1965-05-21

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


Right Hon. L. E. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 24, Her Majesty's birthday is officially celebrated. It is fitting, I think, that this day should also have been designated Commonwealth Day. Her Majesty is now head of a Commonwealth which includes 21 countries in every part of the world. On Her Majesty's birthday, which is also Commonwealth Day, the Royal Union flag, the Union Jack, will be flying on Parliament Hill alongside the new flag of Canada for the first time.
As we will not be sitting on Monday I believe it is fitting to propose, and I hope the Leader of the Official Opposition will be good enough to second my proposal, that you, Mr. Speaker, should convey to Her Majesty the loyal and affectionate congratulations of this House on her birthday. It seems to me that the deep feelings of admiration and respect which the Canadian people have for our wise and gracious Sovereign would be fittingly reflected in such a message.
Our association with Great Britain, Mr. Speaker, through the Commonwealth and through the Crown represents the continuity of our history and the depths of our roots. The Crown is also an integral part of our Parliamentary system and one which it is important for us to maintain and respect as we face the problems and the opportunities of the future.
In this spirit, Mr. Speaker, we wish Her Majesty all the best of health and happiness for many, many years, and we send her our warmest birthday greetings.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to join with the Prime Minister in this message of loyalty and devotion to the Queen on the anniversary of her birthday. As I listened to the Prime Minister it occurred to me it is of significance that we have at the present time in the City of Ottawa representatives of
the United States Congress from the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The Prime Minister spoke of the Commonwealth. The concept of the Commonwealth was first formulated in 1775. After the battles of Concord and Bunker Hill representatives of the 13 colonies joined together in a petition known as the olive branch petition which Benjamin Franklin took to the United Kingdom and endeavoured to have the Crown of that day accept. That olive branch petition was signed by John Hancock and the other representatives of the 13 colonies who subsequently signed the Declaration of Independence. Had it been accepted the principles of the Commonwealth would have then seen their beginning. Everything that was ultimately placed in the Statute of Westminster of 1930 was included in the olive branch petition. Indeed, among the most dramatic things in history are the concluding words of that petition, where the 13 colonies stated "if only you will give us the right of self government as we ask we shall throughout the generations to come give loyalty and devotion to the British Crown".
Her Majesty performs an abiding function not only within the Commonwealth but also internationally. At this very moment in West Germany she, removed as she is from party politics and the divisions that sometimes separate us within the nation, is doing her part magnificently to bind the wounds of two world wars and to assure that for generations to come the things that have separated Britain and Germany will no longer exist. She is playing a part that I am sure will bear fruit.
I join with the Prime Minister, as I am sure all hon. Members do, in his eloquent words of loyalty which I know Your Honour will transmit to her.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this Party would like to associate themselves with the sentiments so eloquently expressed by the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. We wish also to extend a hearty welcome to our visitors from the United States who are with us at this time. In a world which is strife torn and sadly divided we believe the Commonwealth has an important role to
1554	COMMONS
Loyalty Message to Queen play. It is not a tightly knit organization, but is a loose federation of many peoples, different tongues and different races, who are bound together by a loyalty to the common ideals which we cherish and which are symbolized by the Crown. It is therefore singularly fitting that on May 24 the Canadian Parliament and Canadian people should give thought to the two ideas contained in the celebration of that day, namely our faith in the role which the Commonwealth can play in world affairs and in the sentiment of loyalty which we extend to Her Majesty the Queen.
We in this group join with others in sending to Her Majesty our best wishes and our greetings on this her official birthday.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is not too long ago that we were greatly honoured to have a visit from Her Majesty. At that time and during the months that have passed, we have remembered with a great deal of pleasure the way in which Her Majesty moved among the people of Canada and enhanced the position of the Crown in our nation. I am sure that on this occasion when we are commemorating the birthday of Her Majesty, it is well that the Prime Minister should move this motion and that we would join with him, and with the other speakers, in expressing our sincere wishes that she will enjoy a great many years of health and real happiness.
Reference has been made this morning to the Commonwealth. We realize, of course, that the concept of the Commonwealth has changed drastically down through the years. We do believe that the Commonwealth still plays a very important part in international relations. I had the opportunity, along with other Members of this House to attend the meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference last fall. We were reminded again that in spite of the fact there were so many diverse peoples there from all parts of the world, there was a unity of purpose, a common bond that united us. We want to see that strengthened and developed in the days that lie ahead.
So, Mr. Speaker, we in this party would like to associate ourselves with the message of greeting and best wishes that will be conveyed to Her Majesty.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, the members of our group are happy to join with the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and other hon. members in extend-
[Mr. Douglas.)
DEBATES	May 21, 1965
ing their best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen on this occasion of the celebration of her birthday.
It is also with pleasure that we note that Monday, Commonwealth Day, will be a holiday for the house, because in the province of Quebec, the St. Jean Baptiste Society of Montreal has organized splendid celebrations on the occasion of Dollard des Ormeaux Day, one of the pioneers of New France, who stood in defence of the first establishment of the French colony against the Iroquois.
It is for that reason that we are happy to know that the house will take that day off, which will give us the opportunity to take part in those splendid celebrations.
Mr. Speaker, we also wish to welcome the American parliamentary representatives on the occasion of their visit to Ottawa.
Once again we extend our best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen on this occasion of the celebration of her birthday.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF U.S. DELEGATES TO INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP

Mr. Speaker:: Nowhere in our time has the difference between co-operation and coexistence been more strikingly demonstrated than on this continent, for in a century and a half of neighbourly visiting over the 4,000 miles of back fence that is our international boundary, the United States and Canada have developed a co-operative relationship unique in human history. If further evidence were needed of the warm and cordial relations between our two peoples I could do no better than point to the visit to Canada this week of 24 leading Senators and Representatives from the Congress of the United States.
It is therefore with the very greatest pleasure that I call the attention of all hon. Members to the presence in the Speaker's and Senate Galleries this morning of the American delegation to the eighth meeting of the United States-Canada Interparliamentary Group.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: This delegation is under the distinguished leadership of Senator George Aiken, of Vermont, and Congressman Gallagher, of New Jersey, and contains among its number such notable legislators as the Majority Leader in the United States Senate, Hon. Michael J. Mansfield of Montana.
May 21, 1965	COMMONS
May I also call attention to the presence in the galleries of most of the wives of the delegates, representing states all the way from Massachusetts to Hawaii and from Michigan to California.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all hon. Members will agree that while the ladies double the size of the delegation, they much more than double its effectiveness in the promotion of good will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The United States-Canada Interparliamentary Group was formed and held its first meeting in January, 1959. The Government of that day rightly felt the need for the creation of this instrument for discussion among legislators from both sides of our border as distinct from discussions between the two governments. It is worth noting that two delegates to that first meeting, one from the United States and one from Canada, have attended every meeting since. I refer to Senator Sydney J. Smith of Canada and to that great friend of Canada, Senator George Aiken of Vermont, neighbouring state to my home Province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: May I extend my appreciation, and that of my colleague in the other place, to those Members of this House, representative of all political parties, who are participating in the present discussions and to those who have served on the eight previous delegations to these important meetings.
In order that other Members of the House, who have not had the advantage of taking part in these meetings, may have the pleasure and privilege of meeting our distinguished American friends, I wish to extend to all hon. Members here a warm invitation to attend a reception to be held in the Railway Committee Room at twelve o'clock noon this day.

It is with the greatest pleasure that I take this opportunity to extend the warmest welcome in this house to the very distinguished senators and representatives from the United States who are taking part these days in the very important discussions held by the United States-Canada Interparliamentary Group.
DEBATES	1555
U.S. Interparliamentary Delegates
So that all hon. members here may have the pleasure of meeting our guests and of extending to them the hand of friendship and the traditional French-Canadian hospitality, I wish to invite them to a reception in the railway committee room at noon today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I as Prime Minister associate myself, Mr. Speaker, with your words of welcome to our visitors from Washington who, had it not been for an accident of history and politics, might have been able to join us a few moments ago officially, as I know they join us informally, in our message of loyalty to the Queen.
I know all hon. Members wish to join me in the welcome you have extended to our visitors. We all greatly appreciate the fact that some of the most important and busiest members of Congress have found the time to come to Ottawa for this meeting, on the United States side under the leadership of Senator George Aiken of Vermont and Representative Cornelius E. Gallagher of New Jersey. Our welcome also expresses our warm appreciation of the work the joint Parliamentary committee is doing in the field of United States-Canadian relations.
This committee was set up, that is on the Canadian side, in the time of the right hon. gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister. It was one of his good deeds which we acknowledge. Our welcome is also a recognition of the significance we attach to the maintenance of United States-Canadian relations on the legislative side as well as on the executive level.
The problems between our two countries are, of course, many. Some are related to the burden of leadership in the world which the people of the United States are carrying with such courage and devotion in our efforts to secure peace and freedom. Others are bilateral in character arising out of our continental relationship. Whatever they are, our two countries seek to find solutions to these problems in a spirit of good will, good neighbourliness and understanding. The meetings of the joint parliamentary conference have increased that good will and understanding, and I am sure the present meeting will continue to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: It is, indeed, a novel occasion when the Prime Minister will make an admission such as he made a while ago regarding the contribution made during the
May 21, 1965

U.S. Interparliamentary Delegates period when I was Prime Minister to the establishment of these annual reunions, as it were, between our two countries.
It goes back to 1952, though for a number of years before that I had been advocating such meetings. Here, in room 16, in the immediate precincts of the House of Commons, for the first time in history representatives of the Congress of the United States met with Commonwealth and Canadian representatives. Certainly these meetings have an abiding effect on the relations between our countries. They give us a knowledge of each other which cannot be gained in any other way.
Credit for what has been achieved in this direction should also go, I am sure, to Senator George Aiken whose contribution-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -brought about the beginnings of this experiment, as it was, in closer relations between our countries.
On this significant day of Her Majesty's birthday we recall that only last week at Runnymede in England Her Majesty joined in one of those great moments of freedom with representatives from the United States and from the Commonwealth in the dedication to freedom of the memorial to the late President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. These are the things which make assurance reassured that the same principles that underlie the relations between our two countries can be applied to all mankind.
I join with the Prime Minister in welcoming the representatives of the United States, recalling as I do the first meeting that we had in Washington. Those of us then present were honoured by being seated on the floor of the United States Senate. Under our rules here that is impossible, both physically impossible and traditionally impossible. However, I can assure the representatives of the United States that whether or not they sit on this floor, in our hearts they are with us.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party join very heartily in the welcome which has been extended to the United States Congressional representatives who are attending the Canada-United States interparliamentary conference. Tribute has already been paid to the Leader of the Opposition who, during the time he was Prime Minister, first established this liaison. I am told that a plaque is set up in room 16 to commemorate the formation of this interparliamentary group. It is significant that on that plaque

I believe there is an eagle representing the United States and three maple leaves representing Canada.
Your Honour has referred to the 4,000 miles of unguarded border, and this is usually commented upon by all speakers who pay tribute to the good will which obtains between our two countries. I have always thought this was a bit over-emphasized, because I am sure v/e could not guard this 4,000 miles of border if we wanted to. It would take most of our 19.5 million Canadians stretched across the country to do so. But there is no need to guard the border. In the first place there is no danger of the United States taking over Canada once they have had a look at our roads; and certainly we would not take over the United States if we took a look at their national debt. But the good will and harmony existing between our two countries can certainly be extended and improved as the result of these meetings of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group.
My two colleagues, the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), who attended the conference last year and who are delegates to the conference again this year, have told me of the great value they have derived from the discussions. I am certain not only that all who attend derive personal benefit, but that there will be better understanding between the members of the Congress of the United States and Members of Parliament here in Canada as a result of these deliberations, and I trust this will mean greater harmony and cooperation between these two great countries on the North American continent.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, no doubt one project which has demonstrated conclusively the importance of co-operation between our two great nations was the signing just a few months ago of the Columbia River treaty which affects in such an important way the province from which I come, British Columbia. So we in this party would just join in extending the warmest welcome to our distinguished visitors from the Congress of the United States, and we trust that in the future these evidences of co-operation will continue to the advantage of both our nations.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, we of the Ralliement Creditiste are glad to join you and all the representatives of the
May 21, 1965	COMMONS
parties in the house in extending the most cordial welcome to the American representatives who are now in this country.
We know that those interparliamentary visits are useful and even necessary to foster a mutual knowledge and understanding, and help the exchange of opinions which may bring about a better comprehension between our two nations, between neighbouring countries. We are glad that those meetings are held, not only with our neighbour to the south, but also with other countries.
Therefore, we are pleased to join all the members of this house to give those representatives a most cordial welcome and wish them a most happy and useful sojourn among us.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know to whom I should direct this question, but in the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs I will direct it to the Prime Minister.
I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the announced formation of a group of private companies, including American Research and Development Corporation of Boston, to study the feasibility of the $1.5 billion James Bay diversion project, consideration has been given by the Government to having inquiries and studies made into the possibilities inherent in this project, particularly to assure that this vital resource of water shall be made available to our country not only in the coming years but for generations in the future.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there have been studies of the kind to which my right hon. friend refers going on for some time. I hope to be in a position-or if not I, one of my colleagues- to make a more detailed statement about these studies early next week in relation to the point raised by my right hon. friend.



JOINT CANADIAN-U.S. STUDY OF CONTINENTAL RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could take some 22620-1001
DEBATES	1557
Inquiries of the Ministry action in regard to the matter of a study of national energy policy, which he came out in favour of in his article in Foreign Affairs Quarterly last January, which study has now been cancelled-that is, the common study by the two countries-by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would take steps to ensure that the personnel needed to carry out this study by the joint administration is supplied; and could he get this matter under way at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to make a reference to that in the statement which will be made next week; I appreciate the point raised by the hon. gentleman.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question regarding the statement which is attributed to him in a report from Regina by Mr. E. N. Davis, which says:
Mr. Pearson noted that his Government had opened the way for Saskatchewan to obtain the $45 million heavy water plant in the lignite coal area-
I want to ask the Prime Minister what is meant by the phrase "opened the way", and whether any financial assistance is being granted to the Government of Saskatchewan or any special tax concessions to assist in having this industry located in the province.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I used the expression "opened the way". I have not my notes before me, but I do not think I referred to that matter in any public statement I made. However, the Government would be very glad indeed to co-operate with the Province of Saskatchewan in this project, as it has cooperated with other provinces, such as with the province of Nova Scotia in establishing the heavy water plant in that province. But I cannot interpret what the words "opened the way" mean because I did not use them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure everyone is pleased that this industry should be located in Saskatchewan, but I want to ask the Prime Minister whether any financial commitment or assistance is being given by the federal Government to the Province of Saskatchewan with respect to this industry.
1558	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I should like to check on that, but I am quite confident that no financial commitment of any kind was made.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister to outline to the House what financial assistance was provided by his Government to either the Government of the Province of Nova Scotia or Deuterium of Canada in locating the heavy water plant in Nova Scotia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question which asks for a long detailed reply, and in my opinion does not contain that element of emergency it should have to be dealt with at this time. Perhaps the hon. Member will place it on the order paper.


Robert Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely that question is as important as questions about the closing of the tourist information office of the Queen's Printer, rain making, sunshine and possible appointments to the Senate, which were asked yesterday. The reason I asked this question of the Prime Minister is that the Prime Minister referred to the assistance-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Robert Muir: The Speaker of the House is up there, not over there. The Prime Minister referred to the assistance which was given to the Province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Speaker:: The reason I interjected was simply that the hon. Member's question was very wide, and he could hardly expect a detailed and comprehensive answer to be given at this time on orders of the day.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has been in Regina I wonder whether he instructed the Minister of Finance to open the way for further potash development in Saskatchewan through tax *concessions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the Government of Saskatchewan for some time on this matter. This involves a

DEBATES	May 21, 1965
difficult taxation problem in respect of the two methods of mining potash, and it was considered undesirable to take any action regarding this matter until the report of the Royal Commission on Taxation is received, we hope within a few months from now.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what possible reason would there be for waiting for the report of the Royal Commission on Taxation regarding that question, the information about which is in the possession of the Government? The Premier of Saskatchewan has pressed for this and the people of Saskatchewan feel they are being discriminated against. Why should they have to wait, in the development of this very important industry, for a report which by no conceivable means could be expected to deal with this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman makes the assumption that the report which we hope to have shortly from the Royal Commission on Taxation will not contain any recommendations which could be related to this problem. That might not be the case at all; and if such recommendations are made in regard to taxation policies respecting mining and other activities in this country, we felt that it would obviously be unwise to take taxation action at this time which might conceivably have to be altered in light of those recommendations, especially in view of the fact that the particular company which is using the process in question is now active, and other companies with which we have been in contact might wish to come into Saskatchewan and use that process. I think in the circumstances we have been wise in our cautious approach to this problem.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister in any way been able to find a means to soften the heart of the Minister of Finance, who is adamantly opposed in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is not adamantly opposed regarding this question, but he is adamantly opposed to taking any action of this kind before the Royal Commission report is received and studied in the light of any recommendations it may contain.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what he said
two weeks ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will not agree that this
May 21, 1965

is not a matter of taxation but a matter of removing what appears to be a discrimination as between solution mining and shaft mining; that if it is a matter of removing a discrimination, this ought to be dealt with now rather than waiting for the report, which would mean that action would be delayed probably until next session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution dealing with this and other important matters will be before the House, I hope shortly, and we will then have an opportunity to go into this matter in detail. I welcome that opportunity.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence): I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister also assure the House that official guards of honour will not be refused in future simply because of a request by a family that a white ensign or similar flag be draped on the casket?


Mr. Hellyer:: That is part of the same question, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the Minister indicate what progress the Atlantic Development Board and the Government is making regarding the $20 million earmarked for industrial development in Nova Scotia.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that matter is under very active consideration at this time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of National Defence. It relates to questions that were asked in the House yesterday. In order to relieve the anxiety of ex-servicemen and their relatives, including my own, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister make a statement which will remove any possible doubt from our minds as to the propriety of the use of former flags and ensigns of our country in connection with private military funeral services; and will the Minister make it perfectly clear that the Government not only recognizes and respects these flags but also stands squarely behind the abiding affection in which they are held by those who served their country under them?


John George Diefenbaker: You have a guilty
conscience after yesterday.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question of urgency to the Acting Minister of Labour. Can the Minister make a report as to the success or otherwise of any action being taken in an attempt to bring about a collective agreement through negotiation between Grain Workers Local 333 in Vancouver and the various elevator operators in order to ensure that there is no stoppage in the export business out of the harbour of Vancouver?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to bring the hon. gentleman's question to the attention of the Minister of Labour, and I am sure he will have an answer for him on Tuesday.



ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.-SETTLEMENT OF STRIKE OF LONGSHOREMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question should be addressed to the Minister of Labour but in his absence possibly I could direct it to the Minister of Transport, as I am aware of his intense interest in the matter. Has the Minister anything to report in connection with the longshoremen's strike at St. John's?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to learn that at 10.30 this morning an agreement was reached and the strike is now over. It is my sincere hope that there will be a rapid development of traffic in the harbour so that all longshoremen desiring work will have work to do.
May 21. 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



ASSISTANCE IN ARRANGING MEETING BETWEEN MINISTERS OF QUEBEC AND FRANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
"Wili he use his good offices to facilitate a meeting between Messrs. Laporte and Mal-raux, ministers of cultural affairs of Quebec and France respectively, because it seems that, as a result of certain protocolar and other difficulties, the meeting that was to take place between these two ministers to discuss the possibility of an agreement in the field of cultural affairs has not yet taken place?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows quite well that I am always ready to co-operate and be helpful.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely in view of the well-known attitude of the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is willing to co-operate in such agreements that I thought he was going to intervene, in order to make arrangements for this meeting.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why I said that I was ready to co-operate.



INDONESIA-TAKEOVER OF CANADIAN OWNED SHOE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which relates to the very alarming news from Indonesia regarding the takeover of the Canadian Bata Shoe Company by Indonesia. Will the Minister indicate to the House what the situation is in that regard, and whether representations have been made to President Sukarno or if it is planned to make such representations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by our Ambassador in Indonesia that this is the last of the foreign enterprises to be brought under Indonesian Government control and operated under a Government


Controller. Officials of the Government of Indonesia have advised our Ambassador that the ownership of the company remains unchanged and that its operations are to proceed normally.



DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, reciprocating the spirit of good will that exists between the people of Canada and the people of the United States, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the Minister have any new information which he can give the House in respect of recent developments in the Dominican Republic as a result of what members of our party and other influential groups in Canada term an invasion of this Republic by the United States?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend, who generally reflects carefully on his observations and questions in the House, would feel that the American interest in Latin America and the Dominican Republic in particular does not warrant the wide and extravagant characterization that he has given with respect to the situation there. I cannot say anything more on the merits of the problem beyond what I said yesterday.



DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING ALASKA HIGHWAY AND ROAD THROUGH MAINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are any discussions going on at the present time between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States, initiated either by the Government of Canada or on behalf of any of the Provinces, with regard to the improvement of the Alaska highway through Canada and the possible construction of a direct route from the Maritime Provinces through the State of Maine to the Montreal area?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think I will ask my hon. friend to let me take that question as notice.
May 21, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1561



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Beaule (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
On May 12, as found on page 1206 of the official report, I asked the Minister of Justice the following question:
Is the minister aware that, since the R.C.M.P. has been put in charge of security at Quebec harbour, the reports are made in English, although all employees are French speaking?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that, but I shall inquire.
Did the minister get the information required to ascertain whether such a situation exists?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any opportunity to meet the commissioner and discuss the matter with him. An illness has kept him in the hospital for some time now. But this is a matter I intend to discuss with him when we meet again.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question arising out of the letter he tabled the other day from Mr. Emerson of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Could the Minister indicate whether it would be possible for Members of the House of all parties whose communities will be affected by the possible diminution or removal of transcontinental passenger service by the C.P.R. to meet with the Minister and the Board of Transport Commissioners informally in the near future to see what may be done so we can get some kind of estimate of the future?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, in normal circumstances I assume that if we could get the railway legislation before us we would have the President of the C.P.R. or other appropriate officials before the Railway Committee, or its successor, where they could
Inquiries of the Ministry be questioned about this matter in relation to the legislation. However, as some considerable time may elapse in view of the necessary priorities for other legislation, I will consider what may be possible along the lines suggested by the hon. gentleman, although his suggestion is a novel one.


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Railway Committee not be called into session pending action on the House rules and the setting up of the new committees? It could meet at the present time, could it not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council is very hopeful that the new committees can be set up without delay, and I think that would be much more satisfactory.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, again in the spirit of good Canadian-American relations, I wonder whether the Prime Minister can answer my question of yesterday so the border between our countries will remain open for the export of Canadian beef cattle to the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Agriculture who is absent today on official business.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Monteith:: For a change.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is most important official business. He will be making a statement on Tuesday which I hope will remove any worries my hon. friend may have.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister recently visited Nova Scotia and according to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, of May 20 she stated that in 1961 the unemployment rate in the Maritimes was 11.1 per cent and that at the present time the rate has gone down to 7.8 per cent, the
May 21, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry lowest rate of unemployment in the long before it is announced, but I cannot Maritimes since 1956.	give the hon. Member a specific date now.
I hold in my hand the April report published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, which states that the jobless total in the Atlantic Provinces increased from 73,000 in March to 76,000 in April. We are disturbed over these figures and since this represents, again according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 12.2 per cent of our labour force, will the hon. lady inform the House if she was quoting from the LaMarsh bureau of statistics or from what source she obtained her figures?


An hon. Member:: The truth squad.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not know from what source the figures came. It may have been the famous Martin bureau of statistics. I think my hon. friend should realize how effective the actions of this Government have been. It would seem that he is finally concerned even about these relatively low figures of unemployment, while during the time he sat on the Government side he very seldom expressed concern over much higher figures.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Will the hon. lady give the House some indication whether the Government is going to initiate some of the massive capital expenditures that are needed in the Atlantic Provinces, and I have in mind such projects as the corridor road through Maine, the causeway to Prince Edward Island and the Minas Basin power complex, in order to relieve the unemployment situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a most interesting question, but it would be even better on the order paper.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can she tell the House when she will be announcing the appointment of the advisory committee on the Canada Pension Plan?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the makeup of the committee to be appointed is still under active consideration. It will not be too
[Mr. Crouse.)



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with regard to the talks that took place during the visit of Earl Mountbatten with Canadian immigration officials and other representatives of the Canadian Government. Would he say what was the purpose of these talks, their purport, and whether any undertakings were given by Canada as a result of the discussions that took place?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the questions may I say that Canada is one of several Commonwealth countries that the so-called Mountbatten mission has visited or is in the course of visiting. The purpose of such visits is to discuss and obtain the ideas of this country and the others being visited regarding possible changes in the immigration practices and regulations in Britain more than anything else.


John George Diefenbaker: Were the discussions in so far as Canada is concerned in connection with the opening up of immigration to all parts of the Commonwealth on an equal basis? Was that one of the considerations?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is she now in a position to report on the radioactivity level over Canada following the Chinese nuclear tests?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My department has been keeping a very close watch, as might be appreciated, and I am very happy to report that no increase at all has been noted since that explosion.
May 21, 1965



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, normally I do not try to restrict the question hour, but in view of the fact that Your Honour is entertaining at twelve o'clock I would hope that consideration might be given to postponing further questions until Tuesday to enable you to get away.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to thank the right hon. gentleman for his courtesy to you and to the House. It just shows how much can be done in 30 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition for his courtesy in making this suggestion. I hope it will meet with the pleasure of the House. May I remind those Members who are able to attend that there is a reception, starting now, in the Railway Committee room in order to meet the distinguished delegates of the United States of America to the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Olson:
That this House recognizes the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business;
That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House; and
That, in order to secure improved examination of the details of legislation and of public spending, while maintaining the full authority of the House, this House agrees upon the value of making increased use of Standing Committees;
That this House accordingly orders;
1. That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 36 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of proceedings on motions "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair"; supplementary or additional estimates for the financial year; interim supply; and main estimates whether 22620-101
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Procedures for the coming or the current financial year. That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-two members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon this order, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
2. That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read as follow:
Standing Order 15-A
15-A. (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may request that the question of allocation of time for consideration of any item of business or stage thereof be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report, and upon suoh 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)	H 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.-
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Gilles Grégoire: 
Mr. Cyr:: Good riddance.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it would be disastrous for the nation because the old line parties have not succeeded in renovating their ideas, not even their programs; the new ideas in this house have been brought forward by the splinter parties. In fact, the splinter parties have not only brought in new ideas, but ideas period. These are the parties who bring forward ideas in the house; the old line parties cannot renew their ideas and renovate their program.
In fact, all they have been doing for 25 years has been to draw ideas from the splinter parties' programs, especially the Ralliement Creditiste.


Jean Robert Beaulé: They are unable to have ideas by themselves.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because the old line parties cannot express ideas themselves that the splinter parties are the only ones to voice ideas in this house. In fact, if it were not for the splinter parties, this house would be bare of ideas. That is why I argue that it is important to maintain the right of the splinter parties to express their views so that there are at least a few ideas circulating in the house. We should not be obliged to witness petty politics only, as we see too often in this house, on the part of the two old line parties.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the allocation of time is concerned, we believe the ideas expressed in the resolution should be clarified. We do not object of course to improving the rules of the house, but we want the wording to be clearer, more precise, so that we may know where we stand.
22620-101J
DEBATES	1565
House of Commons Procedures
For instance, as regards the first paragraph of motion No. 14, we know that there is an amendment and a subamendment to remove supplementary estimates from the 36-day period allocated to the business of supply. I wonder why they want to remove those estimates from that period. As far as I am concerned, I would have preferred the removal of interim supply voted on every month, because if a majority government is elected, and even with a minority government as we have today, it is often the only opportunity which the opposition has of automatically overthrowing the government by extending the debate on interim supply. In fact, I think this procedure may be necessary in some circumstances, particularly when the government goes beyond its rights and privileges.
If consideration of interim supply took the whole 36 days allocated-consideration of interim supply has often taken up to 15 days -then there would be no time left for consideration of the main estimates of every department.
That is why I think it would perhaps be better to reduce this 36 days period to 30 days and to remove consideration of interim supply from the time allocated for consideration of estimates in general.
However, since an amendment has been moved so that supplementary estimates will not be included, I feel that this is an improvement, even if the 36-day period for the general consideration of estimates has to be shortened. That is why we will support this proposal not to include supplementary estimates in the period of time provided by the first paragraph of motion No. 14.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this motion should also include provisions in the event the estimates of all departments would not have been considered in the 36-day period. Would the estimates not discussed be passed automatically? In the affirmative, I believe that this would be unfair, especially if some members wanted to deal rather extensively with a specific problem and did not leave enough time for other members to discuss other problems.
As far as the suggestion to sit during the supper hour is concerned, that is between six and eight o'clock, I do not feel that this would really expedite the business of the house.
Of course, we know that members would leave in turn to go and have supper, but we must take under consideration the fact that at the present time there are complaints to
1566	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures the effect that there is too much non-attendance in the house. Consequently, I do not think that to sit through between six and eight would expedite the nation's business. On the contrary, that would be a direct invitation to hon. members to be away during that period.
Since it seems there is practically unanimous objection to that suggestion to sit during the supper hour, I feel that the government might easily reverse its decision on that matter.
Mr. Speaker, another very important point in this motion is the one dealing with the abolition of the appeal against the Speaker's ruling. With all due respect, I think the house, which is the final authority as far as its business and decisions are concerned, as the Chair has stated many times, should keep its right and its privilege of appealing against the Speaker's rulings, particularly when some members are not pleased with them. At least, this would allow the house to vote on the merits of such and such ruling, and I am sure that in the long run it would prove wiser to maintain the right of appeal against the Speaker's rulings.
On the whole, we are in favour of improving the rules so as to have more time to legislate in the people's interest. We feel that time is being wasted in the house, that it would be advisable to shorten some debates in order to discuss more measures. I feel, however, that such motions are dangerous for the house as a whole, because they are not specific enough, and do not indicate exactly what is intended under the new changes in the standing orders. In my opinion, enough care has not been taken to safeguard the rights and privileges of the opposition, as well as of the third parties.
For instance, paragraph 2 of the new standing order 15A provides that after discussion with representatives of the various parties, if no agreement has been reached- and even though all opposition parties may object-about the allocation of time for consideration of some items of business, the minister concerned may then propose just the same that the debate on a piece of legislation be restricted. I think that this attitude would be unfair for the house as a whole and as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out yesterday, the government should reconsider the strict provisions of the proposed subsection 5 of section 15a. In addition, I feel some provisions of this section should be clarified and made more flexible.

DEBATES	May 21, 1965
Last year I attended the meetings of the committee on procedure set up to attempt to speed up the business of the house. A similar change to that proposed in subsection 2 of motion No. 14 was submitted and accepted. I had personally endorsed it, but it was much more flexible than the amendment now proposed.
If the government tries too hard to stifle the opposition-even the word "guillotine" was used, which seems to me to be a bit too strong for the time being-we can nevertheless find some means to prevent them from stifling us too long. Besides, what is the meaning of "guillotine"? It means nothing more nor less than "to kill", "to decapitate", and this is out of the question.
However, if the government seeks to stifle the opposition, then the image of this house and of the parliament of the nation will become tarnished.
Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my remarks, I would like to add one more thing.
There are, in this house, interpreters, reporters, civil servants working on Hansard, in short all the regular staff of the house of Commons.
If the hours of sitting are increased, it seems to me that it would be necessary to increase also the staff who already have to work late at night very often. The work done by those employees is often extremely tiring. Take for instance the case of the simultaneous translators. They spend most of the day in little cubicles where they must not always be comfortable; moreover, their work is extremely difficult because it requires their unwavering attention, especially when the speakers talk quickly, when there are interruptions, and so on.
The reporters find themselves in the same situation. They must do tiring, nerve-wracking work. In my opinion, the government must -and it is morally obligated to-increase considerably the present staff of the House of Commons because these people have a difficult task to do.
Those employees have to follow the proceedings continually. I also think that their salary should be raised because those are jobs where there is no set time and the number of hours will increase further because we may sit at night even later than we do at the present time, and even during the lunch hour. Furthermore, Hansard employees have to go on working after the house has adjourned.
May 21, 19G5

Mr. Speaker, 1 think everybody will recognize that there is an urgent need to increase the personnel and their salaries.
Take for instance the French debates section; it has a smaller staff than the English side. This means that they have more work to do. It is not that I would like to cut the personnel of the English debates-I think they also need to be increased-but I insist on the fact that the French debates personnel must be increased because they have to do the same job as the English section, with fewer people.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this suggestion should be taken into serious consideration by the government because that is an urgent need.
In conclusion, I should like to say-and on this I will put a very special emphasis-that what is now presented to us with motion No. 14 is not clear enough. We are now discussing the over-all motion. Later on we will deal with each part and we will have an opportunity to move amendments and subamendments to clarify what needs to be clarified.
I think the government should take it upon itself to clarify the situation so that we may know exactly where we stand. For instance, what is meant by allocation of time? Will there be a minimum time? For a given debate, will the time allocated be one hour? Will provision be made in this motion so that, even if a specified time is allocated, each party shall at least have an opportunity to express its views?
No such provision is indicated in the motion, and I feel this is essential. The government should provide for something like that and add that the minister may move that a certain time be allocated for debate provided that each party in the house is given an opportunity to voice its opinion on each motion or that the minister may move that time be allocated provided such time is not less than one or two days. Nothing to that effect appears in the motion before us.
I suggest the government should take it upon itself to move the amendments and provide the clarification required on this matter.
In any case, when the time comes to move our own amendments, if the government has not done so, we shall feel duty-bound to do it in its place.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: I rise to take part in this debate with particular interest, because I have felt
House of Commons Procedures for some time that due to the increase in the business to come before Parliament by the nature of the development of our country and the changing concept as to the areas of activity which should properly concern this institution, we had reached a point where Parliament is being foreclosed effectively from considering many matters because too much time can be spent on certain items to the exclusion of other items.
The adjustment required is a very difficult and delicate one-an adjustment which will fully protect the rights of parliamentary debate and without unduly curtailing those rights, permit all those matters which should come before Parliament to come before it. It is a question of arriving at some workable procedure which would achieve this objective.
I have been greatly interested in the speeches made so far in this debate. I will have some comments to make about particular speeches in an effort to explain what I believe the proposed changes to mean. I will do that as I go along. But I wish to try to keep my remarks at this stage strictly relevant to the subamendment and the amendment to order No. 14 on today's order paper rather than range into the larger subject, though I must admit it is tempting to range into it and I would rather enjoy that activity. However,
I will try to be strictly relevant to what is before the House at the moment.


Mr. Baldwin:: Much better to yield to temptation.


George James McIlraith: It is very pleasant to yield to temptation in this regard sometimes, but I will try to approach the subject in the way I have indicated.
Order No. 14 proposes an allocation of time in order to permit Parliament to do more work, not less work. I have sensed that there seems to be an assumption among some hon. Members that the order restricts or cuts down. That is not true. It does restrict or cut down in some respects, but it is an attempt to restrict or cut down only with respect to those things which prevent the discussion of other matters which should be discussed. I hope that as the debate goes on it will come to be realized that this order is an attempt to get better programming of our work in Parliament.
It is, I think, interesting that both parts of this order set forth for the first time rights of an Opposition which heretofore have not been granted in a formal way. This point has
May 21, 1965

House of Commons Procedures not really been dealt with by any of the speakers who have preceded me. I hope, nevertheless, that it will be appreciated and I would welcome discussion of it, because I regard it as an important and significant feature.
I refer, for instance, to the first paragraph of the order in which the committee is asked to do certain detailed work in making the necessary changes in the rules dealing with supply. The committee is asked to consider this matter "including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed".
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I have myself regarded the bringing for-word of estimates for discussion, within reasonable limits of protection to a Government, to be a right in the exercise of which the Opposition must play a prominent and very responsible part. I am not speaking now of the right of discussion of the matter in the House, but the right to have it brought forward for discussion. This is quite a new principle in the Canadian Parliament, and I think a very proper one, which is embodied here. It does afford protection to an Opposition against a Government using allocation of time in a way which might possibly preclude the Opposition from examining the items in question.
Similarly, in the proposal for allocation of time for legislation, the Opposition for the first time is brought in at the first stage to discuss allocation of time, to enter into the consideration of allocation of time. I regard this as a very proper method, because the activities of Parliament must be determined, in my view, not exclusively by the Government. It is quite true that the Government must take responsibility for legislation which it submits to Parliament; it must take exclusive responsibility for that and must stand or fall on it. Indeed, that is the basis of our whole system. But when it comes to Parliament's handling the legislation, I have always felt that the Opposition should have an active and full participation in the arrangements.
In our proposed changes in standing orders which deal with allocation of time for legislation, we have gone much further than has the United Kingdom Parliament. In the debate some interesting references have been made to the United Kingdom Parliament, but the Business Committee as they use the term there is something different from the Business Committee as we use the term in our proposal. Their Business Committee deals only with


the apportionment of time between different stages after the total time for it has been allocated, and in the United Kingdom, the Government takes the responsibility for the total allocation for the whole item. But we bring in the Opposition at the first stage under our proposed change to the rules, and I would think this is a significant feature in protecting the Opposition against some of the fears which have been expressed.
There have also been one or two unfortunate references in the press comparing this rule with the United Kingdom rule. While it is true that some parts of it are modelled on the United Kingdom rule, to make a comparison on a total, over-all basis is quite wrong and misleading; because the United Kingdom rule and practice in this respect goes far beyond anything which even the sharpest critic of this proposed rule suggests is harsh in the present proposal. Therefore I hope there will not be any generalizations made in comparing the two, because the United Kingdom rule relating to allocation of time is very much harsher than our suggested procedure.
For example, our procedure requires for the first time that a Minister rise and request that an allocation of time be considered by the Business Committee. The effect is to give all Members of the House of Commons notice, so they will know what is going on before the Business Committee. I must take some responsibility for putting in that provision, and I did so because I have sensed, through my limited experience as House Leader since my appointment was announced on November 1 last that Members of the House sometimes have not been aware that house leaders were dealing with certain subjects in an attempt to program the business of the House. I hope this requirement that a Minister must rise and make this request will give those private Members notice so they can immediately communicate as they wish-this is their own private affair-with their representative on the Committee. I think this is quite important because on a couple of occasions at least I have suspected, and I think with some reason, that hon. Members have not been aware of this. The time required for the procedure is also rather interesting.
The Minister having given notice on one day, the representatives on the Committee are given three days to try to reach agreement on some reasonable program for dealing with the proposed legislation. If they agree, then there is a procedure provided for making an
May 21, 1965	COMMONS
order of the House. Assuming they fail to agree, then, and only then, can a Government Minister announce that the next day he is going to give notice of a motion dealing with allocation of time. One day's notice is given. Therefore one day elapses before the motion comes up for discussion, and there is a full day's debate on the motion which is put forward in that way.
Another difficulty which has arisen in the meetings we have been having is this. When there seems to be a general consensus among the representatives after considering this matter, there is no provision for making it an order of the House except by unanimous consent of all Members. I think we have rather-I think I could use the word-"stumbled" into a situation where we have a Virtual veto by one Member which can frustrate the will of the vast majority of those on both sides of the House in all parties to have some programming which would permit other business to be brought before the House, or would permit a recess. We have found quite some difficulty on this point, and an attempt has been made under the proposed rules to provide a remedy.
It is true that it has been said that paragraph 5 of the proposed new Standing Order 15A is too drastic in its present form. I am going to come back to that later in my remarks when I shall have something to say about that precise point. I make these remarks now in an effort to show what this resolution is attempting to deal with and what the Government is seeking to do.
In my view, it is necessary at this stage of our parliamentary history to develop a system of programming the business of the House. As I indicated in my remarks, while proving the necessity for this is probably fairly easy, how to achieve a solution is more difficult.
Having made those preliminary remarks, Mr. Speaker, I now want to address myself more particularly to what has taken place in the debate up to this time. I regret very much that the Leader of the Opposition is not in the House, because I did want to make some remarks about parts of his speech. However, in view of his absence from the House at this moment-a necessary absence on other important business-I will be much gentler than I otherwise would have been. Perhaps that is a good thing in consideration of matters of this kind.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I did him the honour of listening very carefully to his speech, and I gained the
DEBATES	1569
House of Commons Procedures impression that he showed himself as a magnificent master of the art of the irrelevant. At the conclusion of his speech, I was not clear in my own mind as to just what stand the Official Opposition was taking in respect of these rule changes. I then wondered whether I had listened sufficiently carefully, or had perhaps missed something. However, I noticed that the press had the same difficulty. The Globe and Mail this morning had this to say:
This leaves the Conservative attitude to the Government's entire package of procedural proposals unclear.
I do not quarrel very much in this regard, because if its position is unclear I am quite sure it will be clarified as the debate continues, and perhaps that is the best way for this debate to develop. I do wish the Leader of the Opposition had been more definitive in his discussion of the proposals now before the House. The other speeches made last night by the hon. Member representing the N.D.P., the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) were more precise and constructive, although I do not agree with all they said. I got the impression that they are in agreement with-


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council seems to be in a jovial mood today and I wonder whether he would permit an interjection at this point. He just did something which appears to be becoming increasingly common in the House, when he referred to the N.D.P. Party. He has not set a very good example to the House, considering the office he holds. If he wishes to refer to the N.D.P. I should like to point out to him that the "P" stands for "Party".


George James McIlraith: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I should not have used that phrase at all, but rather should have referred to the hon. Member's constituency. I am very happy to be corrected on such an important point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I still call them the C.C.F.


George James McIlraith: One part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was of particular interest to me, and although the subject is not referred to directly in order No. 14 it was appropriate for him to refer to it during this debate. I refer to his remarks about a permanent Speakership. I was amazed to hear the right hon. Leader of the Opposition say, as recorded at page 1516 of
May 21, 1965

House of Commons Procedures Hansard, in relation to the appointment of a permanent Speaker:
In 1957 I tried to bring before Parliament the name of an hon. gentleman in relation to this permanent Speaker position-
I thought I remembered a rather firm and, indeed, vehement reply to a rather colourful Member of this House, in which the Leader of the Opposition denied that the offer was in respect of a permanent position. He made it very clear that the position was only to be for the usual term. I recalled the matter having been raised previously in the debate, and I was a bit puzzled about it. I have since checked Hansard and found that the reference to which I refer was put on the record last night, showing the denial on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.
During the years 1957 to 1962 there were only three appeals from the Speaker's rulings. I thought the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister with a following of 207 or 208 Members in the House, might have found that a convenient time to act, because there were not many appeals taken and he had plenty of support.


Mr. Knowles:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Did he say there were only three appeals from 1957 to 1962?


George James McIlraith: I should have referred to 1958.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he was referring to the years from 1957 to 1962 I am sure he remembers that during the 1957-58 Parliament the Conservative Government itself appealed a ruling on at least one occasion.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I remember that occasion very well. I had reference to the Government which was in office with that clear majority in the Parliament of 1958 to 1962.


Mr. Churchill:: Would the Minister permit a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In regard to the suggestion in 1957 that the Speaker be made permanent, why did the Liberal Party oppose him so vigorously during the election in 1962?


George James McIlraith: It was quite apparent that the Government did not propose to make him a permanent Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is nonsense.


George James McIlraith: The public had also made quite clear its views about that Government,


and there was no point in electing a supporter of that Government unless he was going to be made the permanent Speaker.
In any event, to add to my puzzlement, I now find that the Leader of the Opposition is very keen about this idea for a permanent Speaker. On checking the record I have found there were 12 appeals during the first session of this Parliament and 11 during the last session of this Parliament. I wondered why the Leader of the Opposition was so anxious to support so many appeals against the Speaker's rulings, while at the same time being so keen about making the Speaker permanent. I began to wonder on what basis he was taking that position. I have occasion to do a great deal of work these days in respect of personnel matters in the Government services, and I wondered if I was always entirely wrong in handling these matters. Someone pointed out to me in the Parliamentary Guide the fact that the present Speaker was elected with a majority of something of the order of 28,000 votes. I then thought perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was influenced by that fact. In any event, Mr. Speaker, it will be up to that gentleman to explain his position on some suitable occasion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who came second in that vote?


George James McIlraith: I hope the Leader of the Opposition will take some time to explain his position. While inconsistency can be tolerated sometimes, it should not become the guiding light in one's life.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the consistent position of your Government; a permanent Speaker or not?


George James McIlraith: I should just like to make one other observation on this point. When considering the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition I wondered whether he had perhaps read the Toronto Telegram of March 24, which made some reference to remarks made by the present Speaker, and had come to the conclusion that he was safe in making such an offer.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I wondered also whether he had looked at the Deputy Speaker's majority, which was very small and in whose case there was nothing on record on the subject of willingness to accept, and whether his attitude would be the same if he had.
In any event, sometimes I can be made to be quiet in the House but I cannot be stopped
May 21. 1965	COMMONS
from thinking. I just leave that matter open. Some day when we are not under pressure of time and time is not a factor I hope the Leader of the Opposition will really become a little more consistent and leave hon. Members like myself in a little more certainty as to what he means, as to why he has changed his mind when he changes it, and precisely which of his versions is his real stand on the subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the President of the Privy Council is putting statistics on the record I wonder whether he would not like to make them a little more complete. He pointed out that His Honour the Speaker had a 28,000 majority. Should he not point out that was a 28,000 majority over the runner-up, who was the New Democratic Party candidate, and that he had a majority of 32,000 over the Conservative candidate who ran third?


George James McIlraith: I said that since the
Leader of the Opposition was not here at the moment I would not be too harsh and would be a little gentler than I would otherwise be. It is obvious that the subject permits of much harsher treatment than I gave it.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the hon. gentleman permit another question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would he not agree that the appointment of the present Speaker does not assure him of immortality, and that in the event something happened the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition would still apply in that if his party was in power they would still have the right to appoint another Speaker and in that event his majority might not be as large as that of the present Speaker?


George James McIlraith: I must say that in trying to forecast the actions of the Leader of the Opposition I find myself in the utmost difficulty. I have learned long since in the House that it is not possible for anyone to forecast accurately the actions of the Leader of the Opposition.
To come more specifically to matters raised last night, I think I should perhaps deal with some remarks made by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat. As I read his speech, it seems to me that he accepted the principle of the proposed order completely, as did the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. He completely accepted the principle involved. Both Members, however, expressed
DEBATES	1571
House of Commons Procedures reservations about the method proposed in paragraph 5 of the proposed standing order 15A which sets out the procedure to be followed if unanimous agreement cannot be reached in the Business Committee on the allocation of time for a particular matter. There seemed to be a pattern of concern with regard to that point in both their speeches.
If I am correct in sensing that this feeling may also be in the minds of other hon. Members, as I think it may well be from what I have heard in private discussions, I want to make it quite clear now that we are ready to provide an assurance that the power will not be abused by setting drastic limits on debates. In that regard perhaps we can work out some formula or some minimum time for each of the stages which can be inserted in the paragraph. Incidentally, this point was also raised by the hon. Member for Lapointe. If we can mutually agree, we are prepared to insert a minimum time limit for all stages of a measure or for each stage of a measure separately, as the case may be, so that no motion can be made to set a time shorter than this minimum. In drafting the rule it had not been visualized that that difficulty could arise because what we were thinking of was trying to prevent the consensus of the House being frustrated by what could become virtually the veto of one Member. Therefore, before we meet on Tuesday I should like to consult with the House leaders about the precise terms for such an amendment. I should like to feel free to do that.
At the same time I should like to look at another point that has become apparent and was rather well dealt with by Members last night in the debate. I refer to the question relating to the supply part of the proposed order. Before I deal with that, perhaps I should deal with another point that has been raised privately by some hon. Members opposite and has been mentioned in the House by the hon. Member for Royal on another item of business.
The Prime Minister gave the assurance that we would include an amendment making It possible to extend the time allocation in any case where the Government introduced an amendment of a substantial character at a late stage in the consideration of a measure already being debated under an allocation of time. Obviously it would be unfair, after an allocation of time had been set, for the Government to bring forward an amendment of a substantial nature and use up the time
May 21, 1965

House of Commons Procedures allocated on some really new subject matter. I should like to meet with the house leaders to draft an amendment that will provide adequate protection on this point. It is dealt with specifically, of course, in the Prime Minister's speech.
I want to emphasize again, as the Prime Minister emphasized in his opening speech, that what we are seeking to do is not in any way to restrict legitimate debate or to reduce the time required for adequate consideration of a measure, but to make it possible to have arrangements for the orderly consideration of business and to ensure that after full debate, decisions can be reached. There may be one or two smaller points to be dealt with in the supply part of the order.
I should like to speak more fully about the precise method of dealing with what is set out in the subamendment and in the amendment. The point made in the subamendment about final supplementary estimates is a perfectly valid point of objection to the wording of paragraph 1 of the proposed resolution, and we propose to accept that in some form. But the other point about taking out all the supplementaries is not a valid point, because so many of the supplementaries are discussed when the main estimates are considered. It is not a satisfactory way of meeting the difficulty which the hon. Member foresees.
Then there is the question of taking out the supply motions. I do not think that is a satisfactory remedy. I think they ought to be included in the time limitation, but I believe there is room for amendment of the standing order dealing with the six supply motions because I realize that the rules on that point are not in a satisfactory state. I should like to hear the views of members of the Opposition in that regard.
[DOT] (1:00 p.m.)
I think we might consult on that, because it is clear that the standing order is a standing order that will be dealt with by a special committee proposed to be set up under paragraph 1 of the proposal before the House at this time. The committee could then deal with the whole subject of supply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That sounds like a good place to call it one o'clock.


George James McIlraith: I have just finished. I should like to conclude my remarks with the reiteration of my idea of the importance of this measure for the programming of the business of the House, and the concept that it should be done by having estimates and some other

business go to standing committees where hon. Members will have a better chance of making a more thorough examination than is permitted under the system we have used heretofore.
For these reasons I ask, whatever their objections may be to individual items or individual points, the wholehearted support of hon. Members for the principle involved in this proposal now before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the Minister would mind calling it one o'clock so we can ask him another question or two at two thirty.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I would be glad to call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I had concluded my remarks but I understand some hon. Members wished to ask me questions, and I would be very glad to try to answer them if I can.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. At one o'clock I asked the President of the Privy Council if he would stay on his feet so that we could ask him a question before he sat down. I only hope he has not been on his feet all during the hour and a half recess.
During the last minute or so that he was speaking he referred to the desirability, which we all share, of making greater use of and improving the work committees. In particular he expressed the hope that Members, by examining estimates in committees, would be able to do a better job than they have been able to do under the arrangements we have had thus far. This leads me to a question concerning the suggestion that there might be periods of time when the House could adjourn so that the committees could sit and have all the time for their work. I am not asking him to comment on the timetable proposed by last session's committee on procedure, but I would like to know if the Government looks favourably on the idea of committees having certain periods of time when they could devote the whole time to their important work?


George James McIlraith: I think, Mr. Speaker, the position is that until we get some experience in seeing how the referral of estimates works
May 21, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES
House of Commons Procedures
out in committee, we should not make a pre- of a new proposal for dealing with esti-determination on the question raised by the mates is involved in the over-all picture.
hon. Member. It is quite an interesting proposition, but I think it is premature to decide it at this moment.
I would hope-and I do not want to digress into this subject-that we will be able to arrange to program the committee work a little better than has been the practice in the recent past, by arranging with more precision the hours and days of sitting, and certain staff and organizational changes and improvements. Until we see how that works out, we would not wish to make a final decision on the other point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister does not realize that if we start off with two, three, four or half a dozen committees, trying to meet and do their work at the same time the House is sitting, we may be predetermining the failure of this experiment? I wonder if the Government won't give more thought to this before we try it, and I wonder also if the Minister will comment on the suggestion that has been made a number of times, that something might be done about research assistance for Members so that the quality of their work might be improved?


George James McIlraith: The latter question introduces an altogether new subject. It is my own feeling that the question of different use of research assistance has to be looked at and something done about it, and that what research assistance is available now is not being used to its full capacity and is not being used correctly. It is being used in the nature of an advice source rather than doing research on factual material. But I quite agree with what I take to be implied in the hon. Member's last question, that there has to be more attention given to the subject of research and something done about it. I am not prepared to say what, or how it should be handled.


Mr. Peters:: May I ask the Minister a twofold question. Is the Government prepared to set forth a timetable, that probably would flow from the Throne Speech, or in some other way, detailing periods that are going to be allowed or aimed at in the designating of business? I am thinking of a summer recess. I am thinking of the idea of putting aside a number of months to deal with the financial aspect of parliament, and so many months for the legislative work of Parliament. It seems to me that this setting up
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Yes, we hope that the acceptance of the proposal now before the House will make it possible to program the business of the session in such a way as to make provision for the handling of the major part of the business of the session in an adequate way, and also-and it is important we should be realistic-to permit business to be laid before the House in such a way that we can, with certainty, fix, for instance, the times for the Christmas recess, the Easter recess and the summer recess. It is my view quite firmly, as a result of my experience here over a number of years, that any realistic appraisal of a Member's duty to his constituents implies, if he is to perform his functions here efficiently, the proper contacts with his constituency and also, I might add, with his family and that provision must be made for the appropriate recesses.


William Arnold Peters: A second question. I think it is generally conceded by all Members that when we discuss estimates nowadays we are really discussing Government policy rather than the financial aspects of the estimates. Anyway, that has been the case since I came to the House. Some attention should be paid to this situation before we are asked to embark on the new system which is now proposed. Let us assume that a committee studies the estimates of a particular department. Under the British parliamentary system such a committee would report to the House on the estimates it has studied and certain days would be set aside for discussion and action on the report. Here in Canada the difficulty has always been this: A report is tabled but it is left to the Government to decide whether the points raised in it are taken up or not. The Leader of the House is well aware of this problem and I am wondering what arrangements are to be made for having the report of the committee discussed, or accepted or rejected by a majority of the House in a formal way so that the work of the committee would not be wasted, as so often happens now.


George James McIlraith: There seems to be some confusion inherent in the hon. Member's question. The reason for the different practice in Great Britain to which he refers is this: The British House refers the estimates to the committee and the committee deals with them. We propose a procedure whereby the
May 21, 1965

House of Commons Procedures committees will consider the estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of the Whole House. We have placed no limitation whatever on the time taken in committees, and the problem, as I see it, does not arise in the way in which the hon. Member has stated it.
I have no doubt at all that after trying these arrangements for a couple of sessions, we will want to make certain changes in the committee practice and in the rules. I would prefer not to be too rigid with regard to the details of the rules referring the estimates to the committee. We should see how they work out, and then deal with them in the House afterwards. Any points such as the hon. Member has raised could be dealt with fully in the House under our existing rules.


Gerald William Baldwin: Before proceeding with the remarks I had intended to make I should like to refer for a few moments to the questions which have been asked by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) because they raise issues which I feel are important.
I think the question raised by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre as to the time during which committees should sit and the manner in which they should carry out their business is an important one. We have all experienced the problems which arise when a committee summoned for ten o'clock or ten thirty does not meet until eleven o'clock leaving it with an hour and a half in which to examine witnesses or documents. Then the Members return to the House at two thirty, with an understanding that they must go back after orders of the day are over in order to complete the day's business. This, in my opinion, is an incomprehensible way in which to carry out these duties and is a complete waste of time.
We have developed in the Public Accounts Committee over a number of years, during the time His Honour the Speaker was chairman and subsequently, what I think is a far more interesting arrangement. Time is permitted for a Member of the committee to initiate a line of examination, to develop it fully and to complete it so that he will have made his point and elicited the information in which he is interested before letting another Member of the committee have the floor. But within the limited period of an hour and a half or two hours, with the doubtful probability of being able to carry on at 
a later time, this whole scheme would fall by the wayside unless the House and the Government give attention to the machinery which is to be provided to implement the desires of the Government and of hon. Members in this regard. This relates to what the hon. Member for Timiskaming had to say about committee reports. A committee report may be filed, but if no motion for concurrence is moved it perishes. Not all committee reports need be the subject of discussion in the House, though there are many which ought to be.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if I might ask a question at this point, for clarification. Does not the hon. Member envisage, in the case of a committee dealing with estimates, that the estimates should be returned to the House and that any question which would be debated on a motion for concurrence in the committee's report would be debated in Committee of the Whole on those estimates when they were called?


Gerald William Baldwin: That is not an unlikely situation. I am thinking in terms of the limited time which would be available under the rules, if they were amended as now proposed in item 14 on the order paper. This would impose certain limitations upon deliberations in Committee of Supply. My argument relates to committee reports as a whole, and I would think the Government might give consideration to a means whereby if committee reports were filed, and no motion is made to concur, they should be brought to the floor of the House for consideration and debate upon notice being given by a definite number of Members. Of course the Government does not need to accept such a report, but there would be an opportunity to debate it to a limited extent; it would see the light of day.
This brings me to the question which was raised last night concerning the proposed amendment to Standing Order 43 section (2)-
When the debate on any motion made under Standing Order 15(2) is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and considered under government orders.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Fickersgill) intimated that it was not the intention of the Government in proposing this change that the Government should interfere with or prevent a motion to concur in a committee report being brought back to the floor of the House.
May 21, 1965

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
He said, as the note appears in the proposals for changes which were published in the pamphlet issued in connection with these amendments, that the amendment would be only as to the order in which the motion to concur would be heard in order that the House be not deprived of its opportunity to ask oral questions and for the other routine proceedings to be held.
Some doubt was expressed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) about how that could be achieved, and I should like to throw out this suggestion for consideration. I suggest that a new item in the routine business of the House be established, to be known as Motions to Concur in Committee Reports. As to precedence of this order, it could appear in such a way as not to interfere with the proper rights of Members of the House to question the Government, or with the other routine proceedings which should have precedence over this. I throw out that suggestion so that before the debate is concluded the Government might give some consideration to it.
The President of the Privy Council intimated that, after hearing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), he had been unclear as to what had been his views with regard to the particular resolutions which are before the House. I want to say that the very clear and categorical suggestion which was made by the Leader of the Opposition as to the fact that changes of this kind must be predicated upon our movement toward a greater degree of permanency in the Speakership was a very solid and valid point. I am quite unclear after listening to the President of the Privy Council as to what are his views on this suggestion.
During the course of his remarks he did indicate, as I thought, some dissent from the particular proposal advanced by the Leader of the Opposition; but as to the essence of the proposition itself, we are still in the dark as to what the Government is proposing. I think this is tremendously important, Mr. Speaker, because we have from time to time during the course of this debate heard mention of our moving towards some measure of conformity with United Kingdom practice, not in all matters but in some of the matters which are the subject of these suggested changes. There is no doubt about it that by custom and by practice there is in the United Kingdom today this desirable degree of permanency in the Speakership, which I think is fundamental if we are to achieve lasting benefit from these or any other changes in our rules.
House of Commons Procedures
For example, on one issue alone, when we come to consider the allocation of time proposal we immediately run up against the very, very difficult problem of amendments. Today we do not know in advance what amendments will be moved. We do not know the seriousness of some of the amendments, what may be involved in them, and what length of time must necessarily be spent in adequately discussing them. For instance, in a bill of some considerable length which has a large number of clauses in it I would suggest to hon. Members that it is utterly impossible to establish in advance a reasonable period of time for the proper consideration of all phases and stages of the bill. In the United Kingdom the practice is-and I will come to this in more detail later in my remarks-that very rarely is this allocation of time principle applied until a bill has reached committee stage, or it has been referred back from a standing committee. The Speaker in the United Kingdom has the authority under their Standing Orders to select the amendments to be moved. This is the only way in which, in my humble opinion, we can achieve any measure of stability in trying to adopt an allocation of time principle.
This is a very crucial and difficult situation. Would Members be prepared, under these circumstances, to place in the hands of the Speaker an advance list of their amendments written out in detail so that he could have the opportunity to select the amendments, group together those of a similar nature, and then permit the Business Committee-which operates in a different way in the United Kingdom, of course-with this information before them, knowing the nature and the number of the amendments, to establish the length of time a given bill at this particular phase of its passage should take? This matter is basic to the whole issue.
In the United Kingdom this is the practice because of the permanency of the Speaker. The Business Committee in the United Kingdom consists of the Chairman's panel, plus Members selected for each bill. The Chairman's panel is, in turn, selected by Mr. Speaker. I could go on and give a number of other reasons why, if we do propose to proceed along this path, we will be in great difficulty unless we at least move toward a greater degree of permanency in the Speakership.
Several suggestions have been made as to how this might be achieved. I for one would like to see the Speaker come from the House.
1576	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures I think until a Speaker has known the hopes, the anxieties, the aspirations and the fears, and the very occasional triumph, of the backbencher, then no matter what other qualifications he may have he is not suited for the Speakership. I realize this involves problems which have been mentioned both by the Prime Minister, and again last night by the Leader of the Opposition. But these are not insuperable obstacles. I suggest that we should direct our attention to solving these problems, and before this debate is over I should like to hear a categorical reply from the Government as to its position in this matter. I know the Prime Minister made a statement in this connection, but I think it was a very guarded and very qualified statement having in mind the views of at least two of the Opposition parties. We have not had a direct statement from the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as to the view of his party on this. However, I think that the Government does owe it to the House at least to state clearly its position on this issue.
It has been said that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre was offered this position, and I think this would have been an excellent thing. He would have had an opportunity to exercise his knowledge of the rules. Another interesting facet of this which occurred to me is that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, had he been Speaker, might yet have achieved a reward which sometimes goes to Speakers by being elevated to the other place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Come, come. I thought my hon. friend was my friend.


Gerald William Baldwin: There he might have gained admiration for and knowledge of this institution; and who knows-at some time in the future we might have seen him leading a strong and sturdy battle to abolish the House of Commons.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult issue. It is an issue which has produced a debate of a very high order, I think. We have heard enunciations of high principles, and declarations of lofty and noble motives, so much so that to the uninitiated listening to this debate there might have occurred the thought: Why should people in a deliberative assembly of this kind who express sentiments of this nature worry about rules and orders? Surely they should be capable of governing themselves without subjecting themselves to standing orders. However, you and I who have
[Mr. Baldwin.)
DEBATES	May 21, 1665
been in this House for some time know that that is not the case.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I think it was Sir Erskine May who described the House of Commons by saying that in a large tumultuous assembly of this nature a few irregularities were bound to occur from time to time. The situation in this House of Commons is not different from that. There is a difficulty in all democratic assemblies relating to the reconciliation of two points of view which are often contradictory and seldom compatible.
There is a great need for orderly government and a strong urge for human dignity, decency and natural justice. Orderly government is very desirable, but by itself it is not enough. Very often orderly governments exist in concentration camps. I recall reading recently that Mussolini said on one occasion that one of his ambitions was to have the trains run on time in Italy. That is a very laudable ambition, Mr. Speaker, but obviously it is not sufficient. In our approach to problems, and particularly in our approach to the way in which we are going to modify the rules and Standing Orders, we must not lose sight of that very fundamental and desirable achievement of permitting all Members in their approaches to problems to have regard for human rights and freedoms. The difficulty we must face relates to reconciling our rules with these two provisions. I think this can be done.
I am in agreement with a number of the proposals which have been made, with certain alterations. That has been my position as stated in this House previously, and as a Member of the Committee on Procedure. Many of the principles inherent in some of these proposals are ones which I have supported, but there is some doubt in my mind as to whether the actual wording of the proposed changes now before us will in fact serve to implement the most desirable features of the changes I should like to see made. We need these changes.
There is no doubt that in the minds of the people of this country there is a strong feeling that this House and this Parliament could very usefully employ alterations, changes and improvements to its rules. This feeling is not peculiar to Canada, but common throughout the free world. The United Kingdom House of Commons at Westminster has a Committee on Procedure and Reform, and a request of hon. Members in that place was acceded to and an interim report in respect of changes
May 21, 1965

to the question period was brought down. Some hon. Members took exception to that report and one made a speech stating that there was a great need for radical and material changes. Throughout the state legislatures in the United States a strong demand is being made by the citizens and by legislators themselves for reform and changes. We are not alone in this regard, and the people of Canada are not alone in requesting these changes.
I think these changes are needed as a result of the powers given to the state to make considerable and serious alterations to our way of life. The state has entered into fields of activity never before contemplated, involving the expenditure of billions of dollars. I am sure those who were here before us never dreamed that those powers would lie within the spending power of Parliament. We are now in a period of transition and we are suffering the growing pains that accompany this kind of a change. That is why we need and must have rule changes.
However, because of this widespread feeling in the country the Government has to some extent taken advantage of the situation. The proposals which have been put before us, while based primarily on changes suggested by the committee, have in every case where there has been an issue been drafted in favour of the Government's view. Perhaps that is a natural thing, but we must look at them very closely for that reason. In that Committee on Procedure we had a great deal of give and take on the part of backbenchers -not necessarily party backbenchers, but backbenchers per se-regarding the views of the Government and the views of the Opposition parties. I think it is fair to say that everybody was reasonable and ready to compromise, as they did, but those compromises are not apparent in the detailed changes which we are now examining.
I welcome, taking it at its face value, the Prime Minister's statement at the time he introduced the first motion. At page 1477 of Hansard the Prime Minister is recorded as having said:
X know some Members have made suggestions in the last day or two. The hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) who presided so effectively over one of the subcommittees has mentioned changes he would like to see and there will undoubtedly be others. I think these possible amendments could be considered by the House-and I hope they will be-on an entirely non-partisan basis.
I take that as an assurance on behalf of the Government that these changes are nego-
House of Commons Procedures tiable and that suggested alterations will be considered. That view was reinforced by what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) said last night. If that is the case and the Government is not embarking upon a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, but is prepared to accept reasonable and honest amendments from all parts of the House, provided they are workable, I think we will accomplish a great deal. If that is not the case, I think we may find ourselves in a measure of difficulty in this regard, because as much as I favour the principles involved, I would find great difficulty in persuading myself to accept in toto, without any qualifications, everything that is contained within the four corners of these two motions.
Before I continue very briefly to deal with the two specific proposals contained in the first motion, I should like to refer to a reference made to absenteeism by an hon. Member one or two days ago. I think there is a formidable difficulty in regard to absenteeism, particularly if it is related entirely to recorded votes. Recorded votes do not represent a criterion, as all too often it has been taken to be, of the measure of attendance of an hon. Member in this House, or as a measure of the effectiveness with which an hon. Member works.
There have been placed before this House by way of amendments certain proposals in respect of which, so far as I am concerned, there was no clearcut issue for one to make a decision and cast a vote. Not very long ago a subamendment was proposed to the budget motion by the hon. Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). I do not intend to trespass the rule which states that we must not reflect on previous motions, but I wish to make a short reference to this subamendment to illustrate my point.
The subamendment involved a principle which appealed to me, and was related to a reduction in taxes. However, having regard to the value in dollars and cents and the degree to which the amount of money would be collected in some other form of taxation, I could not in the time available come to any decision. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Pennell) did mention a figure in relation to the dollars and cents value. I do not know how he arrived at that figure, but it was not supported by statistical information. I suggest that if a Member had time to consider the subamendment and its results, and had access to certain information, he could come to a decision,
1578	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures but not in the time that was available between the time that subamendment was proposed and when it was voted upon.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
To stop this I think that at some time, not necessarily now, we will have to have some way of dealing with these confidence votes so that when we do come to a real issue there will be an opportunity, through the means of standing committees or otherwise, for all the facts to be put on record, with the result that there will be no necessity for any Member having to cast his vote without a clear conscience because all of the facts on the issue are not available to him.
To go directly to the question of item 14 on the order paper, which deals, of course, with the detailed examination of estimates, I think this is very desirable. In my view, only in this way, with the Minister and his officials appearing before a committee and being subjected to examination by those Members who have informed themselves and who are knowledgeable and able to make inquiries as to the matters in which they are interested, will we get a proper, competent and critical study of the billions of dollars spent which are raised through taxes for the people of this country. In my opinion our responsibility to those who elect us, and to all the people of Canada, is not discharged by the kind of examination we have given to estimates in the past. This measure does provide a way, if the machinery is set up in the manner it should be.
As to the number of days allocated to the business of supply, I do not know whether this is too material although I think the Government has been somewhat harsh in its limitation. 1 think that included within the amendments proposed by the two hon. Members who spoke last night there is an opportunity for a more equitable distribution and allocation of time. In one particular I think we should be adamant in taking the stand that supplementary estimates of a particularly large amount should not be brought down after the 36 days allotted to the business of supply have been used up, and the House be asked to pass such estimates without any examination at all.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if the hon. Member heard me this morning when I gave an undertaking that an amendment would be brought forward to provide for protection on that very point.
IMr. Baldwin.]
DEBATES	May 21, 1965


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, I did. I just wanted to reinforce the reasons why it should be done. As I understand the situation, the limiting of time is based on the fact that the estimates will be submitted to the standing committees. If it should happen that this does not take place, that safeguard will be lost. I have in mind the practice that has been followed all too frequently in my opinion of putting items in the estimates which are in fact legislation. I think of examples such as the bridge subsidy, certain subsidies and grants in the Department of Agriculture, the making of acreage payments and so on. If we are not protected by the adoption of an alteration of this kind, then I do not think we will be discharging our duty, and I was very happy to hear the President of the Privy Council say that this would in fact be done.
With regard to the question of allocation of time, I think we have to take a very hard look at this matter. As to the first part of the proposal I am in complete agreement. It follows in fact a proposal which emanated from the Committee on Procedure. With regard to the establishment of a Business Committee and the reference to that committee, on request of the Government, of any particular measure in order that the committee may take a look at it and try to work out in advance the period of days to be allotted to its consideration, if there is unanimity which would reflect the unanimity of all parties in the House their recommendation would, of course, be made an order of the House and there could not be any interference at a later date.
But I regard with some considerable suspicion and doubt the effect of subparagraph 5 of the proposed standing order 15A. As I indicated before, the practice in the United Kingdom has almost invariably been that only when a bill gets into the committee stage is an order made. The provision for making such an order is not contained in the Standing Orders. It is simply an inherent right of the House, not the Government, to make an order that a limited number of days be fixed as the time within which a particular measure shall be dealt with. Only after that is done is the matter referred to the Business Committee, which then considers in detail all of the proposed amendments and all of the aspects of the bill which would be involved in Committee of the Whole, and then third reading. Within the limited time that has been fixed by the House the Business Com-
May 21, 1965	COMMONS
mittee then allots the time that it considers necessary.
This would not be the case here. I can think of very dangerous situations involving a controversial measure with new and radical departures in our economic life which the Government might consider to be highly desirable but about which the Opposition might have grave doubts; and for the Government to attempt in advance to ask for and receive from the House a limited number of days for the discussion of every phase of such a bill would be catastrophic.
As a matter of fact, I think what might develop here will be a very reasonable type of practice. If the Government asks the Business Committee to set a limit on the number of days, it is in fact flashing an amber light. This is their D.E.W. line, their early warning system. The Government is saying: We think this measure is important but we think it is a measure with regard to which there should be a limited period of time for debate. If the representatives on the Business Committee come to the conclusion that the suggested length of time to be allocated is insufficient, there will no doubt be bargaining and negotiating as there is today. If there is irreconcilable conflict there will not be unanimity. The Opposition will have then indicated its position. With regard to a measure of this kind they may very well have strong, substantial and serious objections, and they will feel it is their right to ventilate and to put forward each and every one of these objections in at least a reasonably limited way.
This leaves the matter to the Government.
I can only see this procedure being applied in very rare cases on second reading; but when the bill reaches Committee of the Whole, as it will, the Government must then come to a decision whether it should grasp the nettle and limit the time. They have indicated their views and the Opposition Members have indicated their objections. If the Government then moves to fix an allotted time it then becomes an issue which eventually the people must decide. This is the kind of practice which I think will develop. I hope it will not be used too frequently. In the United Kingdom this particular provision has been used less than a dozen times in the last 10 years in respect of bills.
To what extent the Business Committee will supplant the present meetings between the House leaders is another question. It may well be that this committee will simply
DEBATES	1579
House of Commons Procedures be a meeting of the House leaders in another form. I do not know. But I do think there is merit in a Business Committee in this sense, that when there is unanimity at a certain stage it will be possible for the House to make a final order. However, I do urge the President of the Privy Council and the Members of the Government to be very careful about a procedure by which they fix well in advance the number of days to be allotted to all stages of a certain measure.
What about the situation where a measure may go to the Senate and come back with amendments? Will this be included? I just mention this as one possibility which the Government may not have considered. There are many dangerous traps in this procedure if it follows the path that is outlined.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
As to the principle, yes; I feel as I said before that there should be greater opportunity for the Government, as the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said, to do things. However, I should like more opportunity to stop the Government from doing things, if I think they are doing things which are not right, as would other hon. Members. I should like more opportunity to seek to mould the minds and change the policies of the Government, either as represented in the estimates or in respect of bills. I should like this opportunity, an opportunity which under the present system is not given as effectively as it well might be. So, in that sense, I agree with the principle, but as to the details I have grave doubts.
There is one more point I should like to mention. I make this further suggestion to the Government, that they might consider continuing, not at this session but possibly next session if they are here to do so, the Committee on Procedure and Reform of the Rules. I have a number of reasons for making this suggestion. There is no doubt in my mind that if these rules are adopted certain consequences will flow from them which are not contemplated at this time. I have the feeling that these proposals have been rather hastily put together following the end of the last session. I am quite convinced that certain things will come about which we do not contemplate at this time. I believe as well that if the particular proposal by which appeals from Mr. Speaker's ruling are abolished, it might not be a bad idea to have in existence a committee which would be seized of an understanding of these rules, and which would meet from time to time and to which
1580	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures Mr. Speaker could have access. This would not at all in any way deny the right to have the fullest and complete discussions in the House. Certainly, if the right of appeal is abolished I would hope-I am quite convinced that this would happen-that there would be offered a most adequate opportunity for discussion in this House of any phase of the matter under debate. But I believe a panel of this kind would serve a very useful function.
Then we find from time to time that the rules must be changed. Our experience has been that the period of gestation from the time when the change has been desirable until it has gone through the process of being considered in this committee, brought back for consideration by the parties, going back to the committee again and ultimately coming to the House, is anywhere from one to three years. For this reason, I think the suggestion might be useful.
I have one other suggestion to make before I resume my seat. This deals with what I believe is a lamentable omission on the part of the Government, their failure to include a committee on delegated powers. I heard the explanation given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) that they are contemplating the appointment of a royal commission to deal with the question of the appointment of an ombudsman. In my opinion, the extent to which governments in the past few years have been moving more and more toward a delegation of authority from the legislative to the executive branch requires the establishment of a committee of this kind. In Northern Ireland, as I understand the procedure, all Orders in Council which are passed which delegate certain authority to the executive must be laid before the House of Commons within a limited time. If they are not so laid before the House, they cease to be effective. This is rather drastic. I do not believe we could do this. It is my submission, having in mind the experience over the past few years and the present, for example the fact that the current Budget resolutions contain very drastic delegations of authority from the legislative to the executive branch, that one of the great needs we have in any legislative body in this day and age is the right to review the extent to which a Government has exercised this power to delegate authority and to be criticial of it when we find the need arises.

DEBATES	May 21, 1965
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, during last session I had the privilege and honour to sit on the committee on procedure and organization with some hon. members who have a very great experience in the field of parliamentary procedure which is so difficult and complicated. I must tell you at once that owing to the fact that I sat with highly experienced members including the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and some others, I have acquired a certain experience myself which I hope will be very useful to me in the future and will enable me to discuss with more assurance and more ability the business of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was really disappointed, after the committee had met so often last year-there were more than thirty general sittings, in addition to the many sittings of the subcommittee on procedure-to find out, at the end of last session, that it was not decided to accept the changes suggested in the procedure of the house.
However, I note with pleasure that the government itself has now decided to propose to the house the procedural changes and, after listening to the remarks of the few hon. members who spoke before me, I am sure that there will be unanimous approval to the proposal brought before the house by the government.
During the next few minutes I shall endeavour to express my views on some of the proposed changes. Of course, I have mixed feelings about them, because I would have liked the government to go a bit further. But Paris, Ottawa or Canada were not built in a day and I think this is a first step toward an improved procedure for the business of the house.
I am glad to find that one of the main suggestions made by the committee during last session has been accepted and that, from now on, the detailed examination of the estimates will be limited to 36 days.
Like many of my colleagues, I have listened to the arguments put forth by previous speakers and there is no doubt that what we have here is quite an improvement.
I think that 36 days should be long enough to discuss the estimates. It means practically seven weeks of continuous debate and I think it is amply sufficient for such consideration.
May 21, 1965	COMMONS
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has suggested an amendment to extend that period by ten or 12 days for a total of nine or ten weeks. We all know, Mr. Speaker, the wide experience of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre in this field. I wonder if, at a time when decisions have to be taken quickly, when the business of government is in the process of re-organization to cope more efficiently with the many and complex problems facing it each day, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would not change his attitude as far as the number of days required for the discussion of estimates. Whether we like it or not, there are only 365 days in a year; therefore, we have to manage with that number of days to cope with the existing situation, in an era of automation where electronic machines are used to expedite work as much as possible. The House of Commons would operate more slowly by extending debate on these problems. It is not a question of days, Mr. Speaker, it is a question of expediting seriously the business before the house. Surely, the members are capable of self-discipline so that detailed examination of estimates may be done within a reasonable period of time, but not too long a period to delay consideration of other urgent problems.
I also know that this motion calls for the allocation of a time limit for the examination of any question or any stage of a question introduced before the house.
For a long time now the members have been aware that the House, as far as possible, should be informed about the period allowed for a bill or for the stage of a bill in order that it can plan its business and thus expedite it.
Mr. Speaker, the time is past when anyone could freely decide how long a bill or one of its stages would be discussed.
As I said a few minutes ago, we are living in an age where everything is mechanized, and it is quite difficult to find the time required to do everything we have to do. We should know in advance how much time we will have to study a bill.
The time is past also where a political party, an organization, a member of a group could take advantage of those new rules to trample under foot the rights of Parliament.
The news media are adequately organized today; radio and television inform the people adequately and quickly about current events; and this information is readily available to all information media, so that under our
DEBATES	1581
House of Commons Procedures country's well established democratic system, it is rather difficult-I dare say impossible-to create a dictatorship and to foist upon the majority measures and bills which would go against the interests of the people. That leads me to believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is absolutely essential to allocate a period of time for the consideration of any bill at any stage, in order to expedite in a practical and useful way the work submitted to us.
As to the extension of sitting hours, I would be a little less sanguine about it. To me this is a moot question. Indeed, what matters is whether the house should have more time to consider the issues placed before it.
If the hours of work were increased it would no doubt be logical to expect a greater amount of work. However, there is a limit to human activity and, besides, there are other problems for the members of the house to cope with. I am not opposed to that suggestion because, in my opinion, the parliament-it is not only the government-should have the right to extend its own sitting hours. But I think this is a right which should be exercised with moderation.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I think above all that the house should be informed at least one day in advance or at least at the beginning of every sitting, because today there is not only the agenda problem, but also that of the staff members who must know in advance how much time will be available either to rest or to plan their work. There is no doubt that by extending the hours of sitting, some staff members will be overworked.
I believe that the mere extension of the hours of sitting will not ensure the appointment of an additional chief in the English debates or of an additional chief of the French debates section. I am convinced that the number of positions will not be doubled but, on the other hand, the work load of some staff members of the house will certainly increase. That is why I feel the government or parliament should proceed with caution when examining the possibility of extending the hours of sitting.
I understand that the extension of the hours of sitting would especially benefit private members' business. Once more, I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that attendance in the house would not be worthy of the speeches delivered. I wonder if it would be possible not to record or take down in shorthand the speeches which would then be delivered. In the House of Commons in England, I think that arrangements have been made some
May 21. 1965

House of Commons Procedures
time ago to reduce the number of speeches taken down in shorthand after certain hours.
One of the proposals which I would heartily endorse is the suggestion that appeals from the Speaker's rulings should be abolished. Abuse of the right to appeal from such rulings undoubtedly undermines the authority and especially the importance of that office. Some have suggested that the time may be ripe to appoint a permanent Speaker. I am in complete agreement with that proposal, and I feel that parliament should seriously consider that question in the very near future. Everyone seems to be agreed on the advisability of implementing that suggestion but opinions are still divided, or at least, there does not seem to be unanimity concerning the way to appoint the Speaker. Should he be elected by the people or appointed by the house? Should he represent a particular riding? Those are points which have not yet been cleared up. The question surely deserves serious consideration and a solution should be found soon so that the house may be presided over by a person worthy of that office and especially one who has the confidence of all hon. members.
As for questions of privilege, which have increased steadily in the past few years and which sometimes are asked without a valid reason, I think that by requiring that they should be tabled in writing at least one hour before they are asked, many of them will be eliminated, because this will provide for a sort of cooling off period during which the eagerness and the sudden reactions that the members of the house may quite normally feel after a word, a sentence or a decision they might consider for a moment as a breach of some privileges, will wear off.
Moreover, the fact that the calling of the orders of the day is restricted to 30 minutes will leave much more time to the house for the consideration of the legislation before it and, therefore, I believe that the need to extend the sitting hours will not be so great; besides, this will enable the ministers who have to manage the business of the country to give more time to their work in the best interests of our citizens.
In regard to the period when the orders of the day are called, may I suggest that 2:30 p.m. does not seem to be the best time. My short experience as a member of the house has taught me that at the most important time of the day, that is at 2:30 p.m., the ministers of the crown are required to be in the house in the event a question is put to them. Since the questions put on the order

paper and the other business have to be dealt with, that question period, even if it lasts only for 30 minutes, can sometimes extend until four o'clock and even 4:30 on Wednesdays.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Consequently, at the time of the day when it would be important that a minister be in his office, devoting his time to the business of his department, he has to sit in the house in the event of a question being asked or a problem being drawn to his attention.
I heard many comments on that from persons who tried to meet ministers at a definite time but who found it impossible, for the good reason that the ministers had first to be in the house and did not know till what time they would have to stay.
I also noted that certain people had unfortunately to wait for hours, and I am now speaking of persons who had been invited by the ministers themselves for the purpose of discussing a piece of legislation or very important problems.
These persons had to cool their heels in the ministers' waiting room from 2.30 in the afternoon till 7 or 8 in the evening before being able to discuss the problem they wanted to submit to them or for which they had been invited to come to their offices.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, Canada is an important nation engaged in too urgent and too serious matters, which require prompt consideration and decision, to afford this waste of time, indeed this waste of energy, not only of the ministers but of those who come to consult them. In fact, I know that even certain deputy ministers have to wait before seeing the minister; they must stay in the house in the event of a question being asked of the head of their department. Our nation is too important to afford such a waste of energy.
Mr. Speaker, I propose that the house examine seriously the suggestion I often made, and which was made to me by several persons, to the effect that the question period be postponed until eight or nine o'clock at night, or even 9.30, but preferably eight o'clock, which would be the right time, since written questions could be submitted to the Speaker until six o'clock p.m. At that time the Speaker could determine what questions are relevant and which are out of order, together with those which should appear on the order paper. Then, around 6.30 or seven o'clock, the Speaker could send the various ministers or officials of the departments a copy of the questions which should be answered and which would be called automatically at 8 p.m.
May 21, 1965

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of good procedure, of planning the business of the house. We must know exactly where we are going, we must organize the business of the house so that it be more efficient, and consequently more interesting.
It is very interesting, of course, to sit here and listen to members' speeches, but sometimes one would like to know how long they will last, particularly if one has something else to do in which he might be more interested.
Mr. Speaker, another provision in this motion which is of particular interest to me is the one dealing with the establishment of standing committees of the house. I see their number is much greater, but their membership has been reduced, except for the committee on agriculture, forestry, and rural development.
Unfortunately, I am not conversant with the area of agriculture, but I am wondering why it has been suggested that that committee be made up of 45 members. I recognize the importance of agriculture as well as of other problems. As a matter of fact, I do not mean that agriculture has more or less importance, but I just want to point out that all the other committees are composed of 22 members. I fully support this suggestion that committees should be composed of 22 members, instead of 36, 40 or 45. In fact, it is easier to work with 22 members, to perform a task in a more intelligent manner and in less time than it would require with 45,	40 or even 36
members.
Of course, considering the fact that 21 committees are to be instituted, composed of 22 members only, there will be less overlapping of committees.
Indeed, until now, one could be a member of a 45 member committee and at the same time of another committee of 36 members. Under the proposed system, the work will be more expeditious and more effective.
Mr. Speaker, I also notice that an excellent suggestion is being made, which had been made by the committee on procedure and organization, namely that any member of parliament, even though he would not be a member of a standing committee, could have the right to speak in a committee. I realize that it is only normal for him not to have the right to vote and not to be included in the number of members required for a quorum, but to allow a member of parliament to share in the proceedings of a
House of Commons Procedures committee, although he may not be a member of the said committee, is certainly an improvement. Members cannot sit on every committee they are interested in, but, at any given moment while a certain committee is sitting, a problem of interest to a particular member might come up. This member will then be able to take part in the discussion, in other words, to satisfy his curiosity or contribute to the good work of that committee by submitting his views.
Mr. Speaker, all this leads me to suggest that the resolution now before us is of the utmost importance and I hope it will be approved unanimously, so that, thanks to these new rules, the house may be able to proceed with its work more rapidly and efficiently.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I know there will be some who, because of their fine sense of tradition, will be opposed to these rules which they might find too drastic or revolutionary.
Mr. Speaker, I read in today's issue of Le Devoir an editorial by Mr. Claude Ryan. It is true that this article does not apply to the problem of procedure under consideration today, because he dealt with it at length and with tact a few days ago. I should like, however, to quote a sentence which, in my opinion, is especially relevant to the problem now before us. Mr. Ryan states:
-in an organization as complex and ramified as the government of a modern state, it would not he realistic to attempt to introduce, at the top of the government, a narrow and literal collegialism which would seek to reduce the role of the head of a government to that of the chairman of a board of directors.
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, the time has come to decide not only to look into the problems requiring our immediate attention, but to provide also for the future. I think I am right in saying that we often consider bills that should have been passed one, two or even three years ago and that a number of bills are waiting on the shelves in various departments because we simply did not have the time to introduce and consider them.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am-like other members of this house, -not only surprised but also sorry to put it mildly about this situation when one considers that we are studying bills which could have been passed two, three, four or five years ago, and that we are hardly providing for the future.
If we do not want this generation or the one coming up to treat us as the old guard-
1584	COMMONS DEBATES	May 21, 1965
House of Commons Procedures and by this I am referring to all the members of this house-we must at least set an example, be equal to the task and keep up with the times.
One cannot help thinking that the rules as they now exist frequently allow useless discussion. They do not give enough freedom to the government.
Here, I would repeat this sentence written by Mr. Ryan:
-in an organization as complex and ramified as the government of a modern state.
I consider that Canada is a modern state, and I am not the only one to think so.
I read on:
It would not be realistic to attempt to introduce at the top of the government, a narrow and literal collegialism-
Let us give a little freedom to the gov-erment if we want to keep pace with progress, mechanical and scientific, in this pushbutton and missile era.
As I said a little earlier, we are still considering bills we should have passed three, four or six years ago and I heard that some departments have on their shelves bills that have been ready for three or four years.
I appreciate the fact that bills must be thoroughly considered in order to understand their importance and to examine all aspects of the question.
As I said a few minutes ago, we require our departmental officials to keep up with the times and we give our employees the most modern equipment to simplify their work. But let us never forget that unless the house adopts ultramodern rules, it will lag behind the work done in the departments.
Mr. Speaker, after sitting in this house for three years, during which I looked around, studied and listened as much as I could, because it is better for one to wait until he has some experience before he launches into public affairs-there are examples I am glad to consider and follow-there is a thought I should like to leave with the hon. members, and it is this. If we do not keep pace with the times, the next generation will deny us, no matter what side of the house we belong to. On the other hand, if this house sets an example of business quickly and well done, with modern rules which do not fence the government in a narrow and vulnerable collegialism, but grant it a certain leeway, we may not have to face, when we least expect it, situations which we may believe to be revolutionary at first sight but which,

in my opinion, would merely result from our inefficiency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must advise the hon. Member that the time allotted to him has expired.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised this afternoon that there is not one leader of the House in the chamber. I am surprised that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), in whose name this motion has been made, is not here. This is a very important matter we are discussing. The fact that there is not much more than a quorum here at this time is an indication-


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to leave the first part of his statement on the record, that there are no House leaders in the chamber.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps I should not leave the statement on the record, but I think that is an indication that this debate is not receiving the attention it should receive.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I should pursue the point, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Member intended something a little different from what he said. I take it that what he was referring to was party leaders rather than House leaders.


William Arnold Peters: I stand corrected in that regard.
I am glad we are considering this motion because a number of very important changes are included. Several things have been said so far in this debate in relation to important matters, and one had reference to the attendance in this House. In my opinion the attendance here has been grim. Perhaps that is a direct result of the fact that many Members elected to serve here expected to find something different and have been disillusioned. If that is the case, I can assure those Members that they are not alone in that unhappy position. I believe the general population of this country finds itself in exactly the same position.
The Prime Minister has seen fit to move these proposed changes in our procedure and I think he ought to be here to defend, not what is included in these proposed changes, but what has not been included. I have read in part May's Seventeenth Edition and the Standing Orders of the British Parliament, from which our Standing Orders have been taken. It is interesting to note that we
May 21, 1965

an excellent job in examining the estimates of the departments referred to them. Is it not a fact, though, that nothing really happened in connection with the deliberations of the committee? In the United Kingdom they have found that they had to refer the report of the committee to the Government as a basis for discussion of the estimates. If we discuss the estimates of the Department of National Defence in a select committee on estimates, then we do not need to discuss them again in the House.
I believe that Members of Parliament are wasting their time in most of the committees with which I have had any experience. If you do not believe that, Mr. Speaker, you should attend some of these committees and wait around for an hour or two. You will find that very often there is not a quorum until a considerable length of time has passed. A very few minutes after the committee gets started the quorum again disappears and the Chairman usually asks if he can ignore the fact there is no quorum because the committee has important visitors there.
I believe that the Canadian people, in their wisdom, have elected the men they believe best suited to represent them. If these people go to a committee and walk out of it, or fail to turn up for the committee in the first place, then they do not see any advantage in the operations of the committee. In my opinion, they are not lazy. Hon. Members are not out of this House this afternoon because they want to go and play golf. They have decided it is much more advantageous to return to their ridings, talk to some of the people in that area and conduct some business in that area which they feel is more advantageous to them and to their people than sitting in this House. I believe this is true, and I think it is true of committees.
I shall cite an example. I believe it was foolish to sit for some time on the defence committee, then make a number of recommendations for simple changes which were ignored. I do not believe that the information we were provided by the various departments in conducting that inquiry would enable me or any of the other Members of the committee to say whether or not Canada should or should not engage in germ warfare development. I do not believe the information would enable us to decide whether the Arrow was a better weapon than the Bomarc. I do not believe we really had that kind of assistance in the committee. However, I do believe we arrived at a couple of conclusions. One of them was that we should standardize 22620-102
House of Commons Procedures nuts and bolts. We should not have store rooms full of 15 or 20 different sizes of nuts and bolts with different threads. These could have been replaced by standardized nuts and bolts with exactly the same threads so that they would be interchangeable without much difficulty with our allies who are producing the same type of equipment.
What happened to that report which was made to the House? I thought it was a sensible one. I do not believe anyone here, if asked individually, would disagree with the fact that it was a sensible report. Did the Minister discuss this? Did it ever come before the House so that the majority could make a decision? I doubt it. If it did, I do not remember it. Certainly, on several occasions I have heard the same matter discussed.
Let us take another example. We sat for some time on the Agriculture Committee when it considered the price of farm machinery. The present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) says that farm machinery costs are the greatest problem facing the farmer today.
I do not disagree with him. I do not believe there is anyone here representing a rural riding who would disagree with that statement. We did considerable research on this subject two or three years ago, the committee tabled its report and that report died right there. I do not know if the Government was in favour of it or opposed to it. I do not believe the Government gave a damn what happened to that particular report. We do not have the machinery to make the Government give some consideration to it. I do not really care if the Government turns it down or accepts it, but I feel I am wasting my time in this House if the majority does not sometimes make a decision.
There has been some suggestion today that one or two Members in this House have sometimes withheld unanimous consent to continue sitting. I am one of those Members. I make no apology for having withheld this consent on a number of occasions. Perhaps I am wrong, but I have found that when this House decides to close, then it closes. I do not believe a team of wild horses could get it closed until it is ready to close. I feel we should conduct business in an orderly fashion. I believe we should at least respect some of the niceties, and one of them is to treat the staff of this institution on at least a reasonable basis in terms of the hours they were hired to fill, and not continually extend the sitting into the small hours of the morning, missing lunch hours and so on or doing some of the other things that have been suggested.
1588	COMMONS DEBATES	May 21, 1965
House of Commons Procedures
I believe that the Government has to give some consideration to this matter of committees. It is not good enough to establish them and have them going in all directions, like a shotgun. They have to be funnelled back into the House. The House has to make some decision on these reports.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We disagree violently with the House leader if he is of the opinion that the debates conducted by a committee on specific estimates should be repeated in the House. If this were true, why do we then have the proposal to allow any Member interested in the subject discussed by a committee appear before that committee to make his point, even though he is not a member of the committee? Why do we have that proposal if we do not really intend, sooner or later, to have the committee complete its discussion and make a report which can be the basis of a debate, rather than have the individual item discussed again in the House? This, in my opinion, is the fundamental change that we are making. I believe that change has to be made. I believe that in this country we are not capable, as they found in the United Kingdom they were not capable, of doing what this gentleman Mr. Joseph Hume did in the early 1800's, of going over each item in the estimates and deciding whether or not the economies we expected had been made. We are not capable of doing that We do not have the research assistance to do it.
It has been said we can find someone who is stealing $5,000 from the estimates, but if someone were stealing $5 million it would be impossible for us to discover it. Occasionally we find horses on the payroll, but there are $15,000 or $20,000 people on it, and we will never catch up with them because we do not have the machinery. Let us not kid ourselves and tell the public we are examining the estimates. We are not. We are examining the policy of the Government in relation to the estimates. We are looking at the administration and the policy. We must face this, and to cope with the problem we must be provided with much better machinery.
The Prime Minister is not an expert on the rules and procedures of the House. He is not enamoured of the tradition of parliament, and this is a good thing. We have four or five Members who are very familiar with the technicalities of procedure, and I am surprised they have not been more strongly concerned during this debate with some of the changes that have taken place.

Holus-bolus we are stealing from the Standing Orders of the British House, but without keeping the protection provided by those orders. I could give instances of this by reading material on certain of these protections, from May's Seventeenth Edition. Our four or five experts should give attention to that matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: W6uld the hon. Member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Not at the moment. As I have said, the mover of these proposals is not an expert in the field of procedure, but I sincerely believe what he said about the necessity for making a change. I am sure he is proposing these changes in the hope that they will do what is expected of them. I may be a cynic, but I have never yet seen a rule that one could not get around. I might have made a good lawyer if I had the intelligence and perhaps the opportunity to study law, because I believe no rule has ever been made that one cannot get around, and if I do not particularly like these new rules I may try to prove that some day.
We are all sincerely interested in having things done within a certain period of time. We all have an obligation and a responsibility but we should not be subjected to the electioneering that takes place in the House almost all the time. These proposals are designed this way, and almost everything that comes before Parliament is designed this way.
I remember the list of strategic items which the Government said it had to place before Parliament last session, but we did not spend our time dealing with them. We spent our time on two items that were not included in that list. We went off on a political tangent into another field. The country does not deserve that. The public will not put up with it too long, and it behooves all of us to look closely at the rules and see what compromises can be made.
The Government must agree that the Opposition has the right to look into administration and policy in financial matters, and this can only be done by examining the estimates. It may be done in 26 days; it may be done in less. But if this time limit is set it is like setting a floor price, and at the end of it we will be faced with much more work to do.
Since I have been a Member of the House, I have seen such things as supplementary estimates go through without discussion. In-
May 21. 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1589
terim supply has gone through without any discussion; but this happened at a time when discussion had already been allowed on a wide range of related subjects. We had a complete picture of the financial problems, and so this did not warrant a rehashing of the matters because of changing circumstances and new issues.
The Government must consider a timetable. The Parliament of Great Britain has given great consideration and study to this matter. It has made mistakes which it has had to correct. Surely we can take full advantage of the protections it has written into its rules, and not make similar mistakes ourselves.
If the orders are altered with respect to discussion of estimates, then the committees to which estimates are referred should give full consideration to them. The Minister responsible should be on call at all times, if the committee desires to have him present. His officials, and the officers appointed to the committee should provide it with all the assistance necessary to go into the details of the financial aspect of the estimates. In addition, the Government should refer the administration of policy to the committee for its consideration. If all this is done, then there is no reason why the estimates, when they come back to the House, should be discussed other than on the basis of the committee's report.
It is foolish to tell the country, and it is foolish for the newspapermen to be so blind as to think that just because a discussion is going to take place in the committee, this will solve any particular problem. If the committee does its job it will submit a reasonable report to the House, but if its report is tabled, never to be discussed again or given consideration by the Government and the House, then the committee will not have served any purpose except to educate Members in the limited field to which it has turned its attention, so that they will be experts in that field when discussing it in Committee of the Whole House on supply.
I believe the Government will have to decide to set three or four months aside for consideration of the financial aspects of the nation. During that period the Budget should be produced, and the committees set up immediately under a Standing Order specifying a certain date. The parties could be given three or four days to nominate their committee Members, and the Government allowed one or two days to establish the committees and the chairmen, and refer the estimates to them.
House of Commons Procedures
When that period is ended there should be no further review of the financial situation except for those things included in supplementary estimates. In my opinion, this should also include interim supply, because it seems very odd to pass interim supply when the Government is asking for twelve twelfths of the estimates. Interim supply was never expected to provide that.
Something else the Government has not considered is that when it lifted Standing Orders from the British House it did not consider the fact of the difference between the British North America Act and the custom in the British House. In the U.K., under standing order 43, they establish a Business Committee which has the power to make recommendations, but in Canada we are to some extent bound by the B.N.A. Act which states that in this country decisions shall be made in the House by a majority of the Members voting in the House. I am not a lawyer and I do not know how the Government will resolve the contradiction between the British North America Act and Standing Orders. The situation here is not the same as the situation in Great Britain and this fact has not been given full consideration.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
A number of other matters might be discussed. One is the suggestion that a permanent Speaker be appointed. I am not going to say the nice things that some other Members have said about Speakers. It is good to say all these things. I am not referring to the present incumbent of the Chair, but let us take a look at what happens in the operation of this House. I think anyone looking at the position would be shocked to find some of the things that are happening. A number of senior officials who now, one could say, run the House of Commons, will shortly have to be replaced. No provision has been made for successors to take over. Political considerations will arise which really detract from the rule of the Speaker in our parliamentary system. We have an Internal Economy Commission consisting only of Members of the treasury branch, four or five senior Cabinet Ministers who make the decisions. This is a completely unsatisfactory way of running our affairs. I would be happy to go into this at greater length because this is a subject which would have to be considered, and the time to do so is now, before we decide that a permanent Speaker should be appointed. At that time, of course, we would have to decide the manner in which
1590	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures he would be appointed-whether he would have a seat in the House of Commons within the precincts of Parliament Hill or not. In any case the Internal Economy Commission will need to be constituted differently so that Members of Parliament chosen by the people will be able to run the operation of the House as is the case in the United Kingdom.
Senior officials of this House should long ago have been sent to the United Kingdom or Australia or some of the other Commonwealth countries where they have parliamentary governments in order to acquire the necessary training. Part of the abuse in this House is that the advice given to the Speaker is usually political advice rather than impartial advice. You may wonder why Members do not turn all their questions in to the Speaker. Well, I can remember former Speakers receiving these questions. Shortly afterward Members of the Government were able to stand up and give an answer they should not have known at all. These implications should not be there. I may be wrong in drawing an inference. There may have been some namby-pamby in the operation of this. I am not saying the Speaker was involved. But these things will have to be considered before we appoint a permanent Speaker.
I agree a committee should be set up. I do not think the previous committee failed in its duty. It arrived at some excellent conclusions, a number of which I would be more interested in supporting than I am in the proposals now before us. But that committee only scratched the surface of the problem which faces Parliament. It was brash of the Government to introduce these proposals for change when there was so much prospect of getting general agreement in the previous committee. The theme to be borne in mind when changing the rules is that general agreement should be sought because the more such changes are brought about by general agreement the better democracy will work. When someone feels that autocratic rules are being used against him specifically,
I believe they will not last very long or produce the results people thought they would.
In conclusion, I am convinced the Canadian people are very much in favour of a change in our rules. I believe this view is endorsed by practically every Member of the House. Many of the backbenchers are completely dissatisfied with the operation of Parliament. They feel frustrated here and deprived of any opportunity to use their ability. An improve-

DEBATES	May 21, 1965
ment could be brought about as a result of some of the proposals before us today. The changes suggested are worth while, but will not be effective unless we ensure that the work a Member does in committee can be translated into policy, either accepted or turned down by the Government. Members who have worked very hard in committee are frustrated to find that their efforts have led to no conclusion. Unless the Government reaches decisions on all these proposals I do not think the new system will work satisfactorily.
To be fair, there are some Cabinet Ministers who look with interest on what is done in the committees. There are Ministers who have gone out of their way to take up suggestions made in these committees and implement them. I realize, too, that the Government has to face its own responsibility of deciding whether or not the time to implement a decision taken by a committee has arrived. A government has to exercise that responsibility and it is capable of doing so. But the Cabinet has got so far away from the ordinary Members of this House that backbenchers on the other side are less aware of what their leaders are doing than we who sit in this corner of the House.
During the time I have served as a Member I have been able to gain some knowledge of the workings of most of the departments, through the senior executive officers. As the requests which reach a Member multiply, his insight into the operations of the various departments increases and his scope broadens. This experience enables him to by-pass what might well appear to be an insurmountable block. But for most Members there is great frustration in parliament. The Government of the day, the previous Government and, indeed, every administration, faces or has faced the fact that a number of its supporters do not intend to run for re-election because they feel they are doing nothing by continuing to serve in the House of Commons, despite the fact that many are competent people who have, by the nature of things, been unable to play a proper role in the system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I must advise the hon. Member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: I have been looking carefully to see whether there is something on the order paper about a reform in connection with the page corps. However, I am pleased to say I intend to support the
May 21. 1965	COMMONS
resolution, having been interested in the reform of the procedures of this House and of the whole parliamentary system for some time.
Some hon. Members will recall that back in November, 1962 I made certain very critical remarks about the need for reform, especially in this House.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In those days the word reform was not quite as acceptable as it is today. Some leaders of the parties wondered whether I would turn out to be a nice Liberal or the other kind, and I am afraid they have now come to the conclusion that I am the other kind.
I am pleased to support the resolution and I want to deal with two particular topics, (1) the committees system, and (2) limitation of debate. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who I see has just come in, in their eloquent defence of the right of free speech in Parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. Member permit a question. Did he not see me leave
the chamber to answer the telephone and then come right back?


Steven Otto: I certainly did; I just happened to register the fact the hon. gentleman was here.
I recall the very severe warnings about limitation or restriction of time allotted to backbenchers. Somehow, with great respect to the two hon. gentlemen, I got the impression that they are members of this Cut and Thrust Club, I believe the hon. Member called it, this very exclusive establishment, and I got the impression that deep down, as members of this club in which they won their laurels and gained experience of the rules, they may not be as keen to see reforms of our rules and procedure.
The Leader of the Opposition gave a brief but very eloquent history of parliament, but I am wondering whether the right hon. gentleman was not standing a little too close to the canvas instead of going back far enough to see whether the framework of our parliamentary system really suits Canada or Canadians. I think the right hon. gentleman will acknowledge that from its beginning Parliament has always been a reviewing and reexamining body; it has never been an initiating body. I think the Leader of the Opposition will acknowledge as an historian that from its inception the Government has been appointed by the Crown, whether under
DEBATES	1591
House oj Commons Procedures the constitution or by divine right. Parliament was called upon in order to pass new levies of taxation, at which time the serfs, the knights and the commoners came to this assembly, to the House of Commons or parliament, and expressed their grievances, being listened to by the government. They then went home.
The brutal truth is that, really, parliament has not changed in essence since that time. All of us are here merely to review, to criticize and to express grievances. Very few of us, in fact no hon. Member, actually takes the initiating step in the matter of legislation.
At one time it was said that government proposes, parliament disposes. I think it can now be said that the establishment-the Prime Minister said it is expert officialdom-proposes, government disposes and parliament merely opposes; and I think that is the truth.
This brings forward the real issue underlying these resolutions, which is this: Do Canada or Canadians want, or will they accept, a very expensive body which reviews and re-examines, or do Canada and Canadians want Members to take the initiating step in the matter of legislation? My experience is brief, but I receive letters from constituents, as do all backbenchers, to this effect: "Dear Member, make sure that so and so is done; make sure that the exemptions are increased; make sure pensions are increased". Little do these poor misguided constituents know there is very little communication, in fact no communication at all, between backbenchers and other Members and the Government.


George James McIlraith: You communicate pretty well.


Mr.   Olio@: I do not blame anybody, because this is parliament. But is this reviewing job, this duty of ours to review only, going to continue, or are we to adopt these resolutions as a first step toward the formulation of greater powers to be given Members by way of initiating legislation? As the right hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, says, shall we take some power away from the bureaucrats, as I think he called them, or from the establishment, the Mandarin class? I suggest these resolutions will bring this about.
Having said that I have to make some reservations, which I do with greatest respect. Although these resolutions call for a rearrangement of committees, I am inclined to suspect that they will not do the same type of job and will not accomplish the
May 21, 1965

House of Commons Procedures initiation of legislation unless we attach committees to each and every department. I was going to give the example of the nuts and bolts committee-the Defence Committee rather. Although I disagree with what the hon. gentleman said, if each ministry has a committee composed of Members from all sides of the House, we could make the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister its chairman; and if the Parliamentary Secretary is a good man and the Minister is knowledgeable he will listen carefully to the ideas which were expressed. I agree with the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre that the committees should be supplied with the staff and facilities to enable them to do a good job. In this way, with committees attached to the ministries, the Minister can pick and choose the ideas expressed, so that the ideas will not come from the Mandarin class or the establishment alone.
I sometimes wonder how legislation is initiated in this House. The right hon. gentleman must know, he having been Prime Minister, but I suspect that one member of the establishment, having lunched with another member of the establishment at the Rideau Club or some other place, suggests something might be a good idea, and before you know it the Minister is presented with a nice piece of legislation by his Deputy Minister for his consideration. This piece of legislation then goes to the Cabinet which thinks it is a good idea, and it then comes to the House and is an established fact. And what can we do about it? Even if we do not agree with it, it has to be accepted. I want to impress upon this House the fact that this is the real issue contained in these amendments. [DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House I believe I can complete my remarks in about two minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steven Otto: I, among others, as I have said before, have been unjustly accused of being a maverick. That means that at times I do not agree with policy. I should like to bring to the attention of hon. Members here that if we have a limitation on the debate and certain speakers are chosen or delegated to speak on certain issues, there will be a tendency over a number of years to overlook Members such as the hon. Member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn), the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and myself, not because of any particular desire to do so, but

by choice or otherwise. After all, no government or opposition party wants a speaker to embarrass its policies, and there is some danger in this regard in a limitation on debate.
When we reach our consideration of resolution No. 15, I suggest an amendment should be made to the effect that it shall be improper for any Member to suggest to the Speaker, directly or indirectly, that a Member be put on a list as the next speaker. In other words, I respectfully suggest that there should be no list of speakers. Of course, as we all know, there really is no list, in spite of the fact that we had a debate which lasted almost a day about a month ago regarding a list.
With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to state that I support the Prime Minister's resolution and hope that this House will support it, because it is a first step toward real reform, of which we can all be proud.



CRIMINAL CODE


Douglas Mason Fisher: the second reading of Bill No. C-2, to amend the Criminal Code (The Judas-Tree Amendment) .
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) in the House, since he performed a rescue operation last year at a time when I should have been debating this particular bill, but thought we were debating another bill of a somewhat similar nature.


Mr. Francis:: With 11 bills it is understandable that you got confused.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. Member for Carleton suggests that, having 11 bills, it is understandable that I was confused, but I was confused that day by other things than the 11 Bills.
This bill came to my mind, Mr. Speaker, after reading this book, which is noted in the bibliography "The Grim Truth About Mutual Funds", by Ralph Lee Smith, published by Putnam in 1963. Mr. Smith is a former head of the National Better Business Bureau in the United States.
The book hit me with a considerable impact because I think that, like every other part of the country, my community has been swimming in salesmen for mutual funds and
May 21, 1965

Criminal Code
mutual trust companies. Every time we turn around it seems that there is someone selling for these companies, and it may be an air force corporal or a garage station attendant. I am not saying anything about people in these walks of life being mutual fund salesmen, but the plain fact of the matter is that, almost like the phenomenal growth rate which takes place in respect of various things every once in a while, there is a great rash of sales people now in the mutual funds field.
There has been a great growth in the purchase of mutual funds shares, and as a consequence it has become one of the major and interesting aspects of investment stocks. This has had a great effect upon the life insurance business. As a matter of fact, quite recently the contest between companies became such that it was obvious that some kind of solution had to be found. One of the solutions was that the insurance companies moved into the fund field, and the investment funds companies are now moving into the insurance business. On the surface the solution apparently related to a balanced program so that almost any consumer in a particular area could be fitted out with something that was suited to him.
I have no quarrel with this particular point of view, and this point has nothing to do with what may be one of the abuses in this field; that is the so-called load factor of many of these mutual funds, and I refer to the charge which runs from 7 to 9 per cent at the sales end. After all, mutual fund shares are peculiar kinds of shares. They are shares that you ordinarily cannot buy at a brokerage office. The whole business exists through a high pressure form of sales campaign, which is unusual in the stock trade. Not even the penny gold stocks had the constant pushing, systematic kind of sales presentation which mutual fund shares have.
As a matter of fact, some of the serious companies in the field grew very concerned about the sales part of the operation. In this regard I should like to quote from the Montreal Gazette of November 1, 1962 under the heading "Regulatory body set up by mutual fund industry". The article reads in part:
The Canadian mutual fund industry has established a self-regulatory association with a charter membership covering more than 98 per cent of the $750 million-plus of industry assets of funds eligible for membership.
The new association-The Canadian Mutual Funds Association-is intended "to encourage adherence to high ethical standards by all elements of the mutual funds industry."
I assume, I think with some justice, that this self-regulatory organization was formed to intercept what might have been legal actions taken by provincial and perhaps federal governments, particularly because of the operation of these sales forces. It was not that sales aspect I particularly wanted to deal with today, although the high sales pressure and the tremendous growth of the mutual funds industry ties in with the point I wish to make.
If any hon. Members wish to look at the 1964 survey of investment funds, produced by the Financial Post, they will see that it lists all the Canadian investment funds. This is most useful information because it describes or gives a synopsis of the management of each of the funds, and in almost every case sets out the management fee. This is what this bill is really related to-the management fee and the cost of this management fee to a person who is buying or holding mutual funds.
Taking one of the larger Canadian organizations as an example, Investors Mutual, and the constellation of companies around it-the advisory company, Investors Syndicate, and some of the other groups or parts of groups that are contained in it, such as Investors Trust Company and Investors International Mutual Fund Limited-one can see that the standard fee is usually one eighth of 1 per cent of the net assets taken quarterly, which works out roughly to one half of 1 per cent of the net assets as the management fee. That may not seem like very much, but when these funds reach the stage where they involve a $400 million, $500 million, or a billion dollar market, you can see that this is a tremendously important form of revenue for whoever it is who controls the management establishment.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Since the high sales force keeps pushing the number of shares that are on the market or that are out in people's hands, and since this increase has been taking place in a rising market recently, this one eighth of 1 per cent determined quarterly has been immensely profitable. You are not talking about something that involves a few thousand dollars in terms of investment advice or managerial advice. In the case of Investors Mutual and the substantial set of companies collected around it, you are talking of sums ranging from $5 million to $15 million or $16 million. This is a very considerable percentage. Management costs, as worked out on

May 21, 1965
Criminal Code
the average in this Financial Post survey, are somewhere around 5 per cent, and that does not include the sales load which is a responsibility within the actual purchase and runs to about 8 per cent.
A considerable percentage of management cost is taken up, of course, by boards of directors fees, arrangements for meetings and, I suppose, legal fees and this kind of thing. If anyone has looked at the section on Investors Mutual of Canada he will see that the actual management costs relate to two legal fees, custodian's fees, management fees, directors' fees and so on, but the main burden is the management fee.


Mr. Greene:: Will the hon. Member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


John James Greene: For the benefit of us more prosaic beings, I wonder whether the hon. Member could explain the title of his bill and the literary allusions in the explanatory notes. I think it would be most beneficial for those of us who are more humble beings.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will try to get to that if I have an opportunity, but I am dealing now with an example of the scale of management fees. Obviously if you have a fund that is growing, particularly in a rising market, and you are charging half of 1 per cent a year you have got a pretty good thing.
The amazing thing about these mutual funds-this holds true in Canada-is that in the main the very same people tend to be in control and tend to be directors of both the mutual fund and also of the management company that gives management advice. In other words, as is made very clear in Mr. Smith's book, they really cannot lose. The argument, as Mr. Smith puts it on page 18, is:
Mutual funds are in the business of investing, and are experts at it. No amateur can, or should, try to do in his spare time what the mutual funds are doing full time. The mutual fund puts expert advice and full time management at the disposal of even the most modest investor. Implicit in this argument is the promise of greater profits-a porfolio managed by experts does better than one that has no such management. Otherwise there is no need for experts.
This is the great argument in connection with this matter. But here you come to the fact that the managers who give this management advice are in most cases exactly the same people as are on the boards of directors of the funds themselves. This is a pretty nice business if you are able to take your advantages as a director and man-

ager of a fund and also to take your cut as an advisor, and one of the elements in this is that in essence you cannot lose. You are on a fixed kind of ratio. In the case of Investors Mutual and the companies around it the interesting thing is that, whereas the main fund is a very large one and some of its more recent companies are still at a much lower level, the percentage of the take is the same. Obviously the solution to this kind of thing from the point of view of the person who buys mutual shares is to have incorporated in the Companies Act or in the trust deeds of these companies some kind of sliding scale, because obviously there is not that great an increase in difficulty in managing or investing or giving investment advice as the thing goes up in terms of the kind of percentage that is on a flat rate basis. Obviously someone like Mr. Fullerton, who advised the Canada Council with regard to its investments, is the kind of person who would be advising a company such as Investors Mutual.
The whole point of the case is that there is no real argument that as the fund increases in size it becomes tremendously more difficult to handle. As a matter of fact, in the main the arguments are that basically it becomes easier. I am especially concerned about this matter and I again take the Investors Group as an example, because they are Canadian companies which are subsidiaries of very large American companies and there are, of course, interlocking directorships and management and advisory services. In other words, the people who are providing the management in Canada in this particular case, the Investors Syndicate operation-this is set out on page 18 of the 1962 annual report of Investors Mutual- are doing extremely well out of the advising and managing.
From what I have been able to discover a private Member cannot really bring in an effective bill to set up some kind of sliding scale for management fees, but one of the ways to do it is to introduce a penalty under the Criminal Code, which by its punitive threat will force a split between the advisory group and the actual group that has the fund. In other words, it would force a separation and make the fund group resort to some kind of contract with people other than themselves, which it seems to me is sensible. In order to achieve this, and I am coming now to the title of the bill, it was necessary to provide for something under
May 21, 1965

the Criminal Code to forbid this practice, and this is what the new section 325A set out in the bill tries to do. The reference to the Judas-Tree simply represents the use of a somewhat fancy name to cover the situation that the bill would create if it were passed. Under this new section of the Criminal Code any person would hang himself if he were in the position of being both the adviser and the advised and was able to take benefit from both roles. The Biblical connection, I suppose, is the fact that there is supposedly a kind of tree which bears red flowers, I believe, that represent blood, on which tree Judas is supposed to have hanged himself after taking money for, in a sense, a betrayal of interest.
The hon. Member who asked the question wanted a translation of the explanatory notes. I think this is uncalled for, particularly from him. I look upon him, Mr. Speaker, as the William Jennings Bryan of the Ottawa Valley. I can imagine the hon. gentleman giving the Cross of Gold speech in this House, and these references that align him with that great emancipator are surely an indication that he knows. He is just guying me; he is just kidding me. He knows what these explanatory notes mean, and if he has the opportunity to speak in this debate, which I am sure he will take if he can, I think he will reveal his very clear understanding of what these explanatory notes mean.
I only have a couple of minutes left and I want to touch on one warning which in a sense is partly to myself. I am under no illusions that it is the business of a private Member of Parliament to knock down what has become a very large and important business, as a matter of fact a particular kind of business in which I have put a few dollars myself. But I think it is incumbent upon all of us who are interested in the investment and securities field, which touches so many people, to take a very close look at the situation to see that the investor is getting the best possible break.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I suggest to you when you have a situation where the great majority of the mutual funds in this country, these open end funds with their heavy sales load of around 8 per cent, which is made necessary because of the high pressure work that is involved in selling because of our social and economic strata, and at the same time they have this fixed management fee which bears no relationship to the difficulty or scope of the work, and 22620-103
Criminal Code
when you consider that we are very well provided in this country with brokers and investment analysis groups, when we have an almost staggeringly large number of periodicals providing information in this field, then this amendment is necessary. I do not believe any country has such a group of private stockbrokers and investment analysts as we seem to have gathered, particularly around business circles in Montreal and Toronto. It would seem to me there is no excuse for any of these funds retaining or having a connection with a management group that is captive, or to be the captive of any particular management group. I am thinking of a management group that manages in an advisory sense of how to place, how to time or how to select your investments.
I feel, therefore, that the purpose at least if not the way it is approached in this bill is a very worth-while one. I feel it is one which should appeal to Members generally.
I think the point itself is at least worthy of consideration by a committee of this House, and I am thinking more of the Banking and Commerce Committee. It seems to me that in one or two sessions such a committee could quickly ascertain whether or not there is anything to what I suspect, not a sort of plundering or raid, really not tremendous corruption, but an overcharge, if you want, a possibility of particularly more abuse as these funds expand that affects and hurts the ordinary person who invests in this field.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the question of whether or not a bill such as this is referred to a committee depends, I realize, upon the decision of the Government spokesman, whatever may be said pro or con. I do not know whether it will be pro or con on this occasion. Despite the humour and the embarrassment in which I found myself last year when I discussed this bill, and Lord knows I have never been in a more embarrassing situation in parliament than on that particular occasion, I am serious about the purpose of this bill. I would not like anyone to carry on from the slapstick that my own misadventure and inadequacy created last session. I hope that the purpose will be taken seriously by someone on the Ministerial benches, and that the Government will look at the idea to see whether or not it at least merits consideration by one of the committees of this House.


John James Greene: It is a
great pleasure for me, Mr. Speaker, to speak once more on this bill, which on this occasion we have been debating properly from the

May 21, 1965
Criminal Code
inception of the debate instead of embarking on the discussion of the bill half way through the debate, as we did on the last occasion it was before this House. I must confess to the honourable proponent of this bill that at least some of his classical allusions do evade me. If they were Biblical they would be much clearer because in the Ottawa Valley ours is a humble form of learning, at least pragmatic. It does not go to the extent of these esoteric classical allusions that my friend has apparently included in the explanatory notes. I take it that inasmuch as he did not seek to enlighten me here in the House I will have to spend many hours in the quiet of the Library trying to evolve the meaning of some of these allusions.
I should like to commend the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) for bringing the subject matter of this bill before the House. There was a time when other hon. Members of this House were known for their contributions to private Members' hour. I think, without any shadow of a doubt the hon. Member, with 11 private bills on the order paper, has certainly qualified himself as the king of private Members' hour. I know that he will wear that accolade well in the future in this House. I must say it is an accolade which some of us on this side of the House will relinquish with some regret, now that he has been elevated to this high sphere in the legislative process.
I believe that one very interesting factor was his confession that he is an investor in the public sector of our economy, by way of mutual funds or otherwise, which apparently stamps him as one of the right wingers of the party he has the honour to represent. I take it that party, from past discussions in this house, attempts to cover virtually all aspects of the political spectrum from the right wingers to the left wingers. I am sure there are many Members of that honourable party who would never confess to having bought shares in any mutual fund.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order, please; apparently the hon. Member did not understand the explanatory notes of this bill because he is not actually talking about the subject matter of the bill. I am sure he will want to come back to the subject matter.


John James Greene: Criminal Code
How can we, with our limited powers under our constitution, legislate to protect the investor either by way of disclosure or by way of regulation? A short time ago I was very interested to see an address by Bora Laskin of the University of Toronto law school, in which he indicted legislators, and I think with justification, for not having the courage or the drive to take hold of new areas of legislation and to move forward constitutionally by grasping the nettle in these areas where apparently at first sight the question of jurisdiction is a difficult one.
I think, as in so many areas, we in this country have been far too diffident in accepting challenges and needs for legislation, and we have avoided them on the question of the doubtful constitutionality in these areas where legislation is so badly needed.
I might point out that emanating from the decisions in the anti-trust cases in the United States, where quite obviously in its inception the constitution was drawn with far less federal powers than were given to us in the British North America Act, they have been able at the federal level, under the aegis of their S.E.C. legislation, to give far more adequate protection to the private investor in the public corporate field than we have been able to do, or have attempted to do.
I think it should be a mark of some considerable concern to us Canadians when we see a situation such as occurred with Texas Gulf Sulphur, where not too long ago insiders with confidential information apparently took advantage of this position to make considerable fortunes on the Canadian and American stock exchanges by virtue of that inside information. The source of new wealth which led to this situation was situated here in Canada, in Timmins, and yet nothing was done. Apparently there was not even any public concern or investigation at the Canadian level, and the remedial action had to be taken in Washington. Surely to goodness that is something that should trouble us all, because this involves a situation with an investment the wealth of which is based on Canadian natural resources. But we apparently can give no protection to the investor, and we have to look to Washington to do so in the case where stock is also listed on the American stock exchange.
Again, I think if anyone is responsible in this area and must carry the burden, it is the Liberal Party in this country. The party of which the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) is a member, to my knowledge and at latest review, although they change quite 22620-1031
often, was still a Socialist Party when last heard from. If such be the case then I do not think this area, the area of public corporate investment and the protection of private investors, should be of great concern to them, because if they are true to their principles in the Regina Manifesto-


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if I could ask the hon. Member a question. I could raise a point of order, as I thought he might be straying, but if you take the other side of the coin, does this mean hon. Members of the Liberal Party have no business speaking about, or advocating the Canada Development Corporation which, as the hon. Member knows, has been labelled by quite a number of people, including the President of the Montreal stock exchange, as some form of wrong-headed Socialism?


John James Greene: Well, Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think that the hon. Member has every right to discuss these matters, just as we have to discuss the Canada Development Corporation, but I do think it is the primary responsibility-and that is the point I am trying to make-of the Liberal Party, which professes by definition to have a philosophy founded on private enterprise, to see to it that that private enterprise and the public corporation approach to investment is made a fair and honest aboveboard game, in which the small investor can be protected.
We have often heard criticism that the political parties in our country are too much alike, that no one can tell the players without a program because everybody is just the same. I think this is one area in which possibly the philosophy of the Conservative Party and that of the Liberal Party could quite well be different. The Conservative Party, if it some day returns to Conservatism, will probably take a position which would be for less interference than the Liberal Party could well espouse in questions affecting public corporations and investments.
I suggest that in this country we should be concerned with the very grave situation that the hon. Member has brought to the attention of the House, the protection of mutual fund investors. Is it proper that the purchaser of mutual funds, who is buying by small weekly payments, should be gouged for an 8 per cent commission on the purchase of each unit of shares that he buys?
Should there be some protection in that area for the public investor? Again, usually the purchaser of mutual funds is not a sophisticated stock market operator. As the hon..

May 21, 1965
Criminal Code
Member points out, quite often the mutuals are sold from door to door by salesmen who are not well informed on the various aspects of the field. Is this not a proper area for legislation, to see to it that the purchaser is protected, and to see to it that full disclosure in every aspect is made to the potential purchaser?
I think most of us agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) who is much concerned to see the buying back of our economy by Canadians. I can think of nothing which would have a more salutary effect in that direction than if the small investor were assured under our legislation that he is getting the best possible dollar value for his money, that his dollar of investment is not being watered down, that he is given that protection by government legislation.
Again in these mutual funds with interlocking directorships, to the best of my knowledge there is no legislation which makes it mandatory, upon at least a quarterly basis, to indicate to each investor what stocks have been purchased and sold, and at what price they were purchased and sold in each quarter of the year. Nor is there any regulation which makes it mandatory to indicate to investors at what price stock they hold in their portfolios was purchased. Again to the best of my knowledge, with interlocking directorships there is nothing which protects the investor in this situation.
Let us say the director of the mutual fund has also an interest in company A, and maybe company A is not doing too well, and on the stock market they are a little worried about maintaining the price of their stock.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
He is a director of the mutual fund. What is to prevent his advocating the purchase of the stock in company A to help company A, not the mutual fund? These are areas of conflict which need investigation and legislation. I do not think we on this side should avoid our constitutional responsibility in this regard. Undoubtedly provincial co-operation must be sought in this area. The workings of stock exchanges are clearly a provincial responsibility under our constitution, I am sure the provinces in their wisdom are just as concerned about this problem as we are.
Is it not a striking example of how little protection we give to individuals in this country when a company such as International Nickel, along with other United States corporations, whose wealth is derived entirely from Canadian natural resources must

give more information to its American stockholders than to its Canadian stockholders? The company provides two annual reports. One of them tells virtually nothing; it is prepared for the Canadian stockholders. The other, for the benefit of United States stockholders, gives particulars of any benefits or emoluments given to directors, such as pension funds, going into the greatest possible detail, as required by the regulations, for the benefit of U.S. shareholders. This is an area of great concern to those of us who believe in the importance of our people buying back control of their economy.
If the investor knows he will be protected by the Government-that he is not being milked by the boys on the inside, he will be much more prone to invest in equities and play a part, however humble, in the buying back of the Canadian economy. But when every day he sees stories such as ti\e one describing the take-over of Canadian oil companies last year, where insiders made a fabulous profit at the expense of private investors who had no privity to inside information, he is not encouraged to invest in equities. If we are to have a wider and broader base for equity holdings-and these are in my opinion, the best kind of base for a capital structure in a private enterprise economy-we must see to it that the investor is protected to a far greater degree than is now the case. I commend the hon. Member for bringing this small facet of unfairness to the attention of the House.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. Member permit a question? As a result of his obviously extensive research on the subject would he give advice to us as to how we should vote on this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: I can only say to the hon. Member that if he would pay close attention in this House he can at no time go wrong if he votes with the front benches on this side.
I suggest that this kind of protection for small investors is but one facet of a greater area of legislative provision which should affect us in relation to consumers of all kinds. It is surely a function of government under a private enterprise system to see to it that the system works for the greatest advantage of all. In a wider area, I think this subject should be subsumed in a broader study of means by which the consumer can be protected. We are remiss in permitting the private enterprise system to
May 21. 1965

work too greatly in favour of the corporations and of those in control of the capital area of our economy. It is the function of government to see to it that the private enterprise system works far better than it does in the interest of the consumer.
May I suggest that if the Government is interested in this subject matter a committee should be charged with the task of inquiring what should be done to legislate for the protection of consumers of all kinds-consumers of finance, consumers of credit, consumers of soft goods-


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about the consumers of time?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: This is a challenge which small "1" liberals have to face in the near future in order to fulfil their function as a private enterprise party working in the interest of all the people to the highest degree.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: I had the pleasure of being in the House on a previous occasion when this bill was brought down. I remember the merriment at that time, some of it at the expense of the hon. Member for Port Arthur. It was all done in the best of humour and at the end of the day I think the hon. Member enjoyed it as much as we did.
I should like to turn to the explanatory notes. Previous speakers have referred to them, but so far no one has put them on record in Hansard during the course of this debate. There has been so much reference to them that I think it would be wrong of me to ignore this opportunity to put into the record the pulsing prose which appears in these explanatory notes. They read as follows:
For the Janusary of Mammon who has everything; for the con-man confiscador of Bay Street boardroom; for the investment double-I dealer in cosa nostrums, surecurities, salves gui-peut and pink pep pills for the anaemic income ills of widow and pensioner, this Bill provides a Judas-Tree.
I can well imagine the difficulty which faces even a man with the capabilities of the hon. Member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) in interpreting this paragraph. When we referred to it on the last occasion the bill was before us I had a feeling that the hon. Member for Port Arthur had not written it at all -that it was possibly some of the 19th century prose of his hon. friend the Member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). I asked him one day on the aircraft between here and Vancouver who had written
Criminal Code
it-I had become curious; it had become a research project of mine. He denied my theory. He said he had not written it. Actually he said that piece was written by the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge).
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I subscribe to another theory. I certainly do not believe the hon. Member for Port Arthur wrote it because he is a capable journalist and would use the blue pencil if he caught a piece of copy of that kind. I think it was written by the author of "The Grim Truth about Mutual Funds", Mr. Ralph Lee Smith, around whom this bill is written.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this bill is really not a bill so much as a book review. It was written as a result of a book which the hon. Member for Port Arthur read, and to which he referred both today and in his remarks last year. At that time he said, as reported at page 8958 of Hansard for October 9, 1964:
It is rather obvious, particularly if you have read the book "The Grim Truth about Mutual Funds by Ralph Lee Smith, that this practice has caused serious concern in the securities and exchange commission of the United States.
Then he went on to quote some paragraphs from the works of Mr. Ralph Lee Smith on the subject. So it is today that the reviews of this book are indeed, following the passage of a couple of years and the presentation of this bill on two separate occasions in the House, becoming lengthier than the book itself.
I do not take quite the same view as that taken by the hon. Member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) on the matter of regulation. Certainly there should be no regulation by the House of Commons, because I believe that the regulation of securities falls rather within the jurisdiction of the provinces than within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. I do not take the attitude that this House should involve itself to the extent of attempting to regulate mutual funds. The discussions we have had in this chamber during private Members' hours tend to show to provincial legislatures and to the country the need for regulation in some of these areas; but I would be happy to see the provinces, which constitutionally should look after this matter-being charged with controlling the securities market-enter into the field of regulating mutual funds if, indeed, mutual funds need to be regulated to the extent the hon. Member suggested.

May 21. 1965
Criminal Code
The hon. Member related in his opening remarks how mutual funds salesmen sell mutual funds from door to door. He said there were a great many of them and, indeed, there are a great many mutual funds for sale today. I detected in his remarks a note of alarm at the fact that there should be so many salesmen abroad selling mutual funds and that there should be a large number of mutual funds available for public purchase.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, may I correct the impression which I gave. I wonder whether the hon. Member would accept that I am not alarmed by the number of salesmen or the number of funds. I am alarmed by the lack of information and understanding on the part of many people who buy them. I still believe in the old credo of beware of the seller; but if the buyer knows very little about the situation, then I think it is up to public agencies or, as the hon. Member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene) suggested, for the Liberal Party itself, to get involved in the information, the education, and if you want the penalizing process.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. Member's explanation. I am sure it must become difficult for salesmen of any stock or of mutual funds, or indeed of insurance, to have any great knowledge about the particular company which owns the stock or in regard to its worth. It is often very difficult for the small investor, the small purchaser of insurance, to know the details and to be able to assess the value of a particular stock or of a particular mutual fund. I think it must be the trust of the individual, of the person from whom he makes his purchase, that for him makes it worth while to enter into the particular investment.
For my own part, if I were going to buy a mutual fund today I think I would want to talk to some of those competent investors in the market who would be able to give me their opinions regarding a particular mutual fund. I would want to discuss the matter with my banker and have a talk with him about what were his feelings regarding the purchase of a mutual fund. I think every
small investor today who has money to invest in securities and in equities and is anxious to put money into a growing industrial Canada tends to follow exactly those same lines, and it seems to me that investors should follow those lines. Canadians are widely known for their caution in banking affairs and in placing their money into insurance, so there is an inherent caution among Canadians in making investments of this kind. It should certainly be a warning to Canadians, who have read articles in the papers of recent days about some stock market transactions which recently took place in Ontario, to follow such practice and consult those competent in the field before their savings of a lifetime, money they have earned through hard labour, are put into investments of a dubious nature at the invitation of people of whom they have no knowledge and who themselves seem incapable of imparting accurate information in regard to the subject.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Six o'clock.


Grant Deachman: Certainly that is a course which I would follow and which I think every small investor with a head on his shoulders and money to invest should follow.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr.   Ballet@Acting Speaker: Order. The hour for the consideration of private Members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, could we be informed what is the business for Tuesday?


Mr. MacNaught:: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday we will resume the order of business that was interrupted at five o'clock, namely the resolutions relating to the improvement of procedures in this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It being six o'clock, and pursuant to section 4 of Standing Order No. 2, this House stands adjourned until two thirty o'clock on the afternoon of Tuesday next.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 25, 1965