1965-06-01

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Edmund Asselin (Notre Dame de
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege affecting my honour and the rights and privileges of all Members of the House. The question of privilege arises from an article which appeared on the editorial page of the Montreal Star, Friday, May 28, 1965, entitled "The Asselin Judgment". The editorial refers to a judgment rendered May 25, 1965 by the Honourable Mr. Justice Paul Trepanier in a case before the Superior Court, Province of Quebec, district of Montreal, No. 660-374 and to a transaction which I had with the Protestant School Board of Montreal in 1960 and 1961, before I became a Member of the House of Commons. This editorial says that I am not fit to sit in this House because, and I quote from the article:
Mr. Asselin's dealings in this case were called into question by two inquiries.
Mr. Justice Paul Trepanier's judgment, while dismissing the action and assessing costs against the school board, rejects out of hand the allegation that I was in a position of trust or an agent or a mandator of the board, in these words-and I quote from the third paragraph of the judgment on page 12:
For the foregoing reasons the Court has come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff-
That is the school board.
-far from proving an express or a tacit mandate, has rather confirmed the allegations of the defence.
That is myself.
His Lordship deals with the other allegations in these terms. First I will quote from the last paragraph of page 12 of the judgment:
However, because of the publicity surrounding this matter and because of the allegation of subterfuge attributed to the Defendant and the obtaining of confidential information which might have a damaging effect on the reputation of the persons concerned in this matter who hold public offices the Court considers itself justified in glancing at these allegations.
Then at the bottom of page 13, after having rejected the allegations of subterfuge and having looked at the allegation of obtaining
confidential information, he rejects both, in these words:
Here again this allegation is absolutely contrary to the evidence.
His Lordship, in summing up in the fourth paragraph on page 14 of the judgment, goes much further; and I quote again:
On the whole, the Court has searched in vain for some motive to cast any blame whatsoever upon the Defendant or upon the officers of the Plaintiff-
That is the school board.
-in this whole transaction.
Mr. Speaker, if the Montreal Star's proposition were allowed to stand, then any Member of this House whose actions, even before he became a Member of this House, were called into question by an inquiry would ipso facto become unfit to sit in the House of Commons, even though the only basis or premise on which his actions were questioned was later declared by a properly constituted court to be unfounded and contrary to the evidence.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
If such were the case, Mr. Speaker, then any Member against whom unfounded accusations were levelled would be unfit to sit in this House, even though a judge of the Superior Court declared that there existed no impropriety and no reason to cast any blame whatsoever on that Member.
The Montreal Star's editorial denies the right to equality before and recourse to the courts for all Members of this House who have or who might be subjected to unfounded accusations, particularly with regard to their conduct as private citizens before being elected to this House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

['Mr. Speaker,\nI should like to take this question as notice.']
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all hon. Members of this House. On March 11, 1965, I placed on the order

June 1, 1985
Civil Aviation Policy
paper the question which now stands as question 1 under date of April 5. The last session concluded without this question being answered and I therefore transferred it to the order paper for this session. On March 18 I placed on the order paper the question which now stands as question 4 dated April 5. The last session concluded without an answer and it was also transferred. On May 6 I posed an oral question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) requesting a statement of Government policy related to parolees, and some ten days later posed a further question to the Secretary of State requesting an answer and was told the information was not available as yet from the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. Speaker, it should not require anything like three months to obtain the information requested by my written questions, and my oral question was not such as to necessitate a full month's preparation in order to provide an answer, if the Government does in fact have any policy in this regard.
The delays in providing information in respect of these examples would not indicate the type of attention that would ensure confidence in the minds of Members of the Opposition that rule changes presently proposed would be of value and benefit to those charged with the responsibility of determining the merit of Government action. I have been discriminated against by the Government and prevented from obtaining the information I have a right to, and which they have a solemn obligation to provide.


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have been provided by the Civil Service Commission with an answer to this question. I am informed that parolees are afforded the same consideration that is provided under the Civil Service Act to all other candidates.



Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on April 24, 1964, I announced three principles which had been accepted by the Government as a basis for civil aviation policy. Since that time the main attention of the Government has been concentrated on working out the international aspect of civil aviation policy.
The first principle stated that, in the international field, air services provided by Canadian air lines should serve the Canadian

interest as a whole; that these services should not be competitive or conflicting, but should represent a single integrated plan, which could be achieved by amalgamation, by partnership or by a clear division of fields of operations.
In applying this principle, the Government decided to ask Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines to see whether they could agree themselves, after consultation, upon a basis for its application. The two air lines have agreed that the most effective way to carry out this policy would be by a clear division of their fields of operations so that outside Canada neither air line would serve any point served by the other. After considering many possible divisions of the world between the two air lines, it was finally concluded that the simplest approach would be to agree that each line should continue to serve all the points now served by it and that the geographical areas now served by each should be defined and extend so that practically the whole world be open to service by one air line or the other.
As a result, it has now been decided that Canadian Pacific Airlines will serve the whole Pacific area, the whole continent of Asia, Australia and New Zealand, southern and southeastern Europe and Latin America. Air Canada will serve the United Kingdom, western, northern and eastern Europe, and the Caribbean. The only exception to the clearcut division is that Canadian Pacific Airlines will continue to serve the Netherlands. This division accounts for the whole of the world except Africa and the United States. For the time being, neither air line is contemplating service to any part of Africa and the question of service to Africa will be left aside until some practical question arises. In the case of the United States, we continue to hope that negotations for a new bilateral will soon be completed. Once they have been completed a decision will be made as to which of the new points is to be served by each of our national air lines.
The Government has undertaken to regard Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines as its chosen instruments in the areas of the international operations allocated to each. The Government will pursue vigorously with the governments of other countries negotiations for extensions of Canadian service in their respective areas of operation. Negotiations have already been undertaken with several countries and as soon as these ne-
June 1, 1S65

gotiations are brought to a successful conclusion a further report will be made upon them.
Agreement has already been reached between the two carriers regarding sales and agency relationships. The agreement provides that in the international field each carrier is to represent the other to the best of its ability. The sales activities of both companies are on a basis of mutual assistance; sales personnel endeavour to meet the wishes of any customer by selling transportation over its own air line and, wherever feasible, over the other Canadian air line, so that passengers are encouraged to travel to their ultimate destinations by Canadian air lines. Other measures of co-operation between the two companies will be maintained. These include joint advice to the Government on bilateral air negotiations and joint servicing and support arrangements where appropriate.
The second principle announced on April 24, 1964, related to domestic main line services. In that announcement, competition was not rejected but the Government made it clear that any development of competition should not compromise or seriously injure the economic viability of Air Canada's main line domestic operations which represent the essential framework of its network of domestic services. In other words, it was stated that there must not be the kind of competition which would put Air Canada into the red; and, in the event that competition continued, the Air Transport Board should ensure an opportunity for growth to both lines above this basic minimum.
The Government has decided to employ a special aviation consultant to advise whether the growth of domestic main line service would now permit some further degree of competition on that basis and, if so, to recommend a suitable procedure for working out, from time to time, such extensions of service. Steps are being taken to secure the services of an outstanding international aviation consultant for this purpose.
The third principle announced on April 24, 1964 stated that a definition of the role for regional air carriers providing scheduled service was necessary, including a relationship with the main line carriers which would give the regional carriers a reasonable chance to operate without Governmental subsidies.
In the discussions with the Presidents of the two major air lines, it has been made clear that the Government expects them to take some responsibility to assist in working out that policy. There are many forms which such
Civil Aviation Policy
assistance might take, ranging through route transfers and route operations, contractual relations and various forms of technical and administrative support. Implementation of this co-operation is not something that will produce major results overnight, but it should have important results over a longer period.
The Presidents of the two major air lines as well as each of the major regional carriers are being requested to prepare special recommendations on measures by which they consider this third principle could be implemented; and on what specific steps could be taken by the major carriers, or by the Government, to improve the position of the principal regional air carriers. It is planned, in this connection, to arrange for continuing machinery of consultation and liaison between Air Canada, Canadian Pacific Airlines, the major regional carriers and the Government to ensure the development of adequate regional air carriers.
The development of Canadian civil aviation in accordance with these policies will provide for improved and more stable service for the Canadian public as well as a better economic framework for the carriers themselves. In the domestic field a degree of competition will remain to provide the public with the advantages that can result from a competitive atmosphere; while at the same time this policy will avoid the excesses of competition which were ruinous to all but one of the main railways of Canada in the past and which can result only in major added burdens for the taxpayer and, because of the inability of carriers to maintain heavy deficit positions, less satisfactory service to the public.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
In the international field, competition with foreign carriers is already extremely keen and the joint approach by the two Canadian carriers will strengthen their position and provide better over-all service to the travelling public and a strengthening to Canada's position in world aviation.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I say at once that it would have been most helpful if the Opposition could have been furnished with a copy of the hon. gentleman's statement, which was apparently furnished to the press but denied to the Members of the House. It is a course of action that is not in keeping with the vociferous ideas to make Parliament effective, as the other side of the House would sometimes indicate is the purpose of the amendments to the processes of Parliament. No
181C

June 1, 19S5
Civil Aviation Policy
indication was given in advance that this matter would come up, and therefore it is quite impossible to deal with each and every matter referred to. Suffice it to say at the moment that this question will have to be looked into carefully on the basis of the statement made by the Minister. I believe that a day should be set aside for the consideration of this most important matter. Certainly, Parliament has had no opportunity to give any consideration to these matters.
In so far as international air lines are concerned, apparently the world is to be divided, where Canadian lines are concerned, between Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines. On the face of it, that may or may not be fair and in keeping with the assurance that the very best possible service will be assured to Canadians who use these lines. As to domestic air lines, while giving voice support to competition, to the kind of competition that is near and dear to the hearts of high bureaucrats, we find that there is going to be competition, but the competition will be limited by the fact that no lines shall suffer and that competition will be competition if necessary, but not necessarily competition.
I believe this whole question should be brought before a Standing Committee of the House on railways and transportation in general, so that the whole question can be looked into. It is a plan that is made up of many various facets, and when you come to analyse it in the short time that has been available since the Minister started to speak it seems to be one of those plans designed to meet the immediate situation, but not having in it that security and definiteness that the future of aviation ought to have. If Canada is to gain a tremendous lead in the field of civil aviation, its policies should be clearly defined and understandable and at the same time available for the fullest discussion in the House of Commons. I hope that the matter will be brought before a Committee. Certainly, it is a plan that has all the earmarks of having been designated on the drawing board. Whether or not both presidents agreed is beside the question. So far as Canadian Pacific Airlines are concerned, they have to take what they are given.


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would second the words of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). It would be very helpful if opposition spokesmen could have advance

copies of a complex policy statement such as we heard this afternoon.
I think if we are to have our two major air lines engaged in overseas business, it is well that there should be some agreement between them. At first glance it seems to me the division of the world is not quite equal and that C.P.A. has a much greater territory than Air Canada. In this connection I would be very much interested to see what traffic volumes there are in the divisions allocated to the air lines.
I believe the Minister said that on certain overseas routes C.P.A. would act as an instrument of Government policy. If this is the case, then I think all Members of the House would like to have the opportunity to question officials of C.P.A. in the Railways Committee, as they can now do with officials of Air Canada. If this company is to be acting for the Government in a certain capacity, then it should be open to question by hon. Members, and in the past we have not been able to do this.
Regarding domestic service, the Minister was not too specific concerning transcontinental runs. There is a suggestion that C.P.A. will receive more of the transcontinental routes than it has at present. I would remind him that for several years past, according to the testimony of the President of Air Canada, part of the losses suffered by that company were as a result of C.P.A. entering the transcontinental business. I hope we are not going to have a situation where competition is going to be allowed whether needed or not. We shall have to look into this very carefully.
Any remarks regarding regional air services we shall leave until there is a chance to study the Minister's statement in further detail.


Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, we are interested in the statement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and we too are somewhat concerned about the fact that Parliament has not had the opportunity to deal as fully as it ought with the whole matter of transport policy.
Further, we would be very interested to know more about the regional carriers and where they fit into the picture. Mention was made of the regional carriers as such, and I would point out that the third largest air line in Canada today is Pacific Western Airlines. This air line is one that is giving very good service in the field in which it operates. It is an air line that is growing. It is one that will become more interested in many of the domestic routes presently held by other air
June 1. 1965

lines which provide transcontinental service, and in this connection I refer particularly to C.P.A. and its services on the Pacific coast.
We hope that before too long we will get an opportunity in Parliament to discuss the whole matter of aviation and transportation.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-lll, to amend the Criminal Code (abolition of capital punishment).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Anthony Robert Temple: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to abolish capital punishment in its entirety and to substitute therefore in every case a minimum of life imprisonment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


HOUSING
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-8 (from the Senate), to amend the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY RESPECTING PROVINCIAL CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the Address passed by the Legislative Assembly of the province of Quebec regarding the amendment of the powers of the Legislative Council.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is not a fact that the Legislature of Quebec consists of the Lieutenant Governor and the two Houses-that is, the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly- and whether the Government intends to accept the address that has been prepared by the Legislative Assembly and pass it on with approval to Her Majesty the Queen.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Assembly of Quebec, as my right hon. friend no doubt knows, on Wednesday last approved an address to the Queen concerning the powers of the Legislative Council. It also passed an address to the Governor General requesting him to transmit the address to Her Majesty. Once the addresses were passed, it was the responsibility of the Government of Quebec to advise the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec as to the action he should take with regard to them. Since the passage of the addresses on Wednesday, the Government of Quebec has taken action accordingly, and these addresses were delivered by hand this morning to the Secretary of State for transmission to the Governor General, which is the normal procedure.


John George Diefenbaker: These addresses-


Lester Bowles Pearson: The two addresses consist of one from the Legislative Assembly concerning the powers of the Legislative Council, and the other requesting the Governor General to transmit this address to Her Majesty. These two addresses were received before lunch; the Government has not yet had a chance to examine them. The first stage in the procedure was for the Secretary of State to refer the addresses in question to the Governor General, who will then no doubt consult his Federal Ministers as to the advice which should be tendered by him in respect of them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the petition addressed to Her Majesty from the Legislative Council will be forwarded to the Queen.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question, Mr. Speaker, because no such address has yet been received by the Government of Canada from the Government of Quebec. I have not yet had an opportunity to examine the addresses that have been received. When I have examined them and the normal procedures have been followed, I will be happy to make a statement in the House.


John George Diefenbaker: One other question, if I might, Mr. Speaker. I have before me the Hansard of the Legislature of Quebec, and I ask the Prime Minister this question. The Premier of Quebec said in the Legislature:
-if the Quebec Legislative Assembly approves the address which it is proposed to submit to the Queen, this address will be transmitted to Her Majesty with favourable advice.
1818	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
Did the Prime Minister so advise the Premier of Quebec?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I advised the Premier of Quebec, informally, that if and when the address was received from the Government of Quebec, it would be considered by the Government of Canada and advice would be tendered to the Governor General for transmission to the Queen, in the normal way; and that advice, if the addresses were received in the normal fashion from the Government of Quebec, would be favourable.


John George Diefenbaker: You are going to disregard the Legislative Council.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State regarding the meeting which he had some days ago with the Chairman of the National Centennial administration. According to an article which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star on May 29, by Peter C. Newman, when the Minister met Mr. Fisher, the Chairman of the Commission, the latter was presented with a typed document, which he was asked to sign, stating that the state of affairs in the Commission was quite satisfactory. The report says that he refused to sign this, and another document was finally drafted. I want to ask the Minister whether this statement is accurate; and if it is, is it the practice of the Minister to ask officials to sign documents which have been prepared in advance?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, this is completely without foundation. Mr. Fisher was never asked to sign any document.


John George Diefenbaker: Was that Mr. Newman's statement?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State regarding the question I asked him earlier with reference to the interview he granted to the Commissioner of the Centennial administration. Was the Commissioner asked at any time to agree to a press release or public statement which had been prepared in advance of that meeting?

DEBATES	June 1, 1965


Maurice Lamontagne: There was a piece of paper shown to the Commissioner. He wanted to review it. He did review it, and it is exactly on the basis of that review that I made my statement to the House the next day.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do I understand that the piece of paper which was shown to the Commissioner containing the statement as to what had taken place was not the statement which was ultimately issued, but another which had been prepared by the Minister in advance?


Maurice Lamontagne: The statement I made in the House was prepared by the Commissioner himself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about the statement which had been prepared before the meeting? Did the Commissioner refuse to agree to that?


Maurice Lamontagne: He said he wanted to review it, to have another look at it and perhaps to reword it. And that is what he did.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it customary to prepare statements for officials to agree to before they have even met-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are getting into a debate here.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF CONFERENCE-AGENDA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement that was released yesterday in Victoria, from the office of the Premier of British Columbia, in relation to provincial rights, and in view of the fact that yesterday was the day the Federal-Provincial conference was scheduled to have started, according to the original plans, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether or not he has had word from the various Premiers, and when he expects to call this conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received replies from all the Premiers; at least, I had not this morning. As soon as I have received replies from them all, as I indicated the other day I will be glad to make a statement in the House as to the plans for convening the Federal-Provincial conference. The suggestion we have made is, as I have told the House already, that it should take place in July. As soon as the replies are all in I will make
June 1. 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1819
Inquiries of the Ministry
a statement in the House. I hope that will be one, and I am sure he will make his usual within the next day or two.	constructive contribution to the discussion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Prime Minister whether at the same time he will be able to give to the House the agenda which will be used for that conference; and could he at this time give us an assurance that on the agenda there will be provision for a discussion of the implementation of the Hall Commission recommendations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when the agenda has been agreed on by all the Premiers and the governments of the Provinces, of course I see no reason why I should not make a statement in the House to that effect. I can, I think, assure my hon. friend now that the subject he has mentioned will certainly be on the agenda.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister say whether there will be anything on the agenda respecting the rights of the Provinces to interfere with interprovincial trade, or trade between one Province and the United States of America? I am speaking particularly of the differences between the governments of Newfoundland and Quebec in this connection, and the asserted right of the Province of Quebec to prevent power from the Churchill Falls being transmitted across provincial lines.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot say offhand whether that subject has been proposed for the agenda or not; but as soon as the agenda has been agreed on, I will make a statement to the House. I mentioned medicare because I have already indicated that this was considered to be a very important subject both by the Provinces and the Federal Government, and I think it is generally understood that this would be a major subject for consideration. I am not quite sure with regard to this other point, but I will be glad to let the House know as soon as the agenda has been agreed on.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer. Has he any knowledge yet whether Premier Smallwood will depart from his decision of removing himself from these conferences, and will turn up at this one?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that Mr. Smallwood will be at the next conference, as he was at the previous 22620-117


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Maclnnis:: It may be too constructive.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Will the Canada Assistance Plan be on the agenda?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if I keep on answering all these questions I will soon be telling the House what the agenda is, and it has not yet been agreed on. My hon. friend knows that this is a very important subject for consideration also.


EXPO '67 ENCOURAGEMENT TO U.S. AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES TO PARTICIPATE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce?
The Minister stated recently that he would endeavour to interest American automobile firms and their subsidiaries, together with the Canadian automobile firms, to erect a pavilion at the 1967 World Fair. Can he tell us if he took such steps and what are the results thereof?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussions both with American companies that have subsidiaries in Canada and with a great many Canadian companies some of which are subsidiaries of American companies. The purpose of these discussions has been to acquaint them with the great opportunities that will arise if they do exhibit in Montreal in 1967.
I am intending to have another discussion, as the newspapers have said, this week with some companies in Detroit. 1 intend to go on and have others for as long as I have time and as long as Expo has time. I am not in a position to say just what the results of these particular visits have been, but I am happy to report that commercial exhibitions at Expo are increasing daily and I have every reason to think that both Canadian-owned and foreign-owned companies will be well represented at Expo.
1820	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Ponfiac-Temisca-mingue):: A supplementary question. Is it a fact that Canada's Big Three in the automobile industry have withdrawn their options for individual pavilions and lots at Expo '67?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not really in a position to answer the question because I am not quite certain of the facts. I have seen these reports in the papers, but I have not yet had an opportunity of talking to the management of Expo on this particular subject. But I have every reason to think that the automobile companies, which are one of the most important groups of commercial organizations in this country, will play their part at Expo in 1967.


WATER LEVELS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the port manager of Montreal has accused the Ontario Hydro of stealing water from the harbour of Montreal and that General McNaughton has accused the United States of stealing water from Canada, will the Minister make his promised statement on the proposed plans of his Department for building dikes and other waterworks on Lake St. Pierre while there is still a few feet of water left in the St. Lawrence River?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I undertake to give a statement to the House on this matter before I make my long awaited speech on this subject to the Port Council of Montreal on the 14th of this month.


QUEBEC-RAIN MAKING OPERATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport?
Is the Minister aware of the fact that the low water level in the Great Lakes and in the St. Lawrence river may be caused by a too heavy rainfall due to the rain making machines in the Abitibi and Lake St. John districts?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will have to think about that, Sir.

DEBATES	June 1. 1965


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct to the Minister of Forestry a question which is precisely connected with the question raised by the hon. member for Lapointe.
Is the Minister of Forestry directly or indirectly implicated in the seeding of clouds now taking place above northern Quebec forests?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, we are implicated neither directly nor indirectly.


Marcel Lessard: Has the
minister met Mr. Rene Levesque or Hon. M. O. Courcy to discuss this matter recently, say about two weeks ago?


Maurice Sauvé: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and, in his absence, may I put it to the Associate Minister of National
Defence?
Can the minister tell us whether the R.C.A.F. Voodoos stationed at Bagotville are actually used for the seeding of clouds in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area?


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Labour explain to the House why at this date that runaway criminal, Harold Chamberlain Banks, is still President of the Canadian Seafarers Building Corporation Limited, a private company which controls all properties owned by the Seafarers International Union in Canada?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot explain something which I do not believe is correct.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) relating to the Minister's suggestion that he could not explain or answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). How can the Minister of Labour refer to it as not being factual?
June 1, 1965


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely that is argument. If the hon. Member wishes detailed information perhaps he will put his question on the order paper. It strikes me that this is the type of question in respect of which the Minister may or may not have the answer at this moment. Perhaps the answer can be obtained.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister give consideration to the suggestion that when this committee is set up to look into this matter Department of Labour officials and union members will be invited to appear before that committee as witnesses, at which time perhaps the Minister will explain the question asked by the hon. Member for Kootenay West, which is, in fact, a factual one?


VANCOUVER-THREATENED STRIKE OF GRAIN HANDLERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Labour. Considering the national importance of grain shipments to mainland China from Canada, I wonder if the Minister could bring me up to date on the progress of negotiations in the dispute between the grain handlers union and elevator operators in Vancouver and New Westminster?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Discussions resumed yesterday in Vancouver between the employers and employees. The Department of Labour has placed at the disposal of the parties the services of our chief officer on the West Coast. It is my information that discussions are still continuing, or hope to be continued, in an effort to resolve the dispute.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice so that he may not feel left out. Will he make a statement to the House regarding the allegations that have been made in the U.S.S.R. to the effect that the Embassy or other units connected with the U.S.S.R. Embassy have been bugged-to use the expression-and at the same time, while I am sure denying this, would he let the country know the number of times the Canadian Embassy or associated
22620-117*
Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian bodies in Moscow were actually bugged during the past year by the U.S.S.R.?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I thank the right hon. gentleman for relieving my frustrations by not forgetting me. Second, I can answer at the moment the first part of his question in no better way, I think, than by quoting the way his own Government, very properly, answered through the then Solicitor General, Hon. J. W. Browne, who speaking for the Minister of Justice on February 26, 1962, in the House of Commons, had this to say, as reported at page 1245 of Hansard:
In accordance with long established policy I am declining to answer this question in the public interest. Questions such as this, and all others which have been asked regarding investigational procedures, could in due course, if answered, lead to disclosure of all methods which must necessarily be employed to protect the security of this country. Such revelations would be of great interest and value to groups within and outside Canada who have used conspiratorial methods to obtain Canadian information to which they are not entitled.
There should be no inference taken from my remarks and the form of my reply because such discussions, in whatever form they take, can only tend to imperil the difficult investigations which have to be carried out in the interests of our country. The policy of this government, and previous governments, has been to decline to answer such questions as not being in the interests of the public, and there is no intention of changing this policy.
I wish to make this statement as mine under my full responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister for following the course we followed in anything, because this is about the only time the Government are right; but in order to keep the record clear would the Minister read what was the question, rather than the answer, because I have the question before me? Would he read the question?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I know this answer was given to a similar question relating-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Churchill:: Read the question.


Mr. Monieiih:: What are you ducking under?


Guy Favreau: -relating to the methods followed by the R.C.M. Police in investigating security matters.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Read the question.


Guy Favreau: This answer, which was given through my Parliamentary Secretary on
1822	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry March 22, 1965, as reported at page 12631 of Hansard, was in reply to a question concerning the tapping of telephones.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Minister, with less evasion than he usually shows, now read the question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to the Chair that we are getting into an argument.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Who started it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think it is proper for the Minister to read the question.


Guy Favreau: In this regard, Mr. Speaker,
I adopted the words I quoted as my answer in relation to the question asked by the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister not read the question? There is no similarity between that and asking about security measures for the assurance of Canadians, so that we will all know that the U.S.S.R. is falsifying the facts when it endeavours to lead Canadians and those in other parts of the world to believe that Canada uses this system of the U.S.S.R. in its Embassy.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is precisely the type of question which should never be asked in this House by a responsible Member.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, on the same subject I would like to put to the Minister of Justice a very specific question which will be easily answered.
Could he tell us which member of the Liberal team asked that question at the time?


Guy Favreau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Will the Minister tell the House whether or not he has any information as to the whereabouts of the 238 barrels of cobalt that were stolen from the Government warehouse, and whether or not this is related to Soviet espionage activities?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive a report in this regard yesterday, but the latest report was to the effect that we have no information as yet.

DEBATES	June 1, 1965


Guy Favreau: May I answer a question which was put to me some minutes ago by the Leader of the Opposition asking about the question which preceded an answer given by the Solicitor General?


Some hon. Members:: Privilege?


Guy Favreau: No, this is an answer to a question. On February 26, 1962, question No. 82 was put by the hon. Member for Skeena in the following terms:
Does the Royal Canadian Mounted Police engage in the practice of telephone line tapping or listening in on, or recording telephone conversations between people who are not members of the said force?
And the answer was general, and is related to all investigational proceedings of the R.C.M.P.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: After his lame attempt to recover himself I would ask the Minister of Justice why it was, then, that a statement was made on either Friday or Saturday by the Department of External Affairs to the effect that there was no such thing taking place in the embassy in Canada? This was told to the press. Why should not Parliament have the same information?


URANIUM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question relating to uranium to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has any approach been made to the United Kingdom and the United States Governments asking them to accept formally the rule of inspection and control by Canada governing any future sales of uranium to the United Kingdom or the United States in order to satisfy the French Government, and if so what answer has been received?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, within the next few days I will be making a full statement, so perhaps I can take this question as notice.
June 1. 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1823


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport arising from his statement regarding international air policy. Will the Minister assure the House that he will not accept the implication contained in the remarks of the hon. Member for Burn-aby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie), to the effect that the international area assigned to Canadian Pacific Airlines is too large and should be reduced, and will he assure the House that the area assigned to C.P.A. will remain as stated by the Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely if this question is in order it should be placed on the order paper.


EXTENT OF APPLICATION OF AIR POLICY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport relating to his announcement concerning future air policy. The Minister referred to Canadian Pacific Airlines and Air Canada as being the chosen agents or some like phrase, of the Government regarding international air transportation. Will the Minister indicate whether this relates to all international air transportation or to merely overseas international air transportation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman has in mind the United States, I think if he will refer to my statement he will see that I suggested that until the bilateral negotiations now going on are completed, that question has been left in abeyance.


Robert Simpson: I take it, then, that the Government is probably inclined to look favourably upon applications from regional air carriers for international air services to points in the United States.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid that until a bilateral agreement is concluded it would be rather a waste of anyone's time to make application for something we may or may not get.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Just how are the bilateral talks getting on? Some weeks ago the Minister gave an answer
Inquiries of the Ministry which seemed to indicate that they were bogged down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The bilateral talks are still in progress.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In order that dairy farmers, cheese factories and operators of manufacturing plants be well aware of the administrative details of the new dairy policy for the year 1965-66, could the Minister issue a clear and definite statement outlining these details as well as the approximate dates for the payment of adjustment and deficiency payments to producers?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is also a question for the order paper.


Clément Vincent: I should like to debate the question at ten o'clock.


REQUEST FOR REPLACEMENT OF REFRIGERATION GRANTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could he tell us whether it is his intention to put back into force the act on cold storage subsidies in abeyance since 1962? [Text]


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member was referring to refrigeration. In so far as the grants in respect of additions to cheese factories are concerned, they have been in force for some months, but I know of no policy relating to refrigeration, unless it is connected to cold storage grants.


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the subject matter of the previous question is dairy farming, I should like to ask the Minister whether last week when he met with dairy producers he said
1824	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the same thing to them as he said in this House, namely that dairy farmers never had it so good?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, of course I did not say that in the first place.


William Heward Grafftey: Yes, you did.


Harry William Hays: I will be glad to provide the hon. Member with a very detailed answer to this question tomorrow.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterion (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Drury), I should like to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I understand that the Government is proposing to call for nationwide bids for the two tidal survey ships and an oceanographic research vessel. I have copies of protest telegrams from the Mayor of Victoria and the Victoria Labour Council to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that one of the tidal ships and the oceanographic research vessel are to be stationed on the Pacific coast, and in view of the concern and uncertainty of the west coast shipbuilding industry, will the Government reconsider its policy in favour of the traditional method of calling for bids on a regional basis or, as an alternative, on a man-hour basis so as to give the west coast shipyards a reasonable chance in this bidding?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr, Speaker, this matter is now under urgent consideration.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the large number of applications for extension of the winter works incentive benefits which have not been accepted by his Department, will the Minister look into this matter to see whether he can put an end to the discrimination arising from the ruling that a project must require at least five months' work for completion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will, of course, be glad to consider any view put forward by the hon.
[Mr. Grafftey.)
DEBATES	June 1, 1965
Member, but I do not admit that any discrimination arises from an application of the five months requirement in this particular situation.


Edward Nasserden: I have a supplementary question. Has it not come to the Minister's attention that only eight of approximately 70 applications in the Province of Saskatchewan have been declared eligible because of this ruling?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I do not conclude that that result is related in any way to the rule being applied in a discriminatory manner.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Oison (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday the Canadian Minister of Defence (Mr. Hellyer) offered additional or greater Canadian support to NATO, possibly in the form of men and transport. I wonder whether the Minister can tell this House how many additional men might be involved and how much more this is going to cost the Canadian Government?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, will be back in Ottawa tomorrow. As this was a meeting of the Defence Ministers of NATO, to which the hon. gentleman has referred, I think he will agree that I should take this question as notice and pass it on to the Minister of National Defence.


ARMING OF PLANES IN CANADA WITH NUCLEAR WARHEADS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monfmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Associate Minister of National Defence a question of national importance.
Is there any truth to the report sent out to the press, that CF-101 aircraft will be equipped with nuclear warheads?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Guy Marcoux: Is it true that the storage of those nuclear warheads will cost Canada $8 million per year?
June 1. 1965	COMMONS


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to take this question as notice.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I refer to the answer given last Friday by the minister who said that the general question as to the propriety of disclosing names of accused, in certain cases, is under consideration.
Would the minister tell the house who is studying this question? Is it the minister or his officials? Has a special committee been set up to settle the matter? If so, under whose authority was the committee appointed?
Finally, could the Minister tell us what precise restrictions he has in mind regarding disclosure of such names?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely that is a very good question for the order paper.


Paul Raymond Martineau: This question was allowed on Friday, Mr. Speaker, and it received very wide coverage in the press. Certain vital questions pertaining to the remarks made by the Minister of Justice were left unanswered, however, and I think the hon. gentleman owes the House an explanation on these points.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I still maintain that at the present time and under the present circumstances this is a good question for the order paper.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: shall try to get an answer from the Minister of Justice involving the restriction of the freedom of the press and freedom of information. Will the Minister undertake, while he is giving this matter "very serious consideration", to consult judges, lawyers and people engaged in the news media field before he reaches a final decision?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I could answer this question. I have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the Minister of Justice who indicated on Friday, I believe, when I was not in the
DEBATES	1825
Inquiries of the Ministry House, that he was looking into the question of securing the rights of individuals when false charges were made against them. The Minister has not indicated, and he did not indicate at that time, that any such action is required along the lines suggested; certainly he did not go so far as to make any recommendation to the Government. It is, of course, his duty to look into questions of this kind which are brought to his attention. The House can be assured that there is no possibility of any Government or any Government department interfering with the important principle of the freedom of the press to report the news in accordance with the law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But the Minister of Justice
was doing his duty as Minister of Justice in looking into other aspects of this matter which concern the rights of individuals.


Mr. Fairweather:: I should like the Prime Minister to answer my question. Before the Minister of Justice takes any decision in this regard will he get information from those who are knowledgeable in this field?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, in coming to decisions on these matters the Minister of Justice takes the advice of competent persons. If the Minister of Justice in his wisdom thinks it necessary to make a recommendation-and he has not come to any such conclusion-the Government will be guided by the advice it receives in the light of such a recommendation.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Did the Minister of Justice in his conversation with the Prime Minister tell the right hon. gentleman what restrictions he had in mind?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Member for Queens-Lunenburg.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. At the present time we see on display new maple leaf flags some with pink and some with red borders. Since the Royal College of Arms is reported concerned over the lack of elasticity in the criteria applied to the Canadian flag, saying that the Government description lacks precision in some ways and is overprecise in others, will
June 1. 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry the right hon. gentleman issue a statement certifying the correct shade of red as well as the correct design of the maple leaf to be used in the new flag?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. Member would place his question on the order paper or give me notice I would be glad to answer it. It deals with a very abstruse and technical subject, that is, with heraldry, and I should not like to give a reply off the cuff on such a subject. However, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the College of Arms was consulted before the design was placed before Parliament and I am sure the decision made by this Parliament will be respected.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I am not disputing the Prime Minister's statement that the College of Arms was consulted but I believe the people of Canada would like to see a maple leaf flag more uniform in its qualities. In Ottawa alone one can see no fewer than three or four different shades of red used in the flag. I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will take my question as notice.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will, Mr. Speaker, because I recognize the topical importance of the subject. I am glad to take it as notice.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what action the Government has taken to assure the safety of Canadian citizens in the Dominican Republic and whether any Canadians have been evacuated from the Dominican Republic other than the 105 reported by the United States Embassy here in Ottawa as having been evacuated by United States forces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I gave the figures with respect to the number of Canadians who were evacuated in the course of an announcement I made about two weeks ago. Of course, there are members of our mission there in addition to Mr. Michel Gauvin who was sent specially. If any amendment to this answer is required I will make it tomorrow.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister tell us if he has now decided to extend to credit unions the same privileges as other lending institutions have with regard to the processing of loans under the students loan plan?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to say offhand just how many credit unions have been accorded the same privileges or treatment as banks under this plan. There are a great many, and more are being dealt with in this way all the time. If my hon. friend has any particular credit union about which he is concerned and would care to speak to me about it, I would be glad to look into it.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Will the
Minister of Veterans Affairs inform the House whether or not the Auditor General is still in occupation of the office of Mr. Clifford Chat-terton, the Secretary of the Army Benevolent Fund?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The latest information, Mr. Speaker,
indicates the answer is yes.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: How does this unusual arrangement fit in with a recently tabled announcement in this House that the Secretary, Mr. Chatterton, had been reinstated and completely exonerated of the so-called charges made against him?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I am to meet the Chairman of the Board later this week. I apologize to the hon. Member for not answering his question on the order paper on Wednesday, but I had not had a reply. The answer must be given by the Board, of course, and as soon as I have that information I will be glad to supply it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May
I ask a supplementary question? In view of the fact that the Veterans Affairs Committee would like to be studying legislation and the estimates soon, and would like to have an opportunity to call the Army Benevolent
June 1, 1965

Fund trustees and Mr. Chatterton before the committee to get to the bottom of his suspension, will the Minister inform the House when he expects the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs will be able to meet?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: That is something most of us would like to arrange to have done as soon as possible. As soon as we can get the present discussions completed we hope the committee will be immediately constituted, because there are other matters that must be referred to the Standing Committee as well as the estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Member for Marquette.


Mr. Mandziuk:: My question was already asked.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: have a question for the Minister of Transport, probably with respect to his Atlantic Development Board responsibilities. Has the Minister received any representations from Premier Robichaud or others in New Brunswick in connection with navigational locks on the Mactaquac project? If so, what results have followed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have had discussions with one of the Members of the Government of New Brunswick and I understand the Atlantic Development Board and some of its officials have also been giving consideration to this question. I do hope that most serious consideration can be given to it. I would like nothing better than to see it done if the prospective traffic would justify it.


Thomas Miller Bell: May we take it from the Minister's answer that there will be a full feasibility report come out of the Atlantic Development Board in the near future?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman realizes that I cannot get up and answer a question of which I have not had notice and give technical information like that. I shall be glad to inquire.
Inquiries of the Ministry PENSIONS



OLD AGE SECURITY-REFERENCE TO NEW APPLICATION FORMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? In view of the fact that within a very few weeks persons who are 69 years of age or about to become 69 will be able to apply for old age security, and thus have it available in January, has the department arranged to have the old age security pension application form revised so that persons approaching 69 will realize they can make application next month instead of having to wait until they are 69| as the form now shows?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I approved the new forms last week. There will be advertisements within the next few days in every newspaper in Canada advising people when they may apply.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: Has the
attention of the Minister of National Revenue been drawn to a charge by the Maritime Lumber Bureau and the Atlantic Provinces Retail Lumber Association that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials is inequitable and not properly administered? If so, what action does he plan to take to correct this situation?


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



AVAILABILITY OF MR. MICHENER AS PERMANENT SPEAKER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the statements that he and other Members of the Government have made that Hon. Roland Michener be one of the persons considered for appointment as permanent Speaker of this House, can he say if he or other Members of the Government have communicated with Mr. Michener in this respect, and has he indicated whether or not he would be available for such a position if it were offered?

June 1, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I brought to Mr. Michener's attention-he is in New Delhi-the tact that his name had been mentioned in the House in connection with this position of a continuing Speakership. I have not discussed it further than that. He will be in Ottawa, I believe, next week. [Later:]
So that there will be no misunderstanding of my previous remark about the High Commissioner to India, he is to arrive in Ottawa to be here during the visit of the Prime Minister of India.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection, since the Prime Minister is in such good humour, will he say whether the Government, in the event that his suggestion of Mr. Michener would be acceptable, is prepared to provide him with an acclamation in Toronto St. Paul's?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All I can say is that if some sitting Conservative Member wishes to give up his seat to Mr. Michener, we would not oppose it.


John George Diefenbaker: I know that the Prime Minister is anxious to give the full facts. Will he answer the question I asked, because after all that must be the position that he takes, if it is to be a permanent Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well I hope, Mr. Speaker, if that were done my right hon. friend would give us the assurance he would not oppose him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Now then, if it is a go, I
say yes; it is your move.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all out of order, but may I ask the Prime Minister a question. Is there any vacancy for the Speakership at the present time? I thought this Parliament had a Speaker, and surely this Parliament is not entitled to choose the Speaker for the next Parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that Your Honour understands we are talking about a hypothetical situation which may arise after the next election.



IMPROVEMENT OF WORKING CONDITIONS OF INTERPRETERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. On Friday last I placed a question

on record in Hansard, concerning the working conditions of interpreters. Is he ready to answer it yet?


Maurice Lamontagne: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the decrease in our stockpile of the strategic metal cobalt concentrate, if it is the intention of the Government to reopen negotiations with the mines in this field for replenishing our strategic stockpile of cobalt concentrate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into that and consult some of my colleagues.



PROVISIONS FOR CONSIDERATION OF ESTIMATES AND ALLOCATION OF TIME

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, May 27, consideration of the motion as amended on May 27 of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Brewin:
That this House recognizes the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for 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 30 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of main estimates; interim supply; and supplementary or additional estimates excepting supplementary or additional estimates introduced after the main estimates have been approved, and excepting always the final supplementary or additional estimates;
(b)	That the number of supply motions be reduced from six to four; and
(c)	That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-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 these orders, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
June 1, 1965
[Stage Direction]
2.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A, to read as follows:
Standing Order 15-A
15-A. (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may request that the question of allocation of time for consideration of any item of business or stage thereof be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report, and upon such request being made such question shall stand referred to the committee.
(3)	The Business Committee shall report back to the House on or before the third sitting day following such request.
(4)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has unanimously rec-commended an allocation of time for the item of business or stage thereof, a Minister of the Crown may without notice propose a motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, for concurrence in the report, and if agreed to, the motion shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(5)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement or if the committee fails to report within the time specified by Section (3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may give notice that at the next sitting of the House he will move that an order be made allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
(6)	A motion of which a Minister has given notice under Section (5) of this Standing Order shall be made during routine proceedings. Unless the debate on the motion has been previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business in such sitting, interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. A motion requesting allocation of time, if agreed to, shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(7)	No motion made by a Minister under Sections (5) and (6) of this Standing Order shall provide for the allocation of a period of time shorter than two days for the second reading, two days for the committee stage, and one day for the third reading of any bill. For the purposes of this section, third reading shall be deemed to have been considered for one day provided the order for third reading is called as the first item under Government Orders on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, and provided it is continued, if necessary, until the normal time of adjournment on any such day; provided that if a representative of each party has not spoken, the hour for the adjournment cf the sitting shall be extended until a representative of each party has had an opportunity to speak. Such an order having been called on any Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, it shall have precedence over all other business until the time of adjournment on that day, unless it is disposed of earlier. Under any other circumstances, a total of five hours shall be deemed to be the equivalent of one sitting day.
(8)	During debate on any item of business or stage thereof for which an allocation of time has been made under this Standing Order, if an amend-
House of Commons Procedures ment is proposed which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker materially changes the item of business or stage thereof and which raises any issue for which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker there has not been or otherwise will not be an adequate opportunity for discussion, Mr. Speaker may announce an extension of not more than two days to the allocated period of time.
3.	That the orders of this House under numbered paragraph 1, the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon these Orders, and the new Standing Order 15A be continued in effect until the end of the next ensuing session, unless this House otherwise orders.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, before-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is about to make some valuable remarks and I feel that he should be given full attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, before turning directly to the amendment of the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I would like to comment briefly on the proposed provision which it would amend. In connection with the limitation of time for debate there is only one thing that seriously concerns me, and I think concerns many other Members, and in fact concerned the Members of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, namely the fear that some bad measure or poor legislation might be forced through the House before the Members of the Opposition, the press and news media of this country are able to arouse public opinion against it.
If we limit the time of debate as has been proposed in the resolution we are considering, even to the point where it has now been amended in that there would be roughly five days during which debate could not be closed off, it would still leave a comparatively short period of time during which some legislation that should not be passed, and which has not received sufficient public discussion, could be jammed through the House to the detriment of the Canadian people.
Experience has shown that following the introduction of a piece of legislation it occasionally takes a matter of weeks rather than days for the public to become fully aware of what is contained in it, particularly if there is something detrimental in it. How then can we gain time for public discussion without interminable debate in the House?
I think that the answer is not difficult.
I would suggest that we could provide a period of one week, on request, between
1830	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures each stage of a bill before it is adopted, and in the meantime the House could continue with other business. My proposal would be that on completion of the second reading of a bill, and on committee stage, 10 Members could request that the following stage of the bill be not proceeded with until one week hence. This would not enlarge the time of debate within the House but it would provide a period of time during which public discussion could be encouraged, and if the Opposition felt that public opinion was beginning to support it, then such measures could be pressed upon the Government as would encourage it to amend or withdraw the legislation.
If there were such a provision I would feel very much better about the limitation of time for debate. In proposing this suggestion at this time I am not going to propose an amendment. I am setting it forth for consideration, because at the conclusion of my remarks I intend to move a subamendment to that of the hon. Member for Greenwood, to put it in line with the remarks I made on Thursday night and to give some more equitable treatment to officers of the House. But in putting forward this proposal I would suggest that while the limitations that are in the resolution would be acceptable, the total time during which a piece of legislation could be before the public would be enlarged.
The result of my suggestion would be that it would take 21 days as a minimum from resolution stage to final passage, if there were continued opposition. There would still be no more time spent on debate, but it would permit the public, members of the press and the Opposition to give better consideration to a piece of legislation that undoubtedly would be controversial. It would result in proposed legislation taking up one day on the order paper, one day on resolution stage, two days on second reading, and elapsed period of seven days until committee stage, two days on committee stage, an elapsed period of seven days, and one day on third reading. This is a suggestion that would make the limitation of debate much more palatable and yet not abandon the principles we have already discussed.
It has also been suggested that the House could go into a debate without adjournment, which might achieve the same end in that it would draw public attention. I rather prefer the first suggestion, but at the moment I want to leave it at that.

DEBATES	June 1. 1965
On Thursday I briefly indicated my views on the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Greenwood. Today I would like to take a little more time to develop my views and make some background comments on the whole question of time limitation.
During the past 10 years we have undergone a parliamentary development in what I call the decade of destruction. This parliamentary development came about of necessity, almost 10 years ago during the defence production debate and the pipe line debates of 1955-56. In fact it was on June 7, 1955, almost exactly 10 years ago, that second reading of the Defence Production Act was moved, and on July 7, 1955 the Government of the day made the first move to apply the guillotine, that the question be now put.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Reading the debates of that time, we can see how impossible it would have been for the Opposition meekly to accept the application of the rules as they then existed. Destruction, if I may call it such, was the only answer. The destruction thereby begun should have ended when it achieved its purpose; but unfortunately these practices, having succeeded in changing a government once in 1957, were carried forward into 1962 and 1963, again changing the government but with a great deal more destruction and much less success. We have moved into a period of destruction of accepted House procedures, of governments and of personalities.
I believe the public has become weary of this type of conduct. It has been exaggerated and blown up, we admit, but there is considerable foundation for the charges of continuing destruction from all quarters of this House. There are some who still believe that the only way to defeat a government is to destroy it. Over the past 10 years this has been the apparent development. It is my humble view, however, that it is equally important to provide an acceptable alternative to government as it is to destroy the one in existence. I do not believe that the people are prepared to vote for another party just because the one in power is terrible. Changes in the rules and procedures will not of themselves make any improvement in our efficiency, but the best indicator of the intentions of this House is a willingness to submit to some measure of self-discipline in the conduct of our affairs. That is why I am in favour in general, of the proposed changes in the rules as now constituted and in favour, also in general, of the time limitations pro-
June 1, 1965

posed by the hon. Member for Greenwood <Mr. Brewin).
I do not fear and have not feared restrictions on time for debate in this House if they are reasonable. Any Opposition worth its salt can jump the traces when the occasion requires; and that has happened. We already have closure and we already have the previous question in our rules. There is some reasonable doubt whether we need the amendments now being proposed, but in view of past history governments undoubtedly are unprepared to apply these two rules. If we are indicating to the people that we are now prepared to practice at least some self-discipline, then I am in favour of this proposal. Applying closure under another name, however, can never conceal the real intent.
I see in the efforts of the Special Committee, in this debate and in the willingness of the House in general to accept some limitations, some self-discipline, the beginning of an end to the decade of destruction that we have undergone. Some may ask, why end this destruction now and leave this terrible government in power when destruction was the only source of change at least twice in the past 10 years? The first thing I would say, of course, is that the government does not really need too much help in destruction; it is pretty good at self-destruction by reason of its own actions. Governments can be selfdestructive; they can be suicidal in their approach. I think in a situation like that it behooves every Member of the Opposition to help them, and to that extent I join in wholeheartedly. But I do not see any dangers to the Opposition at the present time in making a move toward the other alternative, that of providing an alternative government, rather than completely engrossing itself with destruction, not only of the government in power but the rules of the House, and Parliament itself which, whether rightly or wrongly, have come under very severe public scrutiny in the past few years.
If governments can be self-destructive, so can amendments. I think the hon. Member for Greenwood has permitted an otherwise good amendment to destroy itself by using it as the back door for something else. In this case he has brought in an otherwise good amendment to limit debate to 20 minutes on a bill that is the subject of a time limitation, and has spoiled it by also bringing in the principle of raising the standing of the leaders of the other Opposition parties and giving them a time equivalent to that of
House of Commons Procedures the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I hope I am not considered unfair about this, Mr. Speaker, but the people have not seen fit to give the leaders of the other parties the standing or status for which they are asking under this particular amendment and in all fairness there is no reason why the House should give it to them either.
Conversely, if all five party leaders were given 40 minutes, I think the intention of the hon. Member for Greenwood would also be self-defeating. If each of them took his full time, it would certainly not shorten the discussion, so far as I am concerned, because we would have five 40-minute speeches right off the bat. Including this other proposal in the amendment is attempting to settle a major issue by the back door method, that major issue being the standing of the other three party leaders. I do not want to go into that subject now, Mr. Speaker, because it is not what we are discussing and it should not be part of the amendment at all. If the hon. Member wanted to put forward a responsible amendment-I agree with him that on such a debate we should be limited as to time, with certain exceptions-then he should not have destroyed it by bringing in another principle that we could discuss ad nauseam as we have done in the past and probably will in the future. While the time limitation is good, I would therefore have to vote against the whole amendment as it stands.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
However, Mr. Speaker, the rules give us the right to sweeten an amendment that has been proposed and perhaps make it acceptable to all Members of the House. In this way we can perhaps accept an otherwise good amendment by eliminating the unacceptable and controversial portions of it. I think the general idea of limiting these debates to 20 minutes is good, but we do not want either to accept or discuss the other issue brought into this amendment. By way of amendment, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse):
That the resolution be further amended by amending the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Greenwood by striking out all the words after the words "Prime Minister" and substituting therefor the following:
"the Leader of the Opposition, a Minister moving a Government Order and the Member speaking in reply immediately after such Minister shall speak for not more than 20 minutes at any one time in such a debate".
I have copies in English and French.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Would the hon. Member permit a question at this point? I have been
June 1, 1965

House of Commons Procedures following his argument as closely as I could today as I did on Thursday night, but in view of what he has said I am wondering whether he does not view the matter of allocation of time to individual speakers as something to be dealt with in each allocation order, depending on the nature of the item of business? That would give the House control over the debate.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I think there is going to be difficulty enough in any time allocation, Mr. Speaker. I would prefer to see a general rule rather than a special one. By that I mean that if we are going to have a time limitation of 20 minutes, then that should be the standard for all debates.
In conclusion, to follow that up I should say that the result of my subamendment would be that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Member moving a motion and the Member speaking immediately in reply thereto would not be limited as to time but all other Members would be limited to 20 minutes.


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


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I should be fair and ask the hon. Member to permit two questions. First of all, I am wondering whether he has not created a double negative by the form of his subamendment. Would he look at it again and see whether the word "not" toward the end of his subamendment does not have the effect of creating a double negative? If he simply adds the words he proposes he would get an amendment, if it were adopted in its present form, which would say that no member except the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and so on shall speak for not more than 20 minutes. Surely the word "not" should not be there.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. Member is correct. Reading it through I think the words used by the hon. Member for Greenwood, that no member except the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and so on shall speak for more than 20 minutes, would bring about the result desired. I think that the second "not" should come out. I do not always agree with the hon. Member but on this occasion I think the wording he suggests would be much better, and I would delete the word "not".


Stanley Howard Knowles: I might point out that this is a printer giving advice to a lawyer. My


other question to the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka I ask because he has slightly misinterpreted the motives of the hon. member for Greenwood. His concern was not so much for the leaders of the smaller parties as it was to get away from unlimited time in certain cases. He feels very keenly about that. I am wondering whether my hon. friend has considered at all the possibility of having three categories, 20 minutes for ordinary members, 40 minutes for movers of motions and people speaking in reply and that sort of thing, and say an hour for the two officers of the House, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in cases where debate is under a time limitation.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I answer that question by saying this. I do not think that under the guise of this type of amendment we should go into that other question at all. Throughout all our standing orders of which I can think offhand there is the establishment principle that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have unlimited time and that other members, except movers of motions and persons speaking in reply, must accept limitations. Whether or not I agree with that is immaterial at this point. We are bringing in by the back door a change in principle, and if we were to adopt the suggestion that the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre has made we would then precipitate ourselves into a discussion about creating a third category of person. This has not been provided for by the rules to date and I think it would destroy an otherwise good resolution to limit time. I do not think we are prepared at this moment to make a break with the established practice, and so far as I am concerned I will let my motion stand with the very slight amendment of the deletion of the word "not".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: I will now read the subamendment as amended. It has been moved by the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), seconded by the hon. Member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse):
That the resolution be further amended by amending the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Greenwood by striking out all the words after the word "Prime Minister" and substituting therefor the following:
"the Leader of the Opposition, a Minister moving a Government Order and the Member speaking in reply immediately after such Minister shall speak for more than 20 minutes at any one time in such a debate".
The question is on the subamendment.
June 1, 1965


Mr. Ian Grant Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to raise, very briefly, certain questions which have occurred to me with regard to the allocation of time and which relate to the amendment and subamendment that have been moved.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) I thought that in introducing his amendment he was unnecessarily apologetic with regard to the importance of maintaining in this House the opportunity for every Member, whether he be from the back benches or the front benches, to speak on any subject coming before the House. This, of course, is a principle which relates to the very basic question of freedom of speech in the House. I think it has been nowhere better expressed than in Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 117, which reads as follows:
(1) The privilege of freedom of speech enjoyed by members of Parliament is in truth the privilege of their constituents. It is secured to members not for their personal benefit, but to enable them to discharge the functions of their office without fear of prosecution, civil or criminal. The privileges of Parliament, as the Commons has declared in their protestations of 1621, are the birthright and inheritance of the subject. "Parliaments without parliamentary liberty, says Pym, are but a fair and plausible way into bondage. Freedom of debate being once foreclosed, the essence of the liberty of Parliament is withal dissolved".
I think all of us agree that some method must be found to ensure as a very practical matter that any Member who wishes to speak in this House should be able to do so. At the same time, all of us agree that there must be some procedure adopted so that it will be possible under appropriate circumstances for some limitation to be placed on debates.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I assume that the purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) is to assure a better opportunity for private Members to speak while limiting the length of time taken by each Member. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Greenwood and the subamendment moved by the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) in my view do not go far enough and would not achieve the purpose for which they were presumably intended.
It seems to me it is essential that when an order for the limitation of a debate is adopted, arrangements should be made so that the debate will go on until every Member has had an opportunity to speak even if that means
House of Commons Procedures the ordinary adjournment hour must be extended throughout the night.
Moreover, I feel that there can be a valid objection made against the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Greenwood on the grounds mentioned very briefly by the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
Sometimes I feel we have gone too far in the House in recognizing special rights and privileges on behalf of or pertaining to the Leaders of the smaller minority groups. We have in this House the position of Prime Minister and the position of Leader of the Official Opposition with respect to which special privileges are recognized, but there seems little point in encouraging the development of guerrilla bands of Parliamentarians by extending special privileges to the Leaders of the smaller groups. I suggest that the Leaders of the smaller groups really should not object to dispensing with these special privileges because presumably they feel that in due course of time their particular group will become the Official Opposition and eventually form the Government. There seems to be no reason why they should insist, while they are minority groups, on having the privileges which have in the past been reserved for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition.
I would go even further than that, Mr. Speaker. When an order limiting the time of a debate has been adopted, all hon. Members, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition, should be in much the same position. Why should they have unlimited time, and why should not all Members of this House be treated the same when there has been a time limit put on the debate?
I realize that my suggestion has brought forth smiles from the knowledgeable Members on the other side. I would, however, suggest this to you, Mr. Speaker. We all recognize that it is much more difficult to say something worth while in a short speech than it is in a long speech. Brevity is very difficult to achieve. I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and, indeed, the Leaders of the minority parties are quite confident of their ability to achieve brevity if necessary. Indeed, they have had more experience in speaking than most of us so there is even more reason why they should be subjected to the same discipline as the rest of us. All of us should be restricted
1834	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures as to time when a House order limiting the time permitted for debate has been adopted.
Having given some thought to these matters, I attempted to put my hand to the preparation of a subamendment, but it became so complicated I realized that the procedure we have been following in respect of paragraph 2 is really not the best possible procedure. We have been attempting to amend in this House provisions which are of vital importance to the functioning of Parliament and to the rights of Members. The debate has been interesting but I think that most people who have had anything to do with the drafting of important documents or provisions realize that the best results are not obtained when that drafting is done in the way which has been followed in this House during the last few days.
I thought the House Leader was very wise in adopting the suggestion that now appears in paragraph 1 to the effect that a special committee of the House be designated and instructed to work out the detailed changes in Standing Orders which would best achieve the principles which the House wishes to adopt. Instead of trying to draft and settle on the floor of this House the detailed wording of Standing Order 15-A relating to the allocation or limitation of time as set out in Standing Order 15-A, hon. Members might adopt the suggestion that the special committee be requested and instructed to work out the detailed changes in the Standing Orders which are necessary to give effect to the basic principles which the House accepts.
The two principles seem to me to be, first, that by appropriate procedure it should be possible for this House to limit the time of debate and, second, that the procedure must be such that any Member, no matter how recently elected to the House, should be able to rise in his or her place and speak on a measure. There are a number of ways by which this could be achieved. The length of time for speeches by individual Members should be shortened. Provision would have to be made for a time limit in respect of the total amount of time that can be used not only on the main motion but on various amendments. This is another matter not dealt with in the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Greenwood. If Members were restricted to 20 minutes at a time and limited to a total of 30 or 40 minutes on the main motion and any amendments thereto this might be acceptable.
[Mr. Wahn.l
DEBATES	June 1, 1965
Another possibility which should be considered is the extension of the sitting time past the normal adjournment and throughout the night if necessary. I do not think that would be necessary very often but the fact that this rule existed would provide a guarantee to private Members.
In that regard I should like to mention that Members on the Government side of the House, and I refer to backbenchers, have a particular problem which does not affect other Members to the same extent. When we are negotiating to get on the speakers' list we are negotiating not only with friends and colleagues but also directly or indirectly with men who are important officers of the Crown; in other words, they are heads of the executive branch of Government. In principle I submit it is not sound for private Members on the Government side to have their rights to speak dependant upon negotiating arrangements with executive officers of the Crown.
In most cases we can anticipate that there would be no difficulty in this respect as a practical matter, but I submit to the House that it is unsound in principle and that this is an additional reason why private Members on this side of the House should insist upon the procedural rules being such as to guarantee and entrench the rights of private Members to speak during a debate, while at the same time permitting the debate to be restricted within reasonable limits.
Another possibility that might be considered by this Special Committee would be the right to yield the floor. In other words, if a Member is fortunate enough to get on the speakers' list and is allocated 20, 30 or 40 minutes, for example, he should have the right to yield to another Member of his party who wishes to say a few words.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This would mean that private negotiations could be carried on among members of a particular party so that if a Member could not get on the speakers' list he could make arrangements to be heard. This may or may not be a good idea but I think it should be considered. Another possibility would be for the available time to be allocated first of all among the political parties or groups on some appropriate basis. Then it could be divided later among the Members in those parties or groups who wished to speak. It seems to me this would be quite possible.
To entrench the right of any particular Member to speak it could be provided that
June 1, 1965

should a Member for some reason be unable to get on the list of speakers he could file his name with Mr. Speaker before the debate. Any extra time available would then be allocated among those Members who had filed their names with the Speaker either through the Whips or directly.
There are a number of other ways in which the two basic principles I have mentioned could be recognized but I think I have said enough to indicate that if we try to draft and amend Standing Order 15A on the floor of the House it is unlikely that the resulting order will be the best one possible. I believe this proposed Standing Order, dealing as it does with fundamental matters, should be most carefully drafted. Even after it has been drawn up by the Special Committee I assume it will be brought back to the House and an opportunity will be given for further amendment. At any rate the drafting would be done on a more businesslike basis than the basis on which it is being handled at the present time. The drafting of important documents is never settled in this way in other places, and the provision we are concerned with now is a most important one, indeed. It should be most carefully drafted and only then should it be presented to the House.
Before resuming my seat may I mention another subject. Representing as I do St. Paul's riding in Toronto, I would mention the fact that reference has been made to the possibility of appointing a permanent Speaker and reference has also been made to my riding in particular.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Do not take it seriously.


Ian Grant Wahn: It has been suggested I should not take it seriously. But 1 must take my riding seriously and I do take my riding seriously.


An hon. Member:: What about the Senate?


Ian Grant Wahn: The other place is not a place which has any attraction for me. Reference has been made to the appointment of a permanent Speaker. I think it is natural that the question should be raised in connection with this order. I have known Hon. Roland Michener for a good many years. He is a good friend. I think the campaign we had in 1962 in St. Paul's riding was one of the most enjoyable events of my life. I have the greatest respect for him and I am sure he would make a competent Speaker.
At the same time I am inclined to agree with others that it is perhaps unfortunate that the names of particular individuals
House of Commons Procedures should have been introduced into this debate. I cannot believe this will assist in solving the problem that now faces us. Besides, I do not think all hon. Members will accept the suggestion that we should have as our Speaker a person who either in a formal or an informal way is, in effect, a Civil Service appointee. The Speaker should be one of us, freely elected, and he should have to run for re-election just as we have to do. Prom my personal experience let me say that any disadvantage which a Speaker suffers from having to be non-partisan and from having to be absent from his riding for long periods is in my view-my view may be a prejudiced one though I do not think so-outweighed by the prestige which he derives from his office.
Historically the Speaker was elected by the Members of the House of Commons to speak for them to the King, the chief executive officer in the state. By a process of historical evolution which is familiar to all of us and which is typically British, the chief executive officer is now the Prime Minister. Yet in practice the Speaker is nominated by the Prime Minister, his nomination being concurred in by the Leader of the Opposition. As a result we find ourselves in a situation where the chief executive officer of the Crown, the man who exercises all the great executive powers, nominates the Speaker of the House. This is a strange anomaly of our present system. It is true there is some protection inasmuch as the nomination is seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and approved by the House, but I think we could work out a procedure which would be more consistent with historical precedent and which wbuld ensure the continuance in office of an able Speaker without the necessity of establishing anything in the nature of a Civil Service appointee.
The institutions whose advantages we are now enjoying and which we are exercising when we speak in the House have come to us by inheritance but it is up to us to do our best to improve them. I believe the Government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Leader of the House are to be commended for the work which has been done in preparing the resolution that now appears before us. But I believe this particular rule, the proposed Standing Order 15A, could be improved very easily. There are a number of possibilities and I would ask the Leader of the House whether he would not assure us that revisions will be considered to the end that, though debate may be limited in appro-
June 1. 1985

House of Commons Procedures priate cases, there would at the same time be an absolute guarantee that a private Member who wishes to speak on behalf of his constituents cannot in any circumstances be prevented from doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the hon. Member permit a question? Does he think it at all possible for every private Member to be heard in this House under a limitation of time order if two days are to be allowed for a stage of a debate and seven hours per day are available? That makes 14 hours. Under a 20 minute rule only 42 Members would have the privilege of speaking. What about the other 222?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Ian Grant Wahn: I suggest there are a number of ways of handling this question. The available time might be divided differently. Arrangements might be made so that the 20 minute rule could be modified. We might have a ten minute rule or even a five minute rule. But I do not think the necessity for this would arise very often. I recall the story of the Russian peasant who was given the opportunity to be heard over the state broadcasting system. The time allotted to him was limited to 10 seconds. Nevertheless, he was able to deliver himself of an eloquent declaration. It consisted of the single word "Help!" Even if that is all we can do at times, I should like to have the opportunity of doing just that. This is particularly true when considering certain resolutions moved by the distinguished Leader and Members of the Opposition from time to time, as I gather these rules on the allocation of time would apply to all of these matters. It is in those terms that I am sure the story I told will be interpreted.
To answer more specifically the question raised by the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), I may say there is a possibility of extending the adjournment time and going through the night if necessary. There is also a suggestion that perhaps the available time, if it is only a few hours, could be allocated amongst the parties and then by the parties amongst the Members of each party who wish to speak. It might not be a 20 minute period. I am sure this could be worked out, particularly in view of the fact that in most cases all Members of the House do not wish to speak. As a practical matter, all I suggest is that the rules should guarantee the right of a private Member to speak. If that is done, we will continue

to do what has been done since there has been a Parliament; we will continue to work out on a sensible, practical basis, our speaking order. As long as that right is guaranteed, we will know that we can work out these arrangements in a mutually satisfactory manner. If that right is removed, then it seems to me a fundamental privilege of our constituents is being attacked.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, that right is curtailed when you agree to a time limit.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to state briefly the position of some of the members of this party with regard to the amendment and subamendment. I want to say that, generally, we are against the adoption of either the amendment or the subamendment for the following reasons: We would hope that the matter of the allocation of time set by a Minister, without the concurrence of the Business Committee, would be something that would be done rarely. In fact, we would hope it would be almost never done and that the provision is simply there to allow a Minister to do this in the event, I presume, that a majority of the Business Committee cannot agree.
The other thing which is even more important is that it seems to me that if we are going to set up a Business Committee to consider, in advance, time allocations for any particular debate then it is wrong for us to provide those things that will tie the hands of the Business Committee in advance. I think it is right and proper for this Business Committee to consider, along with every allocation of time, such things as the time allotted to each member and to some of the officers of this House. I believe that to set an arbitrary figure in advance of say 20 minutes or 40 minutes for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) would be a mistake. Each one of these items or pieces of legislation upon which time limits may be imposed will be different. I say that not with reference to their relative importance because it would be possible to have an extremely important piece of legislation before this House that would be relatively simple while there may be others of less importance that would be complex. It seems to me, therefore, that the Business Committee should take all these things into consideration when they are considering the limitation of time. They should come to some kind of agreement whereby they can recommend to the House not only an over-all time limit but a time limit for each
June 1, 1965	COMMONS
individual Member who speaks. I would hope, Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. Member permit a question on that point? Would the hon. Member be willing to have Standing Order 15A written in such a way as to give that authority or the right to make recommendations along those lines to the Business Committee?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would not have any objection to having that written into the proposed Standing Order 15A. However, I hope that all parties in the House would generally agree now that the Business Committee would be competent to make recommendations along those lines. I hardly see the need, therefore, for that to be written into the proposed Standing Order.
So far as we are concerned, I think we are prepared to vote against both the amendment and subamendment because we do not want to tie the hands of the Business Committee, at least until we have had an opportunity of seeing what it can do with the allocation of time idea.


Miss Pauline Jewett (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it appears as though a decision on the amendment or subamendment might well be taken quite soon so I shall not take up too much time of the House. Like the hon. Member who has just spoken, I have taken a good look at the amendment and subamendment and in my personal view I could not vote for either. I think I agree with the hon. Member and others who have spoken that the actual length of time of speeches will and should vary considerably from bill to bill and stage to stage. I would think that, generally speaking, for example, at second reading the two officers of the House should have unlimited time but not at committee stage. I would think that at committee stage there would rarely be any need for any speech to be longer than ten minutes. There are possibly some bills on which each stage would need a longer period. However, when we are making such a thorough re-examination of our rules, surely there is something to be said for keeping away from rigid time limits applying to every bill and every stage. It is for that reason I would agree with the hon. Member for good old Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) that greater flexibility should be provided. I would go farther and say that it should, in fact, be written into Standing Order 15A as the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. DEBATES	1837
House of Commons Procedures Knowles) has suggested and as I believe the House Leader wishes to do.
For example, in subsection (2) of the proposed Standing Order 15A, in the third line after the word "thereof" one could say "including the fixing of time on the length of speeches" or something of that kind. I do not believe now is the proper time to introduce another subamendment. I believe we have to deal with the amendment and subamendment before us. Should the amendment and subamendment not be accepted by the House, then possibly this alternative would be. One could say, in subsection (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, including the fixing of the time of the length of speeches, be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report-
I would hope the Business Committee would then take into consideration the nature of the bill, if it were a bill, and the stage that was being discussed, and determine the length of time of speeches on that basis, going all the way possibly from 5 minutes to 40 minutes depending on the nature of the item and the stage of the progress of the bill for which the time allocation was being considered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten seconds for the hon. Member for St. Paul's.


Pauline Jewett: I think the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) had a good point when he suggested there should be some way in which we could leave a gap of a week between second reading and committee stage of highly contentious matters. My reading of parliamentary debates over the last 10 years indicates this has frequently been the time lapse, particularly on controversial bills, so that public opinion has become known to Members of Parliament on any important matter being discussed.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Specifically, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) suggested that the amendment was trying to do something through the back door. Then he proceeded to try to do something else through the back door. The hon. Member suggested that the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) was using the back door in seeking to make every other party group a recognized party in the House, with special status in terms of length of time their Members would be able to speak, and in so doing was giving them a special status on a par with the two
June 1, 1985

House of Commons Procedures major parties in the House. But then the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka turned around and took away any status from those smaller parties in the House, and I do not find that acceptable either. You cannot turn around and say that the leaders of the other parties are only going to have 20 minutes, the same as any other private Member.
This whole discussion has brought up a tremendously important point which may not be entirely relevant, though goodness knows it is as relevant as the discussion of a permanent Speaker which seems to me to be totally irrelevant to this debate. This tremendously important point concerns the question of what is a recognized party. It seems to me that we have no right to interfere in any way with whatever parties want to exist in this country. We have no right to interfere with their appeals to the electorate.
If a party wants to run in every riding in Canada and lose four-fifths of its deposits, that is fine. It is free to do so. I am personally always upset when I hear people suggesting that somehow there is something bad about a multitude of parties running in elections. They have every right to do so, and if the major parties are not satisfying the Canadian public then it is quite appropriate that the smaller parties should run. However, I think we in this House have every right to determine, on the basis of the returns to the House, what is a recognized party, what constitutes a party for the purposes of Parliamentary procedure and operation. That is our business just as it is of those in any other assembly having more than two parties.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is not entirely relevant, but I could not accept the amendment, quite apart from the other reasons I have suggested, for the further reason that it uses the phrase that was used once before a year or two ago, "any recognized party", without any definition of what that is. Personally I say we as Members of Parliament have every right to decide what is a party.
I rather like the arrangements in the French National Assembly. There are 482 members in the French National Assembly and the rule there is that you have to have 30 members in order to be a recognized party, which is just a little over 6 per cent of the membership. That has produced, in the situation in France today, six recognized parties, and even if the other members of the Assembly-there are about 50 of them outside those six parties-group together they are not for parliamentary purposes a recognized party.

I think we really might well do something quite soon to define this for our own purposes. The figure of 6 per cent would perhaps be an acceptable one. Six per cent of 265 would be about 16. But whether you take 6, 5, 4, 3 or whatever per cent, having done this the Business Committee, when it is arranging the length of time of speeches, should quite rightly on second reading, but in my view nowhere else, give the two main officers of the House either an hour or possibly unlimited time.
It should give the Minister proposing a bill, the Member immediately responding to it, and the leaders of recognized parties, using that term in the sense I have spoken of, say 40 minutes or 30 minutes, with everyone else given such time as the nature of the legislation seems to require and as the various leaders work out in discussions together. In my view, at the committee stage, especially when one can speak more than once, the time allocation for everybody should not be more than 10 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. lady permit a question? She has at least given the impression that it was the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) who imported the question of recognized parties into this resolution.


Pauline Jewett: No, he just took it over from where we first mentioned it in our emoluments legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like the hon. lady to notice that in the Prime Minister's own resolution the proposed Standing Order 15A(1) refers to a Business Committee being set up with a member appointed by the leader of "each party in the House." Is she aware of the fact that parties are recognized in the Prime Minister's own resolution?


Pauline Jewett: He did not use the phrase "recognized party." No one has settled this question. I agree with the hon. Member's point but this does not destroy my argument that it is time we should settle this question, that we should not go on as we have.
I thought the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) made a very good point in that even if we do not pass the subamendment and the amendment, which for the reasons I have given are unacceptable, and instead proceed to amend clause (2) of the proposed standing order 15A in such a way as to include the fixing of time limits of speeches as a function of the Business Committee, it should be possible in some way to protect the right to
June 1, 1965

speak of any Member who feels that he has
something to contribute to a particular stage of a debate. The actual time limit of speeches would in the case of all bills be subject to an over-all limitation and in effect who speaks would be determined by the party leadership, but the individual private Member should have some opportunity to speak. Some opening should be made possible for him to say his piece. For example, perhaps the hon. Member for Burnaby-Riehmond (Mr. Prittie) may have a falling out with his leadership, which will not allow him to take part in a debate, and so he would be deprived from giving his 10 minutes worth. Some opportunity should be provided for him without destroying the over-all scheme.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And do the same for the hon. Member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan).


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent).


Pauline Jewett: It would be an extremely democratic thing to do. I have just one more thing to say-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-4, respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an act respecting one of the important industries in my riding and I may say I have some personal knowledge of this railroad, having worked as a locomotive fireman on it nearly 40 years ago.
The Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company operates a railway line north from Sault Ste. Marie for a distance of approximately 300 miles, crossing the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Franz and terminating in a junction with the main line of the Canadian National Railway at Hearst. It also has a branch line running from Hawk Junction to Michipicoten Harbour on Lake Superior and operates some seven cargo vessels on the Great Lakes.
This railway follows an exceptionally scenic route through the vast district of Algoma, a paradise for sportsman and tour-
Private Bills
ists. The area is particularly attractive in the fall of the year when the leaves are in autumn colour; and I might suggest at this time, Mr. Speaker, that Members of Parliament might well be impressed by a visit to Agawa Canyon on the route of the Algoma Central Railway and seeing for themselves what a tremendous challenge the builders faced in routing a railroad through this rugged terrain.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The company operated under financial difficulties for many years but as a result of the improvement in its financial affairs Parliament approved a reorganization of its capital structure in 1958. Since that financial reorganization in 1958 the financial affairs of the company have continued to improve. As a result the company is now planning continued expansion in the future and for this purpose is seeking approval of certain necessary financial provisions. In addition, one of the chief purposes of this Bill is to shorten the name of the company from "The Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company" to "Algoma Central Railway" or, as it is more commonly known, the A.C.R. Indeed, "Algoma Central Railway" is the corporate symbol of the railway at present. This change is provided for in clause 1 of the Bill. The following clauses of the Bill deal with the financial provisions to which I have referred and are more fully explained in the Bill itself.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Pursuant to Standing Order 105, the said Bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines or to the proposed Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, as the case may be.



MUTTART MORTGAGE CORPORATION

Ian Grant Wahn: the second reading of Bill No. S-6, respecting Muttart Mortgage Corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill to change the name of Muttart Mortgage Corporation to Cambrian Mortgage Corporation and to add a French version of the name. Muttart is the surname of the main shareholders of the company. Since its incorporation the business of the company has changed and expanded greatly. The company has been converted into a loan company; this was done in 1962 by a special Act of this Parliament.

June 1, 1965
Private Bills
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it is felt that the title of the company, which includes the personal name of the present shareholders, should be changed to a less personal name. That is the main reason for asking for the change. I might add, for the information of Members of the House, that it is a Canadian company. So far as I know, the shareholders, officers and directors are all Canadians. It is a respected and a responsible company. If there are any further questions, I am sure the principals would be happy to answer them at the hearing of the committee to which I hope the Bill will be referred.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Pursuant to Standing Order 105, the said Bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce or to the proposed Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, as the case may be.



BANK OF WESTERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 25, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Konantz for the second reading of Bill No. C-99, to incorporate Bank of Western Canada, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Laprise.
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have before us Bill No. C-99, an act to incorporate Bank of Western Canada, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) to have the bill given the six months' hoist.
Mr. Speaker, several times during this session and a previous one we have had the opportunity to discuss this proposed new bank and another one, the Laurentide Bank of Canada.
It seems to me that the stand taken by our group has been made quite clear from the beginning. We want those two bills deferred. It is not that we have so much against chartered banks, because they are no different from other institutions. What we cannot understand is the way chartered banks operate throughout Canada.
We have eight chartered banks at the present time. There used to be a lot more, but some of them having been eliminated, their number is now down to eight.
tThe Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten).]
As I just said, it is not that we are opposed to chartered banks, but we do not want to be party to their operations.
When you realize that those chartered banks belong to private individuals who probably use this means to obtain-


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. Member would permit a question. I take it from his introductory remarks this afternoon that it is his intention as a Member of the Social Credit Party to block the incorporation of this and other banks. Is that really the point of the hon. Member's speech, to block the incorporation of banks and particularly the Bank of Western Canada?


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. Member, I must say that I am not bilingual and that the interpreter has not understood the last part of his question. Would the hon. Member be kind enough to repeat that last part?


Mr. Deachman:: Say it again. He doesn't understand the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would be happy to repeat the question. Is it the intention of the Social Credit Party, the hon. Member's group, to filibuster and block the incorporation of the Bank of Western Canada and other banks with the argument he is presenting this afternoon? Is that his intention?


William Arnold Peters: Welcome back.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think you should be the
last one to talk.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, as I have said a while ago at the beginning of my remarks, we actually intend to prevent the passage of those bills at least until the Bank Act is amended. This revision must be made within a month from now and I do not see why we should grant new bank charters as long as the house will not have the opportunity to know the views of the Minister of Finance, to know what amendments he will propose to the chartered banks acts as well as the position Parliament will take.
I am sure that as long as we shall have speakers, we shall do our best to dispose of the hour reserved for those private bills as far as the requests for new chartered banks are concerned.
June 1, 1965

Mr. Speaker, those who propose the establishment of this new chartered bank argue that in some parts of the country there would be a shortage of chartered banks and consequently they claim to be the saviours of the Canadian nation in those parts of the country. I would point out that in British Columbia and Western Canada, there is no lack of chartered banks; and I wonder why these men have formed an association to apply for a new bank charter. In my opinion, their argument is rather weak when we consider, for instance, the results achieved by certain Western provinces with their existing chartered banks.
On the other hand, let us consider British Columbia, a province ably administered by a good man who is not in need of money at this time, since he takes pleasure in lending money to a certain province, and even suggests that if other provinces need money he has plenty of it to lend them.
It is therefore not my belief that the establishment of new chartered banks would increase the purchasing power or money supply of these provinces, as we must be aware that the role of chartered banks, as now understood, is not very edifying, being mainly one of mutual protection and profit making. In fact, they do not take the same risks as certain other corporations, and I am referring now to loan companies and finance companies, which take more risks than chartered banks. That is where again people in the low income brackets are to be pitied most. They are the ones who suffer most from the requirements of chartered banks when they want to borrow money and I remember many cases where people came to see me to explain their difficulties in borrowing from banks, because they were told, they did not have the necessary guarantees to meet the requirements of the banks. And then again like thousands of others, small earners or people with rather low income have to borrow from finance companies at interest rates of 20 to 25 per cent a year. Yet chartered banks promise to serve the Canadian people.
This can not be blamed upon the bank managers, who are but employees of those banks, but those who occupy higher positions must be blamed for attempting to restrict credit to the little people, while extending it to the wealthy in order better to crush the Canadian people.
As I said a while ago, I do not believe that if we create or establish new chartered banks, the country will be better off or the people
Private Bills
will have more money to buy what they need.
If they wished to play their role properly, if they really wished to serve the Canadian people, the chartered banks would have every possibility of doing so and of lending the necessary money to those who need it, be they small wage earners or wealthy individuals. I do not believe that the creation of those chartered banks will cause more credit to be issued, more money to be circulated, more loans to be granted to the people of Canada. If the existing chartered banks did their duty, I do not think that the setting up of new chartered banks would be necessary.
Mr. Speaker, since we are here-our group at least-we have often spoken about the Bank of Canada. We have pointed out that the Bank of Canada has relinquished its powers to chartered banks and this is what is wrong at present.
I understand that the Members of other political parties are used to flirting with finance companies, to be elected, thanks to the election funds of those companies, and they do not like to hear about the Bank of Canada. And it is quite understandable also that members of both old line political parties do not very often rise in the house to speak against the setting up of new banks since they are the first concerned.
They are in favour of setting up a new chartered bank so that its representatives, those newcomers, might help them in their future election campaigns. That is why not one of them is willing to commit himself during the private members' hour by speaking about chartered banks, their operation and, especially, the Bank of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is said to be a very rich country, a country with tremendous possibilities, one of those countries envied by others. This is so true that a great number of people are thinking of immigrating to Canada. On the other hand, it is amazing to note that even though Canada is one of the richest countries of the world, it is also one of the poorest. As a matter of fact, in the speech from the throne, has the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) not stated that next year a war on poverty will be launched and that he will see to it measures are enacted in order to fight against poverty and bring about prosperity in the country? I realize that the Prime Minister means well, but those best of intentions will soon disappear because he is not going about it the right way, since he does not start by introducing measures

June 1, 1965
Private Bills
against those who control parliament, who control elected members, that is, against big finance.
As soon as the Prime Minister subdues those people hiding behind the administration, Canada will probably enter an era of progress, an era in which we will really fight poverty, because if our country has today a debt of $22 or $23 billion, if the 10 Canadian provinces are going into debt at a growing pace every year, in brief, if our municipalities, our school boards and all public bodies are going deeper into debt-
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I submit that the remarks of the hon. gentleman can in no way be related to the principle of the Bill under discussion. He is talking about the war on poverty and so on and I cannot reconcile that with an act to incorporate a bank.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Batten): I have been listening carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dorchester and I suggest to the hon. Member that he relate his remarks more closely to the principle of the Bill now before us.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I may have wandered from the subject matter, but I thought that on this measure to set up a new chartered bank, it was normal to stress the poverty that is prevailing in our country.
As I pointed out at the outset of my remarks, it is not that we are against the chartered banks themselves, but if Parliament is called upon in some weeks or in a month, to consider the amendments to the Bank of Canada Act and to the Bank Act, I think it would not be proper for the house only a few weeks before such a discussion, to grant today the authorization to set up a new chartered bank.
Mr. Speaker, what I cannot make out in this new policy is that when a province is requesting precisely what some individuals are asking for, some people, above the House of Commons, block the establishment of a bank requested by a province. On the other hand, when it comes to passing legislation aimed at setting up a bank as requested by private citizens, the other house, and even this one, immediately grant those individuals permission to control credit, even permission to control the economic blood of the nation, because it must be said that those
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten).]
who control credit today can have any legislation passed here, in parliament. As I said a while ago, they are those who exert the greatest influence on Canadian politics; they are those who cause to be elected the government they want, in short, they are those who control our country.
And today, those who are under their control would like to see more protectors added to those they already have, in order to defend them against those who control the credit of our country and prevent them from obtaining what it would be possible for them to get, namely the credit or the money necessary to buy what is produced in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I feel that it is normal for us to object to the institution of a new chartered bank in the west as well as in the east, in short in any part of Canada.
Let chartered banks adequately play the role for which they have been set up, and it will not be necessary to add new chartered banks to those which already exist.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment now before us to postpone for six months a decision on the application by the Bank of Western Canada for a charter.
As we all know there have been and continue to be three applications to Ottawa for bank charters, the one now before us in respect of the Bank of Western Canada, one in respect of the Laurentide Bank of Canada and another in respect of the Bank of British Columbia. It has always been my contention that in fairness to these three applicants, and particularly in fairness to the Bank of Western Canada and the Bank of British Columbia, they should be considered as nearly as possible at the same time by the Banking Committee. For that reason I support the motion to delay for six months a decision regarding the application now before us.
I should like to repeat and emphasize what I think is the wisdom of this course, and especially today because, as I am sure Members are aware, the other place has given second reading to the application for a charter for the Bank of British Columbia. I am very hopeful that we will reach a time when all these applications can proceed in an orderly fashion to the Banking Committee. I believe that is important both from their points of view and from the points of view of the Government, the Opposition and the people of British Columbia. Therefore, Sir, I urge that
June 1, 1965

this amendment be carried today if we reach a vote.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, we feel we have very good reasons to oppose the passing of this bill before the Bank Act is amended in such a way that the Canadian people will get more out of it.
You will understand from that that we hope the government will realize that it is piling up debts upon the Canadians of today and tomorrow and will wake up in time and really try to take a step in the right direction.
It is not practical therefore to adopt today a bill that would enable a group of people to obtain a new bank charter before we have changed our banking system to meet today's needs.
We find it very strange that some members use all the means at their disposal to prevent the passing of bills setting up provincial banks.
That happened to the province of Alberta a few years ago, and the same thing is being done this year with respect to the project of another province.
The financiers must be proud of their Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon). He is a docile pupil and is quite well disposed toward them. He even goes as far as to say that the provinces have no business in the banking field. I presume that his masters will some day have an honorary degree bestowed upon him.
Coming back to this bill, I should like to add that the persons concerned with its passing would probably not be any worse than the others who already hold bank charters; however, we have no indication that they would be better either.
That would simply mean that new banks would be added to the already existing ones, thus spreading, within the limits of the legislation, the everlasting exploitation of the people.
I feel the grounds for the economic and financial confusion in which the Canadians find themselves just now, are not due to the fact that we have not enough banks; with the ones we have, this country has succeeded in running into debt to the extent that some Finance ministers are unable to state precisely to whom we owe money, and hardly succeed in paying the interest on our ever increasing astronomical debts.
On the basis that banks create money and contribute to the piling up of debts, I see 22620-118
Private Bills
no reason to hurry and adopt this bill which would enable a new bank to make us pile up more debts. I wish to clearly define our attitude toward the usefulness of Canadian banking organizations in so far as they are concerned with the handling of money to facilitate the exchange of goods. We are in full agreement in recognizing the usefulness of banking institutions, and I am happy to add that all bank employees enjoy a well-deserved reputation of honesty in fulfilling their respective duties as responsible stewards of their firms.
Being aware of the important part that our banking institutions could play, the Credi-tistes have never thought of nationalizing the banking system. We recognize that free enterprise, with proper leadership, has a greater opportunity to play an effective role for the population in all spheres of activity.
What is essential and unfortunately not understood well enough in the operation of the administrative structure of the banking system is that the true assets of the banks are not represented by something tangible. The true assets of the banks lie in the difference between the total amount of real money in circulation and the total amount of bank credit, not only the credit which truly exists, but also the potential credit which remains as such through the will of the masters of the financial system.
Nowadays, money is created within the banking system through the granting of loans. Such loans are made mostly under the form of entries in bank books to the credit of the borrower. The loan creates a new credit which did not exist before; that credit has all the properties of cash: it is put in circulation by cheques issued by the borrower to make payments.
It is withdrawn from circulation through sales of products or through corporation taxes and then returned to the bank for wiping off.
If the ratio and the amount of loans are higher than the ratio and the amount of reimbursements, there is an expansion of credit, and, therefore, of the the money in circulation.
On the other hand, if the ratio and the amount of reimbursements are higher than the ratio and the amount of loans, there is a decrease in the circulation of the money. Such a decrease may be caused by more severe conditions imposed upon borrowers, by an increase in the interest rates or by a straight refusal of loans. That is what we call the restriction of financial credit, which is the main form of modern money.

June 1, 1965
Private Bills
Therefore, financial credit depends upon the central or commercial banks.
Whereas real credit is a social credit, financial credit is a bank credit. There is no financial credit possible without real credit. Money to pay the producers and what they produce would be useless if there were no producers and no production.
The people who create money, the bankers, determine the country's money supply. When they make some and let it circulate, everything is fine. But when they force people to bring back to the bank ah the money they created, things take a turn for the worse. When things go badly, when nothing is being sold and unemployment is on the increase, this is called a depression. A depression is a lack of money. I would like the party politicians to tell us what was missing from 1929 to 1939, besides money.
Since that period which showed up the system's absurdity, our politicians have been looking for other words to describe a period of inactivity. Those crises were called recessions, depressions or described by other terms changing nothing to the demoralizing effect of that stagnation of the monetary service, because crises, stagnation or recessions are due to the money system which is badly managed.
That great American industrialist, Henry Ford, was quite right in saying that if the public knew how money was issued they would not tolerate the system 24 hours.
It would be good to think over these things from time to time in view of the difficulties with which we have been faced in Canada for so long.
Why should a sovereign government, as this Canadian government, borrow from a chartered bank in order to foster the prosperity of the country?
Why must the Canadian government, which has the exclusive legal powers on our money, pay interest on money borrowed from the chartered banks, and then turn around and levy taxes to pay that interest?
Why must all our money in circulation bear interest when it is a well-known fact that the government is empowered to use other methods so that there will always be sufficient funds to meet this need?
Those many questions require consideration and our opponents have always refused to discuss them except to poke fun at them. This was not the case, however, with Mr. Graham Towers when he appeared before the

committee on banking and commerce in 1939. Thus on page 409 of Proceedings and Evidence, it is interesting to note his answer to the following question:
Could you tell me why a government empowered to create money hands over this power to a private monopoly and then borrows what parliament can create itself and on which it pays interest to the point of leading the country to bankruptcy?
Here is the answer:
We realize that the payment undoubtedly serves to pay off part of the operating costs of banks and a certain amount of interest on deposits. Now, if parliament wants to change the method of operation of the banking system, it is surely empowered to do so.
We, Creditistes, would like to know why governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have always refused in the past to amend the Bank Act so as to provide that parliament should issue at least part of the currency needed by the country.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
There is no doubt that our present system has become a dictatorship. The whole economic life depends on its decisions. Today money is in fact only a bookkeeping arrangement; it would be quite easy to make the bookkeeping fit the reality.
We notice that as a country develops, it gets deeper and deeper into debt with the financial interests who do not even grow a sheaf of wheat. I am inclined to think that the main reasons which prevent people from giving sufficient thought to that matter is the fact that no one tries to see the fundamental difference between true wealth and its symbol. Too much emphasis is placed on money, whereas commodities and goods are the true wealth. When one talks of wheat, butter, cheese, eggs, shoes, clothing, houses, that is the real wealth. We talk about real things, of things capable of satisfying human material needs such as food, clothing and shelter.
To talk about dollars, pounds sterling, francs, is to speak of symbols, financial symbols. Those symbols cannot by themselves provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. They are mere symbols, symbols created to assess the value of things and also, in our organized world, to give to their bearers the right to get things of their choice.
We agree on that point. But the more important of the two is, of course, the real thing. Without the real thing, without production, without the thing, the symbol would be meaningless. Put a hungry man in a desert with a roll of bills in his hand; he will die of
June 1, 1965

hunger. Bread would be much better for him. And if, in a city, a man with a roll of bills does not die of hunger, it is because he is careful to exchange his dollars for food.
Reality depends upon the production capacity of a country; its natural resources, its soil, its climate, its manpower and its brains, its machinery, its production processes, its work repartition, its social order, etc.
This productive capacity of the country, effective or potential, is the very basis of the confidence of its inhabitants or of those who come to settle there. Even before it was put to work, this potential capacity of our country gave some French people enough confidence for them to leave their mother country and come to settle on the shores of the St. Lawrence.
Today, the Canadian production system, while it has not reached its full potentialities, does not worry anyone. There is not a single Canadian who fears that, say, within 10 or 50 years, this country will be unable to produce wheat, meat, timber, or manufactured goods. There is unrestricted confidence in the production system of Canada.
If the financial system were the exact replica of the production system, it would inspire exactly the same confidence as the latter. Such is not the case, however. If nobody is apprehensive about Canadian production, many Canadians have fears concerning their financial capacity to obtain products.
Indeed, there is sustained progress in the production system, but the financial system is subject to continuous disorders. Symbols bear no exact and constant relation with things.
Dollars are plentiful in time of war when the production system is diverted toward things that do not meet at all individual needs. When the production system is the more capable of providing all that is being asked of it, the dollars needed to give orders vanish.
That is not only antisocial, but inhuman. Because of that, consumers are deprived while production goes unused. When there are hundreds of thousands unemployed, it means that goods are not being produced. If we have unemployed, it is because the governments, through their budgets are unable to put them to work. It is absurd but, unfortunately, that is the situation which prevails. As I said that is inhuman because consumers are suffering even though goods go unused. That creates artificial problems not only for individuals but for groups and even governments.
22620-118J
Private Bills
Consquently, it is not exaggerated to say that nine tenths of the problems are financial. When federal and provincial leaders meet in order to reach agreements, they always argue about financial questions. They do not disagree on means to develop agriculture, mining and transportation, but on the right to tax such and such a field. Those hon. gentlemen are doing their utmost to obtain the privilege of taxing their fellow citizens. It is a question of money.
If products are the only real wealth and if financing is but a question of dollars the dollar sign becomes more and more important because the law requires that money be given in exchange for things we cannot produce ourselves.
Bread is the staff of life, but if you do not make your own bread yourself, you can only get some if you have money. The importance of the dollar is such that you cannot obtain bread without it.
This is a very important matter nowdays because in order to live everybody needs things produced by other persons. Therefore, this symbol, the dollar, is really a lease on life. It you have this lease you can get what you want out of a producer system; but if it is lacking that is the dollar, you get nothing and the producer system bogs down instead of serving you.
Thus, control over money and credit means control over the life of the individuals. This control is in the hands of a few individuals who determine the creation of money, conditions under which it will be put into circulation and how long it will remain in circulation.
They wield a sovereign power without assuming the responsibilities.
That is a serious situation, and I think it is worthwhile to pause in order to take a serious look at the decisions that are taken and which have a tremendous impact on the future of the nation. The question is not whether that system would be harmful at the international level or whether it would place us in a situation where we might have problems-
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


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


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks in

June 1, 1965
Private Bills
support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise) to give a six months' hoist to that well known project for the setting up of a new bank in order to give the house the opportunity to take a new look at the banking reforms that were proposed.
Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed at the eagerness displayed by some hon. members in trying to force something on us against our will. What would it mean for the government to postpone that discussion for two or three months, so that we could carry out the job that is a compelling necessity at the present time, namely the revision of our banking system? Then, we could decide about accepting or turning down the applications to increase the number of banks in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, a Conservative member asked a while ago whether we wanted to kill this bill for the setting up of a new chartered bank. I have said and repeated in this House that we are not against chartered banks. On the contrary, we are in favour of the chartered banks which are a part of our financial system, but we are for chartered banks which play their true role within our financial system. We want to give back to chartered banks their true role. Actually, we contend that they play part of the role which is the responsibility of the Bank of Canada, while the latter remains idle and is well satisfied to entrust the task to the chartered banks, private institutions which take possession of the public wealth. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, with $8, and soon with $7, the chartered banks will be able to lend $100. With only a $7 deposit at the Bank of Canada, they will be able to lend $100.
Mr. Speaker, under such conditions, we would all like to have our own little bank; for myself, as a tradesman, I can assure you that if money I have on deposit at the bank could be multiplied in this way, I would do a terrific business within a year.
And the people cannot understand that. I do not know whether it is because the whole house has become a minion of this banking system which, year after year, grabs the wealth of our country, because the more an individual works, the poorer he gets and the deeper he gets into debt.
But where is all this taking us? As the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) pointed out a moment ago, we are heading toward bankruptcy, and at 75 miles an hour, if we do not wake up and put things back in order in our financial system, in short, if we do not hand over the part played by the chartered banks-which belong to the private

sector and not to that of the general public- to the Bank of Canada, if we do not compel the Bank of Canada to assume its role in the large public sector. There is no question about that.
It seems to me that if all members of this house wanted to make some effort to study and get to know the situation, they would finally understand. I realize that there are a few who know something but cannot talk. They cannot talk because, as they say themselves, it is very dangerous to speak of those things. It is a mystery that has never been explained to us from the day we were born, even from the day our great grandfathers were born, that the financial system could grab the output of the work of all the people throughout the country, because after all what is the financial system? Surely it is not a question of dollars and cents. As a matter of fact, I could simply compare the present financial system to a bookkeeping system. The Bank of Canada is simply asked to keep the accounts of the country, just as a manufacturer keeps his own books. If you want to make a better comparison, you just have to bring down this bookkeeping to the family level.
As a matter of fact, a family head works for a whole year and uses part of his savings to support his family, to improve his property and, at the end of the year, if he has $1,500 or $2,000 left, what he is going to do with it? Is he going to call on his neighbor and say: "Now take those $2,000, I have just created this amount, it is a net profit. If I need it, I will borrow it from you". If he did, he would undoubtedly be called an idiot. Nevertheless, this is how the assets of the country are administered. The Bank of Canada should be responsible for the bookkeeping of this country. Every year, a gain is realized since everybody is working. If every Canadian stopped working, then there would not be any gain.
Every year a gain of $10, $12 and even $13 billion is announced after balancing our earnings against our expenditures. This is a bookkeeping entry. But if a credit of $8 billion appears at the bottom of the column, the Bank of Canada is asked to do a bit of work and enter this amount to the credit of the country.
Therefore, if one has a $10 billion credit and needs $50 million in order to build a bridge, or if a province is in need of money, it should be taken out of the new accounting credits of the country, in the same way as an individual who has a $2,000 deposit in the bank
June 1, 18S5

and needs $50 in order to buy medicine for his wife. What will he do then? He is not going to borrow $50, but will take that amount out of the $2,000 he has. He will not pay any interest either, because he is not going to pay interest to himself on his own money. It belongs to him. The same applies to the country which is a great big family. It is merely the country's bookkeeping and, at the end of the year, a credit of $10, $12 or $13 billion is shown, which constitutes the annual gains, the outcome of the Canadian people's work, as indicated by a figure.
House of Commons Procedures AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.



PROVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ESTIMATES AND ALLOCATION OF TIME

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion (as amended on May 27) of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Brewin, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Aiken:
That is an asset. It is not in dollars and cents. It is a credit and it is precisely that credit one has in mind when talking about the new credit for our country, when one asks the Bank of Canada to issue credit to cover all public expenditures by the federal and provincial governments as well as by municipal councils and school boards or by anything that belongs to the public in general like a convent or a city hall. If it does not belong to any one, a city hall belongs to every one. It is public property and must be administered by a bank which will administer the public wealth, which will keep the books for the public in general.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock? [Text]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour for the consideration of private Members' business has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: It is i
duty, pursuant to provisional Standing Or<
That this House recognizes the need for improving its procedures to provide full opportunity for the critical examination of proposed legislation and to ensure the effective dispatch of public business;
That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House; and
That, in order to secure improved examination of the details of legislation and of public spending, while maintaining the full authority of the House, this House agrees upon the value of making increased use of Standing Committees;
That this House accordingly orders:
1.	(a) That detailed examination of estimates, saving always the right of the Committee of Supply, be undertaken by Standing Committees and that not more than 30 days of the time of the House be allocated to the business of supply in each session. For the purpose of this order, the business of supply shall consist of main estimates; interim supply; and supplementary or additional estunates excepting supplementary or additional estimates introduced after the main estimates have been approved, and excepting always the final supplementary or additional estimates;
(b)	That the number of supply motions be duced from six to four; and
(c)	That a Special Committee of the House, consisting of twenty-four members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and to submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon these orders, including any means of giving to the opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
2.	That the Standing Orders be amended by adding thereto a new Standing Order 15-A to read as follows:
39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows:	(1) The hon. Member for York-
Humber (Mr. Cowan)-public works, Lake Ontario, permission for dumping of fill; (2) the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Canada Assistance Plan- request for early implementation of legislation; (3) the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police, letter from Commissioner to C.B.C. respecting program "Viewpoint".
At six o'clock the House took recess.
oiunut/iy C/rUCT 10-/1
15-A. (1) There shall be a Business Committee to which the leader of each party in the House from time to time by written notice to the Speaker may appoint one member.
(2)	During routine proceedings a Minister of the Crown may request that the question of allocation of time for consideration of any item of business or stage thereof be referred to the Business Committee for consideration and report, and upon such request being made such question shall stand referred to the committee.
(3)	The Business Committee shall report back to the House on or before the third sitting day following such request.
(4)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the Committee has unanimously recommended an allocation of time for the item
1848	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures of business or stage thereof, a Minister of the Crown may without notice propose a motion, to be decided without debate or amendment, for concurrence in the report, and if agreed to, the motion shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(5)	If the Chairman of the Business Committee reports that the committee has been unable to reach a unanimous agreement or if the committee fails to report within the time specified by Section (3) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may give notice that at the next sitting of the House he will move that an order be made allocating the time for the item of business or stage thereof.
(6)	A motion of which a Minister has given notice under Section (5) of this Standing Order shall be made during routine proceedings. Unless the debate on the motion has been previously concluded, Mr. Speaker shall at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business in such sitting interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion. A motion requesting allocation of time, if agreed to, shall have the same effect as if it were an order of the House.
(7)	No motion made by a Minister under Sections (5) and (6) of this Standing Order shall provide for the allocation of a period of time shorter than two days for the second reading, two days for the committee stage, and one day for the third reading of any bill. For the purposes of this section, third reading shall be deemed to have been considered for one day provided the order for third reading is called as the first item under Government Orders on a Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, and provided it is continued, if necessary, until the normal time of adjournment on any such day; provided that if a representative of each party has not spoken, the hour for the adjournment of the sitting shall be extended until a representative of each party has had an opportunity to speak. Such an order having been called on any Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday, it shall have precedence over all other business until the time of adjournment on that day, unless it is disposed of earlier. Under any other circumstances, a total of five hours shall be deemed to be the equivalent of one sitting day.
(8)	During debate on any item of business or stage thereof for which an allocation of time has been made under this Standing Order, if an amendment is proposed which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker materially changes the item of business or stage thereof and which raises any issue for which in the opinion of Mr. Speaker there has not been or otherwise will not be an adequate opportunity for discussion, Mr. Speaker may announce an extension of not more than two days to the allocated period of time.
3.	That the orders of this House under numbered paragraph 1, the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon these Orders, and the new Standing Order 15A be continued in effect until the end of the next ensuing session, unless this House otherwise orders.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, if I could just sum up the points I was making before the dinner adjournment, it seems to me there is very much to be said for the allocation of
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten) .1
DEBATES	June 1, 1985
time under this proposed Standing Order, including the fixing of limits for the length of speeches which I understand has been discussed and will undoubtedly be proposed. I would, however, still argue that the outer limits on speeches should be reduced and that in many instances, if not in fact most, 40 minutes is more than is absolutely essential except for certain officers of the House and other persons.
It seems to me, therefore, that we should have on second reading of a bill and other equally important items of business, such as major resolutions like the flag resolution, unlimited time for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition, 40 minutes for a Minister introducing a bill, the Member immediately following and the leaders of recognized parties-I will come back once again to "recognized parties"-and 20 minutes for all others. These would be, as I said, the outer limits. The Business Committee would determine whether or not something else, perhaps just half those amounts of time, would be appropriate at second reading of a specific bill.
For the Committee stage of the bill and third reading as well, my own view is that the outer limit might well be 10 minutes, certainly at committee stage and particularly if we make really effective use of Standing Committees to discuss bills after second reading. Also, in view of the fact that a Member can speak more than once at committee stage in this House it would seem to me that 10 minutes should be the outer limit. There might indeed be occasions when the Business Committee might determine that five minutes was sufficient time. So I would think it is important to provide certain outer limits and to distinguish between say second reading stage on the one hand and committee stage on the other.
May I here revert once again, momentarily, to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). If in fact he meant there should be a seven-day gap between each stage of a bill, it would seem to me that is unnecessary, that all that is really necessary is to have a seven-day gap between the second reading stage and the committee stage. I think the hon. Member would agree that this is the really vital period when one needs a bit of time and not between the other stages.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, if I may put this in the form of a question, I suggested two
June 1, 1965

stages. My suggestion was two periods of seven days, one at the conclusion of second reading stage and one at the conclusion of committee stage. Two only.


Pauline Jewett: I would argue, I think, that the first period suggested is the most important and in my view anyway it would probably be sufficient to have but one period and that between second reading and committee stage. The second point I raised and on which I should like to comment very briefly again is the problem-it may well be one that can only be worked out over a period of time- of what happens if a Member or Members consistently find difficulty in getting a place in these fixed debates. We all well know that this happens now. We have two major fixed debates in this House, on the Speech from the Throne and the budget, and it does happen that it is frequently difficult for some Members to get on the list of speakers. Even if we reduce the length of speeches, as I hope we will, it will still be difficult for a Member to take part in a debate. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should give some thought to this matter. Maybe something will be done in the form of an amendment after we have considered the present proposal. However, I believe we should all give some thought to this problem now and be prepared for some amendments in the future should it prove to be difficult for private Members always to feel that they are really being given a fair chance in these fixed debates.
I emphasize, too, although it is not entirely relevant at the moment, the very great importance of deciding what a party is for parliamentary purposes. Until a couple of years ago to my knowledge the word "party" was never mentioned in any Act of Parliament. "Parties" were, in constitutional theory at any rate, not a part of this House. But beginning a couple of years ago and increasingly since then we have used the words "party", "representatives of parties", "recognized parties", and other such words with greater and greater frequency. I would emphasize, therefore, that, obviously not in this particular debate but very soon if we do not want to be in quite serious trouble in this House, we should try to secure a definition of "party" for parliamentary purposes comparable to the one in say the French National Assembly.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. lady a question at this point? She referred before six o'clock to the system they use in the French National Assembly to
House of Commons Procedures determine parties. I ask this question only for information. Does the hon. lady know that in the British House the British Liberal Party, which is probably less than 2 per cent of the membership, is considered a party in the sense of being consulted in the business committee, in the allocation of speakers, and so on?


Pauline Jewett: Yes, Mr. Speaker; they presumably have not run into the difficulty that the French National Assembly has with six parties. I assume that if the British, being a very pragmatic people, were to run into a difficulty comparable to the one we have they would change their rule, but at the moment, as you know, they have two very major parties and only one smaller, minor party. It seems to me, however, that we have reached the point where we should take a serious look at this question. I hope no one will interpret my remarks in such a way as to imply that we are suggesting how many parties should run in the country. That is none of our business and as many parties as want to should run in the country. But when it comes to deciding the status of a "party" in this House there must surely be a great deal to be said to giving special consideration to the problem of defining a "party" for these purposes. I say this in view of the increasing use we are making of phrases like "representatives of parties" and "recognized parties" in our legislation and Standing Orders. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) made such a reference the other night when he moved this amendment, as recorded on page 1745 of Hansard:
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
"provided that if a representative of each party has not spoken, the hour for the adjournment of the sitting shall be extended until a representative of each party has had an opportunity to speak".
It seems to me we must decide very soon what we mean by a representative party.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What do you do with independents?


Pauline Jewett: Exactly what they do with them in France. As I said before, in France there are 482 members. About 432 of those members belong to six parties having more than 30 members apiece. The smallest party has 32. The remaining 50 odd may belong to a party which is not recognized as a party in the parliamentary sense, but they still represent their constituencies and have opportunities to speak. They are still given
June 1. 1965

House of Commons Procedures all the rights of individual members of parliament but not the rights of members of parties in parliament, even though they may belong to parties outside. In France the situation at the moment is that approximately 432 of the 482 members belong to six parties, the smallest having 32 members. The minimum allowed is 30 members. The remaining 50 members of parties with less than 30 are members but even though they belong to a party outside the chamber they are, as I say, not recognized inside the chamber as a party.
Finally, may I say that I think the debate on this resolution, part of which I have heard and the rest of which I have read, has been extremely interesting and valuable. Part of its value, and a very large part in my view anyway, is derived from the fact that there was a fairly close examination of all these problems by the Committee on Procedure. This has convinced me that there is much to be said about committees of the House threshing through problems in order to try to reach agreement and canvassing a lot of opinions even before the Government of the day brings down a resolution of this sort. My hope is that this will set a precedent and that we shall do this at other times. I am sure that we would not have had this debate had not the Government canvassed the ground pretty thoroughly in the first place.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonlon-Siraihcona):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in agreement with the last speaker when she said that this has been a fairly interesting debate. I am sure that if I were in a mood to be very charitable I might find in some of her other remarks something with which I could agree. For instance, on the question of the recognition of smaller parties and their having a certain percentage of the membership of the House, I thought she was a little generous when she suggested 6 per cent as in France. I would put the figure higher here.
However, my purpose in joining in the debate is not to quibble about what sort of reforms should take place but really to express my puzzlement over why the debate should have taken this form. Frankly, I have not been convinced that we need this overhaul of the rules of Parliament. Speaker after speaker has risen to his or her feet and said that obviously we are in disgrace, that the public thinks this and that and that therefore the rules need reforming. This reminds me of a hockey game; if it is a bad hockey game then you must change the rules of hockey,

or perhaps the trouble is just a couple of bad teams. If there is something wrong with your car then you decide that automobiles are no good, that you should switch to tractors if there is something wrong with your automobile. It seems to me that just because the House or because Parliament does not have a particularly good reputation at a certain time it does not mean there is anything necessarily wrong with the rules. It may be a failure to observe the rules. It may be a failure of the House to organize its work. It may be that certain members have sabotaged the work of the House. There are a hundred and one ways in which Parliament can get a bad name, none of which should necessarily mean revising the rules.
Therefore I should have thought, after all the time spent on this debate, that someone would have spent some time explaining to us why it is that the rules of the House are at fault and not the particular make-up of the House. For instance, no one has spent much time pointing out that we now have five parties and what the effect of that is when normally we expect only two or three parties. No one has bothered to mention the minority position. Very few have bothered to explain why it is that we are now so insistent on changing the rules when everybody recognizes that any body such as Parliament can function only as well as the leadership which it is given. Parliament today has received the least leadership it has ever received. Therefore it seems incongruous to me that we should spend all our time talking about reforming and changing our rules when nobody has bothered to prove that changes in our rules are necessary.
I think most hon. Members must have been absent or asleep or just have not bothered to look at the speech made last Tuesday by, for instance, the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), which is to be found at page 1641 of Hansard, during which he talked about the functions of Parliament, what it is supposed to do and how it is supposed to do it. How can Members blithely stand up and so carelessly, I think, talk about limiting speeches and by how much they should be limited while at the same time ignoring completely the duty not just of the House in general but of every Member of the House to scrutinize closely Government spending? What has democracy come to and what do we think of Parliament today? I suppose we are just a rubber stamp and that the idea of streamlining the rules is that we shall become a more efficient rubber stamp.
June 1, 1965	COMMONS
Can any Member of this House contend that it is not necessary to consider whether it is desirable to change our rules, that there is no question about it, that it is self-evident? If they were to look at the conduct of this House and the leadership which it had last year, they would soon discover whether it was the rules that were to blame or whether it was something else. If we examined the situation and found that other things were to blame, would we still insist that the only purpose of this debate is to change our rules? How short are our memories? How much we have forgotten what happened to Parliament in the last session? We in this House are politicians, and we understand how little leadership we have received. We understand the propaganda put forth by the Government and why they bend all their efforts to make sure that no one in this country should blame the Government's lack of leadership for the trouble with Parliament. Yet it is the Grits who have the effrontery to say to the people of this country that Parliament is at fault, that the rules should be changed, if not us.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, some of the difficulties we encountered when the Government made that great change in the Department of Agriculture by order in council by means of which they switched five branches of the Department to the Department of Forestry and did not bother to publicize the fact. Then three weeks later they cancelled it. They did not switch them back but cancelled the order. Then two or three weeks after that they passed another order in council and transferred three more. Then we started to ask questions about it. Where were we in the interval? What was the position? Was it legal?
Here is a case where Members must ask themselves whether we need a change in the rules to discover why Parliament could not get these answers or why we spent so much time trying to find out the legality of the position. Between February and April we asked questions day after day but got no answers. Certainly it is the business of Members of Parliament to make sure that when public moneys are spent they are spent legally. But when a Member of Parliament telephones a Department and asks whether ARDA is in the Department of Forestry or the Department of Agriculture and the people in ARDA do not even know the answer themselves, is that the sort of situation about which Members of Parliament should be concerned? I would suggest, in the light of the thinking of the Government in these reforms, 22620-119
DEBATES	1851
House of Commons Procedures that after two or three weeks of asking questions about the situation and hammering away we would have been cut off. It would not matter whether or not the people of Canada had been given the answers. We would be told that the time provided had been sufficient.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Is there a Member of this House who does not believe in his heart that not only is it the business of the Government to run the country but the business of the Government to give leadership to this House and to make sure that our business is properly carried out? Most people believe that the Government must run the business of this country in a proper manner and must at the same time satisfy the Members of this House that they know what they are doing and that it is being done right.
Surely this is the place where we must force the Government to prove to the people of this country that the business of this country is carried out properly. How can we do that if we choke off the Opposition and allow the Government to deceive the people as to where the fault lies for an improperly run Parliament? This can happen when the Government is successful in selling to the people of this country that great bogeyman that Parliament is being obstructed by an Opposition which will not co-operate but insists on filibustering. Since when has it not been part of the Government's job to handle properly the House of Commons? Since when can those individuals on the front benches of the Government side say with propriety in their petty way that they cannot lead Parliament and the Government because of the Opposition, and that the people of Canada should help to throttle the Opposition? That is a preposterous situation.
Do we hear often those on the Government benches arguing to sustain the request that we amend the rules in order to throttle the Opposition? The obvious answer to that question is no. It seems that someone has taken it for granted that because the press has suggested that Parliament is not working efficiently the rules are at fault. Many Members of this House seem to have accepted that conclusion. I am not one of those who go along with the mob, and perhaps I am wrong in this regard. It may be that the rules are at fault, but when I consider the many other things that in my opinion are at least partially responsible for the inefficiency of Parliament I am inclined to look elsewhere.
June 1, 1965

House of Commons Procedures
For instance, I must consider the lack of leadership on the part of the Government and the contempt this Government has shown in so many ways for Parliament itself. There are many solid and substantive reasons why Parliament has not been able to carry out the important business of this country in the way each one of us would like to see it carried out. For these and other reasons I have become suspicious about the suggestion that the blame can be laid at the doorstep of the rules and that the situation can be solved by a change thereof.
An institution such as this House of Commons, which has existed for many years in good times and in bad with minority Governments and majority Governments, and which has by and large done a creditable job, must have rules which are not all bad. This institution has by and large for a number of years managed to retain public confidence in its ability to do the job of Government, and I am a little suspicious now about the sudden desire to change the rules.
Perhaps in this age people find things too easy. Perhaps they are uneasy about the atomic bomb and want to find a quick and easy shelter. With a Government as weak as the Government we now have, I am not surprised that the people are scurrying as fast as possible behind a quick and easy solution to the problem.


Ian Grant Wahn: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: When I have completed my speech I shall be pleased to entertain questions. I understand the position taken by the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn), and I will comment on that position in a moment or two.
Having regard to the number of things which influence the efficiency or otherwise of Parliament, the difficulty with which we are now faced may relate to our rules and perhaps we should change them, but before agreeing to do so let us consider a number of other things which may also be at fault. The hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) today, on a question of privilege, referred to the laxity on the part of the Government in replying to questions. We all know how much difficulty the Speaker has in trying to keep the Members in line in respect of questions and how often he has suggested that questions be placed on the order paper. We also know the number of times hon. Mem-

bers have complained because, having placed questions on the order paper, the information has not been forthcoming. I suggest this is another indication of the lack of leadership on the part of the Government and the lack of respect it has for Parliament and the operation of the parliamentary system.
The present Government apparently regards Parliament as a nuisance. Many of us remember the pipe line debate and how it came about. We remember well the people on the Government side involved in that debate and their lack at that time of respect for Parliament. I also have some reason to remember Easter of last year. A number of Members on the other side of this House feel that my complaint resulted in our not having an Easter recess. At that time we asked for certain answers and gave the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) notice a week ahead that unless we received the information requested we would not give unanimous consent to the motion to adjourn for an Easter recess. The Government at that time had so little regard for Parliament it thought that it could steamroll certain things through the House under the threat that unless we agreed we would have no recess.
Let us remember the time we found that the Government was concealing the condition of the unemployment insurance fund. I remember those hon. Members squirming, when we were in power, as a result of information we brought forward. I remember how embarrassed the hon. Member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) and the hon. Member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) were in this regard. I suppose that that hon. Member has not had a wink of sleep since that time because of his embarrassment. No wonder the hon. Member for Bonavista-Twillingate suffered a minor breakdown in health, and I suppose that his medical adviser told him what caused his lack of sleep and probably suggested that we were responsible.
What did those hon. gentlemen try to do to Parliament? They tried to make it an institution which would bow to the use of blackmail. Does anyone think that such an attitude lends itself to the efficiency of Parliament? Le us consider the flag debate and how the Prime Minister somersaulted in that regard. He started out by suggesting that the issue should be non-partisan and that it should be sent to a committee. He then suggested that they were going to take this sacred symbol and use it for political purposes and the devil with Parliament and the
June I, 1965

people of Canada. That is, in fact, what the Government did. However, because the Opposition rose on its hind legs and said, no, you cannot do that, the Government turned to the people of Canada and suggested that we should change the rules to make sure that the time of Parliament was not wasted by the Opposition.
Surely that is the attitude obviously taken by the bunch over there on the front benches. It is true that the Prime Minister was finally beaten into changing his attitude to some extent, but by then he had done the harm to the country. By that time the Prime Minister had shown the people of this country that he did not care what happened, how long we worked, how bad our nerves became, or how inefficient Parliament became. Obviously he intended that we would not have a summer recess unless we submitted to his blackmail. Surely that is a terrible attitude for the Government to take in respect of Parliament, particularly when one considers that it is the duty of the Government to run the business of the country efficiently, to provide leadership in the House and to persuade hon. Members to accept certain measures.
It is obvious that the bunch now sitting on the front benches on the Government side cannot give effective leadership to Parliament. None of them has even bothered to consider or comment on whether the fact that we have five parties in the House has some bearing on the picture of Parliament as painted by a number of members of the press. I sometimes think it has. Certainly we have seen some parties in this House playing politics in a manner which defies description. They have made it plain that the Government can count on a majority, and this has taken away the Government's excuse for any untoward action which might be accounted for by any feeling of insecurity. Here is a party which can count on an absolute majority, a party which knows that whenever the chips are down there are certain groups which will abstain from voting or stand solidly with it, as the case may be, to make sure it is not defeated. Yet Members opposite still tell the nation: We must control Parliament; we do not have an absolute majority. They use that as an excuse.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I have not been in this House as long as some have been, but nothing can change my theory that Parliament exists to ensure that our democratic system works to the best
22620-119J
House of Commons Procedures advantage of the people of this country. One of the hard won rights of Parliament is the right to check Government excesses by ensuring that money is not granted until grievances have been redressed. Something within me quails when there is a suggestion that there should be limitation of debate when it comes to estimates and supply. I have not yet seen any necessity for such a limitation in this House. I have seen discussion continued right to the last day or two, yet somehow we have pushed through two or three departments; deals have been made. I am talking now about the days when this party formed the Government as well as the period when the Liberals formed the Government.
When the Liberals were in Opposition they said they had only one duty, to get rid of the Government. That was something entirely new to me. They regarded their duty as an Opposition to be no more than that. Taking an attitude such as this into account, and having regard to the kind of filibuster which went on among the Liberals and their supporters at that time, it is indeed surprising that supply was passed. But still supply was passed and the estimates were approved. When a Government cannot satisfy Parliament or redress the grievances of the House or when it cannot manage to get its legislation passed within a reasonable time, then one should look to the Government itself to discover the fault.
It is obvious from the remarks I have made, comparing this Government with the previous one, that I believe our rules must be applicable to normal parliamentary procedure over the long term. The situation arising in a two party House is different from that presented by a five party House. It is not reasonable, in my view, to say that as soon as the Government is in trouble Parliament is bad and we must therefore change the rules. No one has yet proved to my satisfaction that it is the rules which are to blame for the various troubles about which the Government complains. Nevertheless we have reached a frame of mind which has prompted many speakers to accept the desirability of change and concentrate their attention on what changes may be necessary to carry out reform. In doing this I believe we have reached a new low.
I would point out that the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) made it plain at the beginning of his speech that he was against any interference with the rights and, indeed,
June 1, 1985

House of Commons Procedures the duty of individual Members of Parliament to speak on behalf of their constituents. At the same time he thought we must limit debate. He found himself unable to come up with a practical solution to this dilemma. Those who have listened to other speeches will have found the same thread running through the debate. When Members begin talking about a solution before they have decided what has caused the trouble, when they say a change in the rules is needed in these circumstances, they run into difficulty with regard to the changes which should be made.
The truth is that most people are not sure what effect these changes will have. The difficulties inherent in these proposed changes have not been pointed out to them. Certainly some of us have vague notions of the factors which may have added to the inconvenience the House has suffered of late, but no evidence has been advanced as to the amount of trouble which our rules themselves have caused; no attempt has been made to indicate how much difficulty has been caused by our present procedure. There are many factors which enter into this. Whenever the Government is in trouble, Members opposite place the blame on the Opposition. Members opposite may not agree. What about the lack of leadership on the part of the Government? How big a factor is the presence of five parties? How large is the part played by the lack of restraint shown by some Members who show no regard at all for the rules? How big a factor is the obvious contempt for Parliament shown by the Liberals? When I talk about lack of restraint I confess that some hon. Members of my own party could show more restraint at times. The Creditistes should blush a little because in my opinion no group has bent the rules more than they have; they seem to feel they are misunderstood and that they alone possess rights.
We would all agree, I am sure, that a great deal more respect for the rules of this House would make the present rules more effective than they are now. I say to hon. Members: Let us all have a lot more respect for the rules. Let us all work harder together to try to make democracy work in this country. Then I defy anyone to tell me we need changes in our rules before we can get our work done in the manner in which it should be done. Respect for Parliament, the acknowledgement of the supremacy of the rules and respect for the work which has to be done

need leadership, and in the Parliament of Canada there is only one place where responsibility for leadership rests and that is on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and the cabinet he has chosen. As long as there is the contempt for Parliament this Government shows we shall have trouble carrying out the work of this House no matter how the rules are changed unless we want to fold up and become a complaisant rubber stamp, and I suggest this is the only reason the Government is putting forward these proposals now.
I thank the House for its attention. I only hope somebody on the Government side will get up and argue that we need these rule changes because so far we have not heard one bit of evidence to this effect.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Ian Grant Wahn: May I ask the hon. Member the question I wished to ask him earlier? It is the same now, as it was at the beginning of his remarks. It is simply this: Is he suggesting that Parliament has not worked well during the past year or so, because it was my understanding his Leader had indicated he thought Parliament had worked reasonably well during the past year or so?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I suggest that Parliament, despite the abuse it has taken, despite the extra time Members have put in, has managed to get through the work it should have done and that it has worked well. All I can say is that, given the proper leadership, the proper guidance and the proper attitude toward Parliament, we might have done the same amount of work it took us ten months to do in six months or less.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to make my remarks strictly relevant to the amendment and subamendment before the House at the moment. I must admit frankly that I found it a little difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) when he suggested that someone was trying to make a rubber stamp of him. Somehow I could not quite visualize him in that role. I think he will not mind my making that remark. I think no one on our side would ever suggest that is a role that would fit him easily. As a matter of fact, I hope no one ever tries to put him in that position.
In so far as the amendment and subamendment are concerned, it seemed to me there were two rather unrelated questions linked up. The one had to do with a somewhat extraneous argument about whether or not the
June 1, 1965

leaders of the minorities or smaller groups in the House had rights that were different from those of individual private Members and what those rights should be. I do not propose to embark on that discussion because I think it is irrelevant to the particular point I want to make at this stage in the debate.
The other point was whether or not we should have, under the rules, an arbitrary restriction on the length of speeches made on any item of business that was before the House under an allocation of time. The proposal running through both the amendment and subamendment is that a time limit of 20 minutes should be put on a Member's speech, the same time on the Committee stage as would be allowed on second reading stage and third reading stage. I want to make it clear that the Government certainly is not asking for this kind of restriction on individual Members. If the individual Members feel there is something they need, I suggest that the remedy lies elsewhere than in that kind of amendment to the rules.
It is quite possible to visualize legislation of a nature that would perhaps have an allocation of time of two weeks at the second reading stage and several weeks in the Committee stage. I am thinking of legislation, for instance, like the medicare plan. I, for one, would very much dislike the proposition that under the rules we should fix arbitrarily a limit of 20 minutes on an individual Member's speech on the second reading of a bill of that scope. While I understand quite well the objective of hon. Members in moving the amendment and subamendment, I want to suggest, with all deference to them, that they may not have found an expression of the protection they desire in the proposal put before us.
I am going to suggest that the House consider that the allocation of time for individual speeches, provided it is going to be dealt with, is something that should vary from one item of business to another if there is to be any special provision at all made for it.
I had thought that the proposed new Standing Order as it now reads did provide this and that this was inherent in it. This view is not held by all hon. Members and it has been suggested that the proposed new rule dealing with allocation of time does not permit the Business Committee to deal with the allocation of time for speeches. If there is doubt on that point, and there seems to be-as a matter of fact, views quite firmly held indicate that the proposal does not contain that
House of Commons Procedures provision-I am quite prepared to move an amendment if the amendment and subamendment now before the House are withdrawn.
In order that hon. Members will understand what I am suggesting I propose to read an amendment, and if it appears to be satisfactory I think it would meet the situation. It would simply add subparagraph (9) to Standing Order 15A and would read something like this:
The term 'allocation of time', wherever used in this Standing Order may include the allotment of time to any item of business, to any stage thereof or any part thereof and may include the fixing of limits for the length of speeches.
The significant part is the fixing of limits for the length of speeches. There are other ways the point could be made by amending the Standing Order but the other ways, as I looked at them, involved amending several of the sections in this Standing Order. I think this is probably the simpler and better way of doing it. It does seem to me there conceivably may be a situation in which it is quite undesirable to limit the length of speeches on second reading stage but may be desirable to limit the length of speeches in Committee beyond the length now set by Standing Order. It may well be that on one item of business the House may wish no interference at all with the time limit on speeches that is now applicable, while on another piece of legislation the House might be agreeable to and indeed want quite a short period of time allocated. I am thinking of legislation upon which at the Committee stage the Members might want a short interval of time for individual speeches, perhaps as little as 10 minutes.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
In any event, it seems to me that this approach to the problem would more nearly meet the consensus of thinking there is in the House. Members, of course, have full protection when the matter has been dealt with by their representative on the Committee and, if there is an order to be made, when that is brought before the House. Therefore, with some uncertainty as to what the time should be, I certainly do not think that here and now we should try to put the House more or less in a strait-jacket for the next two years.
I should like to remind hon. Members that the Government offered an amendment to this proposal limiting its applicability to the balance of this session and one more session-
June 1, 1965

House of Commons Procedures It is not a permanent change, and I have no doubt that at the end of that period of time each one of us may have quite different ideas as to what might be done with the rules in one detail or another. I am quite sure experience will indicate certain changes, but I would prefer this more open method than the rigidity inherent in the amendment now.
Bearing that in mind, I wonder if the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), who moved the subamendment, and the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), who moved the amendment and who regrettably is not here-though his party leader and house leader are-would consider the point I have made and let us know whether or not they are prepared to withdraw their amendments. If they are I would be prepared to move the amendment I have suggested.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister a question respecting the substitute amendment which he is suggesting? With reference to the fixing of limits for the length of speeches, whom does he envisage as fixing these limits?
I can understand that in instances where the Business Committee is recommending an allocation of time for a debate its members in all probability will decide whether or not to recommend the fixing of limits for the length of speeches. But where the order for limitation of time comes under paragraph 5 and is introduced by a Minister, does the President of the Privy Council envisage that in this order the Minister will stipulate the length of time for Members' speeches?


George James McIlraith: No, I would not visualize that that would be in a motion brought forward under paragraph 5 but it could be. Of course, such motions are debatable for a day in the House and are subject to amendment. I rather visualize the question of limitation of time for speeches as more likely to arise from the Opposition side than from the Government side of the House, and you can see that in drafting the rule changes the Government made no specific references to this point.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In the event that the Business Committee could not come up with an allocation of time or with an order of any kind and a Minister of the Crown moved an order in the House, would it still be within his prerogative to move a time limit on debate in the same way that the Business Committee could have done?


George James McIlraith: Yes, it would be under the
rule, and I would point out why that is necessary. You may get a situation where there is almost unanimous agreement in the Business Committee. It is quite clear that there is virtual consensus on the point, and in that situation the only way the matter can be brought before the House is by a Minister making a motion with both the Minister and the Government taking the responsibility.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have just one further question. The Minister said there might be cases in which debate could be limited to less than 20 minutes. Have we any assurance that the limitation will not go right down to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) this afternoon, where all one could say is "help"? Could it come down to a period of one minute?


George James McIlraith: There is a very effective answer to this. If any Minister tried that once in the House of Commons, there would be a very little more Government business done during that Parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the Minister consider adding another phrase to his proposed amendment to exclude from the operation of the order the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, a Minister moving a motion and a Member replying thereto so that these persons would not be affected in any way by any allocation of time that might be proposed by the Business Committee or by a Minister himself?


George James McIlraith: Just giving a very quick answer, I do not see any objection to that at all. I had not visualized a proposition where they would try to limit time for speeches but I do not see any objection to that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There would be a very strenuous objection to it from our party. What is really being said here is that the House may, either on the recommendation of the Business Committee or in an order proposed by a Minister, if such order is approved, limit the length of speeches, and before the matter is even discussed in the House the Member would propose to exclude certain people from the operation of that limitation.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. Member permit me to make an interjection which might clear the point? The reason for this is that we have only one Prime Minister in the House and one Leader of the Opposition, and the whole argument in favour of limiting the
June 1, 1965

time for speeches is in order to give more members an opportunity to speak, which they might not otherwise have. That is the distinction.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is exactly the point. If I understood the hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) correctly, he is suggesting that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, a Minister moving a particular measure and the person replying to it be excluded from any time limitation which may be imposed. If there is to be a limit on the length of debate and yet four persons can have unlimited time, they could take up half of the total time allocated for a debate. If we are going to talk about limiting the length of speeches then certainly the House should have the power, if it deems it necessary, to limit the time for all persons in the House and not for all Members with the exception of four.


Ian Grant Wahn: May I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that all Members seem to be agreed on basic principles, why it is not possible to adopt the suggestion made earlier today that the same procedure be followed as in paragraph 1, namely, that the method of working out the safeguards be left to the special committee of the House referred to in paragraph 1 of the resolution?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It does not apply to this.


Ian Grant Wahn: I realize it does not apply, but I am suggesting that would be a way to work out the actual wording rather than trying to work out the wording of a very complicated procedural provision in the House.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we are getting ourselves immersed in a bog, and though the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) threw a lariat to us we were a little too far away at the time to catch hold of it.
Surely when the Business Committee considers this question of time and makes its recommendation, which may or may not be acted upon by a Minister later if the business committee does not have unanimity, they are bound to take into consideration whether or not there will be any attempt to curtail the speaking time of Members, and surely the length of time that is going to be allocated must be substantially determined by that question.
If limitation is going to be included in the recommendation of the Business Committee and later in the order made by the House,
House of Commons Procedures and a position is taken that there be a limit of 20 minutes on speeches and a specified length of time for the speeches of principal officers of the House, something I am generally opposed to, surely this kind of thing is bound to be taken into calculation. The two go hand in hand. The length of time to be allocated to any stage of a measure is bound to be considered in that light, and no doubt the representatives of the parties in the business committee will make their views known with regard to the seriousness with which they view a particular measure and the length of time they propose to oppose it, and all this will be reflected in the order made.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Second, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put this problem to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) in the form of a question. Citation 10 of Beauchesne provides as follows:
Standing Orders may be suspended for a particular case without prejudice to their continued validity, for the House possesses the inherent power to destroy the self-imposed barriers and fetters of its own regulations. It may even pass an order prescribing a course of procedure Inconsistent with the Standing Orders. A motion for such temporary suspension requires notice under Standing Order 41-
Would the President of the Privy Council agree with me that if I am reading this citation correctly then at any time, even without passing the amendment to the Standing Orders that is now before the House, it is competent for the Government, or anybody for that matter, to make a motion under Standing Order 41 to suspend such of our Standing Orders or such parts of the Standing Orders as may be essential to give effect to the kind of allocation of time order which is being considered now?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Gerald William Baldwin: However, you have to give 48 hours' notice. But what the Government proposes to do is cut that 48 hours' notice down to 24 hours, as I understand it, because of this one day's sitting.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker; there is an error in the hon. Member's argument. If he will read the proposed Standing Order 15, he will find that there really is, in effect, five days' notice. This is what he has missed.


Gerald William Baldwin: The President of the Privy Council means, of course, the period when the Business Committee has the matter before it. It has three days to consider the matter.
1858	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures


George James McIlraith: The House has been notified that the Business Committee is going to have the matter before it. Then the Business Committee has on it a representative from each of the groups in the House so that there is constant notice of what is going on there. Then there is one day's formal notice at the end of the three days consideration by the Business Committee and then the day's debate. So it really is quite a lengthening of the notice.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then, Mr. Speaker, does the President of the Privy Council agree that under Standing Order 41, although it would be an unusual procedure and would of course come as quite a shock to the House without it being done along the lines of a pattern such as is being sought to be established now, a motion could be made at any time to suspend or vary the rules of the House for a particular purpose?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Gerald William Baldwin: And that consequently this could include the limitation of time for Members in any particular debate?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to offer some comments in this debate. The Rules Committee which was set up some months ago did a great deal of work in connection with rule changes; weeks and months of consideration were given to this problem. Then when the House came to consider their recommendations it was found that, while they had brought forth some very worthwhile suggestions, those suggestions required further refining and the Government took it upon themselves to work out of the recommendations of the Committee on Rules proposals of their own for, as they say, bringing our House rules up to date.
I would agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) that a clear case for a change in the rules has not been made. We have had our troubles in Parliament during the last two or three years. The hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) put at a 10-year period the time that Parliament has been destroying itself. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that most of the destruction has taken place inside the last three years. While I would hesitate to say it myself, I have noted that the hon. Member for Lapointe (Mr. Gre-goire) found that the difficulty with Parliament during these years has been the

DEBATES	June 1, 1965
methods which have been used by the one party in this House which has now assumed the responsibility of government. While they were in Opposition, and later when they took over the responsibility of government, they treated the House in such a way that a great deal of opposition and hostility was aroused. This fact has been noted by several Members during the course of their speeches, and it is up to everyone in the House to draw his own conclusions in that regard.
I should like to compliment the Committee on Rules for the work they put into that undertaking. I should even like to compliment the Government on their efforts to bring our rules up to date wherever possible.
I should like to make this point, however, that no single individual and no single authority created the rules of Parliament. They have grown over the years to fill a need, and in my opinion our forebears were just as wise as we are in the understanding of human nature; our forebears, our predecessors in this House, used the best intelligence they had in drawing up these rules. They are based on not only the experience of this Parliament; they are based on hundreds of years of experience in the Mother of Parliaments in Great Britain.
When we at this time set about reforming the rules and making drastic changes in the rules we are going to run into serious difficulty because the people who preceded us in this place gave careful thought to these rules -they must have-and they have been devised to protect and safeguard the rights of private Members in this House. When it has appeared that certain actions which should have been taken were not taken, there has been a reason for it. As this debate has gone forward I have noted greater and greater difficulties being drawn to the attention of the Government and the House in making any worth-while changes in the rules. We heard several speeches this afternoon, and I would refer to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) who said he did not like to see any Member of this House prevented from making any speech which he felt it was necessary to make in the House.
e (9:10 p.m.)
We have heard the same sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett). We cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. I think one of the points which our predecessors in this House observed and respected was that we must
June 1, 1965

put up with some inconvenience in this House if we are to have free speech on the part of the private Member.
The rights of the people's representatives to speak out in Parliament have been bought with the lives of men. These bulwarks of democracy have grown out of war and bloodshed. Our parliamentary safeguards have been baptized with blood. All our opposition should be applied to any suggestion to lay careless hands on these safeguards of democracy and toss them thoughtlessly into the discard. When we find widespread movement to reform this House, to bring in broad, comprehensive reforms, reforms which would change the nature of the place, then I say that any trend toward thoughtlessly tossing into the discard these blood-drenched rights which Parliaments have won through the years should be opposed with all that we have.
I propose to try to make the point that what is proposed here does in some respects do that very thing or tends toward that very thing. Far be it from me to suggest that our present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and our present Government would knowingly be guilty of any such conduct or would harbour any such thought. But I do say this, that we cannot be too careful to protect at all times these basic principles behind our right to speak out in this Parliament.
Years ago, when Parliament first began, the struggle was between Parliament and the Crown. My history teacher taught me that benevolent dictatorship, benevolent despotism, offered the finest form of Government known to man-the most efficient, the most kindly, the most just. But it came to light very early in history that dictatorship, despotism, could not be trusted. Despotic power in the hands of the right people was a great blessing but despotic power in the hands of the wrong people was a great curse.
Authority has now moved from the Crown to the Prime Minister and the Government. In these days with authority removed from the Crown there is no danger of despotism from that source. Today the danger of despotism comes from or lies with the Government of a democracy under a parliamentary system. Because a Prime Minister, the head of a democratic government, has more power in his hands than Kings have had, we need protection today against a Prime Minister under our parliamentary system of government, not against the Crown or against Parliament. For that reason care is needed in the protection of the safeguards which
House of Commons Procedures have been built into our parliamentary
system.
Government is an organized undertaking of all citizens to take care of each other, to provide for order and the protection of life, liberty and property. Nowadays it provides protection even against illness, death, privation and, of course, safeguards our freedom. As individuals we have very little power; it is only as we unite together and co-operate together that we have power. In essence, that is what our Government is, a co-operative effort on the part of all the citizens of the country to protect and care for each other. Civilization itself is the ability to co-operate; and Parliament is the centre of our national civilization.
No one created parliament or its parliamentary rules. Parliament and its rules grew to fill a need and grew out of the experience of the people. As I have already pointed out, it is not easy to improve the rules of Parliament. The rules which are now proposed might appear much safer if we had what those on the Government side call a continuing Speaker and what those on the Opposition side have called a permanent Speaker. If this step could be brought about it would make some of these proposed changes in our rules appear much safer that they appear at present.
I have been interested, Mr. Speaker, in the remarks which have been made by various speakers in this debate. I should like first to comment on a statement by the Prime Minister which intimated that he is well aware of the seriousness of these proposed rule changes. He speaks of the rule changes in Government Order 14 in this way, as reported at page 1474 of Hansard:
Together these two resolutions constitute, I believe, the most thorough proposals for the reform of the procedures of Parliament which have been considered by Parliament. And Parliament is our fundamental institution.
What we do with these proposals is therefore of great significance, I believe, for the future of our country, as it is for the working of our parliamentary institutions. In one sense it is domestic housekeeping, the amendment of our own rules, and it is being put forward as domestic housekeeping in no partisan way, because every Member of the House, whatever party he may represent, has his own interest in the rules of the House and its procedures. But while it may be domestic housekeeping in that sense, in another sense I believe we will be making a basic decision as to how Parliament shall do the business of the country. It is basic because, important as these resolutions are in themselves, this decision will also, I believe, be a point of departure in the conduct of parliamentary business and therefore in the operation of democracy itself.
June 1. 1965

time. We must rebuild our image and we
must discipline ourselves.
Again I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona who pointed out that if we discipline ourselves to better advantage the work of this House is likely to be carried out much more smoothly and the image of Parliament now held by the people will be improved.
I should now like to comment briefly on some of the specific proposals outlined in this resolution. The second paragraph states:
That this House agrees upon the need for allocating the time for the business of the House-
In all kindness, Mr. Speaker, I think that should be modified to read: "That this House agrees upon the need for more fully allocating the time for the business of the House". The time of the House is now allocated. We have certain days for the Throne Speech debate, certain days for the budget debate and certain days are set aside for supply motions. We now have a great many allocations of times and, as a matter of fact, our rules relate mainly to the allocation of time. The second paragraph as now worded makes it appear that there has so far been no allocation of time. I think this is most unfair and I suggest to the Government that a word or words be added in this context before the word "allocated" so as to make this particular sentence nearer the truth.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I commend the Government on the changes which have been made, particularly in the provision that 30 days be allotted to the business of supply in each session. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton Strath-cona (Mr. Nugent) that this could be very useful, though I doubt whether it is necessary. However, I would be quite prepared to go along with it on the trial basis which is suggested. The supplementary estimates which are introduced subsequent to the main estimates are excluded from the 30 day provision and I think this represents a great improvement.
The number of supply motions is to be reduced from six to four. This will save us four days during a session. I think we have plenty of opportunities to test the Government in these votes in which confidence is involved. There are opportunities during debate on the address and further opportunities during the budget debate. I should like to raise a question in connection with the provision set out here in 1(c):

House of Commons Procedures
That a Special Committee of the House consisting of 24 Members, to be designated later by the House, be instructed to prepare and submit to the House forthwith the changes in Standing Orders consquential upon these orders, including any means of giving to the Opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
I should like to see that last clause made mandatory rather than permissive. It could be worded to read as follows:
-consequential upon these orders which shall include some means of giving to the Opposition an opportunity to select the departmental estimates to be discussed.
We should make it clear there is no question about it; the Opposition shall have opportunities to select the departmental estimates to be brought up for discussion.
As far as I am concerned, each of these recommendations is acceptable. Clause 5 does, I think, contain a danger but as long as it is to be introduced on a trial basis it is not such a strain to accept. Clause 7 making provision for a minimum number of days for committee stage discussions and so on, appears to be a good idea. Clause 8, which allows the Speaker to add extra days for discussion when unexpected amendments are moved to legislation, also appears to offer a useful safeguard. Again, the proposal that the changes in Standing Orders consequential upon this order and the new Standing Order 15A be continued in effect to the end of the next ensuing session unless the House otherwise orders, makes acceptance tolerable.
I have already commented on the suggestion that there be a continuing or permanent Speaker. There is the matter of the question period. I have felt that the question period has been much misused. It seems to me that we could have a question period as effective as it is at present while possibly saving a great deal of time if we could make some changes in this regard. I do not know whether this would be practicable but I make this suggestion for what it is worth, that a limitation be placed on the number of questions or subjects which could be raised during any question period on any day. As a basis for discussion I would suggest four per day for the Official Opposition, one per day for the Government and one each for the three smaller parties. These could be distributed so that everyone in the parties would have a chance. Supplementary questions arising out of these basic questions might be open to anyone, limited only by the Speaker in the exercise of his discretion. Such an arrangement might have the effect of limiting the number of subjects raised without curtailing
1862	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures the right of the Opposition to probe Government policy.
I believe that the provisions of clause 5 in part 3 constitute closure and the only ground upon which I can accept this is that it is being introduced on a trial basis. Maybe it should not be accepted in any circumstances.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
There is the question of committee work. A number of complaints have been made that after committees have given consideration to the various matters referred to them and have drawn up reports which often contain valuable suggestions, the reports are ignored and are never heard of again. The House is never given a chance to discuss these recommendations and reports. I believe that when the new rules are drawn up provision should be made for bringing these reports before the House. During the course of the debate, a statement could be made by a Minister or the Minister concerned indicating the attitude of the Government toward the recommendation to which the Committee had given a great deal of consideration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the House any longer. I appreciate very much this opportunity to make these comments and I hope this effort to amend the rules will prove successful and help us in making the House more effective in the handling of our nation's business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise for just a few minutes, and in doing so I am. of course, exercising my right to speak while the subamendment of the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) is before the House. However, I am really rising to respond to the suggestion that was made earlier by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) when he indicated that if the amendment and subamendment now before the House were withdrawn, someone on the Government side would move as an amendment the new paragraph 9 to Standing Order 15A, the terms of which he read to the House the last time he was on his feet.
It is becoming quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has raised an important point and one that Members in many quarters of the House feel should be considered. I should like to say, on behalf of the Member for Greenwood, that he was not endeavouring to bring in through the back door some extraneous

DEBATES	June 1, 1965
principles. If some things seem to have been brought in, one will just have to take it that way. His main concern, which I thought he stated quite effectively in his speech last Thursday night, is a very simple one, namely, that if a time limit is to be placed on the length of a debate itself, surely it makes sense to look at the amount of time allotted to individual speakers within that total time limit.
I recognize the point made by the President of the Privy Council and others that one must not be too rigid about a matter of this kind. It may well be that one wants a different time limit in Committee of the Whole from the time limit that might be appropriate at second reading stage. I would admit also that a debate that is under a total time allocation of five days presents a different story from a debate that is under a time allocation of 10 or 15 days. For these reasons there obviously is some merit to the proposal made by the President of the Privy Council, namely, that instead of writing the actual number of minutes to be allotted to each speaker into Standing Order 15A, the Business Committee could be given authority to recommend to the House the fixing of a limit for the length of speeches.
As hon. Members are aware, indeed the President of the Privy Council referred to the fact a moment ago, the hon. Member for Greenwood is away. He had to leave last night for Belgrade, Yugoslavia, for a meeting of an international conference he is attending. However, before he left, lawyer that he is, he gave me his power of attorney to deal with this resolution.


George James McIlraith: Under seal?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was given in a way that is perfectly binding, namely, one's word. He was aware of the fact that this whole matter might be the subject of negotiation. He indicated that if, as a result of negotiation, there was an offer of some other way of dealing with the matter that was acceptable to those of us in this party he would be willing if I, on his behalf, were to ask the consent of the House for his amendment to be withdrawn. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that we feel the amendment suggested by the President of the Privy Council has merit. Perhaps there are some more things we would like to see in it. But at least it avoids certain rigidities while at the same time it: does make possible for implementation the principle for which the hon. Member for
June 1, 1S65

Greenwood argued so eloquently, namely, that when there is a total time limit on the length of a debate we must also limit the length of speeches made by Members during that debate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, at this point it would not be possible to withdraw the amendment proposed by the Member for Greenwood because there is a subamendment moved by the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. 1 am, therefore, merely indicating that if the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is willing to withdraw his subamendment, I would be willing to ask the House for permission to withdraw the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Greenwood on the distinct understanding that a Member of the Government would then move as an amendment, the addition of paragraph 9 in the terms read out earlier by the President of the Privy Council.


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: I do not want to take up more than a few minutes of the time of the House. I realize the amendment before us is probably going to be withdrawn, and when this does happen the legislation we will have left I feel pretty well meets the test of the needs of the House, subject to only four points. I should like to speak very briefly about these points with which I am still concerned. There are three of them which I am just going to mention in passing because they have been mentioned before, and on the fourth one I am going to make a suggestion as to what I think might be done about it.
The first point was raised by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett). It is becoming apparent, as she suggested, that we are getting to the point where we must start defining "party" because the word "party" is appearing time and time again in the rules of the House. If we are defining "party", I should like to see not only a definition of a party but also under the allocation of time provisions I think we should apportion the time not only in terms of the length of speeches but also as between parties of the House. I think it should be apportioned obviously on the basis of representation within the House. In this way we would not apportion speakers, we would apportion the time. If Members within any party chose to make short speeches and allow more of their members to speak, then they would not be penalized.


Mr. Barnett:: Would the hon. Member permit me to ask a question on this point? He has
House of Commons Procedures been making a reference to the apportionment of time amongst Members of the House. I wonder if he would mind covering the situation of Members sitting in this House as independents?


David George Hahn: Well, I think that time obviously would have to be apportioned to the independent group. We could not preclude these people from speaking.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Without any voice in the allocation committee?
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


David George Hahn: It is for this reason that we need to know what is an independent group; we need to define what is a party. A suggestion was made earlier by the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka upon which I should like to comment very briefly. He suggested that there be a hoist of one week between the various stages of legislation that is moving forward under an order of a Minister in order to allow public opinion to crystallize. I agree with that in principle, but I do not see the need for a hoist between committee stage and third reading. After all, at the end of committee stage the House has gone through the legislation clause by clause and has accepted all the clauses. The legislation has been agreed to in principle on second reading and therefore at that point we do not need a hoist. I fully agree with the concept of allowing a hoist between second reading and committee stage because I believe this is the point where public opinion may need time to crystallize.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Supposing that during committee stage the House has not dealt with all the sections of a bill because the guillotine has fallen before they have all been discussed; then what?


David George Hahn: I would assume that the time allocation for the committee stage must take into account the nature of the legislation. I would assume it would get a pretty fair hearing during that process, particularly with the time hoist we are talking about, which is to allow people outside the House to become familiar with the nature of the legislation and put forward valid objections to it. Surely between the time of presentation of the resolution and second reading and with the time hoist at that stage, a sufficient period would be allowed for the press and other communications media to report the nature of the legislation so that valid objections could be brought forward.
1864	COMMONS
House of Commons Procedures
The point I am really concerned about is that which was raised by the hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) regarding the individual private Member in the House and his right to speak. Under our present scheme of things any Member, no matter whether he is in good faith or bad with his party, can get up and speak on legislation because if the Whip of his party has submitted a list of speakers and that list is exhausted the individual Member concerned can then stand up and will be recognized by Mr. Speaker. Normally we do not reach that sort of situation because party discipline and co-operation between party Members are such that there is agreement on who should appear on the Whip's list. Nevertheless a member who feels strongly and who is unable to convince his party that he should speak has a basic right to speak as a Member of the House, and a Member who is going to exercise that right under those conditions I would think would be one who would want to take a position different from that of his party.
This right is one that should not be lightly removed. If we proceed to allocation of time for both estimates and legislation this right of a private Member may disappear, and while it is not likely that this is going to happen it is still possible for a Member to be excluded from speaking by his party merely refusing to put him on the list that is submitted to the Speaker. I am very concerned about this fundamental right of a Member to disagree with his own party. It is something we should not throw away lightly, and I suggest that to get around this we could make a change in clause 7 which at present has the following words:
-provided it is continued, it necessary, until the normal time of adjournment on any such day; provided that if a representative of each party has not spoken, the hour for the adjournment of the sitting shall be extended until a representative of each party has had an opportunity to speak.
I suggest we change those words and replace them with the following:
-provided that if any Member of a party desires to speak who has not spoken, the hour for the adjournment of the sitting shall be extended but not later than the beginning of the next sitting day, until each such Member has had an opportunity to speak.
I know people will say that under this provision we might have to sit all night. I do not think we would have to, because this sort of provision would only apply in the very rare instance where normal party discipline and normal party co-operation have

DEBATES	June I, 1865
broken down. It seems to me that under those circumstances, that is the very time when it is worth sitting 15 or 20 minutes extra to hear one Member who feels strongly enough that possibly he wants to go against his own party and get his views on record.
I would hope consideration might be given to this sort of solution to the problem that has been raised. I believe it is a serious problem. I believe the right that is being removed is one that should not lightly be removed and I would hope we could find an answer such as this to effect a compromise between reasonable limitation of debate on the one hand and the right, on the other hand, of a Member who feels strongly to get up and say his piece.


Mr. Erik A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the hon. Member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) speak this way from that side of the House. One would almost think that he anticipates being the campaign manager for the hon. Member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan).
In making reference to the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith)
I wish to say that the terms of his submission are double-edged closure instead of mere allocation of time. It seems to me we will have the guillotine upon us on almost every stage that a measure is before the House, and consequently I would like to speak in support of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). I do this because of my intense interest in the words of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) in that they are so specific in cutting out any mention of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Notice of motion No. 27 on the order paper, which stands in my name, deals with this very matter, and I should like to mention it in relation to the subamendment because of its importance to the House and because of what has transpired here during the last two years. My notice of motion reads as follows:
That Standing Order 15 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after sub-order (2) thereof, the following:
"(2-a) In every Parliament as necessity may arise under the orders, usages and customs of the House, Mr. Speaker shall recognize the Prime Minister and the Member occupying the recognized position of the Leader of the Opposition, the Member speaking for the Prime Minister, or the Member speaking for the Leader of the Opposition, and no other."
I support the subamendment because I believe that our whole difficulty, as I have
June 1, 1965	COMMONS
said on previous occasions, is the proliferation of parties in the House. I believe everyone will agree that the institution in which we sit this evening was constituted for the hearing of the two sides of each argument. There may be differing views in the introduction of a piece of legislation and there may be differing views in opposing it, but surely to goodness just because certain areas of the country wish to elect one group or another that does not mean to say that particular group has a special place in opposition or special status as individuals. Surely there is a positive side, and the country expects us to put forth the opposition side to every question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I shall continue to debate this tomorrow.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will be asked to continue consideration of the measure we had before us today and then Order No. 15.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank some of the recent speakers this evening for their references to myself. I should like to take the next seven minutes to make some comments with regard to the action of the Government in respect of land fill in Lake Ontario, and in so doing I may indicate a somewhat independent approach to the question, if not on a party line.
I was forced on Thursday of last week to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) this question:
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Can the Minister advise this House whether every individual or company that has dumped thousands of tons of fill into Lake Ontario between the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek in the past few years received permission in advance, as required by the Navigable Waters Protection Act?
This question was forced upon the Minister of Public Works because of the ceaseless activity that is going on on the north shore of Lake Ontario in the vicinity of the City
DEBATES	1865
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of Toronto in the matter of filling in the shore line of Lake Ontario. There are plans afoot in our metropolitan area at the present time to build a tremendous park immediately south of Scarborough using sanitary fill or sanitary waste to make the base. This is to be covered later with good earth and a park developed.
There is a plan afoot to build 600 acres out into Lake Ontario immediately south of the Exhibition grounds, which would be bigger than the present area of Toronto Island. It is estimated that this proposed waterfront land change will take 22 million tons of waste and earth, and the total area of the filled project will be greater than the area of Toronto Island. From the Humber River over to Etobicoke Creek, a distance of four miles, which is the frontage of Lake Ontario of the ridings of York-Humber and York West, there have been tens of thousands of tons of fill dumped into the lake in the past few years.
I have asked when the Government is going to enforce the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which is still in effect in this country but evidently not enforced by anyone. In that regard I read to you section 4 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act:
No work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless
(a)	the site and plans thereof have been approved by the Minister: and
(b)	the work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with the plans and the regulations.
Down opposite the Village of Long Branch there has been a water lot filled with solid earth and it is projecting out of the water now about nine feet. I have in my hand a letter from the Department of Public Works:
This Department has not granted Millgate Park Investments-
This is the company that has filled in the water lot.
-authority to fill in a section of the shore line of Lake Ontario at or near Long Branch.
The Navigable Waters Protection Act goes on to state what the penalty will be if land fill is placed on the shore line of a navigable water without the prior consent of the Department of Public Works. It says:
Any work to which this Part applies that is built or placed upon a site not approved by the Minister, or is not built or placed in accordance with plans so approved, or, having been so built or placed, is not maintained in accordance with such plans and the regulations, may be removed and destroyed by the Minister-
June 1, 1365
1866	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
You will note that it says "may be removed and destroyed by the Minister". No action whatsoever has been taken. A letter dated January 21 was sent to Millgate Park Investments telling them that they must stop the fill, and it was very conveniently lost by the company and not found until March 4, by which time the fill had been completed. The municipal authorities in the Village of Long Branch are quite anxious to secure tax revenue by taxing this newly made earth, which I maintain, as do other observers, is completely illegal; it should not have been built without the prior consent of the Department of Public Works. But we find that the Long Branch Planning Board Chairman, at the meeting at which the rezoning of the lot was approved, said:
Legality is of interest, but has no direct connection with us.
At the same time, the Reeve of Long Branch, Tom Berry, also stated that legality may be of interest. He said:
-the legal implications are only secondary questions-
On the 23rd day of March, which is 10 weeks ago today, I asked the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) if he would advise me whether the International Joint Commission had given authority to dump fill into Lake Ontario and was told that the matter would be studied. They are still studying it. A couple of weeks ago I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) if he would define for us, or ask the Supreme Court of Canada to define, several words in the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, and he also told us it would be studied and was a matter of great interest. Nothing is done, and yet there are three departments of Government that are vitally interested in this matter. I have a letter signed by a Member of the Cabinet which says that the sole interest of the Federal Government in this problem is related to the responsibility assumed under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
I should like to state that there is another interest of the Federal Government, and I hope that the Cabinet Minister concerned will realize it. It is covered by the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, which says that if the level of the lake is materially affected the two Governments have to come to agreement as to the work being done. I would ask the Minister of Public Works whether he will give us a table and check the dates on which prior authority was granted for the filling in of the shoreline by various landowners


from the Humber River to Etobicoke Creek during the past few years. The Ontario Hydro, living up to the letter of the law, secured permission to build their long wharf outside the coal electricity generating station south of Toronto Township in Peel County. If the Department of Public Works gave permission to the Hydro to build the wharf and to do this legally and properly, why was not the Navigable Waters Protection Act enforced with regard to all the earth which has been dumped into Lake Ontario between the Humber River and that legally erected wharf belonging to the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission?


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The rules under which we are operating at this time do not allow for questions.


Mr. G. Roy McWilliam (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the hon. Member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) was raised during the oral question period last Thursday. He asked whether the Minister could advise the House if any individual or company which has dumped thousands of tons of fill into Lake Ontario between the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek in the past few years received permission in advance as required by the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The short answer to this question is no, Mr. Speaker.
It is the opinion of officials of the Department of Public Works that the fill placed in this area to date is not substantially interfering with commercial navigation. The responsibility of the Department is to see that fill is properly contained and not allowed to erode. Interested home owners along the lake front have shown concern and have made efforts to stop the erection of proposed buildings. So far these home owners have not been successful and they are exploring other legal means to bring about the desired result. The hon. Member for York West (Mr. Kelly) as well as the hon. Member for York-Humber have made representations on behalf of home owners about this situation.
On January 1 of this year the Department requested Millgate Park Investments Limited to take steps to contain the fill dumped on their shore property at Long Branch to prevent erosion and also requested that lights be installed on the outer end of the fill. The Millgate firm advised the Department that
June 1, 1965

it was seeking permission from the Village of Long Branch to erect an apartment building and until permission was granted and the type of building approved the firm was not in a position to state the type of retaining wall that would be required.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
Member's time has expired.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN-REQUEST FOR EARLY IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGISLATION

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday and Thursday of last week, as recorded at pages 1617 and 1714 of Hansard, I asked questions regarding the Canadian Assistance Plan. My questions were based on speeches made recently by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, notably one made at Charlottetown on May 20, in which she emphasized the fact that under the Canada Assistance Plan it will be possible for recipients of old age security to draw something more than the $75 they are now receiving. The question I put to the Government was quite straightforward.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In view of the emphasis being placed on what will be available to old age security recipients under the Canada Assistance Plan, will steps be taken to get this legislation before Parliament at an early date? Last Tuesday the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) replied to the effect that my question would be looked at and studied. The reply made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) last Thursday was the old one, that this has to be studied jointly by the Federal Government and the provinces.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, hundreds of thousands of people across this country, whose only income is the $75 per month which they receive under old age security, are waiting for some means by which they can obtain an increase in that pension benefit. This House and the country knows that we favour increasing the old age security pension to $100 per month. I have a resolution on the order paper to that effect. We in this party moved all the amendments we could in an attempt to bring this about when the Canada Pension Plan was under consideration during the last session. It is my firm belief that the time will come and that it is not too far away when we will have to raise the old age security pension to $100 a month.
In the meantime the Government shows no sign of moving in this direction but rather
DEBATES	1867
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion suggests that the Canada Assistance Plan is the answer and that the Canada Assistance Plan is legislation under which, on a needs test rather than on a means test, people on old age security will be able to obtain an additional benefit.
If the Minister and other Members of the Government are going to go about the country holding out this hope to the people, the Government is duty bound to bring this legislation before Parliament and get it on the statute books. The Minister has no right to go about the country making speeches of this kind, holding out this kind of promise, unless the Government means business.
It seems to me that we are right back where we were with the Canada Pension Plan, that piece of legislation which I think Parliament did a good job in passing but which took months of pulling to get it on the Order Paper, months of argument to get it before the House and finally to get it on the statute books. I hope we are not going to experience that same number of months and that same number of revisions with respect to the Canada Assistance Plan. If it is a good piece of legislation, as the Prime Minister said it was when he spoke about it on April 6, and if it is a good piece of legislation, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare says it is, let us at least get it on the order paper, let us at least have the details and let us see whether Parliament is willing, as I believe it will be, to expedite its passage.
We are improving our rules of procedure- at least I hope we are-with the measures now before the House of Commons. When we complete these measures we will have time to deal with the Canada Assistance Plan, and medicare too, and in the name of the people of Canada I urge the Government to put this piece of legislation on the order paper at the earliest possible date.
As I have stated, the Minister has no right to hold out the promise that here is more money for our old age security pensioners unless the Government means business. In view of the fact that the Government has said, through the Minister, that this extra money will be made available to pensioners under the Canada Assistance Plan, the Government is duty bound to bring this legislation before Parliament at the earliest possible date, and I hope tonight I will be able to get from the Parliamentary Secretary a more definite answer to my question than was given last week by either the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
June 1, 1365

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister ot National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre strikes me as one of his more political speeches, particularly when he refers to the Canada Pension Plan as being the result, and I think his inference was undeniable, of the pushing and urging, I take it, of himself. As the hon. Member well knows, the Canada Pension Plan was undertaken by the Government within a month of its taking office. As a result of a series of meetings with provincial premiers, who have a fair amount of jurisdiction in this field, difficulties arose. I think this will always be the case in Canada. It was only after considerable negotiations at provincial levels that something was worked out. It certainly received the full attention of the top officials of the Department of Welfare. I believe the hon. Member well knows that this is the case.
As far as the Canada Assistance Plan is concerned it would be inaccurate to leave the impression that it is not receiving top priority attention and is not receiving the Government's attention at the present time. We have just dealt with certain substantial amendments to the Old Age Security Act raising old age security benefits, tying them to the cost of living and lowering the age qualification, and then the implementation of the Canada Pension Plan. For over a year the
Department has been turning its attention to the Canada Assistance Plan trying to work out with the Provinces a system for its implementation. This question was discussed in May, 1964, and there were further discussions leading to the meetings of welfare ministers on April 8 and 9 of this year when a general consensus was reached as to principle. This will involve a further discussion at the Federal-Provincial conference to be held shortly, as the hon. gentleman knows.
I anticipate that loose ends will be tied up at a further meeting of welfare ministers in the autumn. All these meetings are essential in connection with any project which requires agreement with all the provinces. We must go through this procedure. At the same time as the work of the officials is going on, draft legislation is being prepared.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When will Parliament see it?


John Carr Munro: When one is aware of the background it does not seem unreasonable to head for a target date of April 1, 1966.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time
allotted to the Parliamentary Secretary has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Wednesday, June 2, 1965