEEN NATIONAL RAILWAY AND UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he can give us a report on what progress has been made in the talks between the C.N.R. and the Canadian Brotherhood of Transport and General Workers on the issue of the demerit system now under discussion.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I understand that representatives of the railway and of the union are meeting today to discuss this matter. I have no word as to the result of this discussion.


Michael Starr: Would the Minister consider setting up a Federal commission of inquiry to investigate the demerit system as it is applied presently by the C.N.R. ?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We will of course make our services available to the parties in their efforts to reach a solution to this question. We have not considered setting up the commission of inquiry but we will be glad to take the hon. Member's question into consideration.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that reports are that unless there is a quick settlement of the dispute, it is likely to spread across the system, the department has been briefed by the C.N.R. management on the
June 7, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry issues which are in dispute and the differences which exist between the management and its employees.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Department is informed on this matter.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister a supplementary question based on my interviewing of the officers of the locals in Toronto over the week end. Is the Minister not aware that this is not an isolated incident, but is the culmination of a long-growing resentment against the unfair practices of C.N.R., and that unless this dispute is settled very, very quickly we are going to be faced with a national transportation crisis? In view of those circumstances, does not the Minister think he should take more positive leadership than the indifferent attitude he is displaying this afternoon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. Member to reconsider the wording of his question. There are at least several statements and implications in the question and it does not seem to me to be phrased in the proper wording.



VANCOUVER-STRIKE OF GRAIN HANDLERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour on another very serious matter. Last Thursday I asked him whether there had been any negotiations between the Alberta wheat pool and the labour union involved in the strike at their terminal on the west coast. The Minister said a meeting was being arranged for that day and he had considered other action. I wonder whether he could inform the House if that meeting took place and whether there have been any negotiations between the union and the company; and what was the other action he was contemplating?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I announced this morning the appointment of Dr. Neil Perry, the Vice President of the University of British Columbia, to act as an industrial inquiry commissioner in this dispute, and to assist the parties in reaching a settlement. I have expressed the hope, which I repeat now, that the parties will give Dr. Perry the utmost co-operation and get down to serious business in attempting to settle this dispute in view of its critical importance to the Canadian economy.
[Mr. Orlikow.l



REQUEST FOR COMMUNICATION RESPECTING CHARACTER OF PAUL HALL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. My question is based on statements made by Dr. Harry S. Crowe that the activities of Paul Hall and actions inspired by Paul Hall are damaging, perhaps irreparably, the international union movement in Canada, and on the attack made in the Labour Statesman, a newspaper published jointly by the B. C. Federation of Labour and the Vancouver Labour Council, on Mr. Meany's arrogance in the Seafarers International Union dispute, and on a statement made by Mr. C. H. Millard, a trustee of the maritime transportation unions, to the effect that he deplores the cynical and irresponsible actions of men like Paul Hall and Hal C. Banks, which undermined the good name of unionism and defrauded hard working and trusting workers.
My question to the Minister is this. Would the Minister inform the House whether Mr. Millard has communicated to him his views of Mr. Paul Hall's character, in writing or verbally.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have received no character analysis of Mr. Hall from Mr. Millard in writing, and I do not recollect any conversation that would fit that description. I doubt whether, if it had been given either in writing or verbally, it would be a fit subject matter for questioning in the House of Commons.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am interested in this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that a great deal of leeway was given to the hon. Member when he posed his rather long question or, rather, gave descriptive material before posing the question. I have listened attentively to the answer of the Minister. I do not see what is to be gained by disputing whether this person or that person is a fit or proper person in the opinion, either written or verbal, of somebody outside the House.
June 7, 1965


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: With all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, my supplemental was on an entirely different topic.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Then it most undoubtedly would be in order.



HAL BANKS-DEPOSIT IN MONTREAL BANK TO COVER WAGES OF S.I.U. SEAMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has
the Minister any knowledge of an agreement between Harold Chamberlain Banks and the Government of Cuba for the deposit in trust in a Montreal Bank of $400,000 to cover the cost of the wages of S.I.U. seamen that were intended to be employed on the ships purchased by the Government of Cuba from Canadian National Steamships?
Has the Minister any knowledge of negotiations being undertaken at the present time between the officers of the S.I.U. and representatives of the Government of Cuba for the return of this money to the Government of Cuba on the understanding that $75,000 will be paid to the S.I.U. or Harold Chamberlain Banks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the honourable and experienced Member would put that question on the order paper.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I will have a "go" at ten o'clock.



ALLEGED STRIKEBREAKING PRACTICES BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he received a letter today from the Retail Clerks International Association concerning allegations that certain Federal Government employees are moonlighting in a struck situation in certain stores in East-view? If so, can a statement be made regarding this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received a letter and I have taken it up with the Minister of Labour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the Minister of Labour anything to say about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have the correspondence sent to me by the Prime Minister, but I have not had an opportunity yet to ascertain whether there
Inquiries of the Ministry is any possible action that can be taken by the Government.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It arises out of the statement that consultation is being held with the provinces on the designation of areas. Can the right hon. gentleman tell us whether or not similar consultation is going on with the Governments of the Yukon and of the Northwest Territories?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Governments of the two territories are kept informed of what is going on.



OTTAWA-WORKING CONDITIONS AT SITE OF CENTRE FOR NATIONAL PERFORMING ARTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a telegram from the Ottawa Building Trades Council bringing to the attention of the Prime Minister the working conditions prevailing at the National Performing Arts site, and what is his reaction to the telegram?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I received the telegram and I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Labour, who is looking into the question. I do not know whether he has anything to add to my statement at this moment.


Michael Starr: Then may I ask the Minister of Labour what is his reaction to the complaint that has been made in this telegram.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act makes it possible, in certain circumstances, to issue overtime permits for additional hours. In this case the Department of Labour authorized additional hours in connection with the work on the Performing Arts Centre in Ottawa. The question raised in the telegram concerned work undertaken on a Sunday. The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act does not prohibit or authorize work to be performed on a Sunday. It establishes a daily and weekly limit but is silent on the question of Sunday work. The Department has been in touch with the sender of the
June 7, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry telegram and I think he understands fully the position which has been taken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the Department or the Minister gave permission for this extra work, was this done in awareness of the fact that the desire apparently was to get certain work done before a strike deadline?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The request for the extension was made by the Department of Public Works, which was concerned about the completion of the project itself. In order to meet a target date for completion, extraordinary measures were required. We considered and suggested the possibility of additional shifts, but because of what we thought were serious considerations raised in that connection the hours of 10 a day and 60 a week were authorized, and for that reason and that reason alone.



PROPOSED SURVEY OF EMPLOYERS ON LABOUR REQUIREMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether the Minister has had an opportunity to discuss with his colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, a question I asked on May 28 which related to the suggestion that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration proposed to interview 5,000 employers about the requirements of skilled labourers. It seemed to me there was some overlapping in this regard between the two Departments.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and have found that this is a practice which has been in existence for a good many years, and that it is in accord with the policy followed by other Governments.
Perhaps the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration can supplement that answer.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my department has very definite responsibilities under the Immigration Act and under the regulations in relation to the admission to Canada of persons who, by reason of training, skills or special qualifications, are "likely to be able to establish themselves successfully in Canada" and who in fact come to this country under arrangements approved by the

Director of Immigration. In this connection, special reference might be made to regulation 31 of the regulations passed on January 18, 1962.
Without accepting the premise in the question, that officials of my Department are about to interview 5,000 Canadian employers, I acknowledge that several manpower surveys have been undertaken by officials of my Department in several of the provinces. These surveys are being made as a result of requests that we have received from the Governments of several provinces, notably the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick, and they are being conducted after discussions with the Department of Labour, and with its approval.



GRANTS TO MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING ENTERPRISES-POSSIBILITY OF CAPITAL GAINS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry arising out of the statement the Prime Minister made on motions. I am wondering if the Minister can tell the House whether or not there will be any protection against individuals or corporations taking advantage of grants, then selling their assets and making capital gains?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can give a precise answer to that question. Grants will be paid only in so far as assets are acquired. If a grantee establishes a new industry and benefits employment in an area by starting a new industrial enterprise in the area, I suppose he would be free to sell it to others.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
The hon. minister made a statement a while ago concerning the restoration of Wolfe's monument. Could he order that such restoration be postponed until after June 24, in order to avoid any regrettable incidents and thereby give no opportunity to those who may take advantage of St. Jean Baptiste Day to commit acts of vandalism?
June 7, 1965	COMMONS


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I am not the minister involved here, but I shall inform him of these representations so that he may reply to the hon. Member in due time.



WOLFE MONUMENT-ADEQUACY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Resources. In view of the reply to Starred Question 630, which indicates that three levels of law enforcement bodies are active on the Wolfe memorial case, would the Minister not agree that formidable law enforcement co-operation of this kind should be adequate to meet any future attempts on the part of lawless elements to deface our national monuments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is interesting but out of order.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State in reference to redistribution in Alberta. In view of the fact that the decision of the Redistribution Commission in reference to maps is that they are confidential until published in the Canada Gazette and newspapers, why were the facts in reference to constituency maps in Calgary released to the press over the week end, before their publication in the Canada Gazette or the newspapers?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to investigate this situation and to ask the Commission to make a report. I will be pleased to answer that question more fully when I have all the information.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether when the Minister is asking for this information he would deal with this question.
I put it to him because I was called over the week end by a newspaperman. Did these facts emanate from the Minister or his Department, as it is reported that the constituency of Bow River is abolished, and such decision is contrary to all suggested maps prepared by Mr. Castonguay and staff, as seen by myself and
22620-131J
DEBATES	2045
Inquiries of the Ministry others prior to the setting up or the meeting of the Redistribution Commission?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, that information certainly did not come from me or my Department.



IMPROVEMENT OF WORKING CONDITIONS OF INTERPRETERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I would like, with your permission, to give an answer to questions raised by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Ricnmond (Mr. Prittie) and the hon. Member for Quebec East (Mr. Beaule) concerning the working and other conditions connected with the employment of interpreters.
Hon. Members are aware of the tremendous demand for simultaneous interpretation in the deliberations of the House of Commons and of its many committees. Interpreters are also required for the other place, for government meetings, federal-provincial conferences and the like. It is the responsibility of the Translation Bureau to provide a sufficient number of interpeters for all these needs. The Translation Bureau has currently II interpreters, to which two new ones have recently been added and whose period of training is just about completed. Necessary steps are also being taken to increase that number by an additional four interpreters. It is hoped in this way that all current requirements of Parliament will be serviced without undue strain on the interpretation staff. I should add in this connection that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, because of the nature of the workings of Parliament, to spread the demand and the hours of work on a regular basis. Every effort is being made, however, to make sure that the work load is spread as fairly and equitably as possible. Future needs will depend to a large extent on the disposition given by this House to certain rule changes, especially as these affect the matter of permanent or standing committees of the House. My Department is, of course, keeping a close watch on this.
Certain recommendations have also been made concerning salary revisions, and these are now under study by the Civil Service Commission and Treasury Board. Interpreters are also afforded the usual privileges whereby in addition to their statutory three weeks annual leave they are granted additional sessional leave. I understand that to
2Q4S
June 7, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry date all interpreters have exercised their privileges in this regard although, it might be added, not necessarily during periods which would be most convenient to them. Other matters relating to working conditions come within the jurisdiction of the House, and I am told on good authority that certain improvements have already been made and others are receiving active consideration.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, although it is five minutes after four o'clock I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State, who answered a question regarding the salary of reporters a few moments ago.
In view of the fact that the work-


Maurice Lamontagne: -of the interpreters.


Guy Marcoux: -of the interpreters. In view of the fact that the work of committees will probably be very much increased, will consideration be given to a salary increase for committee officers as well as for secretaries whose salaries have not been reviewed for quite a while?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. member that those employees do not come under my department.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of
Stale): Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question put to me recently by the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle. I have been informed that Mr. Hugh Pickett had not been appointed to the Centennial Commission. Mr. Pickett, along with a number of other Canadians involved in the popular arts and entertainment fields, was invited to advise the Commission at a one day conference on the popular programming aspect of the recently announced Canada Festival, 1967.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he yet received the

report of the investigation into the unfortunate crash of a commercial aircraft in Nova Scotia on May 17? If so, is he prepared to make any public statement regarding it, or is it his intention to table the report?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what stage the investigation has reached, but at any rate the report has not yet reached me. However, I will look into the matter.



DETAILS RESPECTING ASSISTANCE TO SECONDARY AIRPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Slenson (Peterborough):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding the regulation or assistance of small airports. I think about ten days ago he told us these regulations were ready to be distributed, but we have heard nothing since.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To the best of my knowledge and belief they are being distributed.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I can direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On May 14 I asked the hon. Lady about a court decision in Saskatchewan regarding medical care for the Indian people there and the interpretation of a particular treaty. At that time she was not sure of the attitude of the Department because of the possibility that an appeal might be launched. I wonder whether the hon. Lady can now tell us the status of this case and whether it has been appealed. If not, what is the Government going to do in this connection?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain of the actual date-the 21st, 22nd or 25th-when time for appeal will expire, but in Saskatchewan it was extended for another month. As all hon. Members appreciate, there is a considerable interest in this matter in my Department. I have had discussions with the Minister of Justice and my colleague in Immigration regarding the matter, but as yet no appeal has been launched or final decision taken.
June 7. 19G5	COMMONS DEBATES	2047


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. Can the Minister tell us the approximate expiry date; is it to be June 22 or June 23?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It expires between June 21 and June 25.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to reply to a related question asked on May 20 by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie).
That hon. Member asked whether my Department had received any complaints from trade union officials, concerning false information about employment opportunities in British Columbia being given out in the United Kingdom by officers of my Department. I stated at that time that I had received a letter from a trade union official, enclosing a clipping from a newspaper, and I assured the hon. Member that I would look into the matter and reply to his question at an early date. I have now had an opportunity of going into the matter more closely.
On May 15 a Vancouver newspaper quoted the President of Local 452 of the Carpenters Union of Vancouver, stating there is no shortage of skilled workers in British Columbia. On May 13, the Secretary of the same Local wrote me, expressing similar views. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I was and still am puzzled by the views expressed on May 13, by the officials of the union, because of contrary views expressed by Mr. Robert Strachan, M.L.A., the Leader of the N.D.P. in B.C. and the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in the B.C. Legislature. Incidentally, Mr. Strachan is a member in good standing of the Carpenters Union.
Mr. Strachan is quoted in a Vancouver newspaper of May 6 as giving a warning that the shortage of skilled labour in British Columbia was skyrocketing. In the same article he went on to say that the construction industry was having a period similar to that of 1956 and 1957 when, due to a shortage of skilled help, companies found themselves having to pay extra overtime costs to attract manpower to their projects. In the same article, Mr. Strachan stated that the cost of
Inquiries of the Ministry schools, hospitals, highways and other public projects in B.C. also were skyrocketing because of lack of skilled workers.
In the course of the inquiries that I have caused to be conducted recently, my Department has been in touch with the Secretary-Treasurer of the Nanaimo-Alberni District Labour Council who, by the way, is the representative in Nanaimo of the Carpenters Union to which I have referred. He confirmed that Mr. Strachan is a member in good standing of that union and, when my Department communicated with him, he asked if my Department had available any immigrant carpenters. He stated that he needed them badly, preferably some from the old country. He said, in fact, that they needed carpenters so badly they would take them into the union at a reduced fee of $25 rather than the normal fee of $100, if we had any available.
In the circumstances, this matter is being very carefully looked into, and I can assure the House that my Department plans no action which will cause hardship to skilled workers in British Columbia. However, on the other hand, we are not going to let the protests of one or more officials prevent us from taking such steps as may be necessary to correct the difficult situation that Government, the official Opposition and industry in British Columbia tell us is critical and needs immediate attention.



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister asking him whether he has received any message from the Legislative Council of Quebec in connection with an address passed by the Legislative Assembly? Is it a fact that such a message was transmitted or delivered to the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, for transmission to the Governor General, who in turn would pass it on to Her Majesty the Queen?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received no such message and, after making inquiries, I have been informed that the Lieutenant Governor has not yet received any such message from the Legislative Council.
2043	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
INCLUSION OF MEDICARE IN AGENDA On the orders of the day:


Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to assure the House that the issue of Federal medicare will be on the agenda of the forthcoming Federal-Provincial Conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can the Minister inform the House when the legislation he promised in 1964 will be placed before this House?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, it is still my hope that this legislation will be introduced toward the end of this month, and I express that as a hope.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That hope was held in 1964.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, asking him whether he has been informed that Canadian National Railways management representatives on the Pensions Committee have proposed to that Committee a drastic reduction in pension contributions and benefits under the C.N.R. pension plan, to be effective when the Canada Pension Plan goes into effect?


John Whitney Pickersgill: To my knowledge, Sir, I have not been so informed, but it is possible my Department has received some communication in this regard which has not come to my attention.


David Orlikow: I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister make some inquiries about this matter, and also give some consideration as to whether this kind of proposal fits in with the over-all policy of improved pensions, which I am sure is a desire of the 
DEBATES	June 7. 1965
Government as I am sure it is of all Members of the House?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I will be glad to look into that question.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), and in view of his absence I hope it will be brought to his attention. Is the Minister in a position now to answer a question I posed last Wednesday regarding the disaster to the fruit industry in the Province of British Columbia? Has the Minister heard yet from the Minister of Agriculture of British Columbia in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. Member will place his question on the order paper.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister if there is someone here who can answer for the Minister of Agriculture?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Minister had to leave a few minutes ago for an appointment. I will be glad to take up that question with him this afternoon.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the Minister of Justice about one John Darrell Peters, an inmate of a British Columbia penitentiary. I wonder if the Minister has anything to communicate to the House about this case?


Guy Favreau: I shall attempt to answer that question tomorrow.



MOTION TO ESTABLISH SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That a Special Committee be appointed to continue the inquiry into and to report upon costs of drugs, begun by a Special Committee at the past Session:
June 7, 1965

That the Committee consist of 24 Members to be designated later by the House; and be empowered to sit while the House is sitting;
That the Committee be empowered to consider and recommend, as it may deem expedient, respecting a comprehensive and effective program to reduce the price of drugs;
That the Committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records, and to report from time to time, to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable, and to engage the services of counsel, accountants, and such other technical and clerical personnel as may be deemed necessary;
That the Minutes of Proceedings of and evidence given before the Special Committee at the past Session be referred to the said Committee and be made part of the records thereof;
That the provisions of Standing Orders 66 and 67(1) be suspended in relation to such Committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I have unanimous consent to revert to motions to name this Committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Edgar Walker: I move;
That the Special Committee on Food and Drugs be composed of Messrs. Armstrong, Asselin (Rich-mond-Wolfe), Cote (Longueuil), Enns, Francis, Gauthier, Harley, Howe (Hamilton South), Jones (Mrs.), Macaluso, Mackasey, Marcoux, Mitchell, Monteith, Munro, Orlikow, Prud'homme, Roxburgh, Rynard, Slogan, Valade, Whelan, Willoughby, Woolliams.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bell:
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, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 30 days of the time of the
House of Commons Procedures
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)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the ding 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
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 Section (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
June 7, 1965
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Procedures
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.
(9)	The term "allocation of time", wherever used in this Standing Order, may include the alloting 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.
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.
Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the question before the House is important enough and has such far reaching implications that I do not have to apologize for speaking on this new amendment. I think that the method of approach to this problem is one that I cannot reiterate to the House too often. I do have a feeling that the Government has not given sufficiently serious consideration to realize what this change does to the rights of ordinary Members. I do not believe most Members in this House are aware of the fact that this is a method of closure and that this method of closure proposed by the Government is a most dangerous one. I feel the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) suggesting 60 per cent is such a change from the usual majority rule that this might help bring to the attention of hon. Members the importance that should be attached to proposed rule change.
Certainly the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn), speaking as a Liberal backbencher, suggested an approach to this problem which, if all his colleagues would look at it, would help everyone understand the problem. I should like to draw to the attention

of the House the reasoning of that hon. Member because it gives an illustration of the dilemma being faced by the Members of this House who feel that Parliament is being criticized and that more efficiency should be brought about in some way. They feel Parliament has a bad image in the country and, more or less without thinking, they have acquiesced in the Government's suggestion that what we need is a change in rules. The last time I spoke on this matter I pointed out that there are many other factors which can have an influence on Parliament, and there are many ways in which Parliament could run more efficiently if people made better use of the rules that now exist.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I should like to point out a few of the things which were said by the hon. Member for St. Paul's in his speech on this subject on June 1 and I will quote three or four passages from his speech that illustrate the dilemma in which many Members of the House find themselves. As recorded near the top of page 1834 of Hansard, the hon. Member said:
-members on this side of the House should insist upon the procedural rules being such as to guarantee and entrench the rights of private Members to speak during a debate, while at the same time permitting the debate to be restricted within reasonable limits.
He made it very clear that he wanted the rules to guarantee and entrench the rights of private Members to speak and yet restrict debate. It would be very interesting if the hon. Member were to show how this could be done.
At about the middle of page 1835 the hon. Member was reported as saying:
-though debate may be limited in appropriate cases, there would at the same time be an absolute guarantee that a private Member who wishes to speak on behalf of his constituents cannot in any circumstances be prevented from doing so.
Again he emphasized that though debate might be limited the important thing was the right of a Member to speak on behalf of his constituents and he said this is such an important right for a backbencher that it cannot be interfered with in any circumstances. Again, as recorded at page 1836, the hon. Member expressed a similar feeling when he said:
As a practical matter, all I suggest is that the rules should guarantee the right of a private Member to speak. If that is done, we will continue to do what has been done since there has been a Parliament; we will continue to work out on a sensible, practical basis, speaking orders. As long as that right is guaranteed we will know that we can work out these arrangements in a mutually
June 7, 1965	COMMONS
satisfactory manner. If that right is removed, then it seems to me a fundamental privilege of our constituents is being attacked.
These three quotations from the speech of a Government backbencher, who says he is in favour of the proposed rule changes, indicate exactly the position in which we find ourselves. In winding up his speech what he in effect says is that the important thing is that the right of the private Member cannot be interfered with and that so long as he is given the right to speak it will be possible for us to work out, "in a mutually satisfactory manner", arrangements for everyone to talk. In other words, at the end of his remarks he gave the essence of the argument against the proposed rule changes.
The hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has spoken on this matter on two or three occasions and has made plain what the difficulty is. I suggest that any Member who attacks the problem with the honesty and the thoughtfulness with which the hon. Member for St. Paul did will wind up in the same vein as he did. Ostensibly he got up to support the Government on its proposed changes, then got involved in the arguments as to the necessity of what the Government proposes, became concerned with the predominantly fundamental rights of a private Member and, by the time he had finished, ended up where we have been all along, insisting that there should be no interference with the right to speak. Therefore we cannot have this closure rule.
If the hon. Member for St. Paul's has attacked the problem in the manner in which I suggest his speech proves he has, and if he is the intelligent man I believe him to be-he has certainly proven himself honest in his approach-then there should be much food for thought on all sides of the House and not just for backbenchers on the Government side. I suggest that the reasoning he used should appeal to everyone.
Lots of things have been said in the House about the right to speak and the essence of the argument I have always used is that it is not necessary to change the rules, or at least it may not be necessary. If a change in rules is needed, is this the correct time? Is the atmosphere of the House such that we can make up our minds to decide how much difficulty arises because the rules are inadequate and how much difficulty arises because of various factions and schisms in the House?
Is this the proper atmosphere in which we can fool around with rules that have
DEBATES	2051
House of Commons Procedures been in force in Parliament for so many years? Is this the proper time to take such a radical departure from rules that have been relatively unchanged, in this respect at least, for half a century? Despite the importance of the individual Member's right to speak, despite that being his fundamental duty on behalf of his constituents, is this the time for us to interfere with that fundamental right in order to bring in the suggested rule changes?
When we talk about influences in the House with regard to the question of whether a change in rules is required, I remember some of the attitudes taken in years gone by. The hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) reminded us the other day that the hon. Member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) had a very simple rule when he was in opposition, namely, bring down the Government by any means, by hook or by crook. That, he felt, was his fundamental duty. Yet despite that attitude, one which I do not think has ever been taken by any other opposition in this country and certainly not by this one, we found the rules adequate and we managed to get along.
At that time there were 208 Members on the Government side of the House, the most overwhelming majority ever seen. I submit there was never any suggestion made that we tried to steamroller the Opposition, and the reason that Members got along was that no matter what attitude might be taken by individual Members such as the hon. Member for Essex East, the majority of the Members of the House felt they had to co-operate in order that Parliament would work in a responsible manner. I remember the hon. Member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) intervening in a debate when a second Government backbencher got up to participate. We had some 185 Government backbenchers, and after two or three days debate on a particular bill a second Government backbencher got up to speak. At that stage the hon. Member for Bonavista-Twillingate told us the trouble with Parliament and the reason for it taking so much time to get things done was that Government backbenchers were filibustering the Government's own bill.
If I recall correctly, that was at a time when the handful of C.C.F. Members in the House had taken 35 per cent of the time. The 55 Liberal Members of the House had taken 45 per cent of the total speaking time, which meant the Opposition had taken fully 80 per
June 7, 1965

House of Commons Procedures cent of the time. The Cabinet Ministers, who are responsible for answering questions, moving motions, answering questions on estimates and getting legislation through the House, had taken 15 per cent of the time of the House which left just 5 per cent of the time of the House for the 185 Government backbenchers. Yet, when the second Government backbencher got up to speak, the hon. Member for Bonavista-Twillingate said the trouble was that the Government backbenchers were filibustering their own bill and not letting the Government proceed with its business. The reason I go into all this is to show how important attitude is and how we must understand the background of the actions being taken at a certain time so we can better understand how things get done in Parliament or how they get held up.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There were some references the other day to the failure of the Government to answer questions. If we are obliged to go on pressing for answers and are to be kept waiting, further time is wasted. Each time we have to repeat a question means a further delay and waiting for answers leads to a good deal of annoyance, so that in the end there is a greater chance of starting a quarrel than of making progress.
The House will understand the trepidation with which I face some of these proposed rule changes. The hon. Member for Essex East, who once said the only duty of an Opposition was to bring down the Government, is now Secretary of State for External Affairs and is also Acting Prime Minister when the Prime Minister is away. We must remember what sort of man he is when we are figuring out how much leaway the Government should be given in interfering with the rules. The hon. Member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is now Minister of Transport. We can see how cavalierly he treats backbenchers and what he thinks of them. Only 5 per cent of the time of the House was taken up by approximately 185 Members but even that degree of intervention amounts to filibustering according to him. We can see that this Minister believes that an ordinary backbencher has no right to be heard. If he is so unreasonable in his attitude, we should look with great caution on his suggestion that the House needs rule changes in order to get on with its work. It is our duty to stop and wonder whether he is not getting a little highhanded. When we are considering whether the rules should be

changed we should also consider the attitudes of those who want them to be changed, and the Minister has given us a perfect example.
There are other questions that will occur to backbenchers. I wonder whether the splinter parties have considered what will happen if these proposals go through. If closure was applied at a particular stage of debate, say on second reading, and there could be only one more day's debate on the bill, the Government backbenchers would immediately begin to do their share of the talking.
When I said earlier that 185 Conservative backbenchers used 5 per cent of the time I did not wish to indicate that they sat silent willingly with no thought of taking part in debates. Government supporters work closely with Ministers in their offices and behind the scenes; they have to forgo the right to speak in the House and a chance of publicity. They must lean over backwards to co-operate. Present supporters of the Government do not have such a difficult problem as we had to put up with. There are not so many of them; they can speak for a more reasonable length of time and get their turn. But if this rule change goes through it will not only be a case of the available time being cut down. As soon as a time limit is imposed, Government backbenchers will take half of the time allotted. So whatever the time available under closure might be it would be cut down immediately because opportunity would be given to Government backbenchers to speak and they would take advantage of it as soon as they realized there was no further need for co-operation.
The Government has a duty to encourage co-operation in the House. Democracy itself is based on compromise and co-operation. What is wrong with Government backbenchers having to do as we did when we sat on the Government side to make sure that the opposition had enough time in which to speak? If there is a need for an opposition at all, surely it is to ensure that nothing should be done without there being proper criticism. We need strong criticism in order that errors may be avoided. Those of us who have been in the House for any length of time have seen occasions when legislation which we thought had been drafted correctly had to be returned to the House for amendment the very next year because errors had been made which no one had caught. It is of the utmost importance that there should be strong criticism if we are to act correctly in the first place.
June 7, 1965	COMMONS
I ask hon. Members to listen carefully to the plea made by the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn). He was not making a political speech trying to curry favour. It was a thoughtful address in the course of which he tried to think out loud and understand and explain to himself as well as to other Members of the House just why changes in the rules were necessary. Once he became involved in considering the effect of these proposals he ended up where I started out, that is, by emphasizing the importance of the individual member's right to speak.
It is obviously most important that this right should be protected and surely it is possible to protect it while reaching a mutually satisfactory arrangement with regard to other questions on which agreement is possible. We can all remember occasions when, on the last day of a session we wanted to get away though there were two or three departments whose estimates had still to be considered. How often have we heard a Member say: I am not satisfied with the answer but the Minister can write me a letter on the matter so that the business of Parliament may continue? The Minister concerned gave undertakings to get information and to write letters to individual Members and the work of the committee went on to its conclusion.
People who do not believe Parliament can work under such arrangements as these do not have much faith in this House as a legislative body or much understanding of the nature of this Chamber. If any of the Government backbenchers would take part in this debate and think out the situation honestly and sincerely, as did the hon. Member for St. Paul's, they might find themselves in the same position as he did. No one in this Chamber would stand up and deny that his right and duty to speak on behalf of his constituents is something which should not lightly be interfered with. I am sure no one would stand up and say he was less important than other Members of this body or welcome any changes in the rules which would leave him without the right to speak for his constituents. It may well be that on many occasions most Members do not choose to speak. But not many of us would care to go home and confess we had allowed our hands to be tied so that no matter how important it might be to the people we represent we could no longer speak on their behalf.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I hope that the attitude taken by various people in this House will not be so strictly partisan that they will say: "Because the
DEBATES	2053
House of Commons Procedures Government wants it and it is a Government measure, we must have it". It is on this particular point only that I think the struggle as to changes in the rules is being most bitterly fought. We have been willing to compromise on many items and I am sure there are many that could be passed. But when an item is as far reaching and dangerous as this particular one, I think it is the duty of Members of this House to dig in their heels and say, "There is a certain point beyond which we cannot compromise and we must fight as long and as hard as we can in order to avoid this being brought about".
I for one, Mr. Speaker, do not particularly like the suggestion of a 60 per cent majority being necessary in order to carry a vote but I will vote for that amendment if this is the only thing we can do. Certainly we should not have our right to speak taken away by a simple majority. I do not want it taken away at all if we can help it, but if the Government is going to put through this change in the rules so they can bring in closure, at least I want to preserve for myself the 60 per cent rule so there will be less chance of such closure being applied.
I hope the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) will prevail on those Ministers of the Crown who are most anxious to put through these rule changes. I hope I hope I have not been unfair to the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for External Affairs in mentioning their rather cavalier attitude in this regard, but I do think it is necessary that the House remember who is asking for this extra power. It is the same people who were in the previous Government and had trouble in the pipe line debate because of their contempt for Parliament. These are some of the oldtimers who have never shown that respect for Parliament that they should. They have demonstrated time and time again their impatience with the House of Commons and their belief in their own infallibility which renders them impervious to the good, sound criticism from which another, more reasonable Minister might benefit. They have given us every reason to fear that the more power we put in their hands the greater is going to be their contempt of this responsibility, and certainly the more power a Minister has the greater should be his regard and concern for his duties to this House. This Government has indicated that the more power it has the less it cares for this House. I sug-
June 7, 1965

House of Commons Procedures gest that we go slowly and that we do not pass this particular clause at all.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Mr. Gundlock:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Member for Lethbridge.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, on rising today I want to say immediately that I most definitely support the amendment. The amendment asks that there be at least the support of 60 per cent of the Members of this House. In spite of the fact that personally I may believe this is not necessary, having regard to the action the Government has been taking and the attitude they are showing very clearly I support it most wholeheartedly. I referred, Mr. Speaker, to the attitude the Government has been taking. I was not in the House last week due to a rather dubious sort of illness, but I did get around to reading Friday's Hansard, the amendment in particular and also some of the interjections which showed very clearly that Government supporters were not in favour of the amendment.
I wonder why Government supporters would not be in favour of such an amendment? To my mind it demonstrates the fact that probably there is, as usual, still a bit of arrogance on the part of the Government and its supporters. They fail to realize that when they sneer at and interrupt Members on this side of the chamber they are not doing that to a mere individual but to people who represent thousands and even millions of Canadian citizens. When this is done it brings into this Chamber a time-consuming element. I have only to refer to Friday's Hansard to give an example of the amount of time consumed in this Chamber by interjections from the opposite side.
I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that these interjections, uncalled for references, catcalls, or whatever else you would like to call them, are not only time-consuming but are made to people sent here to represent the citizens of this country regardless of party and to fulfil a very real duty, to say the least. Their duty is to represent their constituents in the House in every way possible. How can this be done when there is any form of closure, guillotine, or whatever else you want to call it, used against even the lowliest backbencher, if I may use that term. If there is a limit to the

time allowed for debate in the House, Members cannot fully represent their constituents.
I am not going to deal with this matter at any length whatsoever but in some research in the time available to me I found that history shows that during periods of time with the least restraint on debate, legislation has been passed much more easily and much more rapidly than during times when there was restraint. This may seem at first examination to be somewhat ambiguous but history shows this to be a fact. I can properly appreciate this, I think, because if there is no limitation on debate the points raised, whether in opposition or in support of a measure, can be fully dealt with, explained and answered and therefore the debate may well come quickly to an end. But when there is any sort of limitation it seems to me that you set up some sort of resistance and when you do that you have, bluntly speaking, a fight on your hands.
We have an example of this every day. Consider the question period in the House. Questions have been avoided, sidestepped and taken as notice. All the way up and down the line Government ministers are trying to sidestep issues. They are taking too much time. A great many questions are still unanswered, although last week a great number were put on the order paper.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Yet the Government and its supporters blame the Opposition for taking the time of the House to the extent that they now want to alter the rules. As the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) so ably pointed out-I was amazed by the statistics he put on the record-when the previous Government had the greatest majority ever known in the House only 15 per cent of the time spent in this Chamber was taken by the Government and its supporters. The result was more legislation passed during that period of time than any comparable period in Canadian history. That is a very real example of free debate. Certainly there was no suggestion of any form of closure or guillotine, or whatever you want to call it.
I was also reminded by the hon. Member's speech of the part played by the private Member and backbencher in the House. I fully realize the position we are in. I do not try to monopolize the time of the House, as you know, Mr. Speaker, although there are times when I must speak, particularly on matters relating to the support of those in
June 7, 1965	COMMONS
my constituency and more particularly on matters concerning the nation as a whole.
I am also reminded, having done a little research, that the essence of the motion before us is to cut off the opportunities to speak of the backbenchers in this Chamber, which I believe very strongly is grievously wrong. I would re-emphasize that I hope the Government-I hope the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) is listening-will reconsider any form of limitation of debate.
Another and historical point I might make relates to the fact that the British parliamentary system has doubtless been the most successful democratic system the world has ever known for almost 700 years. Therefore we should be very careful before changing any rules, particularly those relating to limitation of debate. I am a backbencher, one of the lowliest, but if my time is limited or if debate in the Chamber is limited to the point where I have no opportunity to speak then it does not really save the time of the House and it does affect me seriously as a Member. What the motion is doing is depriving thousands, in some cases tens of thousands, of people of representation under a so-called democratic form of Government.
I doubt very much that anyone in this Chamber can really condone that sort of motion. This is the real essence of this matter. Regardless of party, any time that any Member of the House is cut off it is my opinion that much more than time is cut off; the very essence of democracy is cut off.
I should like to give some examples of time wastage in the House and I should like to put them on record while speaking to this amendment. The only reason the amendment has been moved and is before us today is that it is necessary. This motion has been moved by the Government to save the time of the House. If the Government is as sincere as it says it is-in my opinion its actions speak louder than its words-then why was it necessary to take up so much time over the famous budget? That was no fault of the Opposition or of the other Opposition parties in this Chamber. Yet the budget took up much time. It would take a great deal of time to quote from Hansard the points made by many Members of the House, not only Members of the Opposition, but before the rules are changed I might even be allowed to do that.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Why was the Prime Minister of Canada obliged to bring forward a so-called code
DEBATES	2055
House of Commons Procedures of ethics for his Ministers? I can recall many hours taken up in the House with discussions relating to actions, inactions or too many actions on the part of an individual by the name of Mr. Banks. I am sure that if these questions had been answered immediately and forthrightly a good deal of time would have been saved.
Quite recently another individual by the name of Stonehill was treated in a different manner from Mr. Banks. It is my impression that he may well have received treatment as good or better than that afforded Mr. Banks. Apparently the Government decided that one person should be treated in one way and another person in another way. That attitude again contributed a great deal to the time consumed by questions asked in the House.
We in this House have found it necessary to debate the proposed changes to our rules and relate them to particular incidents which have happened in the recent past. I do not take pleasure in rehashing these incidents but, as I said earlier their discussion has consumed a great deal of time in this Chamber. I suggest that the consumption of time, particularly in relation to these incidents, is a direct result of Government action. The Government now has a motion before the House which we are attempting to amend, the effect of which would limit us in our discussion of situations of the kind to which I have referred. I should like to ask those individuals occupying the front benches on the other side of the House, particularly the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith), whether It is the Government's intention that the Opposition shall no longer have the opportunity to debate important issues such as the Banks case and, more recently, the Rivard case. Are those situations so unimportant that some time should not be occupied by the House in discussing them?
The main point I have in mind at this time is one which other hon. Members as well as members of the press have tried to impress upon the Government. It is that every Member of the House, no matter to which party he or she belongs, should have freedom of speech and the opportunity to debate important issues in the House. By adopting the proposed Government measure now before us we will be doing nothing to protect that right. It will on the contrary, diminish that right and in fact whittle away democracy itself.

June 7, 1965
House of Commons Procedures
Surely the Government has had sufficient evidence of public opinion in this regard. Members of the press and Canadian citizens are aware of this fact and have tried to impress it upon the Government. As recently as last Friday objections were made by Members of the Government and Government backbenchers with regard to the use of the time available to the House. Let me point out that those objections, made under our existing rights are also time consuming. A study of history will show that Parliaments that have free reins get the most done. Very recent history indicates that under a Government supported by the greatest majority Canada has ever known more legislation was passed in a given time than under any other Government in Canada.
I should like to conclude my remarks on this point by suggesting to the President of the Privy Council, the Government and its supporters, as well as all Members of all other Parties in the House, that they should consider the consequences of the proposal now before us before allowing it to pass. I suggest also that they should consider the mitigating effects of the proposed amendment which I support wholeheartedly.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I intend to confine my remarks on the subject of this debate to two points, the limitation of time and the restriction on individual Members of Parliament. May I say at the outset that the speeches I have heard and read from the commencement of this debate have been extremely sincere and have indicated there is a general feeling that, although some changes should be made, nothing so drastic as proposed by the Government should be accepted.
It is my feeling that any limitation whatsoever on the time of debate is in fact a limitation on the rights of individual private Members and I am completely opposed to it. If the majority is of the opinion that some changes should be made and some limitations effected, I suggest that this could be accomplished more satisfactorily by adopting the principle of the proposed amendment, namely, that before any limitation can be applied 60 per cent of the Members present in the House must vote in favour of such a limitation.
I should like to direct my remarks first to some comments about rule changes made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) during his original speech on this resolution. That right hon. gentleman said:

In one sense it is domestic housekeeping, the amendment of our own rules, and it is being put forward as domestic housekeeping in no partisan way, because every Member of the House, whatever party he may represent, has his own interest in the rules of the House and its procedures.
I agree wholeheartedly with that part of his statement. In commenting about the changes to be made he suggested that this is a departure in the conduct of parliamentary business and therefore in the operation of democracy itself. I agree with that statement. Later on he says:
If they are put into effect I believe they will reconcile or go some way toward reconciling the right of discussion with the right of decision.
We agree to some extent in this regard, and feel that there is merit in that suggestion. We also agree with the suggestions in relation to committee discussions. However, in regard to the limitation on private Members in any debate I totally disagree. May I call it five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' business as it appears on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



PROPOSED COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER WRITTEN QUESTIONS

["Yes, it has been called ten o'clock."]
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton) moved:: That a special committee of not more than 15 Members of this House be established to prepare a revision of Standing Order 39 (1) dealing with the form and content of written questions for the order paper of the House of Commons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on March 30 of this year the Speaker of the House, in reply to a matter raised by the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), made the following observations. I quote Mr. Speaker from page 12934 of Hansard:
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
-it is time this House took a long and hard look at the machinery and the rules of procedure covering the asking of questions. The purposes for which questions are now asked have altered considerably since Standing Order 39	(1) was
enacted in 1867-
The hon. Member for Port Arthur on March 4 raised a matter which involved charges against not only myself but two other Members on this side, the hon. Member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) and the hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford). The charges were apparently twofold: First, that in placing questions on the order paper-refer-
June 7, 1965

ence was made to Question No. 2,042 which stood in my name-there had been collusion between the people who drafted the questions and civil servants and, second, there was a charge raised that these questions were improper both in form and in context.
At that time the hon. Member for Port Arthur made the following observations, and I am quoting from page 11963 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this question of privilege there seem to be two alternatives open to me. The first involves a formal motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The second, which may well be a preliminary to the first, is to suggest that Your Honour take this matter under advisement.
The hon. Member for Port Arthur did not move a motion but the matter was taken under advisement by Mr. Speaker who, as I indicated, on March 30 clearly found that there had been no violation of the rules, that there was nothing irregular in the method of asking the questions and that the questions themselves did not raise any matter which was of concern to him after he had carefully studied the facts. However, I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, at the implications of some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Port Arthur. I do think that the suggestion by the Speaker that the rules should be examined and that the purposes for which questions should be placed on the order paper should be looked at again is a good one. The motion before the House today would establish a Standing Committee whose function would be to give further guidance on this matter. The hon. Member for Port Arthur was not alone in that debate but was joined by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) who made some observations as reported on pages 11965 of Hansard. The following statement appears on page 11963 of Hansard attributed to the hon. Member for Port Arthur:
Under the accepted rules of this House the right to ask questions is part of the privileges extended to hon. Members of this House of Commons, but as I understand the situation this privilege is not extended in the same way, or at least to the same degree, to Members on the Government side.
This is an incorrect statement. I find no authority whatever, nothing in constitutional practice or in any authority on rules and procedures of the House, to suggest that there are first and second class Members of Parliament. We are all honourable Members of this House and we all have equal opportunities to ask questions and to do our duty. The suggestion that there are greater privileges on one side of the House than the other side
Written Questions
of the House in relation to the asking of questions is a departure from every established principle of which I have ever heard governing parliamentary debate.
We have seen in this House a great extension of the number of questions on the order paper. During the last session there were well over 3,000. I hope that the hon. Member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) will be able to speak on this question and give more of the details.
The purposes for which questions go on the order paper vary. I have placed certain questions on the order paper from time to time. I believe it is a very healthy thing whenever there is a shadow of doubt concerning a Civil Service competition to place questions on the order paper. Who were the successful applicants and in what order were they placed? I have found this invaluable in every case that has been brought to my attention. Many misconceptions apply in these circumstances. There is no substitute for setting out the outcome in the public record. It is the healthy and democratic thing to do. If there is any question whatever of concealment of the facts or concealment of information, simply put a question on the order paper and get the record for all to see.
We have seen, Mr. Speaker, an extension of questions and have observed a very great extension of the questions by some hon. Members. I venture to suggest that these questions are actually drawn up by research people who are looking into one matter or another and they are placed on the order paper in the name of one Member or another. I have seen a large number of really technical questions about various forms of research, drugs, and so on. We had a Hansard Index which was reproduced in a riding and right at the top the question was asked, who works for you? The Member, who had had a lot of references and who had devised questions for the order paper, had his name mentioned in the Index each time a return was made. Evidently this was the way you were to judge whether or not such a Member was effective. This suggests a complete reversal of the purposes for which we were elected. We were not elected to act as intermediaries whereby a great many technical, research questions could be placed under our names on the order paper, with their number being a measure of our performance.
There is no question but that the rules are quite clear. If you turn to citation 171 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, you will find

June 7, 1965
Written Questions
the rules which generally govern this matter. We learn that in putting a question a Member must confine himself to the narrowest limits; that observations which might lead to debate cannot be regarded as, coming within the proper limits of a question; that the purpose of a question is to obtain information and not to supply it to the House. There are something like three pages of comment which state that questions cannot be ironical, rhetorical, offensive, trivial, vague or meaningless, repeat in substance a question already answered, inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are true or contain an expression of opinion. The rules are clear. I suggest it is equally clear that the rules have not always been applied with the strict impartiality which would be in the best interests of this House in putting questions on the order paper. I note a question on the order paper, for example, which asks, when will this session of Parliament end? It was a question put formally in writing on the order paper. I think this kind of question put in writing makes a mockery of our procedure. It is a violation of half a dozen rules set out in Beauchesne but nevertheless there it is and it has been accepted. [DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
But, Mr. Speaker, there is another side to this matter which is disturbing and which is disturbing to me. On March 4 I happened to come into the House a few minutes late. As most Members do, I had been visiting some of my constituents. As a local Member it is frequently the case that they take advantage of such an opportunity to see their Member of Parliament, as is their practice, and I am delighted they do. But I was delayed a few minutes in coming into the House on March 4.
When I came into the House the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) was just concluding his remarks and I gathered from the comments of some of my colleagues that I had been implicated and charged with having improper access to documents, and so on and so on. Under the strict rules of privilege I should have replied then and there. I did not understand the remarks which had been made, but when I read Hansard I was shocked and hoped that the hon. Member for Port Arthur would take the opportunity to correct Hansard because several of the statements he made were obviously foolish and totally indefensible. I regret that to date he has not seen fit to do so.
[Mr. Francis.)
I sent him notice of when this notice of motion was coming up and I had believed he would be here today to reply to the remarks which I am making. Having missed the opportunity to raise this matter at the earliest possible time on a question of privilege, I am taking advantage of this notice of motion to answer some of the charges made on that occasion.
There is first the question about second class Members of Parliament. It is said of those on the Government side, "You are now a second class Member of Parliament and have not the same privilege to ask questions as does the Opposition". This is totally fallacious, malicious and misleading and without a shred of evidence to support it, as is the suggestion that somehow there is something irregular in Members on the Government side trying to probe or get access to information.
In the short period of time, in excess of two years, in which I have been a Member of the House I have observed with great interest the way in which some Members have managed to place well informed and highly intelligent questions on the order paper, including the hon. Member for Port Arthur on a number of occasions. Access to information is always a ticklish business. I was a civil servant for some nine years, Mr. Speaker. I know the rules that govern Civil Service behavior and I was careful to observe them to the best of my competence when I was a civil servant. But it is quite clear that some Members do manage to get access to information.
I remember the McIntosh letter, a photostat of which the hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) waved in the House. It is an interesting point how he had access to get a photostatic copy of a highly confidential letter. There have been many other instances but, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to say that the relationship between a Member of Parliament and his source of information is to a considerable degree a privileged relationship.
I deny flatly and categorically that I had access to Department of Justice files when framing a question which was placed on the order paper. I deny that without any reservation, and had the matter been made one of a charge which would have gone to the Committee on Privileges and Elections-that is where it should have gone-I could have set the record clear before that committee. However, it did not take that form. It did not go before that committee. It was taken under
June 7, 1965

advisement by the Speaker who found, to all intents and purposes, that he could detect nothing irregular. But it leaves an unpleasant taste in Parliament. It leaves an innuendo on the record and it is not in the interests of Members to do this.
I have looked into the question of the relationship of civil servants to Members of Parliament. Usually in many cases it is members of the Civil Service who are the most informed parties, who are the people in a position to give clues or hints and to drop suggestions for further investigation. I find that according to Beauchesne there is a very serious doubt whether a civil servant is doing any wrong in many cases in passing information to a Member of Parliament.
Beauchesne, in an appendix to the fourth edition, deals with the report of a select committee appointed by the United Kingdom House of Commons to inquire into the applicability of the Official Secrets Acts to members of the House. This was a committee established in 1939 and its findings are very interesting. I quote from the official report of the committee as found in the appendix to Beauchesne, page 417:
Whether the person to whom the defendant communicated the information, though not a person to whom he was authorized to communicate it, was yet a person to whom it was in the interest of the state his duty to communicate it would be a question for the jury to determine. The executive would not have the final word on the question. A measure of protection is thus afforded to any person who communicates information to a Member of Parliament.
In other words, as I read Beauchesne an employee of the Crown in possession of information who communicates that information to a Member of Parliament is in something of a privileged position should he be charged with a violation, and the charge could not simply be determined by the executive branch of the Government. There would clearly be a right to a jury trial and there would be certain privileges which could be invoked by a civil servant contending it was in the public interest to disclose that information to a Member of Parliament.
This kind of thing goes away back into the privileges of Members, back to time immemorial. I have listened, as have many other Members, to the debate which preceded this one and the allegations of restrictions on private Members and the alleged usurping of authority by the executive at the expense of the legislative branch. But the proposition that a Member of this House has not the right to probe, to ask questions, to place
Written Questions
questions on the order paper for answers that he feels it is proper to get, together with the suggestion that if a civil servant communicates with a Member of Parliament this would somehow be improper collusion and the suggestion that Members on this side of the House on the Government backbenches should be restricted or denied the same opportunities as Members on the other side, is a totally preposterous and indefensible proposition and one which should not be treated tolerantly by Members of the House.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members will give consideration to supporting this resolution. The result of its adoption would be the establishment of a committee which would take a fresh look at the rules. Maybe the rules are all right. As I read them they sound pretty good, but certainly something is wrong because the questions that are getting on the order paper do not, by my elementary, lay reading of the rules, appear to be consistent with the rules. Perhaps all we have to do is apply the rules more rigorously than has been the case in recent months in which case there would be fewer questions on the order paper. I would also like to think that the procedure of a Member of Parliament, or people representing such a Member on his behalf, taking the Hansard indexes, the overwhelming majority of which refer to questions, and implying that the number of questions shown opposite an hon. Member's name is the measure by which to judge his effectiveness, would cease to be a practice observed by many Members of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis), having been stimulated by the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), put this notice of motion on the order paper and has quite properly noted that the hon. Member for Port Arthur is not in his seat. I rise on behalf of the Member for Port Arthur simply to point out that I received a message from his office two or three hours ago that Air Canada was fogbound at the Lakehead last night and as a result he has not been able to get back. He knew this motion was coming up today and had hoped to be here to speak to it.
Obviously it is not necessary for me to defend the hon. Member for Port Arthur. He is very capable of speaking for himself. However, since I have taken the floor there are a few words I should like to say in response to what the hon. Member for Carle-

June 7, 1965
Written Questions
ton has suggested. I do not quarrel with him over the obvious tact that the hon. Member does not really want what his notice of motion asks for, namely, a revision of Standing Order 39(1). What he really wants is a chance to have discussed, in a committee, the whole question which the hon. Member for Port Arthur raised. I see nothing wrong with his wanting that done and I hope the House may let this motion pass so that even if a revision of 39(1) were not to be the result there would be a chance to go into the questions which were raised on March 4 by my hon. friend from Port Arthur. There might, of course, be some problem about the committee's terms of reference but I do not think this would be serious because a committee set up to study 39(1), as suggested by the hon. Member for Carleton, could easily I suppose, consider examples of its use or alleged abuse in recent months.
e (5:20 p.m.)
I am a little concerned about the proliferation of committees on questions of procedure. We are debating at some length-and I say this very mildly without trying to be provocative-a motion of the Prime Minister which includes provision for the setting up of a committee to work out certain rules of procedure in a limited area. Now the hon. Member for Carleton proposes that a committee should be set up to inquire into another aspect of our rules. Some of us think it unfortunate that the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization which met for two years was not re-established this session. Despite everything I am prepared to say in defence of the changes which are now proposed by the Government, I still think we were doing it in a better way, even though it seemed to be taking considerable time. But I hope we shall not set up one committee after another to deal with points of procedure. Taking the motion put forward by the hon. Member for Carleton at its face value, we should be logical and re-establish the Committee on Procedure and Organization to deal with the matter in his motion as well as a number of our rules. I recognize -and I am relying on my memory of what the hon. Member for Port Arthur said about this issue-that my hon. friend gave the hon. Member for Carleton the feeling he had to make the kind of speech which he made today, defending his position as one whose rights are equal to the rights of those who sit on this side of the House. But one of the things which concerns me about the questions which were put on the order paper

by the hon. Member for Carleton and by one or two other Members is that they seemed to violate the rule that questions should seek information, not give it. It occurs to me that this is what was offensive about these questions. They asked whether such and such was true, and the such and such was spelled out in such detail that the answer was given by the very form of the question. However, this was dealt with at some length by the hon. Member for Port Arthur.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Would the hon. Member permit a question? I should like to ask the hon. Member through you, Sir, to tell me this: If the question was improper, should it not simply have been rejected? Should that not have been the procedure? The question having been accepted, was not the proper thing to do to complain about whether the rules were being enforced rather than to make charges against myself?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That, of course, is the whole issue between the hon. Member for Carleton and the hon. Member for Port Arthur, the issue which the hon. Member for Carleton would like to have discussed by the committee. I think he is perfectly justified in wanting to have it discussed. I did not consult my hon. friend from Port Arthur on this, but I think he would agree that the committee ought to be established so that the whole question might be aired, and he of course would be there to speak for himself.
Perhaps I might say another word about the form of these questions. I recognize that those who have to examine our questions before they are placed on the order paper have a tremendous job to do. Hundreds of questions are given to them. Many of us try to get information by drafting questions which seem to give information. I have had the experience of being told that my questions went too far in this direction. I do not think this is a point on which we should appear to be criticizing the officers who examine or vet these questions. The hon. Member is right. What is needed is not a revision of the rule. Indeed, I think it stands up fairly well. What is needed is a fresh look at it so that all of us, those who draft questions, those who answer them and those who are responsible for them in any way, will pay greater attention to the observance of the rule as it is.
I regret that fog around the Lakehead prevented the hon. Member for Port Arthur from getting here for this debate, and precisely because he is not here I hope the House
June 7, 1965

will let this motion pass so that this matter may go before a special committee and thus be further examined.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The notice of motion placed on the order paper by the hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) calls for the setting up of a special committee of not more than 15 Members to prepare a revision of standing order 39(1) dealing with the form and content of written questions on the order paper.
It seems to me that in the course of his remarks the hon. Member indicated that what prompted him to put this question on the order paper was the charge of collusion by the hon. Member for Port Arthur involving backbenchers of the Liberal party and Ministers. I think the hon. Member is a little over-sensitive about this particular incident. I was in the House when the alleged charge was made respecting this matter. I will not say a great deal about it because there was some evidence that it might have happened. Yet if one were to be broadminded and give the backbenchers of the Liberal party full credit for asking probing questions to get this kind of information, there would not necessarily have had to be collusion at all.
However, there are some problems respecting 39(1) which need to be looked into so far as I am concerned. If we look at the commentaries respecting 39(1) and citation 171 of Beauchesne to which the hon. Member for Carleton referred a number of times we shall find there are no less than 40 prohibitions stated on page 147 with application to the framing of questions which may properly be placed on the order paper. I agree to a large extent with the hon. Member for Carleton when he said that if all these prohibitions were invoked nothing more would be necessary to prevent the abuses which have become prevalent respecting questions placed on the order paper. But to say these provisions should be applied to every question sent to the officials of this House would be to oversimplify the problem. It is difficult to apply all these prohibitions to some of the questions put forward. It becomes a matter for discretion. Moreover, I am sure the Members who advance these questions do not always agree with the decisions taken by those who look them over.
But it seems to me there are sufficient prohibitions already. If there were some measure of agreement as to how these prohibitions could be applied to the questions, we might be able to make better progress. I am in some
Written Questions
agreement with the hon. Member that we ought to do something about applying the rules we now have. Perhaps the setting up of a committee would be the way to do this. The committee in turn could make recommendations about setting up another committee or a board or a group of men and women to look over these questions and determine whether they meet the qualifications necessary before they can be placed on the order paper.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I am not being over-critical of the officers of this House for allowing a certain number of questions to go through because I know it is possible to word questions cleverly in such a way that you get around certain of the prohibitions. But all this does is to result in a situation where a certain amount of discretion has to be used. I do not know whether you want to call this a screening committee or not, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me there needs to be this additional care taken in looking over the questions before they are put on the order paper.
Another thing that disturbs us is the type of question that has been getting on to the order paper. You can find all kinds of them on the order paper for today. They are simply questions where Members are using this means, this channel, to have somebody else do their research for them, because a great deal of the information being asked for in the questions that appear on the order paper today is already available to the hon. Members concerned if they would use the facilities of the Library of Parliament and make inquiries in other places where this information is readily available to them. By putting the question on the order paper responsibility is transferred to some departmental official to gather all these facts and figures together and present them in the kind of condensed way that the Member requires.
For example, Mr. Speaker, there are two questions on page 37 of today's order paper Nos. 40 and 42, dealing with the matter of capital punishment. Apparently the Member putting these questions on the order paper simply wants to have all these facts and figures available to him respecting how many death sentences have been commuted, how many persons were executed, how many incidents of bungled hangings appear in the records of Canadian executions, and so on. It does seem to me that this is the kind of question that is seeking information which

June 7. 1965
Written Questions
need not necessarily come from the Department because it is already available to Members from other sources. I am not singling out the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) because there are dozens more questions that do exactly the same thing, namely, require officials in departments to make long and detailed exercises in research to gather all this information together. I think this is something of a departure from the original intent and purpose of obtaining information by way of a question on the order paper.
There is another point here, Mr. Speaker. Paragraph (c) of citation 171 of Beauchesne says:
A question oral or written must not multiply, with slight variations, a similar question on the same point.
I have seen 20 questions on the order paper that were almost identical, using the same terminology with the exception of one or two words. So this seems to me to be a clear violation of citation 171 (c); yet they have been allowed on the order paper. I do not know whether the people who screen or look over the questions to decide their propriety have taken into consideration all these 40 prohibitions. At the same time I am not sure that they have had any clear directive from the Members of the House recently as to what they should accept.
I should like to impress upon Members of the House that this is perhaps one thing this committee could do, namely, give some instruction to the people involved as to the propriety of accepting questions that only represent transferring the responsibility for research or accepting a multiplicity of questions on really the same point. That is all we want to say on the matter at this time, Mr. Speaker. We generally agree with the hon. Member for Carleton that some additional instructions ought to be given with regard to allowing questions to be placed on the order paper. But so far as any tightening up of the rules respecting oral or written questions is concerned, it seems to me there are enough rules and prohibitions now for the system to be effective if the rules were applied with the kind of discretion with which most Members in this House would agree.


Mr. J. B. Slewari (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, if Standing Order 39, section 5, as proposed by the Government, passes this House, we can assume that more questions will find their way to the

order paper. I need not remind the House that this proposed Standing Order would limit the time to 30 minutes for questions asked when the orders of the day are called. The result would be the Members would turn increasingly to the order paper question for information, possibly for publicity, and perhaps even to annoy the Government from time to time.
I think we have to recognize that the popularity of the order paper question is now well established. In the last session of this Parliament the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) put down a question concerning the number of questions and motions for papers asked in this House since 1867. The Department of the Secretary of State fortunately was in a position to answer that question. The answer appears at page 12883 of Hansard for March 29, 1965. I wish to mention to you, Sir, that there have been only seven occasions prior to the second session of the twenty sixth Parliament when more than 1,000 order paper questions were asked. Back in 1907-08 1,234 questions were put on the order paper; then in 1912-13 and again in 1914 that number 1,000 was exceeded. It happened again during the second world war, in 1943-44; it happened again in 1947, in 1962-63 and in 1963. In 1963, 1,906 questions were put on the order paper.
In the last session of Parliament, the second session of the present Parliament, the alltime record of 1,906 questions was broken and 3,078 questions were put on the order paper. Of that total 2,932 were dealt with. I use the expression "dealt with" rather than "answered" because occasionally Members will withdraw questions or modify them in some way, so that you cannot say strictly that all 2,932 questions were answered. Of these, 315 were starred questions, and 306 of these were dealt with.
I think we can say that the number of questions on the order paper will increase even without the proposed rule change. This is why the motion of the hon. Member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) inevitably must attract our attention. He is proposing a special committee to deal with the form and content of these questions on the order paper.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
To illustrate that the first and second sessions of Parliament were not abnormal and did not suggest a tendency which is not to develop, let me mention that so far in this session, the third session of the twenty sixth
June 7, 1965

Parliament, 673 questions have been put down, with 208 still on the order paper to be answered. Eleven starred questions are on the order paper to be answered. So I think we can say that this session is following the pattern of the last three sessions. I think we have a trend here: The question on the order paper is becoming an important part of the parliamentary operation.
I think all of us must take these questions and answers given to them seriously. There is no doubt on either side of the House but that the Members of the House deserve and have a right to information concerning public business. Naturally, one's attitude as to the alacrity with which this information is brought forth varies according to where one sits in the House. I suspect that the greatest amount of impatience is concentrated in the Members on the front bench opposite. But then it is not confined to them; I am sure there are backbenchers on the Government side of the House who wonder why Ministers do not give answers at once. I am sure that the people who are most patient of all are the Ministers themselves.
This impatience was demonstrated the other day in the House when the hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) brought up this matter in a very quiet and reasonable way. As reported at pages 1348 and 1349 of Hansard he referred to this matter. He was followed up by Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), who referred to the same matter, as reported at pages 1514 and 1515. I think the importance of the question we are debating today can best be underlined by reading a sentence or two of what was said by the right hon. gentleman at that time. On May 20, 1965, he said:
And so on we could go. Questions have been on the order paper since April 5, April 6 and April 7. If the Government want to help the private Member and are so solicitous to see private Members have every assistance, then why are these questions not answered? As far as starred questions are concerned, there is a philosophy developing that they too can be answered whenever the Government feels like it.
In the United Kingdom all questions are answered within three days. Let us establish this practice in order to help the private Members and we will be able to reduce very greatly the number of questions asked on the orders of the day.
The right hon. gentleman is proposing that if our procedures and our practice in regard to order paper questions could be improved, the number of questions asked immediately before turning to the main business of the day, the orders of the day, would be reduced.
Written Questions
As an illustration of how skeptical one must be with regard to one's views on this whole question, and to suggest how difficult would be the problem of this committee if it were established, I want to mention to you, Sir, that the experience of the right hon. gentleman when he was Prime Minister was not entirely dissimilar to that of those who now sit on the other side of the House. For example, if we examine the order paper for May 20 in the years in which the right hon. gentleman was Prime Minister we will find there was a large number of written questions with dates earlier than April 5. For example, on May 20, 1959 we find questions on the order paper dating back as far as January 27, 1959. I just mention this not to imply that the right hon. gentleman is inordinately impatient; I mention it merely to suggest that here we have a complicated procedure, one which, under Governments of various political persuasions, does cause difficulties.
There were two questions on the order paper for May 20, 1959 dated February 4, one dated February 11, three dated February 20, three dated February 24, two dated February 25, and so on. If we turn to the order paper for May 20, 1960, we will find a similar condition, questions dating back to March 17, March 18, April 1, and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. Member permit a question? I am sure my hon. friends to the right will be surprised at my rising to defend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), but in all fairness should it not be pointed out that in this session there could not be any questions on the order paper dated earlier than April 5 because that is the day the session started? I know the situation is similar under either party, but I think the answer should be completely fair.


John B. Stewart: Yes, that is quite right. It is quite obvious that questions could not have gone back beyond April 5 this session, but presumably the right hon. gentleman would not have raised the point had he not thought, a certain number of weeks having elapsed, that that number of weeks was too great. When I find questions going back to January when he himself was Prime Minister, I presume my point is made.
Perhaps part of the difficulty in the thinking of the right hon. gentleman concerns some misunderstanding about the difference between the procedure here and at Westminster. Hon. Members will have noted that the right hon. gentleman said that in the

June 7, 1965
Written Questions
United Kingdom all questions are answered within three days. Of course, that is not accurate. At Westminster they are having difficulty also with their questions. They have appointed a select committee on procedure, one of the tasks of which is to look at the "question time".
I have before me an editorial from the Times for April 27, 1965 and I should like to read a few sentences from it:
The statistics put before the Select Committee on Procedure in relation to question time in the Commons are worth studying. They show, among other things, that the number of questions reached for oral answer has steadily declined since 1937, and, on the evidence of the Speaker, now averages between 30 and 40 daily.
The editorial goes on to explain how unsatisfactory the situation must be for the ordinary Member seeking information.
The Select Committee itself reports that they have received evidence of the increase in the number of questions over recent years. They observe that the number of questions standing in the order book for oral answer on a day in March, 1963, was 551, and that on an equivalent day in 1965 the number was 1,149. We know their procedure is very different. They do not have a daily quiz session as we do here. No questions can be put to a Minister without notice, and almost all those notices appear on the order paper. Private notice of questions is extraordinary and rare.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Supplementaries are without notice.


John B. Stewart: Supplementary questions are asked, indeed, without notice, but even in this regard restrictions are now being proposed.
The point I am making, Sir, is that then-situation in the United Kingdom is really worse than ours as evidenced by their complaint in respect of the kind of question that is here asked on Orders of the Day, the kind of question which the right hon. gentleman asks so assiduously and which the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre asks so regularly. That is, they complain in the U.K. that "Orders of the Day" questions put down on the order paper stay there for weeks. I am sure neither of those two Members of this House would tolerate that situation here for long if they could do anything about it.
It is not sufficient to suggest that Westminster is a bed of roses for the Opposition Members and that here they have a much more difficult time. It has been said that

perhaps the solution to our problem lies in an enforcement of the rules we now have. Very well, let us attempt to do that; however, it is my feeling that this will not provide a complete answer.
There are one or two points I should like to stress. One of our problems here relates to the distinction we make, a distinction which is not made in the United Kingdom, between written questions placed on the order paper and questions asked when orders of the day are called. Questions placed on the order paper, whether starred or not, tend to be regarded here, if you will, as second class questions. They are not given the prominence in the press or in the House given to questions asked on orders of the day. As a consequence of this, some questions that are not strictly in order on occasion get on the order paper and in some cases less care is taken in preparing the answers. If some method could be devised to give greater prominence to those questions and answers, I believe an improvement in our procedure would follow.
I have noticed in dealing with some of these questions that one of the things which causes delay is that hon. Members sometimes fire a blunderbuss rather than a rifle. If one looks at the questions placed on the order paper in the United Kingdom, he will find they are aimed directly at a particular Department or Minister, asking the Minister of Works or the Home Secretary, for example, about such and such or to explain this or that. Here we find questions directed to the Minister of Public Works, for example, or any other official of the Government, to explain such and such. This requires that a great number of agencies be circularized in order to ascertain whether any information is available. One cannot go to one specified Department or one Minister to obtain the information, rather, one has to cover the whole spectrum of all the departments and agencies comprised in a very involved apparatus of Government.
One way Members could speed things up is by directing their questions to particular Ministers and in a sense putting them on the spot so they cannot say if they wished to do so-this is unlikely with the present Government-that other people will be slow in providing answers so I can take my time.
The rules provide that where a question involves several Departments, it may be made an Order for Return. As an example of the type I have in mind I should like to refer
June 7. 1965	COMMONS
to the question that stands on today's order paper as No. 4. If advantage had been taken of the option available under the rules in relation to such questions and a return had been ordered, the hon. gentleman asking this question probably would not get his answer as quickly as he will under the practice which allows this question to continue on the order paper.
It is possible that Governments-not this one-would follow the rule, out of sight, out of mind. For that reason I believe that if an hon. Member really wants an answer to a question, it is better for it to remain on the order paper as a question rather than to be made an order for return. I may be wrong in this regard, and perhaps the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre will correct me. He might even suggest that I am not being prudent by suggesting that questions should not be hidden away. One of the reasons some questions still remain on the order paper is that they have not been made Orders for Returns because-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. Member permit a question at this point? If such a question was made an Order for Return, would that be an indication that the Government intended to answer the question rather than allow it to remain week after week unanswered?


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is seeing things as obvious that are not at all obvious. That question No. 4 will definitely be answered, and answered very shortly. In relation to that question, costs must be calculated and as soon as that calculation has been made an answer will be provided.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. Member's time has expired. While I am very interested in his remarks, I am also interested in this resolution coming to a vote and I see that it is almost six o'clock.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, if I have unanimous consent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am instructed that the hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion moved by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis) reads as follows:
That a special committee of not more than 15 members of this House be established to prepare
DEBATES	2065
House of Commons Procedures a revision of Standing Order 39 (1) dealing with the form and content of written questions for the Order Paper of the House of Commons.
I feel that, in moving that motion, the hon. member for Carleton wanted to raise a very urgent matter which must be settled, but some other day since it is six o'clock-



Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional Standing Order 39A, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock p.m. this day are as follows: (1) The hon. Member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Basford)-Air Transport-Canadian Pacific Airlines-assurance respecting assigned area; (2) the hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams)-Labour Relations-Maritime Union Trustees-reappearance before committee; (3) the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Highway Safety-request for use of approved safety devices.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Bell:
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, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 30 days of the time of the House
2086	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures 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 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

DEBATES	June 7. 1965
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.
(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.
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.
David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I had made some comments about certain generalities which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had set forth at the beginning of his speech during the introduction of these rule changes. I had stated my agreement with certain of these generalities, but then only to a certain extent. Continuing with the remarks of the Prime Minister, I may say that I take courage from his academic summation on the essence of democracy. However, I know, as most of us here know, that scholarly learning and parliamentary practice are poles apart. I should like to quote from the Prime Minister's remarks as they appear at page 1475 of Hansard where he states:
The essence of democracy is that the defence and the criticism are equally important. They are together the process by which guidance and warning is given to the direction of our national affairs. The House of Commons is where the primary defence of Government policy must be made, and where the primary attack on Government policy should be made.
Having said that, I felt that he could have gone a step further. He named two facets of this policy and he could well have set forth a third. In other words, he states here that the
Government and the Opposition will fail if the
June 7, 1965

majority-I am using part of his words- rides roughshod over the strong, sincerely held views of a minority. He says, too, it will fail if the Opposition, that is, the minority, uses obstructionist tactics.
As I have said, in my opinion there is a third facet. A Government may, with the best of intention but the poorest of judgment, produce legislation which patently or on examination is shown to be faulty. It may be that the Government tends toward bureaucratic decisions which are reflected in its legislation. In any event, just as has happened over the last few years, over a period of time a Government itself becomes suspect. I do not feel the present Government has recognized its faults. It says, in effect that all of its legislation is good. The third facet, therefore, is that the Government may think itself infallible, that all its legislation is good and that those who oppose it are obstructionists.
Let us suppose, for instance, that at the present time we have such a Government in Canada. What does the imposition of a time limit on debate mean? Once a time limit has been set, what is the result? It gives the colour of right to the autocratic bureaucracy. It allows the Government to wield a big stick. It allows certain threats, which seems an extraordinary thing. A threat was shown to me today which I should like to point out to the Government. I have here a copy of the Toronto Star and on the front page I see a rather fine picture of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith). The subheading under the picture says, "Election Possible". If they only used black print, everything would be all right. I trust that the President of the Privy Council had this interview and that it is not fictitious. I do not believe in those things. I take it that the President of the Privy Council did have this interview and that it was of such importance his picture, plus the red print, appeared.


An hon. Member:: Just a red herring.


David Vaughan Pugh: I do not believe it is a red herring. I am going to acquaint the House further with the seriousness of what has been said, what has been quoted from the President of the Privy Council. I am glad to see him in his seat. This is a form of blackmail, incidentally. The article is headed in red, "Mc-Ilraith's Warning". I point out that I believe he is the President of the Privy Council. In somewhat heavier red print, a true Liberal colour, I read:
2067
House of Commons Procedures
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Could be forced to an election.
If we have a limitation on debate, if we allow the Government to say to all the Opposition parties, "If you do not comply with what we say we will wield the big stick," then we will be putting the Government into a position where it can say to us, "Look out, we will blackmail you into this." The proof of that is in this newspaper.
The article goes on to say:
Another "flag debate" stretching Parliament's session into a long, hot summer, was predicted this week end by government House Leader George Mcllraith over the government's proposal to streamline House rules.
Conservative Leader John Diefenbaker likened the proposal to change the rules to the Liberal use of closure in the 1956 pipe line debate. The P.C.'s say it could reduce backbenchers to seldom-heard nonentities.
The government proposes to limit debates by having an all-party House business committee allocate talking time on major legislation. If the committee fails to agree, the government could impose its own time limit, under the proposal.
Today, the House has before it an amendment by Tom Bell (P.C., Saint John-Albert), requiring a 60 per cent Commons majority to put a time limit on debates. Under the present rules there is no time limit on debates.
If it is defeated, Mr. Mcllraith suspects ''more amendments from the Conservatives." He said: "The flag technique all over again."...
Mr. Mcllraith told the Star if there were an election it would be because of "circumstances, not choice."
"1 have always taken the view there is no election in the immediate offing. But the situation of a minority government is such that one could always be forced upon us."
The President of the Privy Council went on to say many more things, but the point I wish to stress is that we are talking against limitation of time and we are doing so for definite reasons. Even half way through this debate the President of the Privy Council has indicated exactly what the Liberal Government will do on occasions when it feels its legislation is being blocked in any way, shape or form. This form of blackmail should receive the strongest censure from all hon. Members, particularly all Opposition Members.
I understand from the tiny voices of some Liberal backbenchers that they are not in complete agreement with the Government's proposal. It will be more than interesting to see how they vote. I can tell them this, "Look out, boys; there is a strong chance of each and every one of you being in the Opposition, and at that time don't forget these rules".
June 7, 1965

House of Commons Procedures


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Nesbiil:: Some of them won't be there at all.


David Vaughan Pugh: I am glad of that interjection, but for each and every one of them who might be re-elected I point out that these beautiful restrictions cannot but redound to their consternation. It would be interesting to see those hon. Members in Opposition just as I saw Liberals in Opposition between 1958 and 1962, and in particular those four horsemen of that era. They did not break the rules; they just went on talking even when Mr. Speaker was on his feet. They got their point across and, believe me, the large majority which we Conservatives had at that time showed the utmost in forbearance.
This picture of the President of the Privy Council on the front page of the Star is not a bad one.


George James McIlraith: Send it over.


David Vaughan Pugh: I suggest he buy all the remaining copies of today's issue of the Toronto Star that he can find and take what he said to heart. If he feels what he has said is anything less than blackmail, then I ask him to remember the flag debate when this House was blackmailed through a long, hot summer to no effect whatever.
By accepting this limitation of time on debate we will make ourselves subject to an autocratic bureaucracy. There is concrete, simple evidence of that written in red, the Liberal colour, and in black and white in today's Star, and I say it will be a black day if this legislation goes through in its present form. It will allow these political autocrats to say, "We are not cutting debate. Oh, no, we are not bringing in closure. We are not using a guillotine, not a bit of it. We are only following the rules of the House." I ask Liberal backbenchers and all Members of the Opposition to wake up. Do not let this thing go through in its present form. This is wrong and should not be accepted by the House.
Going back to a few words which the Prime Minister used in his initial speech and turning them a little inside out-he did not say this exactly-I say to him that this is a first step in legal tyranny and intolerance the result of which can only be friction and fury on the part of the Opposition. I believe this; otherwise I would not be saying it. We have it in red, black and white in today's Star.

In this debate on time limitation I think it is wise for us to examine some legislation passed in our recent Parliamentary history which bears out what I am saying. An example is the flag debate. In it the Government said "Look, we have got a mandate to bring in a brand new flag." I do not agree with that statement, but the House sweated for 22 days denying that we should have a flag such as was suggested by the Government on a take it or leave it basis when they said: "You take our flag with two blue bars and three maple leaves and if you do not take it, then, by George, you are going to stay here all summer".
We had that threat just as we have a threat by the President of the Privy Council in today's Toronto Star. If we had had limitation of debate during the flag discussion I point out we would not have the proud flag that is flying over the Parliament buildings today. We would have one with two blue bars and three maple leaves-


An hon. Member:: Order.


David Vaughan Pugh: Order, my neck-the personal choice of the bureaucrats on the opposite side who said "take it or leave it".
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Let me deal with the pension plan and what would have happened if we had had limitation of debate during discussion of it. The hon. lady would have had that Government in the worst possible mess this country has ever seen, for she denied the practical consensus of actuaries and economists throughout Canada. By George, I want to point out- here I am, using the first name of the President of the Privy Council, which shows how much the article in the Star has affected me- that had the plan gone through in its original form Canada would have suffered in dollars and cents; it would have suffered in its provincial relationships and it would have suffered from a lousy pension plan. I use the word "lousy" because Churchill used it on a number of occasions. It was only because a united Opposition stood to its guns that the Government was forced to retreat and start again. I could think of many other instances but I will not mention them at this time because attention has been called to them by other Members.
I was interested in the way in which the hon. Member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) had to light in the House the other day to put his views forward. They were most telling. This Government has a history of leaping before
June 7, 1965

it looks. We all remember what happened during those 60 days of decision. How they can sit there and smile now, I do not know.
Why does the Opposition press this issue so strongly? It is because two years have shown the present Government to be most fallible. Thus, no matter what measures it puts forward the Opposition must look at them most carefully to save Canada from falling a victim to the Government's stupidity. The Government has proved itself to be accident prone. The proof is to be found in the legislative record. In these circumstances the Opposition has a special duty to look closely at every item of legislation. All the many hours we have spent-I was going to say "wasted" but that is the wrong word-debating Government business in this House have been well spent. Why has there been this strong and persistent Opposition to the Government? It may, of course, be because we are "agin" them. It may be that we are expressing opinions which are strongly voiced in certain areas of Canada. Many matters have come forward. I remember the vicious fights that arose over the 11 per cent sales tax. The Opposition fought and the Government retreated.
We reminded the Government of the promise they had made to increase the old age pension by $10. Leaders of the party opposite backtracked. Then, I suppose, their public relations men told them: You had better pay that $10. And who paid that $10 in the end? Look at your last income tax return. Ask your accountant if there has been an increase in taxes. You will find that you paid it.
The Prime Minister said the Government should be prepared to bring this measure before the House and stand or fall by it. But it appears to me that once again the brass and the grass are too far apart. I quote from the Globe and Mail an article which appeared on April 7, 1965, written by Fraser Robertson. This screed is very pertinent to the present debate. I do not have time to read it all but this is what it says in part:
They may even be correct and hopeful of proving that the Government is foolishly idealistic in a competitive world and in respect to an economy that is as open to world influences as is the Canadian economy. But businessmen should ask themselves how far they have got in recent years by putting before Governments what they believed to be unassailable arguments based upon knowledge and experience.
The article goes on to say they got nowhere. The pension plan and a few other measures are mentioned. When one considers this record
22620-132J
House of Commons Procedures I begin to wonder whether the Government pays any attention to what goes on outside its ivory tower or listens to anyone except its top level advisers. I wonder whether they pay attention to anyone else in Canada at all.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Just Tom Kent.


David Vaughan Pugh: He is a high-salaried man and he ought to know. But the Government has not listened to the businessmen at all. It has not listened to the economists. The Prime Minister has expressed solicitude for the backbenchers. If these proposals come into effect, the bell will toll and toll for them. In other words, all Members will become trained seals. If we say these proposals amount to interference with the rights of individual Members we must ask ourselves: What is interference? A definition must be given. I say that if a backbencher cannot tell his story at all times, expressing the feelings of his constituents as well as his own reaction to legislation, his liberty in this House is being interfered with.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Nugent) made a good speech this afternoon. He pointed out that the Opposition must have certain rights in this House and that one of the most important of these and one which must be respected is the right to bring down the Government. He mentioned the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and one or two others who were in Opposition from 1957 on. This is the attitude they took and these are the speeches they made. Was there any limitation on talk when the present Government was in Opposition? I would point out that in the spring of 1962, 27 J days were taken on supplementary estimates alone. Twenty-seven and a half days, Mr. Speaker-count them up; it is a long story. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) was here then and you can look at the record of how many times he and one or two others stood on their feet and asked questions of the Minister of National Defence, and so on. They said, "I just don't understand what you are trying to tell me", etc. It was a horrible mess. You were here, Mr. Speaker, you know precisely what I am driving at.
With regard to this backbencher business I would like to indicate what would happen if we had a time limit of 30 minutes for the question period on orders of the day. There is no question about exactly what would happen. Today we had a very concrete example.
June 7, 1965

House of Commons Procedures The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) was asked a question and almost 15 minutes were used up by the various leaders asking questions. Where does the backbencher come in with pertinent questions?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Fifteen minutes was used up by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Churchill), who pointed out that closure, the guillotine, closure by compartment or time limitation in debate are, according to the best authorities in Britain, one and the same thing. Closure, the guillotine, compartment-ing or setting a specific time on certain debates are one and the same thing. These terms in the view of the most eminent authority in Britain are synonymous.


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, if we have a limitation, should we not have a limitation on the answers given by Ministers? It is not that I think we could ever close off the Secretary of State for External Affairs; it would indeed be a strange thing for him to rise and make a concise statement in one minute.


An hon. Member:: Without adjectives.


David Vaughan Pugh: Without adjectives. There is one other point in this connection, Mr. Speaker. If the Government did put on a time limit there is no question in my mind that, just as was done in the flag debate, the moment closure was brought in the Government Members would get up and take equal time with the rest of the House. As Chairman of the Flag Committee at that time, Mr. Speaker, you will know that what I am saying is precisely correct. The Government sat silent, the backbenchers hardly making a speech in all that time; in fact they pointed with pride to the fact that they had not made a speech. Then the moment closure was put on they rose and mealymouthed their way through, not saying anything but taking up the time of the House. This is something against which we must guard.
In general-I am just finishing, Mr. Speaker-and coming back to the Prime Minister's statement that such a change would not be a departure from the function of democracy as it is and that it would go some way toward reconciling the right of discussion with the right of decision, may I say at once that I do not believe again that any time limit is necessary or desirable. However, if the Government is going to force on us a time limit, I find myself in the position of having to vote for the amendment so that a decision of at least 60 per cent of all Members present when the vote is taken will be necessary to put this rather iniquitous legislation into effect.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I have made myself reasonably clear and have expressed my feelings in a way that the House will understand. I wish to say in conclusion that this rather horrible example of blackmail put forward by the President of the Privy Council may have been only innocent kite flying on the parliamentary green. But I cannot help but think, knowing the hon. Member well, that every word he said as quoted in the Toronto Star of today's date means one thing and one thing only, that this Government is not impressed by any words of the backbenchers in exactly the same manner that they are not impressed, with their bureaucratic attitude, by one word that is said by any businessman, economist or what-have-you throughout the whole of this great Dominion of Canada.


Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am impelled to enter this debate not because I can qualify as an expert on the rules of the House but because from what I have seen here I have come to understand, and find myself in the position of not being able to believe, if I may borrow a phrase, that rather famous quotation, "The silence of pure innocence persuades when speaking fails". The innocence of our objective and purpose has obviously failed up to this point and therefore a little more speech is obviously necessary. It may go on for some time because, like my hon. friend and colleague from Okanagan Boundary, I was surprised by the headline in the Toronto Star of today, the one printed in red, the red herring red, this admission of failure of policy, the substitution of blackmail for argument. Every time the Opposition has put up any opposition in this House in recent years and the Government has found itself not getting its own way it has said to the Opposition, "Quieten down. Be good. Don't oppose or you will have an election". But the Government has said it too often.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It is closure.


David Vaughan Pugh: Yes, it is closure. An excellent speech was made Friday by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: You are just a bunch of blackmailers over there, that's all.

June 7, 1965	COMMONS


Stuart A. Fleming: Hon. Members opposite laugh. I wondered if they would laugh. I suggest they have been too often to the well with that pitcher. "Wolf" has been cried once too often. If that is what you want, if that is what the President of the Privy Council wants, do not wait till Friday, as we hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) wants to do. Do it tonight. We will take our chances on the validity of our position in this argument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stuart A. Fleming: So I
say to you, "Don't laugh too soon". I of course find myself in an unusual position in this debate, Mr. Speaker, because I am perhaps the only Member present who knows with certainty that he will not be back. Therefore I am looking at this debate and the suggested revisions of this rule from a perspective most hon. Members cannot have. Although I tend to be somewhat combative at the moment, Mr. Speaker, it is because I seem to be encouraged to be that way by my hon. friends opposite. I can see this thing from a slightly different perspective. I know that as I will soon be returning to the life of a private citizen I will want to spend a good deal of my time listening to and endeavouring to secure the greatest possible understanding of the debates that take place on the floor of this House. Having been here it will be impossible to try to separate myself from an interest in what this House does and how it functions. There are bound to be issues develop over the next few years, as issues have developed over recent years, and it will be most important to me and to every other private citizen in the community that searching debate should take place when a genuine conflict of views develops between the Government and the Opposition.
It would be very unsatisfactory to me and to any private citizen that debate should be choked off just at a time when the public was beginning really to appreciate the inadequacy in the presentations of the Government. The only means by which I or any other private citizen could find it possible to understand what was happening in this place and what the implications of legislation were would be by the House having a debate that went on long enough to be thoroughly assessed, fully reported and then completely understood.
DEBATES	2071
House of Commons Procedures
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
If by this measure the suggested paragraph (6) is allowed to stand as it does, then there may be, though God forbid there should be, a time in our history when a Government would be sufficiently arrogant, strong and powerful to decide that it was time to choke off examination by Opposition members. So that the Government, by asking the House to accept this paragraph unamended, is accepting the risk that at some point, even perhaps in its own political history or in the political history of another party, this provision may be abused to the detriment of the rights of the people of Canada and the Members of this House. That is what I believe we are contending with now.
We do not necessarily suspect the intentions of this Government. Personally, I do not suspect the intentions of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) who is presiding over the presentation of these resolutions. But I do suggest that there has been insufficient examination of the possible misuse of this device.
Perhaps I should just qualify what I have said as a consequence of having read the report in the Toronto Daily Star, to which the hon. Member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) and I referred earlier and which alludes to "more amendments from the Conservatives-the flag technique all over again", as if there were some wrong being done on this side of the House. I ask what is being done which is wrong?


Mr. Byrne:: Filibuster.


Stuart A. Fleming: I hear an hon. Member say "filibuster". After we have carefully considered these resolutions and discovered weaknesses in them, the Government, trying to use its governmental power, is endeavouring to silence the voice of the House of Commons through this proposal.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: They do not believe in democracy at all.


Stuart A. Fleming: How
can we fulfil our functions as an Opposition if we sit quietly by and say that this is fine, that we have nothing to say anyway? No member of this House would agree to this, No Member on the Government side would condone it either. I once sat on the Government side of the House. I now sit on the Opposition side, but I would warn hon. Members opposite that they too may find their positions reversed in due course. They must
June 7, 1965

House of Commons Procedures remember the situation they will find themselves in if they have not the right to speak, that is, if they succeed in being re-elected to this House.
I submit there must be some safeguards for the Opposition, some understanding of the total implications of this resolution upon our rules. We on this side of the House have to be satisfied in this respect. Yet the man leading the debate for the Government says, by implication, that by bringing in amendments and examining this resolution we are doing something not within the rules as Members of the Opposition. This seems to engender laughter on the other side of the House. If Government Members find it amusing then perhaps in due course they will find it necessary to answer for their amusement and lack of comprehension to the final arbiters of the positions of us all, namely, the people of Canada.
There is another side of the case which should be examined. There are many hon. Members in this House, and I am one of them, who in the years they have been here have not presumed too greatly on either the time or the temper of the House but have spoken only when they felt they must participate in debate. Many Members on this side of the House have exercised personal discipline over themselves and have willingly stayed out of debates or not sought participation in debates because they felt that their colleagues were expressing the case for their party or for themselves as well as they could. A Member who tends toward this practice is likely to find that when major debates come up he is not considered one of the star performers, not one of the Members first called upon to speak, and thus he finds it difficult to secure the floor.
This is important because there may well come a time when a Member who has deliberately chosen not to participate in every debate and talk on every subject suddenly finds, as an individual member of the House, that he is confronted with the necessity to speak if he is to fulfil his function here. But if the time for debate is limited in the way suggested by the Government in its proposal, then he will probably never get the floor. First of all will come the leaders of the parties, which of course is proper, and then the various recognized experts on the subject, as is also proper. But as it is equally proper and necessary when the backbencher suddenly finds his own interest, either political or personal, involved, that he have the right

of access to the floor in order to express the position which he feels he has been sent here to express. Consequently, by a limited debate you garrote the very man whom every party needs most, the man who occupies the backbench, because there is no Government without a very substantial backbench and there is no backbench if you deny to such Members the right to speak in this place on matters of the greatest consequence to them and their constituents.
I cannot approach this question with pretentions to being an expert on the rules of this place and I do not do so. I simply suggest to every hon. Member here that it is of some consequence to each of us as individuals, not as members of one political group or another. It is of substantial consequence to us as individual members to understand what, by acting on paragraph (6) unamended, we may be doing not only to ourselves but to all hon. Members who ever sit in this House.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the Members of this House who does not feel impelled to rise in his place on every issue that comes before the House I should like to express a few thoughts on this particular measure. I have sat here for the past number of years watching the proceedings of the House and have developed a substantial respect for the institutions of Parliament and the methods by which the business of this House is conducted. I should like to be assured that the institutions which we have known will continue to function to the benefit of this country.
I sometimes wonder what sort of motivation compelled the Government to bring in these proposals at the particular time they did and in the particular manner they have. I cannot help but wonder whether this was not the result of another one of the surveys they conducted throughout the country in which they discovered, as most hon. Members of the House realize, that the Canadian people have become somewhat impatient and dissatisfied with Parliament. I suppose they felt as they felt when they took the survey on the nuclear issue in 1963, that this would be a splendid issue on which to go to the country. They know that public opinion in general is desirous of achieving some degree of efficiency in this place while at the same time not fully understanding the real purpose of Parliament and without really fully understanding why Parliament exists in the first place. I think perhaps at this time it might be well to quote from an editorial that appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of May
June 7, 1965

12, 1964, which in my opinion puts into proper perspective some of the views held by various people about Parliament. The editorial states:
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Prime Minister Pearson has referred to the "negative criticism in Canada today about the decline of our parliamentary institutions." Mr. Pearson did well to challenge this negative criticism. It's a pity that he did not single out where most of this criticism is coming from.
In his trenchant way. Sir Winston Churchill commented that the democratic system of government was the worst that could be imagined-except all other systems. Some of the commentators who leer out of TV sets these days and complain about "political partisanship" and "time wasting" in Parliament seem to have lost sight of this important fact of political life. So have the pundits who pompously complain that the present session has passed few pieces of legislation.
These commentators and pundits are frankly bored by proceedings in the House of Commons. They demand less talk and more action to liven things up. They want MPs to cease what they call "partisan bickering" and get on with the "essential business" of the country.
This attitude seems to be based on queer notions. In the first place, proceedings in Parliament were never intended to entertain those perched in the galleries around the Commons chamber. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights or the constitution that says MPs are obliged to amuse those who saunter in and out of the spectators' galleries. Nor is there any obligation to keep Hansard reporters and other recording artists in stitches.
Members of Parliament are in Ottawa for one main purpose-to talk and to express their opinions. This is the essence of the parliamentary system.
What the commentators sneeringly refer to as "partisan bickering" is the stuff of which the democratic process is made. MPs are in Ottawa to debate public questions. If Canadian voters wanted to abolish partisan bickering, they could do so by electing MPs of one political party. This would give us a one-party state without political bickering and also without political freedom. But a majority of Canadians would rather not live in a facist state even though it might result in less "time-wasting" in the Commons.
This does not mean that MPs should not be criticized on specific issues. This kind of criticism is also an essential part of the democratic process. Nor does it mean that the rules of procedure should not be streamlined to enable Parliament to deal more efficiently with the many issues that arise in the modern state.
But the sweeping, carping complaints directed at Parliament in recent months cannot be classed as constructive. Much of this criticism is not directed at the shortcomings of the government or of the opposition or of individual MPs. It comes dangerously near to being directed at the institution of Parliament itself. The danger of this kind of criticism is that it may cause some people to forget Sir Winston's admonition-the parliamentary system is the worst kind of government, except all others.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how this attitude has developed in the minds of Canadians and why suddenly, since this Government
House of Commons Procedures assumed power, the institution of Parliament itself has become the subject of criticism. I think there is a very simple answer to this question. The Government has floundered because of an incapability to manage the affairs of the country, much less the business of this House. It has sought a whipping boy to take the blame for its inability to carry out the business of this country efficiently. There has been a need for something at which to direct criticism and the Government has selected this parliamentary institution.
Of course, the members of the press gallery who record the events of this place have become bored with various debates as they have progressed, and a prime example of this is their attitude as reflected in the press during the flag debate. I suppose in many cases many of them had to dig elsewhere for stories than this House and that laborious task tended to make them critical of this institution.
It. is a very dangerous state of affairs when we find Canadians throughout the country levelling criticisms at this democratic institution which follows the parliamentary process, as well as the Government. Very often we hear even in this place comments about partisan bickering and politics being played in the House. I am led to believe that some people want to take politics out of politics. I am not one of those who are afraid of so-called partisan bickering in the House of Commons because, as the editorial I quoted points out, this is the essence of Parliament. I am not suggesting that there cannot be an attitude of responsibility on the part, of the Members of this place and I do not mean that criticism must always be carried to dangerous extremes, but, I do suggest that when an important issue is before this place there should be no limitation on the length of time that Members of Opposition parties should take to debate a measure.
In a sense, Mr. Speaker, politicians are gladiators equipped with words as weapons. That is the only weapon a politician is equipped with to fight something he sincerely opposes. If that weapon is to be removed the Members of the Opposition will become nothing more than rubber stamps. If time limits are successfully placed on debates, then all the Government will be required to do, even when introducing unpopular legislation, is to wait out the storm.
Earlier this evening my friend, the hon. Member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh), pointed out what might have happened during
June 7, 1965

House of Commons Procedures the first stages of the Canada pension legislation had a time limit been in effect at that time. There are many other examples of legislation introduced by the Government which, if debate had been limited, might have gone through in their original state but which the Government had to amend or withdraw. This has been a general benefit to Canada and it seems to me that this is the way the situation should be.
There appears to be an attitude on the part of Government, as indicated by the speeches of hon. Members on that side of the House, that it is essential to get out of this place at the earliest possible moment, in the shortest possible time, in order to return to constituencies. I do not know about the position of most Members in this regard but I am well aware that my constituents would ask me were I to adopt that attitude: What is the great rush to get away from Ottawa? You are being paid to be there and if it takes a long time to carry out the business of Parliament effectively and efficiently, then by all means stay there.
I do not think for one moment that the people of Canada are concerned in any way if a measure requires one, two or three weeks to debate so long as the debate produces results beneficial to the nation as a whole. I have often read editorials appearing in responsible newspapers which have suggested that the Government of Canada in view of the fact that it is the biggest in this nation, ought to be run like an efficient business. Well, Mr. Speaker, this would effectively eliminate the Opposition. The board of directors' approach to Parliament would simply mean that Canadians would not be represented, the feelings of Canadians would not be taken into consideration and the effects of legislation passed in this House would be given no consideration. It would mean that we would have a totalitarian form of Government.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Surely the criterion for an effective Parliament is not simply greater efficiency. If greater efficiency is all we seek in this place, then surely we can take an example from the Russians and their form of Government because it is without a doubt the most efficient form of Government in the world. It seems to me that a democratic Government carries with it a far greater responsibility and far greater implications. It seems to me that the purpose of this place is to criticize when we feel that criticism is necessary, to oppose

when we feel opposition is beneficial and, yes, filibuster-I will even use that word-if it becomes necessary. As I said earlier, the only weapon a politician has is the weapon of words.
I heard some comment made to the effect that a time limit on debate would eliminate a lot of stupid speeches. I would not want to suggest it because 1 am afraid it would preclude a great many Members on the opposite side of the House from speaking. A time limit placed on debate would have far more serious consequencies because it would prevent the varied expressions of opinion that come from Members in this House. I have a feeling that regardless of how stupid a speech may be characterized or how silly the remarks may be, surely those remarks reflect the opinion of some Canadians somewhere in this country. If they reflect the opinion of even one Canadian, it means we have lessened his tendency toward subversive activity because then he can say that somebody in this place is saying the things he wants to hear, regardless of what they mean.


An hon. Member:: Even Joe Greene?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: My hon. friend suggests even the hon. Member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) must have some supporters for the speeches he makes in this House. I am willing to admit that this is a possibility.
The question of a time limit on debate has been mentioned earlier but I think it is worth dealing with again. We have had a perfect example during the Wednesday question period of what would happen if there was a time limit. It seems to me that the Government saves up for that particular day all the questions they have been unable to answer during the course of the week and then comes into the House armed with lengthy replies to questions and takes up all the time thus preventing Members of the House from asking further questions. I am not afraid of a limit on the question period provided there is one day a week in which there is no limit on the time for the question period. I believe that Wednesday, which is a short day, would be a fairly good day to allow the question period to run right through to five o'clock, private Members' hour.
We are somewhat concerned about the attitude that this Government has taken over certain measures. I want to refer to comments that were made by Members of the Government during the twenty fourth Parliament when we had a rather large number
June 7, 1965

of Members on the other side of the House and we were the Government. I recall the oft-repeated statement made by Liberal campaigners during the 1962 election to the effect that if they had 208 Members on that side of the House they could do anything; they could pass any amount of legislation. Might is right in their opinion. It is this attitude, this state of mind, on the part of the Liberals that causes me to worry about their intentions on this particular issue. Heaven help us if they ever get a sufficient majority that would enable them to carry through legislation. Their attitude seems to be that if they can carry it all they have to do is hide behind the rule they are proposing to make now and wait out the storm and they will be able to pass any legislation in this Parliament.
We have seen something of their attitude, Mr. Speaker. I saw it in the flag debate. We hear talk about a republic from some hon. Members opposite. We have noted their recent move in respect of the Coat of Arms of Canada, the constant sniping at our established institutions and the statements and resolutions passed by the young Liberals of this country. All of these things cause us to wonder what is the motivation behind this proposed change. To be quite frank with you, Mr. Speaker, I suspect their motives. If their past actions are any indication of what they propose to do, then we have every cause in the world to be alarmed and we most certainly have every justification for opposing this legislation for all we are worth.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, in rising at this time to join this debate may I say I did not want to deprive the House of the sort of perspective one can get when one comes from a part of Canada that has not really been wholeheartedly accepted into Canada or the Canadian Parliament by southern Canadians. Those of us who live in my part of the country often feel that the attitude of the people who live in the south is to treat us as if we were a sort of senile aunt living in an upstairs attic, an attic that is cold and drafty and, when necessary, you will invite us down to have a meal but never when there are important people visiting. I have no better example of this attitude than the Prime Minister's (Mr. Pearson) answer today that the Governments of the Yukon and Northwest Territories are not to participate on a consultation basis in the discussions that are going on in relation to designated areas but rather he is 22620-133
House of Commons Procedures going to tell us what he and the ten provincial Premiers have decided once they have decided. I say this by way of introduction knowing it will only set the tone for my remarks as a resident of Canada's far north, not because I think it particularly pertinent to the item before the House, e (9:10 p.m.)
The question of rule changes contains a basic problem. It is not the changes in themselves though even these may contain dangers for Members, particularly backbenchers. The basic danger is that those of us who sit in Opposition quite frankly do not trust the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcll-raith) or any other members of the millionaire Cabinet who are about to introduce these changes. I am not suggesting for one second that the President of the Privy Council is himself a millionaire. I realize this requires certain circumstances of birth, fortune and ability that perhaps exclude him. None the less, quite frankly we are not afraid of the rules. We are afraid of the Government Members who sit on the front benches and the way they are likely to apply the rules.
In my short term in this chamber the only thing I can go by is the way the treasury benches approach the business of the House of Commons. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and all other hon. Members, that these people intend to use this limitation rule in both the biblical sense of the word "use" and in the worst sense of that word, which means to suit their own purposes. I have seen what happens when a Government such as the one we have today, which is populated with what I call the intellectual Fascists of Canada, decides what is good for people. Intellectual Fascists I am prepared to define as all those people who believe that unless you are a Rhodes scholar or have been an assistant deputy minister at some stage in your career -Lord knows, the treasury benches are full of both those categories-you do not really know what is good for people.
There is no better example than the special adviser who has been hired to work in the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). He, without a doubt in my mind, is the one who is promoting these changes in the rules. I am referring to Mr. Kent, that $26,000 a year co-ordinator, the new director of the war on poverty, the man who takes over when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) cannot handle the Quebec situation.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Jealousy will get you nowhere.
2076	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: There is no jealousy here, let me tell the hon. Member tor Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), that other great baffler-


Mr. Greene:: A Rhodes scholar?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: The hon. Member tor Kootenay East is neither a Rhodes scholar nor a fighter, and we have had ample evidence of that.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Want to try?


John James Greene: Where is the champion?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I may not be the champion but I suggest the blood of the hon. Member for Kootenay East will spill as easily at my hands as it has at others.
If those of us who sit in the Opposition could be certain that somehow or other the words of the Prime Minister when he introduced the resolution for reforming Parliament represent, in fact, what is likely to occur, then there would be greater willingness on the part of those who sit over here to accept them. But nothing in the past two years has given us any cause even to accuse the Prime Minister of being in control of what is done on that side of the House or to think that he is. We see it is Mr. Kent, whom I like to think of as the fraudulent man's thinker, who comes up with ideas that the Prime Minister is either unable or unwilling to get through his Cabinet.
We are worried about people like Tom Kent who is an intellectual Fascist and who says that unless-


Mr. Cashin:: Fascist?


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: There are quite a few people in this House who have had experience with Fascists. I am refining it a bit, but even though the war has been over for some 20 years there are still Fascists abroad and I suggest that you over there should examine your own ranks before you deny the charge.
Should we trust you? That is the basic issue here. Should we trust those who sit across the way? Should we believe the Prime Minister when he says he is attempting to reinforce the role of the backbencher? Have we had any evidence in two years that the Prime Minister is sincerely interested in what even his own backbenchers think? One need only take oneself back to the great flag debate to remember the unanimity that prevailed in their ranks and to recall that the only Member on that side who indicated he could not vote with the Prime Minister was conveniently absent from the House the day the vote was taken.

DEBATES	June 7, 1965
Can we believe that the Prime Minister is sincere when he says all he wants to do is reform Parliament? Can we believe the Prime Minister who introduced this motion, who has dedicated himself selflessly and wholeheartedly to tokenism, who does not care about getting action as long as he can say to the people, this is a token of what we mean?


John James Greene: That was Saturday night.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: The great Member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene), who himself attempted to grasp the nettle and reform Ontario and who would have made a great Prime Minister of Ontario had anyone had any confidence in him, says, "That was Saturday night". But the fact about the Prime Minister is that the charges made against him last year are still good this year because no one has ever accused him of learning from his mistakes.
I suggest that the question before the house is not the rule changes in themselves but whether we in the Opposition, an Opposition that happens to outnumber the Government of the day, should believe the things the Government says. I am going to make the case, in case you have not guessed, that the answer is no, that we should not believe the Government, that nothing in our experience in the last few years and nothing in the experience of the Canadian people should lead us to believe that those who sit over there in fact speak from principle or in fact speak from truth.
I am going to go into a little reading of the kinds of things that have been said to establish whether or not there is a basis for saying, that in spite of the fact that the Cabinet Ministers have manipulated and controlled their backbenchers in the past, they are suddenly, having received their code of ethics, going to transform themselves into honest men. Should we believe the Prime Minister? I say no. Nothing in our experience gives us cause to feel assured that what the Prime Minister says and what is recorded in Hansard in fact corresponds with what he thinks.
Should we believe the Minister of Transport (Mr. Fickersgill), the great manipulator behind the scenes, this man who himself could not drink the cup but who is prepared to hold it for anyone who can get a drink out of it? We know how the Minister of Transport got himself from Manitoba to Bonavista-Twillin-gate. We know his history as private secretary to a former Prime Minister.
June 7, 19S5

[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Member seems to be straying very far from the resolution before the House and I would ask him to make a special effort to relate the remarks he is making now to the resolution which this House should be considering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I will of course try to relate my comments more specifically to the question before us, but it is difficult-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.
Another hon. Member: Another Government Member is speaking. Move over.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I might say that the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), who no one has ever suggested is overwhelmed with feelings of principle-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: Surely we can have some respect for the rules of debate in this House.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: 
An hon. Member:: That is right.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I invite the President of the Privy Council, if he wants to get this new closure legislation through, to get up and move closure. That is not new to the Liberals. Why not make it a perfect record and bat a thousand? I say to him: Introduce closure to bring about closure legislation. The Minister is saying, as one of his predecessors said: "If we decide to do something, who will stop us?" I suggest this to the Prime Minister, to the President of the Privy Council and to all those who sit opposite who believe that because of divine intervention they will never be in Opposition and who think that because of some divine right they are destined to rule this country: the people who will stop you are the people of Canada.
I warn those who sit on the back benches opposite not to succumb to the blandishments of this old Cabinet-I use the word "old" in its literal sense-which ran the country until 1957 and which intends to run it forever, come free furniture, come race tracks, come
June 7, 1965

House of Commons Procedures bribes. That is what they think. I say to those backbenchers who are so eagerly lining up to pass legislation which will squelch forever the voice of the individual Members of this House: Be careful, because though you think you are going to run this country forever you will never get to the front benches short of the sudden death or extreme senility of those who are sitting there now. You will sit on the back benches as long as I will and perhaps longer. So do not be so anxious to keep in line with those people who ran this country prior to 1957 and whose statements indicate they have not changed their way of thinking since those days. And if, in your seal-like approbation of your front bench, you allow your conscience not to be disturbed, do not think for one second you will escape the consequences.
Specifically as to these rule changes-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: -speaking as the Member for the Northwest Territories now and in no other capacity, I have extreme worries. Any step taken by this Chamber to restrict the opportunity to speak on any topic poses an inherent threat, particularly to those of us who represent the far northern regions of our country. One need only consider the political organization of all parties in this House, particularly that of the two major parties which hold special caucus meetings for those Members who come from a given region, such as the Alberta caucus, the British Columbia caucus, the Ontario caucus, to realize that if you stand in this chamber speaking for either the Yukon or the Northwest Territories you are a voice of one. This is something that transcends party lines. Political parties, however, must necessarily focus their organization and enthusiasm on the Provinces of this country and they tend to overlook other areas.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
But as the representative of the Northwest Territories, an area of Canada that only since 1962 has had a representative in this House of Commons, that to this day is not represented fully in Parliament because we do not have a representative in the Senate, and everyone knows the other place is an important part of Parliament-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) calls "Order". He does not feel it is
necessary for the Northwest Territories or any other part of Canada to have a representative in the Senate. As usual he speaks with that unshakeable confidence that comes from the knowledge that his party will never form the Government of this country. This is what allows him to say these things. However, those of us who live in the far northern reaches are not trying to tear down everything in Canada all at once; we are merely trying to obtain representation. As a voice of one in this House I am not prepared to support a rule change which will restrict in any way, either as a result of party Whips or allotment of time, the right of the Member for the Northwest Territories, whoever he or she may be in future, to get up and fight for the people of the north. I say this because I am satisfied on the basis of my experience in this place that if the man or woman who comes from the far north does not make the case you southerners are not going to fall all over yourselves looking after us. I am not prepared to accept any change that may at some time in the future prevent the voice of those people who live in the far north of Canada being heard in this chamber.
I have never suggested for one second that the Government should automatically do what the Member for the Northwest Territories or the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) suggests it should do. But I can guarantee one thing, that as a result of the things that were brought forward last November 22 by the hon. Member for Yukon, when the Members from the far north raise matters the Cabinet sits up and takes notice if for no other reason than that they may have, like the musk-ox to gather around and protect one of their own frontbenchers who somehow or other has strayed from the path of what is right and good.
I am not willing to see an allocation of time that might be divided conveniently between spokesmen for various parts of this country at a time when those of us who live in the north, have no guarantee that our voice shall be heard on issues that affect us most. I know the answer to this is that we have in the House on the front bench the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) and his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Turner), but I also know that if we look at what the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is doing today we find that a man who does not know his way around the Canadian north is spending his time in Siberia attempting to find out how to

June 7, 1965	COMMONS
deal with the Arctic regions. A man who could not get himself out of Aklavik in the Northwest Territories is going on a guided tour of Siberia. We who live in the north are not prepared to put up for one second with having as our only other spokesman the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary, that fascinating man from St. Lawrence-St. George whose only northern experience consists of a trans-polar flight to Amsterdam and whose only knowledge about the midnight sun consists of dancing with Princess Margaret all night.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No jealousy.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I am trying in a brief and non-controversial way to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have legitimate doubts about the wisdom of this legislation on several grounds. I am not nearly so worried about the terms of the resolution itself or the reforms that it proposes as I am by the spirit and attitude of those whom I know will be implementing it should it pass the House. With specific regard to its terms I am worried that the people who come from some areas of Canada-this is not limited to the far north although it is perhaps peculiar to that region-to speak on behalf of their constituents are going to be faced with the situation where at any time some Minister of the Crown may decide either in his wisdom, fear or anxiety that debate should be choked off.
I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) in his place, and this is perhaps a pleasant way to conclude, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether we would have ever heard of the Dorion Inquiry if the Minister had had an opportunity to close off debate in regard to anything that may have given rise to that inquiry. The answer is that we would never have heard of it. There is no better example than this as to why those of us who sit in Opposition should be worried about this rule change.
There is one other point I should mention.
I would not want to finish my speech without mentioning it. I for one am not worried about the President of the Privy Council's government by headline, his saying that we are going to be forced into an election if we do not accept these changes, any more than I am about press speculation or press reporting as to the need to reform Parliament. I look up in the press gallery right now and see six members of the press gallery out of a membership of some 140. These are the people who daily assault the Canadian cit-
DEBATES	2079
House of Commons Procedures izen with reports of absenteeism and perhaps it is time that Members of Parliament asked questions about where the other 134 gallery members are.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. Member once again that he is straying rather far from the resolution now before us.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: I was merely trying to make the point that there are forces attempting to convince the Canadian people that the resolution before the House has been brought about by the necessity to reform Parliament and that absenteeism and obstruction are forcing the Government to bring about the necessary modification. I was merely attempting to point out to Your Honour and the House, in case it had not been noticed, that the press gallery is almost empty as usual. But I will desist. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to make this suggestion to Members of this Chamber and in particular the Members of the back benches, because those of us who sit in the back benches have a peculiar understanding of the House of Commons that those who are catapulted onto the front benches, like the Minister of Justice, never understand. We have to be extremely careful in accepting without question those changes which will forever affect our right, at any time we feel it is in the interests of our constituents to do so, to get up and make the best possible case for the only people who really count to each of us, the people who send us here.


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I consider the matter now before the House one of the most important to be discussed here in many years. I would not be at all surprised to hear groans from the other side and demands of "Question". I say this because apparently hon. Members on the other side do not seem to realize that the measure we are now dealing with is of extreme importance. In my opinion it might determine to a large extent the function and the role of this House as part of the Parliament of Canada in the years to come.
The first part of the resolution is, of course, not contentious. It provides for a limitation of the time which is to be spent on estimates, the time being 30 days, and for six supply motions be replaced by four. This part of the proposal, Mr. Speaker, is quite different from the original proposal of the Government. The change that has occurred in this
June 7, 1965

House of Commons Procedures part of the motion indicates what can be done when the Government genuinely considers changes and modifications which are suggested by the Opposition.
Here I should like to make a comment, as did the hon. Member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Rheaume), regarding the press gallery and particularly the press media of Canada. I believe they have been most unfair in reporting the general attitude of the Official Opposition toward the changes proposed in the rules of this House by the Government. The first speech made on behalf of the Official Opposition was th_c of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on May 20. I listened very carefully to that speech and to me the gist of it was that the proposals made by the Government did not go far enough, that reform of the procedures of this House was necessary but that the measures proposed by the Government were not effective. This was the general impression created on me by the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. The next day the news indicated in effect that the Official Opposition were opposing the proposed reforms of the House. This line taken by the news media follows upon careful and clever preparation by the Liberal party in advance of introducing these reforms.
The Government is aware of the fact, as are we, that at this time the Parliament of Canada is held in rather low repute by the people of Canada. The people consider that it is necessary for the House to become more effective and that therefore changes to make it more effective are necessary. The Government is making use of this general attitude of the people in trying to push through reforms, some of which are not good. Probably 90 per cent or more of the reforms proposed by the Government, Mr. Speaker, are acceptable to us. Most of them would be even more acceptable were the major reform proposed by the Leader of the Opposition of the establishment of a permanent Speaker agreed to by the Government. In that event many of the proposals of the Government would become more acceptable to us.
The second part of the motion concerns what is commonly referred to as the guillotine proposal. Briefly, it provides that a Business Committee shall be set up with one Member to be selected by each party of the House. This Business Committee shall allocate time for any item of legislation or business to be brought before the House.

If the recommendation of this Committee is not unanimous, then a Minister may introduce a motion to limit time which is debatable for one day. This motion would put a limit on the debate of the particular item of business of not less than five days made up of two days for second reading, two days for the Committee stage and one day for third reading. This motion could also restrict the time of the speeches of Members of this House.
I might say that I think it would be most necessary, in view of such allocation of the time of individual speakers, to make special allowance for the length of the speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition, both of whom are officers of the House, and for the Minister who introduces the particular item of business and the Member of the Opposition who replies thereto.
As the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has pointed out, a two-day debate with a limitation of 20 minutes per speaker would allow only 42 Members of the House to speak. If a five-day limitation were applied only some 100 Members of the House, assuming no Member spoke twice at a different stage of the debate, would be allowed to speak on the question. Thus 160 Members would be silenced.
As a backbencher I will be one of those 160. Many Members on the other side, particularly the backbenchers, will be included in those who will be silenced. Last week three or four Liberal backbenchers spoke of their concern for the rights of the backbenchers. I think they should consider the situation where some 160 Members of this House could be silenced by the introduction of the guillotine.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell) is to the effect that the motion introduced by the Minister to allocate time and apply the guillotine shall not be effected unless 60 per cent of the Members present in the House approve of such motion. I think I can claim credit for being the author of this idea. So far as I know, I was the first to suggest it to this side of the House.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) objected on Friday on the grounds that this would be in contravention of Section 49 of the British North America Act
June 7, 1965	COMMONS
because the proposed amendment suggests that any decision of the House of Commons in regard to limitation be based on a vote of at least 60 per cent of the Members present and the B.N.A. Act states that any decision of the House of Commons must be made on a majority basis.
I have looked up the Oxford dictionary definition of "majority" which states that "majority" means the greater number, more than half of certain people or things, number of votes cast for the other side or any opponent. I am a complete layman when it comes to an interpretation of legislation, but it seems to me that with a will on the part of the Government the provisions of section
49	of the B.N.A. Act could well be interpreted to mean that the majority is any number more than one half of the individuals present. It is interesting to note that if in fact the President of the Privy Council is correct the House today could decide by a so-called majority, which is one more than
50	per cent, that tomorrow the vote in this regard will be based on a 60 per cent majority.
This situation reminds me of the story about a convention of learned professors who were trying to decide whether the majority is always right or is sometimes wrong. They held a vote on the question and a majority of the professors decided that the majority was always wrong. I repeat that if there is a will on the part of the Government to get around this contentious proposal to implement the guillotine measure there is a way.
I note in today's Toronto Star that the President of the Privy Council is reported as having indicated that unless we buckle under to the Government's proposal there will be an election. That of course confirms the allegation by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on May 20 when he referred to the same type of threat by the Government, at which time the President of the Privy Council denied any such intent to call an election if we did not go along with the Government's proposal.
The President of the Privy Council is now in his seat and I hope he will give attention to the suggestion I now intend to make. I have in mind his statement as recorded in the Toronto Star and I should like to outline some amendments I have in mind. Rather than take up the time of the House by proposing these amendments, I would ask the Minister to consider these ideas, namely, that the motion to be made by a Minister for the allocation of time shall not become
DEBATES	2081
House of Commons Procedures effective or applicable unless the subject matter of business under consideration has been referred to a special or standing committee of the House and not until such committee has reported. I hope the President of the Privy Council will give this suggestion some consideration because, although I am not speaking as a spokesman for our party, if it would be acceptable as an amendment by the Government it does seem to me it would meet some of the objections posed by hon. Members in the Opposition.
If there is to be any allocation of time such an allocation would be more acceptable and justifiable if it was invoked after a committee had considered the question and reported.


George James McIlraith: That is the only way it can be done.


George Louis Chatterton: There is no reference in the Government motion to the fact that an allocation of time will be made only after the subject matter of the allocation has been referred to a committee. While my suggestion is not made on behalf of the Members on this side of the House. I think the proposal is a good one and would provide, without a limitation of time, for a thorough consideration of the subject matter.
For example, if a matter such as the Canada Pension Plan came again before this House or any other piece of complicated legislation-the Canada Pension Plan was considered in the committee for 51 sessions- and there was to be an allocation of time, then after a thorough consideration by the committee there might be some justification for such a limitation. In spite of this suggestion I do not think the Government is justified in pushing its proposals through. Any proposal which limits the time hon. Members can spend on debate now or in the future is a dangerous one.
Before I conclude, I wonder whether I can get some comment or reaction from the President of the Privy Council to this proposal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is very close to ten o'clock, if not ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Louis Chatterton: May I call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


George Louis Chatterton: Are you calling it ten
o'clock?
June 7, 1965

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, it has been called ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the President of the Privy Council announce the business for tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, we will continue this debate tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) announced the installation of a new national air policy with regard to international flights by Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines. At that time the air critic for the New Democratic Party, the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), commented on the Minister's statement. As a result of those comments I asked the question which I am now debating on the late show.
Air Canada, as I think most Members of this House will agree, is one of the world's great national air lines of which we as Canadians are justly proud. I think the management and staff can be equally as proud of the services that air line provides Canadians.
Under the new policy Air Canada will be protected and preserved in its international flights. One of the remarkable things about the new policy, and one which I as a resident of British Columbia am so happy to see, is that the Canadian Pacific Airlines, with its headquarters in Vancouver, will also be protected and preserved in its international flights.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
It has seemed to some of us over the years that Government policy has been designed with the idea that Canadian Pacific Airlines has been something of an unwanted child in Canadian aviation. This Government and the Minister of Transport have now recognized the importance of Canadian Pacific Airlines in Canadian aviation. It has guaranteed the continued existence, future development and growth of this Canadian air line. It has also,
[Mr. Chatterton.l
by preserving its flights and appointing Canadian Pacific Airlines a chosen instrument of the Government in Latin America, Asia, the Pacific area and Southern Europe, assured that the international airport of the City of Vancouver will become the second air capital of Canada and will become the crossroads of trans-Pacific and Latin American travel.
It is this importance of Canadian Pacific Airlines to Vancouver and British Columbia which caused me to be shocked and surprised by the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie). Canadian Pacific employs some 1,900 people in British Columbia, about 1,850 of them in the Vancouver area, and I daresay a large proportion of them in Burnaby-Richmond itself. They receive in salaries and wages some $12 million per year and most of it is spent in the Vancouver area. I am sure a large proportion of it is spent in Burnaby-Richmond. Another $11 million is pumped into the Province's economy in purchases of goods and services. The C.P.A. purchasing staff does business with some 700 suppliers in British Columbia, many of them I am sure located in Burnaby-Richmond. For example, only recently after a year and a half of development and exploration a British Columbia firm was able to develop the mobile passenger stairway that they use in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Edmonton and Montreal. Formerly these were imported from the United States but because of the initiative of Canadian Pacific Airlines they are now made in British Columbia.
It is because of this importance of Canadian Pacific Airlines to British Columbia that I was shocked when the Member for Burnaby-Richmond expressed these comments to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), as reported on page 1816 of Hansard:
At first glance it seems to me the division of the world is not quite equal and that C.P.A. has a much greater territory than Air Canada.
Certainly the implication of the N.D.P. critic's statement was that the Canadian Government was being too kind to Canadian Pacific Airlines, that Canadian Pacific Airlines were being treated too well by this Government. This implication coming from a Member of the N.D.P. is quite understandable. This party, being a socialist party, has no sympathy for the privately owned Canadian Pacific Airlines. They would, I am sure, favour the amalgamation or the merger of the Canadian Pacific Airlines with Air Can-
June 7, 1965

ada into one nationalized Government owned air line.
This policy, Mr. Speaker, would be disastrous for British Columbia. It would automatically result in the centralization of all air activities in the City of Montreal. Vancouver would be placed in the same position as Winnipeg now is whereby economic factors must force the centralization of purchasing and servicing in one centre. By the continued existence of Canadian Pacific Airlines and by its protection under this new air policy, Vancouver will retain its position and its importance in the field of international air travel.
I am shocked that a company that is so important to the riding of Burnaby-Richmond should be downgraded in this way by a Member who represents that area in the House of Commons.
This policy of the N.D.P., like most policies of the N.D.P., would do nothing but cost British Columbians their jobs and incomes. Hence my question last Wednesday to the Minister of Transport, wanting his assurance that the agreement that has been worked out with the presidents of C.P.A. and Air Canada will be adhered to, that the allocations of the areas of the world given to each will be adhered to and that he will not listen, as I am confident he will not, to the entreaties of the N.D.P., the socialist party of Canada, to derogate from the position of C.P.A.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of the hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) is, like many questions that usually come from the other side of the house, a rhetorical one hardly calling for an answer. But since I have three minutes at my dispsal it would probably be a shame not to use them to say I think it is very gratifying indeed that, instead of the Government being obliged to impose a policy in the international field, we got the completely voluntary agreement of the two air lines and an understanding that they would co-operate with one another in developing the maximum amount of traffic for Canadian air lines all around the world. It has been my experience in most fields that if you can get people to do things because they want to do them they do them with much more of a will than if they are obliged to do them.
I hope the hon. Member will send his remarks and mine too, if he likes, to the Premier and other members of the Government of British Columbia so that they will appreciate that there are some people in
DEBATES	2083
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Ottawa who are conscious of the fact that that province exists and that great national enterprises centred in that part of Canada are of concern to us in the rest of Canada.



LABOUR RELATIONS-MARITIME UNION TRUSTEES-REAPPEARANCE BEFORE COMMITTEE

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this debate arises out of a question which was first put by the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) on June 1 and followed up by myself on June 3 and 4. On June 1, as recorded at page 1820 of Hansard, the hon. Member for Kootenay West said:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Labour explain to the House why at this date that runaway criminal, Harold Chamberlain Banks, is still President of the Canadian Seafarers Building Corporation Limited, a private company which controls all properties owned by the Seafarers International Union in Canada?
To which the Minister answered:
No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot explain something which I do not believe is correct.
I suggest that when the Minister gave that answer he had not even asked his staff to look into the situation, feeling that if he gave that kind of glib answer he would get away with it and nothing would be heard about the matter again. But on June 3 and 4 I pressed the matter again. I asked if this was correct and, if it was not correct, what were the facts.
The Minister's answer to these questions whether Banks is still president of the Seafarers Building Corporation Limited was that he would look into the matter. Finally that is what he said. For several days he went on looking into the matter, when all it would take was three or four minutes to call up the Department of the Secretary of State, the Companies Branch, and find out if the facts were correct, which I did. I found that not only was Mr. Banks president of that corporation but that Mr. McLaughlin was a director.
Let us just look at this situation for a few moments. First of all, the Minister was very evasive. I said the other day, and I got myself into some difficulty, that either the Minister had deliberately misled the House or he had given a careless answer. It had to be one or the other, and I would say at the very least it was certainly a careless answer.
Of course, one runs into this difficulty under the rules of the House that if a Minister
June 7, 1965
2084	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion or Member says something is the fact you cannot question his word under the rules, but that does not say that still down in your heart you do not feel the situation is wrong. You cannot legislate your feelings.
Let us take a look at the situation so far as the Norris Report is concerned, even for the short time that Mr. McLaughlin is substituting for Mr. Banks in this enterprise. It is rather a shocking situation, and the point I want to make first is that when we had the trustees before the Industrial Relations Committee we got nowhere. They refused to answer the questions properly. Questions were put suggesting that the election which resulted in Mr. McLaughlin becoming president of the S.I.U. was not a properly conducted democratic election. They were never answered. Mr. Justice Dryer, called before the committee, only stayed a few hours one day before leaving in a huff for British Columbia saying he would not come back unless he was subpoenaed. We on this side have continually urged that the trustees should be brought back before the committee to give these answers. The question I should like to ask now is this: Why have the three trustees not been brought before that committee?
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The Chairman of the committee, a man for whom I have great respect and a friend of mine, gave great consideration to points of order and questions of privilege, so that in the end we got no information. The trustees might just as well not have appeared before the committee. The whole thing was a sham. Why are the Government and the Liberal party hiding the facts? What skeletons are in the closet that they should have to hide these facts? We have continually been given evasive answers with reference to Banks' escape-


Mr. Moreau:: Pass the rule changes and we will get the committee.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't worry about the rules. You would like to gag Parliament so that this information would never be given to the Canadian people. That is why you want to change the rules. Mr. Justice Norris said:
McLaughlin has proved his usefulness to Banks at headquarters meetings. He is devious and adept in carrying out the one-man policies of Banks and in assisting in setting up the farce of democracy in the union.
In other words, he was a henchman of Banks. Why is it that the trustees did nothing to explain to the committee why he became the President of the union? Mr. Banks' hench-


man, Mr. Banks' agent, is still running this corporation. Banks is running it through McLaughlin. These are the facts and they cannot be hidden by the Minister of Labour.
What else did Mr. Justice Norris say? This is what he said as reported at page 307:
The Trusteeship Act should contain a provision that any transfer of union assets, real or personal after the date of this Report and until the trustees have taken office, shall be void save the expenditure of such sums of money as the trustees shall certify have been reasonable and proper on union business.
The assets should have been taken over from a man such as Banks who has fled the law and gone to the United States and from a man such as McLaughlin who, we maintained in the committee, was never democratically elected as President of the S.I.U. The Government has been most evasive so far as the S.I.U. and the trustees are concerned. We say this. First, let us get the trustees before the committee. If you have nothing to hide, bring them before the committee and let the Opposition ask those searching questions so that the Canadian public and the members of the S.I.U. may know the facts and so that their representations can be placed properly before Parliament. Further, let the committee be under the Chairmanship of a man who will allow us to ask these questions instead of permitting so many points of order and questions of privilege and adjourning this and that with the result that we never got the facts from the witnesses, that is to say, the trustees. I say the record speaks for itself in this regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The time allotted to the hon. Member has expired.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I know it is a source of political annoyance to Members of the Opposition that the trusteeship which was set up by this Parliament has been working efficiently and successfully and that we now have absolute industrial peace on the Great Lakes.
The hon. Member has unfairly charged the Chairman of the Industrial Relations Committee with disallowing questions asked by Members of the Opposition. Members of the Opposition were at all times permitted to put questions to the trustees. It is true the terms of reference to the committee provided that the trustees and the trustees only were to be examined. The hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the hon. Member for Bow River CMr. Woolliams), if my memory is
June 7, 1965	COMMONS
accurate, consistently attempted to bring in other issues and made requests to hear people other than the trustees. It is rule of Parliament that no committee shall exceed its terms of reference. I refer to citation 304 of Beauchesne:
A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the order of reference.
It was the consistent determination of the hon. Member for Bow River and the hon. Member for Yukon to bring in extraneous matters that prevented the committee hearing anything at all. The Chairman was there, the Members of the trusteeship were there, but those two hon. Members refused to let these questions be asked. They knew they would get honest answers and answers which would give the lie to what hon. Members of the Opposition have been saying.
It will be recalled that the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) was asked whether this matter would be brought before the committee. The question was originally asked by the hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Starr). The Minister said, as found on page 1673 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the situation with respect to the committee meeting is that when the procedural resolution is dealt with, we hope to set up the committee. Presumably the estimates of the Department of Labour could then be sent to the appropriate committee, which would provide an opportunity for Members to deal with any aspect of the operations of the Department-
I underline these words, Mr. Speaker:
-including the item with respect to the maritime trustees. That would seem to be the efficient way to meet the point made by my hon. friend.
After hearing the officers of the Department of Labour and the Minister of Labour, should it be deemed necessary and the House feels there is more information it wishes to obtain, I am sure the Government would be glad to put the matter before the House to determine whether the House wishes to have the trustees brought before that committee again. It should be a determination of the House and can only be done by a determination of the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Just on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
The hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).



HIGHWAY SAFETY-REQUEST FOR USE OF APPROVED SAFETY DEVICES

Stanley Howard Knowles: Proceedings on Adjournment Motion these things should be included in our automobiles is no easy task.
I know that the Minister or whoever is going to speak on his behalf will agree with what I have said about the importance of this matter and that there are some devices which have been proven to be useful in this area but, of course, the reply will be that this is a matter which comes under provincial jurisdiction. I make the plea, Mr. Speaker, that instead of putting energy into finding excuses for not acting in this field the Government ought to put energy into finding ways in which it can act.
I remember in this House when Mr. Speaker Glen-I am going back a few years-ruled out of order any discussion on the floor of the House about the question of a Trans-Canada Highway because highways came under provincial jurisdiction. But in due course a way was found to pass the Trans-Canada Highway Act in this Parliament. Hospitalization is a provincial matter, but we found a way in which to bring in legislation at the federal field, under which we now have hospitalization across the country. Medicare is regarded as a provincial matter, but all parties recognize that the day is coming when we will have federal legislation in this field. And so I could go on down the list. There are all kinds of things thought to come under provincial jurisdiction but concerning which, when the interests of the nation are at stake, a way can be found to deal with them at the federal level.
The right is set out in the British North America Act to declare certain works to be to the general advantage of Canada. Surely because automobiles are manufactured in only two or three provinces we should not leave it to the governments of those provinces to deal with this matter. Surely this is a matter of concern to the people of Canada from coast to coast and the Government should take a lead in it.
I would be satisfied if the Government took positive action to get the provinces to act in the matter but we see no sign of this. I suggest that the time has come for the federal Government to realize that it is the Government which has to speak for Canadians from coast to coast. Cars travel everywhere. Death is taking place on our highways in all provinces. It can be prevented by action. The people of Canada call for this kind of action. I put to the Government the straightforward question: Instead of finding ways and means to avoid action, why not put some energy

into finding a way in which the federal Government can act so that we can have safer automobiles than we have at the present time, and thus cut down the awful death toll that takes place on our highways?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to disappoint the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. Let me say at once that no one in this House will quarrel with the objectives sought in the question which he has posed, but I think he ought not to infer in his suggestion that this Government is callously disregarding the safety of people on the highways. The hon. Member now accuses us of trying to assume a position behind a point of constitutional law; yet I remember the Members of his party, when we brought forth the Student Loans Act, moving an amendment in this House to set aside that legislation on the ground that it was not constitutional and accusing the Government of going beyond its powers.
May I say that by law the provincial governments have the responsibility-


Mr. Fisher:: That is not true.


Lawrence T. Pennell: An hon. Member interjects and says this is not true, but I recall that the hon. Member for Greenwood contended that the Student Loans Act was ultra vires of the powers of this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not true.


Lawrence T. Pennell: If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, by law the provincial governments have the responsibility of drawing up and enforcing regulations pertaining to the operational standards of motor vehicles. These provincial statutes and regulations pertain both to physical characteristics involving safety and the manner in which the vehicle is operated.
It is recognized that a great deal of work has been undertaken by various bodies to determine the areas where improvement in design or vehicle construction can lead to greater safety. Thus, a great deal of good research and information respecting safety has been developed. This information would be useful in preparing a safety code. Before this could be done, however, it would be necessary to have the agreement of the provinces that such a study be undertaken since it could not be applied without their co-operation. As I have stated on a number of occasions, the Department of Industry
June 7, 1985	COMMONS DEBATES	2037
and the Canadian Government Specifications Board would be happy to co-operate with the provinces in such a study. I should attribute that last sentence to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury).
An hon. Member corrected my statement regarding student loans. It may be that the amendment to which I referred was not moved, but the argument that it was not constitutional was advanced by the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did not that amendment have to do only with the position of the Lieutenant Governors?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Lawrence T. Pennell: With great respect, no. The argument was advanced that it was ultra vires, and I might say that that argument was advanced from time to time. However, if my hon. friend's memory is better than mine, I will agree with his suggestion. I am sure that that argument was raised from time to time during the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, please. The hon. Member's time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, June 8, 1965